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.

 

Allegation: "Nancy is nuts" Is that true?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 08:05 PM
link   

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.




posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 08:44 PM
link   

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.



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 09:30 PM
link   
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]



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 08:23 AM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 10:58 AM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 12:55 PM
link   
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.



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?



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 01:04 PM
link   

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...



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 01:19 PM
link   


E_T

posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 04:06 PM
link   

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]



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 04:28 PM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 04:29 PM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 04:32 PM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 04:33 PM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 04:40 PM
link   
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]



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 04:44 PM
link   

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.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 04:51 PM
link   
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?



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 04:57 PM
link   
unfourtnately yest thats what they are talking about i cant think of how to make them believe that its perectly normal



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 05:04 PM
link   

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.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 05:13 PM
link   
yeah i only meant emmily i duno why i said them

did you check the mt wilsion observatory thread also?



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 05:35 PM
link   

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.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join