STRANGE VERY BRIGHT STAR LIKE THING.

*NOTE* Skip this, unless you are strangely intrigued by the ridiculous UP/TU saga. I've posted enough stuff for sensible folks to make their own decisions, adn hopefully improve their images and videos.

This is simply a response to a few of TU's 'points'.

I won't bother quoting the entire TU post for two very simple and obvious reasons. (Readers can judge for themselves by re-reading it at their leisure if they wish.)

First, she has COMPLETELY avoided addressing a single criticism of her images, (or any stament I've made contradicting her very inaccurate photographic claims).

Second, the vast majority of her post appears to be insults and childish comments, like:
"claims to be a teacher of photography"

Let's just address that single one - the rest I choose to ignore. If anyone ELSE doubts my claim of being a photography teacher after reading all the stuff I have posted here, post an email address and I'll send you a copy (text only) of a photography course booklet *I* wrote. (You won't get the most recent copy, as the copyright is worth something to me on this document - but it will be plenty to get the idea). I'm happy to post selected bits of it here if anyone asks nicely - it is full of tips and hints on general imaging.

I can guarantee the booklet is *mine*, and of course anyone in possession of it could check it online for plagiarism.

By the content, and by the stuff I have posted here, you will be able to see whether I am what I claim. Sorry, TU, despite all the pretending that goes on here, that particular fact is NO pretense.

The offer does *not* apply to TU herself (in simple spite. (O:)

Let's remember that this is the same TU who claimed her nighttime images (showing blurred unlit buildings) were shot at 1/1000 of a second. This is the same TU who said 'don't use an IR filter', then showed she didn't know what nightshot mode was (it means no IR filter) by telling me off for using it!! This is the same TU that didn't have a clue what a polarizer did. (I can go on, but won't.)

Once again, here is a quick example of MY still nighttime photography:
[link to www.geocities.com]

(I'm happy to post the raw original of that if anyone asks nicely, but it will have a copyright notice on it.)

Can TU show something *remotely* similar?

And I would note the following - TU says this:
"He has defamed posters personal integrity"

Yep, I call liars LIARS, fools FOOLS, misinformation providers... But that isn't defamation. (O:

"He even tried the same tactics on my You Tube channel."
TU, I DARE you to post my comments EXACTLY as they were written. How many dares are you going to RUN from?

And why wouldn't you leave my commments there to embarrass me, if they were so flawed? Explain why you would not simply address the issues, in a similar way as I have done..
Now for anyone watching this ridiculous charade, I would invite you to examine the post by "DJBluefox" made here:
[link to www.youtube.com]

Read the comment carefully. Do you recognise the tone? Who do you reckon djbluefox might be?

[link to www.youtube.com]

Hmm. 57 years old, in the USA. Where have we heard that before...?? Anyway, I'm not suggesting this is TU, oh no, not me. But isn't life *full* of remarkable coincidences...
(O:

>Up, I do not owe you an apology for standing up to you.

No, 'course not. I actually prefer the way you continue to simply dig the holes even deeper as you go. Discerning readers can make their own judgement.. DO carry on!

NOR should you post that original image I asked for.
You KNOW what will happen if you do that.

NOR should you show us what hapopened when you manually focused your camera. You know that won't look good in regard to your claims so far.

I would have thought an honest person would have no problem with doing those very simple things. I think it's fair to say that most folks here *do* now understand that getting the images in focus is important, and that using properly controlled methods to determine movement is also a good thing. I don't see many other folks posting video footage that are suggesting the object is moving, but they can correct me if I'm wrong, and easily prove it by showing the background.

In regard to doing these simple things...
*I* did.
*I* posted videos and examples, taking great care to duplicate the conditions and type of tripod/camera that a typical user might have.
*I'm* happy to post more examples, if asked politely.

But TU WON'T. What should one infer from that?

The rest of TU's 'points' have been covered adequately before, and if anyone else wants further clarification, feel free to ask. As other folks have seen, I'm very happy to address any issues sensibly raised and love talking about my favorite topics.

TU seems to have dropped any pretense of being specific, and is now merely repeating insults and claims with no supporting evidence. And of course, she is refusing to do the two simple things that would show she was correct:

1. Show what happens when she manually focuses
2. Post the original of one of the blurred building images she *still* claims were taken at over 1/1000.

Anyone who knows even the most basic facts about photography knows that the second one is a LIE.



Sleep well, TU.

Just as a final aside, there are several UFO videos and images around (not on this thread) that I find intriguing, and that I *can't* explain.

(Yet. (O:)

One day I might point them out to folks on these forums...

It's strange, but the really good ones never seem to get referred to here. I don't quite understand that.

Thanks, Skywatcher!

The good bits
- good tripod work, and you have included the background zoomed out so we can pretty much eliminate movement (other than that lovely smooth, slow progress of the planet as the earth rotates...)
- manual focus!! Yay, it doesn't keep racking back and forth!

But (yeah there's always a but..) - it would be even better to *show* what happens as you change focus during thew shot. In every case, your video *jumps* to different focus effects,a nd we can't see what is ahppening while you focus. Yes, the image will wobble around a bit, but it makes it much easier to see when the objects is truly smallest, and how the bokeh becomes visible as it goes further and further out of focus.

A couple of additional points:

At that exposure level, Venus is overexposing. The camera will expose for the vast expanse of sky, but Venus is MUCH brighter. So the final resulting image is 'bloomed out'. When that happens, the recorded image is much larger than the object, you lose the objects original shape, and on many sensors you also get those telltale black edges around the edge of the object. Again, it is sensor detail, not object detail. Can you adjust the exposure and dial it down?

The first bit uses digital zoom, yes? Problem with digital zoom is that it has to 'guess' the extra image information to add, and if the object is overexposed and bloomed as above, it will trip over those edges and give you funny shapes. And if the object is even the tiniest bit out of foucs, then it will add to the problems. I don't recommend digital zoom for getting the most accurate detail, and it would be worthwhile if you read your manual and the warnings they (usually) give about it.


But thanks for that one. Keep it up!

This is what i thought But then I started to think (Quasar)

What if its real far away But really F-ing Bright If you know what I quasar Is then This could be possiable also.But Its just another guess .But If It is a Quasar Boy Are we in for one hell Of ride...Literally HELL ON EARTH.

As We Know Quasars Are even deadly from the other side of the Galaxy ..Not sure about other galaxy's But they are very Dangerous.

Just do a search and see how powerful They are.

Tim

One more thing From What I understand The best way to Explain a Quasar Is Imagine The oppoisit of a black hole .Or even A water hose with water coming out in a str8 line very fast towards you.timeX's billions Xbillions the size of our Sun.

I think nobody posted this yet, so here it goes



[link to www.youtube.com]

Worth watching. Another show of light, flickering and... shape-shifting!

The movie maker, MayanResearcher said that she "...just sit out at night and turn on the cam and wait!"

It seems to show up at random positions in the sky!!
.........................................................

Sorry. It's another out of focus bobbing light with camera distortions.

My new rule of thumb is that any video with a music soundtrack is almost certainly not a real UFO.

Don't be too tough on people, they're trying their best.

They are probably not very experienced film makers,

but just happen to have the cam at the right time!

I love the details too but never seen anything very special.

One bright/whitish/silver little orb in the middle of the blue sky, in the afternoon last year(aug-sep), few yards ahead/up in my backyard. Is my best shot.

These people see marvelous lights, moving slowly, suddenly fast, with exquisite shapes and they even get them on camera!

They're much better shape than me!:-)........

few yards = hundreds!

It is a starship called PHOENIX ( our new dollar name.)


quote:

Candace: If you live near that parallel, you can see the Phoenix as soon as the sun sets, and it is still quite light out. It is an obvious light, and not a star. I live near a major airport, with landing patterns over my house, and the Phoenix lights are often as big as the landing lights on planes coming in. I do not know how far from the 40th Horizontal parallel you can be and still see the Phoenix. I was recently about 25 miles south of where I live, and the Phoenix was more to the west, than the southwest at that point, and the lights were even brighter.

Christ Michael put on a great show last April for the neighborhood kids. He was more in the east during that time. He moved around, put off something that looked like little flares or firecrackers, put on the strobes, and created other lighting patterns. The kids had a great time, and the show lasted at least an hour.

One of the kids had a telescope and wanted to look at the Phoenix through it. Surprise! This doesn't work; it looks like a black hole in the sky through the telescope. I was informed that the ship can cloak in such a way that not even the lights be seen, when one looks through a telescope. That did answer a question of mine, wondering why all the amateur astronomers out there were not blogging all over the Internet about the starships. Major planetariums tell people the strobe lights are just ice crystals in the atmosphere. I sent the story to my list that night, and heard back from several folks who had discovered exactly the same thing. You can see the lights by naked eye and through a binocular, but not through a telescope.




[link to abundanthope.net]


The Many Hats of Christ Michael, Coming Out of the Creator Son Box

By Candace Frieze, and Christ Michael
#48 November 18, 2005

Christ Michael our creator of this universe of Nebadon is on the ship, hard to believe? Do your gfl research.




JUPITER IGNITION!!!!!!!


Thread: JUPITER IGNITION!!!!!!! (Page 11)

[link to www.youtube.com]

Hi, Angel - good to see you are sticking with it!

That one shows nice 'soft' bokeh, so I'm wondering what sort of camera it is. It *seems* to be capturing a half disk shape, which suggests it is Venus thru a seriously good lens, but it is also possible that the aperture is hemispherical shaped. Unfortunately the 'morphing' seems to be the same problem of the autofocus racking back and forward to try get the object in focus.

If MayanResearcher is listening, I hope s/he will one day invest in a *stronger* tripod to help steady his/her camera, and also do the manual focus thing... Zooming back to show the background would again help to pin down the source of the movement.

Also, s/he states it is at 200x zoom. That sounds great, but actually is not so good. NO camera has a 200x *optical* zoom - the only way to get to those numbers is by using *digital* zoom, where the camera simply guesses what the pixels might be and adds its *own* (false) detail.

That would also explain some of the bokeh softness.

Keep on viewing! I'm rained in at the moment.

hi guys, we also see it in south of germany.. since around the end of the 2008 around december.
it's too shining to be a planet in my opinon.
hope somebody can post a clean telescope pic.
bye..

Here's a nice clean pic telescope pic from the Hubble:

[link to www.spacetoday.org]

Angelpbj,

Its me again....page 9 AC poster...probably a new AC #.

Others on this thread may have already seen this webpage/site/tool but it might help with the discussion for the remainder of us:


[link to ssd.jpl.nasa.gov]

This tool may be helpful when discussing planet positions because its from a perspective looking at our solar system instead of from a star map perspective from here on Earth.

Rotate the view so the orbital plane of the planets is 90 degrees to your view (like you are viewing the orbits from above). Then, zoom in so only Earth, Venus, Mercury and the Sun show. You should be at today's date Feb 12th. Go forward into the future to around March 25th. Note Venus will be directly between the Sun and Earth around this time. This means Venus should not be visible at night since it will only appear in our horizon during the day.

Also note that the relative position of Venus to Earth at this time is close. So, it would make sense that we are seeing a larger 'dot' in the sky at this time. Imagine if Venus was on the opposite end of its orbital path. You would not see it at night in that case either because it would be behind the sun relative to the Earth's position.

Go back to Feb 12th. Then, slowly, go back in time a few weeks before (when this thread began). Note the position of Venus relative to Earth and the Sun. See if the position of venus makes sense relative to time of day or night. It makes sense to me in that it should be setting in the southwest sky a few hours after sunset knowing that the Earth is rotating counterclockwise when looking at the planet orbital path from above (not below).

Other cool thing about the tool is you can see predicted near earth asteriod positions into the future based on cataloged asteriods.

I'm still dropping by daily to read this thread. Wow, 70 pages!

Pretty good UFO psyops, eh? The Boys down at headquarters say "keep the fuzzy videos of Venus coming, baby!"

i saw it too

it was out tonight 2/12 really bright. deffinently west was its postion. in los angeles

what is em i trippin.

I do about the same most nights. I just go out on the balcony, and wait. Within minutes there will be 2 or 3.
More if I wait a while.

UFO.Pause it @ 1-02 and see the face!!!!!!
[link to www.youtube.com]
[link to www.youtube.com]

This one of her's shows the same shape changes I picked up on a few vids with photos, and more so 1.31.09. Skywatcher's shape changer showed stuff in one of my vids with photos.
On the 31st, I was able to grab a couple of short vid segments, & few photos before the battery went down. I then tuned the photos to bring out the detail.
I also did screen captures of the vid. Some of this stuff looks Mayan, Celtic, Sumerian. Very nice, beautiful.
I'll post it up tomorrow probably.

Can you imagine, for the better part of 70 pages, Up has criticized every video and photo and poster who dared to defy UP's denials. How pathetic.

The videos and photos of thousands of people, including commercial pilots don't lie or misinform. They are what they are, and they all have the same things in common.
Shape shifting the same shapes, symbols, even faces, and shapes.

UP has become to this thread what The Guy is to chemtrails.

hehehe

HEY HAS ANYONE THOUGHT OF THE POSSIBILITY IT COULD JUST BE VENUS????

OK, TU, if you want to play it that way... I started out trying to be helpful to you. But clearly you cannot be helped. However, you can be, and will continue to be, exposed for what you are. Enjoy.

(Again, readers will note that TU has NOT ADDRESSED a single criticism...)



Can you imagine, for the better part of 70 pages, TU has not been able to RESPOND to a single criticism of her videos, and has LIED about her images. She has PROVED that by refusing to post an original of this image:
[link to picasaweb.google.com]
..which she claims was taken, like all her others, at 1/1000 second! Bulldust. Anyone who knows cameras well, knows that to be a blatant lie If TU had the GUTS to post the original, I can PROVE that it was a lie. TU hasn't got the guts to do so, though.

Now if she hadn't been such a stubborn self-opinionated person with an intent to misinform and mislead, she could have just admitted her mistake. But it's too late now, she is backed into a corner..

Can anyone think of any possible reason that TU wouldn't post the original of that image file? I mean, if she posts it and it shows her claim to be true, I will be a laughing stock! Surely she would enjoy that...

And yet she hasn't done so. There is ONLY one reason for that. She knows what will happen - her lie will be exposed.
Funnily, I doubt if she knows exactly how I will prove it, but she knows I *will*.


TU has now demonstrated her complete lack of knowledge of photography at almost every occasion - the wild claims about high shutter speeds, her complete misunderstanding of polarisers, her lack of knowledge of nightshot mode, her suggestion that IR filters never be used... Then there were the images (like that one above) where the object and background clearly moved in EXACTLY the same direction and amplitude, proving beyond any doubt that SHE MOVED THE CAMERA. But oh no, that was the inexplicable time-space "distortions" caused by the UFO. Yeah, sure it was. Funny she didn't mention that until after she was busted..

It's interesting to note that the other posters I have offered CONSTRUCTIVE criticism to, have listened politely, and in some cases addressed at least some of the issues.

Ceratinly some folk here are learning stuff.

But TU? NOPE. Not once. Despite her complete lack of knowledge of photography concepts, despite her images being busted on just about every point, she has NOT learnt anything. She has made claims about her images that are clearly untrue, and she has refused to do the VERY SIMPLE things that would PROVE her claims.

Again, she knows that if she does what I suggest, her methods will be immediately proven to be flawed. And that brings her whole world of ufo fantasy crashing down, and might lose her some fans! Heaven forbid that.

Until now, she has fed off the uninformed. But here, she has run into folks who know what they are doing, and others who are learning. Her run of unchallenged misinformation has met a stumbling block now. And the more folk who investigate the truth of what *I* post, the more who will understand what TU is doing here.

You'll notice again, that NO-ONE has been able to post contradictory information to what I have posted so far in reagrd to astronomy, planetary positions, and general photographic concepts (eg AutoFocus, bokeh, IR filters..)

I'm betting TU wishes she could be specific and post a few quotes and links to prove me wrong, on ANYTHING. But the poor thing can't! So all she has left are the insults and RUNNING from every challenge, every proof, every dare.

The saddest part of all this, is that people like TU, who continually post this flawed rubbish and refuse to listen to anyone who knows a bit more about why her images look as they do, denigrates and damages the cause immeasurably.

There are some very genuine people who are posting decent, well-recorded images and are looking into UFO phenomena intelligently. But their efforts are negated by the TUs of the world - huge amounts of time are wasted (eg this thread), just because lame-assed amateurs like TU post endless ridiculous out-of-focus images deliberately shaken up to pretend movement. Keep it up, TU, if you want to keep dragging these observations into the mud. Don't learn anything, don't prove anything, don't back anything up, don't respond to criticism, ignore those with more experience than you, keep CHEATING others (and yourself), and keep believing that you are right.

How pathetic indeed.

For those who post flawed images and video BUT then listen to criticism, learn from others, improve their work and respond to requests for additional information, I have *much* respect.

For TU however (and anyone else who is incapable of seeing their faults and has stopped learning and listening) I have only disgust and disdain.


WHEN TU posts that original image above, and WHEN she shows everyone what happens when she manually focuses her camera, I might change my mind.


And until then, TU, you will be busted every time you post rubbish. Like, I said, ... enjoy.

this is the best thread ever on any forums, hopefully more people will learn about the sky and see more things in it. Worth reading every page. It would be good to prove that anything is new in the skies, but still that is a worry.

Not only that, but she's bragged about her association with NASA. Isn't that normally the kiss of death for one's credibility in these circles?

Think about it. :)

Yes, I noticed that but left it uncommented till now - it was about as inexplicable and pointless as her playground insults.

I'm just not quite sure how knowing someone at Nasa would in some way make out-of-focus images more useful.. Perhaps she might like to *name* the Nasa person, and I'll contact him/her about verifying her images and claims.


I'll bet we get about as far there, as we got regarding the MUFON claims.

Does circulating fuzzy pictures of Venus, aircraft and autodealership searchlights set to techno music and loudly proclaiming them to be UFOs serve the purpose of determining the truth about the UFO phenomenon?

Or does it serve the purpose of confusion, disinfomation and ridicule of the subject?

If we're going to start accusing people of being "shills," there are quite a few allegations in the history of UFOology about the spread of disinformation as psyops.

Just talking smack. This is a wacky conspiracy forum, eh? No crazier than shapeshifting UFOs in front of Nibiru, so don't be too "tough" on me!

That's a very perceptive observation. Clearly there are a a lot of (easily spotted) jokesters posting crap and cgi creations, just to take the pi$$.

But I wonder just how many there are that deliberately and deceptively post the timewasting images and videos, in order to denigrate those who try to do it properly.

Conspiracies within conspiracies.. Are those portraying themselves as 'victims' really that?

You know, UP, you barged in on this thread and have disparaged anyone who put up a still or a video. We are now into 70 pages and you are still at it! If you started your own thread, it wouldn't be up very long, but you could celebrate yourself there with your explanations of why these posters aren't using their camera equipment to suit you. You are so repetitious!

You must love the attention you are getting from those of us who disagree with your analysis of the videos. You wouldn't get half that on your own thread. It wouldn't last the day.
.

i write before, that i also had seen it in germany, and i don't consider it a known planet, (cause i have already see the difference).. But someone quote me, and post a link to the venus observation..
well..i..also just think..(without offence) that i am already stupid enough to wrong by myself, without help.. :D
anyone else knows more, on nibiru orbit...?? ty