Wicked UFO By the sun 1/15/10 SOHO

Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:21 am » by **Seahawk100**

aladin wrote:
mrmurder wrote:the op pics are amazing i visit the soho site now and again but have not been on there for a while...suffice to say,im going there right now...!! thanks for posting them

**and for what its worth aladin,i think you are wrong.**

Fact:
The sun has a diameter of CA 1. 391.400 kilometers. On the (1024Pix) eit284* image from SOHO that almost 1.4 million kilometers, however, correspond only has 754 pixels.

That is 1 pixel in the SOHO image size is about 1845 kilometers has !!!
This alleged "UFO" - has a length of 23 pixels. Do you know someone can count on the? Then you can have the size of the UFO can work out "...

To me, please do not come to the notice, the UFO was much closer to the camera - then it would not have so evenly lit "and would not so consistently reflect (if it were a Solid body - but not what it is)

* http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov//data/RE ... /2010/eit2
84/20100115/20100115_
1026_eit284_1024.jpg
[img]http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov//data/REPROCESSING/Completed/2010/
eit284/20100115/20100115_1026_eit284_512.jpg[/img]

ALADIN

Man, this photo- whether from the soho site, or not- looks too fake. Why would
an object sooo close to the sun have a shadow??? That just doesn't make sense!

What is that fishy smell??? The others don't look so pasted on like this one does, and the others don't seem to have shadows, so why this one? Not blaming you,Sav, I just think that it looks weird. Am I the only one that

Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:48 am » by **Seahawk100**

Sorry, took to long to edit the previous post, and lost the option to do so. The photo wasn't showing up in my post for some reason. So, anyway, does it make sense that this object has a shadow? I would think that if anything, that the light would be blindingly bright on the object. No? Maybe I'm missing something. Can someone point out what that might be? It looks like an image was added to this photo. I would think that we could trust this site, but now I'm wondering if my faith is misplaced. Not sure, jmo.

It seems even more fake in this photo.

Cheers, folks.

Hawk

Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:58 pm » by **Remote7**

wolfbane7272
but they had the drilling capability at that time did the not ? why not take some core samples then ? ..lol anways We are going in circles here you are obviously certain of your opinion and I am not going to give it anymore thought. thanks for the rebuttal

cheers

Just to mention ...They did....The rock and soil samples returned by the Apollo missions were found to be ever so slightly "damp" when examined in the laboratory, but scientists could never rule out the possibility that the water in the samples got in only after they were hauled back to Earth.

Thanks

Sat Jan 16, 2010 1:50 pm » by **Peaceonearth**

The biggest mistake, I feel, we all do is to take things AS THEY ARE!

Please remember the secret: Many of the moon, Mars, Sun photos are to be turned upside down to see correctly. If a building is presented to you upside down, and if you keep on analysing it, you'll go nowhere. One can't say what that object is, but, on the whole, turn the photo upside down, enlarge it, and if need be, flip horizontally--these are fundamental processes to see such images. :sunny:

Good luck