The following is something I originally wrote for one of the PX discussion groups. I was getting tired of people showing pictures of pixel noise in an image and claiming it was Planet X! Also, I wanted to show that a vast amount of data "proving" something is going on in space is actually just people misinterpreting CCD effects. I have edited the post a bit from the original because I was talking to specific people originally. I am posting this here for several reasons; one of which is I want a copy on my site so I can eventually put it up on the PX page. Another is just so I have a record of it.


What is going on in the SOHO images?

A few people have been asking about this, but there hasn't been much talk about it. As it happens, I have a lot of experience with
astronomical imaging. I spent about a decade working on Hubble images, and a few years before that on a ground-based telescope. I
still do dabble in digital astronomical imaging. I am not bragging, just putting my credentials down to show that I am very experienced in this field.

Let me say this up front: the images from SOHO are completely within the realm of what you'd expect from such images. The "anomalies" pointed out by Tuatha (who claims spaceships are all around the Sun: do a websearch on the words "suncruiser" and "SOHO" and you'll see what I mean), Ms. Lieder and the rest are not anomalies at
all. They are simply things that happen when you use a digital camera.

The cameras usually used in astronomical imaging are called CCDs, for Charge-Coupled Device. It's like a computer chip that's sensitive to light. The best analogy for one is like an array of buckets in the rain. Each bucket (CCD pixel) collects rain (light). The amount of rain collected depends on how much rain falls on that bucket; the amount of light in each pixel of the CCD depends on how bright an object is. When light hits a CCD it is converted to electrons, and when the image is done the electrons are "read off" the CCD and
counted. The more electrons you see in a pixel, the more light hit that pixel. The numbers of electrons can be converted to images by your computer. That's how the images on, say, the SOHO site are done.

So, how does this affect the Planet X arguments? In many ways:

1) Sometimes, a pixel is more sensitive to light than others. This can happen when a pixel is hit by high energy radiation like a cosmic ray (which I'll abbreviate "CR"), a subatomic particles zipping around space. What happens then is that pixel is always "bright", or "hot", even when nothing is putting light into it. You have to make a map of the hot pixels in a CCD so you can compensate for them.

Ms. Lieder claims the images taken by Steve Havas show Planet X. What they really show is a hot pixel. When the pictures are properly calibrated, as several people have shown (see here and here), the "Planet X" pixel goes away. One
giveaway is that stars/planets/etc. are round in the image (they cover several pixels), where hot pixels look like single points. The things pointed out by Ms. Lieder and others are single points, so they cannot be real. This shows two things: 1) you have to be careful and understand CCDs when you look at the data, and 2) Ms. Lieder is
wrong.

A lot of the stuff pointed out by Tuatha in the SOHO images is really just hot pixels. They aren't spaceships at all, they are simply pixels inside the SOHO camera that are a bit too overenthusiastic.

2) When cosmic rays hit a CCD, they dump their energy into a pixel, making it look very bright. Sometime, if the impact angle is low, the CR leaves a streak. At the end of the streak, it can suddenly dump lots of energy into the pixels, making what looks like a spray. I would see this all the time in my Hubble images.

In the SOHO images, there are lots of CRs. Sometimes these are particles from the Sun, accelerated during a coronal mass ejection.
Matter of fact, after you see a big ejection from the Sun, the particles can hit the SOHO detectors, making it look like it was hit
by a shotgun. A few of what Tuatha claims are spaceships near the Sun are CR sprays. Tuatha's claims are wrong.

3) Remember the bucket analogy? What happens when a bucket fills up to the brim with water? It overflows. The same thing happens in CCDs. A pixel can only hold so many electrons before it overflows. Because
of the way the pixels are made, the overflow goes into the adjoining pixels horizontally, so the overflowing pixel leaks electrons into the pixels to its left and right. If enough light is hitting the one pixel, it can overflow the adjacent pixels, which flow into the next ones, and so on. When you look at the resulting image, a bright object appears to have a bright horizontal line going through it. This is called "blooming". A bright star may bloom over several
vertical pixels, so you get many rows of blooming.

There is a picture posted at
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/indexback46.html which is called the "Ra" image because there is a feature that looks like the symbol for the Egyptian god Ra. This is a perfect example of a bright object blooming. If you go through the SOHO archive, you'll see this happening whenever a bright object is in the image. Venus is the brightest thing you'll see, and it blooms quite a bit. I don't know what was in the SOHO field in the Ra image, but it was bright and it bloomed (it may have been a very energetic CR). Those "wings" are not real. They are simply electrons that overflowed inside the CCD itself.

You can see several examples on this page:
http://www.iwonderproductions.com/suncru.htm
In fact, the explanation given by Joe Gurman on that page is correct, and the webpage author didn't believe him. The cosmic rays and bright objects give the same shape every time because what's happening is inside the CCD, not on the sky.

Also, the "torpedo" in that image is a comet! Lots of comets are seen going very near (and sometimes actually impacting) the Sun. Matter of fact, more comets have been discovered using SOHO than any other
single telescope. Hundreds have been seen.

4) As far as other "anomalies" in SOHO images go, there are many, but all the ones I have seen have rational explanations. Sometimes you see what look like palm fronds coming out, fanning across the image (this one is a favorite of The Millennium Group, which you can see here).
I asked a SOHO person, and they said that sometimes debris gets knocked off the satellite (there are a few moving parts on the satellite that can jolt it) and this stuff drifts on front of the camera. They are out of focus at first, and as they move away they get more and more in focus. That's why you get the palm frond shape; the thick base is actually when the particle is close, and the narrow tip is when it's far away. It's a time exposure of something coming
into focus.

Conclusion:

Well, that was longer than I anticipated, but I hope it clears some things up. The point here is that people like Tuatha, Ms. Lieder and others have no experience with digital astronomical cameras, and
assume they simply take pictures. CCDs are far more complicated than that, and in fact I have just scratched the surface here with what you need to know to interpret CCD images. Every single thing Tuatha has pointed at in the SOHO images actually has a far more mundane explanation than alien spaceships.

Like Robert (a man who has a Planet X video to sell, and constantly makes easily-disproven claims on a PX discussion group), who constantly claims the Sun is acting up without understanding that this is actually the Sun's normal and expected
behavior, Tuatha and the others simply don't understand the subject they are talking about. It's really that simple. I don't mean this to sound condescending; I mean it to be literally true. I try to stay away from topics (like geology and mammoths) in this field when I do not have the expertise to give an informed opinion, but in this case
I do. If more people actually went out and tried to find the answers to some of these questions, a lot of the Planet X "evidence" would go away.

__________________
Phil Plait
The Bad Astronomer
http://www.badastronomy.com
badastro@badastronomy.com

Thanks, BA! That was a very easy to follow explanation of CCDs and their "anomalies." I learned something.

(Have you ever considered going into, oh, say, public education? Or maybe writing a book?)

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

Even though you already have "Bad Astronomy" out, it would be fun to publish something along the lines of "The Planet X Fallacies", completely disproving this theory.

Good explaining, BA. Couldn't have said it better. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

__________________
The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once.
--Albert Einstein

Thanks for the Info!

Well, this may come as no surprise to the regulars here, but it seems that Steve Havas, Nancy Leider's astronomer in residence, actually rented the time on the telescope to take the pictures they are displaying on the zeta site. You would have thought that the observatory owners would have told him about digital images and CCD's?

Here is the link to his testimonial for Sonoran Observatories...

http://www.arnierosner.com/are/body_index.htm

BTW, is it actually possible to make money doing this? They must take pictures of the sky for every loon and crackpot from here to Antartica...

To: THE B.A.-

I appreciate your explaining all of that. The aspect I most appreciate is the fact that layman's terms and analogies were used. Some of us posting on this board and enjoying (to say nothing of being further educated by) the site are not career astronomers, nor are we (well...I can only speak for myself, so I use the word "we" advisedly...) into any field proper of science. I'm a far cry from completely oblivious to everything scientific, but I'm hardly an expert on anything as such by any stretch of the imagination.
The post in question has actually explained a tremendous amount about all sorts of oddities in all kinds of space images (Hubble, SOHO or otherwise) that I have seen over the last few years. This isn't to suggest I previously thought anything in the images was necessarily other-worldly or whatever, but I did find them curious and wondered what the true culprit was. Now I know. Or at least have a considerably heightened awareness of what is probable.
The fact that you make this information accessible (read: understandable) to us laypersons is a testament to your abilities as an educator. I dare say that had I had the good fortune of having someone like yourself as my high school science teacher, my life might have taken a radically different direction than it has. Of course...it would have also been helpful if I had had a greater interest in school by the time I got to high school, so I suppose I should rightly accept my share of the responsibility there. At any rate, keep up the great work all around!
Sincerely,
Jerod S.

__________________
Who is the more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows?

I second what Jerod said. Often recently I've seen images with "bars" of some kind on them. I figured they were probably just stars, but I couldn't understand why they appeared that way instead of with the familiar defraction spikes I'm used to. Now I know. Thanks for edumacating us.

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

Phil, I wish you wouldn't use the word "anomalies". I guess I'm still a bit shell shoked from the P-word and his mini-anomolies.

__________________
Valiant Dancer

Well, thank you all for the accolades. I appreciate it... for two reasons. One is that, of course, it's nice to know you like what I'm doing.

But the second reason is actually more important. One thing a lot of pseudoscientists do, especially with all this PX nonsense, is spew a lot technical-sounding terms without explaining them, and only giving a fraction of the explanation need to actually undertsand the situation. The Moon Hoax crowd does that too. If they control the information, then they control what people believe, if those people don't try to find out more.

I like to give them more. I try to give them all the info they need to make an informed, intelligent, and rational opinion. All it takes is making sure that all the information is out there for them to see. That's why I continue to fight this stuff, and why I stick around in some newsgroups where a lot of people are hostile towards me (not all, but a few). Remaining calm and continuing to discuss this is the best way to get people to think about it, and think critically about what the chuckleheads are saying.

Would you feel more comfortable with the word 'artifacts'? ...er, no, wait a minute... now we have to be reminded of Hoagland and his ilk.

Doggone it, why do the nut cases have to go and co-opt all the good words? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

How about imaging issues? This would cover particulate contamination and other issues.

__________________
Valiant Dancer

okay, maybe it's just me, but does anyone else wonder what the pratical use of a solar torpedo would be(if it actually exists)?

Sun-crusier Ra, my foot. I told you this commercialization of space would lead us down a dark and cold path.


The TRUTH!

CJSF

[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

__________________
Two years ago moved from my town
I was looking up past the city lights
But the city lights got in my way

See the constellation ride across the sky
No cigar, no lady on his arm
Just a guy made of dots and lines

-from "See The Constellation"
by They Might Be Giants

I almost feel sorry for the guy. He's made up these wonderful stories about alien spaceships around the sun, and they turn out to be a couple of errant pixels.

Note he seems to make out that J2002E3 (is that right?) the "new moon"/Apollo booster which arrived recently in Earth orbit is some kind of alien spaceship. He then links to a site which says "Nope, it definately isn't a UFO." You gotta love 'em...

Cosmic rays are an enormous problem. It's different from the normal rad hardening problem. The only way to shield circuitry from cosmic rays is pure mass: get as many atoms in the way as possible. Well, that adds a lot of weight to a spacecraft obviously and so you have to deal with some occasional strikes.

I know people who are trying to qualify FPGAs (Field Programmable Gate Arrays) for use in space. The FPGA's can have different circuits downloaded to them on the fly, making for highly reprogrammable and adaptive systems. There's also the possibility of being able to completely repurpose a satellite already in orbit to do something no one thought of when it was still being built. Very attractive. You just design in bigger FPGAs (what's a couple extra thousand dollars in parts costs on a multibillion dollar platform?) and maybe an extra chip or two.

The problem is that the FPGA configuration is stored in a static RAM array. Cosmic rays flip bits. Flipped bits in an FPGA turn, say, an OR gate plus a flip-flop into a NAND gate and a latch. Oops.

One solution being looked at is to have redundant FPGAs, and reconfigure them constantly. As one is running, the other is having its configuration SRAM refreshed. They basically accept that cosmic rays will cause glitches, but if you ping pong back and forth between two redundant chips, your outages are limited to the configuration load time of the FPGA, which is less than a second. This is better than having one chip get glitched and someone Earthside noticing a problem, and extending the error fix feedback loop into many minutes.

Solar Torpedo? Ha! Solar torpedo? HA HA HA. SOLAR TORPEDO??? HAHHAHHAAAAHHAHAHAAHHAHHAAAHAHAHAHH!!!!!!

Oh man, I haven't laughed that hard in a long time! I'll have to admit, these Planet X'ers score incredibly high on the unintentional comedy scale!!!

__________________
"Is that a laser pointer? Well...that's fantastic! I mean...wow..that's just...GREAT!"
-Donald Rumsfeld before a Nov. 2001 speech
(His enthusiasm was muted, however, when he learned he could not guide a bomb with it.)

Most of the time (from what I've noticed perusing the Soho site) these spikes and bars are associated with planets crossing SOHO's field of view. In this animation, Venus glides by SOHO's C3 coronagraph. You can clearly see the aforementioned image artifacts associated with a bright object like Venus. Another bright object appears (with similar spikes) from the left at the end of the animation. I'm not sure which planet that is (perhaps Mercury?), but it goes to show that thses types of things show up in SOHO images all the tme.
http://science.nasa.gov/spaceweather...nus_c3_big.gif

(edited to correct downright horrible spelling)
_________________
"You've got your whole life to do something, and that's not very long."
-Ani DiFranco

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: heliopause on 2002-11-11 08:15 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: heliopause on 2002-11-11 08:16 ]</font>

SOHO site explanation of the "bars"

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

I took the essay that starts this thread, added some images and more comments, and put it in my Planet X section of the website.

I see on your site you talk about some Soho images from The Millenium Group, here some stranges images from GOES satellite:
Some images from GOES satellite from the millenium group and anomalies detected on the magnetometre on bord.Question if the images from GOES are camera malfunction(if this is your conclusion of course) how do you explain the magnetic anomalies detected by the magnometer?
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/pla...e_threat4.html

-the pics are from 23 dec 2002 article from:
More:
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/new/new.html

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Aldrin on 2003-01-20 00:29 ]</font>