Huge UFO Pyramid Incoming!

Did it arrive yet...did I miss the landing......

...tiptoes quietly out of thread...

You gotta love how many many many images are debunked as lense flares etc, I guess we should state then that all images taken threw lenses are all flares, nothing more. At this point we can say that you would have to see something with your own eyes to belive it,and if you do say you saw something people will ask for camera or video footage and we find our selfs going full circle, ...you get it yet?

Originally posted by miniatus
Also keep in mind that we're talking about INTERNAL REFLECTION and light bouncing off the barrel of the camera .. this can cause unusual optical artifacts with the lens flares..This isn't like just aiming your average camera at the sun and shooting.. Couple that with the fact that this artifact ONLY appears on the image that has been processed ( the embossed image ) .. You don't see this "object" in the second camera aimed at the same space... this means there's no object there..

This narrows down the possibilities

A) It's either an internal light reflection in the first camera that isn't in the second camera, entirely possible since they are separate devices.

B) It's an artifact introduced by the processing that the image is going through

Or as I suspect

C) A combination of A and B

There's clearly not actually an object there...

edit on 1/1/2012 by miniatus because: (no reason given)

When all else fails just follow it's direction!

Originally posted by TheMur
You gotta love how many many many images are debunked as lense flares etc, I guess we should state then that all images taken threw lenses are all flares, nothing more. At this point we can say that you would have to see something with your own eyes to belive it,and if you do say you saw something people will ask for camera or video footage and we find our selfs going full circle, ...you get it yet?

LOL...yup it appears that way. I'll tell you...if ever a UFO lands in my front yard, and ET comes strolling out.

I'll grab his happy grey A$$, and drag him to ATS headquarters, and let them deal with all the skeptics here.

Until that happens, I'm content with the caliber of healthy discussion here. I still rely on my own gut feelings regarding some post. but, I always take in all the valid scientific data presented.

reply to post by Destinyone


Gut feelings seem to be the way to go, human instinct tends to be correct when relied upon.

Originally posted by TheMur
You gotta love how many many many images are debunked as lense flares etc, I guess we should state then that all images taken threw lenses are all flares, nothing more. At this point we can say that you would have to see something with your own eyes to belive it,and if you do say you saw something people will ask for camera or video footage and we find our selfs going full circle, ...you get it yet?

I think its perfectly rational to question the authenticity of digital images and to not accept things on face value, I work with digital footage every day and am not at all surprised that most "UFO" images can be explained as image aberrations or damage to the equipment taking the image. this thread is an excellent example of "I want to believe"

Its foolish reductive logic to assume everything is a lens flare but when it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck its most likely an imaging aberration. I want a UFO to land in my back garden as much as the next person but doesn't it keep us stuck on the fringe of rational discussion to leap to conclusions that prove everything seen is a spacecraft coming for earth.

Originally posted by TheMur
You gotta love how many many many images are debunked as lense flares etc, I guess we should state then that all images taken threw lenses are all flares, nothing more. At this point we can say that you would have to see something with your own eyes to belive it,and if you do say you saw something people will ask for camera or video footage and we find our selfs going full circle, ...you get it yet?

that doesn't even work, I can remember a few threads where people even said they were illusions

reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow


Camera or software artifacts again...

Just another case of youtube pareidolia imo, cant explain it? Must be Aliens

Here is a debunker video:

I think this guy reeks of NAZA

So it happened in 2007? OK well what about every other year since and before then?

I still think it is something MORE than an image artifact - but that's my personal opinion isn't it?

Am I allowed to have my own personal opinion yet or will you come tase me and stash me away in a fema camp? Because that's what a frightened conception of living the western world in particular seems to be stuck at?

And I AM allowed to be angry and pissed off just like anybody else.

Anyway lets see how the images (NAZA) released look in the next few days.

If it's a pyramid, then people, beware, goa'uld are coming!!!

Originally posted by TreehouseIndustries

Originally posted by TheMur
You gotta love how many many many images are debunked as lense flares etc, I guess we should state then that all images taken threw lenses are all flares, nothing more. At this point we can say that you would have to see something with your own eyes to belive it,and if you do say you saw something people will ask for camera or video footage and we find our selfs going full circle, ...you get it yet?

I think its perfectly rational to question the authenticity of digital images and to not accept things on face value, I work with digital footage every day and am not at all surprised that most "UFO" images can be explained as image aberrations or damage to the equipment taking the image. this thread is an excellent example of "I want to believe"

Its foolish reductive logic to assume everything is a lens flare but when it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck its most likely an imaging aberration. I want a UFO to land in my back garden as much as the next person but doesn't it keep us stuck on the fringe of rational discussion to leap to conclusions that prove everything seen is a spacecraft coming for earth.

It is perfectly rational to question the authenticity of digital images, correct me if im wrong but it seems the status quo is: first its a illusion from a mechanical device, last its what we percieve it as. This also goes for eyewitness accounts as well, its always something else first before its a UFO. Being a skeptic or trying to find out the truths and facts are one thing, but at what point do we as a collective group of intelligent people say hey! did we miss something and call it something else when it was the holy grail? For all we know that image, that video or that story crossed this same bridge and was washed away.

The investigative approach to UFO etc seem to be alittle twisted, take mufon for example. Everytime I see there investigations they are more interested in finding what could make an occurance and debunking stories rather than taking the story in another direction like finding if there was evidence of the unexplained sort.

reply to post by Idonthaveabeard


have no idea what is either, but would love to see it. A bit more up close would be good, just hope its peaceful and doesnt want trouble. Ive seen something in the sky before and informed a local newspaper, and as a result got major ridicule..would definitely think twice about doing that again.

Originally posted by Destinyone

Originally posted by TheMur
You gotta love how many many many images are debunked as lense flares etc, I guess we should state then that all images taken threw lenses are all flares, nothing more. At this point we can say that you would have to see something with your own eyes to belive it,and if you do say you saw something people will ask for camera or video footage and we find our selfs going full circle, ...you get it yet?

LOL...yup it appears that way. I'll tell you...if ever a UFO lands in my front yard, and ET comes strolling out.

I'll grab his happy grey A$$, and drag him to ATS headquarters, and let them deal with all the skeptics here.

Until that happens, I'm content with the caliber of healthy discussion here. I still rely on my own gut feelings regarding some post. but, I always take in all the valid scientific data presented.

The receptionist will probably look at you and ET and say..."another lens flare, sign in and take a seat."

For what it is worth and for any other discussions about imagery from the STEREO
Spacecraft; here is a highly detailed .PDF file of the components within the
HI1 and HI2 Imaging Devices. The Search function in the PDF Reader is highly
recommended. For instance to see the illustrated images search for ' figure 1' ,
'figure 2'; 'figure 3'; etc.....

www.sstd.rl.ac.uk...

What led me to this .PDF file was a curiosity as to whether the optics inside of the
telescopes employed the use of a Prism. Apparently not because I did not see a
prism within the components. [ assuming the .pdf is in fact totally complete in its list. ]

Mention is made in this .PDF that there is an antenna that even though it is not in the
line of sight for the Instruments; it can be a cause of reflected light into the Aperture
of the Cameras. The 'SWAVES' Antenna.

I have lost count as to the number of times that the FEED has been cut or not available
right when something interesting shows up in imagery. This artifact has remained so they
must not be concerned with it. The Stereo website has a page that discusses many
of the anomalys found in the imagery but so far, I have not seen any explanation about
the Pyramid shaped arifact even though it has showed up in the past.

Anyway, time will tell if anything is headed our way.

Originally posted by britelite1971

Originally posted by Destinyone

Originally posted by TheMur
You gotta love how many many many images are debunked as lense flares etc, I guess we should state then that all images taken threw lenses are all flares, nothing more. At this point we can say that you would have to see something with your own eyes to belive it,and if you do say you saw something people will ask for camera or video footage and we find our selfs going full circle, ...you get it yet?

LOL...yup it appears that way. I'll tell you...if ever a UFO lands in my front yard, and ET comes strolling out.

I'll grab his happy grey A$$, and drag him to ATS headquarters, and let them deal with all the skeptics here.

Until that happens, I'm content with the caliber of healthy discussion here. I still rely on my own gut feelings regarding some post. but, I always take in all the valid scientific data presented.

The receptionist will probably look at you and ET and say..."another lens flare, sign in and take a seat."

or where is the Jim Henson puppeteer..

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier
Just another case of youtube pareidolia imo,

Well your opinion wrong Its not pareidolia because everyone can plainly see the triangle. What it is, whether image artifact or other, is up for discussion, but it is there as it was in 2007 and no other day yet found.

Frankly I get so tired of that pareidolia cop out you skeptics toss out there without any rational thought

Not saying the OP image IS down to lens flare...as I mentioned several pages back, how a lens is made can introduce "interesting" effects.

My top image if seen on it's own could be mistaken for UFO's near the Sun, the second simply illustrates the 3D effect of a filter such as Emboss.

If the lens used here on my Wifes camera had a three blade diaphragm maybe the lens flare would've looked more triangular. These images may not prove Lens Flare as the answer in this particular Topic but might help with some other UFO looking photo's.

These aliens are so clever.

They sneak in knowing we will think it is a reflection from Venus.

We are so toast....

Thanks for the de-bunk video. Very educational.