Below is some impressive footage taken from NASA's SOHO solar imaging program. These spheres are about the size of planet earth, and started showing up around Janurary 18th, 2010. Would like your take on what these could be?
Here are links from NASA for you to take a look yourself. http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/bro... http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/bro... http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/bro... http://stereo-sc.nascom.nasa.gov/bro...
Posts
4 comments:
I was wondering if you were gonna pick this one up. Looks legit to me, and insane.
If those are unnatural, can withstand those temperatures and are that big then goddamn that annunaki tech impresses me.
Um, don't you think they look more like distant stars with some sort of visual distortion artifact due to the proximity of their line of sight to the sun's corona? Just a thought.
These "UFO's" look like hot pixels artifacts to me.
I do a lot of digital astrophotography and I deal with this issue regularly. It's a common problem and the artifacts generated will morph slightly when converting to JPEG or compressed video and will look like what this video shows.
In CCD imaging, the detector always has some hot pixels that are lit up even though no light is hitting the detector. They will appear in the same spot in every image taken with a particular CCD camera. The hot pixels are usually subtracted out by dark subtraction. A "dark" is an image taken with the telescope cover closed or the camera shutter is closed. That "dark" image with the hot pixels is then digitally subtracted from each "light" frame and that removes the bright pixel and turns it dark. If multiple images are taken, they are aligned and "stacked" to improve signal to noise ratio.
In the stacked image, the black spots are subtracted hot pixels and the bright spots are hot pixels that were not subtracted out. In this case it looks like the frames were either not aligned properly or the dark subtraction didn't get every hot pixel or the intensity of the hot pixel was stronger or weaker than the dark's hot pixel signal, thereby causing the artifacts we see in the video.
Estoy de acuerdo con Mike. Y en mi caso me dedico al audiovisual desde hace 15 años. Aunque entiendo que su opinión en este asunto tiene más peso que la mía (beautyful models usually don´t present "artifacts").
Pero no puedo estar de acuerdo en todo. Sorry
Algunas de las supuestas death stars, son como mínimo, ridículas.
They are artifacts, obviously!
But... all of them?
Creo que no. Algunas son very stranges, so spherics...
Además, compañero ¿has visto las fotos en alta resolución de algunos de los casos más comprometidos?
They are retouched, "photoshoped" ¡¡ a lo bestia!!!
No sé...JPEG2000 suele provocar drops when there's a change of luminosity in one or more pixel between the interpolation. But Hires version are difused, asume using tampon and sponge. An authentic shoddy work, modestly I add.
Además, ¿conocéis un país llamado Chile? ¿Y otro llamado Haití?
I'm from Andalusia, Spain. You know... sun,beach,bulls and paella. No, my dears. ¡Ha llovido en dos meses más que en todo un año!
Pensad en global, descartad supercherías, sed cautos... and...
North American's people must learn and important lesson: Distrust of the factual powers. They ALLWAYS lies. Nos tratan como a ganado. I'm sorry, guys, but rich and the powerful ones deceive to us. Since waking up of times. If there outside were something They were not going away it to say to the son of Mrs. Smith, nonSir.
Post a Comment