Wouldent a big pease of rock flying that close to the sun, be sucked into the sun??

according to Benjamin Creme www.shareintl.org,

Each ‘star’ (UFO) is about the size of five football fields put together. They don’t appear all the time because they have to recharge their batteries. So they move as close to the sun as possible to recharge their batteries that way.

expl. of Benjamin Creme www.shareintl.org,

Each ‘star’ (UFO) is about the size of five football fields put together. They don’t appear all the time because they have to recharge their batteries. So they move as close to the sun as possible to recharge their batteries that way.

*SIGH*

Look, guys. An amateur astronomer capturing photos of an asteroid, piece of space junk, satellite, or whatever, while filming the sun from a position here on Earth is NOT proof in any degree that space based solar observatories did not have camera glitches.

This is faulty logic.

NASA is not the only source showing that those "objects" were glitches or digital artifacts. Several photographers who specialize in digital images and compression have also shown how this is true. Others who are aware of how things like light works, and focal length, have shown how they could not be objects close to the sun.

This clip does, indeed, show an object somewhere between the earth and the sun. Indeed, that object passes through the focal point of the telescope in question.

Those facts have no bearing upon any photos taken by other cameras unless, or until, they are taken at the same time, showing the same location, and the same behavior. And they don't.

Neat video, but not proof of anything.

Whatever it is, it looks like it's flipping end over end....

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2837262/Space-UFO-baffles-boffins.html

how can you say that what nasa says is proof that its not a ufo, Nasa lie we all know that. you say that a guy looking at the sun from earth is not good enough proof but you listen to the other set of people that are still here on earth if you ask me they have no proof either nobody can really know what it is unless they send some bloke there to report it. might be glithes might be ufos we just dont know so there is the possibility of both i guess, hw can you trust nasa when they turn round and say we cant aford to search for asteroids that could hit earth then some privert space company take up the challenge and then find one that could hit us in 2029 and then theres the whole lcross moon bombing, a hell of a lot of money in the hope to find water on the moon bit of a shot in the dark don't you think,seems to me that they already knew there was water on the moon just like the bases that they airbrush out. dont trust nasa as far as i could throw them.

Actually, Anonymous, you'll note that in my post I specifically pointed out that sources OTHER THAN NASA have shown that the SOHO images were glitches. Why did I make the point that NASA wasn't the only source to prove this? Because I know that people don't trust NASA.

Again, though, you are applying faulty logic.

Here's how it works:

The SOHO observatory is 1.5 million kilometers closer to the sun than we are here on Earth. It has no atmosphere to filter light. It records images, hypercompresses them, and then beam those data files back here to Earth where another computer has to decompress them and then turn them into viewable images. They aren't standard film stock, nor are they a simple transmission like a T.V. signal. They are beamed through 1.5 million kilometers of radiation and solar rays, then through our magnetosphere and atmosphere to arrive here. The compression of files in digital format and decompression of those files is something that many people outside of NASA are familiar with. So, when digital ghosting and artifacts occur in an image, there are many people who recognize them because they are familiar with how image processing works in a digitally compressed format.

When someone in their backyard takes a film of the sun, they are filming through our atmosphere, through an extra 1.5 million kilometers of space, towards the sun. While the images taken no longer run the compression and transmission risk, they have a greater chance of picking up something between the Earth and sun, or between the Earth and SOHO for that matter. This means that anything the moves between the Earth and the sun, past the focal point of the camera in use, could be picked up on that film.

I'm not making a statement about the ability of people on Earth to figure things out, nor of how any camera can identify things, as you seem to think.

I'm saying that logically, a picture taken from Earth towards the sun does not stand as evidence that proves that SOHO's images aren't digital artifacts. It proves only that something passed between the sun and the Earth when the astronomer took his picture. It has no bearing on SOHO's pictures.

That would be like me offering a blurry picture of a grey blob and saying I took a picture of a mysterious huge grey creature in my backyard. Then, later, a satellite takes a picture of my backyard and a plane flies over my house, which shows up in the picture. Would the satellite picture "prove" that my original photo was of a huge grey creature, or have any bearing whatsoever that my first picture was real? No. The two photos would have nothing to do with one another.

Mind you, it doesn't disprove it either, and that's where you seem to be mistaking me.

I have to say Lucid does make a good point. Neither picture proves anything at all nor does it disprove anything. In the way of pictures of UFO's though that's bound to be true 99% of the time. You have to think of the vast distance that it covers and to say that it 'had' to be a ufo is just misleading. It may be a UFO but it did follow a straight path with no abnormal movements. The end over end would likely suggest it was a large chunk of space debris somewhere between earth and the sun.