could this be niburu

reply to post by HolgerTheDane


If that is what you believe about negatives, then you didn't learn much about photography. I have already verified that lens flares do not show up on negatives via four college photography majors (not that I would need to) one of them is my cousin. They all said lens flares do not show up on negatives and that was the first four people that I asked. So you are out of luck on that one friend.

Solid objects only show up on negatives, and a lens flare is not solid.

Better go brush up on your photography my friend.

~ Zeus

[edit on 9-4-2010 by Zeus2573]

Instead of this back and forth about lens flares why doesn't one of you go out with a camera take some pictures with the express purpose of getting a lens flare, having the film developed and then scanning the negatives onto your computer and posting them on here? It's a simple experiment that anyone can do and would save everyone having to read the same arguments being thrown back and forth.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


That has already happened. I posted a link to the thread with the negatives and with the lens flares in question earlier. Besides, as I have said, I already know the answer. I no longer need verification from anyone.

So, if you would really like to see all of the back and forth about lens flares to ceast, I would suggest that you quit bringings it up.

It's a dead issue with me. So, don't bother wasting your time everyone.

Besides, this is a "Nibiru" thread, not a "lens flare" thread.

~ Zeus



[edit on 9-4-2010 by Zeus2573]

Originally posted by Zeus2573
reply to post by Xcalibur254

 

That has already happened. I posted a link to the thread with the negatives and with the lens flares in question earlier. Besides, as I have said, I already know the answer. I no longer need verification from anyone.

So, if you would really like to see all of the back and forth about lens flares to ceast, I would suggest that you quit bringings it up.

It's a dead issue with me.

So, don't bother wasting your time everyone.

Besides, this is a "Nibiru" thread, not a "lens flare" thread.

~ Zeus



[edit on 9-4-2010 by Zeus2573]

So because four people told you otherwise, you dismiss any chance of them and you being wrong?
And I think you'll find pictures of nibiru threads end up being lens flare threads for a reason

[edit on 9-4-2010 by hippomchippo]

Originally posted by Zeus2573
reply to post by hippomchippo

 

Yes. You got it.
Second line.

~ Zeus

No wonder you believe in nibiru then...
I love how you say I know it all, when you're trusting 4 people and not believing ANYTHING ANYONE else says, it's completely close minded.

[edit on 9-4-2010 by hippomchippo]

You claimed that only solid objects show up on film. So the sun dog photos did not show up on this thread? They aren't solid. Rainbows can be photographed and they are not solid.

Zeus you claim lens flares do not show up on negatives. That isn't so.

Confession will make you feel better. I think that you asked no one about lens flares. I think you had this idea that only solid objects showed up on film and you used the same technique you've used before for evidence - you made it up.

Whatever the eye sees the camera sees (although different). The negative and the print catch the same image.

I know some of the folks here will yell if you admit that you pulled the 4 friends gag. I seen it too many times to count. It's a good ploy. Putting Nibiru aside if you learn anything here I will feel great. I'll get a vicarious life out of this discussion.

You know what, confess to yourself that you pulled a quickie here and that you got caught and next time you know people will be watching and you won't try the friends ploy.

[edit on 9-4-2010 by stereologist]

reply to post by stereologist


stereo, i see you still sitting around the fire per sey! licking your chops as if your doing ats some justice? why are you still here? i mean serious man, keep killing that dead turtle shell your point is clear and made~! let it go, are you trying to say that know one is entitled to there opinion? havent seen this much action kicking turds in a while you and your friends are kicking a dead horse. my reason for kicking this off is there is too much information and too many google images allowing to many anomolies for something behind the sun to be just be a farse. why are you still on this thread ? is above and beyond me! are you some kind of agent! i mean only someone that is trying to keep the truth from coming about would put so much energy in this! checking on this thread a few times a day and i am set back with the energy you spend not saying much, but trying to make zeus out for a cook! not sure why ats has still allowed you to post on this as you haven't had a bit of sound advice for about 2 days now

reply to post by digby888


Maybe the only real candidate for Nibiru is the following link with image. Interesting about mention of the Vatican. Here's the link :
www.darkstar1.co.uk/nibiru09.html

mclinking

Looks like it could be an atmospheric reflection of the sun in the clouds. I wouldn't worry about it. I covered the sun with my hand in daylight with no clouds and seen no nibru, tried it several times. So if it was there as the you tube videos I seen say it were I don't see it. Nibru is an error, misinterpreted, or made up by Sitchin, it doesn't exist. If Nibru is supposedly the doom of 2012 then it should be visible in the sky just as you can see the moon in the daytime at certain times.

reply to post by Zeus2573


uneducated and illogical, sort your life out

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
Instead of this back and forth about lens flares why doesn't one of you go out with a camera take some pictures with the express purpose of getting a lens flare, having the film developed and then scanning the negatives onto your computer and posting them on here? It's a simple experiment that anyone can do and would save everyone having to read the same arguments being thrown back and forth.

We don't need this extra test.

Even a half-wit can figure out that anything showing on a positive picture (e.g. a paper picture) will have to have been on the negative.

So if you see a lens flare in your viewer when you take the picture it is also on the negative.

Or does the lens flare appear out of some quantum memory from the Nibiri 11th dimension?

I said bollocks before and I say bollocks again.

4 Photo Majors or not.

reply to post by hippomchippo


honestly if everyone was like Zeus we would get no where. We could just make statements and make people accept them without any logic/science/observation/probability used. It's useless rubbish and it needs to stop.

Originally posted by allprowolfy
reply to post by stereologist

 

stereo, i see you still sitting around the fire per sey! licking your chops as if your doing ats some justice? why are you still here? i mean serious man, keep killing that dead turtle shell your point is clear and made~! let it go, are you trying to say that know one is entitled to there opinion? havent seen this much action kicking turds in a while you and your friends are kicking a dead horse. my reason for kicking this off is there is too much information and too many google images allowing to many anomolies for something behind the sun to be just be a farse. why are you still on this thread ? is above and beyond me! are you some kind of agent! i mean only someone that is trying to keep the truth from coming about would put so much energy in this! checking on this thread a few times a day and i am set back with the energy you spend not saying much, but trying to make zeus out for a cook! not sure why ats has still allowed you to post on this as you haven't had a bit of sound advice for about 2 days now

I can't - of course - speak for Stereo, but I do know that this is a DISCUSSION FORUM and that many people use Google to search for information.

If some poor smuck only finds silly, pseudo-scientific arguments for a pipe-dream then said smuck (no need for names - you know who you are) only comes away with a notion of having found some astonishing truth.

HOWEVER.

By having some people actively trying to inject some kind of reason into the discussion the poor smuck at least gets the option to think for himself.

The truth about Niburu is simple enough:

It is a dream thought up for profit back when Dänicken was remotely interesting. A dream. Nothing more. But it sold copies.

The proof offered for said Niburu is also in the realms of dreams. Had there been an object as large as suggested by the videos and pictures offered as proof of Niburu then it would have been noticed by even medium standard amateur astronomers.
Copernicus and Gallileo would surely have mentioned it.

The usual cry about a government trying to cover up anything is surely ludicrous. Even an ardent Niburu fan-boy could get a telescope a find out the truth.

And then we have another usual argument for the cause: It is theoretically possible. Prove it isn't correct.

Niburyu fan-boys are wrong. Prove it isn't so.

And as in all these things the only response we get from the fan-boys are: Why don't you stay away if you don't believe in Niburu?

So if we are in opposition, in doubt, intelligent or just asking "why?" then we should stay away.

Well. I won't.

And the good thing is, that fan-boys on ATS might put us on an ignore-list, but the poor smuck from the Google search actually gets a cance to make up his own mind.

And THAT'S why I'm here and THAT'S why I turn up once in a while in different threads.

I can't - of course - speak for Stereo, but I do know that this is a DISCUSSION FORUM and that many people use Google to search for information.

If some poor smuck only finds silly, pseudo-scientific arguments for a pipe-dream then said smuck (no need for names - you know who you are) only comes away with a notion of having found some astonishing truth.

HOWEVER.

By having some people actively trying to inject some kind of reason into the discussion the poor smuck at least gets the option to think for himself.

The truth about Niburu is simple enough:

It is a dream thought up for profit back when Dänicken was remotely interesting. A dream. Nothing more. But it sold copies.

The proof offered for said Niburu is also in the realms of dreams. Had there been an object as large as suggested by the videos and pictures offered as proof of Niburu then it would have been noticed by even medium standard amateur astronomers.
Copernicus and Gallileo would surely have mentioned it.

The usual cry about a government trying to cover up anything is surely ludicrous. Even an ardent Niburu fan-boy could get a telescope a find out the truth.

And then we have another usual argument for the cause: It is theoretically possible. Prove it isn't correct.

Niburyu fan-boys are wrong. Prove it isn't so.

And as in all these things the only response we get from the fan-boys are: Why don't you stay away if you don't believe in Niburu?

So if we are in opposition, in doubt, intelligent or just asking "why?" then we should stay away.

Well. I won't.

And the good thing is, that fan-boys on ATS might put us on an ignore-list, but the poor smuck from the Google search actually gets a cance to make up his own mind.

And THAT'S why I'm here and THAT'S why I turn up once in a while in different threads.

Thankyou, its a refreshing change for someone to start speaking with reason and logic.

Is it right for someone to make an outrageous claim like Nibiru is real and is a spaceship without expecting people to ask how he came up with that idea? I don't think its unreasonable to question this theory, because it certainly isn't truth and cannot be backed up with observable data

[edit on 10//4/1010 by misteRee]

reply to post by allprowolfy


What's the matter allprowolfy? You seem to be unable to take the heat when shown to be wasting everyone's time with misidentified photos. You claim that there is too much information and too many image. With all this so-called info and visual evidence you want to shutdown the discussion?

I can hang out here and enter the discussion. I have pointed out scientific reasons that Nibiru cannot exist.

As for Zeus, well he's kind of a cool guy. He has some interesting ideas. He does try to post his point of view. He is learning something. I am getting a better idea on what people might be looking for in believing in Nibiru. Zeus may choose to alter his position or not. That is up to him.

Your position is that you want people to not visit a thread that posts claims that are often demonstrably false. I choose to point out false claims. Thanks for posting your position.

I'm honoured.

I'm number 3 on Zeus's ignore list.

This is a very adult and mature way of dealing with opposition.

Bury your head in the sand - put your fingers in your ears and sing LA LA LA LA LA



[edit on 10.4.2010 by HolgerTheDane]

reply to post by Damian-007


While we're dealing in absolutes. Why don't you show me absolute proof that jesus existed? Wtf is absolute proof? Would there even be a need for ATS if there was such proof for everything? I do not see what makes everyone else claims right and his wrong? Just because people came to a different translation? Sometimes, it takes one person saying one thing and everyone saying something else. I watched a video where they compaired Stitchin and the other version; and to be quite honest the guy trying to discredit Stitchin made much less sense then Stitchin...To anyone demanding absolute proof, look at your own ideas and imagine someone trying to demand absolute proof for what you think, you will find it quite disheartening.

Found another thread with what I would call some really, really good Nibiru pics taken right from someones own back yard. Which would mean they are very close to Earth.
Here is the thread here. The date of the thread is yesterday.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Many thanks to the author of that thread.

What's that there? Ah yes, its what appears to be two clearly visible spherical anomalies taken from someones own back yard! The one on the right is golden in color and the one on the left is red. Golden Nibiru? Perhap's orbiting its own dark star? What color have I been saying Nibiru is? And who can deny all the talk on a so called death star? (wormwood?) There was someone talking about a dark star on this thread way back.

The original photo is on page two. You can see my comments on page three if you are interested. Even the original debunkers early into the thread admit this photo is authentic. Not a hoax. Notice how I was the last one to comment on that particular thread.

More evidence, even in color this time. Who can deny this evidence?
This would also explain the drastic increase in meteor sightings. Something out there with an extreme gravitional influence must be causing these meteors to come close to Earth. That something is Nibiru. I have even heard that some have even hit. Don't count on the media to report on it because they haven't and they won't either.
Proof of the meteors you say? Here is just two of many.
Black helicopters flying around in this one just after impact.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Many thanks to the author of that thread.
And here.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Many thanks to the author of that thread.

There's you some PROOF misteRee! STICK THAT IN YOUR PIPE AND SMOKE IT!! Me give up? Christian's never give up. That is why we are hated so much by people like you. We alway's see things through. That is our job.

YOU LOSE!!

~ Zeus


[edit on 10-4-2010 by Zeus2573]