Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

WTH is next to the Sun ~ Its HUGE

page: 23
96
<< 20  21  22    24 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 9 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watts

Originally posted by princeguy
reply to post by Watts
 


I dont think any race of beings could make it to a point of space travel without learning true compassion for all beings. Look at us, we are a very young species and we cant even break ourselves away from an nonrenewable energy source. We fight, and kill each other every day. And while we have had many advances in the last century, I believe that we have been stunted enormously by our insatiable greed for power. We are on the verge of self destruction and we have barely touched space.



On the contrary, if our planet is any guide to species development, a highly advanced civilization is more likely to be carnivorous. The heavy protein diet is what allowed the brain to develop more here. And to be a successful carnivore you have to be sneaky, deceptive, strategic, violent and apathetic.

I believe Michio Kakua (sp) or Stephen Hawking spoke on this as well. The notion that aliens are likely to be "flower-holding, peace sprinklers"- bent on traveling hundreds of billions of miles to 'save us' is 100% baseless and totally unsupported by abductee accounts.

Considering we've had 2 world wars and are headed for a 3rd, continue to destroy the environment, and have more people than ever starving, I'd say that if they were here to "save us", they're doing a terrible f***ing job and should clock out.

Kidnapping, sexual abuse, genetic theft, deception and memory wiping are NOT signs of benevolent "space brothers" people. Stop being purposely stupid. Their actions alone show they're not benevolent.




Wow! you are a rude one arent ya?

The "facts" that you posted are biased.

Where do you get the Idea that it is a high protein based diet that allowed the brain to develop? That has to be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. I believe that claim is up for debate.

I dont believe that I used the term "flower holding peace sprinklers." It sounds like your looking to create some friction with your words my friend. Why mock Peace anyway? Does Peace frighten you?


bent on traveling hundreds of billions of miles to 'save us' is 100% baseless and totally unsupported by abductee accounts.


That is untrue. Have you read any reports of hypnotherapists such as Deloris Cannon? There are literally thousands of people who have been regressed to these abductions and the only reason that they initially believed them to be something other than benevolent is because their memories were clouded by fear. Which seems to be something that you share with them.

What we have experienced here on earth up until now has been of our own design. They are not here to "rescue" us. They are here to assist us in this transition. Its people that are clouded by fear, such as yourself, that are slowing down the process, complete freedom can be ours if we choose.

Or you could choose the "same old, same old."





posted on May, 9 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watts

Originally posted by princeguy
reply to post by Watts
 


I dont think any race of beings could make it to a point of space travel without learning true compassion for all beings. Look at us, we are a very young species and we cant even break ourselves away from an nonrenewable energy source. We fight, and kill each other every day. And while we have had many advances in the last century, I believe that we have been stunted enormously by our insatiable greed for power. We are on the verge of self destruction and we have barely touched space.



On the contrary, if our planet is any guide to species development, a highly advanced civilization is more likely to be carnivorous. The heavy protein diet is what allowed the brain to develop more here. And to be a successful carnivore you have to be sneaky, deceptive, strategic, violent and apathetic.

I believe Michio Kakua (sp) or Stephen Hawking spoke on this as well. The notion that aliens are likely to be "flower-holding, peace sprinklers"- bent on traveling hundreds of billions of miles to 'save us' is 100% baseless and totally unsupported by abductee accounts.

Considering we've had 2 world wars and are headed for a 3rd, continue to destroy the environment, and have more people than ever starving, I'd say that if they were here to "save us", they're doing a terrible f***ing job and should clock out.

Kidnapping, sexual abuse, genetic theft, deception and memory wiping are NOT signs of benevolent "space brothers" people. Stop being purposely stupid. Their actions alone show they're not benevolent.


edit on 9-5-2012 by Watts because: /

That's not really true. Carnivorous doesn't automatically imply eating of red meat or even mammals at all.
Here are some examples for you:

Foods that are Good For Your Brain

Including certain foods as snacks can do much to improve brain functioning. Below are examples of healthy foods. Foods high in antioxidants (healthy chemicals that clean the brain from free radicals that cause cell deterioration) can dramatically reverse memory loss, restore motor coordination and balance. These foods are raisins, berries, apples, grapes, cherries, prunes, and spinach.

Another healthy group of foods contain Omega-3 fatty acids. Omega-3s help improve general brain functioning and restore memory. Foods high in Omega-3 include: salmon, mackerel, sardines, herring, flax oil, and walnuts.

The whole body runs on carbohydrates. Too much of simple carbohydrates can be harmful to the body and brain functioning by creating a sharp rise in blood sugar. Complex carbohydrates digests well and do not cause sharp rises in blood sugar. Foods high in complex carbohydrates include peanuts, dried apricots, dried beans, yogurt, oat bran, All Bran cereal (be careful of the high sugar content in some brands), and sourdough bread. Including vinegar or lemon juice with your foods helps suppress a sharp rise in blood sugar.

Additionally, after the brain has developed, other attributes also develop such as empathy, sympathy, a sense of right and wrong and the other "higher functions" that we strive to achieve in order to be better people that could be considered to be a natural inclination when it comes to intelligence. Any civilization that has progressed beyond where we are would have overcome many difficulties on their journey and would have found a way to survive those difficulties by being more molevolent, not more destructive. If we, as humans, were able to go out into space to other earth-like planets, would we go as the conquering race or would we go as settlers or even as assistance to other, more primative cultures? In our past, we were set on conquering, but that attitude has changed as our civilization has changed and for the majority of people, we tend to work together and try to help one another. Sure, there are still those who prefer war to peace, but that number is dwindling. It dwindles even more in the more intelligent groups of people. There is a direct coorelation between intelligence and peaceful intentions as far as human behavior is concerned and we could transfer that idea to other possible civilizations. Granted, if they are new to their technological advances, they may be hostile and on a "power trip" of sorts, but given our distance from other possible inhabital worlds, it's likely if they come this far, they have progressed past that violent stage, or at least we can hope so.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 04:25 AM
link   
I think it's a bokeh.

Has anyone else mentioned that yet?



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by NotAnAspie
 


Wait.. What? "Coughed up a planet"?? You can't be serious. Even space donuts make more sense.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Xaphan
 


I don't think its a bokeh either. Unfortunately there is no way to really know what it is, so I will trust my gut.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by princeguy
reply to post by Xaphan
 


I don't think its a bokeh either. Unfortunately there is no way to really know what it is, so I will trust my gut.


I guess it's more reasonable to believe there are two deathstar donuts?


STEREO

Go to the link. Look at all the images for yourself.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by princeguy
 

Yeah I was just being sarcastic lol.

What is your gut telling you?



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   
TRY THIS!...youtu.be...



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by mwcoc
 


Actually a reply,,from a month ago " its a magnetic knot ",, is an outstanding observation,,,

hat's off too,,,,,,,,,

"for people that are still beating there penises to rocks to please the gods here what this is
its a magnetic knot

pghg022 1 month ago "

Whoever that might be,,,
apparently there is intelligence left in our Galaxy.

magnetic knot,,ok surrounded by protons,,with a
A. gooey carmell ,,centre
B. alien wormhole,spaceship sucking sun juice.
C. A know phenomina in Atomic or Particle Physics.
D. None of the above.




Me.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   
For anyone who doesn't see it in my previous post.



STEREO



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by princeguy
 



Yep its a death star alright - now man your ships and may the force be with you - seriously though it reminds me of a dropa stone in its shape - and whatever it is must be vast , many times bigger than the earth .

if you have not listened to this guy before its worth a looksee - I dont go much on channeling but I do like this guys message.

www.youtube.com...



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   
My guts telling me to keep an open mind, I don't know if its a giant death star or a space bug smeared on the lens of the camera.... or a bokeh. But I'm not going to jump to any one conclusion.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


You don't know for sure, nobody does. That is your theory.

If you can show me similar "flaws" that have been captured, similar to this one, then go ahead.


I find it funny that NASA has some of the most advanced cameras ever created and yet their images continue to get defiled by "artifacts". Convenient. I'm sure the Mars and Moon photographs of ruins and the like are artifacts as well. Not to mention the fact that there are legitimate videos of unidentified objects all over the place.

NASA has not given an explanation for those, but some astronauts have said they were not able to identify objects that passed near some of the shuttle launches. They didn't say what they were, they said they didn't know what they were. I could literally pull up one hundred videos of anomalous objects, the opinion is still out on this particular one.

Compare this to the tether incident, similar looking objects are moving and pulsating, are those artifacts as well? Although the center of this object (the hole) looks a little bit bigger in this object, but this object is also much more massive, if it is an actual object and not an artifact. All I am saying is I would like a professional opinion, and we deserve one, after all if this space program is indeed for the public, we should be able to get answers for this stuff. To say you know for sure what this is, you are being dishonest.

From Wikipedia:

Bokeh is the blur, or the aesthetic quality of the blur, in out-of-focus areas of an image. Sometimes bokeh is misleadingly defined as "the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light", since it is the characteristic of the image, not the lens itself. However, differences in lens aberrations and aperture shape cause some lens designs to blur the image in a way that is pleasing to the eye, while others produce blurring that is unpleasant or distracting—"good" and "bad" bokeh, respectively. Bokeh occurs for parts of the scene that lie outside the depth of field. Photographers sometimes deliberately use a shallow focus technique to create images with prominent out-of-focus regions.

Bokeh is often most visible around small background highlights, such as specular reflections and light sources, which is why it is often associated with such areas. However, bokeh is not limited to highlights; blur occurs in all out-of-focus regions of the image.


Wouldn't the image be perfectly circular and not have any chunks out of the side of it? And not a small circle in the middle with a mostly formed outside around it? Bokeh would look like this o or a completely filled in circle. I still say the opinion is out on this until we can see other examples of similar "artifacts" that can produce this effect, this does not look like any thing I have seen before that is known.


edit on 5/12/2012 by smarterthanyou because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by smarterthanyou
 


What obvious ignorance....

.....there are NO "third-party" confirmations of any sort of this alleged "huge" object.....not from ANY other angle....only this one-off example.....which, BTW, is due to an internal imaging flaw.

IF, on the other hand, you (or anyone else) could provide some other image, on same date, and in the same "location", from another vantage point?? (And, there are PLENTY of telescopes that could accomplish this)...well, then.....SHOW it!!!!



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Someone else in another thread has already figured something out about this term "bokeh" that is being thrown around a lot lately on the forum.

A bokeh is when you have two objects that are not side by side in distance but are in the same frame. the lens focuses on one object while it blurs the others because of the differences in position of the objects.

If it is a "bokeh" there must be at least two objects involved.

it could very well be a blur but it is not a "bokeh"

I am copying and pasting this reply and taking it to yet another thread where it applies where this term is being overused because of some new found popularity on these forums.

i'm sure this will not be the last time.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by NotAnAspie
 


If it is a "bokeh" there must be at least two objects involved.

Incorrect. The only thing necessary is one out of focus object.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by NotAnAspie
 


If it is a "bokeh" there must be at least two objects involved.

Incorrect. The only thing necessary is one out of focus object.


for it to be an AREA called a bokeh.

now please tell me which area of the picture is bokeh and which is not... and most importantly, from WHAT is it coming from.

And please, please, PLEASE do not let john lithgow unfold his arms and put his hands on his hips and stand AKIMBO at this inquiry. I'm already so intimidated I can hardly stand it.

speaking of which, what helps you more with your arguments, john lithgow... or the cheer leaders I'm expecting to show up any minute now.

btw... I should tell you that I sometimes find it difficult to listen to the reasoning of those who feel the need to pre-gaurd their intellect.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by smarterthanyou
 



Wouldn't the image be perfectly circular and not have any chunks out of the side of it? And not a small circle in the middle with a mostly formed outside around it? Bokeh would look like this o or a completely filled in circle. I still say the opinion is out on this until we can see other examples of similar "artifacts" that can produce this effect, this does not look like any thing I have seen before that is known.

I believe there have been posts with links in this thread that show polygonal bokeh and explain them. Photographers exploit it for effects in photos.

edit on 14-5-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by NotAnAspie
 

An area? I'm not sure what you mean.

This bokeh is produced by a dust particle within the imaging device. Since it is within the device it cannot be in focus.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

"pre-guard"? I'm not sure what that means either.

Can you explain how an external object could remain in exactly the same location in the frame (for days) despite the movement of the spacecraft? I'd like to hear your reasoning. Is it "tracking the spacecraft?


Does my avatar really bother you that much?
edit on 5/14/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by NotAnAspie
 

An area? I'm not sure what you mean.

This bokeh is produced by a dust particle within the imaging device. Since it is within the device it cannot be in focus.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

"pre-guard"? I'm not sure what that means either.

Can you explain how an external object could remain in exactly the same location in the frame (for days) despite the movement of the spacecraft? I'd like to hear your reasoning. Is it "tracking the spacecraft?


Does my avatar really bother you that much?
edit on 5/14/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


I just think the avatar is funny.

after reading more, I think it could involve perhaps an internal reflection in the telescope. this would explain why the donut appears twice and once less opaque. maybe something someone overlooked about the equipment itself.

I still don't think that is technically what a bokeh is because I am not seeing what is *relatively* out of focus on this one. it looks to me like a reflection. A glare.

which part of this is out of focus. yes, it may very well be a problem with the lens, but is not a bokeh more about the effect seen in the image. I'm not seeing all or part of this image being any more out of focus than it would normally be. what I see is a reflection.
edit on 14-5-2012 by NotAnAspie because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 20  21  22    24 >>

log in

join