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?