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

reply to post by LordofSirius


"I beleive the OP's Images do indeed show the Flagship Nibiru along with her system."
Or with her fleet.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People



In the images arranged by the OP the sun DOES NOT ROTATE!! Now, if you want to finally understand - go back to your images of the spinning keyboard, and arrange the images so the keyboard does not rotate - what happens to your camera artifact????? IT ROTATES!!

That was his entire reason for arranging the images how he did - to show that it is not a camera artifact. So, a logical question is - is the sun stationary in the OP's original images? If you look at the corona carefully, you will see cold and hot spots on the corona that DON'T MOVE - indicating the sun appears to be held stationary - making the 'lens artifact' theory fairly untenable.

Another question is, could this be a kind of internal reflection inside the lens and light capture equipment that occurs regardless of orientation (or perhaps light striking some part of the satellite which is not rotating, or some reflective debris close to the satellite)- the answer is that it is entirely possible, but without a good diagram of how the light is channeled inside the lens - and where the lens is located on the satellite its hard to know.

It could also be a problem with the method of storage, or perhaps a magnetic field generated from the craft itself.

There are technical possibilities that preclude the existence of an object near the sun - but there is no reason to use bad logic to try and discredit the OP's work.

I find the OP's work very interesting, and certainly one of the real possibilities is that some object, or source of radiation is nearby the sun - fantastic conclusion perhaps, but in no wise discounted by any data presented here.

reply to post by RUInsane

I agree that scientists can be pressured politically. However, a case for that hasn't been made here. Until we have compelling evidence that scientists are deliberately hiding the existence of UFOs, such claims remain speculation.

Ever heard of medical ghostwriting? You should have, because the FDA and Big Pharma have been guilty of it for years.

Ghostwriting is the practice in which prominent researchers sign on as authors to articles for scientific journals that have been developed by third-party medical education companies at the behest of drug or medical device makers. Influential doctors listed as authors, the report said, have had varied input on articles drafted by industry-financed writers that have been published in medical journals. “Manipulation of medical literature could lead physicians to prescribe drugs that are more costly or may even harm patients,” the report said.

Ghostwriting - NY Times

Now, why is it that you believe astronomers, archaeologists, historians, linguists, etc are any different from being bought out by corporate influences? This is simple logic and Law of Analogy..A circle jerk of verification by the same people in cahoots, is by no means 'official' or 'authentic'.

It's like saying because those boys at Vanderbilt raped a co-ed, and they all verified the same story, nobody should be charged, because again the circle jerk of verification means they didn't do it...It's illogical...You can't have real authenticity, when vested interests are involved.

reply to post by HiramA


If your theory catches enough attention, then the third option is most likely.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

I don't dispute that researchers can sell-out. I simply said that a case for that hasn't been made in relation to the NASA photos. You mentioned it could happen, but no evidence has been presented. I also revised my post to include the following:

However, there are institutional pressures that discourage researchers from engaging the UFO subject seriously.

I think the above is more probable than NASA having a department to airbrush out supposed alien ships.

reply to post by HiramA


Image 1, if they were by your theory interacting in the UV scope, they still would be colliding, and the image wouldn't be selective on viewing, either all or none would be seen. In this image we see half's and merged objects.

Image 2, If there were reflecting objects we would see them. We also would NOT see shadows bottom side of these anomalies. They would be both top and bottom lit, casting NO shadow. Saying they would have a bottom shadow is saying that the sun is not there.

Images 3-5, I'm talking about the little white dots that are planets or stars unmistakenly, along with the travel path of noticeable objects in these pics. Start with the Earth size dot in the 1st image, it is parallel to the equator of this sun image off in the left, It clearly cannot be Earth due to satellite positioning, and might be Venus, but then what is that later bright dot below the horizon?

Not to mention the pareidolia effect, I see a giant demon in your recent pic, and to the left of the demon I see an angel. I'm not religious in any way and I see that.

reply to post by RUInsane

I don't dispute that researchers can sell-out. I simply said that a case for that hasn't been made in relation to the NASA photos.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is the agency of the United States government that is responsible for the nation's civilian space program and for aeronautics and aerospace research.

What part of the government succumbing to financial interests of multi-national corporations was unclear? With NASA being a government agency, please outline to me in a logical manner, why they would be exempt from that very same bribery?

Sometimes stone-cold proof isn't what you need; intuition and logic is, the byproduct of a brain operating from both hemispheres, not just the left.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

Official sources.

No such thing, only the illusion in place, and your misconception that it is real.. Nice argument though, but it doesn't hold water in today's corrupt society. If multi-national corporations with an agenda can buy out politicians, what makes your scientists any different?

Food for thought.

I meant this post. You show your beliefs clearly in this post. You are smart for having doubts in everything, however you are also crippled by that belief

thats food for thought.

reply to post by KnowledgeSeeker81

A shadow is an area where direct light from a light source cannot reach due to obstruction by an object.

The sun emits light. Therefore shadows can be cast. It's not clear to me what those shadows indicate, though. Is it possible those are image artifacts?

Originally posted by KnowledgeSeeker81
reply to post by HiramA

 

Image 1, if they were by your theory interacting in the UV scope, they still would be colliding, and the image wouldn't be selective on viewing, either all or none would be seen. In this image we see half's and merged objects.

Image 2, If there were reflecting objects we would see them. We also would NOT see shadows bottom side of these anomalies. They would be both top and bottom lit, casting NO shadow. Saying they would have a bottom shadow is saying that the sun is not there.

Images 3-5, I'm talking about the little white dots that are planets or stars unmistakenly, along with the travel path of noticeable objects in these pics. Start with the Earth size dot in the 1st image, it is parallel to the equator of this sun image off in the left, It clearly cannot be Earth due to satellite positioning, and might be Venus, but then what is that later bright dot below the horizon?

Not to mention the pareidolia effect, I see a giant demon in your recent pic, and to the left of the demon I see an angel. I'm not religious in any way and I see that.

I think you should pm me about this. I'm sorry, but I'm not quite following you here.

Originally posted by RUInsane
reply to post by KnowledgeSeeker81

 

A shadow is an area where direct light from a light source cannot reach due to obstruction by an object.

The sun emits light. Therefore shadows can be cast. It's not clear to me what those shadows indicate, though. Is it possible those are image artifacts?

The sun emits light, and the artifacts mentioned are bottom shadowed, meaning the source of light is coming from outside the sun via reflection, yet they are also basking in the light of the sun. No shadow should be created with top AND bottom lighting, yet these anomalies create shadows

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


I said I don't dispute that it can happen. It happens on a regular basis. But an argument hasn't been made that it's happening in this scenario. You simply argued the possibility. Put it this way: What are the indicators that NASA has been complicit in a cover-up with large corporations in regards to this case?

reply to post by KnowledgeSeeker81

It's clearer to me now. Thanks.

reply to post by RUInsane

Put it this way: What are the indicators that NASA has been complicit in a cover-up with large corporations in regards to this case?

James Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, is widely respected as one of the world's leading climate scientists. He says the public is being lied to and duped by special interest groups about the severity of the threat that global warming poses. He also claims that policy makers and big oil executives are sacrificing public interest to line their own pockets.

The Daily Galaxy - Source

In 2007, Hansen has stated that in 2005 NASA administrators had attempted to influence his public statements about the causes of climate change.[92][93] Hansen said that NASA public relations staff were ordered to review his public statements and interviews after a December 2005 lecture at the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. NASA responded that its policies are similar to those of any other federal agency in requiring employees to coordinate all statements with the public affairs office without exception.[94] Two years after Hansen and other agency employees described a pattern of distortion and suppression of climate science by political appointees, the agency’s inspector general found that the NASA Office of Public Affairs had mischaracterized the science of climate change intended for the public.[95] In June 2006, Hansen appeared on 60 Minutes stating that the George W. Bush White House had edited climate-related press releases reported by federal agencies to make global warming seem less threatening.[96] He also stated that he was unable to speak freely without the backlash of other government officials, and that he had not experienced that level of restrictions on communicating with the public during his career.

James Hansen - Wiki

Now, let's say hypothetically that Roswell was a real event, and that the Government has made contact with Extra-terrestrials. However, they don't want us to know this little tidbit of knowledge, or anything else that these E.T.'s might have divulged to them, like I don't know a great cosmic event that will change the course of humanity forever, and that they have vessels sitting in space, to assist when the time arises? Of course an agency ran by this very same government is going to cover up, blackout, and overall stonewall any type of ideas that run contrary to their 'official story'.

They've already admitted to taken money by special, foreign interests...

reply to post by HiramA


pm'ing takes away from the public aspect of peer review, I will gladly respond here to you. Look at your own rotation image. There are 2 clear dots that appear, 1st one again is at the start in the middle of the image off to the left. The 2nd dot appears about 3/4 into your slideshow It is the more obvious of the two. They are there, then they are not, and vice versa.

Your artifacts mentioned do NOT change position per the camera while other objects do. I want to see that crazy undeniable evidence too, but this isn't it. You presented a great theory, and nice persuasive evidence, however there is nothing backing your theory.

You still have not answered my question btw, so I'll ask again, If there are Jupiter sized objects around the sun, why can we not see them with simple techniques? We can view the transit of Venus, yet an object 1000x that size remains hidden. Not to mention your pics depict SEVERAL anomalies, do you have any idea of the gravitational influence these said objects would have? Say goodbye to mercury 1st and foremost, then lets contemplate the what-if's these bodies might have.

reply to post by Yongers

I'll try. It's called "Giant ufo near the sun, Harvesting energy from the sun" I believe something is there. We're just not being told.

Oh we're being told all right...told just about anything and everything other than what it actually is.

Not thread worthy.

You've found some lens artifacts on a single camera which is provided to you by the very same agency you seem to believe is covering something up. Pray tell, if they were covering it up, why would you be able to see it still after 6 years?

NASA aren't the only people looking up either. If there was something there then foreign space agencies as well as thousands and thousands of people worldwide would be able to independently view and verify it was there.

They haven't.

Thus it does not exist.

Huge objects and no gravitation anomaly on the sun
or nearby planet mercury, could mean that they are spaceships

reply to post by sajuek

NASA aren't the only people looking up either. If there was something there then foreign space agencies as well as thousands and thousands of people worldwide would be able to independently view and verify it was there.

This is like saying "If Nibiru existed NASA sat's, etc, & amateur astronomers everywhere would be able to see it."

You mean the very same amateur astronomers who should have seen the gigantic meteor that crashed into Russia this year? Pray, do tell, how well these people are doing at spotting things that all of them should be able to do, as illustrated by this weak, and nearly mainstream rebuttal of things like Nibiru and UFO's..

The difference is that meteor was relatively close to the Earth, and the lore on Nibiru considers it to be a deep space object....The logic, or rather lack thereof, in these arguments leaves me stupefied..

Originally posted by KnowledgeSeeker81
reply to post by HiramA

 

pm'ing takes away from the public aspect of peer review, I will gladly respond here to you. Look at your own rotation image. There are 2 clear dots that appear, 1st one again is at the start in the middle of the image off to the left. The 2nd dot appears about 3/4 into your slideshow It is the more obvious of the two. They are there, then they are not, and vice versa.

Your artifacts mentioned do NOT change position per the camera while other objects do. I want to see that crazy undeniable evidence too, but this isn't it. You presented a great theory, and nice persuasive evidence, however there is nothing backing your theory.

You still have not answered my question btw, so I'll ask again, If there are Jupiter sized objects around the sun, why can we not see them with simple techniques? We can view the transit of Venus, yet an object 1000x that size remains hidden. Not to mention your pics depict SEVERAL anomalies, do you have any idea of the gravitational influence these said objects would have? Say goodbye to mercury 1st and foremost, then lets contemplate the what-if's these bodies might have.

Are you attempting to use known unknowns about these objects to prove a negative?

We know that if these objects are physical and are actually parked near to the Sun, then they are unknown objects. This is simple logic...we know we don't know what they are.

We would know that they could not possibly be natural objects for the reasons you gave attempting to prove the negative. A natural object would be visible to Earth based telescopes and Solar observers, especially at the sizes we're talking about with these things. A natural object would of course be affected by the heat and gravity of the Sun. Natural objects of these sizes would be exerting powerful and very disruptive gravitational forces themselves which would have been detected by now.

Therefore, if these objects actually exist as the OP suggests they do, then they cannot possibly be natural objects, and therefore the effects that you listed to show that they cannot be actually there, only proves that they cannot be natural, not that they are not there.

The only conclusion that can be arrived at would be that the objects are artificial or constructions of immense proportions...perhaps something similar to small Dyson spheres, though containing a world instead of a Star.

And if they are indeed contructions, then the technology levels of those that built them is going to be very far ahead of our own, therefore will obviously demonstrate significant areas of science and materials properties that we simply don't have a credible clue about as yet. We can speculate on some of the likely properties such objects would need to have though;

The objects may not be visible to our natural vision or they may be deliberately shielded or cloaked from our visible spectrum.

They would require significant anti-gravitational capabilities and be impervious to virtually anything, even the power of a Star at close quarters, suggesting advanced shielding or 100% efficient energy absorbtion hull material..which would amount to them being indestructable in practical terms (so war would be out of the question..in case any military is thinking it might be winnable!).

Personally, i don't know what is being shown on the OP's animations, it might not be an exciting admission and is unlikey to earn me the 'Mr. Controversial' of the year award...but it is honest, and that's perfectly alright with me.

I cannot see how those arguing about a speck of microscopic dust inside the camera, (which may or may not be the cause of these objects) can't understand that if the artifact(s) is caused by a such a grain of microscopic dust stuck to the inside of the camera (hence, inside the satellite itself) the 'object' or rather the image of the dust would also rotate when the camera itself is rotated, to do otherwise is a physical impossibility. If the dust is there, stuck to the inside of the camera lens, when the camera is rotated, anything stuck to it is going to rotate too and be imaged moving as the camera moves...there's not many other way to say that or if there is, it's not coming to me.

Anyone with a camera or phone camera can show this to themselves very easily.

I just took a piece of fluff, positioned it onto a camera lens and took a snap, rotated the camera physically 90 degrees to the right and snapped again, and repeated at 180, and 270 degrees.

The effect is what obvious logic dictates it should be, the white blur in the images caused by the attached fluff on the side of the lens, moves around the subject (my subject was a kitchen door) as the camera is rotated.

This is obvious folks, come on.

Right, I made this to show how the Keyboard GIF differs to the OP's gif and why it should be discounted.



When the Keyboard is aligned the artifact moves, not so in the OP's GIF

the flare that passes over the object does exactly that. it OBSCURES it as it passes over. how anyone cannot see this is a mystery. not under, not through, over. clear as day. that's enough for me to think this anomaly warrants continued investigation. good job OP. and i read the entire thread, before anyone suggests that i do so.