Nibiru 2012 real video (21.04.09)

You would. LOL. I'm not a 'woo'. I am logical, practical, & a realist.

Not PX * It is a UFO. You can see how the sun reflects off of the bottom. I did try to bring out the object last night, but the example isn't good enough to view here. If I can work it up later, after dinner & Rocket Ball, I'll post it up.
:notPX:

Last Edited by Texas Uncensored on 05/14/2009 08:36 PM

That's notttt a ufo? How can you say that? honestly?

Sirius, I am saying that it IS a UFO. I can say that with certainty because I worked the photo to be sure. It is the same UFO object that has been showing up in my photos for a few years now. Not every day, but many days.

I am cooking dinner right now, have critters to walk, and the Houston Rockets are about to kick ass ( I hope, hehe ).
I will work the photo again to try and bring the object to a viewable state, later. If it shows up well enough to post up, I will.

You mean you can see the Sun APPEAR to reflect off the bottom. Appearances can be deceiving in photos.

You "worked the photo", and that made you, somehow, "sure" of what it shows?

Interesting.

Is this "object" ALWAYS near the Sun?

Menow, you can look at it yourself and see light reflecting off of the bottom, as would be normal if a lighted object is below an unlit object.

Yes, I am certain of what it shows. And, no the object isn't always there. If it were PX, it would always be there.
As the object has shown up on all sides of the sun, within an hour or so, and isn't lens flare, it is only logical to attribute it's behavior to an object guided by intelligence. It is also quite obvious that it is in our lower atmosphere as shown by the clouds behind it. It's rapid movement around the perimeter of the sun, in front of the sun's position also shows that it is not a celestial object.

You can see a certain gradient of light which might APPEAR as if it could have been induced by the Sun.



I can't refer to what I asked, since you didn't quote me. I meant to ask if it is ONLY FOUND near the Sun.



How did you conclude it isn't lens flare?


it is only logical to attribute it's behavior to an object guided by intelligence.


Just because you can't think of any other explanation, that doesn't mean there isn't one.



If it's moving "around" the Sun, how do you conclude that it's in FRONT of the Sun?

Didn't unquote this part correctly. It's part of my post:


Just because you can't think of any other explanation, that doesn't mean there isn't one.

Oh. You see the clouds as being behind it. I saw the clouds as being in front of it, if a real object.

Images are funny things, sometimes.

Menow, I am applying simple logic here. It appears that way because it is that way.
Turn on a light bulb.
Hold a basketball above it at a slight angle, and see what
part lights up.

I don't know if it can only be found near the sun. I can only speak to what has shown up in photos, and it does show up in the view finder as well. It shows up at about that distance, or near that. It has since at least spring of 07. If there is cloud vapor, then there is activity. If there is activity, this object shows up too.

I can conclude that isn't lens flare because it is a solid object. With or without lens flare, it shows up as solid.

It's position in the sky is more forward to us than the sun, closer to us. On a different street and further down the road so to speak ( in front ).

Yes, there are clouds both in front of and behind, as well as to the sides. No need to be so persnickety.

I will load up a few images, including the collage. The collage started with negative imaging, and each frame is stepped up.
No mods on right now, so images later.

The correct, and VERY SIMPLE test for lens flare is as follows:

Take your image. Then, without changing any settings on the camera, take a second image with the camera moved slightly so that the brightest object (Sun/Moon/whatever) is in the OPPOSITE QUADRANT of the image.

In other words, if the first pic shows the Sun slightly above and right of centre, then the second pic should be taken with the Sun slightly below and left of centre.

That's ALL there is to it. Dead Easy.
(If you really want to be fully scientific, take a third shot zoomed back..)

Post the pics intact, full-res, straight from the camera. If they are lens flares, they will have relocated in an obvious, repeatable and predictable way.

This is the test that no Px believer will do. How strange.

Or should I say, they may have done it, but certainly don't want to post the results for VERY OBVIOUS REASONS.

I'll be posting some examples shortly, lest you think I'm just stirring the pot...

Now, TU doesn't like me very much, so I can guess what her response will be. But to others reading this thread, please consider this:

The question of whether something in an image is a lens flare or an object, is a pretty important one, when discussing rogue planets or ufos. I would surmise that most thinking folks here would concede that at least some of the alleged Px images are in fact lens flares. So ask yourself this question:

If the test for a lens flare is as SIMPLE as moving the camera slightly and taking a second/third shot... why on earth wouldn't the 'photographer' want to do this test and show the results?

After all, that would prove that the 'thing' is NOT a lens flare....

Please note the quite pleasant and sensible tone of this post, and compare it to what comes. (O;

As mentioned earlier, I will be posting examples of the lens flare test shortly, and I would invite *any* other posters to do the same. Remember, take one shot with the Sun (say) just above and right of centre, then a second shot with the Sun just below and left. The bright object must be in a different location relative to the centre of the image frame. The images should be posted full-res, untouched, out of camera. That's what I will do.

Next time you are shooting into the Sun (the Moon is MUCH safer, by the way!), do some experiments, and find out about how your camera handles 'flare'. ALL lenses do it to some extent but some are better than others, and some are so good that you will only be able to detect slight flaring in extreme circumstances. If your camera:
- is a compact
- has a zoom lens (therefore lots of glass elements)
- has any filters added or is shot thru a window
.. then I'm sorry to inform you that those things all contribute to the likelihood of encountering flare problems.

Dang!

Also, don't leave compact digital cameras pointing at the Sun for more than few seconds (that's plenty to take 2 images!) as the sensors can be damaged.. and use manual focus if possible.

As always, happy to offer tips to improve your photography!

Cheers, all

That may be "simple", but It's also silly. That is certainly NOT always true in images.




It would be nice to see additional images and see if that effect is consistent.



What is "activity"?



Your logic leaves a lot to be desired. Basically, you are saying it's not a lens flare because it's not a lens flare, and it's solid because it's solid.




You are stating conclusions without explaing how you arrived at them.



Heh! Heaven forbid that anyone should be persnickety about your claims. We should just accept them as fact simply because you state them, right?



Well, thanks for posting them, anyway.

This video has been removed by user. WTF ?

Bullfreaking shit: it's to the right in the North Hemi and to the left in Argentina video from the plane, as is expected.

thanks, Up, for the stellarium suggestion in determining how far North the Sun sets. You know, it's not obvious at all to see a 21-24 degs shift from due-West from a common perspective, even for people who studied some astronomy. It's good to know we can check on these things.

It shouldn't be too hard to "determine" the approx distance, let's say the "object" is Jupiter-sized. then, let's see next how many times the J.'s diameter is larger than that of the Moon (x2000-20000? - please check) So, if it looks angularly as a 1/8th of the Sun/Moon's angular size, the distance from Earth would be about (seemingly) 16000 - 160000 Lunar distances. A rough guide. I am not saying there is an object, but would love to hear UP's view on whether the video showed us a flare. I am more inclined to think it is a complete fake, made pixel-by-pixel, frame-by-frame, iit's not that hard, really.

Friend,
what is your thought about this video?
I am not expertise, I read the arguments of our friends who provide evidence for authenticity of this video, and at the other hand the debunkers of this video (not always honest) have an strong point that this object should have been reported in the large scale, yet we have just 2 video of this object, and 2 of them are supporting each other + photos which are of good quality.
Nothing now the days is impossible to make, and that makes it so hard to find out the truth.
I personally will suggest that we wait and observe without attacking each other. That is a thread and that means we can exchange info.
Some will defend the existence of this object and some will not. Right now we see that both party have strong points.
Note as long as this video has not been proven fake, it remains as strongest evidence for existence and approaching an object toward earth.

If you even had a SLIGHT idea of HOW EASY it is to get LENS FLARES without any filters and not having your camera settings set to the minimum, you wouldn't post BS like this.

[link to www.binkyou.net]
[link to www.binkyou.net]
[link to www.binkyou.net]
[link to www.binkyou.net]
[link to www.binkyou.net]


Minimum settings on my cam (Canon PowerShot A720 IS) with decreasing the shutter speed for each picture. I used a purple DVD as a filter... very effective! Use this the next time you want to try to picture a non-existant Planet X/Nibiru or any other object by the sun.

As you can see... it doesn't take a lot to get lens flares.

The video is not there anymore!

It's been removed!

Friend,
I couldn't agree more withyou, you are correct.

Unless the videos are complete fakes, this seems to be real evidence.

We will just have to wait and see.

this was expected, in fact, it is a wonder it has remained there for so long.
Disclaimer: I still think this is a fake, because otherwise.... you know.

This bit was just too funny for words.

Bias, anyone???



Spot the irony?

Thanks for the faith (or just interest!) in my views...

But I confess I haven't been keeping tabs closely on this thread, and I'm not sure which video you are referring to - can you toss me a link and save me hunting?

I hope it's not the one that was removed - if it was, can you give me some clues about what it looked like and I'll try to locate another copy. Even if it was removed, the link would be useful - I might be able to follow it back to source.

If I don't hear from you, I'l try to make a little time to read back thru the thread - I'm just a little busy right now.

(Cooking, in case you are wondering! A cake, a bolognaise, and biscuits, and the simultaneous nature of them is testing me somewhat - already duffed a (thankfully small) batch of the biscuits..)

i knew that you will say that :)

I am sorry, i do not like the way debunkers treat opposition side, so I have not attack personally. If it has touched you i am sorry about that.

The 3 videos in question are:

1. 21.04.09 from Russia,

2. recent ones from Italy,

3. a recent one from aboard a plane in Argentina.

Thanks.

thanks...lets wait and see...

Thanks back to you. I'll be back to you later - sadly it's nearly my bedtime (I live in Oz), but I may have enough energy to take a look tonight. If not it may be a day or two - I've got my Sunday planned out, and GLP isn't in that plan at this stage...

(o;