Nibiru's 'First Phase' Due Fall 2009!

If Nibiru exists in the inner Solar System then it would be visible wherever you are on the planet. But no one can see it ..... QED .....

As for the alleged NASA pictures, perhaps you could post them here? Or are you afraid we'd explain them to easily?

[edit on 18-1-2008 by Essan]

reply to post by Essan


I have 4 other forums that they are posted on at this time we are checking to see how many debunkers cant debunk it. In fact we had just yesterday 197 skeptics say it was real proof. So yes its real. I do have it up at Yuwie as well for all to see and people are shocked. Once I am happy debunking the debunkers then I will work on debunking you guys as well. This will be fun. Its also being reviewed by 15 scientists today as well as 4 astronomers.

Hilda

reply to post by hildar


Now you've got me curious. 197 people couldn't explain them? 15 scientists and 4 astronomers are stillreviewing them?!

C'mon Hildar, give up the goods. We don't have anything to debunk yet, so there's nothing to prepare for. Post the pics, or links to them. And if we debunk, prepare to rebunk our debunk. But, we have to get to stage one first. We're in the umpteeth page of this thread and yet to see a pic.

I'm dying here.

OMG, I cant believe how big it is please check it out its wonderful and beautiful at the same time its between 2 and 3 oclock make sure to maximize this, so you can see it in detail.

Image of the solar corona, taken by the SECCHI outer coronagraph (COR2)
on the STEREO Ahead observatory on December 30, 2007 at 00:07:54 UT.

stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov...

At 23:20
stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Its also still there on the 31st at 7:54 am

stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov...


If this was just a burst from the sun it would be gone within a fewminutes not stay there. Also the bright dot that you see at around 7 is also believed to be something unexplainable.


This is still up many photos and its there in all of them

stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Seeing is believing and its there.
Hilda

reply to post by hildar


And what makes you certain that this is Nibiru?

Forgot this as well:

stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Its there doing both days. The info that was up for Jan, 1st and afterwards is all gone now. But it also had it there. I believe that Sylver grabbed some from Jan,3rd. before it was all taken down. I will ask him Monday when he gets back.

Hilda

reply to post by Rasobasi420


Because the following link shows where real planets are if you magnify it you will see lines thru the real planets. So please dont sit there and say oh its one of the normal planets. Same day so therefore something is up. The one at 7 is still there yet is not a known planet.

Hilda

sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov...

Edited cause I forgot link.



[edit on 18-1-2008 by hildar]

OK, I'm not an astronomer, but I'd like to comment on the 'real' planets. They appear to be on a horizontal plane even with the sun, unlike 'Nibiru". Might that have something to do with the line through them?

What makes you so very sure it's not Mercury?

stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov...

And if it's not Mercury (and, naturally, NASA are lying), where is Mercury and why can't/couldn't this other object been seen with the naked eye (it'd have to be smaller than Mercury not to be visible, and we all know that Nibiru is much bigger than the Earth)

Nasa puts lines thru them so people can identify where the real planets are.

Hilda

reply to post by hildar


Then why doesn't Mercury have lines through it?

The lines are likely an effect of the photography. you get the same thing when you take a picture of a light at night.

reply to post by Essan


Hah, it's Mercury!!!

Nasa says so. And if Nasa put lines through real planets, and wanted people to think this was Mercury, they would have put a line through it.

reply to post by Essan


Explain to me then why its shows it here still on Jan, 1st
stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Again the end of Jan,1st

stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Again jan, 2nd

stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov...

the 3rd:
stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov...

the 4th

stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov...

It remains there yet yesterday photo is so darn blurred no one sees crap. It is suppose to be coming in from in back of the sun Ok why isnt it huge? well its bigger then the planets thats for sure and none of us seem to want to go blind looking at the sun do we?

Hilda

Originally posted by weedwhacker
A stable orbit (assuming no atmospheric friction) will continue indefinitely as long as the velocity of the object is such that it continually 'falls' towards the greater mass. Since in the case of celestial bodies, the 'mass' is a sphere, that means the satellite will continue to fall, but the body it is orbiting is round...so it falls, but never hits the body it is orbiting.

You are correct, since the centrifugal force is a fictitious force, only used to make Newton's laws work in a rotating frame. If you call gravity a force, you need a centrifugal force to oppose it. (Newtonian universe) But if you take the relativistic view into account, both the gravitational force and the centrifugal are just imaginary.

I was thinking about explaining it the way you did, but i thought this would be easier to imagine. You know, for the ZetaTalk believers, who think massive bodies repell each other..

[edit on 18/1/08 by deezee]

reply to post by Rasobasi420



Sorry but its not Mercury we just had one scientist at another forum state that Mercury can bee seen at 3:00 on Jan, 4th and its much smaller in fact in his words compared to this object its a speck of light. NASA doesnt put lines thru these photos. It put lines thru the other photo I showed you due to the fact its teaching children where planets are.

Hilda

Dude it's not Planet X. The STEREO spacecraft images are taken from two separate satellites, one orbiting slightly ahead and one slightly behind Earth's orbit. The angle difference is very slight but it's enough to create a stereo image. Your 'Planet X' only shows up on images from the 'ahead' camera which means it's an artifact of the camera - condensation, ice crystal or ccd defect. Go on and check all the images from the 'behind' satellite, you'll see there's nothing there.

reply to post by mythatsabigprobe


Your so full of bull, and thats why some one stated its Mercury yet its not even there that got debunked, and no its not the camera. Other photos were taken and didnt show that so what does that mean, your wrong. And just so you know I am not a dude!!!

Hilda

[edit on 18-1-2008 by hildar]

I'm full of bull? How nice.

Did you look at the photo's from the other camera or did NASA already hide them from you?

Originally posted by hildar
Your so full of bull

Why do most of you Planet X believers always get offended by a simple logical question or proposal and resort to insults immediatelly?

Do you really want to know if something is there, or do you just want to believe? Think about it for a moment.. No need to answer.


This stereo probe pair takes two images of the same area, spaced slightly apart. Just like your eyes do.

This allows it to create a 3D image of the photographed area and allows you to calulate the distance of the objects in the picture, up to a certain distance, where the difference becomes unnoticable.

If this Planet X only shows in one of the pairs of photos, there must be something wrong with one of them. mythatsabigprobe mentioned a couple of possibilities, but you immediatelly got offended.


Did you even look at the other probes pictures?


Or do you think NASA is covering up Nibiru's existance, by only "photoshiping" it out of one of the picture and leaving it in the other?

[edit on 18/1/08 by deezee]

I hate to say this but we have plenty of people right now proving its not what you say it is. And believe me these people know what they are talking about. One of which happens to have been a professor at a college teaching Astronomy for over 20 years, Yet according to what you say he doesnt know bull. So lets see what he says. I also happen to know 4 others who are Astronomers that are looking at the photos this morning. One of which emailed me and said it was real. So where did you get your degree in astronomy? And have you had 20 years experience in teaching it?

Hilda