Link

http://www.ufocasebook.com/orionobject.html

Hmm, very weird and interesting. I wonder if they are actually airbrushing these images. What would be "good enough evidence" to conclude they're possibly airbrushing? Things like this?

I'd like to see a larger view of the image. Its a nice find though. It could just be some space dust in front of the lens. I hope it isn't. ?

Maybe somebody's lunch got away from them in zero G?

It is something. The most possible explanation is that this is a passion meteor in our own solar system that is in the picture. It has irregular shape, so it is not constructed.

I believe that they are definitley airbrushing images this latest photograph just shows it. By some of the comments i have read here it is clear that most have not read the article i advise everyone to read the article not just look at the picture.

It's definitely a real object as they know the Star it's blocking....the light of the Star is coming behind the object.Theres no way of knowing how big it is......

In the article it says:

and further on:



Both very interesting points.

Check out: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap961207.html
Great start of information about Orion Nebula and the 'objects' in it.

Happy Star Looking -

Jj -

Hello,

It's a Very good picture, I guess we’ll never know what the object is,
its worrying if NASA are airbrushing images, but if the image
Has been airbrushed why didn’t they just airbrush the whole object

What’s the score with Gary McKinnon last I heard he was extradited
to the US, (which shouldn’t have happened) if indeed he did see images of
Flying saucers and what he says on the interview given to ‘click’ on the BBC
is true it’s very sensitive for the US, I think he’ll just go missing,

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8339565504006440232

As was said before there was a star behind the object. I think someone might notice a star going missing. An object infront of the star could be better explained than explaining a star disappearing.

Nice video btw. Listening to it as i am writing this

It's an accretion disk around a young star. The physics of a stellar nursery are such that when a large molecular cloud undergoes gravitational collapse, what are known as Type O and Type B giant stars tend to form mostly in the middle. They emit prodigious ultraviolet radiation stellar winds of solar matter. This both further peturbs the region into additional collapse, and subsequently produces a hostile environment to neighboring stars in the nebula.

The young stars which are forming in the immediated outlying area, surrounding the central stars, tend to be deprived of material in their formative stages by the action of the supergiant and giant stars in the central region. Thus, they are smaller, and in extreme cases, stripped of what is called their protoproplyd, or cocoon-like covering.

When the outer material is stripped away prematurely, by the winds and UV radiation from the central stars, it results in the exposure of the underlying accretion disk, which is what you see in the image being discussed. That disk is composed of dusty material swirling around a young star.

In regards to the quality of the image, the fact is the compiled images that make up the entire published image are too many bytes for your computer to display, so it is compressed. This results in color changes to pixels, which appear as imperfections.

Amateur astronomers focus on the nebula and the four bright central stars of Orion Nebula. It was Hubble Telescope the finally revealed greater details such as this. There have even been attempts to comb through the data, looking for giant gas planets. However, it is argued that no such objects have been located.

Keywords are stellar nursery, central objects (large central stars), proplyd covering, and the underlying protoplanetary disk system.

Hi,

Excellent Post Leadbelly with scientific knowledge to explain what the picture is,

Great post leadbelly, but this doesn't explain why nasa has airbrushed things out. Or is this just a blur on the picture as you say with the transfer to pixels? Is this what you meant here: - meaning it looks like nasa has airbrushed but actually haven't?

To begin with, the HST and other orbiting space telescopes are exposed to an environment that includes high energy nuclei. Those may come from the Sun, or even a distant supernova shockwave. When hydrogen or helium nuclei penetrate the telescope, they can trigger imaging hardware and cause "dings" on a given set of pixels, when the telescope is operational.

Those who process the final data will use computer programs designed to correct those and other similar issues. They will produce images that have scientific merit, and generally speaking, a more polished version for publicity.

It is not really airbrushing, but rather computer processing. In any event, the distances to the nebula and the scales involved could not resolve anything less than inconceivably giant structures.

I have to agree with ya great answer.

Compression noise perhaps?



Yeah, an alien ship the size of our solar system...not likely.

In that case, how the hell do we know if they're airbrushing or not? When they go to "fix" the image, that's the best time to "airbrush" it.

Honestly.........if it was something the didn't want anyone to see, the WOULD NOT RELEASE THE PHOTO! It's taken by the government, using government equipment, and handled by government people! If there was a freakin alien ship in the picture, THEY WOULD TOSS IT AWAY IF THEY WANTED TO HIDE IT! This is how conspiracy theories start.

The other day I was in a chat room and this was brought up. I asked them, how many of you 'touch up your digital photos'? Take out "red eye" and other 'finishing touches'? Those that did digital photography admitted they did.

Then I stated, why would NASA do any less?? They do 'touch up' - but is their evidence of manipulation to 'hide'?? No - not really. Most of it is hear-say, at best. PLUS - usually the photos can be shown to be edited ...> NOT BY NASA - but the ones telling the story.

Plus how many check out the source? Like the Mars Pic's that was "Showed proof positive that NASA doctored the pics. (So what if the pics were 4 yrs apart - that 'had nothing to do w/it' according to some???

So before we jump - let's make sure we have ground to land on. Check the facts out CAREFULLY!

Jj -

I assume most HST images were acquired, processed, researched, and reported on within one year. The raw data processing perhaps is done by the Hubble team, while the research astronomers would do the rest. They start with grayscaling and intensity of various images. These can be analyzed individually. Then, they can have color added and further improved for more study, and publication.

HST uses four cameras and lots of filters. Here are some general items, including the Orion image.

The first images are IC 2994, a region with dense, dark molecular clouds. The grayscale image is wavelength 555 nm.

It has has four blocks. The three large blocks are the Wide Field Camera, and the small block is the Planetary Camera. In the upper right block, there are possible pixel hits from energetic nuclei. There may be defective pixels. There are bleeds around bright stars from charge spillover on the charge coupling device. There is a dark seam that is probably structual to the CCD array. There is a line that runs diagonally, and must be cleaned up.

The second image compares a section of the upper right block, with their finished image. Everything has been cosmetically fixed, except for those diffraction spikes around the stars, which are appealing and informative.

The third image is before, after, and a print for publication.

(I hope these are in order)

The next image is an example of the large central stars in the Orion Nebula, circa 1998. Charge bleeds. 791 nm.

Another image show a wider view of the central region of Orion Nebula, published in 1998. The green circle is the location of the circumstellar or protoplanetary disk. The object is above a dark patch

The next images were taken in 2004. The first is wavelength 555 nm. It is a small file, at 150%, but in the upper left is the same object, above a dark patch.

The second image shows the area in context to the greater nebula. The third is a zoom of the object.

Isn't this a bit irrelevant seeing as someone's just explained what it is?

Out of interest leadbelly, where do you work? You seem to sound like you know what your talking about. Good posts btw.

Yes, but why let the facts ruin a good story!