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.

 

Gill Broussard's Planet 7X

page: 2
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2015 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: wildespace

Where's the science part?
Science fiction is supposed to have some actual science. Star Wars is not science fiction, it is fantasy. As is the planet being discussed.

edit on 12/24/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 03:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: wildespace

Where's the science part?
Science fiction is supposed to have some actual science. Star Wars is not science fiction, it is fantasy. As is the planet being discussed.

Popular science fiction has very little science in it, as far as I have noticed. Rather, it deals with themes of future and futuristic technologies, space exploration, encounters with extraterrestrial intelligence, and many other themes that don't specifically deal with science and the accuracy of it.

What actual science is there in, say, Blade Runner or Terminator?

misabuckley.com...



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: wildespace




I agree that people like him, Hoagland, Haramein, etc. should write some science fiction, or even join forces together for a big sci-fi cinema project.


2012 wasn't it.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: wildespace

Popular science fiction has very little science in it, as far as I have noticed.
Right. That's why I prefer real science fiction.


BTW, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (turned into Blade Runner) actually was about the implications of advanced cybernetics and their impact on society. That is what real science fiction is.

Star Wars is not science fiction. Just because a story is set in space, does not make it science fiction.

edit on 12/25/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: wildespace

Popular science fiction has very little science in it, as far as I have noticed.
Right. That's why I prefer real science fiction.


BTW, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (turned into Blade Runner) actually was about the implications of advanced cybernetics and their impact on society. That is what real science fiction is.

Star Wars is not science fiction. Just because a story is set in space, does not make it science fiction.


Yes you are right, so sub in the genre of fantasy for science fiction and the idea still stands - they would be really good I think at writing a fantasy movie script



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: wildespace




I agree that people like him, Hoagland, Haramein, etc. should write some science fiction, or even join forces together for a big sci-fi cinema project.


2012 wasn't it.


Too true - but then again, Mr Broussards storyline is far more intricate. I think he would have to insist on a trilogy to get all the detail in (like Peter Jackson with Lord of the Rings)



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Gill Broussard's have probably spent more time on this subject than any of you. And you people just dismiss it right out of the blue.

Yeap.... that is ATS People.



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: spy66
Gill Broussard's have probably spent more time on this subject than any of you. And you people just dismiss it right out of the blue.

Yeap.... that is ATS People.

That's extremely disrespectful of the time and effort I put into this subject. I did not "dismiss it right out of the blue," I dismissed only after an extensive analysis of his orbit and the collection of hours of empirical data with my own telescope. You have not addressed a single bit of my analysis or the empirical data that I presented. Dare I say it, most of Gill's work has simply been to cherry pick historical events and myths to try to create a narrative of a "planet 7X" which does not actually exist.



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: spy66
Gill Broussard's have probably spent more time on this subject than any of you. And you people just dismiss it right out of the blue.

Yeap.... that is ATS People.

That's extremely disrespectful of the time and effort I put into this subject. I did not "dismiss it right out of the blue," I dismissed only after an extensive analysis of his orbit and the collection of hours of empirical data with my own telescope. You have not addressed a single bit of my analysis or the empirical data that I presented. Dare I say it, most of Gill's work has simply been to cherry pick historical events and myths to try to create a narrative of a "planet 7X" which does not actually exist.


For how long have the Scientific community been looking for planet X ?

And when did the Scientific cummunity stop looking for planet X ?



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: spy66
Gill Broussard's have probably spent more time on this subject than any of you. And you people just dismiss it right out of the blue.

Yeap.... that is ATS People.

That's extremely disrespectful of the time and effort I put into this subject. I did not "dismiss it right out of the blue," I dismissed only after an extensive analysis of his orbit and the collection of hours of empirical data with my own telescope. You have not addressed a single bit of my analysis or the empirical data that I presented. Dare I say it, most of Gill's work has simply been to cherry pick historical events and myths to try to create a narrative of a "planet 7X" which does not actually exist.


For how long have the Scientific community been looking for planet X ?

And when did the Scientific cummunity stop looking for planet X ?







"Planet 7X" is not the same as legitimate scientific planet X proposals, of which there have been several over the years. For example, the scientific community is no longer looking for Harrington's version of Planet X, we already know that does not exist. The current "Planet 9" theory is based on a completely different set of evidence and predicts a completely different planet at an even greater distance. Broussard's "planet 7X" is not the same and is now disproven.



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: ngchunter


Where do you observe from?



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: ngchunter


Where do you observe from?


That's irrelevant and private. His orbital elements indicate that his Planet would have been visible from most of the world at the time I conducted my search.



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: spy66
Gill Broussard's have probably spent more time on this subject than any of you. And you people just dismiss it right out of the blue.

Yeap.... that is ATS People.

That's extremely disrespectful of the time and effort I put into this subject. I did not "dismiss it right out of the blue," I dismissed only after an extensive analysis of his orbit and the collection of hours of empirical data with my own telescope. You have not addressed a single bit of my analysis or the empirical data that I presented. Dare I say it, most of Gill's work has simply been to cherry pick historical events and myths to try to create a narrative of a "planet 7X" which does not actually exist.


For how long have the Scientific community been looking for planet X ?

And when did the Scientific cummunity stop looking for planet X ?







I have read much of Gill Broussards analysis and watched his summary video a few times. His evidence is not really scientific at all. He used very loose translations of ancient objects & documents to create a narrative. All the ancient texts and objects he uses can be interpreted in many ways - it just takes a couple of alternative translations to completely dismantle his data. It's a great piece of fictional work but it is not science.


edit on 29/2/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)

edit on 29/2/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: ngchunter


Where do you observe from?


That's irrelevant and private. His orbital elements indicate that his Planet would have been visible from most of the world at the time I conducted my search.


Ok. I have now been looking through almoste everything he has been Publishing. So it has taken some time.

To make it short Gill does not know exactly where planet X will appear or exactly when it will appear. But according to his Research he predicts that X will show up according to scripture.

Gill predicts that X will have the same trajectory as recorded by the Chinese, German and other ancient records and sightings.



The Germans made this sky disk Nebra to map the sky when X passed. The disc was recorded in Goseck Germany April 6. 1794 BCE.
Because, that is when the exact contellation would line up With the Sky Disk according to the observatorium in Groseck Germany...after Earth had tilted 26 degrees South that day.


According to Gill's Research X have passed Earth 5 time according to historical sightings and records. X have also been recorded on the Baxter Tapestry when King Harold lived in 1054.

According to Gill's Research the 28th of march 2016. At midnight. Should be a very interesting time. Do to his research X should show up throught the constillation of Virgo.

According to scripture X should illuminate Virgo. According to scripture the moon will be at her foot and Jupiter will be inline With Virgo's arm at the base of Leo.

So i Guess if you look towards Virgo and Leo on the 28th of March at midnight. You can judge him then if X doesnt show up.






edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 02:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: spy66
You can judge him then if X doesnt show up.

We'll take your word on it.


If some planet does indeed suddenly appear in the sky in the middle of the night, and lights up a whole constellation, then everything we thought we knew about astronomy and celestial mechanics will be proven wrong.

If the planet doesn't appear on that date, and as described, can we settle on calling Gill a charlatan?



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 04:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: spy66
You can judge him then if X doesnt show up.

We'll take your word on it.



If the planet doesn't appear on that date, and as described, can we settle on calling Gill a charlatan?


You can Call him what ever you like if it makes you happy. That is Your choice.

Dont really understand why you need to hang out People who put in some effort to solve old mysteries?

He's Research is based on what others have recorded and sighted, Yeah tell him of for doing that...jesse's



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 06:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: spy66
You can judge him then if X doesnt show up.

We'll take your word on it.



If the planet doesn't appear on that date, and as described, can we settle on calling Gill a charlatan?


You can Call him what ever you like if it makes you happy. That is Your choice.

Dont really understand why you need to hang out People who put in some effort to solve old mysteries?

He's Research is based on what others have recorded and sighted, Yeah tell him of for doing that...jesse's


The disk you are referring to can be interpreted in many ways. It is also believed the representations on the disk were not all done at one time. Its a stretch to use it as evidence of an earth axis shift brought about by a huge planet entering our solar system. It's an example of Broussard using single pieces of data that in themselves could never support a Niburu claim, but adding them all together to claim proof. It's speculative at best.

The planet is supposed to appear this year. In fact we're already supposed to be able to see it. According to his data, the planet should have circled round the back of the Sun and become visible on 16th Feb 2016. It should be , according to his calculations 7-8% the size of the moon by now and visible to us. We're supposed to actually pass through its tail of debris in about 4 weeks after a near miss! Have you spotted it? I haven't. So we now know his calculations are incorrect, so why should we continue to believe a circumstantial set of evidence?

No doubt the man did a lot of work, but its looking like he did it to sell DVDs and books, not to bring important information for our survival to us.
edit on 1/3/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 07:13 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth





The disk you are referring to can be interpreted in many ways.


Yes off cource it can, the more People who try the more you get. But only one should be right. And Gill have som questions to Our experts interpretation of this disk.

- According to Gill Our scientists have dated the constellations on disk wrong by -16 years. That is a major claim. And a major mistake if Our experts are wrong. The Constellations wouldnt add up to the disk if you miss by that much.

- According to Gill Our scientists have interpreted the moon wrong. If you dont have the time right, neither would Your interpretation of the moon be right. There is something really odd about the moon if the sun is in front of it like it is on the disk. If you look at the horizon left and right, and the constellations line up.

- According to Gill Our scientists named the constellation on the bottom of the disk wrong. Gill claims it is Orion.
But Orion can not be observed from Goseck observatory in Germany do to the horizon. So what is it doing on the disk if it cant be oberved?

- The Arch under Orion is the river in front (to the South) of the Goseck observatory. It represents the direction they were observing the constellations.

Personally i think Gill have some good Points. If he is right about his Research.....hell i dont know. But i dont trust Our experts to be right all the time either.










edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: UKTruth





The disk you are referring to can be interpreted in many ways.


Yes off cource it can, the more People who try the more you get. But only one should be right. And Gill have som questions to Our experts interpretation of this disk.

- According to Gill Our scientists have dated the constellations on disk wrong by -16 years. That is a major claim. And a major mistake if Our experts are wrong. The Constellations wouldnt add up to the disk if you miss by that much.

- According to Gill Our scientists have interpreted the moon wrong. If you dont have the time right, neither would Your interpretation of the moon be right. There is something really odd about the moon if the sun is in front of it like it is on the disk. If you look at the horizon left and right, and the constellations line up.

- According to Gill Our scientists named the constellation on the bottom of the disk wrong. Gill claims it is Orion.
But Orion can not be observed from Goseck observatory in Germany do to the horizon. So what is it doing on the disk if it cant be oberved?

- The Arch under Orion is the river in front (to the South) of the Goseck observatory. It represents the direction they were observing the constellations.

Personally i think Gill have some good Points. If he is right about his Research.....hell i dont know. But i dont trust Our experts to be right all the time either.











You seem to have missed the rest of my post which shows that Broussard has been talking absolute hogwash.



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth





According to his data, the planet should have circled round the back of the Sun and become visible on 16th Feb 2016.


Since 5 of April 2015 as far as i know, he has stated that X will show up in March 2016 and illuminate the clothed woman (Virgo) With 12 Crowns (Leo + Jupiter) and the moon under her foot. This line up of contellations is a exact date to the hour, min and seconds. So you must have missed it.

Furhter he states that..... When X passes around the sun and is heading towards us, we have 40 days to Wake up. He states that this is when we all will see it, and Our governments will tell us about it. Gill him self admitt that he have not seen it yet.

Since he predicts the time according to revelation 12.1. I doubt that he would make more than one claim. Because that Constellation would only add up at very specific times. And these times would have to add up to the rest of scripture as well not just the appearance of X.





edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join