It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Amazing huge UFO next to Mercury decloaked by Sun Flare

page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 12:51 AM
Check out how the cme, "splashes" around the object as it gets hit. Are you all seing this? it's an object being enveloped, and if you consider the cme to be similar to water, you can see it hit and then splash around the object.

Explain this to me, Phage.

posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 01:18 AM
reply to post by ninepointfive

I'm sorry. When I view the highest resolution (1024x1024) images I don't see what you describe.

I see an area brighten. I don't see any splashes. Not in the sequence from December 1st or in the other sequences from November 27 through December 2. And I fully expect to see the same thing (first becoming visible at about 16:09 and abruptly stopping at 23:29) in the sequence from December 3 when it become available.
edit on 12/5/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 02:08 AM

Originally posted by Glargod
reply to post by Droogie

Can YOU identify it? No? then it is unidentified
Can YOU see it in the air? Yes? then it is flying
Can YOU see an object appear? Yes? then It must be an object

Therefor it must be a U de F de O and who are you do condemn people for calling it whatever they want and getting excited at that.

the first time you take your kid fishing and he catches a trout are you going to rain on his parade and tell him it no big deal?

Seriously. I think you're in denial and in your obscurium you must be so lonely that you want to dredge in a couple buddies.

It seems to me blatantly obvious from the OP's post (and many posters afterwards) that he believes this unidentified flying object is related to extra-terrestrial beings. There is no evidence of this.

posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 02:42 AM
There's only speculation here. To anyone subscribing to it being a technical difficulty however, all I have to say's 2011. Do you still buy that excuse? We were taking pictures of galaxies trillions of miles away, decades ago. There's absolutely no consistency too. How can they take an image of X, and an anomaly shows up, then try to dismiss it as a technical problem if it hasn't occurred the other 100x they took images of X using the exact same setup?

I have more to say, but this is page 10 and people stop giving chunks of stars (and reading most threads) after page 4. That's all you get, ladies.
edit on 5-12-2011 by TheLegend because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 02:44 AM
reply to post by TheLegend

As has been shown, it occurs quite often.

posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 02:52 AM
reply to post by Phage

As some stated already, your examples of an anomaly are not similar to what happened in the OP's vid.

Originally posted by Afterthought
The evidence Phage presented is a dark object or shadow, while the Op is a flash of light. Two different things.

Originally posted by misscurious
Personally I do not see the same thing in the image you posted as the one in the op.

Originally posted by Glargod
It may if you compare two similar items; however, you are identifying the darkness in your "evidence" and comparing it to the manifestation of a luminous spacial phenomenon in the OPs linked video.
Pray tell since when is "White" debunked by "Black" or is "Up" not "Up" because "Down" exists?

In the linked video, there does seem to be a fading light effect around Mercuty, but the luminescent object appears as the flare energy transects its position. The farce of what you called evidence did not even have a solar flare AND its time stamp of the still images is asynchronous and makes the sequence irrelevant.
I will amusingly assume that you did not even bother to watch the video fully!!!

Originally posted by darknull
Phage im kind of new to this kind of stuff but i would like you to clear this up for my because ill get annoyed if it floats around in my head to long. Anyways i understand how your post and ops are using different devices but i dont get how what you showed debunks at all.

Originally posted by Manhater
Funny, no one, not even The almighty god "Phage", has explained the appearance, when clearly, it was in view.

However, if someone can find other examples of a CME striking Mercury, taken from SECCHI, and find that this same anomaly (the localized luminosity) is in all of the images then I would be convinced it's a technical difficulty due to the consistency.
edit on 5-12-2011 by TheLegend because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 02:53 AM
reply to post by TheLegend

Apparently you didn't see all of the images posted.

I may have missed a couple.

edit on 12/5/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 02:58 AM
Thx, you addressed the part I edited at the bottom.

posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 03:09 AM
But then that raises another question which I'll quote:

Lets just hypothesize that there is actually a very large object of unknown origin in the vicinity of the planet Mercury, and what we are seeing on the video is as a result of energetic particles streaming from the Sun and causing a reaction from the unknown object. The reaction could be as a result of intense EM effects, or as from particles striking it directly, whatever the case may be, how does showing other images containing a very similar effect disprove the unknown object hypothesis?

posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 03:51 AM

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Alien Abduct

The "flare" occurs at a mid-latitude of Mercury, not near a magnetic pole.

edit on 12/5/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

wait wait ... it's already proven ( least) that cme wasn't mercury directed... so why bother to analyze that?

posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 03:58 AM
I will hereby present a NEW theory for this UFO.

It is NOT an image processing artifiact.

It is actually an artifact caused by youtube's compression codec.

Notice the edges surrounding the video and you will see pixels beyond the realm of commonly accepted data rate compression.

I have consulted video compression experts at my local film studio and they agree the UFO is caused by youtube's compression and not secchi's camera.


See how easy that was?

posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 06:56 AM
You can see the same thing if you change the date to 20090101 or 20100101 and select 9 days.

posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 07:42 AM
Dont let Them fool you.
you can see the wave hit it then Mercury.
That is a Big mother ship.

the shape it not natural.
and definitely at the size it is.

it looks like a ship that the people from a planet could live in.
Thats a lot of Aliens. Or hard ware??
or is it for the human race? are they going to put lots of us in that?

It could be some kind of ship to jump?
to other galaxies or farther?
or a ship to blow us up just before we blow are self's up just before the world ends?

posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 07:52 AM
reply to post by galactictuan

u are joking! right!? in the site of the navy u can see the anomaly...with out any kind of youtuber's!!

posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 08:33 AM
I can not believe what I am reading on these posts!
one day we will live side by side with Space Aliens.
and have Alien ships All over the sky.
and if you ask some one if they can see them.
they will think you are mad.
and say there is Nothing there.

they are getting you to believe
that black is white and to believe ANY thing the Government tells you.
Or there brain washing lackeys on ATS.

Wake UP you zombie sheep.

posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 09:06 AM

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by TheLegend

Apparently you didn't see all of the images posted.

I would think the decloaking bit is a bit erroneous, in a way.
Your images do show a object and the object is reflecting
sunlight just as the planet is.

posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 12:07 PM
reply to post by voyger2

That's correct. All people need to do is to go to the site and make their own movie, there are in fact better, and much clearer examples than the OP's link with two planets side by side, EACH with the same residual effect, and at the same time, that is what Phage has been saying since yesterday, page 6, Jupiter and Mercury tango.

Pick your date and run the movie.
edit on 5-12-2011 by smurfy because: Link.

posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 12:13 PM
In the wise words of Calvin and Hobbes (circa 1985)"The surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere, is that none had tried to contact us." Could be a dark shadow, comet, asteroid, plasma interaction... anything. It is cool however. Thanks OP.

posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 12:22 PM
reply to post by Phage

Your right I forgot about the other ingredient in that formula its been some time sense i have read on that, thanks for clarifying that for me Phage.

Addressing your explanation of what it is tho I don't see the similarities of your example picture and the picture in question. Could you maybe explain in more detail what exactly we are looking at and what is going on there?


posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 12:31 PM
reply to post by voyger2

I got an answer about the daily pattern. From Nathan Rich, SECCHI Ground Systems Lead.
The reason for the brightening is the application of the background subtraction process.

In these HI-1 images, a daily median is used as the best near-real-time method to get the best CME enhancement. This results in the "hole" from Mercury, which has a larger dimension in the horizontal than the vertical due to the relatively quick motion of Mercury in the field of view over one day. The "brightening" near Mercury occurs in these images because there is less background removed where the hole is. You will note in the next image the bright area is gone because a different daily background is being used.

This is why the brightening is always seen at the edge of the "hole", why it remains in the same location in the frame while the stars and planets change position, and why it "resets" after midnight each day.
edit on 12/5/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in