Can anyone identify this strange celestial body in the sky?

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

The reason objects like Venus change phases is two fold: Earth's position in relation to it and the sun, and the position of Venus in relation to the Earth and the sun.

In order for an object to change phases that fast (it takes Venus many, many days to do so), it would have to be moving through space at speeds well above orbital velocity required to maintain an orbit around the sun (or the Earth for that matter).

Viewing from the southern hemisphere: I'm not sure why people seem to think that if you have something that is visible in the southern hemisphere, that it can not be viewed by anyone else anywhere else. This is false.

The only time it is true is if something is located directly over either the North or South poles of the Earth. As something's position in space (relative to the Earth) moves up or down in latitude, it becomes more visible to people on either side of the Earth's equator.

People in both the Northern and Southern hemispheres can see Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune just fine. This is because their orbits lay close to the ecliptic. So do many stars and constellations.

Some things are harder to see the further "north" or "south" you go. For example: The Big Dipper. It can be seen by people south of the equator at certain times of the year and certain latitudes south of the equator. If you continue to move south eventually it will not be visible of course.

Any object that close to the sun (close to the sun as in it's position in the sky), would be visible to just about anyone on the daylight side of the Earth....no matter what their latitude was.

And sorry, it looks translucent to me (my eyes and opinions, but I've taken a lot of images of things in the sky and have seen this effect before. Still, just my opinion).

If you step back and watch the whole scene, draw a line between the sun and the lower-front lens flare. The larger anomaly in the middle sits on and follows the intersection of this line.

It is pretty evident when you do this that it is a second lens flare and possibly just an enlarged "double" of the front one regardless that it appears to be behind the cloud.

Think of the large anomaly as a magnifying glass in the sky and the front flare as the focal point of the magnifying glass on the ground. This isn't exactly what is happening, but watch it with this thought in mind and you will also see that they are part of the same phenomenon.

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

lens flare 100%

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

It is not a lens flare

You always say that when you post a video of a lens flare.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

It is not a lens flare

You always say that when you post a video of a lens flare.

Would you like to discuss me or the video in the OP?

originally posted by: Staroth
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

lens flare 100%

Okay, just explain to me how an artifact originating from the lens can appear behind objects in the video/picture.

Typical lens flares - in front of objects in the picture:



Picture/video in question, object clearly behind other objects in picture/video, contrary to the definition of a lens flare:

Reflection from the layer of glass in our atmosphere?

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

Contrast contrast contrast!!!

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

It is not a lens flare

You always say that when you post a video of a lens flare.

Would you like to discuss me or the video in the OP?

Seems to me that the video in the OP has been discussed and debunked exhaustively, already. It's clearly a lens flare.

That being the case, your stubborn refusal to accept the explanations that you asked for, has changed the focus of the thread from the video, to you.

With very high contrasts you can see it's not behind the cloud. It's a lens flare causing overexposure.

Look in the upper left corner of this pic I just took. It's a lens flare, but the green blob doesn't appear in front of the branch:



Look at the dead pine tree: are the flare streaks behind or in front of it?



And this one just because the flare looks like a cool laser beam shooting out of the could on the right. Not making any fun of anyone, it really does look like that to me! I just happen to know it was my camera though, heh.

a reply to: eriktheawful

Thanks for taking the time Erik, much appreciated, glad to see you're having a nice weather day wherever you are!

I'm not trying to be a pain in the butt, I think people have to admit if the object in the OP is not a lens flare then it is fairly interesting.

In your first pic, the green blob seems to be obviously some kind of light anomaly and does not appear to be any kind of object and has much less density than the object in the OP.

In the second pic, it is tough to tell whether the ray of light is behind or in front of the dead pine tree, whereas in the OP it is quite clear that object is behind the clouds.

And pic three just proves my point (not that I'm trying to be right, just trying to learn and find the truth), the light beam is clearly in front of the cloud.

But since your knowledge is greater than mine in this area I'm willing to defer to you and your honest judgement that this is not Venus or any other celestial body. Thank you for your time and effort. Go enjoy the weekend!

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

obvious lens artefact is .........well OBVIOUS

FFS what happened to critical thinking ?

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
a reply to: eriktheawful

In your first pic, the green blob seems to be obviously some kind of light anomaly and does not appear to be any kind of object and has much less density than the object in the OP.

Here's a tip for you.

Go to google select images and do a search for lens flare you will see many examples for different lenses, different focal lengths, different apertures and the position of the light source will all affect how they look in the image it's that simple to find out about what a lens flare can look like.

Also remember many on here are keen photographers some even professional.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

obvious lens artefact is .........well OBVIOUS

FFS what happened to critical thinking ?

My critical thinking was "how can a lens flare be behind an object in a video?" - certainly a reasonable question given the physics of lens flares.

If that offended you, well, that is your problem. If you are so easily offended by posters asking reasonable or nonconformist questions as happens thousands of times a day on this website, and would rather spend time on a website where posters only ask comfortable questions or questions that conform to the masses opinions and ideas then maybe ATS isn't for you.

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

Its a lens flare.

If it were a celestrial body it woyld have been visible all over the planet at the same time. Think about it ....

On the left there? I think it's Saturn.

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

Lens flare and why would anyone need professional help to get mad ?

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
a reply to: eriktheawful

In your first pic, the green blob seems to be obviously some kind of light anomaly and does not appear to be any kind of object and has much less density than the object in the OP.

Here's a tip for you.

Go to google select images and do a search for lens flare you will see many examples for different lenses, different focal lengths, different apertures and the position of the light source will all affect how they look in the image it's that simple to find out about what a lens flare can look like.

Also remember many on here are keen photographers some even professional.

Yes, I have researched lens flares, and from what I have researched, being an artifact of the lens, and by definition the lens being in front of objects in the video/picture from the perspective of the recording medium, the lens flare will appear to be in front of objects in pictures/videos. Sometimes this will be hard to discern, but in the OP it is pretty obvious the object is behind the clouds, hence not a lens flare, that is the only reason I created this thread.