Amazing huge UFO next to Mercury decloaked by Sun Flare

Originally posted by Droogie
we don't believe this is necessarily a UFO.

We dont have to believe anything.. this is a UFO as in unidentified...

For now let's ALL say it's a giant UFO, then when Phage gets here,he'll be like: "that is no UFO"
And we'll be like :"That is one giant Mercury lovin UFO Phage. AND... we all agree. "
... Maybe its 2500 mile lens flare?
That all I got.
Great Find.

Originally posted by Vandalour

Originally posted by Droogie
we don't believe this is necessarily a UFO.

We dont have to believe anything.. this is a UFO as in unidentified...

What does the "F" stand for?

reply to post by Glargod


I won't rain on his parade, because I know a trout when I see one.

Friend, I know how these things work. We're shown a YT video of something that we don't recognize or are familiar with, and we're supposed to be in awe. How about holding off with our excitement, and try to learn, instead of exclaiming that we have a genuine UFO on our hands?

Is it wrong to have a withdrawn and critical look at something that's supposed to be an unknown? Really?

If it is not a Space craft, the only logical explanation in My opinion is that it could possibly be a stellar cloud turned plasma cloud because of the solar radiation and/or heat.

Other than that, really cool video, perhaps it is the aliens, who knows for sure.
S&F

It also appears in around the 4th and 5th of March this year when Mercury was in the field of view of the STEREO H-1 camera.



And back to the recent image, it "decloaks" on STEREO B as well, but this time it is on the opposite side of Mercury!



Sneaky aliens!



(It's a camera artifact for those keeping score at home)

Originally posted by Clisen33
Phaaaaaaaaaage!!!

Good find op. I will be watching this thread closely.

Star and flag.

reply to post by Chadwickus


Good find chad. I know your quite knowledgeable on this kind of thing. Do you have any suggestions as to what it could be? How come this was never noticed before?

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by Vandalour

Originally posted by Droogie
we don't believe this is necessarily a UFO.

We dont have to believe anything.. this is a UFO as in unidentified...

What does the "F" stand for?

edit on 12/3/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Hey I would go with "Far field space object" for the F in UFO in this case
It's a trap he's setting.

"There's absolutely no other explanation other than it's a ship!" Really bro, really? No agenda from this guy, lol. Perhaps it could be a ship, highly doubtful, but perhaps, but to state that's the only thing it could be clearly shows the guy is a fool.

Originally posted by Phage We've seen similar before. www.abovetopsecret.com... It is the result of a process called background subtraction. stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov... Does anyone else get really tired of "Hey youtube. ______ here."

But what if it was a alien ship decloaking ? Finding somehing similar dont automatic debunk the alternative possibilities.

AND funny how you make fun of youtube, its just a medium for presenting public videos. ever heard of the saying: "don't shoot the messenger" I mean.. news are news, and I bet the news on youtube are sometimes better then the mainstream local news, sure there are alot of trash on youtube, but you dont need to eat it all, look around.. perhaps you find somehing you like.

reply to post by Vandalour

Finding somehing similar dont automatic debunk the alternative possibilities.

In this case it pretty much does.

AND funny how you make fun of youtube

Not making fun of youtube. Just saying that I find that phrase overused in the extreme and extremely annoying (and not just in UFO videos). Can't they come up with a better intro?

reply to post by Vandalour


I have to agree with you.
The evidence Phage presented is a dark object or shadow, while the Op is a flash of light. Two different things. If, and I state IF, the object in the Op's video is a ship, could it have a shield that is directing the energy of the flare outward so we are actually seeing the brightness of the outline and not the ship itself?

reply to post by Droogie

Is it wrong to have a withdrawn and critical look at something that's supposed to be an unknown? Really?

Certainly not; however, it is wrong to presume that everyone aught to be as critical and cynical in their opinion and perception as you.

Opinions are like a Gluteus maximus vortex, EVERYONE HAS ONE. It is my opinion that nobody should impose their views and patronize condescendingly others into changing theirs.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Vandalour

 

Finding somehing similar dont automatic debunk the alternative possibilities.

In this case it pretty much does.

AND funny how you make fun of youtube

Not making fun of youtube. Just saying that I find that phrase overused in the extreme and extremely annoying (and not just in UFO videos). Can't they come up with a better intro?

edit on 12/3/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Personally I do not see the same thing in the image you posted as the one in the op.
Also what about the images chad found? And why is this not a regular occurrence or been noticed before?

it looks like the star ship enterprise but we will never really know because your truth is not my truth just sayin

reply to post by misscurious

The image I showed is from a different imaging device so the appearance is different. I posted it to dramatise the effects of background subtraction.

It is a regular occurrence, as Chadwickus showed. It has been noticed but apparently not by anyone who didn't understand what it is or bothered to try to find out.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by misscurious

 

The image I showed is from a different imaging device so the appearance is different. I posted it to dramatise the effects of background subtraction.

It is a regular occurrence, as Chadwickus showed. It has been noticed but apparently not by anyone who didn't understand what it is or bothered to try to find out.

edit on 12/3/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

I don't really understand what it is and it is the first time I have heard of it. I was just saying the two images do not look the same. If you could explain it in a little more detail then it would put this whole thing to be without all the speculation. And are you 100% sure that is what we are seeing here?
If that's what chadwickus was pointing out, why didn't he just say so? And in one of his images it appears before the flare, does that make a difference?


Edit to add. I missed the bit at the bottom of chadwickus's post where he mentions the artifact, so scrap that question.

reply to post by Glargod


I don't want to be off-topic anymore. But if you took offense by imagining yourself as a participatory in my previous suggestion, I apologize. I realize that you are a new member, but I have to tell you that there's no need for animosity due to disagreement.

You don't have to label me as cynical just because I'm more skeptical than you are. If you don't regard yourself as in the same 'category' as I, you don't have to.