Amazing huge UFO next to Mercury decloaked by Sun Flare

I have read a few times that some of the NRL scientists are saying that the object was where the planet was the previous day.. If that is the case... then the same results should be able to be reproduced regularly right?

reply to post by ParaB

Right
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Mate its weirdos like you that gives this subject a bad name! How the holy joe f**k can you decide that some ship from the stars got its jeans pulled down and just happened to get caught rubbing one off staring at venus!

On topic however.. How you can equate a solar flare and its ejected matter lighting up an area of space for what must be on face value somewhere near a rather hot magnetosphere. Oh #.. Its a Klingon warbird!!

Please dont post pish in a serious forum!

I would like to see a Romulan Bird of Prey up close. But, only in a display case with the other Star Trek models. The answer was stated many times. By looking at each CME event in the past, you will or won't perceive a shape/form present. Unless those Romulans are wily enough to flit around our galaxy, I am in the camp of realists. Yes, it'd be nice to have disclosure in a more definitive manner. This isn't the smoking gun. Meh.

Whats really funny is that I think Paul Bennewitz was the first person ever to use the term 'cloak' with UFOs, and it's pretty common now but its his word that he used and was questioned to what it actually means..

Originally posted by Pteraductile
I would like to see a Romulan Bird of Prey up close. But, only in a display case with the other Star Trek models. The answer was stated many times. By looking at each CME event in the past, you will or won't perceive a shape/form present. Unless those Romulans are wily enough to flit around our galaxy, I am in the camp of realists. Yes, it'd be nice to have disclosure in a more definitive manner. This isn't the smoking gun. Meh.

I think the perfect evidence would be simultaneous extraterrestrial landings and direct interaction. That would convince people, but I don't think they would do this simply because it would cause mass panic, possibly suicides and murders, etc. I wonder if they are appearing to us randomly so that we might eventually come to understand some greater message. If they exist and wanted to destroy us, they certainly would have done that a long time ago. Perhaps they would allow direct access after we come to accept the truth about them and us? What do you think?

As the couple posts above poster states, if this truly is simply an artefact/effect of the light subtraction process used to enhance the photos, then it surely should be present/recreatable in at least some previous similar captures. Unless there is a further perfectly natural reason why this isn't the case. :-) I do, however, have to wonder why they let such pics out without explanation - surely they were able to see this huge "materializing" blob when the were processing the pics - given all the hubbub among the "ignorant" masses with all things astronomical, you'd think they'd have the presence of mind to at least caption the release to educate us. :-)

I also wonder - given the explanation that it was caused by Mercury's previous position the day before - as the frames depict the CME over several slices of time then shouldn't the effect be more of a - and do forgive my ignorant peasant attempt at proper descriptive vocabularly here - more of a "gradient stream" of bright blobs"? I mean if it Mercury's orbit was defined by "skips" in large, discrete positions then fine, but the CME itself is depicted smoothly, so surely an orbiting planet - and it's left behind traces - would also produce a smooth gradient least to greatest culminating at the current position? Does that make sense?

Sometimes I think TPTB enjoy causing mayhem among the peasants, whatever the true explanation. :-)

reply to post by charlieorange

I think the perfect evidence would be simultaneous extraterrestrial landings and direct interaction. That would convince people, but I don't think they would do this simply because it would cause mass panic, possibly suicides and murders, etc. I wonder if they are appearing to us randomly so that we might eventually come to understand some greater message. If they exist and wanted to destroy us, they certainly would have done that a long time ago. Perhaps they would allow direct access after we come to accept the truth about them and us? What do you think?

I love the good old reliable, "mass panic, mayhem, etc.," reasoning...yeah, that would happen...Why? Oh...no reason in particular...you just gotta believe it would, the same as the ET's are already here...just believe it...

And then, once everybody believes, direct access will take place....sounds more and more like a religion...

Originally posted by Pauligirl

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by ProudBird

 

Maybe you are stuck with explanations given to us by mainstream science. I choose to diversify my knowledge by watching stargate atlantis, star trek, star wars, etc. Also lots of video games cover the same classified technology we choose to ignore.

(I'm going out on limb here and making the assumption that you are serious)
I like Star Trek and Star Wars too but I can still tell the difference between science fact and science fiction.
Maybe it's because I didn't watch Stargate Atlantis.

I think part of the problem with discovering the truth is that people too often allow fear to control their decision making. For example, a craft defying human technology appears in the sky, and people suddenly become frightened, worrying that the end is near or they are in jeopardy. I agree with you. Let's use our reason to figure out their true intentions. You can tell the difference, but too many can't view the evidence objectively. They get all hung up in what they're supposed to think. Why is that?

reply to post by charlieorange

They get all hung up in what they're supposed to think. Why is that?

They're programmed to.That thing called the TV is a brainwashing tool!

reply to post by newtondkc

As the couple posts above poster states, if this truly is simply an artefact/effect of the light subtraction process used to enhance the photos, then it surely should be present/recreatable in at least some previous similar captures.

If you had read the thread you would know that it appears often. Always in fact, when there is a planet in the image.


Since many don't seem to read the thread or are, for some reason, unable to view the animations directly from the SECCHI website I made it easier.


If you have questions about the images the people that create them are always happy to answer them. The trouble is that people would rather go running to youtube (and get 3 million+ hits). Mundane doesn't sell. Image processing artifact or uncloaking UFO? Which one are you going to look at?

Funny, the youtube dude seems to have refused my video response. Imagine that.

reply to post by Phage

well done

reply to post by Phage


Funny Phage, how the Jupiter "artifact" is just as distant from that planet than the Mercury "artifact" when its trajectory relative to the image capture location isn't nearly as rapid or distant. It really doesn't seem to appear to be located where Jupiter was the previous day, so you'll maybe have to stretch your masking theory beyond a single day and explain that the remnant image of Jupiter dates back several days or a maybe even a week? Nice try though, and I'm sure you'll find loads of techno savvy arguments to validate the video. I am not yet convinced.

Getsmart

Originally posted by Getsmart
reply to post by Phage

 

Funny Phage, how the Jupiter "artifact" is just as distant from that planet than the Mercury "artifact" when its trajectory relative to the image capture location isn't nearly as rapid or distant. It really doesn't seem to appear to be located where Jupiter was the previous day, so you'll maybe have to stretch your masking theory beyond a single day and explain that the remnant image of Jupiter dates back several days or a maybe even a week? Nice try though, and I'm sure you'll find loads of techno savvy arguments to validate the video. I am not yet convinced.

Getsmart

No need to go topsy turvy and no reasonably literate person is going to swallow all the animations
and image artifact theory. I too ain't convinced by the imge artifact theory.

Nice thread, impressed. Good to see this stuff gets noticed. If you trawl the web looking for ufos caught in space by (funnily enough) NASA recording maintenance works etc being carried out in orbit< you will be amazed at some of the things caught in the background. There were some good vids on you tube that were basically compilations of loads of those photos. Check em ou, see if i can find a link to one of the vids for thos of you who are interested and havent seen them.

Who knows how much stuff is floating around out there

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Phage


Funny, the youtube dude seems to have refused my video response. Imagine that.

edit on 12/11/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

I make a point not to click on UFO youtube videos unless I see genuine interest somewhere in the thread. That's exactly what these guys are doing, fishing for hits. This creates a mass of worthless threads cluttering up the UFO forum. I'm actually glad this was posted though, because I learned about that NASA site and some geeky technical stuff.

On to the next one...

Originally posted by Enlightenme1111

I make a point not to click on youtube videos unless I see genuine interest somewhere in the thread.

Enlighten me,


I see from your moniker that you think it is up to others to enlighten you, and not a task to undertake on your own? If so this helps explain why you only watch a video if you already know what you will discover, a safe way to explore the universe without discovering anything which might unsettle pre-established beliefs. Actually, on second thought I guess that moniker is actually a "dare", as in I dare you to enlighten me, we'll see how far you get?


I much enjoy watching things I never expected to come across and listening to those who say odd things which don't match what I might already think I know. Different strokes for different folks. While I don't but the video artifact theory, it isn't because I am convinced that we are viewing an alien ship. For all I know somebody in Naval intelligence or infiltrated in their technical support operations tweaked their video footage with the so-called artifact we see, to make us imagine that this is actually there. Then again it might be an incident in which they didn't expect the public to notice, and they failed to correct the images released, as in NASA airbrushing of evidence? FWIW


GS

reply to post by Getsmart


You're definitely reading way too much into my statement Get Smart. After clicking on literally hundreds of You Tube videos linked in the UFO section that all turned out to be either hoaxes or debunked, I decided to stop giving these people hits to discourage their practice of deception.

I click on educational You Tube videos all the time, I was simply referring specifically to ones that claim to be UFO's. I apologize if that offended you in some way, and I edited my post to clarify UFO videos. I don't expect anybody to enlighten me, as I actively research many topics, on my own. Of course, I need a little guidance to set me on the right path, and ATS is awesome for that. Take care.

Originally posted by Phage

If you have questions about the images the people that create them are always happy to answer them. The trouble is that people would rather go running to youtube (and get 3 million+ hits). Mundane doesn't sell. Image processing artifact or uncloaking UFO? Which one are you going to look at?

Funny, the youtube dude seems to have refused my video response. Imagine that.

edit on 12/11/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Most of his videos get at least 4 thumbs up for every thumb down. What does the government get?

I have seen poor quality fakes and they get 10 thumbs down for every thumb up.

So people probably ain't that stupid Phage. Democracy wins after all!

reply to post by Enlightenme1111


Hi Enlighten me,


Sorry if I took it wrong and thanks for explaining that it was just UFO claims, we all realize that most of them are fantastic, sometimes because if attention getting and also because others are only UFO's because those posting aren't very gifted at identifying what they are seeing. In that case they really are UFOs for the poster, but not for most of the more adept and experienced ufologists who post in places like this.


Also, I don't really know anything about what purpose getting hits for a video serves, is it an ego thing or do they get other rewards or benefits? Regardless, I usually like to take a peek at anything unusual, just in case. At worst I'll load the video into cache and then fast forward the cursor manually seeing sections in highly accelerated motion to make sure there isn't something which might merit further inspection. Unlike others I tend to find "Democracy" one of the poorest measures of the quality of information. Mostly because all of us are so dumbed down by TPTB that we often fail to discern what's true, and I speak for myself also. It is very hard work to figure things out when we are lied to as a "blanket policy". We can pull the cover from over our eyes, or as Plato once said, as prisoners in a cave we must pull against our chains and crane our necks to look behind us at what is really there, otherwise we are merely being entertained by a shadow theater of a false reality on the wall of the cave. (Sorry Plato for so loosely paraphrasing the words of an "initiate")


Regarding the topic of this thread, I am 50/50 between it being an actual interstellar vessel of very large dimensions (it isn't nearly as big for them as we imagine, if they are Anunnaki GIANTS) and it being a Project BLUEBEAM computer generated image insertion using our unconscious memories of the Starship Enterprise to impress on the population that maybe there will be an Alien Invasion forthcoming, as Wernher von Braun told his assistant Carol Rosin? Either could be possible, which one is most likely? It could even be that there is indeed a desire for disclosure in Naval Intelligence, but no authorization to proceed. Thus maybe the used artificial imagery to warn us of a real impending Alien Threat, which is actually taking a very different form? Just musings... FWIW


GS