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.

 

Can someone confirm this re supposed proof

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   
www.youtube.com... here is the link I cant never get it to work

[yt]asfaAgVo6xU[/yt]

I can hijack and borrow a video but I cant link it right lol can a mod link that for me since I am illiterate
edit on 13-2-2011 by rushunt because: linkss...




posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Her new song is also an obvious rip off of Madonna's Express yourself and Vogue mixed into one. The Grammy performance was also an Express yourself rip off with the Madonna Blonde Ambition era pony tale and backup dancers. Her look for the Grammy performance is also an ObviouS rip off of Marlyn Manson's Dope Show music video.

and here I thought Lady Gaga was suppose to be original... Britney Spears may be manufactured, but at least she IS original.



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by loagun
 


Lady Gaga has always been a Madonna tribute act, add a little Pink and a twist of the other ten thousand blonde fruity loops 4 beat 8 bar autotune garbage and throw her onto every tv show possible, I also understand she had a friend who died who was doing the exact same act.

As for the video my ISP is absolute rubbish and I can't get most youtube videos to work, can someone please give some sort of a description of what is happening in the video, please tell me this has nothing to do with Lady Gaga because if it is I just wasted my time with a PR stunt.



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Here's the vid:



Haven't watched it yet so don't know what it's about. Just wanted to embed.



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by rushunt
 


Hey, thanks! I didn't make it that far.
Gonna watch the vid now.

Well, I watched it.

It's about Nibiru. Ya know, the odd thing is, I'm not exactly a believer in Nibiru, but I DO remember the planet they mentioned being discovered, back in 1982. I think I was 6 years old and in 1st grade. My mom got me up for school one morning and told me that a new planet had been discovered and that it was probably about the size of Jupiter. I remember she said that they thought it was probably made of gases. That's all I remember. Haven't heard about it again until now, although info is probably out there. I just haven't looked for it.
edit on 2/13/2011 by gemineye because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by JonoEnglish
 


I don't think there's a need to delete the thread. It actually links to an interesting video. It doesn't show actual proof of anything and it's mostly text, but it was an interesting read, and who knows... there could be truth to it. It's one of those things that kind of makes sense in theory, but leaves ya not knowing whether to believe it or not. It's worth a watch regardless.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by keepithush
 


lol at the 'PR stunt'



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   
It's just another pathetic video with the lie that a planet was discovered by IRAS. It's such a blatantly stupid claim. The scientists at the time said they had no idea what was in the IRAS data. They listed possibilities from a new planet to a distant galaxy. It turned out that these objects were all outside of the solar system and all but one was a new types of galaxy.

This blatant misrepresentation is so trite. How stupid do these hoaxers think people are? They should be embarrassed.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 11:59 PM
link   
I have never been particularly interested by the Planet X / Nibiru stories but according to this video we'll get a chance to see it this May, can't wait to see if there's anything to it.

I liked this photo:



I don't know what it is though.. maybe someone a little bit more educated on the subject could elaborate.

This is another interesting picture from another thread:



www.abovetopsecret.com...

Would you be stumped if you saw Planet X this May Stereologist? I would love to see your face if it came true.. just teasing!



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by TheLaughingGod
 


These are photos with lens flares. That just means that the spots of light are reflections internal to the optic system. Better cameras are made with baffles to prevent these unwanted glares in the images. Bad cameras such as cell phone cameras and point and shoots have no baffles or limited baffles. You can get these lens flares from reflections of the sun as well making "Nibiru" appear in a lake or off of a car windshield.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   
.



edit on 15-2-2011 by leaualorin because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 08:05 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Lens flares are common. They are often seen in movies as the camera pans across a scene. They can add artistic qualities to a movie or photo. They can enhance a sunset shot.

Take a look at the photo of the people at the ruin. There is a lens flare over one of the columns. I don't suppose anyone wants to claim that Nibiru is inside of a stone column.

Lens flares in better cameras often show the shape of the iris - often a hexagon. Cheapo cameras such as those in a cellphone have a fixed iris that is round hence the lens flares are round.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   
I dont know if I beleive or not, however I do wonder if the real reason for stonehenge would be realized if it were tru?



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


No they're not, it's pretty obvious too, I know what camera lens flares look like.

If you actually read that thread you would know that the person that took that photo saw it independent of the camera, and that people actually stopped on the road to look at it.. but you'll just tell yourself that's a lie to reassure yourself, so what's the point?

Why don't you prove that they're camera flares..? Usually there'll be a series of lens flares that follow a pattern.

This doesn't look like a lens flare on any level, also, they aren't opaque or vague in the same way that lens flares usually are.
And, just to reiterate, he didn't just take a picture at the sky, he was trying to capture the object.



Where is Phage? 12 months ago I would have expected far more thorough attempts at debunking, there's too little effort.

I don't necessarily believe this is Planet X myself but I'm definately intrigued, I guess we'll see in a few months, if it isn't visible by then I will probably throw this idea into the garbage department of my brain.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by TheLaughingGod
 


This latest image is an altered image. I can do that in software quite easily.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by TheLaughingGod
 



If you actually read that thread you would know that the person that took that photo saw it independent of the camera, and that people actually stopped on the road to look at it.. but you'll just tell yourself that's a lie to reassure yourself, so what's the point?

It's rather pointless to claim my point of view. The thread discussed multiple images. Some of those were lens flares. The recent photos you showed were lens flares.

You are already labeled these spots as objects. They are not objects. These are atmospheric phenomena or artifacts of the imaging process. So what.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


No, according to the person that took the picture it was a real object in the sky, he and other people on the road saw it.. so how can you claim they're lens flares?

Your only way out of this is to claim that he's lying, and maybe that's true. But I have no reason to doubt him, personally I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for the time being.

But don't tell me you KNOW they're lens flares, that's a blatant lie, quite conceited and intellectually dishonest, especially coming from a scientist.

Anyway, I think we're getting a little bit off topic discussing a picture from another thread, but I guess that's up to the OP or the mods to decide.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by TheLaughingGod
 


It's a red dot in the sky next to the moon and you think this is meaningful?


But don't tell me you KNOW they're lens flares, that's a blatant lie, quite conceited and intellectually dishonest, especially coming from a scientist.

Wow. That's a bratty, childish vituperation


Let's take the information given and see what was in the sky at that time. It's interesting because I check Stellarium and guess what was next to the Moon? It was Betelguese.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join