Video of second object near the Sun, very clear.

page: 10
24
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 18 2012 @ 03:05 AM
link   
When the clouds clear. i am going to take a picture myself.. see what i find lol

MentalLentalChickenOriental




posted on May, 18 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE

Originally posted by Chamberf=6

So you cannot be trusted, no?

No revelation there.
edit on 5/17/2012 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)


I can't be trusted because I DIDN'T lie? Son, you need remedial lessons in logic.
edit on 17-5-2012 by PlanetXisHERE because: (no reason given)


I said that, as you know, because you asked if I wanted to know a timetable, said you might tell me if asked nicely, then denied saying that, then said you never had that information and you were just making it up that you
even had a timetable to mess with us.

Thus my comment on your trustworthiness.

Now you say I'm not using logic?

lol

You must be working with a different definition of logic then.

Like a definition that says a vid by some amateur is proof that there is a massive Planet X near our sun, for example.


:@@;

btw: I just love how you continue to insinuate that I am a paid shill, troll, and disinfo agent all while insulting my intelligence.
Very civil of you.
edit on 5/18/2012 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
LMAO WOW ARE YOU SERIOUS NICE FAIL



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 


Thank you, perfect these are the kinds of answers that really are useful for those of us who need to see to understand.




posted on May, 22 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chamberf=6

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE

Originally posted by Chamberf=6

So you cannot be trusted, no?

No revelation there.
edit on 5/17/2012 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)


I can't be trusted because I DIDN'T lie? Son, you need remedial lessons in logic.
edit on 17-5-2012 by PlanetXisHERE because: (no reason given)


I said that, as you know, because you asked if I wanted to know a timetable, said you might tell me if asked nicely, then denied saying that, then said you never had that information and you were just making it up that you
even had a timetable to mess with us.

Thus my comment on your trustworthiness.

Now you say I'm not using logic?

lol

You must be working with a different definition of logic then.

Like a definition that says a vid by some amateur is proof that there is a massive Planet X near our sun, for example.


:@@;

btw: I just love how you continue to insinuate that I am a paid shill, troll, and disinfo agent all while insulting my intelligence.
Very civil of you.
edit on 5/18/2012 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)


This is degenerating into mega pettiness and distraction - obvious hallmarks of "knowledge management specialists".

I will respond to this topic one last time ONLY because my integrity has been smeared.

You asked if I knew a timetable.

I said only quote (or close) "I might let you know if you asked nicely."

I never denied saying that, I agree I did say that, please show me where I denied saying that.

I don't see anywhere where I said I know a timetable.

That doesn't constitute me saying I know I timetable.

That constitutes you inferring I know a timetable.

Do you know the difference between an inference and a statement?

I think you don't, thus my comment about logic, as statements and inferences are covered in Logic 101, as I said I suggest you review it before putting words in my mouth.

You should stick to something more your debunking level - like debunking the silver manipulation threads.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   
Hey OP,

I don't know if this has been brought up since I didn't have time to go through all 10 pages- but I really believe the camera can pick up energy that's not visible to the naked eye. I first noticed this a few years ago when I was in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, 50 miles out from any kind of civilization. The aurora borealis started up and I noticed right away that my camera actually photographed parts of the northern lights that's weren't even visible to my eye! They were taken with a digital camera, so I was able to tell instantly- and I found it so interesting, as areas of sky that appeared black weren't at all! None of this was due to any kind of light pollution, I was on a two track dirt road situated on 40 acres of hunting property- literally in the middle of nowhere.

What I think you are seeing is actually there, we just can't see it. I think it's a burnt out brown dwarf companion star to our sun. I think it still has an active magnetic field, and since it is so close to our sun, the active sun particles/flares are reacting to the dwarf's magnetic field which illuminates it under the view of a camera. Which goes back to my northern lights photographs- my camera could "pick up" on energy interactions not visible to the naked eye.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by SummerBreeze
Hey OP,

I don't know if this has been brought up since I didn't have time to go through all 10 pages- but I really believe the camera can pick up energy that's not visible to the naked eye. I first noticed this a few years ago when I was in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, 50 miles out from any kind of civilization. The aurora borealis started up and I noticed right away that my camera actually photographed parts of the northern lights that's weren't even visible to my eye! They were taken with a digital camera, so I was able to tell instantly- and I found it so interesting, as areas of sky that appeared black weren't at all! None of this was due to any kind of light pollution, I was on a two track dirt road situated on 40 acres of hunting property- literally in the middle of nowhere.

What I think you are seeing is actually there, we just can't see it. I think it's a burnt out brown dwarf companion star to our sun. I think it still has an active magnetic field, and since it is so close to our sun, the active sun particles/flares are reacting to the dwarf's magnetic field which illuminates it under the view of a camera. Which goes back to my northern lights photographs- my camera could "pick up" on energy interactions not visible to the naked eye.


Hey SummerBreeze,

I haven't looked at this thread for a long time, so sorry for the delay in my response!

Yes, I have heard that as well, some ordinary cameras now can pick up spectrums of light, close to the visible spectrum, that can't be seen with the naked eye.

I have noticed powerful zoom cameras as well can pick up objects in the sky you would never see with your naked eye, I know this sounds obvious, we're used to this on earth where there is a lot of backround clutter and we take it for granted, but sometimes there seems to be nothing in the sky, where with a zoom you can see much.

Here is the original video from my OP, there is an obvious lens flare right at the beginning, and at about 20 sec in you can see the small orb beside the Sun.

This orb remains as the Sun goes behind a cloud, where a lens flare would disappear when the main source of light was covered - hence is not a flare, also, the smaller orb itself can be seen slowly moving behind a cloud - something lens flares cannot do by definition.




posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 07:22 AM
link   
So, if this is a second sun and if the governments of the world are conducting a cover up, what about all the amateur astronomers? Who's keeping millions of them quiet? All these videos are taken using cheap crap for a filter. Where are the videos of people using quality equipment, filters made for viewing the sun? Let's see some of those.





new topics
top topics
 
24
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum