It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mufon report: Blue star orbiting the sun?

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 





But when all you have to do is look up.....its a no brainer.


You would think it was that easy,but lately it doesn't seem to be..




posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 





Anyone who claims there are two suns in the sky, without taking into account this simple fact, is hoaxing you.


Well I guess Mufon has really gone downhill if they have to post reports of two suns without actually going outside and looking for themselves.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by rwfresh


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.


 


The picture shows the flare in between the clouds and the camera. Its apparent to the observer.

However, a quick and easy way to offer up some scientific proof, is to just post this. STEREO and SDO image the sun everyday.

If there were something in front of it directly, it would be imaged. Happy?

You can look through the images yourself:

sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov...



It's apparent to me that it APPEARS behind the clouds.

Not sure why you are sending me links to NASA. It's not helping your argument... it's re-enforcing my point.

I'm happy that the image we are talking about does not show a circle in front of the sun.

"It's a lens flare! Look at the NASA website! Classic lens flare, nasa, lens nasa flare. Science! It's scientific NASA lens flare. Picture of sun from NASA = lens flare."



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by rwfresh


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.

 


It would help if you knew that a "class-o" star is anywhere from 15-90 masses of the sun. In other words, it's not showing up in our solar system unnoticed. Which lets us use the process of elimination. We get to rule it out before even having to think to hard about it!



It's a ratio of size to weight. If you took a star like our sun and put it against the same sized o star the o star would be heavier. The fantasy blue star around our sun is much smaller than our sun.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by PeterGriffin
However, there is no hoax here. A hoax is defined as "a humorous or malicious deception"


All he/she has to do is look up and verify it.



So if someone takes a picture of hale bopp and then i look up in the sky and don't see it they are a hoaxer?

Umm yeah.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   
I keep seeing things like this hoaxed. No one who contributed had overwhelming proof of anything. This is a conspiracy website and when you see the pics like this, or in the news, even China news, you are entitled to all your sun dog theories and concepts, BUt, they're just your opinion.

Even if something seems logical to 9/10 people, it doesnt mean that is the actual phenomenum you are looking at.

And why a small group can hoax things that are real conspiracies in the twinkling of an eye, so others may not even see the thread, who gave them that power?

Its unbelievable.

They need to get rid of the hoax forum.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by rwfresh
 


So if someone takes a picture of hale bopp and then i look up in the sky and don't see it they are a hoaxer?

Yes, if they claimed it to be a recent picture.
However, if they took the picture in 1997 and you looked in the sky in 1997 and you didn't see it, it would mean you were looking in the wrong direction. A "blue star orbiting the Sun" would be visible to anyone looking toward the Sun just as Hale Bopp was visible to anyone looking in the right direction.

edit on 12/11/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
reply to post by PeterGriffin
 


Simple question. How many suns do you see in the sky?

You know, when something isn't verifiable - like aliens, ufo's, ghosts, 911, then yes... we can speculate.

But when all you have to do is look up.....its a no brainer.


Go look up in the sky right now. Do you see a moon? If not, the moon is a hoax.

Never mind that it might be daytime, never mind that it might be cloudy, never mind that it might be a moonless night.

I don't believe there is a "second sun" floating around the sun.. but i don't believe there couldn't be something that could eventually be classified as a "second sun" under some unknown condition that could be under a set of very specific atmospheric and heavenly conditions be photographed.

The fact that there is ABSOLUTELY no WAY you can prove otherwise makes calling this a hoax a hoax in and of itself.

Go ahead and PROVE this photo is hoax. All i see is a bunch of self proclaimed internet scientists attempting and failing at discounting it.

It's not a hoax.. it's your opinion it's a hoax until it's proven otherwise. And seriously, everyone here seems very open to the idea that it's a hoax. I know i am. If the proof is presented fine. It would seem very likely that it IS a hoax but not one person has provided any actual proof.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by rwfresh
 


So if someone takes a picture of hale bopp and then i look up in the sky and don't see it they are a hoaxer?

Yes, if they claimed it to be a recent picture.


Can you imagine a condition in which your statement is false? i can.

"Astronomers expect that the comet will remain observable with large telescopes until perhaps 2020"



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by rwfresh
 


you seem to be making a good attempt at being intelligent here, but it comes off like you're trying a bit too hard. If you consider that it's possible there is another sun that has joined Sol, why do we only observe one light source, why is there no increase of light intensity (obviously the habitable zone would be altered by the presence of another star), and also can you plot what you predict earths new orbit is based on the changes that obviously would have occurred when this second star seemlessly joined our own star?



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by rwfresh
 


It is a hoax and this thread should be closed.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by WorShip
reply to post by rwfresh
 


you seem to be making a good attempt at being intelligent here, but it comes off like you're trying a bit too hard. If you consider that it's possible there is another sun that has joined Sol, why do we only observe one light source, why is there no increase of light intensity (obviously the habitable zone would be altered by the presence of another star), and also can you plot what you predict earths new orbit is based on the changes that obviously would have occurred when this second star seemlessly joined our own star?


You seem to believe that you have the ability to determine with 100% certainty that no secondary light source (that is not an imaging artifact) that could account for the image could possibly exist under any condition.

It's all speculation. How big, what is it's mass, why can't we see it all the time, why can't we determine it's effect on our solar system etc. Who knows? Maybe it's from a different dimension and has no mass here. Maybe it's an angel that looks like star when photographed? hahaha how do i know?



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by rwfresh
 


Can you imagine a condition in which your statement is false? i can.

Oh. A trick question. You sneaky thing you. You didn't say anything about using a telescope.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by rwfresh
 


It is a hoax and this thread should be closed.


We need to close this thread immediately. People should be discouraged and prevented from looking at this. It is dangerous and irresponsible of all of us to continue participating in this thread. I for one will not accept responsibility for what might happen if other people don't see the "hoax" label on this thread.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by rwfresh
 


Can you imagine a condition in which your statement is false? i can.

Oh. A trick question. You sneaky thing you. You didn't say anything about using a telescope.


Reality taught me that trick! The harder i study the rules the less i know!



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by rwfresh

Originally posted by WorShip
reply to post by rwfresh
 


you seem to be making a good attempt at being intelligent here, but it comes off like you're trying a bit too hard. If you consider that it's possible there is another sun that has joined Sol, why do we only observe one light source, why is there no increase of light intensity (obviously the habitable zone would be altered by the presence of another star), and also can you plot what you predict earths new orbit is based on the changes that obviously would have occurred when this second star seemlessly joined our own star?


You seem to believe that you have the ability to determine with 100% certainty that no secondary light source (that is not an imaging artifact) that could account for the image could possibly exist under any condition.

It's all speculation. How big, what is it's mass, why can't we see it all the time, why can't we determine it's effect on our solar system etc. Who knows? Maybe it's from a different dimension and has no mass here. Maybe it's an angel that looks like star when photographed? hahaha how do i know?


Well, I have personally witnessed a similar condition with my own eyes. It is just because of clouds. The clouds reflect the light at a very high intensity just around the edges of the sun, because of the angle that the rays hit and reflect back into your eyes. I mistakenly thought that the sun was behind the intense glare, and I thought, why is the moon looking so bright and close to the sun? And then I realised it was just the sun.

So I could be generous and say, well i'm 60% sure that there's no secondary light source. The odds are still in my favour :p The "blue star" shows up as a very dark entity in one of the photos, howeer, there is no entity to represent the sun. Just one source of light in my opinion.

Well, by logical deduction, if we're talking as if this star is in our solar system, it would definitely have noticeable environmental effects on all scales. How it got there without anyone noticing is an even bigger mystery. Ergo not reality.

Is this phenomenon ever observed without any clouds? I presume negative.

I don't know about matter that is from "another dimension" and i'm not sure about the legitimacy of that claim. Also I don't know what an angel is. Of course I'm open to the idea of other life-forms.. However, I would never dub a life-form an "angel" because that implies religious indoctrination.

I commend you on your skepticism though, however, I don't think this is a particularly good case to employ too much skepticism, I mean we havn't observed anything else that is out of the ordinary. just some glare in the clouds. Thats IT!

I would much prefer if it was a star-like entity akin to those depicted in Frank Herberts "Whipping Star".

edit: also, yea I don't think it's a hoax as such, since I myself have been tricked by the same effect! Just someone mistaken about the nature of physics !
edit on 11-12-2012 by WorShip because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by rwfresh


I for one will not accept responsibility for what might happen if other people don't see the "hoax" label on this thread.

 


They will live on to see another day?




posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by CottonwoodStormy
 



As with many threads on ATS, i do not think this one belongs in the hoax section at ALL.

who makes these decisions? The ATS mafia?



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by rwfresh
 


It is a hoax and this thread should be closed.



actually no, it shouldnt.

thats just your OPINION. mine differs from your and i'm an ATS member as well.

why should this thread be binned because YOU SAY it's a hoax. i think it's probably real. and i dont think anyone's offered adequate proof of a hoax at all.

it's like the spanish inquisition in here ...



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by CottonwoodStormy
reply to post by rwfresh
 


Hey, I agree with you, I mentioned earlier in this thread that the object appears behind the cloud in the first pic too, so how can it be a lens flare then? I don't know, and I also don't know why this thread was moved to hoax when it was a legitimate report submitted to mufon?


yeah, neither do i. this happened to one of my threads too. a group of members ganged up and got it binned as a hoax, even though lots of other members were interested and open to it being real...

coming from MUFON too, it should not be binned as a hoax. i have seen some cool pics of this blue star - probably the blue kachina predicted by the Hopi Indians. One was a NASA foto. Suppose that one's a hoax too, is it?

there's an interesting thread on another forum which pretty much proves the existance of the star by the effect it has on our earth's magnetic field once a year when we come closest to it - in Feb to April apparently. During this time we've been having MASSIVE quakes - over 8 on the Richter Scale; and the earth magnetic field looks like it's been hit by a bus. at the same time each year...it's a very interesting thread....



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join