NASA Images Large Spherical Objects Inside Corona of SUN

Well it's gratifying to know there's something bigger and more powerful than our worthless governments out there!

Spaceships the size of planets that is just so cool!!!

And if they are hostile then I think we are F****D!

So i have put together some interesting photos from stereo from January 26/2010..but have no clue how to post them as i'm new to this...any help is appreciated.

When I first saw these images my thoughts turned to the many things that they were not. Planets, stars, comets, galaxies...likely not. The apparent light reflections being off, along with the extreme heat from the sun also made me doubt any type of spherical objects.

But they looked very much like gravitational lenses. The dark center, the light twisted around the edges. Possibilities seemed to include small black holes caught in orbit around the sun, or possibly unusual gravitational effects caused by the recent comet collisions or the solar pole reversal.

For me to believe NASA's story about this being due to some processing errors, I'd need to see someone independently generate the same results using the same source images and software or algorithms. I know of no image processing algorithms that selectively turn white dots or lines into black spheres. That's not to say they don't exist, but without understanding why they would use such an algorithm during the processing it makes little sense. Compression artifacts do not create these shapes- that's a bit silly to suggest. If there were such an algorithm being used for processing data, and a side effect of problems were spheres that blended perfectly into the image without seams- shading and all, then I'd recommend changing the algorithm so it detects and avoid this issue altogether or makes the error obvious rather than blending it in! I have a background in low level image processing software algorithms and it would be difficult to turn some white dots into spheres well-blended with the image without some intentional actions to do so.

On the SOHO images with the black boxes- those aren't unusual. If you've looked at SOHO images for many years, you've seen those whenever there is corrupt data transmitted form the satellite. If checksums don't validate during the download, then it appears that their software will leave the image segments black instead of displaying the corrupted data. The white snow pixels you sometimes see in SOHO images is not so much data stream corruption as it is the CCD being impacted by cosmic rays. So those don't result in a black box.

Originally posted by okachobi
....
I know of no image processing algorithms that selectively turn white dots or lines into black spheres...

No?

1. Digital images are formed of individual pixels.

2. Magnify an image beyond 100% and the pixels become visible as small squares. Depending on the enlarging algorithm, those squares may be ROUNDED or blurred somewhat by the software to reduce the blocky appearance. Images viewed at >100% show FALSE DETAIL.

3. When images are SHARPENED, the process changes pixels wherever the colour/brightness changes dramatically, eg at any 'edge'. It puts a dark edge around light pixels & vice versa, and if overdone, will create a false halo. MORE FALSE DETAIL. Sharpening is only useful when the image is viewed at less than 100%.

4. Combine the sharpening issue with the over-enlargement issue in 2. & it is easy to create odd glitches, 'spheres', even smiley faces, as shown in previous posts. These artefacts can easily be caused by simple hot pixels, or by what may be termed pixel 'strikes', where a pixel (or small group of them) is hit by a high-energy proton, gamma ray, etc. Just add sharpening haloes and compression artefacts and you end up with what may appear to be 3d objects simply because of the false edge/halo that has been added by the sharpening/compression algorithms.

5. If an image is heavily compressed (eg the low-res initial images posted by NASA), you can easily see further artefacts in the form of the square blocks that faintly appear all over the image.

6. In short, when combined together, such artefacts can indeed easily result from things OTHER than real objects.

Compression artifacts do not create these shapes- that's a bit silly to suggest.

Then call me silly.. Overcompression can and does create the square-block appearance AND it can and does also add to the problems caused by over sharpening, because JPEG compression also affects edge quality - you will often see JPEG artefacts - that is COMPRESSION artefacts - along high contrast edges. If you were not aware of that I must question your image processing background. If you need links, I'm happy to post them, but this is pretty basic digital imaging theory.

I have a background in low level image processing software algorithms and it would be difficult to turn some white dots into spheres well-blended with the image without some intentional actions to do so.

Do you really think these look like real spheres given the magnification of pixels and the apparent lighting direction, and that they realistically blend in, given the overall quality of the image?

In the SOHO images with the black boxes- those aren't unusual. If you've looked at SOHO images for many years, you've seen those whenever there is corrupt data transmitted form the satellite. If checksums don't validate during the download., then it appears that their software will leave the image segments black instead of displaying the corrupted data. The white snow pixels you sometimes see in SOHO images ...is the CCD being impacted by cosmic rays. So those don't result in a black box.

Most of that is correct. Although it's not just cosmic rays - also HEP's...

Stop Press...

NASA has now rolled in the new versions of the images posted by the OP. They are, as I explained earlier, much higher resolution and the enhancement has been toned down. I'll just link to this one:
stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov...
which is the new version of the SECOND image from the OP. Note that the 'objects' are still there at 2:00/6:30/9:00, but they are simply pixel strikes (probably HEPs) - you can see they vanish in the surrounding frames. They just happened to be the brightest ones, hence they were the most (over)enhanced in the crappy original images.

reply to post by CHRLZ


Than do it, I would like this proven. It should not be hard to reproduce, if we know what software NASA uses. one problem would the originals are probably super high quality, but it should be possible to reproduce.

[edit spelling]

[edit on 28-1-2010 by Project_Exo]

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Stop Press...

NASA has now rolled in the new versions of the images posted by the OP. They are, as I explained earlier, much higher resolution and the enhancement has been toned down. I'll just link to this one:
stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov...
which is the new version of the SECOND image from the OP. Note that the 'objects' are still there at 2:00/6:30/9:00, but they are simply pixel strikes (probably HEPs) - you can see they vanish in the surrounding frames. They just happened to be the brightest ones, hence they were the most (over)enhanced in the crappy original images.

This is a blow up of an object at the top of the sun of your linked photo. If they fixed the compression error using the original file these types of artifacts should all be gone, not just the most prominent ones, Looks to me like NASA just photoshoped the big ones out.



[edit spelling]

[edit on 28-1-2010 by Project_Exo]

Originally posted by Project_Exo
reply to post by CHRLZ

 

Than do it, I would like this proven, it should not be hard to reproduce, if we know what software NASA uses. one problem is the originals are probable super high quality, but is should be possible to reproduce.

Oh sure. Anything you ask...

If you scan back over the thread, you will notice that NASA do NOT use pc-based software.

And just for the reducing/enlarging processes alone, there are at least 25 different algorithms I could name, all of which give different results - I gave a link earlier (generalcathexis..).

In regard to sharpening - same problem. I just opened up XnView (freeware image processor) and had a quick look at the different sharpening routines - USM, Enhance Detail, Enhance Edges, Enhance Focus, Focus Restore, Edge Detect Light/Medium/Heavy. Some of those have variable parameters. I normally use Photoshop, which has others and then there is deconvolution...

In regard to compression, JPEG compression can take many forms, and also has many variables.

Finally, on top of that, it depends entirely on the sequence - do you sharpen first, then compress, then enlarge - what type of 'pixel-binning' was used, and when?

In other words, the possibilities are rather large. Give me an hour or so and I can probably come up with something close - but I've got a life. Anyone who knows digital imaging will recognise these issues and understand what is being seen here.

If you aren't in that category, then I suggest you do some research instead of expecting people to hand feed you.

Re picture problems with JPEG/JPG images if you DONT understand much about digital photography have a look here and scroll down the page and learn about compression problems.

photo.net...

Originally posted by Project_Exo
This is a blow up of an object at the top of the sun of your linked photo, it they fixed the compression error using the original file these types of artifacts should all be gone, not just the most prominent ones, Looks to me that NASA just photoshoped the big ones out.

*Again*, viewing these images at such high magnifications shows nothing useful. That dark patch looks exactly like a few dead pixels - damage to the sensor from a high energy strike, perhaps.. It is persistent, and that would suggest it is either something real, or a permanent sensor issue.

What is more likely, a little dark patch in the corona that just sits there, or a damaged sensor?

And the point is, that ALL of the 'hot' pixels (and 'cold' ones, in your example) in the original image are still there, MINUS the enhancement artefacts. You can clearly see the things that caused the problems, and they all match up.

Originally posted by wmd_2008


Re picture problems with JPEG/JPG images if you DONT understand much about digital photography have a look here and scroll down the page and learn about compression problems.

photo.net...

Nice link. And that's just the jpeg compression, which imo is not the biggest factor here, but it clearly shows how JPEG compression adds artefacts to edges, especially when magnified.

Here's an extreme example of over-sharpening halos:
www.planetphotoshop.com...

And here are some examples of sharpening and contrast enhancements gone mad - go down to the 'Examples: Getting thrown out of class' one, and then enlarge the mouseover version...
www.kenrockwell.com...

(I would normally cringe at linking to Mr Rockwell, but in this case..)

reply to post by CHRLZ


Who are you? I am not being paranoid rather vigilant of the possibility that intelligence people may be contributing to this thread (if it is ET craft we are seeing) In the past 180 day you have made 35 post, and most are on this thread. You seem to have vast knowledge of optics, and software used by NASA. Are you a former employee, amateur astronomer or something else...

Please forgive me if I am wrong, I hate to point fingers.

Regardless of what these things are be they actual objects or artifacts, NASA has covered up plenty of unexplainable UFO's on hundreds of occasion. One of the best videos to prove we are not alone is the footage taken from space looking down on Earth by the space shuttle on Mission STS-80 Anyone who looks at this full uncut video and still thinks NASA is telling us everything about what they are seeing in space is insane. Do they think we are all so easily persuaded by the ice crystal explanation when we see video like the following.

Originally posted by Project_Exo
reply to post by CHRLZ

 

Who are you? I am not being paranoid rather vigilant of the possibility that intelligence people may be contributing to this thread (if it is ET craft we are seeing) In the past 180 day you have made 35 post, and most are on this thread. You seem to have vast knowledge of optics, and software used by NASA. Are you a former employee, amateur astronomer or something else...

Please forgive me if I am wrong, I hate to point fingers.

So.. why did you? (O;

I'm a fairly old bloke, who grew up watching the Apollo program and has long had an interest in space exploration and astronomy. I've watched NASA go through their highs and lows. Lows like the Apollo fire, the Hubble miscalculation, the entire Shuttle program (O;. Highs like Apollo 11, the (fixed) Hubble, the SOHO spacecraft, the Mars missions, the LRO.

I both love and hate NASA at times, but some of their programs are simply remarkable..

I've been into photography, both amateur and professional (MF and 35mm) since the mid 60's, and when digital imaging came along I embraced it. Or at least once it got to a reasonable quality level. I have taught basic astronomy, photography and all levels of digital imaging, and my specialities are landscapes, (very large) panoramas and the requisite enlargement techniques. I am INCREDIBLY fussy about image quality, and know what happens when you enlarge small images. I also know lenses and sensor technology very well, and am happy to take people to task when they claim they see things like diamond-shaped ufo's, when all they are seeing is the shape of their lens aperture on an out of focus blob...

Youtube has much to answer for... (O:

While I'm pretty much into both astronomy and photography, I don't generally do astro-photography, preferring to leave it to the patient experts. However, I generally DO know what I am looking at...

Hence, when I see folks flailing away and making huge leaps of 'faith' when viewing what are very obvious image problems and the natural results of various processing methodologies, then I tend to try to correct those misunderstandings, and also try to point out the common (and oft-repeated) errors like enlarging the bejeezus out of poor quality small images..

Now that may all sound immodest, but I'm happy to be taken to task on any of these topics, provided the debate is sensible and you can come up with links and references.

By the way, I do post personal examples when applicable, so I'm not *all* talk. However, I don't currently own a solar imaging system..

BTW, for the record, I think Nasa's decision to use these low-res streamed images to get near real-time data is a poor one - they should only post the real high-res data imo, unless there is a huge event that could benefit from online imaging.. More importantly I think the way they process/enhance those small initial images, and then post them at ridiculously enlarged sizes is just stupid! It's no wonder CT'ers and the tinfoil hat brigade get all excited.


Hope that helps...



(Minor edit to fix grammar error)

[edit on 28-1-2010 by CHRLZ]

[edit on 28-1-2010 by CHRLZ]

reply to post by shadowkhas


THE FOUR HORSEMEN OF THE APOCALYPSE .... is the link to Phobos and Diemos ..

reply to post by Vonour


just type it in when you search Phobos and Deimos Horsemen .. and should pull it up ..

Originally posted by skepticantiseptic
Regardless of what these things are be they actual objects or artifacts, NASA has covered up plenty of unexplainable UFO's on hundreds of occasion.

No, they haven't. As this thread shows, they have simply provided high resolution images that show the source of the artefacts. The process was explained earlier in some detail, before the replacement happened. All public, all open.

In regard to that video, it's not nasa's fault that you can't understand what can happen around a spacecraft.

And I'd like to know how they covered up that example - by giving an explanation?

Please feel free to post your very best two examples of images or videos that are unarguably NASA coverups.

Is that video one of them? I'm happy to deal with it, but I'll give you a chance to change your mind. You said hundreds of examples exist, so it should be trivially easy to post a couple that cannot be refuted or explained by an understanding of physics and space science..

But just before we change the subject, note skeptic's approach. First, make sure you do NOT engage in debate on any technical issues - you'll notice skeptic has refused to even mention any of my points, let alone show his knowledge or debate me.

Second, when all else fails, introduce another example unrelated to the first. Hijack the discussion!

You're nothing if not predictable, skeptic.

www.tmgnow.com...
.. as far as this being what it is there is alot to the subject...Even the Russians had held off there exploration of Phobos in 2009 to . 2011 ..and I not know if this is true but this is what I have found that the possiblilty is that the objects are qcctualy Phobos and Deimos which are about 10miles Phobos .. and Deimos 5miles large .. so .. .. but who knowS

Jpg compression errors my arse! I have worked with renders and graphic software for years and I have seen hundreds of errors, But nothing like that!

With modern computers and software compression errors should be rare event.So what is NASA using to process there images a "commodore 64 and delux paint!"



[edit on 28-1-2010 by MOTT the HOOPLE]

reply to post by MOTT the HOOPLE

You're right. They are not jpg artifacts.

The images you are looking at in the video are "space weather beacon mode" images that are telemetered down nearly continuously: stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov... in near-realtime, and are both binned (undersampled spatially, down to 512 x 512 pixels) and heavily, lossily compressed digitally onboard (analogous to the various JPEG compression settings on a digital camera, but much more severe). Then they're made available on the Website in a variety of magnifications or "upresings" which only magnify the artifacts.

www.colinandrews.net...

The "original" images were low resolution, compressed images. Which were then resized to larger images. As we know, resizing extrapolates information which was not in the original image. The updated images are the full 2048 x 2048 images.

The beacon mode images frequently have this kind of stuff. The full resolution images, when they get posted do not. Look at this one, then check it after a while.
stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov...

[edit on 1/28/2010 by Phage]

The links are not working for me.