Debunk this please.

I definitely believe something big our way comes, but what it is.....no clue. Thank for the video though.....worthy of a look.

No problem.

I usually don't waste my time with these videos because they almost always turn out to be the moon or a lens flare, but this, this seems to be neither.

So, Astromut, I call upon you to give us the details.

It's a reflection inside the lens casing. Very common.

These videos have become widespread since there is now an epidemic of dipshits who are filming the sun with their cellphone cameras looking for "Nibiru".

No it's not, you're looking at the wrong thing you dick. Astro hasn't replied to the other thread talking about this so I bet you won't hear from this on this one either.

It's nothing you suggested, in fact it's much simpler than that. It's a filter flare. Holding ones' sunglasses up to a camera is not the proper way to image the sun. Furthermore, most cell phone and similar cheap cameras have a piece of glass or plastic protective covering in front of the lens, which automatically provides the surface needed for the formation of a filter flare.

Filter flares are a bit distinct from lens flares in that the reflection is generated by a surface exterior to the lens and produces a reflection which is essentially an exact, but dimmer, copy of whatever the bright light source is, in this case the sun. Thus you see a bright white ball near the sun. They also tend to move less as you move the camera than other lens flares in the image. Here's what you'll never see any of these Nibiru claimants do during their video.

It's a very simple test. Cover up the sun with your finger from the perspective of the camera. If it makes the filter flare disappear, then that's all it was. In this case the only reason it disappeared was because it was drowned out by the over-exposed backlit cloud.

If you watch carefully though, you can tell the filter flare is just a reflection of the sun; you can see it start to dim and show the shadow of the cloud in front of it BEFORE the cloud actually reaches the position of the filter flare. That's because the cloud is already starting to float in front of the sun, which is the true source of the flare. Pause it at 0:38 to see what I mean. By that point the entire flare is now dimmer than it was because the sun is completely covered by the cloud, and a thicker part of the cloud blocks even more of it towards the bottom, you can see a slight "spike" shape in the image of the flare. That's the sun, covered by the cloud. Once the cloud floats over to the filter flare's position you can't see it anymore because the cloud itself is brighter than the flare, in fact it's completely saturating those pixels until about 1:24 when it starts to appear again in front of the cloud as the sun is now emerging, allowing the filter flare to be seen again. At 1:33 it's painfully obvious that the filter flare is appearing in front of the cloud, not behind it; you can't see what should be the edge of the cloud dimming the left half of it at all.

Well, yes, I've seen quite a few of those myself as well.

There is one thing wrong with your theory though, the "reflection" would:

A.) Dissappear, once the sun goes behind the clouds, or at least become distorted in some way.

B.) The "reflection" wouldn't go behind the clouds, which it does, as though it were a physical object.

So, any other theories?

Interesting! Astromut, where are you? I would also like to know what the hell that thing is!

but it clearly goes behind a cloud and comes back once the cloud passes. explain that.

Yes it IS a lens flare.

If there were two objects there would be two inages in the sunglass flare as he moves them around.

Well, you seem to make an intelligent arguement. I guess it may be a lens flare, but it sure does appear to have a physical appearance.

I guess I'll have to take your word for it Astromut. Thanks.

Exactly!

It looks like it is going behind the cloud because the sunglasses he is shooting through are polarized a rather nice effect eh?

but the object does not move when the guy in moving the camera around. explain that.

It doesn't go behind the cloud, the cloud simply drowns it out; the cloud is saturating those pixels at first, preventing it from being seen. Later at 1:33 the sun has emerged from behind the cloud, lowering the cloud's level of backlit illumination. At that point you can clearly see the filter flare is in front of the cloud, not behind it. If it were behind it, the left half of the flare should be dimmed and it should show the edge of the cloud cutting through the "object." It doesn't.

I'm sorry if you didn't quite understand what I was saying.

Polarized or not, once the clouds covered the sun, the "reflection" should disappear almost immediatly, or at the very least, become quite dim and distorted.

It does not.

Astromut did point out it seems to dim, however, very slightly, once the cloud covers the actual sun. I'm not thoroughly convinced this is a flare.

I could be wrong though.

For the same reason it "does not move" when the guy in this video moves the camera around.

Did you not watch the video? It's a kind of filter flare. Normal lens flares are also visible in both videos, but clearly they do move greatly as the camera moves.

Could it not just appear to be "on top of the clouds", because it has such a bright reflection. I can clearly see it behind the clouds in previous frames, that in itself seems a bit odd.

Not arguing, just trying to sort out all the facts.

Thanks.

BTW we are learning the numerous types of flares.

The object in question didn't move at all, even though he was clearly moving the camera, as you can see the other lens flare moving all about.

While the lens flare moves, the object does not, at all.

That video supports the micro Nibiru theory

NIBIRIU IS HERE!

No; if that were the case it should not show such a well defined edge, particularly of the left side where it would be causing the cloud to be backlit just as the sun did. You would instead see a bright diffuse glow that only became sharp after the "object" completely emerged from the cloud. The sharp circular edge of the flare in front of the cloud which is no longer being backlit by an object directly behind it is a dead giveaway of a filter flare.

Again, no different than this.

The optics in your eye don't work the same way as the optics in a camera. The camera is still reading the luminance of the sun when it's behind the cloud because it is "blowing out" the CCD sensor.

Very well then.

One thing about your answer seems very shaky though.

I just don't understand how an artifact, which you state it most certainly is, could EVER appear behind the clouds. The clouds cannot simply slip down between the camera eye and lens for a few seconds and then pop back out into the sky.

I mean, the absuriduty of this "reflection" somehow appearing behind the clouds sounds insane.

Am I wrong?

Point: Astromut
Nibirutards: 0

are summerians nibirutards too?

Get your facts straight, I'm no Nibirutard. I'm very logical as a matter of fact, I have to be, being in software programming.

I very clearly stated that I'm still on the fence with Nibiru. For you to count it out so absent-mindedly only shows that you're the one "losing" in this game we call life.

Kindly fuck off.

looked for it myself. and theres nothing! you think it could be unnoticed by so many people?

Not to mention, it'd be written as:

Astromut: 1
Nibirutards: 0

You're American, correct?