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.

 

Nibiru's 'First Phase' Due Fall 2009!

page: 26
18
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by deezee
 


In a way that theory may be true that we should have seen something yet there was a meteor that came thru this past summer that was in fact almost as big as our moon. It was not seen by anyone for close to 6 months and then finally someone spotted it. Almost when it was to late. So to me that means yes we can miss something this big.

Now another problem is this if it had to do with an artifact of the imagining process then why are the other photos taken by other astronomers on other telescopes showing the same thing? Hopefully I didnt miss spell anything I just got up. Ok time for more coffee then I will be back later unless if I read something eye opening this morning.

Hilda




posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 07:45 AM
link   
"Nibiru" sighting on the STEREO Ahead image

I looked through all the images from the STEREO Behind images from that day and wasn't able to find the same anomaly in them.

To analyze the STEREO Ahead images, i downloaded all of them and converted them to an animation.

In this animation, Mercury can clearly be seen between 7 and 8 o clock, moving to the left, and a few stars all over the picture moving to the right.

The ragged semi circle close to the Sun on the right is not moving. The few pixles only change in brightness a little, when the solar flare is changing in that area.

From this, and the fact that it can not be seen on the STEREO Behind images, it is very likely, that a few pixels on the Ahead sattelite are overreacting and showing the solar flare with too much intensity.

The pattern (ragged half circle) is unusual, so i can understand, how someone might think it's an object, but for now, there is no proof of that.


Next i will try to make an animation with more time between the frames, over a few days, to see if it is still not moving, or if it is even there.

If it is a real object, it has to come into view from somewhere, and not just appear and dissapear.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by hildar
In a way that theory may be true that we should have seen something yet there was a meteor that came thru this past summer that was in fact almost as big as our moon. It was not seen by anyone for close to 6 months and then finally someone spotted it. Almost when it was to late. So to me that means yes we can miss something this big.

While i doubt it was almost the size of our moon, even if it was, it can still not be compared to something one third the size of our sun.

Something that big would be MUCH harder to miss.



Originally posted by hildar
Now another problem is this if it had to do with an artifact of the imagining process then why are the other photos taken by other astronomers on other telescopes showing the same thing?


I asked you this before...

Which other telescopes and which other photos? Where can we see them?

So far we have only seen this "thing" on one of the images from the STEREO pair.

Untill we see it in a picture from another source, or untill we see it move, the likelyhood of an image anomaly is very high.

So please post links.

Thanks!

[edit on 19/1/08 by deezee]



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 08:07 AM
link   
Was actually looking at something here and I think that you all will notice this as well. In all of the ahead photos it doesnt even show Mercury. So doesnt that disprove what you said? I will bring this up to James later today and see what he says about it if he calls. It may be Monday before they can prove or disprove anything but from what I looked at in the past 30 minutes of ahead photos even Mercury isnt showing so please explain. This is a bit of a strange thing to say but if the ahead photos are not showing Mercury then they wont show what we are looking for either.

Hilda

I also am having a problem with Mercury being that bright spot we see. Why because this is a photo of Mercury on the same day Dec, 31, 2007 It has a line thru it. It is on the right hand side. In this photo yet it shows nothing big on the left hand side????

sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov...

Is it just me or is someone messing with us at NASA?

Hilda

Edited to add more content.

[edit on 19-1-2008 by hildar]



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by hildar
Was actually looking at something here and I think that you all will notice this as well. In all of the ahead photos it doesnt even show Mercury. So doesnt that disprove what you said?

I noticed that myself. That's why i didn't automatically dismiss it but instead started analyzing the Ahead images by animating them, the results of which i posted above.

Unfortunatelly my good computer is broken and i'm working on a very old laptop, so this process is painfully slow.


I don't know what the reason for Mercury's absence in the Behind images is yet, but for now it doesn't proove anything either way. I was just pointing out the most likely explanation in my oppinion, based on what i saw in the animation so far.

As i said before, if there really are pictures of this "thing" from other telescopes, please provide links, so we can rule out image artefacts or CCD pixel malfunction and similiar causes...



Originally posted by hildar
I will bring this up to James later today and see what he says about it if he calls. It may be Monday before they can prove or disprove anything but from what I looked at in the past 30 minutes of ahead photos even Mercury isnt showing so please explain. This is a bit of a strange thing to say but if the ahead photos are not showing Mercury then they wont show what we are looking for either.

When you mention this to your astronomer friend, please tell him he should look into the exact angle difference between the two sattelites.

I read somewhere it's 40 or even 44 degrees and growing, but i'm not sure.

The reason for such a large difference is, that it allows for more exact distance calculation of the objects in the image pair.


It could explain why Mercury is not showing, since it is pretty far to the left in the Ahead image.. It could be just outside the Behind image.

This could be confirmed by looking at the images from the days before 2007.12.30.

If this should turn out to be right, the things in the middle of the picture should still be there on both photos.

[edit on 19/1/08 by deezee]



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by hildar
I also am having a problem with Mercury being that bright spot we see. Why because this is a photo of Mercury on the same day Dec, 31, 2007 It has a line thru it. It is on the right hand side. In this photo yet it shows nothing big on the left hand side????
.
.
Is it just me or is someone messing with us at NASA?


This image could have been rotated to show the view as it would appear from the Earth's surface..

Don't automatically assume everything is a conspiracy..


I'm doing my best in trying to take you seriously and have a rational conversation about this.

If NASA was covering something up, i'm pretty sure they would be more consistent.. Well, of course they could make a mistake in a conspiracy..
But they can also make mistakes without one... Wouldn't you agree?

In any case, i don't think this is even a mistake.. Most likely just an angle correction.

[edit on 19/1/08 by deezee]



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Ward just emailed me and he works with James he said he did some looking back months, this thing is moving.

12/6
stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov...

11/6
stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Slightly but there is some differences.

10/6

much farther up

stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Hilda



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by deezee
 


I personally am trying to debunk it so please just bare with me. I dont wont either a huge planet, meteor or asteroid but its looking grim seeing the evidence that it is moving slightly.

Hilda



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by hildar
I personally am trying to debunk it so please just bare with me. I dont wont either a huge planet, meteor or asteroid but its looking grim seeing the evidence that it is moving slightly.

Well, i'm still talking to you, am i not?


I just put the three new images you provided in the animation software and analyzed them.

The images are spread one month appart.

When i run the animation, the "arc" is in the same place in two of the pictures and slightly higher in the first..
So it basically jumps down in one month, then it's completelly still during two months.

I also looked at the shape of the arc, and noticed it is exactly the same, but slightly tilted in the first picture, where it is a bit higher.
This means the entire picture is tilted, so it just appears to be higher.

When this angle is corrected, the shape of the arc matches up perfectly and it is again obvious it is not moving at all.


So again, the most likely explanation is a malfunction of some sort.
At least untill we see it from another source, that is...


I'd say, we don't need to start digging holes just yet...


[edit on 19/1/08 by deezee]



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 09:43 AM
link   
After comparing the images some more, i realized something interesting..

The only differences between images either from the same day, or even from other months, is the intensity of some of the pixels in this arc, and slightly different angles.

When these angles are corrected, the arc of pixels matches up perfectly, and only the intensity of some of them changes.

These changes occur, when there is a solar flare going through the arc. In this case it becomes brighter. Otherwise it's dimmer.


If this was a real object and even if it was for some reason in one and the same position over many months, we would at least have to see a difference in it's appearance. There is no reason for just this group of pixels to be visible all this time.

Besides, even if this object was moving very slowly, the Earth travels quite a distance in four months. Because of this there should be a very distinct difference, at least in it's apparent position.

Instead it is in the exact same position all the time, and always only seen as one and the same group of pixels, the only difference being their intensity, changed by the solar flares.


Because of this, the probability of it being some sort of CCD malfunction or a similiar anomaly is very high, if not 100%.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 09:46 AM
link   
LMAO this is to funny want to see something really funny, check this one out.

stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Proof that UFOS exist.ROFL.

Hilda



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by hildar
I hate to say this but we have plenty of people right now proving its not what you say it is. And believe me these people know what they are talking about. One of which happens to have been a professor at a college teaching Astronomy for over 20 years, Yet according to what you say he doesnt know bull. So lets see what he says. I also happen to know 4 others who are Astronomers that are looking at the photos this morning. One of which emailed me and said it was real. So where did you get your degree in astronomy? And have you had 20 years experience in teaching it?

Hilda


IT doesn't matter how many degrees he/she has or how many years of experience he/she has teaching the subject.

I have known plenty of inept professors and teachers so without corroborative evidence, one persons word doesn't mean a lot. They must provide evidence that their supposition is correct. Hopefully you'll get more then a "well he/she said so" so it must be correct. If they are indeed degreed individuals, they will provide you with substantial evidence including corroborative details from other scientists. I'll be interested to see the well researched responses that are expected from degreed, scientists.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Ok then if you want someone with a degree to prove or disprove something then go find someone today that can prove this isnt a UFO shooting at the sun or whatever it is

stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov...

stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov...

I thinks is so funny its pitiful but its there and it looks like its shooting.

Hilda



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by hildar
LMAO this is to funny want to see something really funny, check this one out.

Proof that UFOS exist.ROFL.


Looks like an airplane, but why would a space craft need wings?

I think it's just a very bright planet. So bright, it becomes black in the middle, because the CCD can not handle it. It looks like a cross, when you look at it better. Such a bright object should be expected to "sprout" beams...

EDIT: After reading your second post about it shooting at the sun: This is what sci-fi movies do to our imagination.


BTW: Did you read my above conclusion? After angle correction the "arc" is continuously shown as the same group of pixels in the same position over four months so far.

If it was a real object, it should have moved by now. If not by itself, simply because the earth moves a third of the way around the sun in four months.

There should be a HUGE difference in it's position, if it was real.

I'm almost completelly convinced it's a malfunction of sorts.


When you're talking to your astronomer friend next, please make sure to mention this fact to him - if you correct the angles, the "object" is completely motionless.

[edit on 19/1/08 by deezee]



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by hildar
reply to post by deezee
 


In a way that theory may be true that we should have seen something yet there was a meteor that came thru this past summer that was in fact almost as big as our moon. It was not seen by anyone for close to 6 months and then finally someone spotted it. Almost when it was to late. So to me that means yes we can miss something this big.
Hilda


Here is a photo size comparison of our solar system. There is a huge difference between missing an asteroid and missing a brown dwarf 1/3 the size of our sun. Do you really think an object that big would remain hidden?




posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by hildar
reply to post by jfj123
 


Ok then if you want someone with a degree to prove or disprove something then go find someone today that can prove this isnt a UFO shooting at the sun or whatever it is

stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov...

stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov...

I thinks is so funny its pitiful but its there and it looks like its shooting.

Hilda


It looks like a Russian Mig attacking the sun
Damn Russians are always shooting at something


On a side note, just to clarify my statement above, I meant that a degree alone does not automatically mean proof. Someone with a degree in their area of interest knows that making a statement with no proof is only an opinion.

[edit on 19-1-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Thats a theory we can blame it on the Russians attacking the sun.


on another note, That is why James is looking into this more, before coming to any conclusion. As he said they cant prove or disprove it at this point until they research it more. Which is why he headed out for Canada.

Hilda


[edit on 19-1-2008 by hildar]



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Here is a photo size comparison of our solar system. There is a huge difference between missing an asteroid and missing a brown dwarf 1/3 the size of our sun. Do you really think an object that big would remain hidden?


This size comparison can't be right... Earth should be a tiny dot compared to the sun.

Also, i'm not sure, but i think the red "eye" on the jupiter would take four earths to cover up.. EDIT: Correction.. One Earth would cover up most of the red "eye" on Jupiter

Did the page, where you found it say it is the correct scale?



Look at this Wikipedia planetary size comparison page. Here the planets are in the right scale compared to the sun.
Direct link to the picture comparing sizes of the gas giants to the sun.

In the above picture, jupiter would have to be about the size of Mercury if the scale was right...

These size relations are just amazing!

[edit on 19/1/08 by deezee]



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by hildar
on another note, That is why James is looking into this more, before coming to any conclusion. As he said they cant prove or disprove it at this point until they research it more. Which is why he headed out for Canada.


Hilda...

Did you mention to him, that the arc is always depicted by the same group of pixels, if the angle of the tilt is corrected, even over four months?

If this was a real planetary body, it would have to be in the exact same orbit as earth, but almost at the exact opposite side, to appear motionless like that - not completely on the opposite side of course, or we would not be able to see it.

Since it hasn't moved even for a single pixel in four months, it's source has to be here, not out there.

I'm afraid he's gonna be dissapointed...

Or maybe he's gonna be happy, once he discovers, there is nothing to fear..



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by deezee
 


yeah it did say to scale but I was looking at another page and there's a huge difference in real scale. My bad.

Here's a photo of what you posted




thanks for catching that !!



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join