It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can anyone identify this strange celestial body in the sky?

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2015 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
My critical thinking was "how can a lens flare be behind an object in a video?" - certainly a reasonable question given the physics of lens flares.


How can something 93 million miles away appear to be partly in front of some railings about 10 metres in front of the photographer?





posted on May, 30 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Imagewerx

Yes, but it is also clearly behind it as well.

Whereas in this picture, light does not appear to be wrapping around the clouds:






posted on May, 30 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

The area of the cloud that the alleged lens flare is over is so bright it's washed out,the image sensor is over loaded in that area and can't register any sort of detail,whether from outside or inside the lens.Washed out highlights are gone for ever and can't be recovered by any amount of Photoshopping (they just aren't there),unlike under exposed areas which can have detail recovered from them but with a lot of noise.

On my sunset photo taken with a Canon EOS60D with a reasonably good image sensor that has a good dynamic range by today's standards,the sun appears to be 'wrapping around' the railings when it quite obviously isn't.Good as it is,it just can't cope with that extreme a dynamic range (the difference between light and dark).In a two dimensional photo viewed on a flat computer screen,of course it's going to look as if the lens flare is in front (or partly in front) of the cloud,the same as my photo when taken it was obvious that the sun was of course not partly in front of the railings.I know because I was there when the photo was taken,the same would be true if you were there when the first photo was taken and not looking through a camera viewfinder,our eyes don't suffer from lens flare and have a MUCH greater dynamic range than even the very best digital image sensor currently available has got.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   
It's like seeing domes on the Moon instead of craters. Try telling your brain that you're looking at a transparent object in front of the clouds, and hopefully you will see that it is indeed so.

As for it possibly being a real space object, let's consider a few things:

1) I assume you have seen Venus, and know what it looks like. It look like bright star, not a disc. Venus' disc and phases can only be seen through telescope or binoculars. In fact, apart from the Moon and the Sun, all other objects in the Solar System are too small or too far away to be seen as anything more than a "star", and a lot of it is not visible to the naked eye.

2) Such a large disc as seen in the video would have to be either a truly enormous space object, or be very very close to us. In either case, it would have been visible for a long time, and astronomers would be reporting about this (not to mention millions of ordinary people).

3) It seems to appear from nowhere on the spot, go through phases, and end up having "full" phase. Real space objects don't do that. Given the position of the Sun (shining directly into the camera), a body couldn't have had the "full" phase, unless it was behind the Sun.

4) The object has pink colour, why? It's illuminated by the Sun. Even Mars doesn't look that glowing pink colour.

~~~

I could say that threads like this make me angry, because they get debunked time and again, and how many times do you have to explain that those are lens flares... but before you suggest I go looking for professional help, perhaps you could consider that people who see "Nibiru" or "Kachina" in every lens flare should perhaps have their head checked themselves.







posted on May, 30 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

My question is: If this is lens flare, shouldn't it be in the video of ALL footage from that particular camera? Can we check to see if it shows up every day? The cam is stationary right? The object ought to be in ALL daytime images taken by it.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Urantia1111

The OP is not interested in proving it is a lens flare.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say you are all wrong. I could prove if the hard drive with the pictures crashed.

Let me say this first; the sky night or day in Iraq is amazing. That is other than the pipeline that kept getting blown up in kirkuk and blocking the mountains.

It's the MOON! I was walking over to the motorpool one day about 7pm. Looking up I saw what I thought was the sun. It wasn't until realizing it was in the wrong direction and could stare right it.

Its a full moon inbroad daylight unless I wasn't looking at the moon. That was exactly what I saw.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

I agree but then never once in the OP stated what they thought it was. wants other people to say it is.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: IncognitoGhostman

I also thought the moon - I've seen it many times in the daytime looking exactly like that.
Except that the video shows it just show up , already risen. Plus the sun is usually rising or close to setting to make it that colour.

A lens flare perfectly imitating the moon, or the moon.......



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
I'm not trying to be a pain in the butt, I think people have to admit if the object in the OP is not a lens flare then it is fairly interesting.


But it quite obviously is lens flare.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Why didn't you just call this thread "I think this is Planet X , but I'm not going to come right out and say it and I'm going to ignore any evidence and argue with anyone that doesn't agree with me" ?
Because, so far, you've done nothing but disagree with anyone who gives the obvious answer. Lens Flare. Also you ignore the gravitational effects a planet that size would have if it were close enough for us to see that well.. There's Nothing There and There Is No Planet X.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   
It's ridiculously apparent that it's just lens flare. The OP's steadfast refusal to believe so just proves that they have an agenda, and it doesn't involve learning how lens flares work.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: snowspirit

It was close to the sun setting when I saw it in Iraq. You have to remember the closer to the equator the earlier the sunset.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Never thought I'd be the one saying this but the object in the OP is Venus.All explained in the link below.

poleshift.ning.com...



Here's an image of what I believe is the Planet X corpus at the 2 o'clock position and where it should be in the Northern hemisphere.I observed the exact same persona last year and when I took this photo back in April this year, this object appeared every day weather allowing,I captured this 6 or so times over a period of a few weeks.50 degrees North, sunrise,visible for 15 minutes until the glare became too powerful.Many others seem to have seen this as well.




This photo in red was taken in Italy and has been purposely reversed (actually object should be 4 o'clockish position) this was done to show alignment of the same object captured from Antarctica in the image below it.So this basically is the same 'persona' as in my image
Imo.You can see PX moons outside of the given positions and they may be what a portion of second sun sightings are?




This is the PX corpus viewed from the solar observatories on the days that I captured my images and it Is curious how they bear resemblance to my image also.







posted on May, 30 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: EndOfDays77
Never thought I'd be the one saying this but the object in the OP is Venus.All explained in the link below.

Venus never looks like that from Earth. It looks like a very bright "star", not a pink disk.

And posting a poleshift.ning link?... LOL



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

If the red flare had been Venus, I wouldn't even be on here but would be in a right panic!

The apparent angle of size, if it were Venus, would mean that it's most likely within 1 million miles of us, which means the gravitational pull of both Earth and Venus would be causing some massive quakes here on our planet for sure (and I'm taking multiple mag 7's each day for several days).

It also means we would be tugging on each other and giving slight changes to our orbits (another very bad thing).

Take a look at the pic you posted that is very zoomed in on it. You can see the cloud structure.

BUT: is that because it's behind the clouds? Or because it's translucent?

We could play around with the idea that it's a celestial body, but the problem with that is as I stated before, due to it's apparent size, a very large portion of the Earth would have seen it.

Better yet: we would have seen it growing in size for days, and then waning in size for days, so it would be visible in the sky for a long time.

It would make headlines world wide as you can't hid something like that.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: EndOfDays77
Never thought I'd be the one saying this but the object in the OP is Venus.All explained in the link below.

poleshift.ning.com...



Looks like Nancy has significantly scaled back the ning site since I last visited it. She's a very unpleasant person with a twenty year track record of utterly ridiculous failed predictions. I'm surprised she has any supporters at all at this point.
edit on 30-5-2015 by DelMarvel because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 04:39 PM
link   
This is lens flare, or lens refraction - call it what you will. It is an artefact of the lens. If you were there you would not see it.

Why are people still arguing that it is not? Have people lost their minds?



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi
This is lens flare, or lens refraction - call it what you will. It is an artefact of the lens. If you were there you would not see it.

Why are people still arguing that it is not? Have people lost their minds?


No-one is arguing about it but the OP.



posted on May, 30 2015 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

Cut to the chase.....what do you think it is?




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join