Red Orb by Sun pic posted by major Malaysian Newspaper Oct 3rd

page: 3
33
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   
If what the witnesses were saying were true as not lens flare.....

Could it be a space object - such as debris, rocket launchers or..even whole failed satellites, etc falling back onto Earth and burning up on the atmosphere, and with water vapour from the stratosphere reflecting off the burning up and the red glow around it?

Though..it's gotta be a mighty huge object burning up....

As there is no evidence, guess another unexplained mystery by word of mouth?




posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


PlanetXisHERE, fantastic find. How any can claim lens flare when others seen it physically 1 wonders.


LOVE LIGHT ETERNIA*******
NAMASTE



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Screwed

Originally posted by Xquizit
Lol... Oh no, watch out! It's Nibiru!

I find it very humorous that they would put this in the News paper. Just goes to show how some people still want this to be real....

EDIT: personally I just think this is their way to work around the Nibiru conspiracy without flat out saying it...
edit on 3-10-2012 by Xquizit because: (no reason given)



ummm, I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where ANYBODY said........ANYTHING about Nibiru.
Sounds like someone has an agenda.


Everything alright at home?


Lol everything is kosher. So many people here on ATS have posted threads with video or pictures about a strange orb, possible "lens flare" around the sun with eye witnesses etc... Asking what our thoughts were on the pictures at hand. And most OP's drawing to a final conclusion that "I don't believe in Nibiru but..."

So I may have jumped the gun a little assuming that this is what this thread would turn out to be... My bad...



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   
LENS FLARE! that's it that's all!

Witnesses are bunk! You wanna know how I know? Yes you do!

Look up at the sun with your naked eye! There you go.....You CAN'T do it for more than a millisecond! Why? Because the sun is to bright on a cloud free day! Therefor all the witnesses are full of # and were just looking at the picture when they commented! Common sense prevails YET AGAIN!

There is NO video because a video would show that it is either filmed behind glass, or a reflection of a light source.

So there!



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by theclutch
LENS FLARE! that's it that's all!

Witnesses are bunk! You wanna know how I know? Yes you do!

Look up at the sun with your naked eye! There you go.....You CAN'T do it for more than a millisecond! Why? Because the sun is to bright on a cloud free day!


I star gaze at SOL for minutes at a time eyes wide open no blinks facing it and turning my back to it to assist pineal gland exposure to UV - blue light? So I cannot accept your post there theclutch as subjective truth
edit on 10/4/12 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


PlanetXisHERE, fantastic find. How any can claim lens flare when others seen it physically 1 wonders.


LOVE LIGHT ETERNIA*******
NAMASTE


How anyone can take tabloid media seriously must make one wonder


I would have given the OP a thumbs up as well if as they claim simple verification could have been done as to the legitimacy of the witnesses claims or the newspapers claims that there were witnesses.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by InhaleExhale

How anyone can take tabloid media seriously must make one wonder



Why? are you saying you have proof its a lie / hoax posted in tabloid or are you making a sarcastic remark at 1 to better show you feel your in the know??



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13
 


I would say then that you are someone who has trained himself to do so. You are gifted.

Most people (I'd say the other 99.9999% of people can not do this. Why do I say this.....because they sell things like sunglasses/filters for cameras/welding helmets, for the rest of the population.

therefore, my point still stands.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by theclutch
 


I would say its an ability within that many can have if wanted. I love stars and enjoy the energy they give off. All you have to do is start off looking below direct sun light allow eyes to adjust as you look up more and eventually look direct. You never know the sun may shine bright from your interactions as you 'tie in'
I do get your point but still it was observed by others with their EA*RTH eyes. Some may say the tabloid data is suspect but I see suspect data presented from msm at times so I guess its up to what you sense. Maybe some are feeling something that others are not and their may be a reason for this..

NAMASTE*******
edit on 10/4/12 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
Well, they are not just quoting anonymous witness sources, one person quoted in the story was the Muar Marine police chief, someone of supposed credibility and with whom the story could be confirmed.
First, they are reposting an article. In other words, they (the reposter) could say anything they wished. I would rather that you had taken the time to find the original article than posting a repost.

Second, if this were seen by onlookers with the naked eye then everyone that had the potential to see the sun would have seen the same thing.

Problem is, something that apparently close to the sun (in order to be visible in the sky) would have to be extremely close to the earth or even within the earths atmosphere. The sun is simply too bright for the naked eye to pick out an object that close to the sun unless the object is obscurring the sun (as in Eclipse type events).

Using simple logic, if it is in the Earth's atmosphere then it must be a relatively small and slow moving object.

-saige-



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by GezinhoKiko
 

sorry, i missed the post asking about Bluebeam ... so, thanks for stepping up and sharing

here's more ... educate-yourself.org...
www.abbaswatchman.com...
www.scribd.com...

whether one believes the theory or not is truly irrelevant as the part that counts is whether the general population believes "what they see themselves".

it is commonly accepted that "if you saw it, it must be true" and this is one program that depends on that theory entirely.
imagine a world-wide, holographically projected image that EVERYONE can see ... would you believe it was real ??



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by InhaleExhale

So did you at least make an effort to confirm? should have been quite simple you probably could have had direct contact via phone with this police chief.


Ya, I called the police chief because I have nothing else better to do with my time, just like I call every other witness cited in every other mysterious story published around the world, I have a whole rolodex of contacts for bigfoot sightings, Yeti sightings, Chupacapra sightings, Loch Ness monster sightings; and also I called because even though my Malay is rusty it is workable. Ya..........right.



Although I suspect you have no real interest in confirmation of facts.


You must be a mind reader, I don't even know why you bother coming on here to get poster's opinions when you can just pick them up from the aether.
edit on 4-10-2012 by PlanetXisHERE because: addition



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by saige45
 


1. I've read some of the dispatches from credible asian news agencies, as it does seem startling if the witnesses were honest and it does mention the same thing, even if reposted.

2. In terms of size, the object would be massively big if it is near to the sun, and burning with same or higher intensity to be that bright.

But if it was on atmosphere, it would still have to be something big, and burning to cast that glow and brightness. Fortunately, we can have an estimation of that size based upon the distance of Earth's surface to the radiation belt whereby most objects get burn up.

Most certainly a screw or small part of a booster rocket would not be picked up by the naked eye, so it has to be something bigger, perhaps bigger than a booster rocket itself, if it is even capable of reaching those heights.

However, I must add, all that is written here in this post is moot and pure speculation, as there are no evidences to support the existance of such object except eye witnesses.

Still, we need not pooh pah possibilities. Something happened, which must be explained - with facts and evidences, not just hypothesis, such as mine. It's the way of ATS.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13

Originally posted by InhaleExhale

How anyone can take tabloid media seriously must make one wonder



Why? are you saying you have proof its a lie / hoax posted in tabloid or are you making a sarcastic remark at 1 to better show you feel your in the know??


I dont have, the paper supplied the proof themselves in form of the photo.

When viewing the image and reading there were witness statements one must wonder, how can image artifact be seen in the sky, It cant unless the sky is a projection of some sort(topic for another thread).

If a simple internet search to acquire a contact number of this police chief and a verification call was made which would altogether take a hour max the OP could have had a solid thread for once, however its more fun to just speculate on things and push misleading info onto the readers of ATS



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


PlanetXisHERE, fantastic find. How any can claim lens flare when others seen it physically 1 wonders.


LOVE LIGHT ETERNIA*******
NAMASTE


Thanks Ophiuchus, your energy is so positive!

I'm open to the possibility that it is a hoax, however citing actual people who sighted this with the naked eye, one being a police chief with the assumption people can call him up to check this out, lessens the possibility.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by BrieBird
Why are we in such denial over this? NASA has hinted at the existance of a Rogue Planet in a large eliptical and are calling it Tyche. It was also suggested back in 1983 that something quite large was tugging on the outer planets. Having a 12 planet doesn't have to mean doom. Most solar systems are binary why would ours be any different. I suggest that we all take a picture of the sun at the apporiximate time of the siting in Malaysia ( adjust for time zone differences of course) and see what we come up with. Is it possible for so a large quantity of cameras to all produce a flare at the same time. Do our naked eyes also produce flares?
To correct you, NASA has never hinted at the existence of a rogue planet in a large elliptical orbit. And since they have never hinted at the existence of said object, they most assuredly did not name it.

You are confusing NASA with John Matese of the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, who proposed in 1999 that a hypothetical planet was located in the Oort cloud. His proposal is in direct opposition to the proposal by Richard A. Muller who hypothesized the existence of a Red Dwarf star used to explain a periodicity of 27-million-year extinction level events. In either case, no direct evidence has been found to verify or nullify the existence of either. A further study of the recently concluded WISE survey should put these hypothesis to rest.

With regards to the tugging of the outer planets. You are thinking of the Planet X hypothesis, which was proposed by Percival Lowell in 1906. He hypothesized that there must be a planet beyond the orbits of Uranus and Neptune to explain why they were displaced (perturbed) from their predicted positions. After his death in 1916, Pluto was discovered and originally hailed as Percival Lowell's mysterious Planet X. In 1978, Pluto's mass could finally be determined and it was found to be too small to affect the orbits of Uranus and Neptune to the extent that was predicted. In 1993, a study of the data from Voyager 2's 1989 fly-by of Neptune showed that the mass of Neptune was inaccurate. After correcting the mass of Neptune in their calculations, scientists were able to invalidate the need for a Planet X as the perturbations disappeared.

Source articles:

Tyche (hypothetical planet)
Nemesis (hypothetical star)
Planets beyond Neptune



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
reply to post by saige45
 


1. I've read some of the dispatches from credible asian news agencies, as it does seem startling if the witnesses were honest and it does mention the same thing, even if reposted.

2. In terms of size, the object would be massively big if it is near to the sun, and burning with same or higher intensity to be that bright.

But if it was on atmosphere, it would still have to be something big, and burning to cast that glow and brightness. Fortunately, we can have an estimation of that size based upon the distance of Earth's surface to the radiation belt whereby most objects get burn up.

Most certainly a screw or small part of a booster rocket would not be picked up by the naked eye, so it has to be something bigger, perhaps bigger than a booster rocket itself, if it is even capable of reaching those heights.

However, I must add, all that is written here in this post is moot and pure speculation, as there are no evidences to support the existance of such object except eye witnesses.

Still, we need not pooh pah possibilities. Something happened, which must be explained - with facts and evidences, not just hypothesis, such as mine. It's the way of ATS.

1. Could you provide some of these resources. If anyone else were unable to see it (say for example someone in Europe or Australia) then it would have to be a localized event which signifies even more the prospect of your proposal of it being a rocket booster or sattelite.

2. Exactly my point of it having to be a localized event.

-saige-



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by InhaleExhale

to just speculate on things



Isn't that what most posters do on ATS? I admit their are posters like Slayer who have extraordinary OP's, which I feel we all should aspire to, but with this subject, most of the info is covered up or subject to security directives, so all we are left with is speculation.




and push misleading info onto the readers of ATS


So my threads are weak but still have the ability to mislead ATS readers? I think most ATS readers and posters are actually quite intelligent and many actually have this ability called discernment - and would prefer to make up their own minds and not be told what to think.

I don't believe anywhere in the OP did I draw any conclusions, what conclusions did you think I was implying?



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE

Originally posted by InhaleExhale

So did you at least make an effort to confirm? should have been quite simple you probably could have had direct contact via phone with this police chief.


Ya, I called the police chief because I have nothing else better to do with my time, just like I call every other witness cited in every other mysterious story published around the world, I have a whole rolodex of contacts for bigfoot sightings, Yeti sightings, Chupacapra sightings, Loch Ness monster sightings; and also I called because even though my Malay is rusty it is workable. Ya..........right.



Although I suspect you have no real interest in confirmation of facts.


You must be a mind reader, I don't even know why you bother coming on here to get poster's opinions when you can just pick them up from the aether.
edit on 4-10-2012 by PlanetXisHERE because: addition


Sorry but you fill these boards with these image artifacts or downright hoax videos and the one time you could actually shut everyone up and prove your point of view to us readers who have doubts you decide to post this reply about other witness statements that have no relevance to anything you have posted.

Your own words are this could be confirmed yet you choose not too, Why?

Time you say, you cant spare what at most would be an hour if not less.

As the english language is fairly universal to our planet you can guarantee that most police stations in non english speaking countries have at least one who can, A police chief would likely be able to.

But as most your threads you wish only to push your fear of not knowing onto others instead of verifying what you post.

I dont have to be a mind reader, If I am then a number of other members on these boards are as well, it just seems some of us can read and then read between the lines, as i said a while ago you expose yourself too easily.

You go on the defensive so easily one doesnt even to need debunk any of your claims as your responses paint a pretty picture for all to see.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE

Originally posted by InhaleExhale

to just speculate on things



Isn't that what most posters do on ATS? I admit their are posters like Slayer who have extraordinary OP's, which I feel we all should aspire to, but with this subject, most of the info is covered up or subject to security directives, so all we are left with is speculation.




and push misleading info onto the readers of ATS


So my threads are weak but still have the ability to mislead ATS readers? I think most ATS readers and posters are actually quite intelligent and many actually have this ability called discernment - and would prefer to make up their own minds and not be told what to think.

I don't believe anywhere in the OP did I draw any conclusions, what conclusions did you think I was implying?





I think the conclusion your implying is the title of your thread, that a newspaper article is saying there are witnesses to this and one is the police chief. The image looks identical to lens flares posted in this thread.
So unless you wish to verify by simply getting in contact with police chief you seem to be pushing this papers hoax.

How does any organization cover up the sky? its ridiculous statements like "most of the info is covered up or subject to security directives, so all we are left with is speculation."

Your not left with speculation you began with speculation.





new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join