Debunk this please.

Point: Astromut
Nibirutards: 0

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

So, I just happened across this video from May 12, 2012.

This very well could be the moon, however, if that were the case, it wouldn't be illuminated as it quite obviously is.

Could this be a celestial body that everybody has been talking about? Is this proof that Nibiru exist?

I'm not confident enough to say that Nibiru does exist, but I'm certainly not convinced that it doesn't.

And before you say it is Jupiter, it isn't. Jupiter was on the right side of the sun only 2 days later, so it couldn't be Jupiter, could it?

[link to www.youtube.com]

Looking forward to any and all opinions.

No flaming please. Some of you are thick-headed enough to completely disregard the existence of Nibiru, but none of you have the evidence to thoroughly deny that it could exist.

Thanks.

So, I just happened across this video from May 12, 2012.

This very well could be the moon, however, if that were the case, it wouldn't be illuminated as it quite obviously is.

Could this be a celestial body that everybody has been talking about? Is this proof that Nibiru exist?

I'm not confident enough to say that Nibiru does exist, but I'm certainly not convinced that it doesn't.

And before you say it is Jupiter, it isn't. Jupiter was on the right side of the sun only 2 days later, so it couldn't be Jupiter, could it?

[link to www.youtube.com]

Looking forward to any and all opinions.

No flaming please. Some of you are thick-headed enough to completely disregard the existence of Nibiru, but none of you have the evidence to thoroughly deny that it could exist.

Thanks.

So, I just happened across this video from May 12, 2012.

This very well could be the moon, however, if that were the case, it wouldn't be illuminated as it quite obviously is.

Could this be a celestial body that everybody has been talking about? Is this proof that Nibiru exist?

I'm not confident enough to say that Nibiru does exist, but I'm certainly not convinced that it doesn't.

And before you say it is Jupiter, it isn't. Jupiter was on the right side of the sun only 2 days later, so it couldn't be Jupiter, could it?

[link to www.youtube.com]

Looking forward to any and all opinions.

No flaming please. Some of you are thick-headed enough to completely disregard the existence of Nibiru, but none of you have the evidence to thoroughly deny that it could exist.

Thanks.

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.

is it the moon?

we are going to have an eclipse soon

And as I've been trying to tell you, it doesn't appear behind the clouds. You can't see it at first when the cloud moves to its position because the cloud itself is saturating those pixels, no detail can be seen at all, thus you can't see the filter flare. It's there though, and that's why you can see it in front of the clouds once the sun emerges and the cloud is no longer bright enough to saturate those pixels.

I went to look for the Jupiter icon on Soho and low and behold its running again. for how long I don't know, haven't checked NICE CME on it with radiation afterwards need to check for x ray flare or whatever.

Well that nice CME is NOT earth directed at all on Stereo, not even close,

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.

Well, if the theory that it is a brown dwarf, yes.

The location of a filter flare is directly opposite the optical axis of the bright light source in photo/video.

Meaning, if the sun is in the upper right of the frame, the flare is in the lower left.

This also means that the filter flare moves in precision with the camera movement.

Filter flares do not remain stationary as the camera moves around.

The light may not be nibiru or whatever, but it's not a filter flare.

No, not when it first goes behind the cloud, but a few seconds later before the sun comes back from behind the cloud.

Watch it again, it is very clearly BEHIND the clouds.

are summerians nibirutards too?

If a brown dwarf were in the inner solar system, let alone close enough to appear as a resolvable disc (not point-like) to a handheld camera, it would be inducing massive perturbations in the positions of the planets which would have been noticed by amateurs like me long before now. That's how people like me know that there is no such object in or near the inner solar system.

Not only that, but there's not about a brown dwarf that would make it particularly difficult to see compared to the gas giants of our solar system, regardless of how much of its own light it emitted or didn't emit in infrared. It reflect as much light as Uranus at worst, Jupiter at best ( [link to arxiv.org] ) making it an easy naked-eye object if one were anywhere near here.

hahaha. Love this forum.

The location of a filter flare is directly opposite the optical axis of the bright light source in photo/video.

Meaning, if the sun is in the upper right of the frame, the flare is in the lower left.

This also means that the filter flare moves in precision with the camera movement.

Filter flares do not remain stationary as the camera moves around.

The light may not be nibiru or whatever, but it's not a filter flare.

(if a filter flare does not behave in the same manner as a lens flare, then feel free to correct me)

I watched it many times, it's very clearly in front of the clouds. Again, if it were behind the clouds it would be illuminating them from behind at 1:33. It's not, it presents a sharp edge, there's no diffusion of its light, it's in front of the clouds (or perhaps more precisely, super-imposed on the clouds).

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.

It surely isn't a lense artifact, as you claim.

Well said my friend. Most people are still stuck in there little boxs, its sad really.

Yes, it is. It's in front of the clouds, it doesn't illuminate the clouds, and it dims when the sun is covered by a cloud. It doesn't get any more open and shut then that, aside from putting your finger in front of the sun, which again, no Nibiru claimant will do. Show me a video where that dot doesn't vanish when you completely cover the sun with your finger and then you'll have proof it's not a "lens artifact." This video, however, shows a lens artifact.

So, at 1:20 into the video, that object is in front of the clouds?

You must wear glasses I take it?

Well said my friend. Most people are still stuck in there little boxs, its sad really.