'Proof of aliens' goes on show: BBC

[Ivan Seeking]

Nasa originally dismissed the images as being the result of a camera fault or as comets or asteroids and is now refusing to comment on them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2662059.stm


Note: I just found this - it is news to me. I have not yet investigated this report any further.

 

[FZ+]

This has been pretty thoroughly debunked before. The most important part is this sentence.

"But by enhancing the images we proved this wasn't the case."

If you go back to the original data prior to "enhancement", you can see that the "UFOs" are represented by just 3 pixels of lost data. The colour, shape etc are due to the enhancement algorithm, which blurred and interpolated the edges. The whole thing is a case of finding features where there aren't any. NASA is wise to ignore them.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by FZ+
This has been pretty thoroughly debunked before. The most important part is this sentence.


If you go back to the original data prior to "enhancement", you can see that the "UFOs" are represented by just 3 pixels of lost data. The colour, shape etc are due to the enhancement algorithm, which blurred and interpolated the edges. The whole thing is a case of finding features where there aren't any. NASA is wise to ignore them.

I am just starting to look into this so anything that you have would be appreciated.

The next statement [after the one that you quoted] still seems a little interesting:

He said Nasa then suggested the objects could be asteroids or comets - but this did not explain the way they appeared to move independently and make turns.

Also, how do you draw any conclusions about whether anything was present or not? Obviously three pixels cannot yeild any true shape, but why should we dismiss the data completely?

 

[FZ+]

Because the amount of data the Ufologists claim to uncover from the film is greater than the data initially stored on the film, suggesting that additional data was added by over-zealous processing. It is not as though such artifacts are uncommon in such cameras.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by FZ+
Because the amount of data the Ufologists claim to uncover from the film is greater than the data initially stored on the film, suggesting that additional data was added by over-zealous processing. It is not as though such artifacts are uncommon in such cameras.

FZ could you quote your sources? Blind statements obviously can carry no weight for critical review. Also, NASA's own statements seem to contradict your argument.

Mr Murray said: "The first thing we did when we got the images was to speak to Nasa, who said it was a camera fault.

Independent movement

"But by enhancing the images we proved this wasn't the case."

He said Nasa then suggested the objects could be asteroids or comets - but this did not explain the way they appeared to move independently and make turns.

Since you have already dug into this can you offer any links?

 

[Joy Division]

Here's a link this is pretty old stuff. That doesn't make it any less interesting however.


SOHO Hot Shots: How to make your own UFO

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Joy Division
Here's a link this is pretty old stuff. That doesn't make it any less interesting however.


SOHO Hot Shots: How to make your own UFO

Well, after a little homework I can see why the skeptics are crying foul. But then we have statements like this:

NASA initially tried to explain the images away as pixel faults, passing meteors or asteroids, etc., but when a European-led consortium presented them with images that clearly were none of the aforementioned, they 'clamped up'

Which of course requires that we answer the key question: Who was on this European consortium?

FZ+, how can we find the original data? I was only finding complete photos.

This does look pretty weak. I am trying to ascertain whether or not we have any legitmate experts siding with the UFO story.

 

[FZ+]

Well, I've cross referenced to a number of sites.

First, Euroseti, which is referenced in the article is probably the European Consortium mentioned. (or else, whatever it is has vanished from sight.)

Euroseti appears to be an enthusiats site mostly around the Seti@Home programme. No mention of the UFO pictures.
Or it could be another group with the same name. Another reference:
http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2003/jan/m26-008.shtml

Seems likely that this is the consortium we are talking about.


No specific date references, so you can't really look up on the originals. But from the state of the pictures - note the bands from contrast increases you can tell they are pretty heavily done up by edge finding algorithms.

Next, the hot shot site is hosted by NASA.gov, and produced after the article, which would cast doubt on them clamping up since it is still active. It appears more likely that they have nothing further to say.

You can find some other stuff from http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/

Also http://www.msnbc.com/news/863997.asp?0cv=CB20&cp1=1

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by FZ+
Well, I've cross referenced to a number of sites.

First, Euroseti, which is referenced in the article is probably the European Consortium mentioned. (or else, whatever it is has vanished from sight.)

Euroseti appears to be an enthusiats site mostly around the Seti@Home programme. No mention of the UFO pictures.
Or it could be another group with the same name. Another reference:
http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2003/jan/m26-008.shtml

Seems likely that this is the consortium we are talking about.


No specific date references, so you can't really look up on the originals. But from the state of the pictures - note the bands from contrast increases you can tell they are pretty heavily done up by edge finding algorithms.

Next, the hot shot site is hosted by NASA.gov, and produced after the article, which would cast doubt on them clamping up since it is still active. It appears more likely that they have nothing further to say.

You can find some other stuff from http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/

Also http://www.msnbc.com/news/863997.asp?0cv=CB20&cp1=1

I am finding mostly dead ends. You have almost convinced me. I just want to rule out a few other possibilities.

Thanks FZ+


A side note: I attempted to locate the founder of EuroSETI; I spoke with Mike Murray this morning. He runs the digital theatre productions and media exhibits at the Clark Planetarium in Salt Lake City, Utah. He is very knowledgeable about SOHO and has hosted several conferences on the project. We had a great talk and he is a fantastic guy! Unfortunately he is not the same Mike Murray as the EuroSeti founder.