Compelling footage of a planet X like object near the sun shot on (21.04.09)

I just wanted to throw a little logic and science into the mix.

1. The object is closer to Earth than the Sun. I can say that by the looking at the "Definable Corona". See how the edge of the Sun is blurry and the object is clearly defined?

2. Reflection of light from the Earth to the Moon can make the Moon glow like that. Its close inline, instead of full Lunar Eclipse, to the Sun would make it glow yellow instead of white to our eyes. Its called color bleeding.

3. BUT... The Moon doesn't travel at the same "Visually Relative Speed" as the Sun. So its NOT the Moon.

Conclusion: Its an object A LOT closer to the Earth than the Sun, reflecting light from the Earth which is being reflected from the Sun. Its closer than the Moon due to its apparent speed. What is it? Hell if I know. If I had to guess, I would say "Space Station". Its the only thing THAT WE KNOW OF with the speed and size to fit the parameters.

CHEERS!

[edit on 5-5-2009 by peppersgc]

Its NOT a sun dog. A sun dog would have appeared to go behind a cloud if the SUN had. Since the Sun did not then there is no way the dog did.

Three questions:
1. How is an object going to get that close to the sun and not get sucked in by the Sun's gravity or at the very least cause the Sun's shape to distort?

2. Wouldnt there be measurable gravitational effects on Earth and the Sun and other planets?

3. If it is moving wouldnt it begin to appear bigger each day?

[edit on 5-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

Hmmm most interesting... I just flicked through a few pics of my own from April 2009 and lo and behold I find the same dam thing.

First one taken on the 2ND of April 2009 in wales, England. Adjust the brightness and you will find the same anomaly. This image was taken out in the open so no reflections from glass windows...... they were spraying aerosol/chem trails that day but I took these before the blue was wiped out.

Second one was taken same day same place but I have no idea what the round anomaly in the bottom left hand corner is; I know it was near the sun hence half the picture being whited out.
Probably a reflection but you never know...

Anyway enjoy and make of them what you will but this certainly caught my attention.

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
Three questions:
1. How is an object going to get that close to the sun and not get sucked in by the Sun's gravity or at the very least cause the Sun's shape to distort?

2. Wouldnt there be measurable gravitational effects on Earth and the Sun and other planets?

3. If it is moving wouldnt it begin to appear bigger each day?

[edit on 5-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

Ok i havnt read all the posts because i havnt got time,

But to reply to the previous post

1. In theory if it was close enough it would, but it obviously isnt close

2. yes defnetly the earths magnetic shield seems to be acting weird these past years.

3. Yes

- Although im not a beleiver in the niburu evidence although it is fairly compelling. My thoughts on this video is that it has obviously been edited because of the music etc. Maybe a fake maybe not but when it comes to Niburu we all shall know soon weather this is myth or truth.

I vote myth.

Originally posted by JasonT
As much as I want this to be real, there is something dodgy about it.

Why on earth would you want nibiru to be real???

Ok after reading through about 6 pages of impulsive responses i got frustrated, made an account, and decided to post.

I am a psychology major with a good basic/amateur understanding of astronomy. I have an open mind but i judge everything with a high level of scrutiny.

Here are some assertions that have frustrated me:

1) The object is NOT a flare. Any kind of flare. A lens flare would move with the camera. If you watch the video, you can tell the camera was moving quite a bit as the "actual" lens flare was floating around the screen. Then, add the fact that the clouds cover the object in question, add further proof that it is NOT a lens flare.
It is not a solar flare either. A solar flare that huge would have incinerated the earth's atmosphere.
2) The object is not the moon. Whoever suggested the object is the Moon is a moron. Sorry for being so rude but seriously, since when did the Moon orbit the sun? The object is behind the sun, as part of it is being blocked by the sun itself, so how in the hell could the moon be behind the sun?
3) "Why hasn't anybody else seen this!?!?!" How many people decided to take a picture of the sun? Let alone with the brightness turned down? As for astronomers, i'm sure the first thing an astronomer does when he sets up his telescope is stare right at the sun!
Cmon guys, stop acting barbaric. This is clearly an interesting video. Just because it doesnt fit your schema(look it up) doesn't make it invalid.
What can it be:

Well, if you absolutely HATE the fact that it could be something real, you can NEVER discount it being CGI. Anyone who is well versed in graphic editing want to give a good explanation? I'm ready to hear it.
Of course, just because something is odd doesn't prove its CGI. Im sick of hearing the "it cant be real its CGI." Yes, everything is CGI. Ronald Mcdonald isnt real, its juts a CGI version. Clearly, the real Ronald Mcdonald would have had a heart attack by now from all those Big Mac's!

As for Nibiru, or anything else celestial:
"It cant be nibiru its not a planet its glowing!!"
I've read about it but i not into much detail, i wanted more proof first. Nibiru orbits another dwarf star, and our solar system is a binary star system(according to the nibiru proponents). Well, a huge majority of the known solar systems are binary. That would make it statistically feasible that we have one as well. The object in question would then be our sun's sister coming to pay us a visit.

Dont jump to conclusions either way, as it could very well be CGI. I just dont want to see another "WELL MAJORITY RULES SO YOU'RE all WRONG AND STUPID" post again.
Seriously, why would you even be looking at a forum based on alternative theories if you agreed with what the majority believed? Sometimes people never cease to amaze me.

reply to post by demonseed

As has been pointed out, here is an image taken the same day as the video by the SOHO satellite.
sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov...

SOHO orbits about 1,000,000 miles from the Earth, between the Sun and the Earth. If the object in the video is a binary twin of the Sun it must be in between SOHO and the Earth.

We would know about a star, no matter how small, if it was less than 1 million miles from us.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by demonseed

 

As has been pointed out, here is an image taken the same day as the video by the SOHO satellite.
sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov...

SOHO orbits about 1,000,000 miles from the Earth, between the Sun and the Earth. If the object in the video is a binary twin of the Sun it must be in between SOHO and the Earth.

We would know about a star, no matter how small, if it was less than 1 million miles from us.

I'm not proposing it is, but to play a little devil's advocate:
SOHO is owned by NASA. Would NASA actually tell us that a doomsday twin sister sun is coming?

I don't know for sure about whats in this picture, but i sure as hell don't swallow everything NASA tells me.

I suggest we rely on ourselves to find out what's really in that picture or anything else for that matter, as government and mass media have proved more and more useless.

reply to post by demonseed

I am quite confident that there is no star (dwarf or otherwise) near enough to the Earth to appear 1/4 the apparent size of the Sun. I am also a bit on the lazy side. It is also probably true that you would not believe me any more that you believe the dreaded NASA so if you're really interested you'll have to do this yourself (something very few people seem to be willing to do).

Build a simple Pinhole projector, a device with which you can view the Sun and any bright object near it safely. Since this device has no lens, there can be no chance of lens flare. Have a look at the Sun. Report back here with your findings.

Now, as I said before, an object large enough to appear about 1/4 the apparent diameter of the Sun, and close enough to now be "hiding" behind the sun, would be causing major disruptions to the orbits of the planets. There have been no reports of such disruptions (of course, the dreaded NASA would lie, but there are hundreds of thousands of amateur astronomers out there who would be very upset if their snazzy automatic telescope didn't find Jupiter where it was supposed to be).

Crappy music on one video and also no sound on the other. I think it's a fake.

reply to post by demonseed

I'm not proposing it is, but to play a little devil's advocate: SOHO is owned by NASA. Would NASA actually tell us that a doomsday twin sister sun is coming?

I thought it too about NASA, but (plus what Phage said) how can they fake or manipulate, i guess is 3 images per hour in the site, on average, in every type of frequency and more LASCO shots, its a lot to do everyday.
And trying to fool a hundred of people working on the project its a hard task, because its difficult to control people to stay in line if you are not a military, everyone can be a big mouth.
And their are others satellites with the same objective to watch the Sun, the STEREO project.

A telescope with a proper filter you can prove yourself that the images from the Sun are real from the SOHO.

here's a example: www.teleskop-service.se...

[edit on 6-5-2009 by theSeeker84]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by demonseed

 

I am quite confident that there is no star (dwarf or otherwise) near enough to the Earth to appear 1/4 the apparent size of the Sun. I am also a bit on the lazy side. It is also probably true that you would not believe me any more that you believe the dreaded NASA so if you're really interested you'll have to do this yourself (something very few people seem to be willing to do).

Build a simple Pinhole projector, a device with which you can view the Sun and any bright object near it safely. Since this device has no lens, there can be no chance of lens flare. Have a look at the Sun. Report back here with your findings.

Now, as I said before, an object large enough to appear about 1/4 the apparent diameter of the Sun, and close enough to now be "hiding" behind the sun, would be causing major disruptions to the orbits of the planets. There have been no reports of such disruptions (of course, the dreaded NASA would lie, but there are hundreds of thousands of amateur astronomers out there who would be very upset if their snazzy automatic telescope didn't find Jupiter where it was supposed to be).

Well its 11:22pm right now so i can't try anything, i will probably tomorrow after work if i remember.
"Dreaded NASA" lol.... ya i dont trust the government, and im not the only one. NASA, being a governmental agency, falls into that category.
I still havent discounted the video as really well done CGI either, but i will do what i can to try and replicate its results. Binary stars in outer space appear as one star until you zoom in so ill see what i can come up with.

As for the astronomers part:
I believe it was in 2006 that an asteroid passed somewhere close to 300,000 miles away(that is very close for space distance) and nobody noticed it until it flew past us. So although a huge second sun would be unmistakable, its gravitational effects not so much. At least not to the average astronomer. Even if an astronomer spotted it, something with this level of catastrophe would quickly be covered up by the mainstream to halt mass panic.
Saying theres a supernova in outerspace with "potential for harm" is one thing, but saying theres a heavenly body in our solar system ready to cause mass catastrophe would indeniably be covered up. That doesn't make it true but it does force one to go to their own end for truth in regards to that matter. Remember that when analyzing all evidence.

If someone can prove its CGi we can all just let it be. Until then we should try to "replicate" (thats replicate not debunk).

Debunking is a stupid term. Debunking is using the ideas of science to facilitate your agenda. Even if you dont debunk it you still believe that its not true. So if a person does something you dont replicate it by assuming it was a hoax, try replicating it in the means that the author used. THEN, if you can't try to form other conclusions. And if you do replicate it, then try to postulate what it might be.

You can try to replicate "lens glare" all day but that is not what the author did, and he proved it by showing the cloud in front of it.

reply to post by demonseed


The cloud does not prove it is not lens flare. Above you will see it explained (and demonstrated) that a cloud bank crossing the sun will be visible in the lens flare created by the sun but, due the the brightness levels, not visible on the sun itself.

Originally posted by Hellmutt
That video reminded me of a photo I took a few months ago. Same kind of effect.

Yep, and notice how the trees can be seen in front of the reflected sun but not in front of the real sun,due to the reduced glare of the reflection the trees can be seen .Exactly the same as the planet x video.

Originally posted by demonseed

3) "Why hasn't anybody else seen this!?!?!" How many people decided to take a picture of the sun? Let alone with the brightness turned down?

Actually, a lot of people do all the time. Unfortunately, I don't have an suitable pictures of my own from the date in question, but here's what the Sun looked like with a good quality camera - and no glare - on 22nd April 2009

www.ukweatherworld.co.uk...

Here is another video supposedly of planet X this time shot from an airliner.

We where flying from Washington to Buenos Aires Argentina on April 11, 2009 on United Airlines ,at 5:30 am before the breakfast was served , I began to film the sunrise, and guess what??? you decide for yourself about the object in the left side.The reflex are capture in the clouds we are flying at 7000 feet in a 747.

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by demonseed

3) "Why hasn't anybody else seen this!?!?!" How many people decided to take a picture of the sun? Let alone with the brightness turned down?

Actually, a lot of people do all the time. Unfortunately, I don't have an suitable pictures of my own from the date in question, but here's what the Sun looked like with a good quality camera - and no glare - on 22nd April 2009

www.ukweatherworld.co.uk...

nice advertisement of your website there.

reply to post by tarifa37

Now that would appear to be a sundog. Looks like 22º degrees away from the Sun to me.

reply to post by demonseed


It's a legitimate link to a series of images which conclusively refute the suggestion that the poor quality video in the OP shows 'Nibiru'. Unless it reactivated it's cloaking device? Interesting you didn't see fit to comment on the images themselves?