It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Hypothesis: There is no such thing as Planet10

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 05:02 PM
I'm still not sure myself. So, I keep looking and taking photos.

The photos that have me absolutely bamboozled are these: and


So, what are all the lit orbs?

Why is there no crescent MOON present in any of these shots?

Why are some of the stars so large that they look like they ought to be the moon or something?

I write to these astronomers asking them questions, and they ignore it.


posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 01:14 PM

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
I didn't feel the "experience" of lens flares on camera photos was irrelevant to what we know about the sky when we take a photo

It is...

It seems to me, the study of lens flares is crucial to knowing what is physically real...

Nothing "real" here... your just seeing light getting 'cut' through a prism (the camera lens)... Read a few posts back. Someone talks of gravitational effects that would be present if your planet did, in fact , exist...

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

No, just when it comes to lens flare (a known phenomena, when a light source is near, or in most cases, in front of the camera). If your taking a photo of your grandma and then develop them and find two of her... well, you either had the shakes when you took the pic or, you've got a doppleganger on your hands...

[shrug]...on what is and what isn't a lens flare.

All you've shown us, IS lense flare.

at what point will we be able to view Sedna with the naked eye?

NEVER. Can you see Neptune & Pluto with the naked eye? I thought not.
Why would you expect to see something even further away with your eye...

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.

It's lense flare, Not that hard to figure out...
It's something you should know about and deal with when taking outdoor photos...

How do you make these decisions, yourself?

Most would call it, common sense.

Have another look at your pics EC...






posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 01:52 PM
Your pointing out examples of light phenomena on the photos I have shown doesn't convince me that those light phenomena are not reflections of something real.

My son tells me the same thing; and I don't believe him either, even though I love him very much.

I don't see how it is that a "lens flare" can be spherical in one photo, pyramidal in another and cubical in yet another; and yet you will tell me that these "shapes" all come from "lens aberrations." No way.

I think we can agree to disagree, don't you?

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 09:17 PM

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
I don't see how it is that a "lens flare" can be spherical in one photo, pyramidal in another and cubical in yet another; and yet you will tell me that these "shapes" all come from "lens aberrations." No way.

The shape of the flare is dependent on the specifics of the camera itself. Often the flare will take on the shape of the diaphram in the lens. Cheaper cameras only have a few leafs, so they have triangular or square flares. Better cameras have round flares because they have better apeture contol systems.

Also if you have a square light source such as a reflection of of a window, that will show up as a squared off "ghost" image.

Note that "mirror" style lenses produce donut shaped lens flares!

I think that you will find that the pictures with different shaped flares were taken with different camerals. Also you have to be carefull of secondary reflections from windows, or other smooth surfaces.

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 11:24 PM

That is most likely Planet X. This must be something else I mean its either lens flare or HOAX. Cause this does'nt seem plausible even if its an interdimensional object.

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 11:59 PM

Maybe you should see how your "theory" is recieved here...
Lens Flare Forum

#6 in the following link...

Need I go on?.............

posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 01:35 PM
After reading some of your other posts, I feel you may be in need of some mental help. Seriously...

It says in your bio that your are/were a teacher and hold an degree???

If that is true, you, of all people, should know EXACTLY what your seeing in these photos you keep posting...

As for the pic of the night sky you posted in this thread...
I now know exactly (after looking at a gif someone put together in another of your 'planet 10' threads) what you're seeing in it... It's cloud cover. Nothing more, nothing less... You are seeing it through a "wall-eye" type lens...

You need to drop this subject EC. Maybe you should get another TV and start watching the History, Discovery, Science, Times channels...
Not everything is conspiracy or hyper-dimensional object just waiting to be found...

posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 11:12 AM
I need to drop this topic, eh?

I don't think so. Even among these pages there are new reports of near-earth objects that arrest peoples' attention which are not being reported in the media.

We have to sort these things out--without the dogma of Gummint spies to tell us we're crazy.

So, let's look at everything, not merely the doctrines that Gummint-sponsored grant-takers espouse.

And this is the price we have to pay because the Gummint is so heavily invested in secrecy and deception. We can't believe anything a Gummint-sponsored person tells us, out of hand.

I just want to keep the topic open, the lines of communication open. I'm not letting the proponents of photography shut down all discourse on near-earth objects by claiming that every object in a photograph that is lit is "merely one more lens flare."

Once Trust is broken, it's GONE.

Take your photographic theories; and replace them with an understanding of interdimensional physics and parallel universes. And then I'll pay more attention to your precautionary lectures.

posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 03:48 PM
How come it is planet X and no one can see it? such a gigantic planet so near be would be visible not only by naked eyes, but even with ...closed eyes.

Remember, when the sky has the Sun and the Moon, the moon is most of the time visible.

posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 04:38 PM
hey, Emilancy, ae you talking about quantum physics, or is this just some new-age mumbo jumbo?

posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 09:25 PM
I don't know New Age mumbo jumbo. I can just see the handwriting on the wall. We're in for some changes, and they're coming at us.

I'm just a watcher, watching; nothing more.

posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 10:12 PM
Emily...if those photos were of some real, tangible planet that close to the Earth....a lot more people will notice it, and it will make it to the news. Noone would be able to stop it from amkign it to the news. Those are fakes Emily.

posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 10:48 AM
you guys are going to far with debunking, dont bother trying if your not going to prove it like jak did. I was on your side emily until JAK posted those pics. Good job though.

posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 08:00 PM
Let's just keep our eyes peeled.

There's a thread, "Attention!" in which professional ATS Astronomers are tracking something and they honestly don't have a CLUE what it is.

Shift happens.

posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 11:02 PM
I've read that entire thread titled "Attention!", and can't see the connection. That thread is about something that some think is a small object in orbit above Earth. Something THAT close that's orbiting us certainly couldn't be a planet. Plus... they object that they're speaking of can be seen with the naked eye.

posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 10:14 AM
It's fine with me that you don't see the connection.

I see the connection.

posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 10:57 AM
Not much out there escapes the notice of amatuer astronomers.

Not even a 100' long piece of space junk

posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 12:28 PM
Are you serious? I that was a planet making that flare it would have to either be the size of a red giant or floating around the Earth at a low altitide. Look if it was a planet you could not see it next to the sun because the sun is so bright. If it was able to be seen in would have to be extremely cloase to the Earth, much closer to than the moon. In that case normal people would be able to see it at night along with the moon. Furthermore what were the dates at which you took those pictures. If they were in close proximety to eachother then no planets could change position and phase realitive to the sun.

Thank you and Good night Seattle!

posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 12:42 PM
No, but you dont understand, firestarter, according to Emilnancy,

This is a hyperdimensional planet that is only visible when photographed with a cheap digital camera.

It reminds me of Sagans dragon.

posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 12:42 PM
Not all heavenly bodies are made of the same kind of "visible" stuff. I've heard it said that nine tenths of the Universe is made up of "dark matter."

So, if there is a body that is non-reactive with the matter of which our planet is composed, it could be right "in our laps" and it wouldn't matter--literally.

Thus, since ghosts and phantoms and angels and so on all exist hyper-dimensionally, it doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility that we might be able to view a body [even occasionally] that doesn't adhere to our sense of physical laws.

What the hell? I'm just a human. Am I supposed to know what is possible?

I think I'll have to wait until I become a Cosmic Entity, before that day comes.

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in