Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Photo of Nibiru? What do you think?

page: 8
24
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 02:06 AM
link   
Phage go easy on me but...

A little while back I remember reading somewhere, that apparently, this supposed Nibiru can only be seeing via infrared. And that got me thinking...

Most the pictures that I have seeing of said Nibiru usually look the same, and usually the people who took the photo ( a good percent of the time) mention that they did not see it with their naked eyes, yet it shows up in the photograghs (Digital cameras and cellphones).

Now I was wondering, is it possible for cameras to pick up higher or lower frequency rays on the spectrum than the human eyes can? On the electromagnetic spectrum, visible light that we can see with the naked eye is sandwiched between ultra-voilet and infrared light.

So I decided to do a little test for myself (I advise others to try so to compare results). Everyone has a remote for their t.v. right? And as far as I know, it sends out infrared rays to your reciever when you change the channel. You can't see infrared with your naked eyes... but can you see it with a digital camera? To my surprise, yes I could see it! I could see it through my viewing LCD but not with my own eyes. I thought this was very interesting, makes you wonder how much of the spectrum can digital viewing equipment really see that we can't. Might help explain odd things like ghosts and entities that always show up in photos.

Now to my main question, is it possible that Nibirus frequency rays are that of which we can not see with our own eyes?

edit on 9-12-2012 by ArchaicDesigns because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Havox
Pretty sure if it were Nibiru it would be visible still, and in more places.


This. I'd seen it if it was there. But my lens flares doesn't show up at the same location ;-)



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArchaicDesigns
Phage go easy on me but...

A little while back I remember reading somewhere, that apparently, this supposed Nibiru can only be seeing via infrared. And that got me thinking...

Most the pictures that I have seeing of said Nibiru usually look the same, and usually the people who took the photo ( a good percent of the time) mention that they did not see it with their naked eyes, yet it shows up in the photograghs (Digital cameras and cellphones).

Now I was wondering, is it possible for cameras to pick up higher or lower frequency rays on the spectrum than the human eyes can? On the electromagnetic spectrum, visible light that we can see with the naked eye is sandwiched between ultra-voilet and infrared light.

So I decided to do a little test for myself (I advise others to try so to compare results). Everyone has a remote for their t.v. right? And as far as I know, it sends out infrared rays to your reciever when you change the channel. You can't see infrared with your naked eyes... but can you see it with a digital camera? To my surprise, yes I could see it! I could see it through my viewing LCD but not with my own eyes. I thought this was very interesting, makes you wonder how much of the spectrum can digital viewing equipment really see that we can't. Might help explain odd things like ghosts and entities that always show up in photos.

Now to my main questin, is it possible that Nibirus frequency rays are that of which we can not see with our own eyes?


I'm not Phage but still i address to you. You can't pick up infrared on your normal consumer digital camera, since they all have infrared filter on the sensor. You'd need to modify that first out of the way.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Lithops
 


I have an older Canon but I am aware of that feature. However, it is still there when I went to check a second time but I did notice that you can I only see the infrared on the LCD while viewing it live not after the photo has been taken. Maybe the infrared filter has more to do with the software than the actual optical viewing mechanics?



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArchaicDesigns
...
Now to my main question, is it possible that Nibirus frequency rays are that of which we can not see with our own eyes?

edit on 9-12-2012 by ArchaicDesigns because: (no reason given)


Maybe. Probably not. I don't know.
But its gravity would be even more obvious than its infra-red visibility.
It can hide behind one law of physics, but not all of them.
(sorry to jump in)
edit on 9-12-2012 by delusion because: apostrophes are tricky things.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 03:39 AM
link   
Wow, even the camera is on drugs



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 03:48 AM
link   
Nibiru is New Gaia Serpentina and so the same planet you live upon now. The so called 'splitting' of Old Earth into two versions (say after Dolores Cannon and others) is very true in the metaphysical sense, as you can consider the Planet E
arth as being Mirrored, say by the Local Sun into some place 'behind' the Sun.
Most people and 'guides' and 'wayshowers' TUNE into this 'correct' archetype see. But they then begin to filter in their limited perceptions and background information and all those 'weird' theories and stories evolve as memeplexes and thoughtforms.

Remember the comets Hale Bopp and Elenin?
Nibiru is similar. All ok in the metaphysics but New Age BS (NABS) in physical reality.

In comes a comet Elenin and BECAUSE IT IS linked to the Wormwood of Revelations in the Logos timeline (NOT the Thuban timeline btw, but known to the Dragons through decoding keys), the NABS world runs amok with youtubers and forum dwellers proclaiming the armaggedon and the apocalypse.

And it is in the metaphysics, BUT it addresses a mental destruction or transmutation of thoughtforms primarily and any possible and potential physical calamities secondarily. All 3D physical effects, even ET encounters are 'trickle down' effects of a greater higher dimensional agenda.
ARMAGEDDON=DRAGON MADE = 82 = GET FUC11ED!
Check it for yourself lol. A=1, B=2, ...Y=25, Z=26 etc.

So NO physical destructions like the 2012 film. Sendai 2011 and Aceh 2004 were destructive enough, yes?
Anyhow, the Annunaki are of course the 'giants' or Nephilim of the Genesis and also part of the mythologies of Mesopotamia and Egypt and so on.

The Nephilim are the Dragons and so they are already here Now IN DISGUISE.
And You are one of them!
So are all the misters, if they believe this or not. It does not matter.

It is the VEIL=EVIL=LIVE again as anagrams.
If all the misters would know who they are NOW, they could not help to COCREATE the maximum polarisation required for the Birth on December 21st, 2012 following a 265 day pregnancy, metaphysical, but then allowing this metaphysics to become 'Cosmic Legislature' FOR the 'Gaian Executive', planetary power, not ptb or anything else, including Thuban.

Anyhow, I am blabbering too much and too long. I think you got the gist, that you are the Annunaki, the misters are the ETs in waiting for a 'alchemical celestial wedding', as are all humans, but recall the percentages.

The subconscious awakenings are at a good level on this forum and many will feel the energies blooming very soon.

There will be ET starcruisers. This will be the surprise of surprises. It's not just plasma shadows of a dark source in 4D (space) appearing as light in 3D and as the opposite of 3D lightsources casting 2D dark shadows. Think about it. It will physicalise when the data pool is sufficient and the galactic waves can trigger at the birth. There is a nice pic for this on the 'Hidden Hand' thread about the galactic signal meeting the core of the Earth in the birth. This is fact Now and today.

There is science behind this, with many potentials only vaguely suspected atm, say by the string theoreticians at Princeton. But they have known since 1996, that a 4D spacetime can rip and repair itself and so a hyperspace of the NABS 5D spacetime is indeed PHYSICALLY possible.

And this 'rip and regluing' is December 21st, 2012. But dont tell the stringers and the skeptics; they wont take you for a full quid. But the 4D space is the key here, as it is new space right where you are now. This will be the New World, a New Spacial Dimension to manouver in and so the dynamics and the tyranny of the lightspeed invariance CAN then be overcome.

They cannot NOW, no matter what NABS you might come across. So the 'teleporting to Mars' and the 'Hollow Earth' etc are twilight phenomena NOT YET actualised in an extended hyperphysics.
But I end it here for now. Thubanis



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by pacifier2012
Wow, even the camera is on drugs


You spoke too soon...


Originally posted by JesterTerrestrial
Nibiru is New Gaia Serpentina....
....
.....
.... a New Spacial Dimension to manouver in and so the dynamics and the tyranny of the lightspeed invariance CAN then be overcome.

They cannot NOW, no matter what NABS you might come across. So the 'teleporting to Mars' and the 'Hollow Earth' etc are twilight phenomena NOT YET actualised in an extended hyperphysics.
But I end it here for now. Thubanis


Wot?
Wot?
Wot?
Just, wot?
According to what source please?
Thanks for the heads up though. I hope you're right. I think?
(and yes, damn that tyrannical light speed invariance! It's always limiting me!)

edit... How exactly were Hale-Bopp and Elenin New-age BS in physical reality?
Oh, nevermind. That was definitely worth a star.
edit on 9-12-2012 by delusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 04:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ArchaicDesigns
 


if you want a decent cheap camera that will pick up
infrared, check ebay for a sony DSC-V1.
They have infrared night vision option on them.

I picked one up about a month ago to mess around with,
i think mine was just over $50 with shipping.

i do believe the viewfinder that you look at is not protected
via the infra red filter, but not sure.

Basically all the infrared filter is a film over the glass of the lenses
that blocks out the IR light. I have taken older still digital apart
and removed this and had good result's..



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 04:36 AM
link   
hasnt this poster made the EXACT same thread?


www.abovetopsecret.com...

At some point hes either a troll or just trying to get more hits for his website...

This is ridiculous and should get thrown in the trash bin asap.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by lambs to lions
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.


I can't say for sure what it is, but after taking another look at it I believe it could be a lens flare but I have no way of knowing for sure. Phage might be right, but I have heard some other interesting explanations as well.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 08:22 AM
link   
I am a professional photographer and have won awards from international institutes for my work. I can tell you with my experience this is not lens flare at all.

This must be the moon. With the light hitting the moon, depending where you are in the world, will see a slightly different colour due positioning and light reflection.

Trust me this is the moon.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by database001
 



Trust me this is the moon


I think you didn't read OP article . He already said :

Well I have since downloaded Stellarium and found that this is NOT THE MOON.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by ArchaicDesigns
 


Why do you care what an anonymous poster on a conspiracy website thinks about your post and/or opinion?

The greatest and most effective liars/charlatans in the history of the world have spoken 99% truth and 1% lies, and yet the 1% they said which was lies was the most significant portion of their overall message and had the greatest deleterious effects.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Closed for staff review.


19) Advertising: You will not advertise or promote other discussion boards, chat systems, online communities or other websites on the Websites within posts, private messages, avatars and/or signatures without prior written permission from TAN. You will not choose a username that is the same as a website domain, subdomain, URL, organization, or business for which you are associated. Doing so will result in removal of your Post(s) and immediate termination of your account.

Terms and Conditions of Use--Please Review



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 



The greatest and most effective liars/charlatans in the history of the world have spoken 99% truth and 1% lies, and yet the 1% they said which was lies was the most significant portion of their overall message and had the greatest deleterious effects.

And yet you seem to strive for a 50/50 split. Balance I suppose.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 



The greatest and most effective liars/charlatans in the history of the world have spoken 99% truth and 1% lies, and yet the 1% they said which was lies was the most significant portion of their overall message and had the greatest deleterious effects.

And yet you seem to strive for a 50/50 split. Balance I suppose.



I'm flattered that you consider me one of the greatest. I can assure I am just an ordinary person striving for the truth.

I apologize for usually ignoring you, I'm sure you are worthy in your own way.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by xplorer
Can anyone tell me why the images taken by the OP and the guy from UK have almost same circular structured object in the sky ?





The round shape of these flares is generally due to the use of spherical lens onto the camera lens system, while anamorphic lenses for example (mainly used in camcorders) tend to give flares that stretch horizontally across the frame:


Anamorphic lens flare

Source


Spherical lens flare

These flare are due to the presence of a bright light source in the field of view and can be easily detected as it's a mirror ghost of the original bright object, with generally the image center serving as a point of symmetry (or point reflection).



Black arrows indicate the light rays of a distant bright light source that form a regular image point on the film (1). Values for the reflectance of undeveloped photographic film vary from 15% to 40% [see sources 1,2], which makes the film a much stronger reflector than any optical component in the lens.

So, a significant percentage of the light is reflected off the film, partly specular and partly diffuse. (For convenience, we will consider that paths of the reflected light are the same and thus are already drawn for the incident light).
Thus, the blue arrows indicate light reflected from the film. This light encounters the filter, which specularly reflects a small fraction (red arrows). The red rays are parallel and consequently focused onto a point on the film. (2)

The virtual source of the mirror point is traced by the dashed black lines. Note that the blue rays reflected by the film seem odd from the viewpoint of specular reflection; they merely illustrate the fact that all light rays that originate from a single point on the film, and which are collected by the lens, emerge parallel at the filter.





Not all light reflected off the film makes it back to the mirror point. The presence of an aperture stop further reduces the number of rays allowed to return to the film.

The risk of being confronted with filter flare reduces with a smaller focal length, a smaller aperture (larger F-number), an increased separation of highlights from the image center, and with a better filter quality. However, by far the most secure way to avoid this type of flare is to omit the filter altogether.


Smaller aperture reduce the flare visibility until it totally disappears.
Source

People who want to try their luck with UFOs may improve their chances by using a tele lens at a large aperture. I guess that, instead of a filter, a lens element with a flat face could also give rise to mirror ghosts

[1] SPSE handbook of photographic science and engineering, edited by Woodlief Thomas Jr., John Whiley & sons, p. 204 (1973).
[2] Sidney F. Ray, Applied photographic optics, 3rd ed., Focal Press, p. 139 (2002)

-------------------------------------------------------------

When (and it's the case with OP's image)
- The distances between the light source to the image center and its reflection to the same center is not equal AND/OR
- The straight line that join the light source and its reflection do not pass through the image center...

....It's just because of the lens shape that either have a flat face, or do not have symmetrical shape in one or both faces.

Example:






OP's picture
edit on 9-12-2012 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 

Awesome post man, very informative. That very well might be the case but I can't stop thinking about how the said flare is behind the clouds in the OP's post. Can lense flares appear behind other tangible objects?

Someone also mentioned the moon being a possibilty, I think that's a strong point too. I'm going to look more into that myself.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 



I'm flattered that you consider me one of the greatest.

I suggested nothing to indicate that. I'd like to help you improve your reading comprehension skills so if I come across a good source I'll be sure to pass it along.



I can assure I am just an ordinary person striving for the truth.

If that's true I can help you with that. Let's look at the video you posted again. At 1:25 for example, you can clearly see the "orb" is not behind the cloud as you claim. The truth is right in front of you.

ETA: The vid in question


edit on 9-12-2012 by DenyObfuscation because: (no reason given)





new topics




 
24
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join