Does anyone know what this strange wobble of the earth is seen from space?

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
Am I imagining things or does the earth wobble in the video at 50 seconds in to this video?

www.youtube.com...

Anyone else see it? If so, any explanations?

In the comments section there is something about rocket boosters which was posted about an hour after I posted this on GLP, but not by the authors. Given that we see about half a revolution in six seconds (12 hours) the one second of wobble would represent about two hours, and I think it impossible the rockets would be firing for so long.

Actually, if you follow the path of the sun across the globe you will see that is does in fact move a bit, but that may be a normal event.

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
This video of an object near the Sun could explain the wobble:

www.youtube.com...

That's not an "object," it's a filter flare from using a pair of sunglasses to try to filter and film the sun. Notice how you never see any of these people showing filter flares cover the sun like this, as it would prove that they're just observing a filter/lens flare...

Originally posted by ngchunter
That's not an "object," it's a filter flare from using a pair of sunglasses to try to filter and film the sun. Notice how you never see any of these people showing filter flares cover the sun like this, as it would prove that they're just observing a filter/lens flare...

Anyone with a basic understanding of photography knows a lens flare/filter flare will move in sync with movement of the camera, as there is one lens flare that appears to do so. Any real object will remain stationary.

www.youtube.com...

It makes me laugh how some think a lens flare could hide behind a cloud.

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE

Originally posted by ngchunter
That's not an "object," it's a filter flare from using a pair of sunglasses to try to filter and film the sun. Notice how you never see any of these people showing filter flares cover the sun like this, as it would prove that they're just observing a filter/lens flare...

Anyone with a basic understanding of photography knows a lens flare/filter flare will move in sync with movement of the camera, as there is one lens flare that appears to do so. Any real object will remain stationary.

Did you even watch the video? I guess not. Oh look, a "stationary" lens flare! And yes, it's definitely a lens flare!

OP has an agenda. His username tells you all you need to know.

You can also take a gander at his post history, and you'll see many links posted to Nancy Lieder's zetatalk and related sites.

If you'd like, I can link to posts he/she has made on ATS that say we have a few mere months left before Nibiru destroys most of the population.

That was a month or so ago. Where is the effing thing already? Doom porn is right.

Originally posted by ColAngus
OP has an agenda. His username tells you all you need to know.

You can also take a gander at his post history, and you'll see many links posted to Nancy Lieder's zetatalk and related sites.

If you'd like, I can link to posts he/she has made on ATS that say we have a few mere months left before Nibiru destroys most of the population.

That was a month or so ago. Where is the effing thing already? Doom porn is right.

Are you stalking me? Well, I don't know if I should feel flattered or concerned. Usually when we strongly disagree with others or think they are crazy we ignore them, however you seem to be fixated on me, Planet X and Nancy Leider. Does the message frighten you? Maybe Huff Po is more your speed.

Originally posted by ngchunter

Anyone with a basic understanding of photography knows a lens flare/filter flare will move in sync with movement of the camera, as there is one lens flare that appears to do so. Any real object will remain stationary.

Did you even watch the video? I guess not. Oh look, a "stationary" lens flare! And yes, it's definitely a lens flare!

Thanks for providing that example of being able to distinguish a lens flare. Block the sun and the object disappears. However, it just proves that the object in this video is not a lens flare, the sun is blocked and the object remains, and is slowly covered by cloulds, as the sun is, as they pass by.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
Are you stalking me? Well, I don't know if I should feel flattered or concerned. Usually when we strongly disagree with others or think they are crazy we ignore them, however you seem to be fixated on me, Planet X and Nancy Leider. Does the message frighten you? Maybe Huff Po is more your speed.

Uh, no.

I just have a strong reaction to intentional fear mongering, and you are a repeat offender.

Originally posted by spyder550

Im sticking with the fact that planetary motion is well know - well studied and well settled. Minor variations would cause all kinds of problems and would immediately be front page news. THAT is how science works. Don't come back with "it is being hidden" you can not hide this stuff, science is full of ego, if some astronomer noticed the slightest non predicted deviation - they are off and running, there would be no stopping this secret. On top of that astronomy is a fairly popular and wide spread hobby, whose participants spend much time and money star gazing. We don't see many of those guys coming on the board saying the sun is moving, even though they have a 70.000.oo telescope sitting in the back yard. You tube and a disciplined scientific hobbyist are not equivalents.

Sorry, I must disagree with your assumptions. Planetary motion is not well known - even though it is well studied. That is like saying the brain is well known even though it is well studied - one does not necessarily follow from the other. We have a decent idea of planetary mechanics within our own solar system - and that is about it. If you read the science news you will see that scientists are discovering new anomalies almost everyday, and are quite often surprised by what they find, for example CERN last year finding particles faster than light:

www.dailymail.co.uk...


In fact, last year, scientists just discovered a huge Galatic magnetic ribbon that they had never observed or predicted before and are unsure how it would effect the solar system:

science.nasa.gov...

The US Naval astronomer Robert Harrington was a big proponent of Planet X:

yowusa.com...

Here is one of the most important US government programs of the last 100 years, but 99.99% of people have never heard of it, does that mean it did not exist?

www.majesticdocuments.com...

Are you aware of the term normalcy bias?

Originally posted by ColAngus

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
Are you stalking me? Well, I don't know if I should feel flattered or concerned. Usually when we strongly disagree with others or think they are crazy we ignore them, however you seem to be fixated on me, Planet X and Nancy Leider. Does the message frighten you? Maybe Huff Po is more your speed.

Uh, no.

I just have a strong reaction to intentional fear mongering, and you are a repeat offender.

There were those in the US and Europe who warned about the growing danger of Nazi power in the 1930's. Were they fearmongers or prophetic?

There were those who warned about the dangers of nuclear power pre-Fukushima. Were they fearmongers or prophetic?

There are many instances of those in history who warned of dangerous or catastrophic future events, many were proven wrong, some were right. Almost all were vilified before the fact and hailed as heros after the fact if predictions were borne out.

I myself am not totally convinced and will not be until we see the predicted three days of darkness, from which point we have about thirty days until the hour of the poleshift. Or unless of course Planet X is clearly visible to the unaided eye before that point. Also, the predicted massive earthquake along the New Madrid fault will push me a little further into the convinced camp.

There are certainly events going on in the world that are unprecedented in modern times:

1. Major earthquakes every 188 days

2. Of the ten top earthquakes of the last 100 years, half have occurred within the last 8 years.

3. Mass fish and bird die-offs, rarely seen before, now common.

4. Many more cases of albinism in animals. Radiation from the Sun causes the pigmentation genes to switch on, radiantion from the earth's core causes the pigmantation genes to switch off.

5. Increased sightings of fireballs.

6. Increased occurrence of sinkholes.

7. Increased occurrence of strange earth noises caused by plate tectonics.

8. Most major volcanoes and even those long dormant becoming active.

Etc, etc. Maybe I'll start a thread with all of them.

My intention is not "fear porn", my intention is to inform, this poleshift, if it occurs, will be survivable, but only if you are in safe locations and have made some preparations. What is the downside to some preparations, you are left with some surplus camping equipment and food? You don't think it is better to err on the side of caution? My motto is better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE


As asked in your other thread, what about the people who took drastic measures in anticipation of the 2003 poleshift? I actually remember hearing her on a local L.A. talk show back then before the alleged shift, and she shamelessly told people to put down their animals, quit their jobs, etc.

The excuse that came afterward that it was an intentional dis-info response to the government doesn't addresss the fact that some people reacted to Nancy's original claims in terrible, terrible ways. How do you reconcile that? Collateral damage for the greater good?

Also, where does the 30-day timeframe come from? How is that even possible to calculate? This is all fiction and fantasy to drive Nancy's coffers up knowing full well this is the last hurrah before the jig is up.

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

However, it just proves that the object in this video is not a lens flare, the sun is blocked and the object remains, and is slowly covered by cloulds, as the sun is, as they pass by.

The "object" is not covered by clouds. As I explained in your other thread, it is lost in the brightness of the backlit cloud.

Notice that the reflection gets dimmer when the cloud passes over the Sun. The reflection does not disappear behind the cloud, it blends into the very bright cloud (backlit by the Sun).

When the cloud moves past the Sun it, and the reflection, become brighter. The reflection now becomes visible against the cloud (which is no longer backlit).

The brightness of the reflection follows the brightness of the Sun.

The reflection (not technically lens flare) is caused by the protective cover over the lens. The light of the Sun bounces from the lens to the cover and back into the camera. A similar effect can be seen with a double paned window.

Originally posted by ColAngus
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

 

As asked in your other thread, what about the people who took drastic measures in anticipation of the 2003 poleshift? I actually remember hearing her on a local L.A. talk show back then before the alleged shift, and she shamelessly told people to put down their animals, quit their jobs, etc.

The excuse that came afterward that it was an intentional dis-info response to the government doesn't addresss the fact that some people reacted to Nancy's original claims in terrible, terrible ways. How do you reconcile that? Collateral damage for the greater good?

Also, where does the 30-day timeframe come from? How is that even possible to calculate? This is all fiction and fantasy to drive Nancy's coffers up knowing full well this is the last hurrah before the jig is up.

If Nancy is trying to fill her coffers please enlighten me as to why their are no ads on her site, she is not selling a newsletter (as so many do, hey, I'd like to sell an internet newsletter), she sells no expensive products, the only thing she has for sale is a CD @ $5.95 and a book @ $7.50, obviously close to cost, and anyway both contain material that is available for free on the site. So either her main motivation is ALTRUISTIC (I know that is a tough concept for most to grasp) or she is one of the worst businesswomen ever.

Please provide evidence/links to where she counselled people to kill their dogs or quit their jobs.

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
Please provide evidence/links to where she counselled people to kill their dogs or quit their jobs.

Originally posted by Phage

The brightness of the reflection follows the brightness of the Sun.

This is the crux of your argument? How many times do I have to say it - lense flares do not disappear behind clouds. I see the brightness of the object remaining approximately the same throughout the video.

Please - others watch it and comment, but maybe some new people, not the cadre of usual Planet X and Nibiru debunkers.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by ColAngus

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
Please provide evidence/links to where she counselled people to kill their dogs or quit their jobs.

Oh, I see something now, let me watch it.

Well, I would never advise that, but if the poleshift does happen her comments make sense, society will grind to a halt and there will be nothing to feed your dog, and if you had kids and they were starving I'm sure most parents would consider their pets for food for their kids if they could do it in a way the kids never knew.

But anyway, let me reiterate, I would never counsel anyone to kill their dogs or quit their jobs, even though if the poleshift is occurring this year these things may make sense, ALL that I am advocating is people make some plans, have a safe location to go to, have some stored food, water and survival equipment which is not much more than most governments recommend anyway:

www.ready.gov...

This is a whole government website dedicated too emergency preparedness.

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

lense flares do not disappear behind clouds.

Correct. And this one doesn't. It is overcome by the brightness level of the backlit cloud.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

 

lense flares do not disappear behind clouds.

Correct. And this one doesn't. It is overcome by the brightness level of the backlit cloud.

I don't think we are watching the same video, in this video I see an object, which is not the Sun, Moon, planets, stars or lens flares disappear behind a clould, and in fact it starts to disappear behind the cloud at 41 seconds in and finishes disappearing at about 48 seconds in. If you would like to discuss some other matter you would like to debunk fine, but I'm not going to continue to be engaged with someone who is attempting alter reality.


www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

 

lense flares do not disappear behind clouds.

Correct. And this one doesn't. It is overcome by the brightness level of the backlit cloud.

I don't think we are watching the same video, in this video I see an object, which is not the Sun, Moon, planets, stars or lens flares disappear behind a clould,

I see it overcome by the brightness level of the backlit cloud as well. I do not see it "disappear behind" a cloud.

Originally posted by ngchunter
I see it overcome by the brightness level of the backlit cloud as well. I do not see it "disappear behind" a cloud.

So you and Phag agree. Does that make something definitive and unequivocal?

On my other thread (not that I care it is my thread, my ego is negligible, I am just trying to educate), some others have isolated close-ups where it is quite obvious to all unbiased observers that this object is anything but a lense flare, artifact, optical illlusion, woods fairie etc.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Looks pretty real to me and many others. Let's move on to another topic that doesn't involve you or others trying to alter reality.