This topic is in the Space Exploration discussion forum.  (rss)


Allegation: "Nancy is nuts" Is that true?


<<  1    2    3    4  >>



reply posted on 7-11-2004 @ 08:05 PM by Byrd



Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
Oh, so you guys are accepting all these ~Phenomena~ as "normal" and natural to photography, eh?


Yes... and moreso, to people who are frightened by something announcing that Strange Phenomina are occuring. I can't remember all the beautiful sunsets I've ever seen, but I know that I've seen sunsets as spectacular (if not more so) on the High Plains of Texas (where we do get dust in the air and it makes for lovely sunsets.)


I would agree except that, in rare cases when I am able to look up in the direction of the sun in the sky--it just doesn't look right. There are too many spheres illuminated in the clouds now. In my sixty years, I've never seen anything like this before.

You have found a source that you feel is credible that TELLS you things are going wrong. You are worried that it is true... and so you will notice the things that "prove" to you that this belief is true.



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 7-11-2004 @ 08:44 PM by cmdrkeenkid



Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
Guess you and I aren't seeing the same things, eh?

Oh well. I see what I see; and what I see has changed from decades ago when I was looking with the same curiosity I have now.

I guess "seeing" is like "preferences." It's subjective.




Well that still doesn't explain what it is you're seeing. So please, do tell! I'd like to understand what it is you're seeing. I feel I've done a fairly well job of explaining my point of view. If I haven't, please let me know.



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 7-11-2004 @ 09:30 PM by HowardRoark


Jeeze, am I that old?

I can remember when I was a kid in the early 70's, riding in a car through the south side of Chicago past all of the steel mills. The air stank and the sky was definitly not blue.


There have been many instances of dust from forest fires, volcanos or "dust bowls" changing the colors of the sky.


And yes, Nancy, or Emily or what ever your name is, Nancy is nuts.

Please tell us all about Puppy Lake.



[edit on 7-11-2004 by HowardRoark]



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 8-11-2004 @ 08:23 AM by Emily_Cragg


There's no puppy lake here.

There's just a desire to know what's true ... and the feeling I'm being conned. Sorry to say, but that's how it comes across.



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 8-11-2004 @ 10:58 AM by cmdrkeenkid


So uh... Emily, Nancy, whomever you go by, when are you going to explain what it is you're seeing and your ideas behind it? Because you really should. It never helps to make allegations with nothing to back them up, especially here on ATS.



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 8-11-2004 @ 12:55 PM by Emily_Cragg


I have nothing to do with Nancy. I merely archive photos that look odd; and I'm waiting for the scientific community to explain to me, what I'm seeing.

Here are some new ones, this first one is looking southwest from Salt Lake City Utah, a photo of the Emery Water Conservation District, 9:30 am

www.abidemiracles.com...

From a couple of days ago, the appearance of the sun on its reflection in the water at katkam is identical to the appearance of the sun at the same time of day at Lick Observatory. Only the sun is not round; it has an "arm."

That's odd enough, I think, to include in this thread.

external image

and

www.abidemiracles.com...

In neither case, do I have any clue what's going on. In the first case, I don't understand why a blast of light is coming from the southwest in the MORNING [that's where the sun SETS] and in the second case, I don't understand where the sun gets this "arm" showing up both in California and Vancouver Canada.

Anybody want to guess?



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 8-11-2004 @ 01:04 PM by cmdrkeenkid



Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
I merely archive photos that look odd; and I'm waiting for the scientific community to explain to me, what I'm seeing.


Umm... have you read the posts in this thread? Maybe you should...



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 8-11-2004 @ 01:19 PM by Assassin





reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 8-11-2004 @ 04:06 PM by E_T



Originally posted by markjaxson
I see nothing wrong with that picture, its just because the sun is so bright its the camera that creates that effect, think its because the light hitting it is reflecting and making it look larger than normal.
Also there's always lot of smoke and dust in air above cities.

And it's just that contrast is too big for cameras, in that image some areas are underexposed while sun itself is overexposed.

Also look this:
koti.mbnet.fi...

[edit on 8-11-2004 by E_T]



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 8-11-2004 @ 04:28 PM by Emily_Cragg


I'm not talking about the lens flares. I'm talking about the "arm" that the sun has in both Lick Observatory's photo and in the Kalkam reflection.

That "arm" is no lens flare. Sigh. Neither is the morning stray light over southwest Utah, a lens flare.

I'm working on one topic; you're on another. Oh well.



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 8-11-2004 @ 04:29 PM by Emily_Cragg


I'm not talking about the lens flares. I'm talking about the "arm" that the sun has in both Lick Observatory's photo and in the Kalkam reflection.

That "arm" is no lens flare. Sigh. Neither is the morning stray light over southwest Utah, a lens flare.

I'm working on one topic; you're on another. Oh well.



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 8-11-2004 @ 04:32 PM by Emily_Cragg


I'm not talking about the lens flares. I'm talking about the "arm" that the sun has in both Lick Observatory's photo and in the Kalkam reflection.

That "arm" is no lens flare. Sigh. Neither is the morning stray light over southwest Utah, a lens flare.

I'm working on one topic; you're on another. Oh well.



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 8-11-2004 @ 04:33 PM by Emily_Cragg


I'm not talking about the lens flares. I'm talking about the "arm" that the sun has in both Lick Observatory's photo and in the Kalkam reflection.

That "arm" is no lens flare. Sigh. Neither is the morning stray light over southwest Utah, a lens flare.

I'm working on one topic; you're on another. Oh well.



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 8-11-2004 @ 04:40 PM by DeltaChaos


Ok. I just gotta know. Who the hell is Nancy?

And is this whole thread about the obvious lens flare in the picture on the first post? I don't believe it.

[edit on 8-11-2004 by DeltaChaos]



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 8-11-2004 @ 04:44 PM by Nerdling



Originally posted by DeltaChaos
Ok. I just gotta know. Who the hell is Nancy?


Been wondering the same thing.

Another baseless post to put up on the board DC.



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 8-11-2004 @ 04:51 PM by DeltaChaos


Where are these arms?

You're not talking about the streaks coming down from the bottom at perfect, say 35 degree angles, as if refracted off glass, are you?



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 8-11-2004 @ 04:57 PM by Mizar


unfourtnately yest thats what they are talking about i cant think of how to make them believe that its perectly normal



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 8-11-2004 @ 05:04 PM by DeltaChaos



Originally posted by Mizar
unfourtnately yest thats what they are talking about i cant think of how to make them believe that its perectly normal


Them? It's just Emily, right? She's the only deluded one here, it seems. This is what happens when I argue the non-existence of magic. Except then, it seems like I'm the only one that's not deluded, as all these wizards and witches come from out of nowhere and get pissed.



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 8-11-2004 @ 05:13 PM by Mizar


yeah i only meant emmily i duno why i said them

did you check the mt wilsion observatory thread also?



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 8-11-2004 @ 05:35 PM by Assassin



Originally posted by DeltaChaos
...is this whole thread about the obvious lens flare in the picture on the first post? I don't believe it.


EC has several posts
about this...

Members have been trying to reason with her.
She won't budge in thinking that (what is obviously) lens flare, is really some extra-dimensional planet or some other nonsense...

All this from a supposed college graduate, degree holder and teacher...
I don't believe it myself DC.



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


<<  1    2    3    4  >>







Top Topics Right Now:



Active Topics Right Now:



ATS MIX Podcasts:











Newest Topics:















































ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Powered by AboveTop:Board v2.3
Header data processed in 0.012 seconds
Page processed in 0.146 seconds
6 total database queries (1)









The Above Top Secret Conspiracy Community Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.





thread
Forums Directory