these are pics someone posted andone got an exlanation on them Look espcially at the last on the negative..

http://groups.msn.com/DebbsPiks/object.msnw

Lens flares/dispersion due to clouds/sundogs/etc/etc/etc
Same old story...

I'm sorry mate, but there is nothing there at all. These past few months I've been swatting up on lense flares and we have several prime examples here. It's what you'll get if you take photos of the sun directly. I said it once before, you're going to need the proper filter to give accurate photos of what is lurking near the sun.

Look, take a glance at this page here:

http://www.spaceweather.com/eclipses...y03_page2.html

Pictures from the solar eclipse. Everyday people, with more experience then all the PX photographers put together I'm sure, have taken photos of the sun. Look carefully: do you see PX? Nope, neither do I.

__________________
The following tale of alien encounter is true and by true, I mean false. Its all lies. But they're entertaining lies, and in the end isn't that the real truth? The answer is no. - Leonard Nimoy, The Simpsons (maybe regarding Planet X?) :D

but if you look at the last 2 pics, negative A it shows something planet like at around 5:00 near the sun, the same thing seen on the soho pics and other pics taken, that is the object I am wondering about.

The eclipse would've been the photo opportunity for PX - if it had existed in the first place. Frankly, it would've been darn near impossible to miss a planet near the sun during the event.
Did the PXers pick up on this, or did they miss it?

// The Astrosmurf

Did you look at the eclipse pictures? There is no object at 5 o'clock from the sun! SOHO also shows this! You need the proper equipment to take photos of the sun like that. This person does not have it. It does not filter out any of the glare therefore you get these lense flares.

Look at the eclipse photos again: PX would be glaringly obvious in the sky. The moon would cover the sun, bar a ring around the edge and PX would be sticking out the side if it gives off light like Nancy is saying. It's not there!!!

__________________
The following tale of alien encounter is true and by true, I mean false. Its all lies. But they're entertaining lies, and in the end isn't that the real truth? The answer is no. - Leonard Nimoy, The Simpsons (maybe regarding Planet X?) :D

I couldn't even see what it is you are trying to show, but it is NOT PX. What is with you skywatcher? Has the Earth stopped rotating, or has the pole shift occured, has 90% of the population died? NO. The fact that you are still here posting these "what is this" posts over and over again is proof of that. Have you seen PX or taken a picture of it? NO. What will it take for you to understand?

__________________
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." Carl Sagan

I would like to know why skywatcher, after numerous examples, hasn't learned to recognize the problems with these images.

Why?

I also wonder if skywatcher has bothered to take any pictures? Has he compared what he saw to what was on the film/photo? Has he wondered why there is a difference?

Somehow I doubt it.

you have always had good explanations for all the so called PX pics but yet no one has an explanation for the last 2negative, what is that planet like object, what could it be, i am just curious

I see nothing in the negative; you don't mean that dark spike going into the wall do you?

As for the 'positive' view, yeah, there's a round thingy below the sun, but then the sun also looks like a fish.

Oh no! PX has turned the sun into a giant fish!!!

Above the sun at the 11 o'clock and 12 o'clock positions are two more 'spots'. Would those be Planets Y and Z coming to finish us off?

Come on man, these pictures are indistinguishable from the last half dozen other “hey what do you guys think of these pictures” threads you've started.

Listen, here’s a tip from the nuclear industry. It’s a training concept meant to help prevent accidents and is great in all circumstances (and as this is an astronomy board the name fits in great too): STAR – Stop Think Act Review

So when you see more pictures and want to post them:
Stop before you immediately post
Think “Haven’t I seen dozens of pictures just like these that the good folks over at BABB have explained over and over?”
Act Compare the latest round of pictures to the ones that have been explained and then decide whether or not to post a thread – which should be 90% no.
Review Look back at the comparison you made and realize that yes, you have begun figure out how to objectively decide whether or not a picture shows PX on your own.

Then if you’re still sure the photo shows PX, do a post with your reasons why you think so. Not just “what do you think of this?”

My apologies for my aggravated tone, but you’ve got to start thinking on your own or you will become labeled a “troll”. These posts of yours are really starting to look like they’re nothing more than an attempt to incite a reaction, which I admit to having just had.

http://www.spaceweather.com/eclipses...3a/Okonek1.jpg

ARGGGGHHHHHH! Theres 3 PXs *runs and hides*

http://groups.msn.com/DebbsPiks/obje...o&PhotoID=1276

Dude... I don't know what you are seeing in the above picture, but Planet X IS NOT there.

There is nothing in the sky... The blue pointed thing coming out is just a negative lens flare that is coming off of the round lens flare in the proper picture.

I have been outside and taken pictures of the sun myself at dawn, midday and dusk... There is nothing there. All that happens to create these things on pictures that people are posting claiming to be PX is that the light of the sun is catching on the lense of the camera. In my camera, where you look through the viewfinder, you can see a little round piece that shows you where the centre of the picture is. I have even used this to manipulate the lense flare.

Also... Please tell me this. If these pictures are showing us PX, then how come it is always moving its position next to the sun from picture to picture and almost no two pictures are the same? If it was that unstable so as to be far away to the bottom left in one picture and then the top right in another, and then change its position AGAIN in another... then surely we would be having extremely major problems on this planet by now.

There is nothing there.... These people posting these pictures are taking you for a ride.

Please grasp reality!!!

So now they are taking pictures of a CLOUDY sky and seeing things?

I weep for this planet's future. I mean....Cmon people!

Girl 101

SKYWATCHER:

Read this carefully.
We have given you hundreds of explanations for your pictures, but you obviously don't read any of them. Instead, you choose to believe every single thing that you read on Godlike Forums.

Why can't you take what we tell you, and believe it as quickly and thouroughly as the explanations and pictures of nothingness that are posted on Godlike?

YOU ARE SHOWING SIGNS OF A TROLL. You do not discuss, you only post links, don't listen to any posts sent back, and then leave to go find more pictures to post here.

BA, I would seriously consider banning this guy unless he starts showing some inkiling of a conversation. This is not a conversation. This is one guy posting pics, ignoring ALL of the hundreds of comments made back to him, and returning to the forum, not to post comments back to the people who have replied to him, but to post more pics.

Plus, we're all pretty sure he changed his handle once already after being banned.

SKYWATCHER - TRY READING WHAT PEOPLE WRITE BACK TO YOU. Try conversing for once! We're getting sick of your behaviour here.

Girl 101

Omg, skywatcher is STILL at it? :roll:

You MUST seriously think about getting a life. What will it take to convince you there is nothing out here. Wasn't it enough that nothing happenned when they predicted it would. How long is PX going to be visible next to the sun?

I don't think it really matters to you, because you continue, and continue, and I'm afraid you will continue with your posts daring everyone to prove otherwise... You know it is getting old.

Everybody here has been extremely patient and gone to extremes to make you see the light ( No, the light is not PX) of reason, but to no avail.
Oh well... STAY AWAY FROM PX'ers SITES- IT COULD BE HARMFUL TO YOUR MIND!

Well on the other side - I'm pretty much convinced

I have learned that if you don't feed trolls they eventually die. What bothers me is why everyone insists on feeding this one. They are probably sitting at their keyboard laughing their head off knowing they can lead you around like a lost puppy. It is really getting old and this will be my only post in this forum. My frustration with the situation just overcame my common sense.

skywatcher, my last reply to any of your posts unless you start explaining why any of these pictures of random blobs, lens flares, and defects has any relevance whatsoever.

you: "look at this pic, noone has explaned it, im just curious"
18 people: "This one is a lens flare. That one is Venus. That one is a sun dog."
you: "but what about this, saw it on godlike, its way different"
***Repeat ad nauseum***

No, sorry, your pictures are not interesting, and they are not different. Poor photography is nothing new.

You are either absolutely refusing to learn, or trolling in a very boring way. Either way, I'm through listening to your endless memetic loop.

KENT STEADMAN! THE JIG IS UP!

Skywatcher! Your very dogged determination to keep this thing alive long after it should have died shows that you are either Kent Steadman or someone aiding him. There are also other telltale clues, but I'm not going to give you a shopping list of what to avoid not doing.

Give it up Kent!

never heard of him.

You mean the planet like object in the negative that is clearly in front of a tree and a telephone pole?

OH MY GOD it's PX and it's closer than any of us thought since it must about 3 feet in front of the camera. :roll:

Oh really! Considering you have been posting messages with links either to his website or to messages posted by him, I find that unlikely. You're really trying to say you never heard of KENT STEADMAN, who is the webmaster of the Cyberspaceorbit website which has the australian px pictures you were so taken with? The website with the name KENT STEADMAN all over it! The same KENT STEADMAN who also has his picture on his website, which looks an awfully lot like Lord Kenton on the Godlike Productions website, right down to the facial blemishes! The same KENT STEADMAN who using the name Lord Kenton is trying to drum up hits on his website by trying to keep this whole Planet X thing alive! And somehow you would have me believe that you never heard of him? I find it unlikely!

If by some chance you really are that unobservant as to have missed the fact that KENT STEADMAN was written all over the links in your postings, then you wouldn't mind me posting some stuff that would make EQ PEGASI look like a walk in the park.

This, too, is my last reply to a skywatcher post until they have some sort of verifiable substance.

If you were, indeed, a sky watcher, you'd realize that nobody can see these objects with their eyes. They are only objects which appear when someone with little or no photographic training points a camera at the sun without using the proper filters and hoods. If it cant be seen by your eyes, but it appears on a camera, it's a camera artifact, meaning: it does not exist except within the camera.

- A lens flare is a reflection of light within the lens systems of a camera. They appear any time you use uncoated optics pointed towards a bright light source.

- A sun dog happens when sunlight is refracted to another location near the sun by ice in the upper atmosphere (the same as a moon ring) and can happen even when you cant see the ice clouds.

- Digital cameras -- Small very evenly colored dots within a picture taken with a digital camera are pixel artifacts which happened because a) a pixel got overloaded with light or b) a data glitch happened when the picture was taken or transferred.

- Circular objects that seem like perfect spheres with faint or clear centers and well-defined outlines, taken with a film camera, are bubbles that dried on the negative. There is an entire class of defects that appear otherwordly on a print which are direct effects of improper handling of the nagative, but this one is the most relevant.

- SOHO interpretations by anyone other than a qualified SOHO data technician or an astronomer who is qualified on the SOHO equipment is false, misleading, or misunderstood interpretation. If the SOHO satellite imaged a new planet on any kind of strange orbit, some scientist would be absolutely leaping to get published and get that planet named after his favorite mythological god. Also, if SOHO can see it, all the other hundreds of amateurs and professional astronomers who are interested in solar observation would be able to see it too. In fact, my brother and I regularly view the disk of the sun through his telescope, using a solar filter specifically designed for such use. If you like, I can post pictures that I have taken with my own camera of the disk of the Sun which show no anomolies...heck, I dont even have lens flares since I use the proper filters, imagine that.

- Webcam images: I'll lump them all together since they have the same MO -- Webcams are digital cameras set up, usually outside near observatories, and are protected with plexiglass domes or other enclosures including at least one plexiglass surface which the camera is pointed through. Frequently, as seen on those webcam shots Nancy used, light gets sort of trapped between the camera lens and the inside surface of the enclosure, causing reflections. Because these webcams are focused on "infinity", meaning anything from 1 meter to infinity should be in focus, the reflection, being less than a meter from the lens, is generally not in focus. You can identify these reflections easily because they always stay close to the bright object which caused them, they go in front of background features like landscape and clouds, and the most obvious is that they're exact duplicates of something bright in the picture. Webcams also suffer from the same digital problems as noted above, flared pixels and data glitches.

skywatcher: read the BA's page about SOHO and digital imaging. Use www.Google.com or your favorite search engine at MSN or Yahoo! to look up terms you dont understand or to learn the science behind different satellites, cameras, telescopes, observatories, photography, etc. Try not to follow links to any site that uses the words: conspiracy, dis-info agent, spy, psychic abilities, remote viewing, MJ12...you get the idea? If you must click into those kinds of sites, make sure you try and verify their data with other sites that are not in the link list of the original site. If the data matches exactly, then you may come here with evidence of that research and ask us to do some of our own, providing us with the exact links you used, and make sure you highlight in your question what information it is we're supposed to help you with.

My final words to you skywatcher: STOP TYPING YOUR RESPONSE IN THE SUBJECT PORTION OF THE REPLY BOXES. It makes it extremely hard to read your replies. Nobody else does it, and we dont do it for that reason, I hope you see the logic in this. I'm glad you're curious about the universe around you, but you really must make an effort to educate yourself before just posting another "what is this" link...a little research using the search tools available here, on google, on the SOHO site, etc, will open worlds of information up to you, use them.

__________________
~Brad - Astropaparazzo
http://signaturedigitalimages.com

looks like hogwash, but I am just trying to figure out what the pics are of,

like look at the suncam on discovery near 5:00, same round object...

http://www.discoverlearning.com/webcams/sun.html#

I read all the badastronomy pages about PX and realize it is just a fantacy but how do you explain all these pics then I dont meant the ones that have photoshop written all over it but stuff like this above...

If I copy the pic and enlargen it to me it looks like the outline of a solar flare, not really round at all, am I right

Lens Flares.

Lens Flares Lens Flares Lens Flares Lens Flares Lens Flares Lens Flares Lens Flares Lens Flares Lens Flares Lens Flares Lens Flares Lens Flares.

Lens Flares!

Go to www.google.com and type "lens flares" OR go to THIS site to see what the deal is with lens flares and why we keep saying Lens Flares so much in this forum.

Lens Flares! Blargh!

__________________
jest

"Don't worry, everything is getting nicely out of control." -Douglas Adams

skywatcher is just getting off on having you answer her. It doesn't matter what you tell her. Just ignore.

her? thought that it would have to be a 'him' surely

Agreed. I already suggested on several occasions that fuzzy, cloudy, overdevleoped or overexposed bad pictures not be brought up. This is just more laughable sad photography. Besides the sun there are 3 small obvious light spots. Lightspots: that's what happens when you photograph the sun behind/near thin clouds. There's a very noticeable flare. Flare: that's what happens when you photograph the sun with a typical camera. This particular flare falls in front of a nearby object giving it more definition.
You'd think they'd at least increase the saturation and contrast like this, it's much more purdy thata way. 8)

PS: Just saw this one: Typical cloudy day Anyone who hasn't seen an image like that has lived inside all thier life.

__________________
I must not PX. PX is the mind-killer. I will face my PX. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the PX has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.