Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Mufon report: Blue star orbiting the sun?

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by CottonwoodStormy
reply to post by KrzYma
 


According to the report the poerson STATES it is not a lens flare as it would have moved with the bouncing around in the van?


This is classic lens flare.


Please elaborate. What constitutes a "classic" lens flare?

In the image the smaller circle appears behind the clouds. Is that a "classic" lens flare characteristic?




posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrzYma
look, if there was something, some other blue sun, planet or spaceship... any proof of this, somebody would try to make money out of this, some scientists, media or other money driven evil, but there is nothing, just some guy who has too little knowledge of anything and scares himself and others. don't panic !!!


Yeah just like cells and atoms. If they were there 500 years ago people would've known about it.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Char-Lee
reply to post by CottonwoodStormy
 


I like this one, but wonder why they say blue none of the shots show a "blue" object.



"According to informal tradition, O stars are called "blue", "

"Class O stars are very hot and extremely luminous, being bluish in color; in fact, most of their output is in the ultraviolet range. "

Come on people.. "It doesn't look blue so it's a lie"

Blue star



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   
I was going to take a picture but the battery to my camera is dead.

I'll have to take it tomorrow.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by WorShip
reply to post by LittleBlackEagle
 


Yup seen this many times before. Light intensity is high shining off the clouds. Can usually see the Sun just beside the intense glare depending on the context of the cloud. One time for a brief moment I thought it was the moon next to the sun because of this very effect.


That makes the most sense to me. When I was looking at the pics, I first thought it was just a daytime moon.

But then everyone else was all about "lens flare" which you don't get if you see if you're just looking at the sun, with clouds all around.

Or if the sun is in your eyes as you're sitting near a window, and you can't get away from the sun AND the intense shine back from the clouds....



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by happykat39
I would be much more impressed if the people taking these "second sun" pictures had a good high quality telescope with the proper filters for solar observation, or knew someone who did, and did a follow up on a clear cloudless day. Then I would be a little more inclined to think they were on to something. As it is they are more likely to be "on something" than "on to something".



I have a good telescope with filter for solar observation. It has been a little while but I often photograph the sun and sunspots!
~ There is no second sun.

vileyonderboy.deviantart.com...
vileyonderboy.deviantart.com...

Oh! And yesterday I was driving back from a long trip with very overcast skies but could see the outline of the sun almost make out a sunspot (Without blindingly myself) and oddly (OR NOT!) no companion...
edit on 10-12-2012 by abeverage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by rwfresh

Originally posted by Char-Lee
reply to post by CottonwoodStormy
 


I like this one, but wonder why they say blue none of the shots show a "blue" object.



"According to informal tradition, O stars are called "blue", "

"Class O stars are very hot and extremely luminous, being bluish in color; in fact, most of their output is in the ultraviolet range. "

Come on people.. "It doesn't look blue so it's a lie"

Blue star






I am not saying it is a lie, there was another poster recently that took a very similar picture and the clouds were over the object. (can't find it now) Was just curious why they called it blue.

Looks like an actual object to me and there has been so much smoke on this subject...somewhere there should be fire.
edit on 10-12-2012 by Char-Lee because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   
I took this picture in WV few days ago… What do you think is this orb above the sun?





posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by happykat39
I would be much more impressed if the people taking these "second sun" pictures had a good high quality telescope with the proper filters for solar observation, or knew someone who did, and did a follow up on a clear cloudless day. Then I would be a little more inclined to think they were on to something. As it is they are more likely to be "on something" than "on to something".

I do and I haven't seen anything out of the ordinary. Only time I saw something pass over the sun’s disc was the transit of Venus on 5 June.
en.wikipedia.org...
It’s just really not possible for an object that size to not have been noticed by amateur astronomers imo.
So I'm afraid, like all the others, it's poor optics lens flare.
edit on 10-12-2012 by digitalf because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
One of the issues I have with these pictures is that the "Object" is in better focus then any of the objects in the photos.

While there may be something there, that something would be inside the Earth's atmosphere rather than orbiting the sun.

Funny in this case I really "DO" wonder if it's a weather balloon. It could also be an image issue with the carmera's CCD, but I would suggest taking pictures with another camera, or better yet try taking the picture with an older 35mm.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Funny how you stumble on things via the MUFON links, here is their new app icon ;



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   
i really cant see with any clarity what you are referring to. i see glare/bright light but no blue image.

that said, my neighbour did take pics of a "2nd sun" half protruding from the actual one. i have seen others from people like yourself and its intriguing how the 2nd one is always on the left.

the bible mentions a new earth and a new heaven, perhaps (if thats true) the 2nd sun is of another dimension or not yet fully manifesting in our dimension and therefore only seen occasionally.

just imagining possibilities.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by rwfresh

Originally posted by KrzYma
look, if there was something, some other blue sun, planet or spaceship... any proof of this, somebody would try to make money out of this, some scientists, media or other money driven evil, but there is nothing, just some guy who has too little knowledge of anything and scares himself and others. don't panic !!!


Yeah just like cells and atoms. If they were there 500 years ago people would've known about it.


you can not see a single cell with your eyes, but you can see a star or planet, don't you ?

sorry dude, but your avatar is already telling me how you tick, so this is the first and last comment of me on your thoughts
edit on 10-12-2012 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrzYma

Originally posted by rwfresh

Originally posted by KrzYma
look, if there was something, some other blue sun, planet or spaceship... any proof of this, somebody would try to make money out of this, some scientists, media or other money driven evil, but there is nothing, just some guy who has too little knowledge of anything and scares himself and others. don't panic !!!


Yeah just like cells and atoms. If they were there 500 years ago people would've known about it.


you can not see a single cell with your eyes, but you can see a star or planet, don't you ?

sorry dude, but your avatar is already telling me how you tick, so this is the first and last comment of me on your thoughts
edit on 10-12-2012 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)


Blue stars shine ultraviolet. So.. generally humans can't see that part of the spectrum. Meaning that kind of light is "hidden" from our un-assisted sight.. like cells and atoms.

I'm not saying there is a blue star flying behind the sun.. but if you folks want to understand what is being proposed rather than just saying "it's a lens flare" it might make sense to read what the article is saying.

Again.. i don't care if there is doomsday star or not. Just pointing out that comments declaring "we can't see it so it's not there" don't mean anything in the context of what most of the "second sun specialists" are suggesting.

There are circumstances in which one might be able to photograph the otherwise invisible light source with a normal camera. Again i am not suggesting this has been done. But it is possible.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by rwfresh


Again.. i don't care if there is doomsday star or not. Just pointing out that comments declaring "we can't see it so it's not there" don't mean anything in the context of what most of the "second sun specialists" are suggesting.

There are circumstances in which one might be able to photograph the otherwise invisible light source with a normal camera. Again i am not suggesting this has been done. But it is possible.

 


Unfortunately, what you're postulating means absolutely nothing in this case so it doesn't matter.

1. The "Second sun" was in between the clouds and our sun from the observers point of view. The cloud ceiling, is roughly 20,000ft or lower. *Eliminating the possibility this object could be anything very large in size at all.

2. The gravity from the objects you are postulating about would be noticeable if they were on a crash course with Earth. And though the naked eye does not pick up everything, there are thousands of amateur astronomers that view the sky and the sun, all the time. If there were a "rogue sun", planet or anything else of substantial size, it is nearly guaranteed they would be the first to see it.

Aiming your iPhone at the sun is not the most scientific way of observing space. (Who'd a thunkkit?) Although, if it were, I'm sure the NASA budget could be cut down drastically.

And by "classic lens flare" I meant pictures like these are classics, since they get posted week after week, year after year, and are easily reproducible by simply aiming your camera phone (or any cheap camera for that matter) into the sun without UV filters.
edit on 10-12-2012 by boncho because: *clarified in edit



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


thanks!!
I'm not going to argue with this guy



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Blue Star is in the title of the OP. There is nothing blue about it.

Appears to me that there is a contrived effort to undermine the discourse that has taken place on ATS over the years. I question the poster's motives. Certainly the MSM is trying to portray anyone on sites such as ATS as "conspiracy theorists." If any resonable person reads this OP, they will be quickly be convinced.

Eat your cous cous and I won't digest your BS.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by rwfresh

"According to informal tradition, O stars are called "blue", "

"Class O stars are very hot and extremely luminous, being bluish in color; in fact, most of their output is in the ultraviolet range. "

Come on people.. "It doesn't look blue so it's a lie"

Blue star




Are you really suggesting that the person who took the picture was really an astrophysicist who meant there was an actual 'class O star' within the atmosphere?
Why would you even defend the idea in the first place?
Just being alternative and rooting for the underdog?

No, it's a lie because it's a well known phenomenon caused by a mass of excitable fools pointing cameras at the sun.
And the logic of it being there at all is not compatible with reality.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ibiubu
Blue Star is in the title of the OP. There is nothing blue about it.

Appears to me that there is a contrived effort to undermine the discourse that has taken place on ATS over the years. I question the poster's motives. Certainly the MSM is trying to portray anyone on sites such as ATS as "conspiracy theorists." If any resonable person reads this OP, they will be quickly be convinced.

Eat your cous cous and I won't digest your BS.


Excuse me, but you sound like a paranoid schizophrenic, all I did was see the report, found it interesting and wondered if there was any truth to it, there is nothing contrived in this what so ever, I think you must be the person sitting behind blinds peaking out with binoculars, lol.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by rwfresh


Again.. i don't care if there is doomsday star or not. Just pointing out that comments declaring "we can't see it so it's not there" don't mean anything in the context of what most of the "second sun specialists" are suggesting.

There are circumstances in which one might be able to photograph the otherwise invisible light source with a normal camera. Again i am not suggesting this has been done. But it is possible.

 


Unfortunately, what you're postulating means absolutely nothing in this case so it doesn't matter.

1. The "Second sun" was in between the clouds and our sun from the observers point of view. The cloud ceiling, is roughly 20,000ft or lower. *Eliminating the possibility this object could be anything very large in size at all.

2. The gravity from the objects you are postulating about would be noticeable if they were on a crash course with Earth. And though the naked eye does not pick up everything, there are thousands of amateur astronomers that view the sky and the sun, all the time. If there were a "rogue sun", planet or anything else of substantial size, it is nearly guaranteed they would be the first to see it.

Aiming your iPhone at the sun is not the most scientific way of observing space. (Who'd a thunkkit?) Although, if it were, I'm sure the NASA budget could be cut down drastically.

And by "classic lens flare" I meant pictures like these are classics, since they get posted week after week, year after year, and are easily reproducible by simply aiming your camera phone (or any cheap camera for that matter) into the sun without UV filters.
edit on 10-12-2012 by boncho because: *clarified in edit



You aren't actually saying anything at all are you. Read the article. Who's talking about something crashing into the earth? a Rogue "sun"? In between the clouds? Was that your scientific observation? No.. that is your opinion. My opinion is it appears behind them. Do you have any scientific data to back up your claim of it being in between the clouds? As much as i have with my opinion.

"Classic" as in your opinion of off-topic opinions of people you believe are "scientific". Werd.

Look you are free to have your opinions. I don't find them offensive or anything.. but i do think declaring your opinion has scientific authority is misleading.

You BELIEVE this is a lens flare. Got it.





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join