| Users Online Now: 2,189 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 1,142,613 | |
| Pageviews Today: 1,908,192 | Threads Today: 789 | Posts Today: 13,715 |
| 06:32 PM | ||
| Users Online Now: 2,189 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 1,142,613 | |
| Pageviews Today: 1,908,192 | Threads Today: 789 | Posts Today: 13,715 |
| 06:32 PM | ||
Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!! | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 43525483  Germany07/16/2013 05:47 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | whydotheathensrage, two days ago Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43322648 I am acutely aware of flares and artifacts, I can tell you this is not a flare as it is never seen through the view finder. This object also has active orb/moons around it that change with time. Ad to that the atmospheric cloud. Also, in my latest video, it appears behind the trees; and clouds,,,, Also the sun is nowhere in any of these shots. the sun is above, well out of frame. Features on the object surface are always different as you would expect with a solid planetoid. When I was in college I worked for a photography studio for two years as both a photographer and in photo processing. While 60% of my work involved touching up teenage acne in year book photos, another 20% involved the Photoshopping of misc. artifacts from photos. High school football games were the worst. I suspect almost every experienced or professional photographer knows that a light source does not have to be in frame to produce a lens flare. In fact, about 95% of the lens flares I had to deal with involved light sources that were out of frame. This YouTuber seems to be oblivious to this fact, so I wouldn’t believe any claims he makes in regards to “expertise” or “experience”. Additionally, we were always sure to proof our photos after running our auto-correct macros, as many artifacts remained hidden until properly processed. There is nothing strange about these videos. At least the segments I watched. "Features on the object surface are always different as you would expect with a solid planetoid." What? Isn't that the opposite of what would be expected? I suspect almost every experienced or professional photographer knows that a light source does not have to be in frame to produce a lens flare. In fact, about 95% of the lens flares I had to deal with involved light sources that were out of frame. Quoting: Menow 42219119 That is true. You can see many lens flare picture / movies out there where the sun isn't even close in frame. So you also say this is a lense flare? If you rule out the sun or any other source of light reflexion as good as possible and the object stays where it is while moving the cam around a lense flare or any kind of optical lens apparitions where the sun is thr source should be avoided by doing so, right? What is with the "Object" being behind a cloud [03:34 - 07:00] and behind a brunch [18:22 - 19:20} ? I appreciate your answer. |
| Menow User ID: 42219119  United States07/16/2013 05:49 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | NOTHING has changed. Same non-evidence, pasted on top of previous non-evidence. In other words, same shit-different year. Yawn... In his vids? Lens flares, obviously. Have the deceny to review what you were telling the people and don't cling to the past. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43525483 In other words, just keep giving credibility to this nonsense by addressing each new round of it as if there could actually be a large object hovering near the sun which astronomers have missed or are ALL in a vast conspiracy to hide... Right... Visibility has changed, you cannot ignore this without loosing all your credibility. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43525483 Repeat: NOTHING has changed. We are going from shitty lens flare pictures and massive lens flares allover the net to semi professional pictures with a lot of questions attached to them. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43525483 Yeah... the questions attached should be: "WTF are you trying to pull, here?" What do YOU see Menow? Is the guy using photoshop to fake this? Is this / are these lens flares or optical lens apparitions? What is your opinion? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43525483 Can you speak from your heart or is it too late in this incarnation for you? Just put Nancy Lieder and the ps ning and everything you know about that aside for a moment and answer me these simple questions above. I appreciate it. Lens flares- same as always, except when Nancy claims that a kite is her planet. You're just playing dumb. I already asked you when you are going to stop trolling with this nonsense. When are you going to answer MY question? Thanks for your answers. I will stop doing this when the guy actually finds out what the object really is coz this is the only thing I am interested in. You mean you'll wait until HE admits it's not a real object? What if he just disappears, like most do, rather than admit to having been wrong? |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 43525483 Germany07/16/2013 05:50 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 43525483 Germany07/16/2013 05:51 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | NOTHING has changed. Same non-evidence, pasted on top of previous non-evidence. In other words, same shit-different year. Yawn... In his vids? Lens flares, obviously. Have the deceny to review what you were telling the people and don't cling to the past. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43525483 In other words, just keep giving credibility to this nonsense by addressing each new round of it as if there could actually be a large object hovering near the sun which astronomers have missed or are ALL in a vast conspiracy to hide... Right... Visibility has changed, you cannot ignore this without loosing all your credibility. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43525483 Repeat: NOTHING has changed. We are going from shitty lens flare pictures and massive lens flares allover the net to semi professional pictures with a lot of questions attached to them. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43525483 Yeah... the questions attached should be: "WTF are you trying to pull, here?" What do YOU see Menow? Is the guy using photoshop to fake this? Is this / are these lens flares or optical lens apparitions? What is your opinion? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43525483 Can you speak from your heart or is it too late in this incarnation for you? Just put Nancy Lieder and the ps ning and everything you know about that aside for a moment and answer me these simple questions above. I appreciate it. Lens flares- same as always, except when Nancy claims that a kite is her planet. You're just playing dumb. I already asked you when you are going to stop trolling with this nonsense. When are you going to answer MY question? Thanks for your answers. I will stop doing this when the guy actually finds out what the object really is coz this is the only thing I am interested in. You mean you'll wait until HE admits it's not a real object? What if he just disappears, like most do, rather than admit to having been wrong? That would be perfect! |
| Menow User ID: 42219119 United States07/16/2013 05:52 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | whydotheathensrage, two days ago Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43322648 I am acutely aware of flares and artifacts, I can tell you this is not a flare as it is never seen through the view finder. This object also has active orb/moons around it that change with time. Ad to that the atmospheric cloud. Also, in my latest video, it appears behind the trees; and clouds,,,, Also the sun is nowhere in any of these shots. the sun is above, well out of frame. Features on the object surface are always different as you would expect with a solid planetoid. When I was in college I worked for a photography studio for two years as both a photographer and in photo processing. While 60% of my work involved touching up teenage acne in year book photos, another 20% involved the Photoshopping of misc. artifacts from photos. High school football games were the worst. I suspect almost every experienced or professional photographer knows that a light source does not have to be in frame to produce a lens flare. In fact, about 95% of the lens flares I had to deal with involved light sources that were out of frame. This YouTuber seems to be oblivious to this fact, so I wouldn’t believe any claims he makes in regards to “expertise” or “experience”. Additionally, we were always sure to proof our photos after running our auto-correct macros, as many artifacts remained hidden until properly processed. There is nothing strange about these videos. At least the segments I watched. "Features on the object surface are always different as you would expect with a solid planetoid." What? Isn't that the opposite of what would be expected? I suspect almost every experienced or professional photographer knows that a light source does not have to be in frame to produce a lens flare. In fact, about 95% of the lens flares I had to deal with involved light sources that were out of frame. Quoting: Menow 42219119 That is true. You can see many lens flare picture / movies out there where the sun isn't even close in frame. So you also say this is a lense flare? If you rule out the sun or any other source of light reflexion as good as possible and the object stays where it is while moving the cam around a lense flare or any kind of optical lens apparitions where the sun is thr source should be avoided by doing so, right? What is with the "Object" being behind a cloud [03:34 - 07:00] and behind a brunch [18:22 - 19:20} ? I appreciate your answer. Objects which are variously translucent can erroneously APPEAR to be in false relationships to each other- especially when the image has been specifically tweaked to cause that to happen. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 43525483 Germany07/16/2013 05:56 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Setheory 22372062 When I was in college I worked for a photography studio for two years as both a photographer and in photo processing. While 60% of my work involved touching up teenage acne in year book photos, another 20% involved the Photoshopping of misc. artifacts from photos. High school football games were the worst. I suspect almost every experienced or professional photographer knows that a light source does not have to be in frame to produce a lens flare. In fact, about 95% of the lens flares I had to deal with involved light sources that were out of frame. This YouTuber seems to be oblivious to this fact, so I wouldn’t believe any claims he makes in regards to “expertise” or “experience”. Additionally, we were always sure to proof our photos after running our auto-correct macros, as many artifacts remained hidden until properly processed. There is nothing strange about these videos. At least the segments I watched. "Features on the object surface are always different as you would expect with a solid planetoid." What? Isn't that the opposite of what would be expected? I suspect almost every experienced or professional photographer knows that a light source does not have to be in frame to produce a lens flare. In fact, about 95% of the lens flares I had to deal with involved light sources that were out of frame. Quoting: Menow 42219119 That is true. You can see many lens flare picture / movies out there where the sun isn't even close in frame. So you also say this is a lense flare? If you rule out the sun or any other source of light reflexion as good as possible and the object stays where it is while moving the cam around a lense flare or any kind of optical lens apparitions where the sun is thr source should be avoided by doing so, right? What is with the "Object" being behind a cloud [03:34 - 07:00] and behind a brunch [18:22 - 19:20} ? I appreciate your answer. Objects which are variously translucent can erroneously APPEAR to be in false relationships to each other- especially when the image has been specifically tweaked to cause that to happen. Hm...nah sorry. I don't buy into that. It is very obvious the object is behind clouds and a solid branch. Also the object is not transluent. |
MoreAboutTunnelVision  User ID: 43530730 Germany07/16/2013 06:09 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Objects which are variously translucent can erroneously APPEAR to be in false relationships to each other- especially when the image has been specifically tweaked to cause that to happen. Quoting: Menow 42219119 Menow is right. Translucent objects can appear to be behind something even though they arent. I tried to make a Visualisation with Paint.NET by using 3 x Layers with the TOP layer transparent. [link to www.imagebanana.com] Edit: [link to www.imagebanana.com] from min3:56 Im pretty certain this is a lens flare... Last Edited by MoreAboutTunnelVision on 07/16/2013 06:16 PM "People hate the truth, luckily the truth doesn't care." Author of "Zeta Talk exposed": [link to novnet.org] |
| Menow User ID: 42219119 United States07/16/2013 06:16 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Menow 42219119 "Features on the object surface are always different as you would expect with a solid planetoid." What? Isn't that the opposite of what would be expected? I suspect almost every experienced or professional photographer knows that a light source does not have to be in frame to produce a lens flare. In fact, about 95% of the lens flares I had to deal with involved light sources that were out of frame. Quoting: Menow 42219119 That is true. You can see many lens flare picture / movies out there where the sun isn't even close in frame. So you also say this is a lense flare? If you rule out the sun or any other source of light reflexion as good as possible and the object stays where it is while moving the cam around a lense flare or any kind of optical lens apparitions where the sun is thr source should be avoided by doing so, right? What is with the "Object" being behind a cloud [03:34 - 07:00] and behind a brunch [18:22 - 19:20} ? I appreciate your answer. Objects which are variously translucent can erroneously APPEAR to be in false relationships to each other- especially when the image has been specifically tweaked to cause that to happen. Hm...nah sorry. I don't buy into that. It is very obvious the object is behind clouds and a solid branch. Also the object is not transluent. The flare is EXTREMELY TRANSLUCENT! THE CLOUDS ARE BRIGHTER THAN THE FLARE, SO IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS IN FRONT! THE BRANCH IS MUCH MORE SOLID THAN THE FLARE,MAKING IT LOOK LIKE IT IS IN FRONT, you idiot! He enhanced the images INTENTIONALLY so it would appear that way! Just give it up... |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 43525483 Germany07/16/2013 06:21 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43525483 ... Objects which are variously translucent can erroneously APPEAR to be in false relationships to each other- especially when the image has been specifically tweaked to cause that to happen. Hm...nah sorry. I don't buy into that. It is very obvious the object is behind clouds and a solid branch. Also the object is not transluent. The flare is EXTREMELY TRANSLUCENT! THE CLOUDS ARE BRIGHTER THAN THE FLARE, SO IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS IN FRONT! THE BRANCH IS MUCH MORE SOLID THAN THE FLARE,MAKING IT LOOK LIKE IT IS IN FRONT, you idiot! He enhanced the images INTENTIONALLY so it would appear that way! Just give it up... Nice try but sorry. The object is not manipulated like you are suggesting. It is not transluent and appears behind a cloud and a branch. He admits that it could be something else though which has to be found out.. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 43525483 Germany07/16/2013 06:22 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Objects which are variously translucent can erroneously APPEAR to be in false relationships to each other- especially when the image has been specifically tweaked to cause that to happen. Quoting: Menow 42219119 Menow is right. Translucent objects can appear to be behind something even though they arent. I tried to make a Visualisation with Paint.NET by using 3 x Layers with the TOP layer transparent. [link to www.imagebanana.com] Edit: [link to www.imagebanana.com] from min3:56 Im pretty certain this is a lens flare... Thats correct if I understand you correctly. I just don't see the object being transluent. |
| Setheory User ID: 22372062 United States07/16/2013 06:23 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | That is true. You can see many lens flare picture / movies out there where the sun isn't even close in frame. So you also say this is a lense flare? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43525483 If you rule out the sun or any other source of light reflexion as good as possible and the object stays where it is while moving the cam around a lense flare or any kind of optical lens apparitions where the sun is thr source should be avoided by doing so, right? What is with the "Object" being behind a cloud [03:34 - 07:00] and behind a brunch [18:22 - 19:20} ? I appreciate your answer. I only watched the first couple of minutes of that video as it was almost 30 minutes long. To be fair, I'll have a look. I appreciate you giving me the times in question. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 43525483 Germany07/16/2013 06:26 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Objects which are variously translucent can erroneously APPEAR to be in false relationships to each other- especially when the image has been specifically tweaked to cause that to happen. Quoting: Menow 42219119 Menow is right. Translucent objects can appear to be behind something even though they arent. I tried to make a Visualisation with Paint.NET by using 3 x Layers with the TOP layer transparent. [link to www.imagebanana.com] Edit: [link to www.imagebanana.com] from min3:56 Im pretty certain this is a lens flare... Thats correct if I understand you correctly. I just don't see the object being transluent. Also he removes the teleconverter and uses a different setup starting at 19:50 - End. The object is still there at the same place although cannot be seen with the same quality as before. |
| MoreAboutTunnelVision User ID: 43530730 Germany07/16/2013 06:26 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Objects which are variously translucent can erroneously APPEAR to be in false relationships to each other- especially when the image has been specifically tweaked to cause that to happen. Quoting: Menow 42219119 Menow is right. Translucent objects can appear to be behind something even though they arent. I tried to make a Visualisation with Paint.NET by using 3 x Layers with the TOP layer transparent. [link to www.imagebanana.com] Edit: [link to www.imagebanana.com] from min3:56 Im pretty certain this is a lens flare... Thats correct if I understand you correctly. I just don't see the object being transluent. Look closely on the second image. If it where not translucent, why are the clouds colored red in a perfect circle, in a constant reddish tone? If it really were behind the clouds you would be seeing shades of white & gray, but they would be clear white, not reddish. EDIT: Another strong argument against a physical planet is that by the comparison of size it would be impossible to hide this from all people around the world. Can the moon be missed? Last Edited by MoreAboutTunnelVision on 07/16/2013 06:30 PM "People hate the truth, luckily the truth doesn't care." Author of "Zeta Talk exposed": [link to novnet.org] |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 43525483 Germany07/16/2013 06:31 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | That is true. You can see many lens flare picture / movies out there where the sun isn't even close in frame. So you also say this is a lense flare? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43525483 If you rule out the sun or any other source of light reflexion as good as possible and the object stays where it is while moving the cam around a lense flare or any kind of optical lens apparitions where the sun is thr source should be avoided by doing so, right? What is with the "Object" being behind a cloud [03:34 - 07:00] and behind a brunch [18:22 - 19:20} ? I appreciate your answer. I only watched the first couple of minutes of that video as it was almost 30 minutes long. To be fair, I'll have a look. I appreciate you giving me the times in question. Thank you. You might want to follow more of the discussion where eventuelly more question come up. I understand that we all just want to know what the guy really sees while putting ps ning and ZT and Nancy Lieder aside. I appreciate your attitude towards this. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 43525483 Germany07/16/2013 06:37 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Objects which are variously translucent can erroneously APPEAR to be in false relationships to each other- especially when the image has been specifically tweaked to cause that to happen. Quoting: Menow 42219119 Menow is right. Translucent objects can appear to be behind something even though they arent. I tried to make a Visualisation with Paint.NET by using 3 x Layers with the TOP layer transparent. [link to www.imagebanana.com] Edit: [link to www.imagebanana.com] from min3:56 Im pretty certain this is a lens flare... Thats correct if I understand you correctly. I just don't see the object being transluent. Look closely on the second image. If it where not translucent, why are the clouds colored red in a perfect circle, in a constant reddish tone? If it really were behind the clouds you would be seeing shades of white & gray, but they would be clear white, not reddish. EDIT: Another strong argument against a physical planet is that by the comparison of size it would be impossible to hide this from all people around the world. Can the moon be missed? Well, I can only assume that this is the effect the filter he applies produces. About the planet thingy: this is not so interesting for me, you know? I don't want to cling to any "believe" system of any kind. All I am asking for is that we find out what he is really seeing despite ps ning, zt and nlieder experiences in earlier times. I am also willing to watch all the movies again and raise my questions with the timeframes given where there is clearance needed. |
| MoreAboutTunnelVision User ID: 43530730 Germany07/16/2013 06:49 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Well, I can only assume that this is the effect the filter he applies produces. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43525483 About the planet thingy: this is not so interesting for me, you know? I don't want to cling to any "believe" system of any kind. All I am asking for is that we find out what he is really seeing despite ps ning, zt and nlieder experiences in earlier times. I am also willing to watch all the movies again and raise my questions with the timeframes given where there is clearance needed. Thats fine. Here another one, which I think is the best to illustrate: [link to www.imagebanana.com] 1-2 : clearly different cloud-colors. (Thick clouds are not transparent) 3-4 : A cloud structure that is cut by the flare. 4-6 : further clouds clearly all additonally colored by the red-overlay. "People hate the truth, luckily the truth doesn't care." Author of "Zeta Talk exposed": [link to novnet.org] |
| Menow User ID: 42219119 United States07/16/2013 06:49 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Menow 42219119 Hm...nah sorry. I don't buy into that. It is very obvious the object is behind clouds and a solid branch. Also the object is not transluent. The flare is EXTREMELY TRANSLUCENT! THE CLOUDS ARE BRIGHTER THAN THE FLARE, SO IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS IN FRONT! THE BRANCH IS MUCH MORE SOLID THAN THE FLARE,MAKING IT LOOK LIKE IT IS IN FRONT, you idiot! He enhanced the images INTENTIONALLY so it would appear that way! Just give it up... Nice try but sorry. The object is not manipulated like you are suggesting. It is not transluent and appears behind a cloud and a branch. He admits that it could be something else though which has to be found out.. I didn't say the "OBJECT" was manipulated, you fucking moran! The IMAGE is processed to bring out the effect that he is after.. that of a REAL "OBJECT" near the sun! Right.. a lens flare declared to be a solid object. Believe what you want. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 43525483 Germany07/16/2013 07:07 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43525483 The flare is EXTREMELY TRANSLUCENT! THE CLOUDS ARE BRIGHTER THAN THE FLARE, SO IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS IN FRONT! THE BRANCH IS MUCH MORE SOLID THAN THE FLARE,MAKING IT LOOK LIKE IT IS IN FRONT, you idiot! He enhanced the images INTENTIONALLY so it would appear that way! Just give it up... Nice try but sorry. The object is not manipulated like you are suggesting. It is not transluent and appears behind a cloud and a branch. He admits that it could be something else though which has to be found out.. I didn't say the "OBJECT" was manipulated, you fucking moran! The IMAGE is processed to bring out the effect that he is after.. that of a REAL "OBJECT" near the sun! Right.. a lens flare declared to be a solid object. Believe what you want. "Idiot, fucking moran." Hm.. can we have a fresh start? |
| Menow User ID: 42219119 United States07/16/2013 07:20 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Menow 42219119 Nice try but sorry. The object is not manipulated like you are suggesting. It is not transluent and appears behind a cloud and a branch. He admits that it could be something else though which has to be found out.. I didn't say the "OBJECT" was manipulated, you fucking moran! The IMAGE is processed to bring out the effect that he is after.. that of a REAL "OBJECT" near the sun! Right.. a lens flare declared to be a solid object. Believe what you want. "Idiot, fucking moran." Hm.. can we have a fresh start? No. I've had it with this idiotic nonsense, recycled over and over again, year after year. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 43525483 Germany07/16/2013 07:30 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43525483 I didn't say the "OBJECT" was manipulated, you fucking moran! The IMAGE is processed to bring out the effect that he is after.. that of a REAL "OBJECT" near the sun! Right.. a lens flare declared to be a solid object. Believe what you want. "Idiot, fucking moran." Hm.. can we have a fresh start? No. I've had it with this idiotic nonsense, recycled over and over again, year after year. Ok, then I'll have to ignore you. Bye... |
| Hydra User ID: 43540820 Germany07/16/2013 07:55 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Well, I would say the guy is opened minded and also searching for the truth. If you watch his other movies you won't find anything that leads to an artificially created lens flare or so (intentionally). I think the guy is doing a good job to find the truth. If it is a lense flare, a optical illusion, an aberration under the sun or whatever, he tries to stay honest and also reacts to critique in both ways, positive and negative. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43322648 Are you sure? - Just watch this video of "Comet Elenin in broad daylight" take by him in Oct 2011: This guy is looking for Nibiru since Sep 2011 and he finds, what he wants to find - regardless how much he has to twist the images. . :ase26122019: Annular Solar Eclipse - December 26, 2019 - Kannur, Kerala, India |
| Menow User ID: 42219119 United States07/16/2013 08:02 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Menow 42219119 Nice try but sorry. The object is not manipulated like you are suggesting. It is not transluent and appears behind a cloud and a branch. He admits that it could be something else though which has to be found out.. I didn't say the "OBJECT" was manipulated, you fucking moran! The IMAGE is processed to bring out the effect that he is after.. that of a REAL "OBJECT" near the sun! Right.. a lens flare declared to be a solid object. Believe what you want. "Idiot, fucking moran." Hm.. can we have a fresh start? The fact that people like you think(or PRETEND to think) that there is a real possibility that some guy on Youtube is exposing what would be the biggest story in the history of Mankind on Earth and that the world's astronomers might ALL be involved in hiding it is simply ludicrous beyond words. It's a fucking lens flare... PERIOD! |
| Menow User ID: 42219119 United States07/16/2013 08:05 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Menow User ID: 42219119 United States07/16/2013 08:07 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Well, I would say the guy is opened minded and also searching for the truth. If you watch his other movies you won't find anything that leads to an artificially created lens flare or so (intentionally). I think the guy is doing a good job to find the truth. If it is a lense flare, a optical illusion, an aberration under the sun or whatever, he tries to stay honest and also reacts to critique in both ways, positive and negative. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43322648 Are you sure? - Just watch this video of "Comet Elenin in broad daylight" take by him in Oct 2011: This guy is looking for Nibiru since Sep 2011 and he finds, what he wants to find - regardless how much he has to twist the images. . |
| Menow User ID: 42219119 United States07/16/2013 08:07 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Well, I would say the guy is opened minded and also searching for the truth. If you watch his other movies you won't find anything that leads to an artificially created lens flare or so (intentionally). I think the guy is doing a good job to find the truth. If it is a lense flare, a optical illusion, an aberration under the sun or whatever, he tries to stay honest and also reacts to critique in both ways, positive and negative. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43322648 Are you sure? - Just watch this video of "Comet Elenin in broad daylight" take by him in Oct 2011: This guy is looking for Nibiru since Sep 2011 and he finds, what he wants to find - regardless how much he has to twist the images. . GAWD!  |
| #Geomagnetic_Storm# User ID: 36140692 United States07/16/2013 08:57 PM  Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Well, I would say the guy is opened minded and also searching for the truth. If you watch his other movies you won't find anything that leads to an artificially created lens flare or so (intentionally). I think the guy is doing a good job to find the truth. If it is a lense flare, a optical illusion, an aberration under the sun or whatever, he tries to stay honest and also reacts to critique in both ways, positive and negative. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43322648 Are you sure? - Just watch this video of "Comet Elenin in broad daylight" take by him in Oct 2011: This guy is looking for Nibiru since Sep 2011 and he finds, what he wants to find - regardless how much he has to twist the images. . GAWD! Yeah. Ain't that something?  |
| MoreAboutTunnelVision User ID: 43530730 Germany07/16/2013 10:06 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Well, I would say the guy is opened minded and also searching for the truth. If you watch his other movies you won't find anything that leads to an artificially created lens flare or so (intentionally). I think the guy is doing a good job to find the truth. If it is a lense flare, a optical illusion, an aberration under the sun or whatever, he tries to stay honest and also reacts to critique in both ways, positive and negative. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43322648 Are you sure? - Just watch this video of "Comet Elenin in broad daylight" take by him in Oct 2011: This guy is looking for Nibiru since Sep 2011 and he finds, what he wants to find - regardless how much he has to twist the images. . GAWD! Yeah. Ain't that something? :coco: "People hate the truth, luckily the truth doesn't care." Author of "Zeta Talk exposed": [link to novnet.org] |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 43525483 Germany07/17/2013 01:23 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Perfect answer, thank you. You now officially admitted that you don't know what this object is. Your only explanation is your suggestion the photographer is using photoshop to create this. Awesome. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43322648 Youtube user "whydotheathensrage" with this two videos is obviously on the right track (in case he did not photoshop this) He`s only causing artifical lenseflares and camera artifacts with a grapic program. Quoting: VeritasN1 Yep, he does that, I am pretty sure about it. The lens flares he doesn't see through the view finder are created by the software. Excellent answer Veritas, too. Let's see what he answers to questions regarding this video: anno636, two days ago you do realize when you point a camera at the sun because its so bright it creates a copy/false image next to the sun always and the reason its is smaller and appears to be a object beside the sun is the camera lens itself the suns light is so bright its reflecting back out from inside the camera itself and projecting the camera lens shape outwards giving you this image on the photo of two objects(the second object is a reflection of the cam lens from the suns light nothing more whydotheathensrage, two days ago I am acutely aware of flares and artifacts, I can tell you this is not a flare as it is never seen through the view finder. This object also has active orb/moons around it that change with time. Ad to that the atmospheric cloud. Also, in my latest video, it appears behind the trees; and clouds,,,, Also the sun is nowhere in any of these shots. the sun is above, well out of frame. Features on the object surface are always different as you would expect with a solid planetoid. whydotheathensrage, 16 minutes ago (07/16/2013 vor 16 If this is a camera anomaly, (still in process of prove / disproving) the tricky part is that it does not show in the viewfinder, only after the picture is exposed and filtered. That said, I am still recording very strange visual aberrations under the sun. This will be the topic of my next movie. thanks for the constructive critique and input- it is always welcome. Well, I would say the guy is opened minded and also searching for the truth. If you watch his other movies you won't find anything that leads to an artificially created lens flare or so (intentionally). I think the guy is doing a good job to find the truth. If it is a lense flare, a optical illusion, an aberration under the sun or whatever, he tries to stay honest and also reacts to critique in both ways, positive and negative. I like his attitude.. Well, Hydra said he has 40 years of experience as a photographer and almost 30 years as an amatuer astronomer yet the only answer he gave (and now you too, Veritas) is that the guy in the video uses photoshop to manipulate or to create lens flares or whatever you mean by that, hence this is not a lens flare nor are these optical lens apparitions of any kind. It must be photoshoped, you say! Just saying... Well, I just woke up and recognized that he could simply make a photo from above the sun at the same angle he makes them below the sun. Is the object still there = lense flare optical lens apparition or whatever is created in or outside the cam for example. If NOT all of the above would need more investigation. |
| 74444 User ID: 74444 United States07/17/2013 03:21 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | And IDW/A.A sneaks back in... Thread: REALTIVITY FINALLY DISQUALIFIED BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE! BREAKING NEWS! (Page 60) He's schooling everyone in the Chandler Wobble -- even though it says on his reference (which he didn't link) that the North Star will remain so for centuries, which directly contradicts his own claims... Sigh. |
| Elemental User ID: 13461811  United Kingdom07/17/2013 07:47 AM  Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | And IDW/A.A sneaks back in... Quoting: 74444 Thread: REALTIVITY FINALLY DISQUALIFIED BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE! BREAKING NEWS! (Page 60) He's schooling everyone in the Chandler Wobble -- even though it says on his reference (which he didn't link) that the North Star will remain so for centuries, which directly contradicts his own claims... Sigh. Even that's not cheering me up today.....:(( energy cannot be destroyed, it can only be transformed. Nothing is so potent as the silent influence of a good example. Illegitimi non carborundum Alea iacta est. Dum vivimus vivamus |
