Second Sun on CBC

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fb07286a9d65.jpg[/atsimg]

This is a picture of the sun through a welding mask.
The person who took the picture says it has a second
body next to the sun.
I am keeping my opinion to myself and just sharing
this picture with you so you can come to your own
conclusions.

reply to post by Ventessa


I believe the second sun shows up durning the sunset not at sunrise, may i ask you a question at what time did the person took the photo with his welding mask?

reply to post by njl51


I totally agree with you on this. It really isn't a second Sun, it's something worth investigating, and investigating takes, time and money, which I am willing to spend reasonably.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


Look at the reflection on the water.

reply to post by bartholomeo


I can prove it for him! I was just outside, trying to decide if it's going to stay clear enough to start a grill and could see the sun through some clouds.....notice I said "sun", singular? That is because there is now only one sun. There has only been one sun anytime I've looked. I have SOHO livefeed as my screensaver, and there has only been one sun anytime I've spent sometime looking at the pictures. Anytime in my 49 years on the planet I have looked up, there is only one sun. Why don't you go outside now and look, perhaps in the way suggested so you don't burn your retinas. You will only see one sun. If you look every single day, you will only see one sun.
It's a %*#&ing camera lens artifact, possibly caused by a reflection off a lens filter. How do I know this? I"ve gotten the same type of picture while photographic clouds. There is no conspiracy to make you not see something that isn't there. There is no conspiracy to make you not see something that is impossible.

reply to post by stars15k


Did you join ATS just so you could make up that statement?

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


Which statement are you referring to?

And NO.

I joined to 'deny ignorance', like the theory that there is anything like a "second sun". Or "chemtrails".

These second sunners really should not be allowed to reproduce. I'm dead serious about that.

Originally posted by Ventessa
files.abovetopsecret.com...

This is a picture of the sun through a welding mask.
The person who took the picture says it has a second
body next to the sun.
I am keeping my opinion to myself and just sharing
this picture with you so you can come to your own
conclusions.

It's a flare from the filter itself. I can recreate the same effect when photographing the sun through a normal solar filter by tilting the filter and slightly over-exposing the sun:
i319.photobucket.com...
It's far from the sun in that picture but with experimentation you can move the flare's position wherever you want it. I slightly overexposed the sun in that picture; the example you gave has the sun even more drastically over-exposed, further enhancing the bright appearance of the flare. A proper exposure of the sun with the filter perfectly in line with the camera produces a normal picture of the sun:
i319.photobucket.com...

[edit on 8-7-2010 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by bartholomeo
reply to post by AgentSmith

 

Have you proven that this second sun is really an anomaly? no...

Are you asking him to prove that lens flare doesn't happen? That's the only way he can "prove" this particular image -- which he didn't take -- is not lens flare.

Otherwise, seeing that no other evidence of a "second sun" that large and that close to our sun has ever been found, then this almost definitely just lens flare or perhaps another optic phenomenon.

Like he said, proof of a second sun that big and that obvious would be easy to get if it was really there -- but nobody has done so yet. It only ever shows up in pictures that look exactly like lens flare.

its clear that many of the elite enjoy their high positions in life and notifying us commoners would threaten those positions.

in order to understand how the light from the sun would result in a second sun sighting, you need to understand how planet x is situated at this moment. planet x is surrounded by a giant dust cloud, and a second sun sighting results from the reflection of sunlight off the dust cloud, towards earth. thats why it looks exactly like the sun, but smaller.

there are many other examples of this, but here is one


not a lens flare clearly, the light is coming from behind the clouds, indicating another source of light.

for those that look to SOHO for their proof, NASA is paid by the elites to edit their photos to remove planet x. take a look at this gif for an example


check out this link for a pic in which planet x escaped their air brushing program: poleshift.ning.com...

so, for this skeptics, you can see there is clearly something amiss here. do not discount what you see before your eyes because of your own mental filters.

reply to post by shams


Anything of any size in any position that would produce the effect you "see" would be visible to ANYONE, at any time anywhere on the earth. It is not need to be covered up, it's not there.
The second image you link to, is still standard views of the sun with that particular part of the SOHO telescope. The large white spot is a planet, with bleeding into neighboring pixels from being "too bright" for the imager.
The third is the same.
You really need a telescope so you can go out and look for yourself. There are millions of people all over the world with telescopes, but amateurs and professionals, who would have seen something, if something was really there.
So your premise is that there is a great conspiracy silencing millions of people who would be able to blow the lid off this whole thing, to fool the few, like you. Not very expedient.
And here I always thought we weren't seeing anything because there was nothing there......

reply to post by ArMaP


you just became my hero.

reply to post by stars15k


it is because humans do not understand the nature of planetary motion that you would make such a statement. a second sun is not visible at all times because the mirror that is the dust cloud or moon swirls of planet x do not always pointed towards earth. remember, if you are listening to a loud concert then will you hear the relatively low intensity sounds coming from areas around the speakers? no. unless of course someone directs the sound directly in a laser-like fashion to your ears. its like the sun drowns out the light of planet x at most times. it will not remain elusive for much longer though.

in regards to the soho pic, are you not seeing the edit lines? yes there is a planet there but from one hour to the next the planet as jumped a bit and you see edit lines. its clearly not a genuine picture, and evidence of NASA's editing.

[edit on 8-7-2010 by shams]

[edit on 8-7-2010 by shams]

Originally posted by stars15k

Anything of any size in any position that would produce the effect you "see" would be visible to ANYONE, at any time anywhere on the earth.

Don't be silly! Nibiru isn't daft you know. It hides so that us ignorant non believers can't see it. It will only jump out from behind the Sun - very, very briefly - when a true believer is taking a photo. Indeed, it jumps out so quickly that you can never ever see it with the naked eye, but a fast enough camera, if the shutter is released at exactly the right time, can. Hence, Nibiru only ever appears in photos. I thought everyone knew that?

I'm not sure when this thread became a shouting match...but for cryin' out loud.

POSTERS:

Does anyone realize the overwhelmingly massive repercussions that would take place if there was anything remotely close to a 'Second Sun' in the sky?

There are amateur scientists and photographers worldwide that study the Sun on a daily basis.
If anyone of those people found something, it would make it on the news faster than the LeBron garbage spewed forth lately.

The 'elite' couldn't stop it.
The 'powers that be' would never be able to stop it.
They might have financial control of the world, but not communication as you would think.

There would be mass panic and chaos on a global scale.

Again, no 'second sun'...
...at least, not yet.

reply to post by shams


Right............
I see Essan is spot on. How silly of me to not see something that is hiding something that is not there. Apparently the cloud dissipates when viewed by common folk, and reforms for the special few who know it is really there?

Edited parts, no. These same regions are seen quite a lot on the realtime images.
You do know where the SOHO telescope is, right? It's orientation to the sun, as opposed to the the view of the sun from earth? It's important.

Originally posted by shams
not a lens flare clearly, the light is coming from behind the clouds, indicating another source of light.

Actually that was a common atmospheric effect of refraction partially obscured by clouds. Here are some more examples with simulated counterparts above them to show what would be expected for various atmospheric conditions:
cgg-journal.com...
The last picture on the bottom right would no doubt be mistaken for a "second sun" by people who believe such a thing exists.

for those that look to SOHO for their proof, NASA is paid by the elites to edit their photos to remove planet x. take a look at this gif for an example

That's a corrupted image where some of the data in the image has been overwritten by much earlier data. It's a problem that occurs in the processing of the raw images for web display. Since it occurs between the raw and processed versions, and because there isn't a conspiracy, the original raw file for that image does not show any such problem and reveals the "missing" data:
sharpp.nrl.navy.mil...

check out this link for a pic in which planet x escaped their air brushing program: poleshift.ning.com...

That's a classic high energy cosmic ray hit, not "planet x." You can find images like that dating back for years and years. If that were "planet x" and it had really been around that long we would have noticed its effects on the orbits of the other planets a long time ago.

so, for this skeptics, you can see there is clearly something amiss here.

Actually from what I see here there's nothing wrong.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by ngchunter]

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


Sorry but any lens pointed directly at the sun will create lens flare from the very cheapest to the most expensive it will happen.

I love the way everyone claims to know 'the truth'. Produce a photo and everyone knows what is is and that's the truth. I forgot that everyone here has access to all knowledge and are absolutely correct about everything. ATS is lol.