Dwarf Star

beyosoco · 05-03-2010 10:27AM

namloc1980 wrote: »

Unfortunately you have refused to post these other alleged images of the same phenomenon taken by other people with different cameras. Until you do, this point is spurious at best.

So what you are saying is that if I post another image taken by a n other on a n other camera from a slightly different location at almost the same time on the same day showing exactly the same planet in the sky at a slightly different position then you will say "YES, can't be any more argument about that"? Or will you just try and pick holes in the other image?

From what has gone before in this thread I cannot see any other outcome than the latter, can you?:)

bonkey · 05-03-2010 11:27AM

beyosoco wrote: »

It leaves us with you not answering my question which is: How do you get the same alleged camera anomaly on two totally different cameras with totally different CCDs held by two different people in two different positions?

Myself and my wife can both use seperate cameras, taking shots at comparable times, and both readily (and deliberately) create flare effects on the shot taken.

How is that possible? Its possible, because the physics involved are the same. The effect that creates an anomaly (in our case flare) isn't a flaw in a specific camera...its a flaw (or feature) common to camera design.

Take the explanation offered to you on cameralabs...that the sun is reflecting off the CCD, and creating a second "ghost" image on the lens which is in turn picked up by the CCD. What, about that explanation, suggests that it is something that cannot occur to seperate makes and models of camera? It doesn't require that you (or your wife) have a faulty camera...rather that you both have cameras that behave similarly under similar conditions.

These two images were shot in a rush, they were not framed as you suggest and if you look at my earlier posts you will see my method which is that of shooting in continuous shutter mode

What you have presented here and on cameralabs were pictures taken some 60 seconds apart. On cameralabs, you specifically stated that the anomaly was not visible in shots taken before and after the one showing something.

If, as you say, you're shooting in burst mode, then you should have an absolute slew of pictures between those three points in time...or at least you should have three sets of bursts....including one when every shot should show this anomaly. Not only that, but with the speed you're suggesting it moves, coupled to the resolution of the camera, it should be possible to show that movement within a single burst.

Again, though, if you have that type of evidence, I'm left wondering why you haven't presented it, and also why you claimed you pore over the multitude of pictures you take, looking for a glimpse. A massive object, travelling through the sky isn't something you should be searching for a glimpse of in one of a burst of photos...its something you should be able to see and track and (obviously) actually set out to photo rather than capture accidentally and then hunt for.

as is evident in my other videos which you might not have looked into.

With respect, you've asked people here to look at the photos, and to comment on them. I've done so. I've also found other places where you were also discussing the photos, where (again) you were offering the same type of information, based on relatively few shots.

If there's other sources you feel I should look at it, maybe you could actually reference them directly, rather than just peripherally like this?

I notice, incidentally, that you didn't answer the questions I asked....did you observe these phenomena in the sky, or only on the images of the sky that you took?

bonkey · 05-03-2010 11:35AM

beyosoco wrote: »

So what you are saying is that if I post another image taken by a n other on a n other camera from a slightly different location at almost the same time on the same day showing exactly the same planet in the sky at a slightly different position then you will say "YES, can't be any more argument about that"? Or will you just try and pick holes in the other image?

From what has gone before in this thread I cannot see any other outcome than the latter, can you?:)

In fairness, he said that without the second shots, the point is spurious....not that the second shots would prove the point.

The shots from the second camera would give something to compare. They would allow people to do some basic comparison and calculation....compare colour, size, apparent location (assuming both shots had identifiably similar reerence points), etc.

Without the ability to compare, all we have is an insistence that they're showing the same thing. This may or may not be accurate, and we have no way to judge.

bonkey · 05-03-2010 11:51AM

So, I've gone to youtube, and had a look at some of the videos.

So far, not one of them shows a series of burst shots, let alone a series of shots with a clearly-moving body in them.

If there's one that shows such a series, please let me know and I'll have a look.

neonman · 05-03-2010 01:02PM

There is only one thing for it so we can put this to bed.

A Boardies road trip to Mayo to meet beyosoco and show us this wonderful planet X. I've my Nikon D700 ready to go. I'll bring my tripod to eliminate camera shake as well just in case :rolleyes:

Just saying.......

Neon

Misterpphead · 05-03-2010 01:54PM

Any excuse for a session eh......:D

beyosoco · 05-03-2010 10:02PM

Over the last ten months I have taken thousands of photographs of the sky. I chose to share the most extraordinary of them all which shows a white planet sporting faint red wings close to the sun near to sunset.

I do not know for sure what the planet is. I cannot. But I do know what it is not.

It IS a real, unaltered photograph. It is NOT a camera anomaly.

If my suspicions are correct, the consequences for us all may be dire. From widespread catastrophe on an unprecedented scale, to an extinction level event.

I have already sought opinions from various experts, but astronomers clammed up - “NASA says there is no such thing”, and camera experts with no expertise in astronomy predictably suggested camera anomaly. And so on. I suppose on one level I knew it was pointless. Experts will claim to think outside the box, but when the view over the top becomes frightening, they jump back in and pull the lid down.

And so, I decided to meet the non-experts. With hindsight it was a bad decision.

Here, on boards.ie most questions directed at me suggest those who asked see conspiracy where there is none and, amazingly, those same conspiracy spotters appear unable to appreciate the all too real global conspiracy to obscure the sun and pollute our skies with aerosols. Yet this spraying is actually visible in the skies over Ireland, it is happening every day here in the West of Ireland, it is well documented worldwide and can be viewed and photographed by each and every one of you.

Board.ie members have, it seems to me, point-scored, nit-picked, harangued, almost jeered, and at times stopped only just short of calling me a liar.

Liar I am not.

I am not the only individual to have photographed this rogue planet. I make no claim to be such. I just happen, by pure chance on the day, to have captured a shockingly clear image of it with a good camera. Its movements are unknown and therefore unpredictable, it is elusive, and false cloud cover created by chemtrails hides it.

Will I continue this 'debate? Will I say to Captain Chaos, that if he thinks chemtrails are “so-called” he cannot observe the sky closely, and has therefore little chance of seeing what else is really there? Will I let Namloc know the language he uses to frame his questions seems to betray a belligerence which affords me no respect, and which I have found particularly distasteful? Will I challenge bonkey to upload 200 plus shots taken within a couple of minutes to Youtube when the maximum time for a video is a short 10 minutes, and will I advise him that even were that possible which it is not, he would still be disappointed that no movement will be apparent? Or will I ask him to produce for me two camera flares the same shape, same size, same colour, the same place in the sky on the same day from two different cameras used by two different people some distance apart and tell him I want a visual reference point common to both images just to prove it's the same place? Or maybe challenge him to produce a white camera flare with red wings? Will I suggest to neonman and Misterphead they are likely to see rogue stars aplenty if they down enough pints?

The photograph I shared with you was the photograph of a lifetime, in more ways than one.

It is a brave individual who faces up to his own insignificance. It is easier by far to ignore the improbable, especially when the improbable is unthinkable.

Good luck to you all. I'm logging off.

“A person who is capable of thinking for themselves has first to throw out everything they were taught by the usual indoctrinations we all passed through.
Visible..Les

MarkR · 05-03-2010 10:10PM

So.... You're not going to show the rest of the burst sequence?

namloc1980 · 05-03-2010 10:12PM

Maybe you should show the rest of the images you claim to have?

fontanalis · 06-03-2010 12:12AM

beyosoco wrote: »

Over the last ten months I have taken thousands of photographs of the sky. I chose to share the most extraordinary of them all which shows a white planet sporting faint red wings close to the sun near to sunset.

I do not know for sure what the planet is. I cannot. But I do know what it is not.

It IS a real, unaltered photograph. It is NOT a camera anomaly.

If my suspicions are correct, the consequences for us all may be dire. From widespread catastrophe on an unprecedented scale, to an extinction level event.

I have already sought opinions from various experts, but astronomers clammed up - “NASA says there is no such thing”, and camera experts with no expertise in astronomy predictably suggested camera anomaly. And so on. I suppose on one level I knew it was pointless. Experts will claim to think outside the box, but when the view over the top becomes frightening, they jump back in and pull the lid down.

And so, I decided to meet the non-experts. With hindsight it was a bad decision.

Here, on boards.ie most questions directed at me suggest those who asked see conspiracy where there is none and, amazingly, those same conspiracy spotters appear unable to appreciate the all too real global conspiracy to obscure the sun and pollute our skies with aerosols. Yet this spraying is actually visible in the skies over Ireland, it is happening every day here in the West of Ireland, it is well documented worldwide and can be viewed and photographed by each and every one of you.

Board.ie members have, it seems to me, point-scored, nit-picked, harangued, almost jeered, and at times stopped only just short of calling me a liar.

Liar I am not.

I am not the only individual to have photographed this rogue planet. I make no claim to be such. I just happen, by pure chance on the day, to have captured a shockingly clear image of it with a good camera. Its movements are unknown and therefore unpredictable, it is elusive, and false cloud cover created by chemtrails hides it.

Will I continue this 'debate? Will I say to Captain Chaos, that if he thinks chemtrails are “so-called” he cannot observe the sky closely, and has therefore little chance of seeing what else is really there? Will I let Namloc know the language he uses to frame his questions seems to betray a belligerence which affords me no respect, and which I have found particularly distasteful? Will I challenge bonkey to upload 200 plus shots taken within a couple of minutes to Youtube when the maximum time for a video is a short 10 minutes, and will I advise him that even were that possible which it is not, he would still be disappointed that no movement will be apparent? Or will I ask him to produce for me two camera flares the same shape, same size, same colour, the same place in the sky on the same day from two different cameras used by two different people some distance apart and tell him I want a visual reference point common to both images just to prove it's the same place? Or maybe challenge him to produce a white camera flare with red wings? Will I suggest to neonman and Misterphead they are likely to see rogue stars aplenty if they down enough pints?

The photograph I shared with you was the photograph of a lifetime, in more ways than one.

It is a brave individual who faces up to his own insignificance. It is easier by far to ignore the improbable, especially when the improbable is unthinkable.

Good luck to you all. I'm logging off.

“A person who is capable of thinking for themselves has first to throw out everything they were taught by the usual indoctrinations we all passed through.
Visible..Les

I hope you remember us when you're famous.

kryogen · 06-03-2010 01:46AM

beyosoco wrote: »

This is a long thread for no real discussion, or maybe you meant it's not really going your way?

1. there has not actually been much discussion in the sense that you have refused to entertain any theory but what you have already decided to be fact, despite being presented with reasonable alternatives, so its a pretty long thread of, claims, piss takes, and stubborness

2. Do you think the thread is going your way?

DeBunny · 06-03-2010 05:29AM

Aw man! How did I miss this one? Hopefully there's enough rebuttal on here to dissuade any one else from believing that this can even be called a theory.

Perhaps there should be a dedicated sticky on how to formulate and prove a theory with some amount of credibility. Not rules as such, just guide lines on forming a more solid theory.

beyosoco; if you want the general population to believe your theory then you're gonna have to play by their rules and raise your standards when it comes to evidence. Pointing to a chosen hand full, out of thousands, of photographs and just saying ''But look at it!'' doesn't really cut it.

You took ''thousands'' of photographs but only some of them had what you wanted to see. Does this not tell you any thing?
If there was something in the sky then the ratio of photos with something to the ratio of photos with nothing would be reversed in your favour. But because there is nothing in the sky the ratio is not in your favour. If the majority of your photographs had this anomaly your theory might some amount of credibility.

Also, if there was another star in this system it would be far from ''elusive'' and it's trajectory would be very predictable. More Junior Cert. level science.

Torakx · 06-03-2010 05:45PM

DeBunny wrote: »

Aw man! How did I miss this one? Hopefully there's enough rebuttal on here to dissuade any one else from believing that this can even be called a theory.

Perhaps there should be a dedicated sticky on how to formulate and prove a theory with some amount of credibility. Not rules as such, just guide lines on forming a more solid theory.

beyosoco; if you want the general population to believe your theory then you're gonna have to play by their rules and raise your standards when it comes to evidence. Pointing to a chosen hand full, out of thousands, of photographs and just saying ''But look at it!'' doesn't really cut it.

You took ''thousands'' of photographs but only some of them had what you wanted to see. Does this not tell you any thing?
If there was something in the sky then the ratio of photos with something to the ratio of photos with nothing would be reversed in your favour. But because there is nothing in the sky the ratio is not in your favour. If the majority of your photographs had this anomaly your theory might some amount of credibility.

Also, if there was another star in this system it would be far from ''elusive'' and it's trajectory would be very predictable. More Junior Cert. level science.

Can it not be done with 2 video cameras with a shaded lens for the sun and possibly a bit of zoom?
But even if it was,who is going to have 2 cams AND go to the trouble.

Bonkeys suggestion of burst shots from 2 regular cams might also be easier to do and makes sense to me.

DeBunny · 06-03-2010 09:00PM

Torakx wrote: »

Can it not be done with 2 video cameras with a shaded lens for the sun and possibly a bit of zoom?
But even if it was,who is going to have 2 cams AND go to the trouble.

Bonkeys suggestion of burst shots from 2 regular cams might also be easier to do and makes sense to me.

Ostrom · 07-03-2010 02:28AM

I love astronomy and photography, i'll mock up a few on the next clear evening and send them your way, no bother! It happens quite often. Its why we have neutral density filters and lens hoods - and also why we shoot so many shots of a particular scene - fire off enough frames, vary your settings and you will get the right shot eventually....

uprising2 · 07-03-2010 03:32AM

PIC 1

PIC 2

Ok OP, I havent got involved in this before but I have been looking at your posts here and elsewhere, firstly I'd like to say that I'm only commenting on this pic (pic 1 ), you will notice both your pic 1 and the other pic 2 have the sun and another object, the other object in pic 2 is an internal reflection of the sun caused by the sun reflecting off either the sensor or an internal glass element, then reflecting back in off another element and hitting the sensor. This is what everybody has been telling you happened with your pic.

I disagree!

Your pic 1 is definately not a reflection of the sun, it would look like the example in pic 2, the planet in your pic is clearly being lit from one side and in shadow on the other side thats facing away from the sun, if it were a reflection from the sun it wouldn't have any shadow.

Having said that I'm not saying it is or isn't Nibiru, just pointing something out to you.

Angus Og · 07-03-2010 03:52AM

This is well known phenomenon dating back years. There are some good photos, and even a painting and woodcut relating to it on this page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_dog

bonkey · 08-03-2010 05:12PM

beyosoco wrote: »

Will I challenge bonkey to upload 200 plus shots taken within a couple of minutes to Youtube when the maximum time for a video is a short 10 minutes, and will I advise him that even were that possible which it is not, he would still be disappointed that no movement will be apparent?

What you see in this case as impossible, I see as technically trivial.

If I had 200 shots taken in burst-mode, I'd build a 10-frame-a-second animation of them, which would run through all 200 shots in 20 seconds.

Indeed, using this technique, I could take one frame per second (assuming my camera shot that fast continuously and I had enough storage), build a video of 10-frames-per-second, and put a representative sample of an hour's worth of footage into 6 minutes of my video.

Perhaps you simply didn't think the problem fully through, and now accept that there is, of course, a tehcnically simple solution to what you thought simply couldn't happen. If so, then perhaps you should consider how adamant that you should be that it is impossible for camera-induced artefacts to be the explanation behind what you have taken photo's of.

I note in passing, once more, that you still haven't clarified whether or not you saw this alleged-planet with the naked eye.

As for there being no apparent movement...that wouldn't concern me in the slightest. I would point out that it at least puts a calculable upper-limit on the claimed speed that the object was moving through the heavens. It means that any suggestion that it moved significantly across the sky in two pictures taken a minute apart must be incorrect...AS 200 frames, even at video speed, would give over 6 seconds of elapsed time, in which one would expect the object to move 1/10th of the distance it was alleged to have covered in a minute.

Or will I ask him to produce for me two camera flares the same shape, same size, same colour, the same place in the sky on the same day from two different cameras used by two different people some distance apart and tell him I want a visual reference point common to both images just to prove it's the same place?

If I was trying to allege that they weren't camera flares, but rather some sort of flames in the sky that weren't just camera anomalies, I would consider that a perfectly reasonable request.

If I was trying to allege that I had photos from different camera's, showing the same flames in they sky, then I'd certainly show the photos.

If it was something that Mrs. Bonkey and I Were repeatedly setting out to capture, then I'd certainly arrange with her before we set out to include identifiable common ground-features in our pictures.

Had we not thought of that, then I'd accept that it was only our word that the pictures were taken at nearby locations at teh same time, and then set out to repeat the exercise with a solution to that limitation. I certainly wouldn't try and deride someone for offering me suggestions as to how to improve my case, unless there was some reason why I couldn't repeat the exercise.

I don't know what is on your pictures. What I do know is that you are making claims far beyond the evidence that you've produced...including claims of having far more (and better) evidence. This latter is what always gets me. If you have more/better evidence, then why wouldn't you show it? There are picture services you can upload to for no cost. For negligble costs, you can have tens of gigabytes of online, accessible storage. Hundreds of photos, in their original state? No problem.

At the end of the day, I don't knock you for one second for believing what you believe. I don't believe you have presented a convincing argument that you are correct, and for that reason I'm not inclined to believe you are correct.

derfderf · 10-03-2010 01:48PM

I could be wrong here but from the way less than half the side of the sphere facing us is in shadow, doesn't that mean either it's close enough to the earth that the light is reflecting back from earth to light up this half, meanin it would be relativly small, or else it's past the distance of the earth to the sun meaning, in comparison to the size of the sun, that the sphere is bigger than Jupiter?

Mahatma coat · 13-03-2010 01:13AM

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/invisible-star-shooting-comets-at-earth/story-e6frfku0-1225840135982

Invisible star 'shooting comets at Earth'

* By Paul Sutherland at The Sun
* From: NewsCore
* March 12, 2010 4:56PM

AN invisible star responsible for the extinction of dinosaurs may be circling the Sun and causing comets to bombard the Earth, scientists said.

The brown dwarf - up to five times the size of Jupiter - could be to blame for mass extinctions that occur here every 26 million years, The Sun reports.

The star - nicknamed Nemesis by Nasa scientists - would be invisible as it only emits infrared light and is incredibly distant.

Nemesis is believed to orbit our solar system at 25,000 times the distance of the Earth to the Sun.

As it spins through the galaxy, its gravitational pull drags icy bodies out of the Oort Cloud - a vast sphere of rock and dust twice as far away as Nemesis.

These "snowballs" are thrown towards Earth as comets, causing devastation similar to the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.

Related Coverage

* First images from high-tech telescope NEWS.com.au, 18 Feb 2010
* Invisible beauties of our skies Daily Telegraph, 18 Feb 2010
* NASA on hunt for distant galaxies Adelaide Now, 15 Dec 2009
* NASA blasts off space mapping satellite NEWS.com.au, 14 Dec 2009
* Green object streaks across sky Courier Mail, 19 Nov 2009

Now Nasa scientists believe they will be able to find Nemesis using a new heat-seeking telescope that began scanning the skies in January.

The Wide-Field Infrared Survey Explorer - expected to find a thousand brown dwarfs within 25 light years of the Sun - has already sent back a photo of a comet possibly dislodged from the Oort Cloud.

Scientists' first clue to the existence of Nemesis was the bizarre orbit of a dwarf planet called Sedna.
Scientists believe its unusual, 12,000-year-long oval orbit could be explained by a massive celestial body.

Mike Brown, who discovered Sedna in 2003, said: "Sedna is a very odd object - it shouldn't be there.

"The only way to get on an eccentric orbit is to have some giant body kick you - so what is out there?"

Professor John Matese, of the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, said most comets come from the same part of the Oort Cloud.

He added: "There is statistically significant evidence that this concentration of comets could be caused by a companion to the Sun."

Well apparently there is SOMETHING out there acording to NASA

studiorat · 13-03-2010 01:33AM

I prefer the coverage the Sun gives it.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2889372/Earth-under-attack-from-Death-Star.html

Here's a good article on the subject:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/nemesis_010320-2.html

Jonathan Tate is the director of Spaceguard U.K., which lobbies for a government response to the threat of asteroids. Tate is among those who see no rush to find Nemesis. He would rather see money spent on more immediate searches for asteroids closer to Earth that might prove to be humanity's undoing in coming decades or centuries.

As Tate points out, proving that mass extinctions occur every 26 million years, regardless of the cause, is only of academic interest: Humans may not likely to be around to care, as many researchers don't expect our species to last that long. If we do survive, there will likely be plenty of time to worry.

There's lots of things out there, Nemesis is way out there though; literally.

Or as one wag put it, nice to see the solar system has a built in anti-virus.

kryogen · 13-03-2010 02:51AM

gotta agree with studiorat there

JAKEYCAKEY · 15-03-2010 01:23PM

Kepti wrote: »

He already addressed camera anomalies in the first post. Ok, he didn't actually address them at all. He just arbitrarily decided that people weren't allowed to bring up the most logical explanations.

I believe that this is actually a cleverly concealed conspiracy by The Blind. They're attempting to trick the ignorant and the gullible into staring at the sun(s) for prolonged periods of time in order to "level the playing field".

I agree haha

gamalrizaldi · 01-04-2010 11:46PM

beyosoco wrote: »

Over the last ten months I have taken thousands of photographs of the sky. I chose to share the most extraordinary of them all which shows a white planet sporting faint red wings close to the sun near to sunset.

I do not know for sure what the planet is. I cannot. But I do know what it is not.

It IS a real, unaltered photograph. It is NOT a camera anomaly.

If my suspicions are correct, the consequences for us all may be dire. From widespread catastrophe on an unprecedented scale, to an extinction level event.

I have already sought opinions from various experts, but astronomers clammed up - “NASA says there is no such thing”, and camera experts with no expertise in astronomy predictably suggested camera anomaly. And so on. I suppose on one level I knew it was pointless. Experts will claim to think outside the box, but when the view over the top becomes frightening, they jump back in and pull the lid down.

And so, I decided to meet the non-experts. With hindsight it was a bad decision.

Here, on boards.ie most questions directed at me suggest those who asked see conspiracy where there is none and, amazingly, those same conspiracy spotters appear unable to appreciate the all too real global conspiracy to obscure the sun and pollute our skies with aerosols. Yet this spraying is actually visible in the skies over Ireland, it is happening every day here in the West of Ireland, it is well documented worldwide and can be viewed and photographed by each and every one of you.

Board.ie members have, it seems to me, point-scored, nit-picked, harangued, almost jeered, and at times stopped only just short of calling me a liar.

Liar I am not.

I am not the only individual to have photographed this rogue planet. I make no claim to be such. I just happen, by pure chance on the day, to have captured a shockingly clear image of it with a good camera. Its movements are unknown and therefore unpredictable, it is elusive, and false cloud cover created by chemtrails hides it.

Will I continue this 'debate? Will I say to Captain Chaos, that if he thinks chemtrails are “so-called” he cannot observe the sky closely, and has therefore little chance of seeing what else is really there? Will I let Namloc know the language he uses to frame his questions seems to betray a belligerence which affords me no respect, and which I have found particularly distasteful? Will I challenge bonkey to upload 200 plus shots taken within a couple of minutes to Youtube when the maximum time for a video is a short 10 minutes, and will I advise him that even were that possible which it is not, he would still be disappointed that no movement will be apparent? Or will I ask him to produce for me two camera flares the same shape, same size, same colour, the same place in the sky on the same day from two different cameras used by two different people some distance apart and tell him I want a visual reference point common to both images just to prove it's the same place? Or maybe challenge him to produce a white camera flare with red wings? Will I suggest to neonman and Misterphead they are likely to see rogue stars aplenty if they down enough pints?

The photograph I shared with you was the photograph of a lifetime, in more ways than one.

It is a brave individual who faces up to his own insignificance. It is easier by far to ignore the improbable, especially when the improbable is unthinkable.

Good luck to you all. I'm logging off.

“A person who is capable of thinking for themselves has first to throw out everything they were taught by the usual indoctrinations we all passed through.
Visible..Les

hi there, all of you.. halo from indonesia

1a.

1b.

1c.

2a.

2b.

this is interesting pictures beyosoco, btw i already do some research in your original two pictures (1a & 2a).. and guess what? its a real pictures for sure you have here, meaning that is absolutely no photoshop at all..

btw iam new here, so halo everyone :pac:
about nibiru, here is some give from mr google for all of you

kryogen · 02-04-2010 12:33AM

i dont believe you are new here tbh

gamalrizaldi · 02-04-2010 01:40AM

kryogen wrote: »

i dont believe you are new here tbh

fair enough:rolleyes:
btw i need some sleep, its 7.30 in the morning here anyway:o
here something special:

from poland, photoshop? or nibiru:D

robtri · 02-04-2010 08:30AM

gamalrizaldi wrote: »

fair enough:rolleyes:
btw i need some sleep, its 7.30 in the morning here anyway:o
here something special:

from poland, photoshop? or nibiru:D

considering one sun is a replica of the other, down as far as cloud formation covering it...

i am guessing fake....

Anita Blow · 02-04-2010 07:55PM

I was going to say the same thing..when you were photoshopping it you probably should've have left photoshopping the light distortion where the Sun touches the water.

neonman · 16-04-2010 08:30AM

No flights over Ireland all day yesterday or today and guess what no extra planet that I can see around or near the sun. Funny that.

O wait someone is going to come back saying that the emergency flights that are allowed are covering up the planet :rolleyes: silly me.

Yitzhak Rabin · 16-04-2010 09:02AM

neonman wrote: »

No flights over Ireland all day yesterday or today and guess what no extra planet that I can see around or near the sun. Funny that.

O wait someone is going to come back saying that the emergency flights that are allowed are covering up the planet :rolleyes: silly me.

Don't be silly, its obvious it was a test run of activating a man made volcano to see if the ash from it could be used in lieu of thousands of airplanes chemtrailing the sky. It clearly has worked as I haven't seen nibiriu, therefore it exists.

Dwarf Star

Comments