Nibiru Filmed By Chinese Space Program

reply to post by luxordelphi

Only obstacle - international acceptance. And upon further investigation, you'll find this proposed solution to global warming has not yet been implemented, by anyone.

You think a lens flare is actually blue planet with a crescent phase being shown in a Chinese rocket launch video is being hidden by governments all over the world dumping millions of tons of metallic particles into the upper atmosphere.... and I'm the one that's clueless

If you're ridiculous theory was correct, and I'll pretend for a bit that it is.... How do you explain the fact that we can still see everything else in the night sky? I mean, if there was so much metal in the atmosphere that it would be enough to block the visibility of a giant blue planet, equal to the size of the sun (remember the crescent would suggest it would not be behind, or in front of the sun, but directly to the side of it), why can we still see each and every star, the planets, and the moon?

I guess they must be secretly dumping annunakium into the atmosphere.

lul clueless.

reply to post by Lighterside

Only obstacle - international acceptance. And upon further investigation, you'll find this proposed solution to global warming has not yet been implemented, by anyone.

And you would know whether or not it's been implemented because....???

You think a lens flare is actually blue planet with a crescent phase being shown in a Chinese rocket launch video is being hidden by governments all over the world dumping millions of tons of metallic particles into the upper atmosphere.... and I'm the one that's clueless

And you would have a clue about what is and what isn't a lens flare because...??? And BTB I'm not saying what it is or what it isn't. I'm saying since when do lens flares have phases. I'm open to explanations but you don't seem to have one other than lol.

If you're ridiculous theory was correct, and I'll pretend for a bit that it is.... How do you explain the fact that we can still see everything else in the night sky? I mean, if there was so much metal in the atmosphere that it would be enough to block the visibility of a giant blue planet, equal to the size of the sun (remember the crescent would suggest it would not be behind, or in front of the sun, but directly to the side of it), why can we still see each and every star, the planets, and the moon?

I haven't put forth any theory. When I do, you'll know, because I'll state it as such. In my previous post I stated what was possible. You didn't believe that was possible so I added a link showing that since at least 1997 it's all been possible.

I guess they must be secretly dumping annunakium into the atmosphere.

For me, that would need some substantiation but maybe not, lucky for you, because this is skunk works.

It's Comet Elenin. It just put on the park brake to sit there and see what's rockin' on planet Earth.

The Solar Winds would melt the ice around it and gravity would do it's thing making a little blue ball of water around the space ship inside it.

Or it could be the joint Russian-US project. They were working on inflatable space stations/assets. You could fill one with water so you have water to tow to MARS for the uper secret Joint Manned Mission to Mars. That's what I would do. Cheap to do. The things orbiting around it could be robotic probes to monitor for leaks and patch them when micro asteroids puncture it.

files.abovetopsecret.com...]

CLEARLY A LENS FLARE for multiple reasons which is why i'm posting.

1. It moves with the light from the sun, while the camera moves in orbit, the camera is not shaking or spinning it is still and only moving with orbit, the light from the sun is moving with the angle of the camera.

2. If the camera is moving towards a "Planet" the planet would rise from that angle not drop. Common sense not astro physics genius.

3. IT IS TRANSLUCENT look harder you'll see that the top right of the blue lens flare fades out to black cause its not a solid object.

4. IF THAT WAS A PLANET THEN IT IS DEFINITELY CLOSER THAN THE MOON BECAUSE THE MOON ISN'T EVEN THAT BIG FROM ORBIT YOU MORON SO EVERYONE AND THEIR MOTHER WOULD SEE A GIANT BLUE PLANET AT NIGHT AND DURING THE DAY RIGHT NOW CAUSE THAT WOULD BE CLOSER THAN OUR OWN MOON

5. And finally ...... bro you mad?

what gets me is how on VonHelton's youtube channel he won't let us show proof that his "blue planet" is definitely a blue lens flare. Comments that pend approval to me are a sign that VonHelton has realized his planet isn't a planet but he's just trying not to look like a complete fool now that it's debunked, and yes it is Debunked. End of story, bro you mad?

Originally posted by luxordelphi

 

And you would know whether or not it's been implemented because....???

Because it's the 21st century and I know how to use google. If it had, there would be information out there, which there isn't. Derp.

Originally posted by luxordelphi

 

And you would have a clue about what is and what isn't a lens flare because...??? And BTB I'm not saying what it is or what it isn't. I'm saying since when do lens flares have phases. I'm open to explanations but you don't seem to have one other than lol.

Because I have two functioning eyes and a brain. Well, since you didn't want to read 9 pages of "it's a lens flare" I'll go ahead and repost the example of crescent flares. I assure you the following image is not one of several planets (including one in front of a building) P.S. "LOL"

Originally posted by luxordelphi

 

I haven't put forth any theory. When I do, you'll know, because I'll state it as such. In my previous post I stated what was possible. You didn't believe that was possible so I added a link showing that since at least 1997 it's all been possible.

Yeah, I'd go ahead and start back tracking myself too. One can only take so much embarrassment. And no, I do not believe it is possible to paint the sky and block the view of the heavens. The theoretical paper you cited isn't very convincing either, especially since they state their "scattering" technique would only absorb about 1-3% solar radiation. That's far from 100%, so even if they were pumping annunakium into the atmosphere, the heavens would still be plenty visible. Nice try though.

Originally posted by Lighterside

 

I guess they must be secretly dumping annunakium into the atmosphere.

Originally posted by luxordelphi

 

For me, that would need some substantiation but maybe not, lucky for you, because this is skunk works.

Two things. One, bout time they moved this garbage out of the more serious forums. And two, I've got 10 pounds of annunakium for sale, interested?

reply to post by ZeroUnlmtd


So basically, I just wanted to know about the phase. Checked out the vid with someone trained to spot and used a 2nd vid of the same thing from You Tube and their conclusion: inconclusive. I can live with that. It is after all a vid but your conclusions seem to have a lot greater degree of certainty then is warranted. So what about the phase?

reply to post by Lighterside


I don't think you're capable of a serious look at this. I may be wrong but I'm not usually. Your picture of crescents doesn't speak to the phase on this video. Don't short change yourself for a laugh lol. Take another look. I've already had an expert look at it. Their assessment: inconclusive. Tell me why it isn't so - I want to know but it's got to be something real and not just sound bite egocentric nonsense.

reply to post by luxordelphi

Your assessment of the video being a planet with a sun lit "phase" is the only thing I can't take serious. I was plenty serious when I clearly demonstrated that this was in fact a lens flare. Had you taken the time to read through the thread instead of jumping the gun to make fantastical claims that the governments of the world are painting the sky, you would have caught that.

I show you a photo of lens flares forming crescents and somehow it's not relative to the crescent shown in the video? How so? The shape of flares are completely dependent on the shape of the lens, and the focus relative to the light source which is why rarely do you find two photos with flares that look identical. In this case, the light is bent around a convex lens in the direction of the light source. Basically the flare is just a ghost image of the lens itself. There is no "phase" here to explain away.

As for your "expert", you're either completely full of [snip] or your "expert" needs a new profession. Inconclusive my [snip].

I assume by the arrogance of your posts, that you believe you have the answers. You've dodged the question as to why we can see everything else in the sky except this sun-sized planet, so let me propose some knew ones. How do you explain away the fact that the "planet" is in perfect alignment through out the video with the rest of the flares? How do explain away that in moves in equal and opposite direction to the light source (sun) in the video just as a flare would? How do you explain away that the "phase" in question is not shining in the correct angle to the light source?

reply to post by Lighterside

I was plenty serious when I clearly demonstrated that this was in fact a lens flare.

So you direct me to a previous post of yours where you hurl lol abuse on another poster for not agreeing with you??!! What kind of an answer is that??!!

Had you taken the time to read through the thread instead of jumping the gun to make fantastical claims that the governments of the world are painting the sky, you would have caught that.

I would have read posts similar to yours claiming something inconclusive as conclusive. Or are you hoping that the sheer volume of posts shouting 'Lens Flare!' would have put me off ?

My 'fantastical claims' were supported after you claimed they were 'fantastical' by a link showing that all that I said is well within the realm of possibility and has been since before 1997. 'Painting the sky' is your own addition in order to ridicule something substantiated. What's that all about?

I show you a photo of lens flares forming crescents and somehow it's not relative to the crescent shown in the video? How so? The shape of flares are completely dependent on the shape of the lens, and the focus relative to the light source which is why rarely do you find two photos with flares that look identical. In this case, the light is bent around a convex lens in the direction of the light source. Basically the flare is just a ghost image of the lens itself. There is no "phase" here to explain away.

Look at exactly at 1:17 of the video (you'll have to go to You Tube because it's missing from the thread now) and tell me why the phase is out of phase for the alleged light source.

I assume by the arrogance of your posts, that you believe you have the answers

Look at the pot calling the kettle black.

How do explain away that in moves in equal and opposite direction to the light source (sun) in the video just as a flare would? How do you explain away that the "phase" in question is not shining in the correct angle to the light source?

That was my question. Although, to be honest, that wasn't my spotter's question. So how do you explain that?

I'm beginning to think we need a "Photography and Optics" Forum. There have been numerous examples of lens flares posted on this thread. I have personally linked to two different websites that explain how lens flares are formed. I urge everyone who cannot tell the difference between a solid object and a lens flare to go out and get a camera. With a little application, you will be able to capture lens flares in any shape and size you want... although as a photographer, you would generally want to avoid doing that!

reply to post by Lighterside


Please read through her post history.

You will understand why you are trapped in Groundhog Day.

reply to post by ColAngus
Funny you should mention this, I did, and I know what you mean..... boat moon is all it took.

I guess we all will learn as we go. We always do and sometimes we are right and sometimes we are wrong. Some of us are entitled to our opinions and it looks like some of us aren't. But one thing is for sure. We all will learn why we need to use manners and not be abusive. I guarantee it.

reply to post by DEV1L79


LOL!!!

"Nibiru Elenin Blue Star Kac..."
This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated due to multiple third-party notifications of copyright infringement.
Sorry about that.

Did somebody mention "Von Helton"? Was this another of his deluded ramblings?

Oh, I see his YT Channel is still up. Sad day for rational thinking, big win for ignorance.......

Originally posted by luxordelphi

 

So you direct me to a previous post of yours where you hurl lol abuse on another poster for not agreeing with you??!! What kind of an answer is that??!!

The post I referred you to was a response to someone who asked me to prove it was a flare, and so I did. The animated gif I created clearly shows this to be a lens flare, only an idiot would think otherwise after viewing it. I gave you the benefit of the doubt assuming you missed it, thank you for correcting me.

Originally posted by luxordelphi

 

I would have read posts similar to yours claiming something inconclusive as conclusive. Or are you hoping that the sheer volume of posts shouting 'Lens Flare!' would have put me off?

And how exactly have I not conclusively demonstrated this to be a lens flare.... oh yeah, the "phasing"

Originally posted by luxordelphi

 

Look at exactly at 1:17 of the video (you'll have to go to You Tube because it's missing from the thread now) and tell me why the phase is out of phase for the alleged light source.

You see, when you shine a light on an object, these things called light rays usually light up said object from the angle in which these rays are traveling. Again, I refer to this wonderful blown up image originally provided by DJW001


Sorry, but your light source is above your "object", not below it.

Originally posted by Lighterside

 

How do explain away that in moves in equal and opposite direction to the light source (sun) in the video just as a flare would? How do you explain away that the "phase" in question is not shining in the correct angle to the light source?

Originally posted by luxordelphi

 

That was my question. Although, to be honest, that wasn't my spotter's question. So how do you explain that?

I explain that it doesn't line up at the correct angle because it is not an object, it is a lens flare. I'm glad you agree, I accept your apology.

Originally posted by luxordelphi

 

My 'fantastical claims' were supported after you claimed they were 'fantastical' by a link showing that all that I said is well within the realm of possibility and has been since before 1997. 'Painting the sky' is your own addition in order to ridicule something substantiated. What's that all about?

It's about you making fantastical claims. Claiming that this would be "difficult to see from underneath the canopy but not from on top." because the DOD is dispersing "cyan blue nano particles" in the atmosphere that are "specifically developed for color and reflectivity".... yeah, none of that sounds like "painting the sky".

And backing it up with a theoretical article from 1997, one that states 1-3% of solar radiation can be blocked by the purposed theory is hardly substantiating your claim.

Originally posted by Lighterside

 

I assume by the arrogance of your posts, that you believe you have the answers

Originally posted by luxordelphi

 

Look at the pot calling the kettle black.

Personally, I prefer the term "cocky".


Anyway, having a discussion with you has proven to be one sided, and it's obvious there's no talking some sense into you. You have failed to answer every question I've raised for you. If you didn't want to participate in discussion you could have just not trolled, err, I mean posted at all.

ColAngus is right, it is groundhogs day with you, and I'm done entertaining you. We're here to deny ignorance, not spread it like herpes.

the camera viewing angle moves up, therefore the blue object moves down. That is not "proof of lense flare" Also if there are 2 lens flares, they would have to be the same shape. Also the blue object is completely solid, not even semi-transparent. Also, what is the object causing your precious lens flare? The earth?

reply to post by Lighterside


None of those "crescents" look anything like the solid object in the video.

Originally posted by smarterthanyou
the camera viewing angle moves up, therefore the blue object moves down. That is not "proof of lense flare" Also if there are 2 lens flares, they would have to be the same shape. Also the blue object is completely solid, not even semi-transparent. Also, what is the object causing your precious lens flare? The earth?

Your ignorance is painfully laughable. Actually, the fact that the flare does move in equal and opposite direction IS evidence of a lens flare. Again, educate yourself. As for the shape, the flares in the video ARE the same shape, they are round.

As for transparency, you're looking at shapes of refracted light on a black background. What are you expecting to see through this flare?

And.... to answer the funniest of your questions... the object causing my "precious" lens flare is, get this.... THE SUN! I know I know, it's unfathomable that the sun would cause a flare, amazing.

Again, the way flares look are dependent on the type of lens used and the focus relative to the light. Because these 2 variables are so vast, you rarely find any photos of flares that look identical, crescents or not.

Just the slightest effort to apply some amount of critical thinking would go a long way for you. At least attempt to do so.

reply to post by pazcat

reply to post by ProudBird


youtu.be... Nope its still up.
Second line.