It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Sublimecraft
If indeed this is the case, how come the trajectory of the New Horizons probe that did a fly-by of Pluto last year was not effected by this mysterious planet 9 and it's gravitational field? I am certainly no expert in such matters but I would have thought that such corrections would need to be accounted for so that the probe actually arrived where intended? (which it did).
Still, like Carl Sagan said, "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known".
originally posted by: Substracto
On a more serious note, Zacharia Sitchin, might be right about everything..
originally posted by: Ghost147
Fantastic new evidence.
Perhaps someone can explain to me, though, why is this object so difficult to actually spot? If it's such a large body, why aren't we able to see it at all?
originally posted by: everyonedies
Closest distance is 200AU
They've known for a very long time...
originally posted by: abeverage
Any bets on the secondary or tertiary mission of New Horizons spotting this "Planet X"
I am calling it just to say so...
And if they do I would have some serious doubts that they didn't already know and that is actually the intended mission.
originally posted by: EndOfDays77
Amazing how 'scientists' are making these discoveries when normal folk with common sense knew all along..
The Op article is clearly yet another attempt at pre announcement media coverage preparing the masses for the disclosure of Planet X-there have been many the past few months.
Some of us have tried in vain and gone through extreme measures just to prove that Planet X is real, as I have done in this thread below which has ongoing analysis. Objects were visible at sunset yesterday once again showing further development.
Source: url=http://missionscience.nasa.gov/nasascience/what_is_a_planet.html]What is the definition of a planet?[/url]
Technically, there was never a scientific definition of the term Planet before 2006.
Source as above.
Part 3 – The Ongoing Debate
And third, it must have cleared other objects out of the way in its orbital neighborhood. To clear an orbit, a planet must be big enough to pull neighboring objects into the planet itself or sling-shot them around the planet and shoot them off into outer space. According to the IAU, Pluto does not meet this third requirement but is now in a new class of objects called "dwarf planets." It is this third part of the definition that has sparked debate.
originally posted by: Jukiodone
a reply to: EndOfDays77
The below graphic shows Voyager 1's present position (dot) in relation to this hypothesised object.
I'm betting we dont get mass sightings anytime soon.