Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 2,150 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 23,047
Pageviews Today: 68,500Threads Today: 28Posts Today: 641
12:42 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

NASA Feb 2 2010 SOHO "fakery" analyzed

 
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/11/2010 01:47 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
NASA Feb 2 2010 SOHO "fakery" analyzed
Important disclaimer of my approach and objectivity intents:


In no way is the following mant to be definitive, nor do I personally agree with all of the work at the sites I will mention. However -- please do look, for your own research.

Please remember this: I am not endorsing ALL work, all claims, all putative conclusions of the people I link to here.



Preamble: (Please read, but skip this if you wish to get to the SOHO work directly):


NASA has long been suspected of being used for various nasty protocols, or at least propaganda (even positive). Debunkers of the specific type of problem we will be handling here, call the problem data compression errors.

Recently, that is, for the last few years, Ms. Nancy Leider of Zetatalk.com and relative fame from her Planet X, has been claiming SOHO mage fakery for some time. In many cases, she has been proven wrong; some cases are inconclusive. Whatever else might be true or untrue about her and her claims, I decided to take on one of them, about the SOHO images.

We will be using several sources. I outline them in Part 2, Section 2. Suffice it to note here: The original mention of possible fakery was presented in Ms. Leider's work and she is a proponent of Planet X theory and aliens. Some people feel she gets everything wrong, or misrepresents her image claims and more. However, the images are from NASA and were merely COMPILED by her and a follower of her theories.

Thus, we may analyze the images, not Nancy's own claims; and if we find evidence of fakery, we do not necessarily have to posit her conclusions as to why it may have been done.

Now, again, it has long been claimed that NASA fakes photos. In some cases, this seems relatively certain, but do your own research. Moon and Mars, and Apollo photo/TV are all in question and some issues are seemingly conclusive (PLSS backpack flaps up in photo of "same moment" as PLSS flaps down AND VISIBLE in TV shots for Apollo 11, or missing shadows on flat ground) and so on.

(For the latter analysis, see photo index here: [link to aulis.com] and specific mentions I made here: PLSS flaps here [link to aulis.com] and shadow missing here [link to aulis.com] -- and of course for how they did it see [link to aulis.com] and here for overview of some other issues on the Moon landings [link to aulis.com] -- (Whereas for work on Moon and Mars imagery overall -- note, good with bad work, so be patient! -- see [link to www.marsanomalyresearch.com] )

One of the most conclusive photo analyses on Apollo was attempted to be debunked on Mythbusters TV show. However, they misrepresented the issue at stake. Theirs was a straw man argument fallacy (an irrelevant argument about the naturalness of seeing divergence in shadows due to uneven ground). For Mythbusters show see here: [link to www.youtube.com] . But the issue of fakery is the fact the shadows CONVERGE (as the title says) too close to be from the Sun: shadows always POINT TO THE LIGHT SOURCE even when on hills or seen from an odd angle (point of view not changing the ultimate trajectory of the shadow relative to others). The light source in the photo has to be too close to have the radiant effect seen here (bottommost image) [link to aulis.com] .



Part 1.

The SOHO satellite images: a simple description of what you SHOULD see:


The SOHO LASCO satellites are at a fixed distance from the Sun -- by staying relatively stable relative to Earth. They take a circlar (disc-like) picture with digital equipment, the centre of the "photo" (henceforth called photo) being always THE SUN and its corona. Thus, all movements in the image are of the stars and planets relative to the Sun and our motion around it slowly with a slow shift in viewpoint.

Objects do NOT move in and out of the (circular) frame due to sudden changes in viewpoint. The Sun is "tracked" by the camera.

In the centre is a black area circle (like the centre of a record, so to speak). At the very centre is a little white circle drawn, so you know where the Sun's surface is; the rest of the black circle is the brightest part of the radiance. This allows the camera not to get overwherlmed, overexposing the whole image of the rest of the sky view. We do however see some overexposure due to the corona: the corona bleeds out, so to speak, in a wave pattern over part of the disc of view.

It is also part of the nature of the imaging system to have a "scratchy looking" black line across one side of the disk, from the centre to the edge: this is where the image equipment blocks the image itself.

The satellite takes photos every so often, but I cannot find if it's every 30 min's or every 40 or so. It's somewhere around that period. It is not constant -- is the point.


Part 2.

Description of Feb 2 2010 images from SOHO LASCO 3:



Section 1:
Overview:


We are going to be dealing with 5 images from that day, Feb 2, 2010. The images were pulled from NASA's site. We will particularly be focussing on the imae from 15:18 hours. It is #3 of the 5 presented, thus is bracketed with other images for reference of what should appear in it.

As mentioned in the Preamble, but to repeat here in case the reader skipped past that section: We will be using several sources. The original mention of possible fakery was presented in Ms. Nancy Leider's work and she is a proponent of Planet X theory and alien contact. Some people feel she gets everything wrong, or misrepresents her image claims and more. However, the images are from NASA and were merely COMPILED by her and a follower of her theories.

Section 2:
Sources:


Thus, we may analyze the images, not Nancy's own claims; and if we find evidence of fakery, we do not necessarily have to posit her conclusions as to why it may have been done. The 5 images are compiled at a pro-Leider site in a .gif (which I imported into Adobe Elements program, to see the individual images at more length, to study them better). The .gif is available here: [link to poleshift.ning.com] . Close-ups of some of the questionable section(s) are at [link to www.zetatalk.com] and in a grainy video (which debunkers at Thread: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!! (Page 642) and Thread: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!! (Page 643) attempted to say has deliberate misleading graininess, to hide that there is mere natural data "corruption" in the image she noticed -- we will handle this question; see below).

We also have the original NASA source image for the main questionable image at [link to sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov] . [Note the Web name is " [link to sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov] -- which we will mention below as well.]


Section 3:
Image #3 of 5: 15:18 hours:


Description:

The first image we will look at is the image questioned by Nancy Leider at [link to www.zetatalk.com] and "Polspringer" at [link to poleshift.ning.com] . It is the image whose full and non-animated or cropped self you may view at [link to sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov] , as stated above.

This image shows a sky, a blacked-out Sun brightest radiance, with white ring for Sun surface. It contains the normal necessary black scratchy line from centre to edge, where there is no image to view. And it is round.

The solar corona spills past the centre brighest part (blocked by the black centre area with the white circle drawn in it). All this is fine.

It also shows quite obviously a white "blob" and "lines" horizontal to the orientation of the circle in our view. This is Venus, and the while lines coming from it are usual: they are called "blooming" and occur when a bright object overloads the digital capacity to process the light from the object. Planets are bright to the image, so they bleed in a "bloom" around them, usually in fairly straight lines across.

There are also stars (fixed, meaning very far away, and moving relative to our view very slowly, and other planets, asteroids, etc. at different levels of brightness all over the sky area).

But ...

It has what debunkers like to think of as compression problems from the digital transmission. In other words, a line of demarcation occurs very noticeably above Venus, starting at the edge of Venus's bloom on the right side. (I will call the sides of the blomming "wings", to distinguish the phenomenon of blooming from its specific appearance here).

Section 4:
Data Compression Errors (overview):


Data compression errors can be of many types. They can lose data, making block-like shapes (think of tiles), create odd warpings of images, misplace image information and even leave new "artifacts" in images. Usually streaks, extra pixel colours/values and so on.

However, they will warp or misplace whole sections at a time, if they create the "tiling" effect.

They do not leave whole objects recognizably the same, but create tiling through that object which is completely changed in value, missing data, etc.

And they generally don't occur at boundaries of objects by definition: they tend to occur randomly. If due to an object's colour or value, the object will be affected together with the area. The object will not be coherent and all else changed, except in predictable ways.

Section 5:
The affected areas of Feb 2 2010:


DESCRIPTION:

Probably most people will first notice the left side problems around Venus, because of colour differences. But we should note in passing during this essay, which is only a preliminary study of this image and the others, that 15:18 has also jagged stepped edges of colour differences on the right-hand side of the blacked-out Sun. The right-hand side is also corrupted or manipulated, therefore. This leads us to wonder if the problem could also be somewhat in the centre part. I will leave these questions here, but they deserve scrutiny as well as does the left section with Venus, with which we will continue now.

The left side of the image shows, as mentioned, an obvious demarcation (with a "tiling" effect near its top, like a jagged step with a continuing up axis). It begins from the right wing of the bloom of Venus, and all area above is very light blue, not matching the rest of the sky coherently.

But note: below Venus too, still in a direct line from its right wing tip of bloom, there is a faint demarcation as well, though the blue matches almost exactly the proximal sky colour below Venus.

The demarcation's continuation below Venus's horizontal bloom is most noticeable as it cuts through the (appropriate) missing portion of the image on the black "scratchy" looking radial line from centre to edge of the image. Within that portion, one may see a direct continuation of the main line of "corruption" that is so obvious ABOVE Venus.

Hence, the whole section with Venus in it is affected by whatever affected the top portion.

a) But notice the colour difference. Why is the image ATOP Venus affected with such lightness, as though it were part of the corona showing in the rest of the image, while BELOW Venus the colour is normal?

b) Why is Venus NOT AFFECTED in distortion or colouration or tiling effects, if the rest is so distorted above it and distortion of a different kind continues below it?

Plus,
Venus itself is moved:

We will note from the .gif that Venus moves slightly toward the right on the first two selections, then jumps to the right quite a bit in the third image (15:18 hours), and then back to the left and continues on, for the last two selections.

This is not natural movement of Venus. It is also not mere camera point-of-view adjustment, for the camera is tracking the Sun, not suddenly shifting its POV (point of view).

Debunkers suggest Venus was moved with the seeming data corruption above it (and below it, if they notice that part is also segmented and different from the rest of the image).
We should also note here that one might expect the left-hand side of Venus not to be IMAGED AT ALL, since if imagery was originally circular, but a section corrupted as the left-hand image side seems to be, would show blackness where the original transmission ended: the original circle edge.

If Venus moved in at all, therefore, from corruption, it should not FILL THE FRAME, nor should background sky. It may show corrption pixels or whatever, but a fill-up with stars, sky, Venus would not even be ON the transmission at the farthest left, if the image were genuine and Venus were slid over with the sky above and below it,

This is a first suggestion of possible manipulation and fakery.


Let's move on therefore.


........................

But first, a personal message about an upcoming style change in the text. From here on in, I will not compose this into ready segments so clearly demarcated. I will hereby post a version of what I wrote to debunkers of Nancy, at Thread: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!! (Page 644) , simply because it is easier for me to do so at this point. I have edited out the personal items which are in the original post. I am, however, tired and so I ask the reader to follow the issues as they come, though the style switches.

I did my best in the original post to segment them. There may be some repetition, however. If I had a secretary to edit it all, I'd be happy. I am however posting for posterity and for your consideration, so the shift is hopefully not annoying too much and instead I hope you bear with it. I welcome any further analysis of this or any other images, if they are carefully compared.

BECAUSE I AM PASTING IN WITH SOME DUPLICATION IN POINTS ALREADY MADE MORE CLEARLY ABOVE, THIS ESSAY IS LENGTHENED. Sorry about that. I had to do it this way. I have to get this posted and not spend more time on it. I HAVE tried to edit out, in some of the text below.

........................



Okay: so a lot of the problems with this image come not only from these self-inconsistencies. There are also mutual exclusions of possibilities AMONG the images, i.e., a comparative factor OVER THE 5 together.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I posit this to be true: The MAIN and BRIGHT stationary stars should always show in all images AND should remain in REASONABLE position to Venus.

Yes? That is, in all images, the bright stationary stars should always be in rough relationship progression, in relation to the Sun (not the image edge, the Sun), in reasonable flyby of viewpoint. Yes?

And in all images, all bright stationary stars should show in their patterns (unless obscured by the Sun or Venus here). Yes?

And in all images, if there is movement of the stationary stars relative to Venus, it should be that Venus has moved and the Stars have moved reasonably relative to the Sun in a progression. Yes?

Well, NONE IS TRUE OF ALL 5 IMAGES compiled at [link to poleshift.ning.com]

Not only the obvious "compression" problem image at 15:18 is a problem, they ALL ARE.

Yah. Not nice. I know you'll think "crazy" but no, let me show you WHAT I found even if you want to disagree at WHY I think most are manipulated in various ways.





Okay: What I found:


First the 15:18 image:

... the one we were discussing: note the title of the NASA image you got for me (thanks): " [link to sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov]

Note the term "reprocessing completed". Suspicious? Maybe. But maybe not.

Then note at www.zetatalk.com/newsletr/issue174.htm and [link to poleshift.ning.com] the steady star groups -- just th bright ones that are consistent in #1 and #5 at least. This goes for above and below Venus. They are NOT IN the "reprocessed" ("corrupted") image. Nowhere. None of them, not singly that I could find (except one maybe, but that could be due to lining up the stars to have that one work).

Not above nor below do the main groups show.

If Venus moved in from the left in compression error and sky seems continuous within the top and within the bottom, most or all bright fixed star groups should move WITH it.

But could they be blurred and there? NO. They're not there.

For example:
There are three obvious bright stars above Venus a bit, on end, like a pyramid tilted on one end, apex to the right. They are in ALL other images at [link to poleshift.ning.com] They are not there above Venus in our image AT ALL.

Also, the three stars across, fairly evenly spaced below, Venus, parallel to Venus are not there in the reprocessed image -- only the bright one of the three is there, on the right, outside the image "corruption"/"manipulation" axis.


NONE of the other consistent sets of stars match in the manipulated image ABOVE Venus or below, on the 15:18 image though the colour is almost correct on the bottom section.

Now, let's move ahead: where is the colour differential mark and image "corruption line" from bottom to almost the top? It is one line RIGHT AT VENUS'S "wing" tip of flare. Okay -- so why?

And what does that do: it makes Venus's flare a PERFECT DEMARCATION LINE for the bottom and top parts of the colour differential.

And what does that do? It means no bleed is necessary between the parts: Venus cuts off the "change" exactly. Hm.

So what would make the colour so different on top? And what would make the main, showy stars not match ANYWHERE?

A DIFFERENT PART OF THE SKY. That is, for EACH half. One half matches better to make it look less stark; the other being showy to distract from the lower join, so it looks like just some weird top problem if you don't look closely enough. I am speculating, but this is the kind of thing image manipulators try to do -- just to lessen the psychological impact even if you know rationally that the line goes across the whole thing.

..............

Okay, before anyone has a cow, or jumps to wilder conclusions even, please realize why the colouration difference but equally problematic stars on both halves is important, if true:

it not only means a corruption of Venus moving to the right and the top half being massively corrupted but the bottom half way less so.

It means EQUAL corruption on both top and bottom, and the demarcation is a pefectly fine (uncorrupted) Venus shape. How can that be?

But Venus IS moved in and, to wit, the Venus shape with bloom is the total depth of the change!

Further yet, the Venus bloom wing to the left (and sky around it) would not GENUINELY have been in the original transmission if Venus moves in to the right. LASCO gives a full image from its lens.

Instead of corruption moving everything to the right, as you suggest, these combined factors suggest image LAYERS, with a jagged "join line, to suggest "corruption."

It also suggests that Venus was SUPERIMPOSED on 2 other parts of the sky, from this, or another image, for EACH half of the "corruption" area, top and bottom. Remember, they BOTH miss the major fixed star groups, not just the top, which doesn't match in colour.

How was this accomplished with ease, if it was faked?

The corruption area, as noted, is PERFECTLY demarcated by the "corruption line" RIGHT at the righthand end of the flare of Venus. Venus would be easy to drop and paste, because it is in stark contrast with the rest.

I submit it was 2 different parts of the sky: one for the top and one for below.


------------------------------

Before you have a cow -- hang on. I am presenting an argument and physical observation analysis. The physical description analysis holds one way or another, whether the argument does not as well.

------------------------------

Now let's get back to the photos in general.

Not only the 15:18 image is a problem:

There are three stationary stars in a line below Venus, fairly evenly spaced. They appear as 3 stars in 2 of the 5 images (#1 and #5), which BRACKET all images. Hence, they seem to be a relatively fixed group, at least over the time of these 5 images (from 13:42 to 20:18).

They therefore should be an ARBITER of whether other images have been changed/had "compression problems". They serve to compare the BOTTOM HALF of 15:18 but also -- if there was fakery -- then the mentality of the fakers, a bit: i.e., to show how they didn't want you to notice so strongly that the WHOLE of the left-hand side of 15:18 is missing.

Here's a description of what happens to this "fixed group" first:
the centre star is missing near the beginning of the sequence (#2) and again near the end (#4), but is clearly there in the arbiter images: #1 and #5 "brackets".

Then, in the more obviously problematic 15:18 image, the left 2 are COMPLETELY missing. This shows the bottom of 15:18 is not only a bit changed (the axis running down from Venus as well as going up from it). Instead, with these fixed and bright objects gone, we notice the bottom of 15:18 is as screwy as the top. But it has a different and more compatible colour than the top.

Now because the rightmost star of the 3 is outside the "crop" ("corruption"/ "manipulation") line in 15:18, that 3rd star is still there in 15:18. This also shows the grouping is partly improperly missing by implication, of course.

Again,
All three stars are in almost the SAME SPACING in the other two images which bracket (#1 and #5), so they didn't go anywhere in REALITY. There's no change in colour in the bottom half of 15:18 either (or not much), so the fact they're missing is not lighting or compression the same as above could be argued.

And again,
All this is demarcated HORIZONTALLY AND VERTICALLY by Venus.

Which, again,
contains too much image to its left, to have been truly captured fully and moved over in a simple compression error.

...............................


Because of the bottom star missing in #2 and #4 (and some other anomalies too detailed to discuss), I submit it's possible that OTHER NASA images from SOHO are also problematic. Not all images -- and not necessarily all that Nancy has claimed.

But many others would likely also be relatively retouched, perhaps in different ways.

Finally, of our 5, perhaps completely all are retouched in some way -- if they all show anomalies. But that is too much for this essay or for me right now to take on as an assignment.

I have noted here only #2 & #5 for immediate attention in addition to #3.



TO CONCLUDE:

The MAIN and BRIGHT stationary stars should always show in all images AND should remain in REASONABLE position to Venus and the Sun as they pass in our view. Neither is true!

Please note, I am ONLY questioning the stars which show in most images as bright and relatively motionless relative to EACH OTHER and to THE SUN (which is also the centre of each image, of course. They ALL disappear in our "compression problem" noticeable photo of 15:18, and at last one goes away selectively in at least 2 of the 4 remaining images.

Not having tracked all relatively fixed star groups in the photos, I will leave it here to say that with 15:18 missing all fixed star groups and #2 & #4 missing one of the star group's individual members, all images should be checked for consistency (in all areas of the image).

Why in all areas of the image? Well, in 15:18, we also have a "corruption" line on the right side. So it's possible more problems would be found with star groups there.

I say all the images are suspect now (must be tested) because of association -- but not ACCUSED yet. However, #s 2, 4 and of course our odd #3 I DO tentatively accuse tentatively of having been manipulated for some reason.

Why?, though, I don't postulate.

...............

And I suspect that if we did similar comparisons of the fixed stars IN EXACTITUDE in other images from the nasa.gov and .mil sites (original sources for some of Nancy's claims about NASA images, posted by "Astronut 922113" at 10:51 p.m. at Thread: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!! (Page 642) and at 1:10 a.m. at Thread: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!! (Page 643) ) you would also find missing fixed stars, on and off, indicating the images are being CREATED.

Yes?
mclarek (OP)
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/11/2010 01:50 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Feb 2 2010 SOHO "fakery" analyzed
(Re. last sentence.)


I meant we might find SOME other images are being created/manipulated -- not all, one hopes.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 868423
Canada
06/11/2010 01:50 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Feb 2 2010 SOHO "fakery" analyzed
read later op. looks like EPIC WIN work you have done.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 757124
United States
06/11/2010 01:53 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Feb 2 2010 SOHO "fakery" analyzed
Just wondering. What experience do you have in this field and do you have any training in analyzing these images?
mclarek (OP)
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/11/2010 03:31 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Feb 2 2010 SOHO "fakery" analyzed
Just wondering. What experience do you have in this field and do you have any training in analyzing these images?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 757124


I have general exposure to SOHO and experience in photo manipulation.

The issues are mutal exclusion of properties, however, not specific tech issues, mostly.

As you will see.
mclarek (OP)
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/11/2010 03:34 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Feb 2 2010 SOHO "fakery" analyzed
read later op. looks like EPIC WIN work you have done.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 868423

;)

Yah. Mutual exclusion factors, from image to image and part to part, mostly.

If it had been some weird warp it would show as such ... etc.

You'll see.

10-Q! :)

Now ... off to bed. :) :banana2:
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 999651
Egypt
06/11/2010 03:38 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Feb 2 2010 SOHO "fakery" analyzed
(Re. last sentence.)


I meant we might find SOME other images are being created/manipulated -- not all, one hopes.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233


Finally one got it !
mclarek (OP)
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/11/2010 04:00 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Feb 2 2010 SOHO "fakery" analyzed
Just wondering. What experience do you have in this field and do you have any training in analyzing these images?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 757124




The issues I found MOSTLY don't have much to do with SOHO images specifically, though I do describe what the extent of the image should be and what roughly happens in compression.


If you want one SINGLE thing: Venus & sky should have no "information" to its left (except a tibit: what it would have had naturally, before putative "compression data" problems). The image is supposed to only be a circle.


... so ... How is there MORE information available to flesh out so smoothly the sky and Venus' light bloom ("left wing spread") as Venus "moves to the right" in a "compressed cut", so to speak? There's no distortion in Venus or the sky that's noticeable. So it was moved but SHOWED MORE INFORMATION TO ITS LEFT which SOHO doesn't actually CAPTURE: the circle is full frame and no more: how does Venus & sky get NEW and smooth info there as it "moves" to the right unnaturally?

That much is a simple knowledge about the images. They're full frame.

:)

Oh, by the way, a LOT of exposure -- pun intended -- to those who analyze fakes. And how they fail and how they succeed -- in politically sensitive areas (which some call "nonsense") and in general from my schooling.

People who work to expose POSSIBLE fakes cannot ALWAYS show conclusively if something was faked, by the way. Other times, they are downright wrong for soem reason. And other times, holy cow, they do show conclusiveness, EVEN WHEN OTHERS SAY IT ISN'T. If those "others" are presenting straw men, or ad hominems picking on inconclusive aspects instead of the conclusive work -- their debunking is flawed, not the original analysis.

Of course.

I have noticed a tendency that those who wish to debunk people who show fakery in images -- when it's politically not "correct" to think there's fakery -- have an emotional bias EVEN WHEN THE DEBUNKERS ARE RIGHT AND THERE IS NO FAKERY!

YUP! Some people like to feel they win if something is NOT true. But sometimes we win by recognizing what IS true even if it's UGLY!

LOL!

Because of that I have also learned to listen to all sides but have also learned some things about comparisons and philosophical reasoning about -- well -- anything, if there's mutual exclusion or self-contradiction!

Sometimes optics or mutual exclusion principles are conclusive ...

but sure, sometimes they're just "astronomically" (ha ha) incredibly unlikely (especially over multiple images with certain types of effects shown), so it's beyond a reasonable doubt but NOT absolutely certain technically speaking ...

And sometimes it's far less certain in a given case if isolated, but likely the hint of fakery is real because it's also part of some realtime known already deceitful circumstance, such as an intelligence op anyway ...

And sometimes it's very inconclusive in one instance but others it's with are very certain or near certain, so it's likely with the other images.

In this case, I think it's near conclusive. But that does take some familiarity with the reasons. Each thing HANGS TOGETHER in figuring it out.

And the totality of the image set also plays a part i determining the likelihood of the middle one's having been changed deliberately.

.............................

So, I have great experience thinking about these things. I have been maligned for many things along the way, but I do know how to compare and ask good questions of images. :)

And in this case, I think -- for SOME reason -- these images are a set of manipulations, 3 middle ones within 5. BUT IT'S PARTLY KNOWABLE BECAUSE WE HAVE 1 & 5, not just from within the main doctored image #3. However, there are mutual exclusion issues there, too, i.e., from WITHIN the image/

So it all hangs together as a highly likely hypothesis that it was manipulated -- from the carefully compared evidence.

Why, however, it was done, I've no idea I'm married to yet.

:)
mclarek (OP)
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/11/2010 04:04 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Feb 2 2010 SOHO "fakery" analyzed
(Re. last sentence.)


I meant we might find SOME other images are being created/manipulated -- not all, one hopes.


Finally one got it !
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 999651

You mean ... ?

That I woke up? Oh I've been awake to the other stuff for a while.

But I'd never seen conclusive/near-conclusive comparative work that shows the SOHO images have to be fake, or pretty well have to be.

The idea that Venus "moved" is not enough; under some conditions it could -- but then other aspects of strangeness would also be present and yet others WOULD NOT!

With the fill-in to the left, and the sky comparisons over several images and inside the onw, that it's highly likely (maybe fully conclusively knowable) that this was not "image problems" --- :)

..............

Or do you mean you finally got it?

Best wishes.
mclarek (OP)
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/11/2010 04:11 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Feb 2 2010 SOHO "fakery" analyzed
But I'd never seen conclusive/near-conclusive comparative work that shows the SOHO images have to be fake, or pretty well have to be.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233


Again, sorry. Didn't mean "ALL" when I said "the SOHO images. Meant any among that type of image.

But honestly, with such doctoring, what do we know of other image overlays and so on they could be doing?

Yikes.

Anyway ...

'Night.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 999706
Germany
06/11/2010 04:25 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Feb 2 2010 SOHO "fakery" analyzed
wow, respctz OP
Nyhee7
User ID: 986228
United States
06/11/2010 04:54 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Feb 2 2010 SOHO "fakery" analyzed
5 stars, good work

My past dealings with NASA Soho picture changing....

Thread: Did NASA forget to photoshop the image of Nibiru again?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 868423
Canada
06/11/2010 08:56 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Feb 2 2010 SOHO "fakery" analyzed
very very interesting op. so the conclusion is they have been tampering!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 999886
Italy
06/11/2010 09:25 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Feb 2 2010 SOHO "fakery" analyzed
To mclarek
[link to groups.yahoo.com]

I found a fake evidence comparing the stars of soho with the stars map. I do not know why , but the positions do not agree, but not always , some times they agree exactly.

I found many others fake evidence.
nomind

User ID: 904314
Canada
06/11/2010 09:34 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Feb 2 2010 SOHO "fakery" analyzed
Most images from NASA are 'manipulated'. Of course they are.

Perfect examples of this are many distant nebula pictures. They are all nice and colorful and pretty.. but that is manipulated.. because the sources are not visible light images. So in order to make it viewable to the general public, colors are added/shifted, etc.

As for stuff coming off of soho.. do you think someone is sitting there 24/7 staring at the thing to ensure nothing "odd" comes through in order to manipulate the imagery before transferred to the public site? This is an incredibly large amount of work...



As for stuff like the moon landing and such... could there be some fakery in the imagery? Perhaps.. But hey, anyone with a telescope can point it up there, and if it's strong enough.. see details. They made a big deal about how the footprints would stay there.. well there we are. Let's get one of those asian nations with a space program to go proof that for us, or hire ourselves a high power telescope to analyze the 'landing spot' for ourselves... yes?
My Interesting Karma messages:

- "You are an idiot. This post proves it."
-"GLP MEMBERS BEWARE!!! THIS IS A GOVERNMENT SHILL."
- Most
moranic one given to me: When you type ".." you need to put three dots instead of two.



Thread: Nibiru, or how to appear like you know what you are talking about
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 969583
United States
06/11/2010 11:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Feb 2 2010 SOHO "fakery" analyzed
Just wondering. What experience do you have in this field and do you have any training in analyzing these images?


I have general exposure to SOHO and experience in photo manipulation.

.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233


Bullshit.

You NOTHING about SOHO.

Everything you know you found out from Astronut in the last two days.
mclarek (OP)
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/12/2010 03:06 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Feb 2 2010 SOHO "fakery" analyzed
Just wondering. What experience do you have in this field and do you have any training in analyzing these images?


I have general exposure to SOHO and experience in photo manipulation.

.


Bullshit.

You NOTHING about SOHO.

Everything you know you found out from Astronut in the last two days.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 969583

No, that's bullshit.

I asked why the movement -- if they could explain it.
They couldn't.

He didn't even understand from the video that there was a "compression error" line, which I saw in there already. I didn't think Venus "just moved".

As to "learning from him" about SOHO -- no.

I did a presentation to my family about SOHO several months back on the basics of the images. At that time, I hadn't looked so closely as to compare the particular problems, however, and only tentatively suggested there were anomalies.

If it was "compression" then MISSING DATA would be to Venus's left. And top of Venus vs. bottom of Venus would not lose all major stars AND be different.

If they missed all data in that section, honesty would suggest they should leave it blank. Or only recover what they could and leave a clear line all along. But no; it's misleadingly nice-looking, but impossible.

So ... why? What was inconvenient on the left AND the right? And why the other images missing one key star?

Eh?

Good luck.
mclarek (OP)
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/12/2010 03:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Feb 2 2010 SOHO "fakery" analyzed
very very interesting op. so the conclusion is they have been tampering!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 868423

Well, I think so.

Or filling in but then honesty should suggest LEAVING DATA BLANK where there is none: but Venus's left and sky around it is filed in seamlessly.

So -- what are they covering for in this image ... near Venus AND on the right side of the Sun??

Hm.

Dunno.
mclarek (OP)
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/12/2010 03:16 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Feb 2 2010 SOHO "fakery" analyzed
To mclarek
[link to groups.yahoo.com]

I found a fake evidence comparing the stars of soho with the stars map. I do not know why , but the positions do not agree, but not always , some times they agree exactly.

I found many others fake evidence.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 999886

Stars in THIS image or OTHERS? -- I suspect you mean others.

I have a feeling people are not comparing all images closely in general, so any manipulation (or intentional fakery, shall we say) can be fairly sloppy if key elements remain mostly okay. Here, for Venus, I think they had to make it obvious, to distract from the bottom half's being wrong too and the right side.

............
Your link:
Have to ask to be a member to see it.

I will try to become one ... but in the meantime, can you post it here, I mean, the basic text and/or image links?

THANKS

Would love to see work on this, in case you're right. Very strange.
mclarek (OP)
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/12/2010 03:24 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Feb 2 2010 SOHO "fakery" analyzed
Most images from NASA are 'manipulated'. Of course they are.

Perfect examples of this are many distant nebula pictures. They are all nice and colorful and pretty.. but that is manipulated.. because the sources are not visible light images. So in order to make it viewable to the general public, colors are added/shifted, etc.

As for stuff coming off of soho.. do you think someone is sitting there 24/7 staring at the thing to ensure nothing "odd" comes through in order to manipulate the imagery before transferred to the public site? This is an incredibly large amount of work...



As for stuff like the moon landing and such... could there be some fakery in the imagery? Perhaps.. But hey, anyone with a telescope can point it up there, and if it's strong enough.. see details. They made a big deal about how the footprints would stay there.. well there we are. Let's get one of those asian nations with a space program to go proof that for us, or hire ourselves a high power telescope to analyze the 'landing spot' for ourselves... yes?
 Quoting: nomind

Hi.

This is kind of contradictory: you are suggesting "all" images are manipulated and then suggest some aren't. :)

However, sure impressions could be altered in the nebula pictures timply to make them look better -- yes -- and reprocessing for data problems could also be done quite innocently.

But in this case, if data had been lost, why fill it in? (Left of Venus would be missing, if there was a mere shift over in data in Venus area.) Some things are better honestly presented: try to recover data but don't create it.

As to having people poring over the images: maybe; maybe not.

It is very possible they try to go over images for anything truly anomalous, though.

What could have been anomalous here? I don't know.

Finally: re. Apollo: no, no-one here can see close-up detail on the Moon area for the landings: too small for us, tiny tiny details. And all images of the Moon show NO CLOSEUPS of the landing sites.

So, there's a loophole on that one.
mclarek (OP)
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/12/2010 03:28 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Feb 2 2010 SOHO "fakery" analyzed
Most images from NASA are 'manipulated'. Of course they are.




Hi.

This is kind of contradictory: you are suggesting "all" images are manipulated and then suggest some aren't. :)
 Quoting: Nomind


Sorry, Nomind.

You didn't say "all". You said "most".

Oops. Tired tonight. 3:46 a.m.

:)

But anyway, we are talking of things we would not term "manipulation" in a suspicious sense versus things which MIGHT be attempts to block real data from coming through.

I am not saying it IS the latter here, but if manipulated to LOOK like data compression when it seems NOT to be, then why, but to hide something?

Anyway, I hope more work is done on this and other images, to see if data compression can be ruled out completely ... I think I have (unfortunately, if so) but we'll see.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 969583
United States
06/12/2010 05:47 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Feb 2 2010 SOHO "fakery" analyzed
As to "learning from him" about SOHO -- no.

 Quoting: mclarek 986233


As of a couple of days ago you didn't even know how to open a .fts file.
mclarek (OP)
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/12/2010 05:54 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Feb 2 2010 SOHO "fakery" analyzed
As to "learning from him" about SOHO -- no.



As of a couple of days ago you didn't even know how to open a .fts file.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 969583

No, I do not.

I don't use them.

I use links to the SOHO site provided, and screen captures.

I look at the results and never was looking for fakery or not, before.

Hence, I know what the images can and can't look like.

And I also know how to think about MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE PRINCIPLES and COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS.

That is what's at stake here, not file types for the images. General problems and mutual comparisons and image impossibilities: no change in Venus and sky to left in any way (smooth transition and normal shape) but FILLED IN DATA from the original capture which would leave a blank filled to the right.

.fts or Nasa link to get the image is a straw man issue.
mclarek (OP)
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/12/2010 02:39 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Feb 2 2010 SOHO "fakery" analyzed
To mclarek
[link to groups.yahoo.com]

I found a fake evidence comparing the stars of soho with the stars map. I do not know why , but the positions do not agree, but not always , some times they agree exactly.

I found many others fake evidence.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 999886


Hi -- I have seen your image. If you used the star chart correctly and it was accurate ...

You are bloody right.

The Sun can be off centre in a SOHO image (from satellite adjustments), I think. But the stars should all move accordingly.

You have shown different stars in different locations relative to the star chart but IN DIFFERENT RELATIVE DIRECTIONS, so it can't be the stars are different here than in the star chart only because of the point of view shift -- of the satellite's location vs. Earth (which is where the star chart would be centred).

Can you provide the link to the star chart you used?

THANKS!!!!


Thank you.
mclarek (OP)
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/12/2010 02:48 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Feb 2 2010 SOHO "fakery" analyzed
To mclarek
[link to groups.yahoo.com]

I found a fake evidence comparing the stars of soho with the stars map. I do not know why , but the positions do not agree, but not always , some times they agree exactly.

I found many others fake evidence.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 999886




AC, I have looked through several pics and --- you're bloody right!

May I ask what this one means: it's not visual; it's a chart of interference.

[link to groups.yahoo.com]

(You don't always leave comments in writing and sometimes I don't know why you've posted the pic.)

Thank you --- and may I put them into a photobucket album to link to them outside of the group you posted to? That way people don't have to join the group to see them.

I can not use your real name at credit for them, just the link if you like.
se447
User ID: 1001139
Germany
06/12/2010 02:48 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Feb 2 2010 SOHO "fakery" analyzed
bump bump bump

<Finally, some proof!

Excellent work OP!
mclarek (OP)
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/12/2010 03:02 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Feb 2 2010 SOHO "fakery" analyzed
To mclarek
[link to groups.yahoo.com]

I found a fake evidence comparing the stars of soho with the stars map. I do not know why , but the positions do not agree, but not always , some times they agree exactly.

I found many others fake evidence.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 999886


I am very curious about this one: you say there's nothing in the SOHO image you posted here but what was SUPPOSED to be there?

[link to groups.yahoo.com]

(My work was comparative but not specific to a star chart for the day. For all I knew all the stars could be off in all images, but things were identifiably comparatively off and missing in 15:18, and a bit in #2 & #4 as well).


......................


Also, I don't know what you were doing here (it's not a SOHO image):

[link to groups.yahoo.com]

and here -- you have photographed Jupiter or Venus or both? -- or are you saying that Jupiter shouldn't be near the sun there and venus is a ways away, so you are asking what it is? Or are you saying it IS Jupiter?:

[link to ads.bluelithium.com]


.......................

By the way, where is Jupiter in these images you posted? You ask if it's Jupiter "flashing", but where is Jupiter in the pic at all?

[link to groups.yahoo.com]


.......................

Aside:
I have the No Nibiru video which was scrubbed because the object (or whatever?) actually went behind the clouds too. That is the video you mention here [link to groups.yahoo.com]

I did wonder to myself if a flare would have the same effect if the Sun were partly behind the clouds -- would the flare also have breaks in it, for where the clouds block the source light? I think they would.

Having said that ... it was scrubbed. So one wonders.
mclarek (OP)
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/12/2010 03:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Feb 2 2010 SOHO "fakery" analyzed
bump bump bump

<Finally, some proof!

Excellent work OP!
 Quoting: se447 1001139

Thank you!

You should see the bloody proofs the fellow from Italy (see above) has -- they are on a site which is a group so you have to sign up for it.

I am hoping he'll let me put them in my photobucket to link to here.

They are the kind of multiple proof we need to cme to conclusions.
mclarek (OP)
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/12/2010 03:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Feb 2 2010 SOHO "fakery" analyzed
To mclarek
[link to groups.yahoo.com]

I found a fake evidence comparing the stars of soho with the stars map. I do not know why , but the positions do not agree, but not always , some times they agree exactly.

I found many others fake evidence.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 999886



Dear friend,

Here [link to groups.yahoo.com] you point out there's nothing in the star map for the big object.

Is your comparative map the one you posted here? [link to groups.yahoo.com]
mclarek (OP)
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/12/2010 03:09 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Feb 2 2010 SOHO "fakery" analyzed
To mclarek
[link to groups.yahoo.com]

I found a fake evidence comparing the stars of soho with the stars map. I do not know why , but the positions do not agree, but not always , some times they agree exactly.

I found many others fake evidence.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 999886


Hey: wow. Left, right, up, down, these stars are in wild array.

I am beginning to suspect they are using previous years' backgrounds.

It would be the easy way to glean roughly correct star pictures. Then add in a planet in the right place and presto.

But then, why have ANY with anomalies of planets? Is that to make the WHOLE THING'S fakery unnoticed, so people think it's just a planet weirdness here and there?

I know that's speculative, but it is possible they background stars from other years. It would be EASIER.

[link to groups.yahoo.com]
mclarek (OP)
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/12/2010 03:13 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NASA Feb 2 2010 SOHO "fakery" analyzed
To mclarek
[link to groups.yahoo.com]

I found a fake evidence comparing the stars of soho with the stars map. I do not know why , but the positions do not agree, but not always , some times they agree exactly.

I found many others fake evidence.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 999886



Finally, I have gone through all your images.

I wanted to mention you gave no date for the SOHO image at [link to groups.yahoo.com]





GLP