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.

 

Heavy Mass Object In-Coming?

page: 37
77
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by cloaked4u
reply to post by koder
 



Ok, it's the only orange planet out in the sky, go and look for yourself, It will be the biggest and brightest one in the sky and that is the one i am talking about.


well the biggest and brightest one is "Venus" the "planet."
The huge one to the west, right? yep, that's "Venus"
It hasn't appeared orange here...it has blinked red though.




posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 02:03 AM
link   
done both here...depends on the weather.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by cloaked4u
 


I emplore you to utilize both Google Sky and another nice resource that's nice for some people to map out where those "elusive" planets are:

www.nightskyinfo.com...

I think you'll find your bright star is actually one of our regular neighborhood cast of characters.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   
on a clear day that planet or whatever is a bright orange at about 11 o clock pm maybe 12 am. Very bright and big and yes it was orange on a clear day.
When i was younger i never seen any, any orange anything in the sky especially that big.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Shugo
 



It may be one of our cast of characters, but it seems to be getting bigger by the years and like i said, i do not remember any orange planets orange anything in the sky at all in my younger years. I am no star buff. This is obvious, i do not claim to be. I only notice the out of ordinary.




posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 02:25 AM
link   
I suggest you use google image, lens flare depends on lots of things angle of the sun,lens construction and the aperture blades of the lens you can also get internal reflections in a lens.

Here for example you have various clours hexagonal shape top,crescent effect in the middle and blue at the bottom.



Here is another with various shapes and colours.



There are so many variables for lens flare I wouldn't make claims on things you don't seem to fully understand.

I suggest you respect other people's opinions since I wasn't asking yours. This isn't up for debate since a "lens flare" can't have a half crescent shadow from the sun's reflection. This is one of many pictures that show basically the same group of planet like objects. Yes, there are many variables. Maybe you should spend less time telling people what they do or don't understand, oh great
armchair expert of Ats.

edit on 22-3-2012 by Gerizo because: too shorten post, change font



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gerizo

I suggest you respect other people's opinions since I wasn't asking yours. This isn't up for debate since a "lens flare" can't have a half crescent shadow from the sun's reflection. This is one of many pictures that show basically the same group of planet like objects. Yes, there are many variables. Maybe you should spend less time telling people what they do or don't understand, oh great
armchair expert of Ats.

edit on 22-3-2012 by Gerizo because: too shorten post, change font


Well you say it yourself above it's an OPINION it's not a FACT, I take it you know the difference, anyone on here can reply to ANY yes ANY post on a thread I dont need your permission to reply to your mistaken belief


Lets have look at the post and what you said.


Originally posted by Gerizo



I saw this video with those objects on youtube a while back. It was also discussed here on ATS in another thread, but a few people, actually some of the same debunker people on this thread, insisted it was a lens flare. A lens flare that can have a half moon like crescent. Ridiculous! I am just wondering why it shows up blue in color and all of the alleged descriptions of Nibiru have it being red.


Underlined above the important part!

Care to explain this to everyone then since you THINK YOU KNOW BETTER




We lots of armchair experts on here people who work in science, technology, astronomy , construction etc etc

We also have lots on here with an interest in photography as a hobby, or even being semi pro.

It's been my hobby and interest of mine for 30+ years a LOT longer than you have been bashing at a keyboard on the internet.

So lets see your reply to the picture above MR EXPERT!!!


edit on 22-3-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-3-2012 by wmd_2008 because: spelling



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ColAngus

Originally posted by danray35e
The 2003 prediction was a white lie to get the powers that be to force their hand, and they did.


Wow. You guys are so damn good at revising history. I'm seriously impressed. Make a hard-date prediction, and when it doesn't come true, just say you were bluffing to get everyone else to tip their hand.
You guys? I just read the website. Im not affiliated with it.
Seriously, good stuff..



Originally posted by danray35e
She doesnt make etas, the time line will not be revealed.


Please don't say that. That's not playing fair. You CANNOT keep claiming this 5, 10, 15 years down the line. I refuse to accept that.
edit on 22-3-2012 by ColAngus because: (no reason given)

The fact is that only once was there a date given, 2003 since that time it has been said that a date will not be given. But to watch for the signs predicted.
edit on 22-3-2012 by danray35e because: none



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 06:21 AM
link   

edit on 22-3-2012 by Super7dsmom because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arken

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


Sorry but when watching the video you see a site called The Galactic Free Press
how do these people come up with such cheesy names.

As for his Heavy mass object if it was really there and could cause problems on earth it would also effect other bodies in the solar system as well, what you guys will do to perpetuate your wild BS theories is really spectacular!!!


INFACT...

Saturn massive storm 2011

Jupiter loses Big Belt

Uranus Mysterios Storm

Neptune Huge Storm

Maybe I missing someone







I'm new but I wanted to add to that list..cause I have been noticing those things too..didn't they say that pluto was warming..that far out how could that happen without something that Produces heat cause that?



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by cloaked4u
reply to post by Shugo
 



It may be one of our cast of characters, but it seems to be getting bigger by the years and like i said, i do not remember any orange planets orange anything in the sky at all in my younger years. I am no star buff. This is obvious, i do not claim to be. I only notice the out of ordinary.



You said you live in the northern hemisphere, here in the US. Right now, once the sun has gone down, if you look up in the sky facing east, you'll see 2 very bright looking stars that do not seem to twinkle. Those are actually Venus and Jupiter.
Turn and face south east, and look up. You'll see 2 constellations in the sky: Orion and Taurus. Both of those constellations contain stars that are orange. In Orion, the orange star is Betelgeuse, a very large red giant.
If you look at the "V" shaped face of the constellation Taurus, you'll see Aldebaran, another red giant star.

Turn and face west. After about 9pm or so right now, you'll see a very bright orange star that doesn't seem to twinkle. It's not a star, but is actually Mars! If you have a telescope (doesn't have to be huge), you can actually make out features when you look at it, including the polar caps.

There are other orange stars that you can see in the night sky, Arcturus being a good example of one.

Arcturus



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Super7dsmom

Originally posted by Arken

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


Sorry but when watching the video you see a site called The Galactic Free Press
how do these people come up with such cheesy names.

As for his Heavy mass object if it was really there and could cause problems on earth it would also effect other bodies in the solar system as well, what you guys will do to perpetuate your wild BS theories is really spectacular!!!



INFACT...

Saturn massive storm 2011

Jupiter loses Big Belt

Uranus Mysterios Storm

Neptune Huge Storm

Maybe I missing someone



I'm new but I wanted to add to that list..cause I have been noticing those things too..didn't they say that pluto was warming..that far out how could that happen without something that Produces heat cause that?


Please realize that Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune have storms and weather patterns on them all the time. They are gaseous planets, who's atmospheres have currents, upwellings, and convection that provide for "storms" that we see in their cloud patters. It doesn't take some outside source to make these.

As for Pluto warming, here is a 2002 article about that:

Pluto Warming

As you can see, they are pretty sure it's a seasonal thing for Pluto. It is hard for them to be sure, since a Pluto Year is 248 Earth years, and we've not been able to observe Pluto for it's whole year as it was only discovered back in the 1930's, with only good details in the last few decades. We'll finally get to see what Pluto really looks like when New Horizons finally gets to it in 2015.
edit on 22-3-2012 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by captiva
 


Not to be too far off the thread, however I enjoyed your comment immensely. The Bible speaks of a "Great Awakening" prior to the begining of Revelations. Just my 2 cents, but I can feel the changes, see the changes in humanity. Something is afoot.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ajay59
 


Your link does not work.

Please read about the speed of light and how it is a function of the matter in which it travels.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien
reply to post by caf1550
 


We evolved?
It's almost being proven we DIDN'T evolve. Rather we were put here. But that's for another thread at another time.

Besides, I didn't say nor was it said that if/when Nibiru swings by it wipes out every living thing.
You're putting your own inflections into this story. Not I!


Yes we were put here for a purpose, people won't believe it for it crashes with their religion crap, and the crap has been in the way for us too long..

nanu nanu



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Alien Abduct
 


Tyche made news when it was proposed. It has not been discoverd although it is thought that it may appear in WISE data.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by KonquestAbySS
 


Why is there no solid evidence of this "heavy mass" thats approaching?

And if there is and i haven't heard about it.... please provide said missing evidence



It depends on who you're waiting for to show the evidence.

Think about it.
Will the government?
No.
We have looting when there are minor blackouts.

So, if the government won't show us the evidence that means by quick deduction and association, the media and NASA are out of the equations too.

You HAVE to turn to alternative news while we still can. This is not to say all that is spun out is accurate but at least you know what's happening and perhaps, why.

ATS is a great place to start!


I'm not sure what to think about Nibiru. I like conspiracies, so I'm bent towards the possibility. My first thought when I saw this thread www.abovetopsecret.com... about the recent Supernova in Galaxy 2012aw was conspiracy, a coverup of something incoming.

But I'm sure it's just a supernova. Like 97% sure, the last three percent is reality but sometimes I hang out on the other side.


edit on 22-3-2012 by CourageousEyesoftheHeart because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-3-2012 by CourageousEyesoftheHeart because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Are you equally not sure what to think about the planet BooBoo? Or the 8-headed creature Gorgax?

Why or why not?

Just an ounce of critical thinking will reveal that there is precisely one and only one reason why anyone's even HEARD of this planet Nibiru, and it comes from the likes of this:




posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by ajay59

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by ajay59
 



You are completely ignoring the fact that it was impossible to move beyond the speed of light!

False. It is impossible to move beyond the speed of light in a vacuum.

Clearly you did not read the link I posted.

Furthermore your previous claim quoted below is false.

Why does an HMO have to be detected by our known scientific methods? I seen recently that E=MC2 is not quite right when scientists accelerated a particle beyond light speed! Our science, as we know it is not right!


What friggin difference does a vacuum make? BEYOND THE SPEED OF LIGHT!


Calm........down.

You obviously do not have a large background in physics, which is fine. Not everyone does, nor needs to.
Unfortunately, you don't want to read and learn about it either.

So I'll try to explain as best as I can:

Two cars are on a freeway traveling at 60 Mph. They are traveling towards each other. When they pass, they will do so at a APPARENT velocity of 120 Mph. Even though each is only going 60 Mph.

Do it another way: same to cars, except one is going 61 Mph. They are going in the same direction this time. When the one going 61 Mph passes the car only going 60 Mph, the people in the 60 Mph car will see that the other car is only moving past them at 1 Mph.

Sound travels at 765 Mph through the air, at sea level (1 Earth atmosphere). However, sound will travel much faster than that in water, because water is much more dense than air. We still say that the speed of sound is 765 Mph however.

Light travels at 186,000 Mps in a vacuum. However, there are times when it can APPEAR that light travels faster than this. For example a radio frequency moving inside a waveguide. The leading edge of that radio wave will LOOK as though it is moving faster than light. It's not however, it only appears that way to the observer.

The easiest way I can put it to you is this: Particles shot through a chamber with an atmosphere will APPEAR to go faster than the speed of light, because those particles are traveling though a medium that is denser than a vacuum. Just like sound in water.

Does that help? The speed of light is still, and always will be 186,000 Mps in a vacuum. Nothing can exceed that, because the amount of energy required to accelerate mater to that speed would be infinite. The object's mass would become infinite, and it's length would become infinite. Time aboard a space craft that achieves light speed would become infinite too. 1 second at actual light speed for them, would be all of time in the universe, and more.
edit on 21-3-2012 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)


All I can say is, Google speed of light breached confirmed for anyone out there who wants to know the truth. It does not matter if in a vacuum or not. The theory said the speed of light can not be surpassed. My point being, our science is not solid at this point. It has flaws. Therefore our science at this present time may not be able to detect a HMO or a host of other yet unknown anomalies. My next point would be, That some people go extremely far out of their way to ridicule a proposed idea with their own conclusions and everyone here is sick of it. The true reason threads get so much attention is TPTB do not want people to have an open mind and discover any truths!



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by ajay59
All I can say is, Google speed of light breached confirmed for anyone out there who wants to know the truth. It does not matter if in a vacuum or not.


Of course it matters--the speed of light CHANGES depending on whether it's in a vacuum, and since we're discussing a certain speed as the upward limit of ANYTHING, don't you think WHAT speed we're talking about matters?

Good god. What part of this aren't you getting? You misinterpreted what was said before because you're STILL not comprehending that the conventional "speed of light" refers to the speed of light in a vacuum, NOT the speed of any particular instance of light passing through a particular medium.

Your logic is positively atrocious. You have misconstrued this whole "speed of light" thing time and time again, apparently all for the chance to make a very obvious Appeal To Ignorance (look it up) so that you can smugly--and quite erroneously--say, "Well, science gets things wrong, thus haha! that's proof it can't detect this mysterious object that I KNOW is out there, and the only proof I need that it's out there is the fact that science CAN'T prove it's out there!"

Ugh.
edit on 22-3-2012 by camus154 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join