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.

 

BREAKING: Mysterious planet-sized object spotted near Mercury

page: 3
30
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 

ATS may be hurting but it's not for lack of nonsense.
Or an overabundance of critical thinking.

edit on 12/10/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Point taken. Both run on a constent high A .
edit on 10-12-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


+3 more 
posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
The trend in this thread leads me to believe that some people have already convinced themselves of a cloaked alien ship before even considering the explanations some people have posted.

Why is it, people can believe in a cloaked alien ship without rhyme or reason, yet a perfectly logical explanation is just too out there for some to grasp ?

Instead of taking everyone elses word for what caused this anomaly , why not do some research yourselves and see if you can figure out what caused it. I'm 100% sure you'll find that "cloaked alien ship" comes in about 100th on the feasible explanations list.

But hey, if someone posted it on youtube it must be true right ?



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Dachende
 


You bring a good point to light and to that I say thread thread thread thread. Some may take their media indoctrinated fantasies as being more real than truth I suppose. That's my best answer. Some people don't want to separate from hope? No matter how false it's proved to be.
edit on 10-12-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dilligaf28
Lets break it down like this:

The software detected Mercury yesterday in the same spot as the supposed "UFO". The software is also designed to edit the lights of stars out of the picture which it does by analyzing consecutive day to day images and deleting any spots that appear in the same area of the photographs.

With me so far?

Mercury tends to move a lot slower in the image frames than the stars behind it. So when Mercury was in two different spots in two different days the computer software tried to delete the overlapping parts of Mercury and what was left of the original Mercury image is the "image artifact" mistakenly described as a space ship.

With me so far?

The CME image in which we see the plasma "flowing" is a computerized representation of the data collected by the instruments photographing this event. The computer when animating the flow of the plasma encountered the image artifact and since the software thought the image artifact was a part of Mercury it showed the plasma flowing "around" the image artifact.

With me so far?

The plasma in space did not actually hit an object. The imagery we see is a result of a processing error in the software that renders the images.

Therefore:

No actual ship is present. This is an image artifact. Image artifacts are constantly being called Nibiru/Planet X/Wormwood/Muhammed/Jesus/Aliens/Bette Middler on ATS so it really is no surprise that this particular artifact has been erroneously labeled a spaceship.

Its really very elementary.




If you have to go to such unbelievable lengths to dispute common sense, as in what you see is what you get, then you and others have misinformation agenda in progress. Something is clearly disrupting the CME stream before it hits mercury, therefore that something was CLOAKED before that CME stream hit, and since only spaceships are theorised to be able to cloak, it is quite reasonable to assume that "something" is actually a huge spacecraft.

Hollywood gives us the clues and the philadelphia experiment(is/was probably classified) proved even us humans can cloak stuff. There is no reason to panic though because we cannot be sure what that spacecraft is planning to do. Spacecraft have traversed the universe for a very long time, visited earth on and off and most governments know about it.
edit on 12/10/2011 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Its called spelling out common logic step by step so its really easy to understand. Obviously I did not make it simple enough for you. For that I do apologize. I will try to make it even easier and clearer in the future.

Hollywood is FICTION. No matrix, no stargates, no transformers, no none of it..... is all FICTION
edit on 10-12-2011 by Dilligaf28 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


if it's an artifact, then why there aren't more "objects" in the footage?, and why the "ship" reacts only when it's hit by the CME and not before or after the CME has passed???

please explain



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Is it just me or do the gullible believers refuse any evidence that refutes their beliefs?

They have been given explanations for this yet they just do not want to hear the true answer...case in point the poster above me asking phage to prove something that he already has...


I ask this poster to show that it is a another planet/spaceship with their knowledge and expertise..


As for the poster talking about how movies are telling us things....like the other fella said...IT IS FICTIONAL WORK
edit on 10-12-2011 by kerazeesicko because: CUZ I CAN



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by duhdiggitydan

However, if you do go read through the thread, don't stop at Phage saying it's due solely to background subtraction (I believe this is on page 3 or 4 of the thread). Apparently he likes to mislead people and use sources that have very little to do with the topic at hand (in this case, a flare—not a dark hole—next to Mercury). He did provide a nice starting point for doing your own research, but failed to provide any useful or valuable research/sources. If you're going to look into this more, don't just Google what you think your answer is (like Phage did).


Or alternatively he actually read the article:


Head NRL group scientist Russ Howard and lead ground systems engineer Nathan Rich say the mysterious object is in fact Mercury itself. And what we're seeing in the footage is the equivalent of Mercury's wake, "where the planet was on the previous day," as it travels through the solar system on its natural gravitational path:


I'm going with option b - he read it, you didn't



Originally posted by kerazeesicko
Is it just me or do the gullible believers refuse any evidence that refutes their beliefs?


It's not just you - it's just them!


Not only do they refuse the evidence - thy get upset when it is pointed out to them - as tho you are attacking the very basis and justification for their existence or something.

The motto of this place is "Deny ignorance" - but when you present actual verifiable evidence you get attacked as a troll, shill, Govt disinfo agent, etc.

Go figure...





edit on 10-12-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Did anyone notice that the object and Mercury are moving at different speeds. The object is not stationery. But if you look closely the distance between the object and Mercury increases. Also if you compare the stars at the background you will see that the object is in motion too. So Mercury and the object are moving at a different speed.
edit on 10/12/11 by asen_y2k because: Grammar



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by asen_y2k
 

Go here:
secchi.nrl.navy.mil...

Do this:
Select HI1
Select SECCHI-A
Select whatever size image you wish
Date: To see the animation in the "decloak" video use 20111201
Submit Query

Now, change the date to 20111207 (or 06, or 05, or...). It has to do with the time of day. It happens at the same time (more or less) everyday. It disappears in the first image of each day. Notice also that it stays in the same spot in the frame each day (put your cursor on it).

It disappears because a fresh mask is applied at the beginning of each day.
It appears brighter and brighter because the background mask from the day before becomes less and less appropriate as the day goes on.


edit on 12/10/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Aha, you are correct, I did not know about the sequences from other dates. Looks increasing unlikely thats it anything other than a software glitch.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

Well, I did read the article, so option b is not correct.

Not here to dispute that it's not an alien craft or Niburu or whatever else people are claiming it to be. I'm claiming it isn't just due to background subtraction and most likely has nothing to do with the official explanation of what background subtraction is. It's obviously some sort of artifact. I'm denying ignorance by saying he didn't provide all of the correct evidence.

If you look into and do all of the reading about background subtraction NASA states—as a fact:


Thus, for the most recent images, only preliminary backgrounds can be applied. This sometimes causes too much to be subtracted from some regions, making these areas dark.


That's not the topic at hand in the previous thread, or this one. The topic at hand is the burst of light next to Mercury. Background subtraction does not cause bursts of light.

Unlike you, apparently, I do all of the research into possible explanations for strange sightings in space photographs. I commend Phage for providing a nice starting to point for explaining the flare next to Mercury, but it's only fair that people understand not to read through the previous thread and stop at Phage's explanation on page 3 or 4. That is the point I am making.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by Phage
 


Its theorized by those two sources. It is NOT explained. That is not what it is either.


Yes, that is what it is. As phage explained, it's an artifact of processing the images with what I like to call "pseudo-dark frames" using the images taken on previous days. It's not present at all when you use the raw, original, unprocessed fits files. It happens every time a bright planet passes through the field of view. For instance, here's the same thing happening as Venus passed through the HI-1 of STEREO ahead in march, but because it was moving in the opposite direction (left to right), the artifact appeared on the opposite side (with an additional large circular lens flare effect on the left side as well which always happens with Venus):
secchi.nrl.navy.mil...
secchi.nrl.navy.mil...
secchi.nrl.navy.mil...
secchi.nrl.navy.mil...
secchi.nrl.navy.mil...
secchi.nrl.navy.mil...
secchi.nrl.navy.mil...
The raw unprocessed images do not contain these artifacts because they're a result of the processing done on them using "pseudo-darks" to remove the background light from the sun, just as they mention in the article. Here's the raw fits file for that last image:
sharpp.nrl.navy.mil...
Notice that the "object" is not there at all. That's what the true image looks like.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by asen_y2k
 

Go here:
secchi.nrl.navy.mil...

Do this:
Select HI1
Select SECCHI-A
Select whatever size image you wish
Date: To see the animation in the "decloak" video use 20111201
Submit Query

Now, change the date to 20111207 (or 06, or 05, or...). It has to do with the time of day. It happens at the same time (more or less) everyday. It disappears in the first image of each day. Notice also that it stays in the same spot in the frame each day (put your cursor on it).

It disappears because a fresh mask is applied at the beginning of each day.
It appears brighter and brighter because the background mask from the day before becomes less and less appropriate as the day goes on.


edit on 12/10/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Beat me to it, I was taking too long fooling around with a raw fits file. Well done phage, you were on top of this from the get-go.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


I see nothing that even compares to the orginal still shots in the original post. There will always the ones who are out to disprove it's nothing more than a lens artifact and others who agree like me it's something other.

Phage you have proven time and time again that you are well knowlege in these things BUT sometimes you could be completely wrong.

I for instance, believe there is something there not explainable and in time we'll lucky to find out.

For every doughter there are hundreds of believe. It's a losing battle regardless of anyone view points period!



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 

The "fits" give me fits.
The dynamic range is incredible. It's no wonder that so much processing is required to pull a usable jpg or png image out of this:



edit on 12/10/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
These "background subtraction" camera processing artifacts are always popping up as "space ships" and "hidden planets" and other crap on conspiracy sites. When will people learn? Wasn't it just 5 months ago we had this same issue with an image of Venus?

People need to learn that these are not normal cameras and the images we see are not what is seen and or being detected in reality. There is a LOT of processing going on to make things easier for scientists to see, and these processes are not perfect and create certain artifacts in certain situations.

stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Here is a new article explaining this particular event:
stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Here is an example of it happening on Venus 5 months ago:


Here is another example of background subtraction happening in 2009:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

HOPEFULLY people learn what this is so these nonsense topics can cease to exist.


edit on 10-12-2011 by K1771gnorance because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Sister Du Juana Sargent got this information first and she shared it with me, my response to her was that , i learnt that mercury as a planet is very near to the sun, meaning that no living entity can live in this planet because of the great heat from the sun but i suggested that a special investigation may be conducted to know what type of object it might be--may be it is a spy machine that can withstand great heat from the sun, monitoring the activities of other planets------Stephenca



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by nuttin4U
Someone...please...tell me...why are we so fascinated with 'space' , when Earth is in the shape it's in? With all the problems, we have, right here....don't you think we should be focusing our attention....right here? Who cares about some alien spaceship? What IS the fascination? There are waaaaaaaay too many problems, that we need to deal with....so, can we PLEASE deal with them; then, worry about 'space and aliens'?

I'll believe in 'Aliens'.....when i see one. Til then, they're like Santa Clause, and the Easter Bunny. I can't believe, people actually BELIEVE aliens exist. hahahahahah That's funny. Y'all watch too much X-files. Turn off the t.v. and do something for the 'space' you live around.


what a complete load of rubbish!
edit on 10-12-2011 by Jay-morris because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join