--- In [email protected], "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], nablusoss1008 <no_reply@> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], nablusoss1008 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > > <anartaxius@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], nablusoss1008 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NASA Footage from NASA's Solar and Heliospheric Observatory > > > > > (SOHO) in space shows a UFO that appears to fly through the sun's > > > > > corona. Published on YouTube on 6 March 2013. (Source: YouTube: > > > > > StephenHannardADGUK) > > > > > > > > > > (Benjamin Creme's Master confirms that the huge spacecraft was from > > > > > the planet Mars.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Share International photo for May 2013 x80;xa0;xa0;x92;xb6; Footage > > > > > from NASAx80;xa0;xa0;x92;xb2;s Solar and Heliospheric Observatory > > > > > (SOHO)] > > > > > > > > > > NASA Footage taken by SOHO can be seen in a video called "UFO > > > > > Creates Massive Sun Flash", uploaded on 14 June 2012. The video > > > > > comments include: "Three ring-shaped objects seem to phase into > > > > > view. Object seems to power up before taking off. As the object files > > > > > past the sun, a solar reaction is observed. This proves again that the > > > > > UFO is real a clear and defined interaction between the object and > > > > > the sun." (Source: YouTube: StephenHannardADGUK) > > > > > > > > > > (Benjamin Creme's Master explains that the object was a spacecraft > > > > > from Mars. The speculation that "a solar reaction is observed" > > > > > is not accurate. The spacecraft was actually registering and > > > > > calculating > > > > > a great release of energy from the sun, which is occurring now, and we > > > > > on Earth are just beginning to feel it.) > > > > > > > > > > http://shareintl.org/magazine/old_issues/2013/2013-05.htm#signs time, take a look at the actual video; > >
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYGa8p-rwz8 > > And while you're at it, try explaining how optical "reflection" can move > > within a frame taken with equipment that is standing still. > > Good luck ! > > > NASA explains the marks in the LASCO coronagraph images in two ways. > > 1. Comic rays tear through the sensor and leave a streak. > > 2. There are occasionally dust particles that float by and as the optics are > focused on infinity they are out of focus. I do not know the exposures times > for these images, but the camera is not operating at frame rates like for > movies or TV. The system can transmit images 10 per hour, so that seems to be > what the instrument is capable of. > > The video on youtube besides being edited for effect, also show tinkering - > the flashing of the 'spacecraft' - while the object flashes the noise in the > supposed multiple frames does not change, so it is a doctored effect. The > actual movement of the object between frames is probably authentic. It is > probably out-of-focus dust. There are many optical elements in the LASCO > coronagraph, and mulitple reflections of bright objects in the system can > create this effect. The dark 'holes' in the object seem to be the effect of > the occulting disk. Modern catadioptric telescope optics often have mirrors > cemented in the center of one of the lenses - this makes for shorter lighter > instruments, such as a catadioptirc telephoto camera lens for regular > photography. With a coronagraph, the surface of the sun is blocked optically > within the telescope tube but dust particles near the craft but out side the > tube are fully illuminated by the sun so they appear very bright, and out of > focus. > > Here is some information on the coronagraphs on SOHO - there are several of > them: > > http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1995SoPh..162..357B > > (a schematic of the LASCO coronagraph is on page 375) > > So I do not think that video is convincing. You remind me of a small child refusing to accept something that is in front of his very eyes saying No,No,NO. I mean a real spacecraft would look really different. It would ? Why don't you explain to us what a real spacecraft would look like ? The USS Enterprise on the 1960s TV show Star Trek is move convincing than these images. You can see the original model in the Smithsonian in Washington, D.C. > > Why is it that UFOs are always fuzzy blobs that look like optical reflections > or dust or physical defects in film or sensors? Nabby, particularly with > modern photographic imaging, you would think a really clear image of > something would be captured that wasn't so totally ambiguous. Are you deliberately acting like you have no idea about modern imagemaking ? The vast majority of images is coming from iphones and the Spacebrothers, as of today, mainly appear at night. Even my state-of-the art Nikon D800, the most advanced 35mm camera on this planet today, would have trouble recording fast moving lights or objects against a black sky, at least if I was not prepared for the event, had moved the ISO to 10000 and placed the camera on a tripod. Unfortunately our Spacebrothers are in the annoying habit of not announcing their appearances in advance. But you wouldn't acknowledge the excistence of spacecrafts and our Spacebrothers anyway, even if they landed in your backyard and invited you in for tea. You're the kind of person that has to be dragged into the 21'st century like the poor souls that 400 years ago stubbornly claimed the planet was flat. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7IxK2019bg
