PDA

View Full Version : From where are those images?



Jairo
2010-Jul-25, 11:38 PM
HBs once used picures of a variable star in Monoceros to falsely claim it was Nibiru.

In this youtube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39hhrGW0UKo), there are images of dots orbiting something, and a body which looks like a gas giant's satellite.

Do you recognize them? Could they be actually real images, but of something else in the sky?

Thanks.

caveman1917
2010-Jul-25, 11:48 PM
The link is broken. At the start you have two times 'http://http//'

Jairo
2010-Jul-26, 12:24 AM
Sorry. This is the one: www.youtube.com/watch?v=39hhrGW0UKo

Night G
2010-Jul-26, 12:53 AM
Orcus is not Nibiru. The rest of the nonsense in that utube video does not merit comment.

Jairo
2010-Jul-26, 01:08 AM
I know... The text isn't so important. I was curious about the images. I just throwed the first movie I found with them.

Swift
2010-Jul-26, 02:14 AM
A couple of white dots on the screen... they could be absolutely anything. And that image at the end, the "x-ray image", again could be absolutely anything (and why would you image a planet by x-rays). If he knows where it is in the sky, why doesn't he just give the coordinates? There are dozens of astronomers right here on BAUT that could go find it, completely without NASA (and NASA couldn't cover it up).

Now I'm going to put on my moderator hat...

Jairo - Are you advocating the concept of Nibiru? Or are you just asking questions? If you are just asking questions, I will move this thread. ATM is only for people who are trying convince the rest of us of an Against the Mainstream idea, like Nibiru.

Jairo
2010-Jul-26, 02:57 AM
No, I'm not advocating it. I just posted here because it was about debunking Nibiru.

Again, I didn't focus in the arguments in the video. I just would like to know if the images are real, misatributed pictures of something, like HBs did before with V838 Monocerotis.

They are used in a lot of videos. I just used the first I got.

Swift
2010-Jul-26, 06:08 AM
Moved to Q&A

caveman1917
2010-Jul-26, 06:12 PM
It could be anything really. I'm perplexed by the fact that the gas giant (the blurry red thing in the center), is so blurred out it doesn't even look spherical. But the white dots around it are in perfect focus (especially starting from second image on). This would seem to suggest the image is just the result of some copy-pasting from different sources, seems quite manipulated to me.

Hungry4info
2010-Jul-26, 07:16 PM
One of them, to me, looks like the planets at HR 8799. (image (http://trustyservant.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/hr8799b.jpg))

But I agree that some photomanipulation has occurred.

Jeff Root
2010-Jul-26, 09:16 PM
The dots are most likely computer-generated. If they are actual
images, I think there are only four possibilities: Moons of Jupiter,
Saturn, or Uranus, or stars orbiting the black hole at the galactic
center. In any of these cases the image would have to be edited
to appear as it does. Jupiter, Saturn, or Uranus would have to be
removed and replaced by the red smudge. There should be four
moons visible if it is Jupiter, because Jupiter has four large moons
(as well as numerous small moons). Saturn has one big moon
(Titan, the only moon with an atmosphere, which is red), and four
medium-size moons (plus many small moons). Uranus has five
medium-size moons (plus many small moons). If it is the galactic
center, I would expect many other stars to be visible. Images of
stars close to the galactic center can only be made in infrared.
I am pretty sure that at least the closest star to the center has
made a full orbit since images started being obtained, but I have
not seen the images.

In any case, if we were looking at a giant planet orbited by smaller
planets, the giant planet should be about as bright as the smaller
ones, or brighter.

I can't identify the final image, either, but it looks a lot like Phoebe,
a small moon of Saturn, as seen in in this picture:

http://www.celestialmuse.org/pangloss/Saturn_Addon/saturn_moons.jpg

Phoebe is about as small as a moon or asteroid can get and still
most likely be quite round. It is 220 km in diameter. All smaller
bodies are fairly lumpy or oblong.

Whatever is in the final image, it certainly was not taken with
X-rays. It was either made in visible, UV, or IR light.

I classified the sizes of our Solar System's moons here:

http://www.freemars.org/jeff2/moons1a.htm

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

mugaliens
2010-Jul-27, 03:19 PM
Utter hogwash. Using Earth's perihelion and Pluto's aphelion, the offset angle would be just 1.96 degrees from head-on. Thus, it would be seen in full phase, not 2/3 phase as it's depicted. But that's only if viewed from the vicinity of Earth, which then begs this next question: Which of the outer planetary probes have x-ray vision? Looks a lot more like IR, to me.


No, I'm not advocating it. I just posted here because it was about debunking Nibiru.

Again, I didn't focus in the arguments in the video. I just would like to know if the images are real, misatributed pictures of something, like HBs did before with V838 Monocerotis.

They are used in a lot of videos. I just used the first I got.

Fair enough. Jeff, it does look a great deal like Phoebe (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f1/Phoebe_2005_Mercator_PIA07795.jpg). Euphemus and Talasis are clearly visible, as is the crater adjacent to Euphemus and the much larger crater above Admetus.

Jairo, in answer to your question about whether the images are real. As for the dots, I can't say, though I suspect they're computer generated, save for the last image, which looks amazingly like Phoebe. Next thing the Nibs will be claiming is that it somehow escaped Saturn's gravity...

karadan
2010-Jul-27, 04:41 PM
It seems strange that some people who want so badly to believe in this nibiru **, would fabricate evidence in order to prove its existence.

Really very strange.

caveman1917
2010-Jul-27, 04:53 PM
Perhaps it's not that they want to believe in Nibiru, but that they want others to believe in them?

mugaliens
2010-Jul-28, 01:48 AM
Perhaps it's not that they want to believe in Nibiru, but that they want others to believe in them?

I think you hit the nail on the head, though it's puzzling as to how some people expect others to believe in them, when they themselves believe in the least substantiated, evidentially contrary, and just plane silly things.

caveman1917
2010-Jul-29, 12:27 AM
I think you hit the nail on the head, though it's puzzling as to how some people expect others to believe in them, when they themselves believe in the least substantiated, evidentially contrary, and just plane silly things.

All just speculation of course, but perhaps it has to do with the fact that if for example i told you that light speed is a constant, and showed you the evidence, and you then believed it, it would be that you're not really believing in me, but in the evidence.

There always seems to be a 'me vs the rest of the world' thing going on with CT's. What i think is that they want others to believe in how extraordinary their mind is. In the sense that the rest of the world 'must' believe it to be false, for it to be good enough for them to propose it. I think it's a relative thing, 'my mind vs other minds'. If others (qualified scientists) already believe in it, there's nothing for me to gain there.