The Elenin/Nibiru conspiracy? Connecting the dots.

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Elenin - Nibiru - Earthquakes - Volcanos

May 30, 2011


www.youtube.com...#!

a very enlightning discussion,,

pbs special,,
or something,,

edit on 2-9-2011 by BobAthome because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-9-2011 by BobAthome because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by NeoVain
 

I didn´t start this thread to discuss some other persons theory of magnetism, lets try to stay on track please. What is interesting about that document is not his theory of gravity, since we both know no one can explain gravity anyway, arguing about that amounts to nothing and distracts from the topic at hand. What is interesting is where he got all those other facts from. For example, lets look at and discuss the pioneer anomaly or the saturn tilt. These are both claimed to be results of influence by nibiru. Can we find other reasonable explanations?

Your arguments are moot simply because the whole basis of his paper is on the magnetic effects of Nibiru is flawed. You cannot take the determinations or findings of a flawed theory and use them as proof of theory. Bad theory, leads to bad data which leads to a bad claim(s). Fundamentally, there is nothing that can be debated with this document (or it's findings) simply because it is wrong. It has been proven to be wrong.

Now that I have said that to clarify my position.

Here is a previous discussion concerning Nibiru, Elenin, CW Leonis and Magnetic Theory.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

-saige-



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by NeoVain
 

Well at least this first part clearly shows which side of the fence you are standing on. What you cannot deny however, is that this "ELE-tard" clearly have done his/her/their research, and know ALOT about both astronomy/math/space history and science. Alot more than the average joe, wouldn´t you say? And if so, why use this knowledge and skills to try to subvert the select few that actually bothers to read that entire document, into believing something that is a hoax? what would the point be exactly? There is clearly no monetary incentive, not even any personal recognition to be had since he seem pretty anonymous.

Why?

This "Why" would certainly be easier to answer if the entire document was NOT false, or even at least only parts of it, but was done by one of the "insiders" and later leaked in some way.

As for the rest of your info, i thank you for some further info into some of the matters, got sources as well? I wouldn´t say any of the info you supplied debunked anything though, but rather clarified some claims (if true). How about the saturn tilt and the pioneer anomaly, the venus scarring/push, etc. There are alot of sources for his claims in that document.

I personally cannot speak to the Pioneer Anomaly. I have done some reading on it, and as of yet, it remains unexplained. There are many theories for the slow-down. Cosmic Dust, Radiation, Time Acceleration (new physics linked to expanding universe theory). Magnetism could very well be a cause (leaves no explanation why the Voyager crafts [which used a very similar mission profile] were not affected as well.)

Pioneer Anomoly

Saturn's tilt. This is an interesting one but easily duplicated. When a telescope takes an image it is usually inverted simply because of the optics inside the telescope.

Saturns Tilt

The Venus scarring/push? Maybe I missed that part, but I did see where he linked to a video of someone using SOHO to show an explosion on Venus. This, again, is repeatable (although you may get an intensity of a greater or lesser degree). You can review hours and hours of SOHO logs for all of the planets and see the same anomoly's. This is what is known as a lens flare. This specific type of lens flare is a diffraction artifact.


Diffraction artifact in digital cameras

One form of flare is specific to digital cameras. With the sun shining on an unprotected lens, a group of small rainbows appears. This artifact is formed by internal diffraction on the image sensor, which acts like a diffraction grating. Unlike true lens flare, this artifact is not visible in the eyepiece of a digital SLR camera, making it more difficult to avoid.


Len's Flare

-saige-



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 


The Pioneer anomaly is most likely explained by thermal radiation pressure inherent in the probes. Evidence has been pointing in this direction for years and with Turyshev's upcoming paper in Physical Review Letters it seems pretty much a sure thing that this is the cause. As for the Saturn tilt, that was just bad astronomy. You can check ATS regarding this topic, but the people who claimed it don't even seem to know how a telescope works. For more information on this crock of a paper I suggest reading this thread.

Saturn rocking back and forth?? What if CW Leonis were really Nibiru? Link inside.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   
I think the evidence from NASA / JPL originally being headed up by Jack Parsons and OTO priest who performed rituals with L Ron Hubbard (Scientology founder) points towards fake invasion.

I made a thread about it and connecting the major UFO sightings to the 33rd parallel (numerology significance for sure)

I don't think being prepared with food and water rations for a few weeks is wrong at all. In fact the world would be a better place if everyone could do this but I digress.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   


Your arguments are moot simply because the whole basis of his paper is on the magnetic effects of Nibiru is flawed. You cannot take the determinations or findings of a flawed theory and use them as proof of theory. Bad theory, leads to bad data which leads to a bad claim(s). Fundamentally, there is nothing that can be debated with this document (or it's findings) simply because it is wrong. It has been proven to be wrong.

I am sorry but i think you misunderstand. Very little in that document hinges on his theory of magnetism being gravity being valid, if anything at all. It only serves to explain why, if the current theory of gravity where valid, some of the repercussions of this cannot be observed. Since neither theory can be proven, this means, in short, that if, for example a major earthquake where to happen on the 26-27th of sept (this month), his theory is more likely to be valid. And thus for your claim to his document having been proven wrong, i cannot agree, at all. Unless you have further proof (which i hope is of better quality) i would rather say that alot of grasping at straws have been done, trying to debunk it, but for the intelligent observer, all of these attempts have so far been unsuccessful.


Now that I have said that to clarify my position.

Here is a previous discussion concerning Nibiru, Elenin, CW Leonis and Magnetic Theory.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

-saige-


Thank you for you continued support in trying to lay the pieces of this puzzle.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by NeoVain
 

I am sorry but i think you misunderstand. Very little in that document hinges on his theory of magnetism being gravity being valid, if anything at all. It only serves to explain why, if the current theory of gravity where valid, some of the repercussions of this cannot be observed. Since neither theory can be proven, this means, in short, that if, for example a major earthquake where to happen on the 26-27th of sept (this month), his theory is more likely to be valid. And thus for your claim to his document having been proven wrong, i cannot agree, at all. Unless you have further proof (which i hope is of better quality) i would rather say that alot of grasping at straws have been done, trying to debunk it, but for the intelligent observer, all of these attempts have so far been unsuccessful.


Very little hinges on the authors theory. Really. Well lets see, and I quote:

From the foreward -


What is known as gravity is actually magnetism, by which heavenly bodies out in space attract and repel each other and establish complex magnetic relationships.


From the third page -


Outer magnetic field: 2,442,371,253 km or 16.326 AU in diameter; and 7,672,935,586 km in circumference

Inner magnetic field: 27,452,490 km or 0.184 AU in diameter; and 86,244,541 km in circumference

Core magnetic field: 9,799,461 km or 0.066 AU in diameter; and 30,785,915 km in circumference

Magnetic field strength: 208.15G or 20,815 uT


From the fourth page -


Therefore Nibiru's entire magnetic field spans a diameter of 2,442,371,253 km or 16.326 AU, which is almost as far as the New Horizon probe is from the Sun. Therefore the radius of the magnetic field is 16.326 / 2 = 8.163 AU or 1,221,185,627 km, which is close to the distance between the Sun and Saturn (9-10 AU).


From the fifth page -


This is why on 28 May 2011 the inner black magnetic shell appeared to have a diameter of 21,740 arcseconds (as measured from Elenin at the 8 o'clock position and Regulus at the 2 o'clock position), which is 10.89 times its original apparent width of about 2,000 arcseconds


From the sixth page -


His description of the object and its magnetic field perfectly matches both the thing glimpsed by Dr Glen and the object we're analysing here.


From the seventh page -


We see that Nibiru's black magnetic shell represents a protective region with such dense magnetism that it permits no light, visible or invisible, to pass through it, except for the intense radiation from the core.


From the eigth page (magnetic field causes tilt of Saturn) -


As for the outer magnetic field, it is now close enough for the left edge of it (from Earth's POV) to completely overtake Saturn. It reached the planet on about 1 December 2010, causing super-massive storms to rage across its atmosphere and forcing the solar system's second largest planet to tilt away from normal by almost 90!


From the tenth page (magnetic field causes tilt of Saturn) -


The formidable magnetism of Nibiru has indeed tilted Saturn, the second largest planet in our solar system, by up to 90 away from its natural inclination.


Let's skip ahead a little bit past Saturn. The author has established his belief that Magnetism is to blame for the tilt of Saturn.

From the thirteenth page (magnetic field causes Pioneer Anomaly) -


Left: Pioneer 10's trajectory from Saturn orbit to Uranus orbit and the point when it encountered a mysterious force - dubbed the Pioneer anomaly by baffled Nasa scientists - that gently pushed against it in the opposite direction back towards the Sun and effectively decelerating its forward momentum. Pioneer was travelling towards the right of Nibiru at this point when the massive object was 66.8 (58.8 + 8) AU from the Sun. This tells us two things: (1) that Nibiru's outer magnetic force (drawn as a dark red circle in the image above) is so strong it can affect objects 46.8 AU from Nibiru (Pioneer's approx distance from it at the time), way beyond the central and certainly much stronger magnetic field (the purple circle) that we've calculated spans about 16 AU with a reach or radius of only 8 AU; and (2) that Nibiru's magnetism rotates in a clockwise fashion, because that is the only way it could push Pioneer back when the deep space probe was flying to the right of it. If it rotated anticlockwise and the Pioneer 10 was travelling in the same direction it would push the probe slightly forward and to the right of its trajectory - so the effect would have been the opposite as the probe would seen to be slightly accelerating, not decelerating, in its drift.


(Continued in next post)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by NeoVain
 

I am sorry but i think you misunderstand. Very little in that document hinges on his theory of magnetism being gravity being valid, if anything at all. It only serves to explain why, if the current theory of gravity where valid, some of the repercussions of this cannot be observed. Since neither theory can be proven, this means, in short, that if, for example a major earthquake where to happen on the 26-27th of sept (this month), his theory is more likely to be valid. And thus for your claim to his document having been proven wrong, i cannot agree, at all. Unless you have further proof (which i hope is of better quality) i would rather say that alot of grasping at straws have been done, trying to debunk it, but for the intelligent observer, all of these attempts have so far been unsuccessful.

From the fourteenth page (magnetic field causes Pioneer Anomaly) -


It is interesting that the Pioneer case reveals that Nibiru has a much larger magnetic field or magnetic affect than the one that extends 8 AU from its centre.


From the fifteenth page (supporting the magnetic field theory by rotation to push objects like Pioneer 10) -


This is the same thing we are seeing with Nibiru, except instead of largely a play of water and wind we have here a turbulent circulation of immense electromagnetism and intense radiation with proportions only measurable on an astronomical scale.


Skipping ahead past the magnetic rotation push theory with regards to objects.

From the eighteenth page -


Since Nibiru is 41.3 times magnetically stronger than Jupiter then its detectable magnetic strength should be 208.15G or 20,815 uT. This also gives Nibiru about 1000 times Saturn's magnetic strength (24 x 41.3 = 991.2) - no wonder it could tilt the ringed planet so easily over the past seven months since December 2010 when its massive magnetic field overtook it.


From the nineteenth page (Nibirus magnetic field flips the Earth) -


Calculating the mean of the two extremely disparate perigees yields a distance very close to our distance of magnetic equality: 34706736 + 59839 / 2 = 17,383,288 km, which is only 1.4 times or 7,591,336 km closer than the distance of magnetic equality. At this mean distance of approx 17 million km, Nibiru should achieve about 1.44 times or 144% of the Sun's magnetic influence, with the power to completely flip the Earth through 518.4.


So far, every single page I have read involves the author's idea that magnetism is the force causing observable anomolies. I have presented evidence and sources to back up my evidence that support the evidence I presented.

All you have done to refute my claims is simply say they were off topic or that I am wrong without presenting testable and verifiable evidence to backup your claims. You come back with let's see if we can find data to support or refute the authors claims in this document but you do not present anything that either refutes or backs up the claims of the author. You're looking at me (or someone else on this board) to present you with evidence that refutes the authors claims but are not willing to do even the most simple investigation on your own and present it for others to validate or invalidate.

And I'm the one grasping at straws?

Oh, by the way, let's see what is on the last page of this document.

From the fifty-sixth page -


The weaker and larger part of Nibiru's magnetic field (the outer 'rainbands', indicated by the red circle), however, should continue to affect us for many years to come just as it did in the years and decades leading up to 2012.


The remainder of the document is images (appears to be a mixture of artist renditions and photograhs of statues/tablets). There is also a page dedicated to a simulation. And then the addendum. This has quotes from various bibles and excerpts from newspapers.

In the remainder of the document (the authors forward, summary, thesis and timeline), magnetism is the cause for the events.

Now, if you are saying could there be another cause for these events. Fine. Re-read the posts that have been presented by myself and others. You will see that other causes for the events in this authors document have been revealed.

-saige-



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by saige45

Originally posted by NeoVain
 

I am sorry but i think you misunderstand. Very little in that document hinges on his theory of magnetism being gravity being valid, if anything at all. It only serves to explain why, if the current theory of gravity where valid, some of the repercussions of this cannot be observed. Since neither theory can be proven, this means, in short, that if, for example a major earthquake where to happen on the 26-27th of sept (this month), his theory is more likely to be valid. And thus for your claim to his document having been proven wrong, i cannot agree, at all. Unless you have further proof (which i hope is of better quality) i would rather say that alot of grasping at straws have been done, trying to debunk it, but for the intelligent observer, all of these attempts have so far been unsuccessful.


Very little hinges on the authors theory. Really. Well lets see, and I quote:

From the foreward -


What is known as gravity is actually magnetism, by which heavenly bodies out in space attract and repel each other and establish complex magnetic relationships.


From the third page -


Outer magnetic field: 2,442,371,253 km or 16.326 AU in diameter; and 7,672,935,586 km in circumference

Inner magnetic field: 27,452,490 km or 0.184 AU in diameter; and 86,244,541 km in circumference

Core magnetic field: 9,799,461 km or 0.066 AU in diameter; and 30,785,915 km in circumference

Magnetic field strength: 208.15G or 20,815 uT


And so on. You cannot be serious. That all planets and heavenly bodies, have a magnetic field, of varying difference in strenght, is accepted as fact by most if not all mainstream scientists. To use his claims that nibiru has one to invalidate his theory is beyond dumb. That does not need to have anything at all to do with his theory in gravity. In fact, it can be true EVEN IF the theory of gravity is overlayed on it as currently understood, since even earth has BOTH gravity and a magnetic field.

Straw-grasping at its best.

I am however thankful that you are prepared to help me investigate this, but please try to weigh what areas you choose to concentrate on better.

Also the various facts thus far presented as reasonable explanations to for example the saturn tilt, the pioneer anomaly etc, are unconclusive, unsourced, guesswork, which is just as likely to be true as that they all point to nibirus existence. And lets face it, if we have a ton of anomalies which all can be explained by the same thing, or by several different "guesses", i know what i´d rather lean against, until proven wrong.

edit on 2-9-2011 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Some further pieces to the puzzle:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

the giant hangar guards could be part of SPAWAR/us space command, the unit referenced to by Captain S.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The prediction here is that something that will effect all the people on earth will happen at the end of september. Before the 29th. Further strengthening the earthquake theory predicted in the quickening movie, and the nibiru final full.pdf document discussed earlier in this thread. (stating this earthquake would happen on the 26th/27th, and be due to the alignment with elenin, mercury, the sun and earth.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by NeoVain
 

And so on. You cannot be serious. That all planets and heavenly bodies, have a magnetic field, of varying difference in strenght, is accepted as fact by most if not all mainstream scientists. To use his claims that nibiru has one to invalidate his theory is beyond dumb. That does not need to have anything at all to do with his theory in gravity. In fact, it can be true EVEN IF the theory of gravity is overlayed on it as currently understood, since even earth has BOTH gravity and a magnetic field.

Straw-grasping at its best.

I am however thankful that you are prepared to help me investigate this, but please try to weigh what areas you choose to concentrate on better.

Also the various facts thus far presented as reasonable explanations to for example the saturn tilt, the pioneer anomaly etc, are unconclusive, unsourced, guesswork, which is just as likely to be true as that they all point to nibirus existence. And lets face it, if we have a ton of anomalies which all can be explained by the same thing, or by several different "guesses", i know what i´d rather lean against, until proven wrong.

I never said nor stated that objects terrestrial or extraterrestrial, did not have magnetic fields. As a matter of fact, I believe that I even supported the theory that objects do have magnetic fields a few posts ago.

What I did state though is that the authors whole theory is based upon the assumption that magnetism is the culprit for the anomalies shown in his document. I only posted what I did because you stated that the author did not use magnetism to support his theory.

But again, I am the one grasping at straws.

As a matter of fact, your exact thinking with regards to *a ton of anomalies which can be explained by the same thing* is faulty, to say the least. Each anomaly has nothing (nothing at all) to do with the next. A telescopic refraction has nothing to do with a diffraction artifact which in turn has nothing to do with a well documented star which in turn has nothing to do with thermal radiation pressure.

Saying that all of these things (which can be repeated so therefore are testable and verifiable) are all caused not by the stimuli of their specific experiment, but rather the stimuli of some unforseen, unverifiable and untestable object is not science, thats religion.

-saige-



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by BobAthome
Elenin - Nibiru - Earthquakes - Volcanos

May 30, 2011


www.youtube.com...#!

a very enlightning discussion,,

pbs special,,
or something,,

edit on 2-9-2011 by BobAthome because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-9-2011 by BobAthome because: (no reason given)


Thank you very much for this, a definite piece to the puzzle.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   


I never said nor stated that objects terrestrial or extraterrestrial, did not have magnetic fields. As a matter of fact, I believe that I even supported the theory that objects do have magnetic fields a few posts ago.

What I did state though is that the authors whole theory is based upon the assumption that magnetism is the culprit for the anomalies shown in his document. I only posted what I did because you stated that the author did not use magnetism to support his theory.

If so, i think you simply misunderstood me. I never meant to state that the author did´t use magnetism to support the theory(although i still believe he don´t), i said that he didn´t use his THEORY of magnetism being gravity to support the other claims. In fact try this; Totally ignore that first part about his theory on gravity. Now when you read the rest of the document, all the claims about nibirus magnetism totally makes sense from a scientific point of view, how magnetism works, right? This is what i mean. He ignores gravity since it is not needed, magnetism is enough. Yes, the same magnetism we already have accepted mainstream. So what does this say about gravity?



But again, I am the one grasping at straws.

As a matter of fact, your exact thinking with regards to *a ton of anomalies which can be explained by the same thing* is faulty, to say the least. Each anomaly has nothing (nothing at all) to do with the next. A telescopic refraction has nothing to do with a diffraction artifact which in turn has nothing to do with a well documented star which in turn has nothing to do with thermal radiation pressure.

Oh really? how about that document clearly stating they HAVE something to do with each other? Clearly you are dismissing the stated theory here even before examining it, since any evidence saying otherwise, is unconclusive at best. But you choose to dismiss it since it sounds more incredible than no evidence at all or that some astronomer turned their telescope upside down. come on.


Saying that all of these things (which can be repeated so therefore are testable and verifiable) are all caused not by the stimuli of their specific experiment, but rather the stimuli of some unforseen, unverifiable and untestable object is not science, thats religion.

none of the anomalies are repeatable and easily verified. That would mean it is easy to send another pioneer up, with the same exact configuration, having the exact same anomaly at the exact same place in space. I´d wager this one is NOT repeatable, as a matter of fact. Sure turning a telescope upside down is repeatable, it does not mean it was what happened and what all those pictures and scientific analyses is based on. To me that is just ridiculous.
edit on 2-9-2011 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Another piece of the puzzle perhaps, this time from a crop circle.

In this thread it is claimed it means something big will happen at the end of october, the 29th to be exact.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Just a coincidence? We will see
edit on 2-9-2011 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 


If his theory of magnetism has nothing to do with the rest of the paper, then why present it at the very beginning? Either that means it is crucial to the paper as whole or he doesn't know proper procedure for writing a scientific paper. And either way it means his scientific background is lacking. As for these instances having something to do with each other, the simple fact of the matter is they don't. They happened years and AU apart and the only ones claiming Nibiru is the cause are conspiracy theorists who have shown in the past that their astronomical skills are lacking. If Saturn has flipped on its side why has no other amateur astronomer in the world come forward and said so? If Pioneer 10 and 11 are being affected by Nibiru, why are they being pulled directly toward the Sun and not Nibiru? In fact using data from the Cassini probe it has been pretty much proven that the Pioneer anomaly is due to radiation thermal pressure. Also, to say the Saturn claim is not repeatable and falsifiable is pretty ridiculous. Even a relatively small telescope can resolve Saturn, so it is easy to check its orientation. As others have stated Saturn wobbles just like Earth and if you don't realize that a telescope inverts the image it can appear it has flipped. Considering the astronomical knowledge this guy shows in the first few pages of his paper it would appear that most of what he "knows" comes from sites like ATS. And I hate to be the bearer of bad news but most of the astronomical claims made on here and YouTube are absolutely wrong and slowly become more and more arguments from ignorance. The simple fact of the matter is that Nibiru doesn't exist.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   
This might be something... www.abovetopsecret.com...&flagit=748245

The sun is currently down where i live (sweden) but please, can anyone try to do the same?
Switch camera into negative/infrared and take some photos of the sun, see if you get the same result. If it is just a lens flare in that shot it should not be repeatable right?

Now this cannot be elenin since it would not appear that big in comparison to the sun at the distance it is currently at. However, it could be nibiru, the size is about right in comparison to the sun since nibiru is supposed to be 4-5 times the size of jupiter, and supposedly following elenin.

Also, anyone care to try to triangulate the distance to nibiru? since it is supposed to be 4 times the size of jupiter, in comparison to the sun, we should be able to get the distance if we compare that to the size of the sun.

This might finally "shed some light" on the issue. I will do it as soon as the sun rised over here. Meanwhile anyone that reads this, please do it right now.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 


I'm not sure what I should be seeing here. First off that's not taken with an IR camera. It looks more like the Solarize Photoshop filter. Second, there's no indication that it's even the Sun. All we're seeing is a video of a webpage. For all we know it's just a picture of an overhead light edited in Photoshop. There is absolutely no reason to accept this as evidence of Nibiru.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by NeoVain
 


I'm not sure what I should be seeing here. First off that's not taken with an IR camera. It looks more like the Solarize Photoshop filter. Second, there's no indication that it's even the Sun. All we're seeing is a video of a webpage. For all we know it's just a picture of an overhead light edited in Photoshop. There is absolutely no reason to accept this as evidence of Nibiru.


www.fivedoves.com...
Here is the original webpage(not hard to find) where you can see the full picture. Also it states it is taken by camera in negative mode, not IR. Which would mean the same as the solarize filter. And for it being the sun or not, well that doesn´t really matter since we can easily replicate this ourselves once the sun goes up right?
edit on 2-9-2011 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 


If this is the Sun it's 100% lens flare. A cell phone camera (or most cameras for that matter) simply can't take a picture of the Sun without producing a flare. The sensors in the camera just can't process the light. The filter doesn't do much except change colors on the photo itself. It doesn't affect the actual picture taking in any way. If you want to verify for yourself go outside and look at the Sun wearing a welder's mask. This will block out the light from the Sun so you can see the area around it.



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by NeoVain
 


If this is the Sun it's 100% lens flare. A cell phone camera (or most cameras for that matter) simply can't take a picture of the Sun without producing a flare. The sensors in the camera just can't process the light. The filter doesn't do much except change colors on the photo itself. It doesn't affect the actual picture taking in any way. If you want to verify for yourself go outside and look at the Sun wearing a welder's mask. This will block out the light from the Sun so you can see the area around it.


I would have done so already had we not had a huge cloud cover right now =/ Will have to wait for it to clear up





top topics
 
8
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join