There REALLY IS something strange in western sky around sunset...!!!

Hey, message me, I might actually be able to come. If that is November 1st I will again be in Orlando and would love to attend.

Went to the Miami museum of science this weekend and the local astronomy club was there. I asked about the "object" but none had seen it. One guy immediately said Ison though.

Thanks for the invite. Would really love to attend.

SAME OBJECT THREE YEARS AGO......
[link to youtu.be]
THE REST SPEAK FOR ITSELF......

Nice autofocus fail.

TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT THE VIDEO.....

Items in Question:

Picture 1--We agree it is an illustration (even though Sethy could only say "it appears to be an illustration"). Don't know about you all, but to me that suggests it could be an actual photography.

Does ANYONE agree with Sethy on this bullshit? If so, state your Name.

TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT THE VIDEO.....
REALLY.....
MAYBE YOU WILL UNDERSTAND.....
THAT THIS IS NOT A STAR.......

Items in Question:


Picture 2--We agree, NOTHING but clear blue skies. No planes, contrails, chemtrails, lens flare, clouds, nothing (hint, hint this is OBVIOUSLY not the SW sky)

Picture 3--Waiting on "their" answer

Still waiting for that apology.

Oh, I have to laugh.

Yes, by all means. If anyone here disagrees with my statement that the image “appears to be an illustration”, please state your name.

And to be clear, the object in pics 3, 4 and 5 (WERE NEVER VISIBLE THROUGH MY CAMERA VIEWER).

Items in Question:

Picture 1--We agree it is an illustration (even though Sethy could only say "it appears to be an illustration"). Don't know about you all, but to me that suggests it could be an actual photography.

Does ANYONE agree with Sethy on this bullshit? If so, state your Name.

Picture 2--We agree, NOTHING but clear blue skies. No planes, contrails, chemtrails, lens flare, clouds, nothing (hint, hint this is OBVIOUSLY not the SW sky)

Picture 3--Waiting on "their" answer

Picture 4--We disagree. At least 5 - 10 said "lens flare" b/c of the wire, but actually the wire had nothing to do with it b/c there is some other UN-STATED proof in picture 3 that not 1, but 2 objects are flare or flare-related. What proof you ask, Astro said so and posted a finger test video. Astro has NOT responded to the black thread/sun simulation which is FAR more analogous and easier to produce than responding to my messages. He said the finger was a test, but the thread was a "game". Good thing he gets to play Dick Webster, right?

And to be clear, the object in pics 3, 4 and 5 (WERE NEVER VISIBLE THROUGH MY CAMERA VIEWER).

Picture 5--We disagree. At least 2 people said "lens flare"/"filter flare". There proof/evidence = they said so. Supporting evidence: Shill logic if there is a picture of the sun and ANYTHING else, ALL OTHER SAID things EXCEPT animals are "flares". Get it, right? Nevermind, the REAL flares in the pic (the reddish, circular, translucent flares at or around the bright object). Nope, the two flares that look like a planet AND a moon in photos and with my naked eyes, and the moon (less prominent) than the planet maintains the same DISTANCE and ORIENTATION to the planet...That's that new lens flare, right? How do they know it's a flare and not "the contrail" that everybody has been seeing? Funny, thing my pictures will take it from:

invisible to naked eye
Double lens flare on wire
Double lens flare off wire
Contrail
Venus
NEARLY identical to the DOCUMENTED --descriptions/illustrations of the "winged planet"

And then I am done, so consider us to be at stage 3 of 6.

Sethy you are slipping AGAIN. I, Erik F. Barnes, disagree. Picture #1 IS AN ILLUSTRATION. Vis a Vis, it is PHYSICALLY impossible that picture #1 (Google Image "winged planet") is an ACTUAL photograph...so that is the very definition of "is" vs. "appears". Did I lose you?

And for the post stats, NOBODY has stepped forward to say "they think it is an illustration, but they are not sure". Why come, Sethy? (bad grammar for dramatic effect)

Not sure if I understood you correctly. In your picture #5 I see both versions. 1. A reflection of light between the lense and the glass of your camera (at the ~1100 position) and also you have lense flares which appear reddish (at the bottom) in your picture.



Are you saying that the reddish flares are coming from Planet X?

[link to img24.imageshack.us]

If by object, you mean what appears to be the planet/star in image 3 and the lens/filter flares in image 3 & 4, then that is not surprising.

Ok, thanks...So how then does your cubicle buddy's "Finger Test" (not a game) apply to this thread or these pics?

You gonna get the apology as soon as you answer this questions:

Did you drop those trees in? Or was it Default?

This is EXTREMELY relevant, but NO ANSWER, makes me suspicious. The poster's picture had REAL TREES, what about yours? Did you select "nightime trees" or NOT?

Your continued abstinence from answering this is speaking volumes.

By the way, thanks for the ban, it cost me $10 that I will take from your pride, integrity and creditability. Now what about those trees?

I don’t see any flares in image 3, so it is not relevant.

Images 3 & 4 are clearly lens/filter flares, so I wouldn’t even bother doing a “finger test” on those. When I worked at a photo studio, we often got assigned to shoot HS football games and swim meets. We would always set our shots with the sun at our backs because if we did not, we ended up getting a good amount of images with flaring just like your examples. I’ve processed more than my fair share of these.

I don’t see any flares in image 3, so it is not relevant.

Images 3 & 4 are clearly lens/filter flares, so I wouldn’t even bother doing a “finger test” on those. When I worked at a photo studio, we often got assigned to shoot HS football games and swim meets. We would always set our shots with the sun at our backs because if we did not, we ended up getting a good amount of images with flaring just like your examples. I’ve processed more than my fair share of these.

Nope, just the opposite...Orange flares at the bottom, TWO OBJECTS at 10 o'clock NOT flares. I have NAKED eye proof and more pictures. Your "illustrated" explanation looks like it came from my son's 5th grade science book. And oh by the way, why not use a real picture WITH EXACTLY 2 "versions" of lens flare instead of an illustration with 3 "versions". Gotta say, that's my new ATF (2 versions of lens flare)

How do I get 3 versions, can I get 4 or 5....Because I ONLY get 2. How do I get more, help me.

Nope, just the opposite...Orange flares at the bottom, TWO OBJECTS at 10 o'clock NOT flares. I have NAKED eye proof and more pictures.

Your "illustrated" explanation looks like it came from my son's 5th grade science book.

And oh by the way, why not use a real picture WITH EXACTLY 2 "versions" of lens flare instead of an illustration with 3 "versions".

Gotta say, that's my new ATF (2 versions of lens flare)

5) How can I get more "versions" of lens flare...not the big, translucent ones, just the ones like the "moon" and "planet"?

How do I get 3 versions, can I get 4 or 5....Because I ONLY get 2. How do I get more, help me.

The ones you call "planet" and "moon" look to me like the result of internal reflections in the camera (especially from the brightest light source in view, the Sun). When light passes from one medium to another, some fraction of it is reflected. In the case of the camera lens, most of the light is transmitted (due to special non-reflective coatings that cut down on the amount that is reflected). Once past the first lens surface, a small amount of light would be reflected at the next surface, and of that, a small amount is reflected at the next surface. What you see in the picture is a radically reduced (in intensity) image of the sun, displaced from the primary image of the sun.

Try taking another picture with the Sun in the view, and adjusted your line of sight to get the "Planet" in front of some trees or a building.

I really enjoy this discussion but have been back and forth today at work so please excuse my ignorance. But if photo 4(going by my email) is lens flair then Erik is COMPLETELY lieing about this whole thing and sent emails to me and others and spending time here just screwing around with all of us...is that correct? Thanks.

Thanks for answering the question about the trees. No apology b/c I don't believe Boxer picked trees b/c he likes them. I think he did it to make the pictures seem "identical" and then he never responded to the poster who simply questioned the tree-line variance. You all think people are lying about their sky apps, cool...I think Boxer tried to mis-lead and obfuscate the issue/image.

Third eye getting you lot all flustered. He's getting to you.. crawling under your skin. Making you really have to work.

I like it. ;)