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.

 

Is this planet x? (no, it's Mars)

page: 12
48
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 05:49 AM
link   
reply to post by demonseed
 


A star that is one magnitude number lower than another star is about two-and-a-half times brighter. A magnitude 3 star is 2.5 times brighter than a magnitude 4 star. A magnitude 4 star is 2.5 times brighter than a magnitude 5 star.This is visible light, not IR light.

IR is not really visible light it is the part of the invisible spectrum that is contiguous to the red end of the visible spectrum. So with that scope it is measuring the heat given off an object... I think.

Now your going to say the star must give off more heat than the planet and your correct. But the stars are 100's of light years away whereas the planet is way closer. I'm thinking that mars is reflecting heat from the sun and that is why it appears so much bigger in IR than visibly. I could be wrong I do not know that much about IR but that is my guess.




posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by demonseed
 

I used Stellarium for the magnitude of Mars, I will accept that it was off.
All stars are not equal. Regulus is a fairly bright star, there are only 21 brighter stars.

As I pointed out, the stars near Mars in the video are magnitude 5 or greater. They are dim stars. Dimmer than Mars. The stars of Orion's belt are of similar magnitude but slightly dimmer than Mars. That can be seen in the second video.
Mars is a planet. With a small amount of magnification, a planet appears larger than a star (which will always appear as a point of light).

It...is...Mars.

[edit on 4/7/2010 by Phage]


Watch the video in the first post again.He pans out and you can see that there isnt a single object in the sky as bright as that one. He even skims by what appears to be jupiter, and it is at least half the magnitude, if not less, than the object he spotted.

im going to bed now. Hopefully we can put this all to rest with the next video.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 05:54 AM
link   
Can we not give this guy the benifit of doubt that he knows what he's talking about? he's spent a couple of grand on equiptment, this shows that he's at the very least interested enough to spend alot of money on stuff to further his knowlege. (which is more than most do) He also said that he was with 4 other astronomers, now if he's not telling porkies, isn't it a bit off to brand him as a liar, or a fool?
(which is what's happeneing with the egos in here)



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by SecretUsername
reply to post by demonseed
 


A star that is one magnitude number lower than another star is about two-and-a-half times brighter. A magnitude 3 star is 2.5 times brighter than a magnitude 4 star. A magnitude 4 star is 2.5 times brighter than a magnitude 5 star.This is visible light, not IR light.

IR is not really visible light it is the part of the invisible spectrum that is contiguous to the red end of the visible spectrum. So with that scope it is measuring the heat given off an object... I think.

Now your going to say the star must give off more heat than the planet and your correct. But the stars are 100's of light years away whereas the planet is way closer. I'm thinking that mars is reflecting heat from the sun and that is why it appears so much bigger in IR than visibly. I could be wrong I do not know that much about IR but that is my guess.


Mars "reflects" light.
Sunlight has a mild effect in the IR spectrum. A star will give off a higher IR signature than any planet ever could.

Remember, light is visible. IR is not. Mars doesnt reflect IR, it reflects light. (well, it does reflect IR, but not enough to inflate the IR signature like so in the video. It is very minimal.

So you can either believe phage that this guy is using "night vision(very minimal IR) to film a gigantic Mars.

Or you can believe the author that hes filming some kind of body giving off a big IR signature.








[edit on 7-4-2010 by demonseed]

[edit on 7-4-2010 by demonseed]



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 06:12 AM
link   
reply to post by demonseed
 


I don't know much about IR like I said. If Mars can reflect back visible light from the sun I do not see why it cannot reflect back IR as well.
The sun gives off more IR light to visible light. Taken from Wiki "Bright sunlight provides an irradiance of just over 1 kilowatt per square meter at sea level. Of this energy, 527 watts is infrared radiation, 445 watts is visible light, and 32 watts is ultraviolet radiation." Meh, I don't know.. I wish I had a IR camera now to test this out. I'm putting one on my to buy list for sure!

Right now I am pretty sure it is mars, from my own research. The picture Phage has posted is exactly what I got when I did the same thing on 2 different applications. I went outside and looked for this object myself and did not see it. So unless he comes back with something I cannot disprove myself I cannot trust what he is saying.

I, like always, will keep an open mind. But so far I have serious doubts.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 07:31 AM
link   
I agree with:

PennyQ
Phage
segurelha

It IS Mars next to HIP 40293.

I matched up the stars myself.



I think the person who uploaded the video is highly mistaken.

From the words he has spoken (about dis-info agents) it is also quite obvious he might not be thinking straight.

I think the admins made a good choice moving this to the HOAX forum.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim2AttainMindfulness
 


Ya since the blackout spot is no where near the edge of orions belt I thought that immeidately. Tell people to look at this really cool... planet. And then just give a blank spot from google sky and let the childs play begin. Ya was my first thought he was hoaxing.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by captiva
 


Ya I came up with that because he said the coordinates were near orion but in all actuallity they're no where near there. So the blank spot would.. clearly in my eyes, be an easy way to get people to pay attention to his childish claim.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


Thank you ALLis0NE.

I was going to also undertake yet another match-up with Stellarium, but you have beaten me to it.

Careful though, for bringing the truth here and displaying your pictures, you'll get called a dis-info agent and a hoaxer, just as others have been. It's quite sad really, especially when individuals refer to GLP for anything.

I myself applaud you! More proof that this whole thing is totally insane and shouldn't have gone beyond page 3.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


OK, now that's a little better, as it shows a bit more. Could you do the same thing for the later videos? I'm still a little skeptical about the "orbiting thingy" I'd like to see if the stellarium thing matches up with the later vid. THEN, I might be happy to conclude that it could be Mars. (sorry to sound lazy, but I'm, at work at the moment and can't play about, just post in passing) Thanking yous



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by captiva
 


Ya I came up with that because he said the coordinates were near orion but in all actuallity they're no where near there. So the blank spot would.. clearly in my eyes, be an easy way to get people to pay attention to his childish claim.
then why not give the co-oredinates to the blanked out bit? If you was going to haox something, then that'd be the easiest way to do so.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Acidtastic
 


See that's the thing, he did.

The coordinates actually take you to the dark patch, when in actuality the dark patch isn't near Orion at all.

He also said to view near Orion, contradicting said coordinates.

Oh never mind it seems this is in the HOAX forum finally and I'm a little late!



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Obscure Perception
reply to post by Acidtastic
 


See that's the thing, he did.

The coordinates actually take you to the dark patch, when in actuality the dark patch isn't near Orion at all.

Fair enough, i don't have the software installed to check it, so I just waited for others to do so. (lazy? Me? yep!) But AllIsOne has so far, presentedthe best indication that it's mars. I'm still going to wait tuntil the next installment which will hopefully show that it's not Mars (or show that it is) until my mind is made up.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Ok, looks like it might be mars.

LOL!



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Obscure Perception
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


Thank you ALLis0NE.

I was going to also undertake yet another match-up with Stellarium, but you have beaten me to it.

Careful though, for bringing the truth here and displaying your pictures, you'll get called a dis-info agent and a hoaxer, just as others have been. It's quite sad really, especially when individuals refer to GLP for anything.

I myself applaud you! More proof that this whole thing is totally insane and shouldn't have gone beyond page 3.


You beat me to it as well. I downloaded Stellarium and stayed up half the night taking screen shots of the video and making a mosaic and matching it up with Stellarium images only to find it was Mars after all. In spite of my duplicate effort, I now have Stellarium. So it all evens out.... I guess. Tired.

[edit on 4/7/2010 by this_is_who_we_are]



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Acidtastic
 


I'm not sure what you mean. I said the OP posted bad coordinates and then claimed they were to the upper right of Orion's Belt. I then said that was an easy way to tell he wanted attention by claiming one thing then stating the location was a blank spot on google sky no where near Orion. So what was your question again?



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I was going to get my scope out and have a look to see but the clouds have not enabled it... however, I needn't as you have nailed it on the head.

I have to agree - mars.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by Acidtastic
 


I'm not sure what you mean. I said the OP posted bad coordinates and then claimed they were to the upper right of Orion's Belt. I then said that was an easy way to tell he wanted attention by claiming one thing then stating the location was a blank spot on google sky no where near Orion. So what was your question again?
Sorry, I got the wrong end of the stick. (as per) But the OP was only quoting the youtube guy (who's now joined up) just to clarify


I thought you were saying that he had posted the co-ordinates to one thing, and shown another, or something. I dunno, it was after lunch, not my best time to think



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Mars man. Cool.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Various sources both ancient & worldwide mention the return of passing planets, great gods etc that give our system a nasty spin and cause some unpleasant side effects. There is indeed a bit of 'gap' in the earths crust in the pacific basin that isnt easily explained away by modern science.

Neither are the findings of large collections of mismatched animal parts and fossils or other 'ooparts', unless we 'consider' massive geologic disruption?

On top of which there are also plenty of primitive culture legends and tales of the 'day that the stars fell from the sky' or other descriptions of the sky acting out of character. May as well bring in anomolous examples of hominid existance where modern science strongly states this cant be so...

How about ancient legends who describe astronomical events, data for which they could never have access to? In fact modern science tends to shoot down almost anything that it disgrees with, despite strong evidence in the case's favour.

Compound this with evidence of new planets they themselves have found, but deny that we could be talking about the same thing at all costs!

UK members will be familiar with the TV show 'Catchphrase' where parts of a pic are removed bit by bit until the whole is revealed, from that POV the whole 'Nibiru' affair takes on a new light for me at least. Im not saying one thing or another, Im simply saying that a subject may be 'plausible'...thats all!

Dodgy Moon Landings.....could be plausible!
JFK's assasination theory could be plausible!
9-11 Theories could be plausible!

This certainly doesnt mean that the opposing case is less plausible, merely that reasoned debate is always going to be more productive than juvenile verbal abuse.

So....Nibiru!
There are glaring holes in strategic locations of public domain astrology apps.
There do seem to be previous instances of events such as those predicted in the past on this planet.
Science does indeed seem to feel there is another force in our system that is unexplained, but is having an effect to some degree on the planet.

First ever post so be gentle....



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join