Object near the Sun

page: 3
21
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by mee30
[more)

I dont really believe in the nibiru thing either. I was just saying that the british summer really is bad, even for our standards.




posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


Hey, with your profile avatar, Have you ever tried to find out where you can track a date from the positions of the moons and planets? I have looked at that bank note before and have always wondered if there is a specific date that the note is pointing to??



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   
the first part of the video is interesting as there seems to be some sort of object there.. But once again, as in most nibiru videos, we are just looking at recycled information which i actually get sick of seening as a reference now in most Nibiru videos.

Apart from the object next to the Sun, there is not much else to go off.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxumusx
 



I am amazed at the planet next to the sun in that video. I dont think it is any type of lense phenomena.

Planet? Think about that for a moment. Look at the size, that would be easily visible to anyone if it existed anywhere outside that camera, no? Not to mention the myriad space based and Earth based telescopes.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Geez, the anti-Nibiru members are so quick to be rude and call names. I'm not sure if I believe in Nibiru, but if there's anything I've learned, it's that anything and everything is possible. The supposed removed graphics from Google Sky has always raised questions for me, at least. What's very interesting is that the Nibiru phenomenon doesn't seem to be slowing down anytime soon, and that can't be said for most of these alleged "doomsday hoaxes". There always seems to be more and more of these kind of videos showing up on the web. I'm really excited to see how this whole thing concludes, Nibiru or no NIbiru. Thanks for sharing.
edit on 23-6-2012 by ForAllMyDeadHomies because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ForAllMyDeadHomies
 


I agree, and it's not just on this topic. On just about any thread on this site there are people making personal attacks and calling each others names, just because their beliefs differ. Like they'd rather be downright nasty than just admit theres a possibility that they could be wrong. It's disgusting!



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by fairguy
reply to post by ForAllMyDeadHomies
 


I agree, and it's not just on this topic. On just about any thread on this site there are people making personal attacks and calling each others names, just because their beliefs differ. Like they'd rather be downright nasty than just admit theres a possibility that they could be wrong. It's disgusting!


"I believe in something and/or I consider something "possible," which makes no sense according to proven science and established experts who know more about this kind of thing than I ever will" does not qualify as a "belief." It is complete willful ignorance and there is no reason anyone who believes such tripe deserves anything even remotely resembling "respect."

Besides, just because you believe something doesn't mean whatever you believe in isn't complete hogwash. The fact that you (or any number of people) "believe" it does not in any way lend credence to an idea.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by vexati0n

Originally posted by fairguy
reply to post by ForAllMyDeadHomies
 


I agree, and it's not just on this topic. On just about any thread on this site there are people making personal attacks and calling each others names, just because their beliefs differ. Like they'd rather be downright nasty than just admit theres a possibility that they could be wrong. It's disgusting!


"I believe in something and/or I consider something "possible," which makes no sense according to proven science and established experts who know more about this kind of thing than I ever will" does not qualify as a "belief." It is complete willful ignorance and there is no reason anyone who believes such tripe deserves anything even remotely resembling "respect."

Besides, just because you believe something doesn't mean whatever you believe in isn't complete hogwash. The fact that you (or any number of people) "believe" it does not in any way lend credence to an idea.


There's a difference between not giving respect and just being plain rude, and I don't believe the nibiru thing either, I already said this. I wont go around bashing people who do believe it though, each to their own & all that.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by vexati0n
 


And since when did someone saying "I believe in something" not count as them having the belief of the something of which it is... LOL!



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 



No, I haven't backed off the IR claims. Planet X/Nibiru has multiple moons/satelites (there is conflicting info on this on which it is). What we are seeing is a relfection from one of these moons from the complex that doesn't have the same IR features of Planet X/Nibiru - of course this is only my opinion.


How do you know that this fictional Nibiru has any of these properties such as multiple moons?

What do you mean about IR features. Planets reflect light . They are visible just as a light bulb is visible even when turned off.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by navione
 


I did not check all of the photos, but the group I checked out showed lens flares and a solar halo.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


So the small circle that shows up is that the flare or the halo ? Like I mentioned I know very little about photography just point and click and still I chop off heads...

Thanks you again



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by navione
 


I don't know the techinical photographic terms, but I know for a fact that that is just in the camera and not a "planet" in the sky. Case in point, it's on different sides of the sun in different areas, during pictures where the sun is overcast, there is magically no dot out on the edge anymore, and in one of the final pictures, the object is out in front of one of the clouds. If it were an object in space, the cloud would cover it up, it wouldn't be in front of the cloud so to speak. Nice try, but no cigar.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 12:58 AM
link   
some people sort of get pissed off when you mention niburi huh?



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Jefferton
 


I'd have to agree, those people come up with low evidence theories.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by symbolon
 

I persevered until the native indian said that navigation by the stars had changed because the stars were in different positions. Well if our solar system has moved rapidly to another place in our galaxy maybe !!!!!!!!!!!

The "sun sets on the highest peak" said one........yes at exactly one day in the year !!!!!!!!!!!!!! otherwise it sets within a range on the horizon. This is why ancient monuments show where the sun sets on the winter and/or summer solstice. This only works because the setting sun is in a different place on the horizon depending on the time of year.

Now if global warming causes the seasons to change and natives without watches "assume" a certain time of year dependent on the weather then their estimate will be off. This is not a "fact" but a reasonable explanation before assuming the whole world has tilted and thousands of scientists and amateur astronomers (with pre - programmed navigating computers attached to telescopes) haven't noticed.

Oh and finally, yet again lens flare becomes Nibiru...........oh and I forgot to add Nibiru is the mythical invention by Sitchin years ago who mistranslated texts and sold lots of books to the naive.

How many times do we have to go through this........



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by navione
 


The small circle is a lens flare. What happens is due to reflections inside of the camera. A description of lens flares is given here.
www.cambridgeincolour.com...

The low quality of the images suggests to me that people pointed cell phones at the Sun. This leads to all sorts of problems from internal reflections to burning out the cameras to artifacts when cameras try to prevent damage. The ring of light around the Sun is the halo. It can be just bright or look like a rainbow.

A good description of halos can be found below.
www.atoptics.co.uk...

I use the techniques listed below to view halos. Had a beautiful one a couple of weeks ago where I live. The same things can be used to see if there is a bright spot near the Sun.
www.atoptics.co.uk...



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Remember the Japan earthquake in March 2011?

They told us that the quake was so intense that it shifted our axis:

NASA: Japan quake shortened Earth’s day, shifted axis

A 6.5inch shift to our world, would produce a much greater relative Parallax shift . Our Sun and Moon would be the first for us to spot as they are large and bright, where the rest of the cosmos would appear be unchanged. Since most of us can't see the stars near the horizon, we wouldn't know if there was a shift.

As for robotic telescopes, they would just need a quick calibration to get them back online..
edit on 24/6/2012 by lostjohnny because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by lostjohnny
Remember the Japan earthquake in March 2011?

They told us that the quake was so intense that it shifted our axis:

NASA: Japan quake shortened Earth’s day, shifted axis

A 6.5inch shift to our world, would produce a much greater relative Parallax shift . Our Sun and Moon would be the first for us to spot as they are large and bright, where the rest of the cosmos would appear be unchanged. Since most of us can't see the stars near the horizon, we wouldn't know if there was a shift.

As for robotic telescopes, they would just need a quick calibration to get them back online..
edit on 24/6/2012 by lostjohnny because: (no reason given)


True.

However star charts published before that quake are still in use today. Any shift would render the RA and Dec coordinates in those charts (which includes tables for the sun and moon) useless.

They're not, they are still dead on. I dial up those coordinates in my equatorial mount and guess what? The object is dead center in my eye piece. The sun and moon also appear correct in these charts that I, and many, many other's use.

Not everyone uses software or online sources, or robotic "go-to" telescope mounts.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


So then Nasa is misleading us. The tsunami didn`t shift the Earth? This is like two times now that there is supposed to have been a tsunami that was and caused the Earth to shift at the poles. So why is it it didn`t change the setting you use to find stars and such?

You see I tend to believe that yes it did shift the Earth as they monitor such things and don`t understand why you still can get the same centered as claimed stars. Something just don`t add up.





 
21
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join