Red Orb by Sun pic posted by major Malaysian Newspaper Oct 3rd

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

 

PlanetXisHERE, fantastic find. How any can claim lens flare when others seen it physically 1 wonders.

LOVE LIGHT ETERNIA*******
NAMASTE

Because it's completely obvious that the eyewitness accounts were falsified, whether by the news agency or the moron who sent them the picture.

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE

Originally posted by Asktheanimals

Originally posted by Sly1one
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

 

www.abovetopsecret.com...

notice how incredibly similar they are...

Not at all!
See how theirs in on the left, but the example you show is on the right.
It MUST be Nibiru!

I think this comment is in poor form for a moderator, shouldn't you be setting an example in discussing facts and being objective and not resorting to the pettiness of ridicule? I can take a joke but many people take this subject very seriously, if true the ramifications will be serious for the whole world.

How do you discuss facts on something that doesn't exists!

reply to post by Dystopiaphiliac


I see more lies.

reply to post by wmd_2008


Is there proof it doesn't exist? and also if you can please answer this question with your all: Are the ANNUNAKI made up beings to you wmd_2008?

Originally posted by Xaphan

Originally posted by jesiaha

Check this out screen capture of Louis CK's stand up show Hilarious...Guess that malaysian UFO likes comedy

The inhabitants of Nibiru must enjoy earth humour

Close, but it appears obvious that his left elbow is in cahoots with our new alien overlords so that he might not be sent to the labor camps.

Astrophysics and Planetary Orbits. LEARN THEM, and USE THEM. You planet x people really look like incoherent babbling cavemen with this absolute asinine non-sense.

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
reply to post by Dystopiaphiliac

 

I see

more lies.

I would love to see an alien craft. I have a friend who spent hours telling me her personal eyewitness account of a red orb. I believe her and I certainly believe people see these red orbs and that they may well be in our skies right now, but that picture just doesn't look like the red orbs. For one, the "orb" in the picture is not spherical. It does have the typical smaller sphere on the inside, but outside is misshapen and perfectly mirrors a lens flare.

The truth is out there, but the only truth anybody needs to worry about is undeniable truth. Something might happen that nobody alive will be able to deny the presence of other beings on our planet or in Earth atmosphere. Until then you have to sift through it all.

Nibiru/Marduk/Winged planet is finally back. The Sumerians warned us of its eventual approach. If we choose to ignore the ancients, that's our fault. The information about this planetary body is vastly old. All of those flying disks symbols represented in Africa, was the 12th member of our solar system. Same star above Ra's head in Egypt.

reply to post by Oannes


It's amazing how the Sumerians could have warned us of "Nibiru" when they didn't even have the word nibiru. In fact it isn't until the Babylonians that nibiru becomes an astronomical term. To them it meant the highest point of the ecliptic. Occasionally it would refer to planets in this position. For example, in the MUL.APIN nibiru refers to Jupiter.

People, go look at the sun with your naked eyes.

Did you see that? That was the lens flare effect. Does not take a lot to test

I am going to ask this and hope that no one has to be rude it is a question. I have not seen anything near the Sun. I have seen some amazing video work by everyday people, people that could be working on movies set. ( if the videos are fakes) I was up late last night looking at all kinds of videos on this subject. I even found one that showed Google Sky and World Wide Telescope. Both had some sort of bright ball with a big dark spot and other small dots around it. Both said it was unidentified. I really don't know but logic tells me it is untrue. My question is this... If it is LF why does the pic in this thread look so different than the pics that have been added from another thread? I have seen lots of LF pics and videos but none that look just like the pic in this thread. I am not saying it isn't LF and not saying it is. What makes the white ring around in the middle? Is it because of location, lens, time of day or some other factor. Please don't be rude, I am asking because I do not know the answer. Oh, and if LF can look different when looking at the Sun or other bright things could it be possible that the little "star" in between the two also be a LF from the object (LF) on the left? I am just asking question that may sound dumb to you, they are questions that I don't know the answers to.

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

Just because I don't trust them does that mean everything they say or publish I automatically discredit? No. I just won't take anything in the MSM at face value and question much - but it is a bit of a poor argument to intimate that I should reject everything in the MSM - certainly some of it I have no problem with.

You are using the MSM to further your own misguided agenda.

When the MSM publish silly stories regarding mythical approaching planets......you attach some credence to it....it has nothing to do with "publishing names" that in no way makes it a legit report....remember the MSM sensationalise and tell lies.

When the MSM tell it how it is, and debunk and ridicule these silly stories, you then claim that they are making it up or covering something up.

And my posts are on topic.....I am questioning your thoughts on the source of your story

Originally posted by kaidec
I was up late last night looking at all kinds of videos on this subject. I even found one that showed Google Sky and World Wide Telescope.

Google sky et al are full of errors and artifacts and are not primary sources for any sky survey data; they only took pre-existing sky surveys and stitched them into all-sky mosaics for the purposes of their software. The images they present are stitched, compressed, second hand sources. No serious researcher uses them to access sky survey data, only idiots on youtube.

Both had some sort of bright ball with a big dark spot and other small dots around it. Both said it was unidentified. I really don't know but logic tells me it is untrue. My question is this... If it is LF why does the pic in this thread look so different than the pics that have been added from another thread?

It doesn't. It looks like many other lens flares that have already been presented.

I have seen lots of LF pics and videos but none that look just like the pic in this thread. I am not saying it isn't LF and not saying it is. What makes the white ring around in the middle? Is it because of location, lens, time of day or some other factor.

The shape and color of the lens flare depends on the optics and the coatings of the optics of the lens that recorded it. I have a picture of a similar lens flare next to the sun complete with an outer red section, an inner white section, and a bright white dot in the middle on my phone... in 3d. I have a 3d cell phone camera and unless "Nibiru" was so close to the camera that the inch of separation between the two lenses was enough to show noticeable parallax, it's just a lens flare.

You're getting way too picky. Differences that minor do not distinguish it from a lens flare, it still has all the characteristics of a lens flare and given the equipment used there SHOULD be a giant lens flare just like that in the image.

Please don't be rude, I am asking because I do not know the answer. Oh, and if LF can look different when looking at the Sun or other bright things could it be possible that the little "star" in between the two also be a LF from the object (LF) on the left?

It's directly between the main lens flare and the sun, it's just another part of the lens flare. Lens flares often involve strings of artifacts in images like that.
cameron-photo.com...

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Is there proof it doesn't exist?

and also if you can please answer this question with your all: Are the ANNUNAKI made up beings to you wmd_2008?

edit on 10/5/12 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)

One does not "prove" that something does "not exist". The burden of proof lays with the one making the claim that something does exist.

If you sit there and say: "there is a planetary body in our solar system that is coming our way." it is NOT up to the rest of us to prove that it is not there and does not exist.
It is up to YOU to prove that your claim is true. Default is that something does not exist, until you prove that it does, or can. Not the other way around: everything and anything that anyone can imagine or think of MUST exist, therefore you must prove that something does NOT exist.

Annunaki: until someone shows me a mummified corpse of a human like creature with wings, or the skeletal remains, or even fossils (or a living, breathing one), to me they are just all stories, carvings and paintings. Nothing more.

Just like dragons. We see all sorts of paintings, carvings and stories.......but nothing else. Yet there are fantastic fossils of animals from as recently at 10,000 years ago, that are now extinct.

But until then, it's nothing more than speculation, theory and conjecture.

reply to post by eriktheawful


So you do not think ANNUNAKI are real and traveled here somehow? thanks for answering

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

So you do not think ANNUNAKI are real and traveled here somehow?

thanks for answering

Nope. Sorry.

People hear about some ancient text and say: Look! Proof!

The only proof they have is: someone a long time ago knew how to write in that language. Period.

Humans have had stories, folklore and myth since the moment we learned to verbally communicate. Not everything that is spoken must be true, and not everything that is written must be true.

I could take a single page from a book, or even several pages and have you read it. Is it non-fiction? Or is it from a story? You may, or may not be able to tell.
Especially if the pages I give you are written in a language that no one speaks anymore, from a culture that does not exist anymore. Is it historical fact that has been recorded? Or is it a story that was very popular for that culture?

What if our civilizations collapse and thousands of years from now, text from some ruined books are found........will those future people think that because there was a guy named Harry Potter, who existed thousands of years before, and apparently a group of people someone knew magic and were called 'wizards", that some how that knowledge has been lost?

Or that at one time, our civilization had great ships in space that could reach the stars, and that the Earth was part of some galactic organization called the United Federation of Planets, and one ship seemed very important, and was called Enterprise......

Or will they find a page that talks about some man who came to power in a country.....where he had the country wage war against many other countries. That this man was responsible for murdering millions of people because they practiced a religion. That in fact, this must be a made up fictional story, as no one could be that murderous! So this Adolf guy must have been some sort of fictional bad guy.

Oh no!! ...lens flare... I'm a professional photographer. It's a lens flare. Seen them countless times.

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

So you do not think ANNUNAKI are real and traveled here somehow?

thanks for answering

Nope. Sorry.

People hear about some ancient text and say: Look! Proof!

I think its a bit more then what some have been exposed to on ancient text but it is your will and I am not allowed to force it. Take care

One of the reasons people dont see the object next to the sun is because it cant be seen without a glare filter, normally. So if you are going to film the sun in early morning or late evening, use a glare filter.

Watch this video from 2009:



Also look at this discussion page before making comments because this video has already been discussed in length on lots of forums:www.zetatalk.com...

You can also use your finger like this guy is doing to reduce the brightness:



Also its good to watch what a lens flare looks like on camera. The red object in the video below is a lens flare but the second object next to the sun is not.

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE


lol with the lens flare
and dbl lol with the "people want to believe" nonsense.
ooooohhhhh the hypocrisy!

this lens flare crap needs to stop, as those who spout it are NOT denying ignorance.

1 what happened to sundogs?
lol buried under the lens flare meme of course , [which means you are seeing what you want to see, to the point of making a ridiculous assertion, DESPITE the fact that it was visible w/out a camera, some even go so far as to call the witnesses liars.

next time you want to claim lens flare at least get your due diligence done and run it thru halosim or something similar www.atoptics.co.uk...
this way you can claim science backs you and you're just not parroting a meme.

reports of second suns can be found in the historical record, long before cameras came to be.
these are usually comets, bolides or fireballs, an explanation so obvious it seems to elude the thinking processes of many debunkers, just as the inescapable fact that the increase in such phenomenom indicates changes either in the athmosphere or in the amount of NEO's or their solar equivalents.

so if all you have to say is

"herpa durp duh leeennnnssss FFFlaaaare uhhuhuduh [drools]"

then don't it just makes you look ignorant, or in serious denial IMHO