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

reply to post by KnowledgeSeeker81


The pm request was in order for me to understand what you were trying to say without further cluttering the already cluttered thread. It was not for secrecy. I would have (or you could have) posted the results/conclusions of our messages.

Please refer to the images by name and re-state these questions. I'll address them when I can, but frankly, I am swamped. Besides, I did answer the ones I could make out.

reply to post by raymundoko


You couldn't possibly be WRONG could you? Effrontery... doesn't work on me - nor, your ideology. On that note we can agree to disagree. I suggest you keep your "less than" comments to yourself. Experience? I am a very well educated woman and I hold 2 college degrees, thank you.
Furthermore, you forget we are on a forum, debating and sharing idea's to reach different conclusions. Just because you're so certain in what you believe doesn't mean I have to ride on your bandwagon! AND so it's clear to you, just because you assume I have picked a side one way or the other shows your degree of intelligence. A good argument in debate can shed more light on a one sided issue, young Padawan!

I know you THINK you see a solid object, but you don't. I already clearly demonstrated that the object moves with the rotation of the lens while the sun stays stationary. That alone invalidates everything related to the object being a vessel, planet or entity orbiting the sun. Also, you trying to bring up HEO to me is laughable at best, as I am the one who has the experience in that area, whereas you probably have none.

Originally posted by raymundoko
reply to post by WeSbO

 

See my post I just did. Most people are confused by the OP's GIF because they assume he is correct when he said he stabilized the sun, however he stabilized the artifact he thought was orbiting the sun. It causes an optical illusion that has been fooling people. He also seems so intent on defending it that I am wondering if he did it on purpose for stars and flags.

So whether it was intentional or not, this has been thoroughly debunked by several people in this thread, as well as the Scientist in charge of the program running the Satellites.

edit on 21-8-2013 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)

I never said I thought the object was orbiting the sun.
I didn't know Joseph B. Gurman had commented in this thread. What's his username?

Originally posted by thoughtfuldeliquent
I have a couple of questions if anyone would be so kind as to enlighten me, I'm really uninformed when it comes to astronomy.

I'm confused about how a telescope would observe the sun when it requires a human eye to peer through? Wouldn't that # burn your retina? And at night, when your side of the planet is no longer facing the sun, how could you possibly observe the sun through telescope?

A telescope needs no eye just like a video camera can be left to record on a table.
The telescope is not terrestrial. It is going around the sun. The Earth does not get in the way.

reply to post by thoughtfuldeliquent


The translucency of the objects has not yet been established.

Originally posted by Char-Lee
reply to post by InhaleExhale

 

so when people discuss anything, they are not relaying what they know or their opinions?

It is known as sharing thoughts and information.

Opinions can be shared yes, but information or a message is relayed.

The amount of effort and time the OP put into this seems to me that they are not giving or sharing their opinion but trying to prove their point of view by relaying that which has made them conclude what they have.

edit

reply to post by eriktheawful


If the artifact is in the picture, please explain to me how rotating the picture, doesn't rotate the artifact? I don't quite get this logic here... Your own pictures confirm this. Take for example the jar as the artifact in question. When you rotate the picture, the jar rotates also...

Originally posted by InhaleExhale

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by vind21
reply to post by HiramA

 

Currently on my cell. I may find the time to produce a few well done video explinations.

But please consider this: there are several different satalites looking at the sun in every known spectrum. There are other space agencies as well. It may take some time but the data is available to show this object is not visible on any other satalite.

Won't do you any good. I already did that back on page 3 of this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

including listing the artifacts that happen when using a coronagraph and the camera defects themselves with STEREO.

OP blew it off, because the pictures do not have all the same time stamps (apparently this massive object can move around and avoid all the other solar observatories, except STEREO).

But good luck here.

And they say they are not claiming Nibiru.

Same characteristics,

viewable to only a select few, etc

from a certain angle and position on the globe

I have never claimed Nibiru (see page 1.)
I have not claimed anything with an orbital path.
The telescope is in space, not "from a certain angle and position on the globe".

I stand by my post 100%. It is not part of the camera assembly.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Users like Raymond can sputter all the nonsense they want - logic is logic.

Now they even start to attack the OP for forging his GIFs?

Is it that hard to accept the reality of huge objects actually being there near the Sun?

reply to post by HiramA


You are intrinsically confused, because if the object is always in the same spot, then you are claiming it is orbiting the sun...at the exact same rate the satellites orbit the sun. That should have been simple enough to grasp.

reply to post by MoonMine


Please comment on the images you requested which I supplied. You avoided it as I said you would, and now that the OP and his supporters are back, you are trying to chime in.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

If the artifact is in the picture, please explain to me how rotating the picture, doesn't rotate the artifact? I don't quite get this logic here...

They cannot. That's why they are grasping at straws.

I cannot make it clearer than this: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by raymundoko
reply to post by MoonMine

 

You were replying within seconds previously, now that I have the images clear as day for you I can't seem to get a reply...but you are online.

Care to tell me how your logic trumps my educated ignorance again?

Edit:
Also, so there can be no confusion, I actually starred this thread because of the effort he put into it. However, if I could take my star back I would because he refuses to except the solid evidence laid out before him. This is the OPPOSITE of a scientist, even an armchair one. No matter how good your hypothesis seems, it does not become a theory without solid proof for. If there is solid proof against then it should be disregarded completely. I know that sucks to hear, but any others on these forums who attended university for M.Sc. have had to go through the classroom humiliation of having a hypothesis thoroughly debunked by either the professor or classmates. The best we can do is roll with it, accept when we are wrong and move on.

edit on 21-8-2013 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)

"...it does not become a theory without solid proof... " Actually, theory + proof = fact. One can have a theory without having proof which is what makes it theory. Any M.Sc. would know that.
"he refuses to except the solid evidence laid out before him" I have not seen any, yet.

Originally posted by raymundoko
reply to post by MoonMine

 

Please comment on the images you requested which I supplied. You avoided it as I said you would, and now that the OP and his supporters are back, you are trying to chime in.

What? The images you added a few arrows to to prove the sun is not rotating?

Why are you trying to prove the Sun is not rotating in a rotating viewpoint?
Why are the fixed spots at the border of the black shield clearly rotating (indicating that the Sun DOES rotate)?

If you were right and the Sun is NOT rotating as the viewers perceive it - then the GIF images posted do not represent a series of pictures taken while the camera assembly was rotating. And because we have clearly established that these pictures were taken during a camera roll (aka viewpoint rotation) the Sun did actually rotate 360º - just like everything else in the picture that was actually recorded by the camera.

The only thinkg that would remain stationary would be anomalies stuck to the lense or part of the camera assembly, which, again the orb or vessel is not.

You can argue all you want - you fail to acknowledge that the pictures presented are a series of frames taken during a camera roll. (Because if you do than you validate the orb).

So unless you come up with actual proof that the Sun is NOT rotating AND the pictures shown are not frames taken (NOT mutually exclusive!!!) during a camera roll I rest my case with full confidence.

Originally posted by raymundoko
reply to post by Stormdancer777

 

Look at the top of this page. We are looking at an artifact on a lens that someone though was a giant space ship/entity in stationary orbit around the sun. Turns out it is an artifact in the lens per the following:

1) The camera on the rear side does not show the same object indicating it is an issue with one satellite
2) Other satellites pointed at the sun also show nothing in the area
3) The sequence of images he used in his gif to attempt to show the object stays stationary when the camera rotates was actually his user error of stabilizing the wrong object. When shown frame by frame the sun stays stationary and the artifact moves with the lens.

1) StereoA and StereoB have the sun between them and it is not surprising that they do not see the same things.
2) Specific satellites have instruments which show different things. I have not looked into other satellites but have seen other (non Stereo) imagery which definately shows anomalies. Whether they are the same ones or not has yet to be determined.
3) When one uses Hv for even a brief first time, one realizes that the error is in trying to line anything up with the discharge (which is constantly fluctuating.)

reply to post by MoonMine


Because when inconvenient, forget logic...

The OP presented pictures in which he stabilized the camera, and rotated the picture of the sun and artifact. The artifact rotates with the Sun. However, when he stabilized the picture of the Sun, and rotated the camera, the artifact remained stationary with the Sun, which proves that it was nothing that they have tried to debunk this with...

The saddest part is, that they have gone as far as accusing the OP of creating an elaborate hoax for internet pixels...

Ridiculous...

reply to post by eriktheawful


In ref. to the jug on the stump pics: your 2nd pic - the object is still moving around the jug/stump just as the OP's gif. I fail to see your point here.

Originally posted by InhaleExhale

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
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..

edit on 21-8-2013 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)

Well if Nibiru is the size its claimed

You really cannot compare the Russian meteorite with something the size or larger than Jupiter.

How big was the meteor, the size of bus?

Compare a bus to the planet Earth,

Now compare planet Earth to Jupiter.

Do you understand something that size would visible without a telescope if it was anywhere near us?

Unless, of course, it is only visible in the near UV spectrum.

Originally posted by HiramA
reply to post by thoughtfuldeliquent

 

The translucency of the objects has not yet been established.

Well it is now, I guess. They're translucent for sure. If light can pass through it. It might also be causing the confusion with the plume from the sun appearing to pass over the object, as the star looks like it's in front, however I imagine it would be MUCH larger if it was closer to us than the artifact.

You can also check raymund's timestamps and you can see the artifact move around while the sun appears to remain stationary.