Huge UFO Pyramid Incoming!

page: 22
96
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Aeolus1970
 

To reiterate for those who have been ignoring or not reading previous posts.

1) It appears at the same time Venus enters on the opposite side of the frame.
2) Its motion mirrors the motion of Venus
3) A line drawn between it and Venus crosses the center of the frame.
4) It appears in other images which include Venus in the proper orientation.




As much as people mock you when you bring a higher sense of knowledge in the field you clearly have much education in, into a thread, i think you do a brilliant job. Im not ass licking here, im just saying thanks for compiling everything iv missed.

ATS can get so crazy some times, thread's like this show the true madness - an inverted animation of something 97% of people dont know what they're looking at - me included, which in all honesty, can be turned into anything to let us believe what ever the finder wants. No doubt the finder of the "anomaly" also thought this was a genuine UFO. Just glad to know we have some balance on ATS when it comes to threads like this


(In no way am i saying the finder or poster of this was purposely misleading us)

I think the OP should consider putting Phage's possible explanation into his OP. 90 Flags and no doubt 80 of them wont read past page 1
edit on 2-1-2012 by n00bUK because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-1-2012 by n00bUK because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Aeolus1970
 

Coincidences then? Which happen repeatedly.
When all of the above factors are considered it's hard to not believe it is an optical effect.



I'm not trying to disabuse the notion that it could be an optical effect, and mathematically speaking, that is probably the case. I've learned the hard way never to take things at face value when it comes to the heavens, and will be the first to admit to that I'm overly empirical in such matters at this late date...which in this context is a nearly impossible absolute to achieve.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   
I will bite on the len's flare theory if someone can show me a pic that looks just like the pyramid in the op! The 2007 pic being referenced looks nothing like the current pics imo.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaws1975
I will bite on the len's flare theory if someone can show me a pic that looks just like the pyramid in the op! The 2007 pic being referenced looks nothing like the current pics imo.


Here is an image from 2007 with the "pyramid" object circled:


Here is an image from 2011 with the "pyramid" object circled:



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaws1975
I will bite on the len's flare theory if someone can show me a pic that looks just like the pyramid in the op! The 2007 pic being referenced looks nothing like the current pics imo.


lol it's ironic I get no credit for my work in this thread .. that's what I get for not being nicknamed Phage
.. jk

Anyway - if you go to page 7 or 8 you'll see that I linked to HI1 and HI2 images .. HI2 shows this pyramid "object" on screen .. HI1 is a non-embossed, non-processed image from another camera pointing in the same region at the same time, there is no such pyramid object .. if you use the search page and examine the HI1 vs. HI2 images for the same span of time on the nasa site you'll find no object is present..

I also posted a link to a nasa page explaining a phenomena called internal light reflection that can cause very strange light artifacts.. not your typical lens flares! .. this is due to the shape of the camera barrel, internal optics and the way the images are processed.

Bottom line however, there's no object there .. and it's very apparent when you compare images from HI1 that's looking at the same area of space but without the same processing.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by InTheFlesh1980

Originally posted by jaws1975
I will bite on the len's flare theory if someone can show me a pic that looks just like the pyramid in the op! The 2007 pic being referenced looks nothing like the current pics imo.


Here is an image from 2007 with the "pyramid" object circled:



BRILLIANT .. even in the same spot as the current "pyramid" ... internal light reflection ..



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by InTheFlesh1980
 


Your right, I concede. I was looking at the wrong images...oops



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by miniatus
 


You get credit too!



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Can this thread officially be classified as debunked now? .. we even have historical images of this phenomena thanks to InTheFlesh1980.. I think there's plenty of evidence there's no object there when you combine this with the HI1 images pointed out earlier.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by 8ILlBILl8
Try to look at it in 3 dimensions. It looks like a cube to me

Oh no, it is probably a Borg ship. Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow
 

Excellent video. It appears to be a tube shape with two parts facing forward in the direction of travel. I'm convinced that there are shadows behind it which gives it the appearance of a double pyramid. It may be an anomoly in the footage, but if it is not, it is definately something to watch. Hopefully Stereo B will get more footage of it, only we all know NASA gets to see it first.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   
I can't understand the rush to want to "declare" this thread debunked. If anything it is growing more interesting. Namely:

1. Venus has moved across the H1 field of view countless times, and only twice (aug 2007 and dec 2011) has this object appeared (that we have found, so far). An optical effect based somehow on a reflection of venus should be a regular and predictable event.

2. It is not clear that the velocity of the object and that of venus are exactly the same, in opposite directions, nor that venus and the object are on exactly the same path toward each other. Nor are the positions and paths exactly identical between the 2007 and 2011. And even if those paths are very close, it still does not prove this is a repeatable and predictable optical anomaly.

3. There is no reasonable explanation how the movement of venus, a roundish planet, can cause a pyramid shaped optical artifact in a telescope lens.

4. Nasa is not releasing images. Images were being displayed in a timely fashion up to Dec 30, almost real time, then abruptly cut off. This has happened countless times when anomalies appear on their own scope objects. NASA does this - fact. Why is a matter of speculation, such as that presented by Phage earlier. The prediction that the object will decrease in size then vanish, as per 2007 (where is that gif??), is hardly a worth much when NASA stops releasing the pertinent images. It gives them ample time to construct any outcome they choose.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Violence
Incoming?

Where does it say it's on it's way to Earth?


Only place I see that it does is in the title to this post.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhxRising
I can't understand the rush to want to "declare" this thread debunked. If anything it is growing more interesting. Namely:

1. Venus has moved across the H1 field of view countless times, and only twice (aug 2007 and dec 2011) has this object appeared (that we have found, so far). An optical effect based somehow on a reflection of venus should be a regular and predictable event.


I would contend that it's happened far more than you might think, it's just that there is a MASSIVE amount of imagery to wade through.. I suspect he went back to 2007 and just skimmed through until he found one.. the fact it happened in the same exact location in the image should tell you something... not to mention venus was in generally the location as well .. far too coincidental to shrug off.. lighting conditions and angles play into this as well ..


Originally posted by PhxRising
2. It is not clear that the velocity of the object and that of venus are exactly the same, in opposite directions, nor that venus and the object are on exactly the same path toward each other. Nor are the positions and paths exactly identical between the 2007 and 2011. And even if those paths are very close, it still does not prove this is a repeatable and predictable optical anomaly.


That should be verifiable by just comparing day 1 to day 4 and looking at venus and the reflection "non-object" .. I don't have time to do anymore research but someone will, and I'm sure it will match up.


Originally posted by PhxRising
3. There is no reasonable explanation how the movement of venus, a roundish planet, can cause a pyramid shaped optical artifact in a telescope lens.


Internal light reflection as discussed on the nasa page I think is about as reasonable as you'll get .. it's been stated that it causes bizarre image artifacts .. and I think this triangle fits into that description.. also if you just skim through those images for a while you'll spot all sorts of odd shapes and weirdness..


Originally posted by PhxRising
4. Nasa is not releasing images. Images were being displayed in a timely fashion up to Dec 30, almost real time, then abruptly cut off. This has happened countless times when anomalies appear on their own scope objects. NASA does this - fact. Why is a matter of speculation, such as that presented by Phage earlier. The prediction that the object will decrease in size then vanish, as per 2007 (where is that gif??), is hardly a worth much when NASA stops releasing the pertinent images. It gives them ample time to construct any outcome they choose.


Without more information about why images end abruptly, it's pure generalization unfortunately .. it could be technical .. it could be protocol, if they spot something odd it may very well be standard procedure to end the feed until something IS identified .. that doesn't mean there's anything supernatural or otherworldly about it.. it could be as mundane as a glitch.

If it were a physical object it would be odd that

A) it flew the same exact place back in 2007 ( and probably far more than you think )

and

B) it doesn't show up on the other device pointing at the same location at the same time
.. that makes no sense ..

I for one see overwhelming evidence that it's purely optical .. for me, the case is closed.. internal light reflection is my firm belief.. B above really solidifies it, and the fact past images were found with the "object" in the same exact location.

The fact this "thing" doesn't appear on the other camera is proof enough that there's nothing there .. what more is needed?
edit on 1/2/2012 by miniatus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by miniatus

Originally posted by jaws1975
I will bite on the len's flare theory if someone can show me a pic that looks just like the pyramid in the op! The 2007 pic being referenced looks nothing like the current pics imo.


lol it's ironic I get no credit for my work in this thread .. that's what I get for not being nicknamed Phage
.. jk



well after following this thread though page after page, i wouldn't give you any credit for the images tbh, as you only jumped on the reflection idea after a member suggested the idea, being a known camera issue, its not hard to then rush onto google images and post the picture is it? you didn't have a clue what youwas looking at till then, as you stated your self, please stop milking it its cringy to watch
edit on 2-1-2012 by BRITWARRIOR because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by PhxRising
 

1) As pointed out earlier, in most images which include Venus it is near the vertical center of the frame. This would cause the reflection to occur at the vertical center of the frame. The problem is that the trapezoidal occluder is also at the vertical center of the frame and thus prevents the reflection from occurring when Venus is in this position.

2) It is clear that the motion is the same. Measure the movement in pixels. It matches.

3) The Heliospheric imager is not a simple camera and it is not a telescope. As pointed out earlier, the images we are seeing are "difference images" a combination of two images. They have undergone processing of their own.

4) As pointed out earlier, the beacon mode images do not show the full frame . This is standard. It is normal. It happens always. We never see full frame HI2 images in real time. We only see them after the science quality data has been downloaded via the Deep Space Network. This occurs, in general, every few days.
edit on 1/2/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Hopefully Stargate Command is on top of things. I don't know what we'd do without those guys!



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   
To me, it looks nothing more but an image distortion, and there isn't any proof that this thing is headed toward Earth.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow

Originally posted by Chamberf=6

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow

Originally posted by Violence
Incoming?

Where does it say it's on it's way to Earth?


Although i never said this, I'd like to think if 'they' wanted to be seen 'they' would. And if 'they' were in our galaxy neighborhood I'd bloody expect them to swing by for a cuppa!

But if you guys wanna use me as the whipping boy - feel free if it makes you feel all safe.


You didn't say that??

Your title is:


Huge UFO Pyramid Incoming!



Could it mean incoming as in figure of speech? Are you that pedantic?


So what does "incoming" mean in your world? Outgoing? You got caught with your pants down, bud. At least have the grace to admit it. This guy is hardly being "pedantic." He's pointing out a severe contradiction in what you are saying.





 
96
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join