The mind-blowing game-changer you can't unsee.

page: 1
137
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   
This is not the old Nibiru/Jupiter-sized/Planet-X story you've already seen.
Please read on...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some while back, in late June of 2013, an image appeared on the internet showing a seemingly spherical object right next to the sun bathed in a greenish light. This object was claimed to be Nibiru or Jupiter or an asteroid etc. but was presented with no more evidence than a single screenshot which did not reveal the entire picture.

original post

This is why many seem to brush off this story as old news. A superficial examination of this phenomenon creates a sensation for a while and then dies uninvestigated. But I guarantee you've never seen anything like this before.

I re-created the conditions for viewing this image and this due diligence led me to the astounding new evidence presented herein.

These objects cannot be explained as anything which follows an orbital path as they do not seem to move, at least not in the time-lapse between recorded images. There is one notable exception to this in which motion seems to be recorded although it is not known whether this is a result of satellite movement or movement of the objects.

Image blur



All images were taken from Helioviewer.org (a NASA site) and come from a pair of satellites called Stereo A (ahead) and Stereo B (behind.) These satellites have been orbiting the sun since 2007 and are sensitive to both the visible spectrum and UV wavelengths. The instruments which have recorded this phenomenon are Cor1 and Cor2 which are said to use white light. These instruments may be able to see into the near UV spectrum like some insects do. There is no official claim that Cor1&2 are UV sensitive, but they would only have to be slightly more sensitive than our eyes.

I took screenshots of days, hours, minutes and even seconds before and after the first 'Nibiru' image, and sequenced them using PhotoShop to align, rotate, and crop. No other alterations were made to the original images and they were then turned into animated .gifs with Image Ready. These results can be reproduced by anyone interested.

Based on this new information, some points became painfully obvious.

1- The objects have been there as long as the satellites which took their pictures have been in orbit and are still
there now.
2- Nasa has been covering something up (no big surprise here.)
3- The objects are measureable, and their position can be easily determined.
4- They are not alone; and it would appear that neither are we. There are several objects that appear simultaneously which have also been there since the first satellite images were taken by the telescopes in question.

How so?

1- The first instance of these objects was recorded on the very first image taken by StereoA&B on January 29, 2007.

jan 29, 2007



The August 16, 2013 image also shows these objects. They have been there for at least as long as we've looked and are still there now.

aug 16,2013



25 day time-lapse



2- These objects have been visible since 2007, but nothing has been said publicly by NASA officials. Many available images have been deleted from the public data base, had parts hidden with black rectangles, or renamed such that they could not be found.
It can be shown that NASA did some gymnastics with their equipment in order to verify that these objects were not an anomaly caused by lens defects, interference patterns, etc. In the space of 27 hrs, the image was seen to rotate 360 degrees in regular intervals. I called NASA's representative for the Stereo project (Joseph B. Gurman) to get an explanation but my call was not returned.

rotate



3- As a solar flare can be seen to move OVER the main object, the object is measureable, and due to the fact that there are two satellites, can also be triangulated and positioned in space.

wave



4- There are several objects which can be clearly seen (at least 7,) and some images give rise to the supposition that there might be many more than even that. Dozens... hundreds... more?

I will post more detailed information very soon as I have kept all the uncropped screenshots which show the times, dates, and satellite data relevant to reproducing these results. These .gifs were also made to be uncluttered which is why I cropped out this original data.

Stay tuned for updates; I'm working on other .gifs... and any debunking, comments, or questions will be greatly
appreciated.




posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by HiramA
 


I read your post, and sorta understand what you find interesting, but I don't really know enough to confirm/deny.

I found the second picture from the bottom particularly convincing evidence that *something* flew by our sun outside of any recognizable orbit, and at greater speeds than relative objects.....so, one could speculate a lot of things: comet, space junk, dust on the lens, ufo, whatever....

The more fanciful side of me sees a spaceship using sol as a means of transportation or refueling.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Sorry about the first three images; because they are screenshots, they are too big. I will resize them and edit my post, but meanwhile, please click on the images to see them full size.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Now THIS is intelligent information. The work you have done makes this extremely clear. 'animations' are clearly pics laid out with targets aligned very well.

I keep thinking the orbs that are seen creating eddies and shadows were too similiar to be coincidence.

Happy hunting.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Wow, the same camera artifact in picture after picture, in the same place. Just like a spot on the lens, in the same place, shape, etc, etc...



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by anon29
 


Thanks for your interest.
The time lapse .gif (25 days) shows that they could not have flown by. They have been there since 2007 and are still there.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Toxicsurf
 


Thanks for commenting.
The image 'rotate' shows that it could not be a spot on the lens or any other such anomaly as the lens was rotated but the image did not change.
The image 'wave' shows that a flare passed over the object, again making that explanation impossible.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by HiramA
Based on this new information, some points became painfully obvious.

1- The objects have been there as long as the satellites which took their pictures have been in orbit and are still
there now.
2- Nasa has been covering something up (no big surprise here.)
3- The objects are measureable, and their position can be easily determined.
4- They are not alone; and it would appear that neither are we. There are several objects that appear simultaneously which have also been there since the first satellite images were taken by the telescopes in question.


I believe you are mistaking artifacts for objects. The reason these "objects" have been there as long as the satellites is because the imaging artifacts are inherent in the design.

There have been many threads here with various assertions based on Stereo A and B imagery, but I have yet to see anything that would convince a reasonable, open-minded person that there are "objects" around the sun that NASA is not telling us about.

Further, objects of the size implied from the imagery would have significant, measurable gravitational effects.

Also, if NASA wanted to cover something up, why would they make all the imagery available? If I wanted to cover something up, I'd cover it up. Just sayin'.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by InTheFlesh1980
 


Thanks for the logic, but I will counter with more logic. How can the flare pass over the object then?



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toxicsurf
Wow, the same camera artifact in picture after picture, in the same place. Just like a spot on the lens, in the same place, shape, etc, etc...


There is one in every crowd lol.

I think you have done some compelling work and don't listen to skeptics, keep it up.

The Bot



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   
I see the same kind of unmoving lens speck that pictures I've taken with my own camera can get. Very likely a teeny tiny spec of debris in the optical path IN the camera, not outside it. The spinning picture clearly shows it's stationary within the tech, not outside it. As far as the flare picture goes, that sure looks like it's behind the object in question to me, not over it.

If it was something in the solar system, it would show evidence of transit. Growing in size, shrinking, moving away, moving closer. This is easy enough to see from Earth with other planets, this object would show the same movements. Meaning, it would move rather than stay perfectly stationary in the exact same spot in relation to the sun.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Nyiah
 



So if you were to rotate your camera, the speck would move, would it not?
Look more closely at the wave gif. the flare moving in front of it is undeniable.
I do not claim that they grow, move, or any of that. They are not planets, 25 days shows many objects around the sun, if one looks closely.
edit on 19-8-2013 by HiramA because: clicked post instead of preview, my bad



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Nice work! Really!

I don't know squad about this, and maybe that is a good thing, but as the third gif motive depicts: all the round anomalies move at the same time at one point. That is maybe caused by camera movement, after editing or what not. I'm pretty convinced that this is nothing but...a camera flaw/thing.

But again nicely done.

/HamP



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by HiramA
I called NASA's representative for the Stereo project (Joseph B. Gurman) to get an explanation but my call was not returned.


I have corresponded with Dr. Gurman regarding image artifacts from Stereo A and B. Here is the e-mail in which he was responding to me and another inquirer:


Hi, Mr. (name excluded) and Mr. (name excluded) -

It's interesting that folks have the time to stare at our movies and find interesting features, but no luck Googling, say, "STEREO image artifacts." If you had, you would have found, among other things:

stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov...

(see the HI-2 case, about halfway down the page), and then perhaps found our Planet Finder:

stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov... ,

which indicates that currently, Venus is probably the brightest object in the HI-2B field of view, and thus likely to be the source of the internal reflections.

The HI's are not what most people think of when they think of telescopes; instead (see:

xwww.sstd.rl.ac.uk... ,

Figure 5) they're two single-lens cameras recessed below the side of the spacecraft and placed at the end of a series of baffles to remove stray light from the Sun, which is (Carl Sagan imitation time) billions of time brighter than the signal we're looking for. I can't honestly say I know which of the many structures inside the HI instrument produces the triangular or diamond-shaped internal reflections (though looking at that Figure, I'm guessing it's the HI-1 camera), only that they've been seen before.

Wishing you both a happy new year,

Joe Gurman

P.S. I wouldn't call that an "official explanation," as I'm not an official anything, just a scientist.

(Dr.) Joseph B. Gurman
STEREO Project Scientist

Joseph B. Gurman, Solar Physics Laboratory, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt MD 20771 USA


Also, flares may appear to pass in front of an "object" but in truth are merely the superposition of the flare and the artifact.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by InTheFlesh1980
 


Triangular and diamond-shaped reflections?
Venus?
Dead links?
Sorry but none of that is of any relevance to my post.
Do you work at NASA, too?

How would the artifact stay still if the telescope is rotating?
edit on 19-8-2013 by HiramA because: more info



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Here's an image from May 02, 2012



Please note that there are many gaps in the Helioviewer data base. Many intriguing images have no follow up, sometimes for months.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by HiramA
reply to post by InTheFlesh1980
 


Triangular and diamond-shaped reflections?
Venus?
Dead links?
Sorry but none of that is of any relevance to my post.
Do you work at NASA, too?

How would the artifact stay still if the telescope is rotating?
edit on 19-8-2013 by HiramA because: more info


The inquiry and e-mail were several years ago regarding other artifacts, hence the dead links. I feel it is relevant to your post as an example because there are many inherent noticeable artifacts that have been addressed and explained over the past 6 years.

I am not attacking your post or your viewpoint. Your post is very well constructed and you have clearly thought it through. I'm just voicing my opinion. And no, I do not work for NASA. I am a computer programmer, but if NASA offered me a job I would jump at it! It would be more interesting, that's for sure.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by HiramA
reply to post by Nyiah
 



So if you were to rotate your camera, the speck would move, would it not?
Look more closely at the wave gif. the flare moving in front of it is undeniable.
I do not claim that they grow, move, or any of that. They are not planets, 25 days shows many objects around the sun, if one looks closely.
edit on 19-8-2013 by HiramA because: clicked post instead of preview, my bad


No, the specks in my older cameras don't move when one rotates the camera. They're just dust specks stuck on the inside of the lens, they don't move. Think of it this way: Assuming you are female, or live with one if you aren't, go grab make-up. Eyeliner or something. Put a dot on the lens of whatever you own that snaps pictures. Now, take pictures while rotating it. The spot didn't move, did it? The same perspective applies to stuff stuck on the interior of a lens.

I'm not sure you're looking at the flare the way I am. It looks like it's something very tiny in there. The light coming it to the instrument looks like it's being obstructed, not traveling over an object in the distance.The best parallel I can think of is a screen that becomes humidity damaged & retains water spot stains. It has the same look as that to me.
edit on 8/19/2013 by Nyiah because: Specks, not specs. Same pronunciation, different words, derr



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by InTheFlesh1980
 


OK, thank you for that clarification. I just want to try not to mix apples and oranges and spaceships.

Old theories applied to new problems lead us into false assumptions.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by HiramA
reply to post by anon29
 


Thanks for your interest.
The time lapse .gif (25 days) shows that they could not have flown by. They have been there since 2007 and are still there.


There's one problem with your logic...the STEREO A spacecraft has moved quite a bit since 2007 (it does not stay in one place), so if the object in question has stayed in the same apparent location (relative to the video frame), then it must be an image artifact/camera artifact.

Otherwise, as STEREO orbits the sun, the point of view (POV) between the spacecarft and any "rogue planet" would change, just like the location of Venus changes from Earth's POV as Earth and Venus orbit the Sun.



Originally posted by HiramA
reply to post by Toxicsurf
 


Thanks for commenting.
The image 'rotate' shows that it could not be a spot on the lens or any other such anomaly as the lens was rotated but the image did not change.
The image 'wave' shows that a flare passed over the object, again making that explanation impossible.


The spacecraft also rotates occasionally, and when the spacecraft rotates, the location of the artifact rotates with it. Therefore, when you rotate the video frame to show the "object" in the same location, you are basically mimicking the rotation of the spacecraft over that time.


edit on 8/19/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
137
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join