Somethings up with venus

page: 7
106
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by WeekendWarrior
reply to post by crankyoldman
 
Good point all over! Nice to see there are people here who knows how to question these "lens flares".
People should trust more in their guts, than Images released after hours, maybe days of delay..

Then use the raw beacon data... that's what I did, it still shows you it's a lens flare.




posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   
why can it not be a comet hitting Venues.
we have seen one hit Jupiter.
would it look like this?
yes I think it would.

Nice to see Phage say “huh?”
the world is a wonderful magical places.
or we would live in a boring world.
with no life!

just look at the magic of life.
yes it did take trillions of years.
it takes a long time make a good planet.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddha
why can it not be a comet hitting Venues.

Because it's a lens flare. I hate to sound like a broken record, but this has been shown to be the case exhaustively already.


we have seen one hit Jupiter.

Yes, and it looked nothing like this.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 11:01 PM
link   
I know this looks like something out of the ordinary to the untrained eye (that isn't an attack... I'm a layperson, too, and I am willing to admit that I have "an untrained eye," as should we all in my opinion,) but this post quite definitively explains this visual data as a lens flare.

Even as a layperson, the way it expands, the shape, and the way it contracts again, is textbook lens flare. They even look that way here on Earth. You can create the same effect by taking multiple photos of the sun behind a tree (or other object) and moving the camera around slightly with each shot so that the flare takes on a different shape. Then you can string together and animate those individual photos to do exactly what he did in his post (quite effectively, I might add, in my opinion.)

I made a topic about this cognitive dissonance and insistence upon the fantastical lately, merely suggesting that it feels difficult to contribute to ATS when people reject people's contributions out of hand even in the presence of evidence (as in this topic.) Despite going out of my way to reiterate my respect for people's opinions and personal beliefs therein, as I feared/expected, people still took strong exception to it. And yet, as I said there, I see these rejections of evidence and accusations happen again and again. Just as in this topic, those offering evidence are being called liars and "disinfo agents."

Everyone is welcome to their beliefs. If anyone has read my posts here, I would hope that they have learned by now that I go out of my way to encourage tolerance and forbearance in discussions, because everyone has the right to their own way of looking at the universe around them and they are entitled to that. But please don't accuse people of being "disinfo agents" as has happened in this topic, just on the basis of you disagreeing with them. Unless you have some evidence thereof, of course. They've brought evidence to the table. You should do the same, or politely disagree. But calling them liars because of what the evidence shows them?

As always, I intend no offense and respect everyone's beliefs and opinions. (Though, as always, I'm sure someone will still take exception to my remarks.)
edit on 12/27/2011 by AceWombat04 because: Typos



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Cant the object be UFOs then?



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   
My question is if it's so easily explained as a lens flare, why did Phage of all people seem so stumped in his first post?




Now that is interesting.

I don't often comment to say "Huh?" but that's what I'm doing now. No idea what it is.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by jaws1975
 


Phage did say that, however he also said more data would be incoming. It was, and from that and the animation created demonstrating it, it was concluded that it was a lens flare. I mean, there's always the possibility of being wrong about a thing. One should never have 100% confidence in oneself because we're all flawed and can make mistakes. But the animation clearly shows a lens flare. And Phage agreed. So him initially not being sure is kind of moot, is it not?



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaws1975
My question is if it's so easily explained as a lens flare, why did Phage of all people seem so stumped in his first post?




Now that is interesting.

I don't often comment to say "Huh?" but that's what I'm doing now. No idea what it is.




That's a good point because if you look at the first animation
it truly looks more like ejection and not a flare.
It's that little bright ball that leaves Venus that appears
new to me. The flares have all appeared transparent
from what I remember . Not saying it's a ejection
for sure, but it looks like an aberration to me.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by sealing
That's a good point because if you look at the first animation
it truly looks more like ejection and not a flare.

The first animation, made by jessejamesxx, was made just using the processed jpg versions of the images off the STEREO site. My animation was made using the raw fits files from which those jpgs were derived, but I did a much better job processing them by hand than the automated system did. The latter tends to go too heavy on the contrast in order to emphasize the tenuous heliosphere as much as possible. I was able to create and apply my own pseudo-dark to increase contrast without over-saturating the image. Phage looked at the raw fits file, but did not process it with a pseudo-dark to reduce the sun's glare and increase contrast.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceWombat04
reply to post by jaws1975
 


Phage did say that, however he also said more data would be incoming. It was, and from that and the animation created demonstrating it, it was concluded that it was a lens flare. I mean, there's always the possibility of being wrong about a thing. One should never have 100% confidence in oneself because we're all flawed and can make mistakes. But the animation clearly shows a lens flare. And Phage agreed. So him initially not being sure is kind of moot, is it not?


It cant be just a lens flare lens flares cant just do something like that.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter

Originally posted by AceWombat04
reply to post by jaws1975
 


Phage did say that, however he also said more data would be incoming. It was, and from that and the animation created demonstrating it, it was concluded that it was a lens flare. I mean, there's always the possibility of being wrong about a thing. One should never have 100% confidence in oneself because we're all flawed and can make mistakes. But the animation clearly shows a lens flare. And Phage agreed. So him initially not being sure is kind of moot, is it not?


It cant be just a lens flare lens flares cant just do something like that.

Like what? Change in size and orientation depending on the emanating object's position in the frame, and follow a pattern of appearance as the object enters the frame, reversing the pattern as it exits the frame? That's exactly what lens flares do



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by AceWombat04
 


Your point is well taken, just very unusual to see an off the cuff remark like that from Phage! I was suprised to hear him say anything other than lens flare, or image artifact before the high res photos were available. No biggie!



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 11:50 PM
link   
Just a lense flare
and I was so hoping it was Valiant Thor coming to pay us another visit.


www.burlingtonnews.net...

www.theallseeingeye.us...



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 11:53 PM
link   
First I want to say hello ATS viewers. Long time visitor first time poster. Regarding the post I know a giant solar flare hit Venus on August 16, 2011. Here is a space weather site that shows a video and provides some information. Cool post.
www.spaceweather.com...



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Did Venus just make a moon?
Nawww, lens flare from the event on the sun in the background?



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Pics are pretty clear. Dont think we can phage this one away.

Something with a very considerable amount of force happened. And it was captured.

Looks to me like the core heated and expelled matter. Or she got a hard glancing blow from one of those 10,000 unknown asteroids.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sharpenmycleats
 

First I want to say hello ATS viewers. Long time visitor first time poster. Regarding the post I know a giant solar flare hit Venus on August 16, 2011. Here is a space weather site that shows a video and provides some information. Cool post.
www.spaceweather.com...

Hey first poster that was a totally cool video of the CME coming off the sun. Do you think it hit venus? Excellent first post by the way.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by WeekendWarrior
reply to post by crankyoldman
 
Good point all over! Nice to see there are people here who knows how to question these "lens flares".
People should trust more in their guts, than Images released after hours, maybe days of delay..
And they do have the ways to tamper these images, of course.





Watch the video ngchunter provided, then go outside on a sunny day and take pictures of something. Better yet, go look up the basic definition of a lens flare. Im no expert, but having seen that video and looked at several examples of lens flares, thats probably what it is.


Is it normal for people here to ignore overwhelming evidence?



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 12:41 AM
link   
LOL, Electric Universe. I have an open mind but that theory is just retarded. Which is why it comes up in threads like this.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 12:43 AM
link   


Is it normal for people here to ignore overwhelming evidence?

Yes, and to believe in anything that goes against what "they" say.





new topics
top topics
 
106
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join