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.

 

Something flew through the top of the Sun ***Vid***

page: 3
63
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by spookfish
Darn it Phage! I wanted to beat you to this post, you can't come to our rescue all the time it just ain't fair on us apprentice Phages.


Yeah, me too. Same sentiment! Why did I get here so late? I had a dental appointment or I would have made that post. The universe only lets Phage be Phage and noone else. Nature will always foil your Phage-ing attempts because it abhors multiple Phages living at the same time. He was chosen to be The One Phage at this time at the dawn of time.




posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by downtown436
 


It was the Ancient Starship Destiny from Stargate Universe.
Anybody see any episodes yet?
It looks pretty good to me.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 

"Whatever remains" can often cover a lot of territory, especially if you start playing fast and loose with your definition of impossible. This case for example. Some people will complain that just because this "object" would be having to exceeding the speed of light in order to actually be near the Sun it's no reason to exclude the possibility. But even if it is possible to travel that fast the fact that our physics say it is not, and the fact that we have never observed anything doing it, would tend to put that option pretty near the bottom of the list.

I don't think "whatever remains" can be used. Why does it have to be? I have no problem with things being unexplained. It doesn't have to mean they are unexplainable, just that there isn't enough data to come to a firm conclusion. The argument that "it's impossible for any human technology (or natural phenomenon) to behave that way so it must be ET" just doesn't hold water.


[edit on 12/3/2009 by Phage]



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   
"Skipping off the Sun" seems to be a bit of a misnomer...

If you put a straight-edge against the video as a guide, you can see that the object traveled in a straight line the whole time...it did not "skip off".

I think it was either an object relatively close to the camera/Earth, or it was an optical effect.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
This looks impressive, but think about it. Something that massive moving that fast skimming across something else massive, and the other object just goes flyin straight by like it was nothing. Space doesn't usually work like that, but this find is definitely still making me scratch my head for what it could be to disprove it....



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by downtown436
 



Great vid!!!



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Agreed ... the reason I ask it's because in my observation that seems to be the predominant approach by those who wish to believe rather than know, if that makes sense.

I never really understood (nor acknowledged) the "believer/skeptic" divide ... seems to me, the more you wish something to be real the more "skeptical" you should be, faith has nothing to do with it really. Or at least it shouldn't.

But that's for another thread.


[edit on 3 Dec 2009 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by downtown436
 


It was the Ancient Starship Destiny from Stargate Universe.
Anybody see any episodes yet?
It looks pretty good to me.


3rd time its been mentioned so far.


I'm just saying...



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a camera anomaly.

obviously that thing must have been god knows how many (millions?) of miles in length if that was some sort of spacecraft or comet, and not to mention the speed of it is way too fast. I don't think any material in the universe material could withstand such extreme heat.

Must just be a camera error, or the video camera caught a reflection.


[edit on 3-12-2009 by fordrew]



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


I'm just visiting from a neighbouring brane, didn't think it would be a problem or cause a paradox, apologies if I've upset the natural balance. Before I return does anyone know where I can find a chap by the name of John Titor, he's a wanted man where I come from. Now where did I put my 5100?


back on topic- there was nothing to see here in 2007, so please move along before anyone else makes a destiny reference without reading the posts first.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   
"is it a bird!?"

Yes.

"Is it a plane!?"

No, it's a bird, I just tol...

"No! It's a spacecraft!!"

Now you're just being ridiculous!!


Do people not know what the sun actually is?? Do they think it's a big, orange rubber ball, just outside the ionosphere?



[edit on 3-12-2009 by triplesod]



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   
The sun isn't solid, why does the object change directions? What causes the "skip" and not get burnt up?



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
I just want to say thank you to Phage for figuring this one out.

You basically did everything I was thinking about doing, except I didn't have to look anything up or do any work


This poster deserves some applause points or something.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Is it a lens/optics artifact?





posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by downtown436
 
Not really, the other thread doesn't seem to have a conclusion. The last link posted by schrodingers dog is also already on ATS back a bit by Johhnyanon and is not a direct comparison.



[edit on 3-12-2009 by smurfy]



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   
The object approaches from the right then skirts over the sun and seems to alter its trajectory in a direction behind the sun from our vantage point. If that was a "natural" object approaching the sun or a solar body, one would expect its trajectory to go in a linear motion with respect to its trajectory. Its almost as if it hit the sun, and then bounced off its surface and that resulted in it receding in a direction that, to me, would require more energy than its kinetic force.

The only other thing I would consider is the circular motion of sun itself is going so fast that it caused the object to move in a different direction after striking the sun----much like the concept of putting a spin on a baseball.

Still....a very mysterious video....



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Why does ATS allow such moronic posts?



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeeingBlue
The sun isn't solid, why does the object change directions? What causes the "skip" and not get burnt up?


As I said in an earlier post, I don't think it DID change directions. If you hold a straight-edge to the screen as a guide, you can see that the "object" moved in a straight line. The fact that it "looked" as of it changed directions is probably an optical illusion.

I think it's either an optics/lens artifact or something that was really there, but close to the camera (or both).

[edit on 12/3/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   
It was me. My bad y'all didn't mean to spook you! Hahaha
For real though, I'm leaning towards an optical effect myself. Meteors are usually made of ice and other rubbish so that seems unlikely. A bug flying across the lens is far fetched, itd look huge with a zoom like that. UFO is a good maybe. But most probable is the optical effect, n the back n forth is a rewind since someone askd bout that. Sumone on this site should record the sun for a few days just to see what happens then post anything cool.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
The argument that "it's impossible for any human technology (or natural phenomenon) to behave that way so it must be ET" just doesn't hold water.


It's called argument from incredulity:
1. I can't imagine a technology or natural phenomenon by which X may happen.
2. Therefore X happening is E.T., supernatural, etc.

There is also argument from ignorance (common in theist-athiest warfare):
1. Noone has proven X to be false.
2. Therefore X is true.

While the conclusion is logically consistent with X being false, it is still a fallacy:
1. Noone has proven X to be false.
2. Therefore X is false.


[edit on 12/3/2009 by EnlightenUp]



new topics

top topics



 
63
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join