Astronomers please Help- What is everyone seeing by the sun

In fact, no one is seeing anything by the Sun with their own eyes (apart from a well-understood atmospheric phenomenon called "sun dogs"). All they do is point their cameras or phones at the Sun and get flares, double reflections, and all other kinds of optical artifacts.

It really pains me to hear that some people believe everything they hear or read and panic about something that's completely made up.

Iron Maiden even wrote a song about this: www.youtube.com...

1. Nibiru or similar object within the inner solar system would be disrupting GPS and comm sats. Even though meteorites are seemingly hitting more frequently now, their impact has been mild compared to what a full asteroid disruption would be like.

2. Sitchin (whom I've met) plotted Nibiru's path probably accurately when he describe a highly eccentric, very south of the ecliptic orbit. Nibiru will simply not be visible from the northern hemisphere. The Zetatalk site btw is a total joke!

3. #2 being said - major world govts., and the vatican, have instituted and built major southern american (Chile, even Antarctic) telescopes. They are likely trying to track PlanetX.

4. The small bright blip next to the Sun is not Nibiru. Zeta crazies have been posting these photos since 2003! By now, we would have known.

This is not to say Planet X isn't real. You've all read about it. A short email conversation I had with Dr. Scott Kenyon at the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics was interesting. He did mention astronomers are indeed searching for a "large, long period object" in the southern hemisphere that would account for the solar system's missing mass. He ran computer sims in 2004 (and published in Nature) that simulated our solar system's first 1 billion years. He should know.

originally posted by: TheBlackDog
a reply to: EndOfDays77

Your photo documentation is clouds and sunsets are planet x. You're the last person anyone should listen to on this topic.

So much this.

originally posted by: drphilxr
1. Nibiru or similar object within the inner solar system would be disrupting GPS and comm sats. Even though meteorites are seemingly hitting more frequently now, their impact has been mild compared to what a full asteroid disruption would be like.

Not only that, but a planet-sized object in the inner Solar System would be clearly visible to the naked eye, and most definitely to the backyard telescopes.

2. Sitchin (whom I've met) plotted Nibiru's path probably accurately when he describe a highly eccentric, very south of the ecliptic orbit. Nibiru will simply not be visible from the northern hemisphere.

An object on a highly inclined orbit from the ecliptic would eventually pass over the nothern hemisphere. But anyway, it's been proven that Sitchin's planet cannot exist on such an orbit; it would have disrupted the known planets' orbits.

3. #2 being said - major world govts., and the vatican, have instituted and built major southern american (Chile, even Antarctic) telescopes. They are likely trying to track PlanetX.

Or they are just studying the part of the sky not easily visible from the northern hemisphere. You also forgot that there are amateur astronomers in the southern hemisphere, many with fairly big telescopes and dedicated sky-surveying programs (to look for new comets, asteroids and NEOs).

4. The small bright blip next to the Sun is not Nibiru. Zeta crazies have been posting these photos since 2003! By now, we would have known.

You're correct on this one, if a planet-sized object were anywhere near the inner Solar System, we would have known about it.

If it's a lense flare then why is there also a reflection visible in the water?

a reply to: VanDenEviL

Filter flares are a reflection of any bright object in the image, up to and including the sun's own reflection in the water. For example, if it's a real object, why did it appear in front of the mountain range and even the water itself?

In relation to the OP's pal, I think that the main thing is that if you attempt to debunk one photograph, you end up having to try to debunk them all. And as soon as you can't debunk one, all you're doing is negating all previous debunkings and strengthening their belief precisely because your failed debunk means it's "inexplicable" and therefore the Niburu theory rushes in to fill that gap.

The simplest way to tackle it would be an appeal to straightforward observational reason. Without tackling the explanation for the images (which is a lost cause) you ought to point out the incredible variety of positions in which this 'object' has supposedly been photographed. Visible from the South Pole (but nowhere else); at the lower left of the solar disc; the upper right of the solar disc; invisible at night-time one day, visible at night-time the next; and all the while changing apparent size in between sightings.

Whatever it is that's causing each of these sightings, it's not a planet, because it would be breaking the laws of physics. There is no way a planet-sized body could dart about all over the sky at irregular intervals, while simultaneously sneaking up, retreating, and disappearing from view altogether on an apparently random basis.

If it were even possible for a planet to behave like that, the solar system itself would be going through some kind of disaster on an interplanetary scale as a result. And yet, the sun still comes up on time, the moon is moving normally, the tides are unaffected, etc, etc.

a reply to: ngchunter

Filter flares are a reflection of any bright object in the image, up to and including the sun's own reflection in the water.

Do you just make stuff up as you go? You can clearly see the object's reflection in the water, and you can also see the reflection of the sun in the water.

Now you are suggesting that the reflection of the object in the water is actually a lense flare from the sun's reflection in the water?

BS.

For example, if it's a real object, why did it appear in front of the mountain range and even the water itself?

I was discussing the video in the OP and I never said it was a real object so no need to refer to other videos.

Why don't you just try to answer my question first with something that actually makes sense.

originally posted by: VanDenEviL
a reply to: ngchunter

Filter flares are a reflection of any bright object in the image, up to and including the sun's own reflection in the water.

Do you just make stuff up as you go? You can clearly see the object's reflection in the water, and you can also see the reflection of the sun in the water.

You can clearly see the object itself is IN the water IN FRONT OF the mountain range as the sun itself rises. Therefore it's just a filter flare, not a real object. Confirmed.

I was discussing the video in the OP and I never said it was a real object so no need to refer to other videos.

You will watch the following videos, which are about the same phenomenon. The filter flare in this webcam example exhibits the exact same "reflection off the water."



Plugging your ears and telling me that I'm not allowed to refer to other videos is blatant ignorance.

a reply to: ngchunter

Plugging your ears and telling me that I'm not allowed to refer to other videos is blatant ignorance.

I wasn't talking about other videos. I am talking about the first pics in the OP vid. There isn't even a mountainrange in it.

Like I just said, your explanation is BS, and diverting attention to other vids is of the same level.

originally posted by: VanDenEviL
a reply to: ngchunter

Plugging your ears and telling me that I'm not allowed to refer to other videos is blatant ignorance.

I wasn't talking about other videos. I am talking about the first pics in the OP vid. There isn't even a mountainrange in it.

I don't care that you're not talking about the other videos, I am, they show the same phenomenon of a filter flare which includes a reflection off the water, yet it's clearly a filter flare since there IS a mountain range and it IS in front of it. You suggested that the fact it appears to be reflecting off the water means it can't be a flare. I provided examples showing you're wrong about that. Simple enough for you?

a reply to: ngchunter

Simple enough for you?

Have you even watched the OP vid? Nothing you posted sofar applies to the images I am refering to. I asked why the "object" spotted next to the sun, has it's own reflection in the water, like the sun, if it is supposed to be a lens flare, in that video.

Those vids you posted don't show the same thing. I am not arguing about nibiru being real or not.

You are the one confused here. Try to say something relevant.

And whatever you do, don't think that you are some sort of authority cause you really are not.

a reply to: VanDenEviL
There was a video posted a while ago about something similar. Twas a puzzlement.

What is happening is that the picture is being taken from behind a window. The "second" reflection on the water is from sunlight reflecting off of the window, back to the water (then back to the camera). It is not associated with the internal camera reflection (lens flare).
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a6027b413f8f.png[/atsimg]
www.abovetopsecret.com...

See, Phage understands what I was talking about.

Thank you Phage, I''ll look into that.

The OP video is fairly shlocky, imo. No insult intended to the OP.

I know that anecdotal information is nearly worthless, however I feel compelled to opine.

One of my hobbies is taking pictures of The Green Flash. Usually I will take photos of the whole sequence of the sun going down, from about 30 degrees above the horizon to the point at which it disappears.

1. I don't shoot photos through glass.
2. Our air is laden with water vapor, but not much in the way of industrial pollutants
3. I have never, EVER, seen any object/sphere/planet, etc. that was not known to me, near the sun. Occasionally, solar system planets are visible near the sun, but never of a size nor magnitude that could in any way compete with the sun, nor be confused for anything else. Solar system planets appear like stars that do not "flicker". Venus often has a magnitude of -4.5, which is quite bright, but still a tiny dot compared to to sun.

So, for whatever that is worth........... I've now taken in excess of 18,000 photos trying to capture the green flash. I've been successful a dozen times or so.

I used to say in my profile (back when we had comments there) that Nibiru was my guilty pleasure; I don't believe in it, at least insofar as the so-called terrestrial photos indicate. I think it's possible that it exists, but if it does, it's waaaay the hell out there, and not anywhere near the sun. imo.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: VanDenEviL
There was a video posted a while ago about something similar. Twas a puzzlement.

What is happening is that the picture is being taken from behind a window. The "second" reflection on the water is from sunlight reflecting off of the window, back to the water (then back to the camera). It is not associated with the internal camera reflection (lens flare).

Actually Phage, although you are correct that it is not a reflection inside the camera, it is not light reflecting from the window back to the water. It is an internal reflection of the glass window, rather like the "night mirror" feature in a car's rear-view mirror.

The white dot to the lower right of the primary image of the Sun is a window multi-bounce also. Notice that this dot is in the same relative position to the Sun that the lesser water reflection is to the primary water reflection.

I hope this sounds clear.

a reply to: Saint Exupery
Actually, I think the possibility of that was discussed at the time (in particular with a double glazed window in mind.)

Notice (in the video linked) that reflection is distorted by ripples on the surface of the water. The distortion is not the same as that of the "primary" water reflection.

originally posted by: argentus
3. I have never, EVER, seen any object/sphere/planet, etc. that was not known to me, near the sun. Occasionally, solar system planets are visible near the sun, but never of a size nor magnitude that could in any way compete with the sun, nor be confused for anything else. Solar system planets appear like stars that do not "flicker". Venus often has a magnitude of -4.5, which is quite bright, but still a tiny dot compared to to sun.

This raises another good point. If these photos showed a planet, it would be displaying crescent phases, like the familiar phases of the moon, and these would be clearly visible from Earth.

Venus is perhaps the easiest counter-example to the Niburu argument - it displays the crescent phases even though it's between us and the Sun. You can see them here: en.wikipedia.org...

The obvious point to make is that (unlike the moon) we never see Venus as a full disc, because the Sun is always behind it, which is the opposite of the supposed 'Niburu' photos, which are always a full disc.

(Obviously, the time when Venus should be a full disc is when it is on the other side of the Sun and we can't see it at all).

originally posted by: VanDenEviL
a reply to: ngchunter

Simple enough for you?

Have you even watched the OP vid? Nothing you posted sofar applies to the images I am refering to. I asked why the "object" spotted next to the sun, has it's own reflection in the water, like the sun, if it is supposed to be a lens flare, in that video.

Those vids you posted don't show the same thing. I am not arguing about nibiru being real or not.

You are the one confused here. Try to say something relevant.

And whatever you do, don't think that you are some sort of authority cause you really are not.

Actually the vids I posted to show the same thing. I guess you didn't watch them and I guess you will not watch them. It's the same phenomenon it's just a filter flare. Some people just can't learn, some people just can't be taught. I honestly don't know why I even bother anymore.

a reply to: Phage

The images I was talking about do seem to be shot from behind a (bus?)window, at one point you can see what looks like a window wiper. I missed that before.