Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Hypothesis: There is no such thing as Planet10

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Let's bring out some pictures of nothing.


and then let's go back in time--

www.abidemiracles.com...

www.abidemiracles.com...



www.abidemiracles.com...

www.abidemiracles.com...

www.abidemiracles.com...

In some of these photos, the offending large blue sphere is behind clouds. In the latest photo, it has ITS OWN LENS FLARE.

I had cam shots of this same bad boy up in North Dakota and NDU, but I lost those shots when Windows went down. But I do have four more from Castledale from this last April and March--less clarity though.

If there are no intruding near-earth "objects," IF THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PLANET TEN, what is this Bad Boy?


[edit on 2-11-2004 by John bull 1]




posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 08:11 PM
link   
excuse me, but whats the point of this thread?



posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 10:10 PM
link   
. . . to find out what kind of people inhabit this Forum.

. . .If you're not interested in this thread, why are you showing up?
. . . And if you don't know what it's about, maybe you should look in the Search Engine for something called Planet Ten [also known as PX and Planet X].
. . . And if you don't see anything unusual in the photos, why not just walk on by?




posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 10:38 PM
link   
i never said i wasnt interested i just asked what the point of it was. i dont see anyone else giving their opinions. all i see in both pics is lens flare, nothing more nothing less, except that plane in pic 2.

i never wanted to offend you.



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 03:20 PM
link   
If you had seen the prior shots of this blue orb--behind the clouds, you would not have been able to claim that it is a lens flare.

So, perhaps you might look at the previous URLs given above, and then reserve judgment.

Today --

castledale southwest view

the whole series of blue orb photos is being repeated, since about 2pm their time.

If you look at the katkam photo, it's the same blob, different camera.

Now, hook your imagination in gear and wonder--if only to yourself--what could this be?

You know, people who have no imagination can never "see" a new fact. They always judge against it beforehand, never having actually "seen" it.

Try again, please.



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Emily, with all do respect, as you've read from my u2u's, its a flare. However, if you are still interested in Planet X theory, I suggest you pick up a copy of the 2003 February version of Science & Vile(Life) ...which is a French Magazine. It talks about how an astronomer found that there is some undiscovered outer planet, which has an elliptical orbit of "several thousand years." Unfortunately, I have not been able to pick up a copy of this magazine becuase I'm the USA.



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 04:55 PM
link   
these are lansflares and if you dont believe it, it is your problem not ours. maybe get photoshop then you can produce better pictures to waste other peoples time.

[edit on 3-11-2004 by feyd rautha]



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Horsefeathers.

Lens flares do not occur BEHIND CLOUDS! Check the URLS.



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 08:26 PM
link   
but those clouds weren't obscuring the object at all. Haven't you ever seen a movie where they go all dramatic like on the sun and you get those series of circles and arcs in the camera? By George, they even do it in video games! I do not wish to be rude, but this is just insanity! Please think of what you are saying before you post. The pictures are pretty and all, but they are just taking up space on the site.



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 10:21 PM
link   
What's taking up white space is the person who refuses to see, refuses to question his own notions, refuses being open enough to WONDER.

If you are incapable of wonder, you know, you're not much fun.

If you can't see the similarity between the Katkam and Utah pictures, and you can't wonder why, what are you doing?

There was another person who kept wanting to demand >PROOF!<

Proof of what?? What are we looking at? It's NOT a lens flare. I'm convinced of that. I've seen this phenomenon too many times in its circuit round and round--in Antarctica, North Dakota, Utah and California--and always on the same cams, but not always related to sunset.

I had gorgeous photos of this bad boy over North Dakota--not blue but grey and huge--and I lost them when my system crashed last time.

Now, let's see if somebody else can come up with a different idea.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 12:10 AM
link   
I've checked all the links provided and these still look like lense flares to me. However, that is not the only reason that I believe these aren't pics of a 10th planet (which appears to be so close that we'd have massive gravitational disturbances caused by it's proximity). The main reason that I believe these to be nothing serious is... I watch the sky quite frequently and we usually have fairly clear skies in this part of the country. I have NEVER seen anything that even comes close to something like that with my bare eyes. This is the kind of thing that everyone would notice. I'm really not trying to be rude, but I just can't buy this one.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 12:28 AM
link   
I see what you mean but I recommend even just using paint and pointing it out to us with an arrow.

I highly doubt this is Planet X since it being that close would have serious effects on our ecosystem.

Since there were taken with the same camera maybe its an artifact (Im not sure that is the right word: An error with the lens.) of the camera. Or it might be a reflection of a nearby pool of water in the sky, similar things happen with cars and there mistaken for UFO's.

[edit on 4-11-2004 by G3NESIS]



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 03:24 AM
link   
It's a lens flare. An effect easily replicated with ANY camera pointed towards a bright object, such as the sun, a lamp, a street light, you name it. Heck, I could even bung a fake lens flare up in photoshop that would give off the same effect.

I agree with you G3NESIS. A planet that large, and that close to earth would have HUGE impacts on our environment, not to mention there would be MANY amateur astronomers with photos/reports of the thing.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 04:45 AM
link   
There has been arguments about this subject from both sides of the fence. Planet 10 could exist, but the internet is getting more like the daily gazzette: It is getting harder to find what the TRUTH really is.

With all the Earthquakes, Volcanoes, Floods, Wierd Weather, etc. seeming to be on the uptick, then, YES it is getting to a point to where I am believing in there being a Marduk as well. It is just too far away still to reek any serious havoc as yet. It being 100 times the size of the Earth would be like comparing a pingpong ball to a basketball.

Then there is talk of the thing not really being a planet at all, but nothing more of a cumulation of gas and dibris.

Moderators might want to trash this thread.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 04:54 AM
link   
I see lens flare, after lens flare.

Also I see traces of carbon based life forms..finger smudge maybe..

Are there any better photos? is that it?, and yes I looked through the links


JAK

posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 12:05 PM
link   
I have enlarged a section of one of the images.

The section is clearly in fron of the cable, not behind it.




The cable is has a blue hue to it.

Deny it Emily_Cragg, don't embrace it.

JAck



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Excellent work, Jak.

Guess that says I have to do some photoshopping, eh?

: )



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Emily, I strongly urge to stop listening to Nancy. That woman is mentally ill.
(seriously).



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Nancy is an intuitive. She talks off the top of her head. I have no need to read her stuff. I'm an on-line photographer and I don't need someone else's opinion.

The FEDS lie deliberatively and consciously.

NSA and NASA lied about the color filters they used on the Mars Rover mission. I have the photos that prove this.

USGS lie about increasing quakes by diminishing quake magnitudes and taking up to a week to post their data, compared to EMSC.

USDA lie about lousy American food by flooding their food tables with junk data that suck down the averages, in terms of RDAs and "minimum acceptable levels." USDA food tables are nearly useless for all the irrelevant information flooded in there.

I have studied the data of these three USA Departments closely because I had reason to do research into their areas of "expertise."

Lying is the business of the US Federal Gummint.

Astronomers lie because their grants are on the line.

I know damn well--because I've been taking photoshots of anomalies for about five years myself--and the sun looks strange; the sky is orange and green; all-night cameras show lit bodies overhead at 3am. And all astronomers can chant is, "lens flares, lens flares." Bullshift.

Change is coming and the elite cadres want to keep the lid >ON



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 08:12 PM
link   
I'm not saying that there is no conspiracy to reduce the population, but as far as this 10th planet theory...

I would still like to hear one... just one explanation as to why everyone isn't seeing this thing. It's freakin' massive. Not something easily missed by the naked eye. Not only would this be having greater effects on the earth (beyond minor tremors and the like) but everyone would be able to see it... without a telescope and/or camera. Unless of course... we are all being brainwashed into denying its presence overhead
.

When it's invisible to the naked eye yet mysteriously visible once you take its picture... then I say its some sort of digital glitch, lens flare, etc. I really hate to play the sceptic, but this one just seems way too far out.

[edit on 4-11-2004 by veritas93]





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join