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.

 

Recent (4th sept) proof of Nibiru? Pls help me debunk this.

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 01:23 AM
link   
The small image to the left of the Sun is definitely an aberrational related lens mirror image created by the surface of one of the lens layers in the camera or lens cover, and is indeed the Sun itself in reduced duplicate.

I was able to stop the video as the end of a van blocked out the sun but left the area where the supposed "IR" image was being seen. It disappeared. (note: must be done by an original object in the scene occluding the sun)

For some reason, I could not upload the screenshot I have because ATS says that signing up for the picture upload service was temporarily disabled. If someone knows another way to get this pic up (if you care by now), let me know.




posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by fibraz4jacked
 

Listen to your friends. They're right and they sound like they're concerned about you rather than ridiculing you. That's good.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by RenegadeScholar
 

Since the Sun is also going behind the clouds the reflection gets dimmer along with it.

This is pretty neat. I had a problem figuring out what was going on (of course there is no planet there) but here it is. The cell camera has a protective piece of glass outside of the lens. It's like a double paned window. The bright light of the sun reflects from the lens to the cover glass creating the reflection. Unlike the "normal" type of lens flare (between the sensor and the lens), the reflection doesn't move with the movement of the camera.
The effect can be seen here:
www.youtube.com...

edit on 9/7/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

So i understand what causes the type of refraction you are talking about but in the video he is zoomed in 20X so of course its going to project another image on the other side.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by charlyv
 


but the sun is bigger than the "refraction"
in phages video of this "refraction" its the same size.

edit on 7-9-2011 by supergod because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 


Several big mistakes here.

1. Sun dogs may appear in pairs, but that is not the norm. I see sun dogs once a week. They are very common. They appear 2 times a week on average.
2. Sun dogs appear at around 22 degrees from the Sun, which is why I do not believe that the spot is a sun dog.
3. They do NOT disappear is the sun if occluded. Lens flares do disappear if the sun is occluded.
4. The person demonstrates that there is a cloud in front of the sun.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
If anyone has a picture of a second "sun", it's easy to debunk. Did the rest of the world see it? No? Then it wasn't there.


Unless it's a sneaky ninja-class star that can pop out and then disappear in a solar-flash, it would take weeks or months to move to a spot, and it would stay there.. and people around the world would see it.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Consider it debunked....




(All credit goes to my O/H)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by RenegadeScholar
 

Since the Sun is also going behind the clouds the reflection gets dimmer along with it.

This is pretty neat. I had a problem figuring out what was going on (of course there is no planet there) but here it is. The cell camera has a protective piece of glass outside of the lens. It's like a double paned window. The bright light of the sun reflects from the lens to the cover glass creating the reflection. Unlike the "normal" type of lens flare (between the sensor and the lens), the reflection doesn't move with the movement of the camera.


The suggestion that a piece of protective glass is the cause as its like a double paned window is not feasable as there are many lenses that have multi pieces of glass that do not cause this reflection.

A lens flare is generated in the lens, not between the lens and sensor. There is more than one piece of glass in every lens, with some having as many as 14 pieces of glass. There would be no sun flares if there were only one piece of glass in a lens.

Also, the suggestion that a camera having nothing between the sensor and the lens is not true. Every sensor has a filter over it made of silicon, plastic or glass. It can be as little as 0.2 of a mm away from the sensor. This high pass filter is used to reduce noise, stop CA, sharpen or even as a means of trapping dust so the filter can be mechanically shaken and it falls off.

respects
edit on 7-9-2011 by captiva because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-9-2011 by captiva because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Oh lord.. now I've done it... O/H is signing up so he can try and take Phage's title as master-debunker...



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Deplume
 


Thank you!! I was trying to watch and see if it disappeared when somebody passed in front of it, noticed that it did.........but couldn't pause it in time!! LOL anyway thanks!!



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by WhoDat09
 


Not my pic, but you're welcome.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by captiva
 

Lens flares (a generic term) also occur when light is reflected from the sensor, to the lens, and back to the sensor.
As you can see in the post before yours. This is a case of lens flare (internal reflection to be more accurate). You may be correct that it is not caused by a cover glass but it certainly behaves differently than the "main" lens flare. I still think I have the right idea.

And, since my replacement seems to have arrived, I will now bow out.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by NeoVain
Anyway here is the movie


You can debunk it yourself.

1. Walk outside at sunset
2. Look at the sun (preferably using some safety measures.)

The idea of it being an infrared source doesn't fly. Infrared sources are heat. Sources that generate enough heat to appear to be bright next to the sun in infrared will be shining brightly.

I watched the sun going down. I don't see any second source of light



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Fake!

The smaller dot DOES move, but very slightly when the camera moves.
Alos, there is no reflection of it in the water.

So, yeah. Fake!



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join