It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Planet X just revealed by Google Sky? Black swath gone, ‘winged disk’ visible

page: 18
47
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958




It is a well known fact that planet Nibiru can only be seen by using an inferred telescope.


Can you provide evidence that planet Nibiru can only be seen via the mythical "Inferred" telescope?




posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 07:16 PM
link   
You all have every right to believe what you like. However I did not know I would be up against a bunch of Juvenal's making false claim that Nibiru does not exists. Calling me names and out right calling me a lair does not help any of your credibility.

And yes I did call many of you JUVENAL'S because that is the behavior many of you are displaying on this thread. Since no one has time to view any videos because according to you all there is no time for that, tells me for a fact that most of you have never research planet Nibiru or planet X. Why I know this? is because some on here claim they do not have time, Life is to short! I am out of here and will not associate with rude posters. And for misspelling something on ATS, as if everyone grammar is perfect including the one that called me out, that was very Juvenal of you. Good day to you all.



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Argyll
a reply to: Informer1958




It is a well known fact that planet Nibiru can only be seen by using an inferred telescope.


Can you provide evidence that planet Nibiru can only be seen via the mythical "Inferred" telescope?

It's a ''Well known fact'', apparently. No evidence required. But ask yourself this, has anyone ever seen nibiru (I absolutely refuse to capitalize that word) without one?



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
Since no one has time to view any videos

Again, I viewed your video, I read his book, I researched it extensively and I did my own observations based on his orbit and there's nothing there, even in "infrared." You have hypocritically refused to watch my videos on the subject though. Stop trolling, you're wasting good peoples' time.
edit on 18-7-2015 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 03:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Argyll
Hi. I'm back.
Come on guys, please lets keep this discussion dignified and everyone stop insisting on being right. This thread in itself, I beg your pardon, is BS because the subject or question raised of the blacked out area was a bunch of crap.
Now, I do not claim to be an amateur astronomer but it would seem to me that if in fact an object is in an elliptical orbit at a 70-90 degree angle to the earth's plane of orbit and coming up from behind (under) the Sun, it would be very difficult for an amateur astronomer using amateur equipment to see, if so then only from deep in the southern hemisphere only at certain times of the day/night. So there may be several reasons why an object coming from behind the sun at a high angle to our orbit may be extremely difficult to detect.
What is your opinion on that Argyll?
edit on 19-7-2015 by Monsterface because: Damn spelling with this iphone keyboard

edit on 19-7-2015 by Monsterface because: Context "upgrade" - changed "behind" to "under"



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 04:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Monsterface

There is no "behind the Sun". We move around the Sun.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 04:28 AM
link   
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance
Then under the Sun if you prefer. Would you like to, rather than discuss things rationally, play word games? If you do not know the answer then leave it to someone who does.
Thank you anyway for your reply.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 04:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Monsterface

You're the one claiming things can hide behind the sun, and you tell me to discuss things rationally? Smh



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 04:38 AM
link   
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance
Gee guy what is your problem?
I asked a question and did not "claim" anything. Why are you so aggressive?
Rationality starts with discussing facts and you are the one making false claims. Either go back and read my post or keep your worthless, aggressive false statements to yourself, thank you.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 04:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Monsterface

Nobody but you is being aggressive. You said:

So there may be several reasons why an object coming from behind the sun at a high angle to our orbit may be extremely difficult to detect.

And I pointed out that it's impossible for anything to be behind the sun. That's not aggression, that's a fact.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 04:58 AM
link   
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance
And I corrected - see post. Fact.
Fact too is I made no claim that something is behind (or under) the sun. I simply said that if there were it seems to me that it would be difficult to detect for the reasons given in my post.
Yes we rotate around the Sun but (just in case you have not noticed) we are in 3 dimensional space which gives us the space beneath and above our globe.
So tell me how does one living in the northern hemisphere with the Earth's tilt, see something (no claim here!) coming from under our orbital plane. Please Dude if you cannot or will not understand the question then please keep your unqualified aggression to yourself. Again thank you for trying to keep this civil.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 06:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Monsterface
I do not claim to be an amateur astronomer but it would seem to me that if in fact an object is in an elliptical orbit at a 70-90 degree angle to the earth's plane of orbit and coming up from behind (under) the Sun

That's an amusingly self-contradictory claim. If something is behind the sun, it's not coming from an angle perpendicular to the ecliptic.


, it would be very difficult for an amateur astronomer using amateur equipment to see,

No it wouldn't. Amateur equipment in the southern hemisphere can see the south celestial and south ecliptic poles just fine.


if so then only from deep in the southern hemisphere

Wrong. Basic geometry fail. Tell me, do you have to be "deep in the northern hemisphere" to see the north star? Do Floridians like me have trouble seeing the north star? Actually you probably don't even know that answer, but the answer is a very simple no.


So there may be several reasons why an object coming from behind the sun at a high angle to our orbit may be extremely difficult to detect.

That's self-contradicting. You shouldn't need to be an expert on astronomy to realize why that's impossible. Basic knowledge should suffice. And if it's behind the sun now, no problem, in 6 months people in both hemispheres will see it clearly.
edit on 19-7-2015 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 07:02 AM
link   
Ma reply to: ngchunter
See what?
Read my post. I corrected myself. No need to jump all over that again.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 07:05 AM
link   
a reply to: ngchunter
Oh yhat is why people living in the N. Hemisphere can see the Southern Cross?
Simple geommetry huh?😆



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 07:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Monsterface
a reply to: ngchunter
Oh yhat is why people living in the N. Hemisphere can see the Southern Cross?
Simple geommetry huh?😆


It can only be seen from as far north as about 28°.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 07:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Monsterface
a reply to: ngchunter
Oh yhat is why people living in the N. Hemisphere can see the Southern Cross?
Simple geommetry huh?😆


There are lots of amateur astronomers in the Southern Hemisphere. In fact, sometimes I wish I lived there, as they get spectacular views of the Milky Way. Right now, they are enjoying a nice view of a comet next to the crescent Moon.

So yeah, the world isn't contained in the Northern Hemisphere only, that's just one half of the populated world.

~~~

We're not arguing explicitly that there is no other planet or planetoid in the Solar System apart from the ones we know about; we're arguing that there is (so far) no evidence that it exists.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Monsterface

Yes, it is simple geometry.
scas.org...
Oops, guess you goofed again. Also, I have access to amateur telescopes in the southern hemisphere, in Australia to be exact. There are many amateurs down there. So again, tell me where this mythical non-existent planet is supposed to be in the southern hemisphere of the celestial sphere while it "hides behind the sun" which is currently in the northern celestial hemisphere.

Also, I will point out that ALL of the locations that are relevant to this thread - the missing section of google sky, the "winged" T Tauri star, and Gill Broussard's stated and claimed location for Planet 7X are all readily observable to northern hemisphere observers all over the US.
edit on 19-7-2015 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 07:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: ngchunter
a reply to: Monsterface
scas.org...

Here's a nice long list of astronomy and space clubs and societies in Australia and NZ: www.austskyandtel.com.au...

Plenty of eyes (and telescopes) on the sky!



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 07:49 AM
link   
A reply to: ngchunter
What is wrong with some of you guys?
I never claimed that there was a planet of any kind.
I posed a few questions and suddenly everybody starts telling me what I claimed.
Nobody has ever answered any of the questions just distractins with getting personal.
If you do not have an answer dont feel compelled to write something.

Since a constructivel level of entertainment with some of you fellows is impossble.
See you in another life or another thread or...
BTW
Its Astronomy not Geometry and the reason you can see the Northern Star in the Northern Hemisphere is because the Earth is also tilted back away from the sun at 23.5 degrees but you know this.
I thinkI will get out my binoculars tonight and look at the Southern Cross from Central Europe. "Its basic Geometry"!
What a heap of crap!
Later dudes.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Monsterface
A reply to: ngchunter
What is wrong with some of you guys?
I never claimed that there was a planet of any kind.
I posed a few questions and suddenly everybody starts telling me what I claimed.
Nobody has ever answered any of the questions just distractins with getting personal.

Actually I directly contradicted all of your claims regarding a fake contradictory planet that hides behind the whilst it approaches from "directly below the ecliptic" yet for some reason is invisible to amateur astronomers and telescopes, even those in the southern hemisphere.


If you do not have an answer dont feel compelled to write something.

I gave you the answer, an answer you didn't want to hear and still refuse to hear.


Its Astronomy not Geometry

Actually what you're talking about is very basic geometry. Technically spherical geometry I suppose, but still geometry. You haven't even managed to construct a claim self-consistent enough to require delving into the astronomy side of things.


and the reason you can see the Northern Star in the Northern Hemisphere is because the Earth is also tilted back away from the sun at 23.5 degrees but you know this.

LMFAO! Oh man, you have a very confused notion of how the sky works. No, that is not an excuse to see the north star while somehow an object at the southern celestial pole would somehow remain invisible except "deep in the southern hemisphere." The tilt of our planet is why that particular star is the north star, but even if our planet had no tilt at all relative to the ecliptic there would still be circumpolar stars that never set and can be seen from virtually the entire hemisphere. Same goes for the southern hemisphere; any star or celestial body close to the southern celestial or ecliptic poles will be seen from virtually anywhere in the southern hemisphere, including Australia. You don't need to be at the south pole to see it.


I thinkI will get out my binoculars tonight and look at the Southern Cross from Central Europe.

Go ahead, it'll just demonstrate more of your ignorance of basic geometry. Yes, spherical geometry explains why that won't work.



new topics

top topics



 
47
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join