|
REPORT COPYRIGHT VIOLATION IN REPLY
|
|
Message Subject
|
Debunk this please.
|
|
Poster Handle
|
Astromut |
|
Post Content
|
...
It is in front of the clouds, you assumed it was behind earlier in the video, but from the point that the sun has fully emerged onwards it's indisputable that it's in front of the clouds, not behind them. It's easy to see why you thought it went behind the clouds; the clouds were saturating the pixels, thus they drowned out the filter flare, but once the sun emerged and stopped backlighting the cloud, the filter flare is seen to be in front of the clouds, not behind them. 1:24-1:33, the filter flare shows a hard edge, does not illuminate the cloud, and its brightness is not diffused by the cloud at all. It's super-imposed on top of the cloud. That is mutually exclusive with the claim that it was behind the clouds rather than in front of them.
Quoting: Astromut No, it was clearly seen behind the clouds, and it was while both the sun and object were behind the clouds. They were both behind the clouds, and the object can still be seen BEHIND the clouds. Again, you just make claims but you provide no proof. It's just your unsupported opinion. I provided detailed proof of why I know it's in front of the clouds, not behind them. Unsupported opinion? HA! I've shown, and many have agreed, that the object does go behind the clouds, thus, negating your "proof". Personal unsupported opinion does nothing to "negate my proof." 1:24-1:33, the filter flare shows a hard edge, does not illuminate the cloud, and its brightness is not diffused by the cloud at all. It's super-imposed on top of the cloud. That is mutually exclusive with the claim that it was behind the clouds rather than in front of them.
|
|
|
Please verify you're human:
|
|
|
Reason for copyright violation:
|
