- From:
- http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/hotshots/2003_01_17/
- Comes:
-
-
- ORIGINAL
- Cut-out of EIT 195 image
- [http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/hotshots/2003_01_17/full.gif]
- from 2001/01/18 at 16:24 UT, taken from the public SOHO
archive, with standard processing & color table. The circle highlights
a cosmic ray hit.
-
-
-
-
-
- http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/hotshots/2003_01_17/CR.gif
- STEP 1:
- Further cut-out, showing the cosmic ray pixels highlighed
on the image to the left, with a little different color scaling.
-
-
-
-
-
- http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/hotshots/2003_01_17/CRi.gif
- STEP 2:
- Still the same data, but interpolated (using one of a
zillion possible methods) instead of simply resampled as the previous one
-
-
-
-
-
-
- [image4 - grab]
- http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/hotshots/2003_01_17/idlufoc.gif
- STEP 3:
- Voila! Finally, after a "touch-up" of the color
table, we have what may look like a nice UFO with a glow and exhaust fumes!
-
-
-
-
-
- See how the same image, having gone through a strikingly
similar "enhancement" is used to "prove" the existence
of UFOs, in pitches resulting in e.g. this newspaper article [http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov]
(Perth Sunday Times (Australia), 2003/01/19, p. 44). Yes, this was a picture
from SOHO, but didn't show any UFO! We believe similar "enhancements",
possibly starting with other types of image artifacts (see below for details),
are behind all of the recently published "UFO proof" claims.
Claims without the time and date of the picture[s] are close to worthless,
because the data processing cannot be verified by others.
-
- Below is an analysis of these explanations.
-
- Comment on Step 1
-
- They filtered out the background noise in Step 1, without
being specific how it was done - what colour scaling was done? Down from
how many to how many colours - 256 to 16 or 8? Why colour reduce an image
to create a hoax? This throws away data.
-
- Comment on Step 2
-
- The explanations includes the words "(using one
of a zillion possible methods)". Here is the definition of a zillion:
-
- zillion zil¢yen, (colloquial) noun an extremely
large but unspecified number, many millions (analogous in formation and
use to million and billion). (from Chambers English Dictionary, 1996 Edition)
-
- They, as scientists, should show more exactly what filter
and how it might have been used. They could for example, choose one of
those "zillions possible methods" and try to show something more
concrete. It also seems reasonable to suggest they may be able to give
a more accurate or clear definition of filtering methods that may have
been used to produce this effect such as "edge filtering combined
with unsharp masking". The tone of the explanation is one of ridicule
rather than trying to apply objective reasoning.
-
- Comment on Step 3
-
- Let us take the Step 1 image and find out the proportion
of the dimensions of the image artefact or object:
-
-
-
-
-
- We can see that the ratio of the height of the centre
to the width is 3:9 = 0.333
-
- If we now look at the "Step 3" image, we can
take the proportions of elements of this image. Measurement was done in
Paint Shop Pro version 5, by selecting areas of the image and examining
their size.
-
-
-
-
-
-
- 17:104 = 0.16 (measurements taken at edge of black halo)
- 25:110 = 0.22 (measurements taken at edge of yellow halo)
- 40:130 = 0.31 (measurements taken at edge of red halo)
-
- Whilst this isn't a firm measurement by which to gauge
the final image, because it is unclear if an image filter has been applied,
and what filter it is, the ratios do however, seem rather curious. Image
filters should not change the proportions of an object in the image all
that much (not ones which filter for noise anyway).
-
- The correspondence of these ratios to that of the 1st
image is not that good. Also, in the Step 1 image, there is a light coloured
pixel to the right. There is not really corresponding light coloured region
at the right hand side of the Stage 2 or Stage 3 image.
-
- If this explanation is meant to be illustrative (i.e.
one which says "this is the gist of how it was done"), then it
is not really a scientific explanation.
-
- There should be a better resulting comparison between
the actual images used in step 1 and the actual image in Step 2 and 3.
Rather than trying to make a comparison between the stage 1 and stage 2
or 3 images, it would be simply to say "it is a hoax" because
the image enhancement example shown is actually rather meaningless, due
to the weak correspondence between the Stage 1 and Stage 2/3 images.
-
- Finally, there are other significantly clearer image
artefacts in SOHO's image database which have only been processed by NASA
themselves, so any image processing artefacts have also been introduced
by NASA themselves.
-
-
-
-
- from:
- http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/
-
- The NASA explanation states: "Claims without the
time and date of the picture[s] are close to worthless, because the data
processing cannot be verified by others." The above picture has the
date and time clearly imprinted in the image.
-
- The conclusion would seem to be that the NASA image analysis
and explanation of the anomalies is bogus - particularly when applied
to this latest image (above).
|
