Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Photo of Nibiru? What do you think?

page: 6
24
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   
I look at the sun often with binoculars that have tinted lens covers.....I have never seen anything else up there but the sun and the occasional interesting sun spot.

I believe myself more than anyone else.




posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by delusion
 

I don't know why it's not letting me edit my post, it HASN'T been four hours.
But anyway, disregard that, the google search told me that first news item was a day ago, but closer reading shows it was posted in september, so my question is dumb. And google's a liar.
edit on 8-12-2012 by delusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Another thread on the same topic? No. Not Nibiru.
It is lens flare (more accurately, an internal reflection). Since the Sun has clouds across it, so does its reflection.



lol



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   
How many times do we have to have photographs where the camera is pointing towards the sun and "nibiru" appears before people read what photographers have known for years.................

Come on I would really love to know. Let me guess Niburu has been approaching the earth for the past 100 years and all those photographers who said it was lens flare were actually government agents covering up the approach of Nibiru.

Sheesh. HOW MANY TIMES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FYI : Years ago I read about the nonsense surrounding "orbs". So I decided that I knew exactly when orbs would appear. I waited for a damp evening (obvious condition number 1), in the dark (more pronounced condition 2), took my digital camera (with lens close to flash - obvious condition3) and pressed the shutter. Guess what a gadzillion orbs. My god the spirits knew what I was doing..............

Oh no , hang on, I knew what I was doing having done photography from way back in the days of film, estimating shutter speeds, apertures etc. Chemicals to develop colour film and prints in near darkness.

I'm beginning to think that digital equipment makes people stupid.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by yorkshirelad
How many times do we have to have photographs where the camera is pointing towards the sun and "nibiru" appears before people read what photographers have known for years.................

Come on I would really love to know. Let me guess Niburu has been approaching the earth for the past 100 years and all those photographers who said it was lens flare were actually government agents covering up the approach of Nibiru.

Sheesh. HOW MANY TIMES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FYI : Years ago I read about the nonsense surrounding "orbs". So I decided that I knew exactly when orbs would appear. I waited for a damp evening (obvious condition number 1), in the dark (more pronounced condition 2), took my digital camera (with lens close to flash - obvious condition3) and pressed the shutter. Guess what a gadzillion orbs. My god the spirits knew what I was doing..............

Oh no , hang on, I knew what I was doing having done photography from way back in the days of film, estimating shutter speeds, apertures etc. Chemicals to develop colour film and prints in near darkness.

I'm beginning to think that digital equipment makes people stupid.


Were you able to make a lens flare partially disappear behind something in the photo?



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


What's your take on this? I don't have a guess, but I'm not sold on it being a camera lens flare or the like.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Artlicious
 

I showed you pictures of the effect already but easy experiment:
Using the same camera take a picture in the same direction in the morning but set it up so the sun is behind some tree branches, not obscuring it, just crossing over it.

edit on 12/8/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
reply to post by Artlicious
 


Nice catch OP.

I don't know if it's Nibiru or Planet X, but it is definitely not a lens flare, and those that say it is obviously do not know much about photography. I'm open to other explanations that don't involve the word "lens" and/or "flare".

It is clearly obvious the clouds across the Sun in your pic do not match up with the one layer of clould over your orb, the size and angle are off.

It is just like this YouTube video I posted a while back, when the Sun goes behind a cloud and the orb remained completely unobscured and it was still called a lens flare.

Then the Sun came out from behind the clouds - AND THE ORB WENT BEHIND THE CLOUDS AT THE SAME TIME. Lens flares do not go behind clouds, especially when the main light source is completely unobscured.

Think about it - if Planet X/Nibiru exists and the governements of the world would not be able to help the citizenry - would it be covered up? Of course.

Start at 14 seconds in:



Good luck to all and peace.


You can still see that both images are static and remain the same distance apart, thanks to the cameraman eventually getting a settled picture. That can only mean that without cloud, and if there were truly two objects to be viewed they would be seen clearly by everybody and their granny, I haven't seen that ever, but I have seen the same effect when there are clouds, or more specifically different cloud layers of varying thickness acting like multiple lenses projecting an image onto a layer below. Note that the guy is eyeballing it, and sees it as it is, but he is not that fazed, and the sunglasses may well play a part in enhancing the image effect, as I usually wear the same.
So it is probably not lens flare in your example, while the obvious lens flare is more mobile off to center left.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Artlicious
 


100% lens flare.

I have images of the same thing during the May 21, 2012 eclipse, and the image looks just like that, but with a big 'ol black hole in the middle of it (the Moon blocking the Sun).



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy
So it is probably not lens flare in your example, while the obvious lens flare is more mobile off to center left.


This part of your post I understand and agree with.

In this video there is an obvious lens flare and a small orb that is obviously not a lens flare.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProperlyErrant
reply to post by Artlicious
 


100% lens flare.

I have images of the same thing during the May 21, 2012 eclipse, and the image looks just like that, but with a big 'ol black hole in the middle of it (the Moon blocking the Sun).


Ya, this picture and the May 21 2012 eclipse with a big black hole in the middle of it are almost completely identical..............except for practically everything..............



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 



In this video there is an obvious lens flare and a small orb that is obviously not a lens flare.

Actually there are two obvious lens flares. I would say internal reflections but I know how much you hate the term lens flare.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Spacespider
 


Read the title of the post...



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 

www.flickr.com...



Green and everything:



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 

www.flickr.com...



Green and everything:







You think there is no negative karma associated with what you are trying to do?



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 

What is it you think I am trying to do?
Do you think it's OK to try to convince people that Planet X is HERE?
edit on 12/8/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Spacespider
 



Umm are you sure, this one appears to be behind the clouds, should it not be shown in front of the clouds if it where a lens flare ?


I Agree with your View . The upper half of the circular structure in the picture appears behind the Contrail which makes me doubtful if its really a Lens flare as suggested by other members .





posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by xplorer
 


If you actually look at the picture you will see that the green thing, whatever it is, is not a perfect circle, or even close to it.

Oh, and the Earth is still in its same orbit so i'm going to say it's not good ol' Niburu



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   
The vertical field of view for an iPhone5 is 58.5º.
www.caramba-apps.com...
 

The image is 3264 pixels high. Angular size of one pixel:
58.5º / 3264 = 0.017º / pixel

In the image "Nibiru" is 30 pixels high. Angular diameter of "Nibiru":
0.017º * 30 = 0.54º
 

Angular diameter of the Sun = 0.54º as viewed from Earth.
sunearthday.nasa.gov...
 

"Nibiru" is the same angular diameter as the Sun. Coincidence, or reflection?
edit on 12/8/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Artlicious

Originally posted by Phage
Another thread on the same topic? No. Not Nibiru.
It is lens flare (more accurately, an internal reflection). Since the Sun has clouds across it, so does its reflection.



I did think about that.

But as you can see the Sun in my photo is criss-crossed with many contrails and the green orb is only intersected by one in the middle which overlaps more than just the green orb.


In other words, "I choose not to believe facts".









 
24
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join