Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Hypothesis: There is no such thing as Planet10

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
Horsefeathers.

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



You are 100% correct! Lens flare DOESN't occur behind clouds...

It occurs ON THE LENS!!!




posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 08:20 PM
link   
interdimensional physics?

Cameras can pick up forms [due to the presence of Light] that the human eye cannot perceive, physically, due to our differing physical structure.

There could be an enormous planet out there--totally invisible to the human eye--tipping the solar ecliptic and rocking it up and down--and not one person on this surface would be able to see it.

Or didn't you notice soho's photos last week, of the sun's ecliptic rocking up and down, back and forth?

Guess not.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Another thing...

Some of those pics looked like the've been PhotoShopped...

Here you go. I did this in less than 30 seconds...



OH MY!!! It's the Planet AND ITS MOON!!!



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
interdimensional physics?

Cameras can pick up forms [due to the presence of Light] that the human eye cannot perceive, physically, due to our differing physical structure.

There could be an enormous planet out there--totally invisible to the human eye--tipping the solar ecliptic and rocking it up and down--and not one person on this surface would be able to see it.

Or didn't you notice soho's photos last week, of the sun's ecliptic rocking up and down, back and forth?

Guess not.


Yes I'm familiar with Hoagland and his theory of (I thought it was) "hyper"dimensional physics. If you are speaking of something else then I apologize.

Let me get this straight. You're suggesting that this thing (an entire planet) actually exists on a totally different plane or frequency or whatever, invisible to the naked eye? Well, of course I can't disprove it any more than you can prove it, so... I guess I'll be one of those that's caught unprepared when the world comes to an end. Sorry, I really don't mean to be the downer on this thread. The reason that I keep returning to this thread is... if this IS true, I would really like to know. However, I need solid evidence before I can believe something this far out.

As far as the SOHO pics. Not enough either IMHO. WE would be able to feel and visibly see its effects on earth and not just the sun. I will admit that every new discovery shows us that we truly don't "know" anything at all, so... anything is possible.

Edit:
I've actually been doing some reading on this topic of "interdimensional" physics. I am willing to accept at least part of this theory however... I find it strange that almost all the links I found discussing this also referred to crop circles and other conspiracy/paranormal topics. Also, not even one of the authors listed so much as a masters in physics as far as education and training are concerned. I find that a bit questionable. Also, most of the links discussed a fourth dimension... of the mind or something. Didn't Einstein already state that the fourth dimension is "time"?

A Phd doesn't really mean that much these days and there are plenty who are willing to express radical and far fetched ideas, so I don't see how EVERY one of them could be afraid of losing their grants.

[edit on 4-11-2004 by veritas93]



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 10:17 PM
link   


Imagine that. Here it is again. Same relative size, contrast and density.

NOTE: This is over Pasadena California at about 19:08 or 7:08 pm.

A dark body.

[edit on 4-11-2004 by Emily_Cragg]



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Same relative size, contrast and density?
Your joking, right?
Looks to me like some type of prolonged exposure pic with a lot of light sources nearby.

There is nothing of interest in that pic.

All you've shown us so far is lens flare and a crappy photo of the night sky...

[edit on 11/5/2004 by Assassin]



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 12:38 AM
link   
ok, let's look at this from a different angle then. Let's assume this planet can't be seen with the naked eye (:@@
. It would however, still give off heat, affect gravity around it. It would emit strong or weak signals (as all space bodies do to some extent), not to mention it would distort light. Soooo... how come all those thousands of our satellites up there haven't be subjected to a strange gravitational pull? How come no thermal sensors etc have picked this planet up? Why would a camera pick up this planet and not our naked eye. They both essentially work the same way, digital or analogue. Cameras just capture the light coming into the lense basically.

Ok, so now, IF this planet was ineed affecting our orbital path...how come the earth has not been moving towards / away from this planet. If it's gravitational pull was strong enough to throw us out of orbit slightly (using the grey matter this means the planetary body would be pulling us towards it each time we went past), then each time we get thrown out of orbit we would travel closer and closer to this body....unless you can concoct yet another lens flare that lies on the exact opposite side of the earth orbit which helps to move the earh back to its original position....

ps: SOHO, Hubble etc etc are basically big huge cameras, so how come they haven't picked this body up. There already is a tenth planet in our solar system. It was discovered years and years ago from memory and it is WAAAAAY out past pluto and I think there was debate on whether to class it as a planet or an asteroid.

sometimes, when you so desperately want to believe something, even the painfull truth slapping you in the face and screaming in your ear will not change your mind... try not to get so set in your ways and be open to the possibility you are wrong



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 12:56 AM
link   
Thank You LG...

That was going to be my next argument, gravitational effects on earth from this lens flare...

EC, In case you were wondering...

That pic I posted was of a computer generated landscape... If it wasn't obvious to you already.

The lens flare I just added (prior to posting) with PhotoShop...



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 08:21 AM
link   
This is what my North Dakota University photos looked like, too--grey not blue. This is why when you label the blue ones as "lens flares," I simply don't believe you. Too many gray ones, same size and shape.



Anybody else seeing something like this?



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
in Antarctica, North Dakota, Utah and Californiaand always on the same cams, but not always related to sunset.


That should have been your first clue.

Spend the money, by a decent camera with interchangeable lenses. The digital rebel is under $1,000.

Or better yet, buy a Hassleblad or a Lieca. If you can afford to go to Antarctica, then you should equip yourself with the best optics available.





Originally posted by Emily_Cragg

Cameras can pick up forms [due to the presence of Light] that the human eye cannot perceive, physically, due to our differing physical structure.


WTF??

OK, If you are talking about light wavelengths that fall outside of the limits of human vision, but are still detectable by CCD sensors or by film chemistry, then you are correct. Cameras can pick up light wavelengths that we can not normally see.

However, since any type of black body radiation as would be emitted by a planet X would be broad spectrum, you would still have the emission of visible wavelengths.

If however, you think that cameras can see light in the visible spectrum that the human eye can not, then you are wrong.

BTW, you might want to tone down the hostility directed at those who disagree with you.



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Uhm, I'm not feeling hostile at all. There is nothing personal going on here.

I get responses that call me names, patronize, condescend and lecture.

So, I just try to stick with what I know.

I'm sorry if that is perceived as hostility. It's not meant as hostility. It's meant, to be as flat as possible so I neither offend nor have anything to defend against.



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 05:18 PM
link   
I think he was reffering to the comment posted by gene3is and not directly to you. Look at his sig at the bottom of his post.

Edit: sorry if you couldn't read it. I spilled a drink on my keyboard and my S key is sticking. Hope that's better.

[edit on 5-11-2004 by veritas93]



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Sorry. I'm not following you. What?



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Two posibilities:1.You try to fool the people of this board.
2. You believe the nonsence you write yourself.

In both cases this thread should be closed, there is no substance here at all.



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by feyd rautha
In both cases this thread should be closed, there is no substance here at all.


Agreed...


Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
-grey not blue. This is why when you label the blue ones as "lens flares," I simply don't believe you. Too many gray ones, same size and shape.


Same lens, same camera...
Lens flares can be many different colors, including grey.
Have a look at some of the pics you've already posted... There are more colors in them than just blue, if only you look a little harder...

I think you just choose not to see them...
You are, IMO, making a big deal over absolutely nothing.
Instead of trying to make a case of this being a planet from another dimension, why not research lens flare? After you've done this, I'm sure you'll see how crazy this hyper-dimensional planet theory sounds to the rest of us...



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Hmmmmm....ok, I'm lost.

Are you saying that the 10th Planet is actually in another dimension and seems to show up as dark lensflares in certain pictures?

Not so sure I believe that theory.



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Who knows? There may be forms of matter or antimatter that are unreactive with our matter.

Who knows? If dreams have a form of reality, perhaps everything cameras can pick up as light have a form of reality also.

Anybody can opt IN or opt OUT. I'm not here to tell anybody what to think. I bring interesting photos for folks to look at, think and comment about.

But, I'm no fortune teller--not at all.



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 03:42 PM
link   
I was just about to debunk your claim... but now seeing as how it's already a fact that there is a planet 10 (sedna) and your thread is totally irrelevent I'm thinking otherwise...



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Oh. I didn't feel the "experience" of lens flares on camera photos was irrelevant to what we know about the sky when we look up or take a photo of the sky.

It seems to me, the study of lens flares is crucial to knowing what is physically real, what is a figment of light through a lens, and what is possible with regard to interdimensional viewing.

Or, are we just supposted to shoot and guess that what comes out is always a hoax, by definition?

[shrug] I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm trying to start a study on what is and what isn't a lens flare.

And also, I'm trying to determine and detect, at what point will we be able to view Sedna with the naked eye?

And also, I'm trying to figure out what this blue thingie is that keeps showing up as a large blue or gray blog on so many sky-cam photos.

How do you make these decisions, yourself?




posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 04:46 PM
link   
well i guess i wasnt the only one who thought it was lens flare. every pic you have shown (my opinion) looks like either a somehow doctored photo or a natural phenomenon.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join