It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sun Robotic UFOs - Interesting pattern anomolies

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   
I came across a video that I believe has merit.

I first bought into the whole "jpeg artifacts or bits of dust closeby" explanation for the object looking things around the sun...but this video has me questioning

WARNING: Crappy music overlay...might want to mute it



I am most interested in the similar shape for all the "Robbot" (I think he simply misspelled Robot) pics he has...a jpeg artifact would be random, not the same shape over and over and over twisting around...

Thoughts?



posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   
I see several options here.

Probably the most likely is that he has simply caught several other celestial bodies in the photograph, and their light is causing the "robots" and "discs". Another is outright hoax, which could be it because all the "robots" and "discs" could very well be the same image rotated.
...aaaand now I'm blanking on what the third option was. I had it just a second ago. If I remember, I'll edit this post to add it in.

DISCLAIMER: I'm no photographer, so all my opinions on photos and such should be taken with a grain of salt.



posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   
They are not jpeg artifacts. They are artifacts created by taking a compressed, low quality image and resizing it.

The artifacts are created around one or two pixels. Since the same algorithms are used to compress the data and to resize it, any one or two pixels which go through the process will have the same appearance.

So no, the artifacts would not be "random".



posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
They are not jpeg artifacts. They are artifacts created by taking a compressed, low quality image and resizing it.

The artifacts are created around one or two pixels. Since the same algorithms are used to compress the data and to resize it, any one or two pixels which go through the process will have the same appearance.

So no, the artifacts would not be "random".


But the artifacting would not be changing "course", it would be approximately the same shape, sure, but it would be stationary.
The things in this picture appears to be turning this way and that.

I am a graphics designer by trade, I understand compression/decompression artifact issues, and this is a new one to me...not saying this isn't just a image anomoly, but your explanation is flawed by the fact of it turning to begin with.

What could cause the turning of artifacts would be a actual object being reflected and turning, then the illumination effect being artifacted would be represented by the turning also, but then that goes back to there being something there to begin with.



posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 

The orientation of the artifacts produced by compression and resizing depends on the brightness levels of surrounding pixels.

Also, please note that none of these "UFOs" appear in the imagery from the SOHO satellite which does not use the same data transmission techniques.



posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Here is a Video, it really looks like objects and not specs of dust or some thing, I dont know what it is.





posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ChemBreather
 


If these things do in fact turn out to be objects, I would love to know the position...either they are the size of a tic tac, or a planet depending on how far from the cam it is.

I think that until things are referenced in the same spot by two different cameras at the same time, then it is speculation that can be considered some really wonky camera issues.

I am not fully sold on this explanation as I cannot reproduce this on any graphics program, but that doesnt mean much...I am not using their compression algorithm to begin with.



posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ChemBreather
 

I have to agree with Phage. The algorithms do in fact, on poor quality images, produce pixalation of some of the imperfections.
ps
Chem sweet heart, you still haven't put your hair into a ponytail yet




top topics



 
0

log in

join