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.

 

Leaked images of Nibiru orbited by Planet X taken by South Pole Station Telescope

page: 15
68
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZikhaN
What exactly is this video telling us? Am I the only one who doesn't hear any mentioning of nibiru? Unless ofcourse you're classifying pluto as planet x hehe


Well it tells me that Sitchin is deliberately trying to use unrelated 'evidence' to back his story... So if he was sure of his 'facts' he would not need to do this subterfuge


No not Pluto, but the scientist DOES say 'another planet beyond Pluto' at which point the video cuts off.. I believe this video was just before we discovered the other Planets (well Planetoids now) beyond Pluto...

So here goes...

Title of Film...
"NASA's Search for Planet X"

Opening Scene...
A smug Sitchin walking past the NASA headquarter sign...



Yup its the NASA headquarters Sign in Washington DC...



So its pretty obvious so far that the intent is to show us we are about to get some revelation from NASA...

However in the next scene we see the front door of the NAVAL OBSERVATORY, also in Washington DC



Now that is quite a stroll, actually 4.3 miles away, and 19 minutes by car...



Sitchin now talks to Dr Robert S. Harrington... who works for the NAVY not NASA...



Sitchin asks Dr Robert S. Harrington to spend a few minutes talking about the "nature of the new discoveries..."
No mention however is made of WHAT discoveries... so we must assume at this point that it is Planet X

When the Dr. Harrington answers... "I would be happy to but... (cut in film) ...and your absolutely right....."

There is obvious editing here at 17-18 seconds into the film and we hear the emphasis on "your absolutely right". Again right about WHAT we can't say because of the cut and no direct question before that.

Now while Dr. Harrington talks about the likelihood of another planet beyond Pluto, we cut to Sitchin with a smug smile doing the bobble head routine...


(was going to animate this but ran out of time
)

So what this video tells us is that Sitchin went to a lot of trouble to try to create "official backing' for his Planet X...

But since we already found 5 others past Pluto, Xena being larger than Pluto... he will now have to look for Planet XV or 15




[edit on 26-2-2008 by zorgon]




posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
I think that we can consider that those images could not have been taken with a photographic telescope on the South pole in January 2008.


Good points ArMaP I should appoint you Skeptic Royale at Pegasus




posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 08:09 PM
link   
I only have to scroll down, until I see ArMaps' avatar....and what he posts is the truth!

Hate to say it, but a lot of THIS THREAD resembles some I've seen on YouTube. That is, some really smart people are able to post cogent comments, (ArMap and Jfj, just to name two...there are others, sorry if I don't mention...) but some others, valued members of ATS, can provide their own personal viewpoints...over, and over again, even if they have nothing to support those claims.

Well...it's OK to say what you want, but this is supposed to be an intellectual discussion, not a forum for ideas to be spouted without anything to back them up....that sort of behaviour belongs on YouTube....



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by lostinspace
I pulled up Redshift on my computer and plugged in the date December 21, 2012. The positions of all the planets in the solar system is nothing special. They are not aligned. The alignment per the Maya must be external to the solar system. Something about the alignment with Sol and the center of the Milkyway galaxy I presume.


what about this december 21?
just out of curiosity.
what about mayan constellations? anyone know?
somebody must have a list of what those 2012 alignments are supposed to be.


Here are some scans of the solar system with my Redshift astronomy program with the date December 21 2012 for planetary positions. The images are kind of poor because I had to print and then scan them to turn them into jpeg images.

This view is taken at 12 Astronomical Units (A.U.)


This view is taken at 12 A.U. with Asteroids turned on.



This view is taken at 56 A.U.



This view is taken at 56 A.U. with Asteroids turned on.



This view is taken at 56 A.U. with Asteroids and Comets turned on.



The asteroids and comets make the image look impressive. The SOHO comets on the right side makes the image interesting.


Does someone see anything special about the planetary alignments?



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 10:39 PM
link   
I looked long and hard to try to see. Are you worried about the soho comets or something? What am I missing?



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by stikkinikki
 


Nothing to worry about. The SOHO comets aren't going anywhere special.
With the SOHO comets all crammed together in that fashion, it kind of makes them appear as an ominous Nibiru body. I was trying to make it interesting.

I hit the "play" button on Redshift from the starting point of December 21, 2012 and the SOHO comets seem to be moving slowly away from the solar system. So I don't think we have to worry about them.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by lostinspace
 


I'm with Stikkinikki. I can;t see what should be obvious.
Also, if this is a simulation of 2012, it would be intersting to see the last pic (with comets etc..) in a series of dates leading up to 2012. Maybe yearly for the same date or quarterly if pos?



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by lostinspace
 


Great of you to pull that in, but what is the point-of view?

Are we 'above', or 'below'....what is our position as we 'stand away' and oberver our own Solar System??

WHO has given us this view?

and, finally, to use a term from the post, do you, 'lostinspce' know what an AU is?

Well, you can go on Wiki it now...so I will tell you it is an Astronomical Unit, which is defined as the average distance of the Earth to the Sun ( havn't looked st Wiki, this from my own brain...


An AU is something that is not used in Science Fiction, at least in MSM pictures, because most have no idea what it means....nor can they respond to it because an AU, as a concept of distance in normal life experience....just isn't something that people relate to...



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Thank you for giving more detail where I was lacking. Actually I didn't really know what the meausrement for the "A.U." was. Thanks again for defining that.

The view is looking down on the sun from its north pole. The program displaying the solar system is Redshift 4 developed by Maris Multimedia Ltd and published by Cinegram Media Inc.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by VIKINGANT
reply to post by lostinspace
 


I'm with Stikkinikki. I can;t see what should be obvious.
Also, if this is a simulation of 2012, it would be intersting to see the last pic (with comets etc..) in a series of dates leading up to 2012. Maybe yearly for the same date or quarterly if pos?


I took your advice and gave the Redshift program a start date of February 26, 2008 and watched the planets as they swirled around the solar system. I closely watched the inner solar system and a unique alignment did occur with Earth, Mercury, Venus and Mars. Saturn and Jupiter were not too far off from the same alignment. Saturn is shifted a little to the right and Jupiter is shifted a little to the left. The sun is not in line with these six planets, at this time, but this conjunction might be of importance. The date is not too far off and its close to 2012.

Do you want to know what date it is?
Do you want pictures?

Some of you may already know.

It's late for me. I'll have to take care of this tomorrow.

[edit on 26-2-2008 by lostinspace]

[edit on 27-2-2008 by lostinspace]



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by lostinspace
 


Thank you. Would very much appreciate pics if you could and any other apt info you have. Sounds very interesting.

Ta
Ant



posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by VIKINGANT
 


If you want unbiased opinion by a genious, read through this. www.thespectrumnews.com...

Don't listen to the nonsense name-callers.



posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 04:18 AM
link   

But since we already found 5 others past Pluto, Xena being larger than Pluto...


That object isn't called Xena. It's name is Eris.



posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
reply to post by jfj123
 


Ill try and find the article, but I read that Stephen Hawking changed his stance on black holes, he stated that he believes thaat they have either 'just started' or they've just noticed that black holes emit sound and light, wouldn't this defy the term 'black hole'...how about 'rainbow hole'?

point is you don't know if there is a black hole or not, you haven't been up there to check, like I was't there to watch Nibiru scar our planet with electrical discharge, it's your assumption, but at least with me, I accept the possibility I may be wrong.

I'll try and find the article.

thans. EMM

My point is that there is solid evidence that black holes exist but no solid evidence that nibiru exists. For example, where are these huge scars on our planet?

Just because someone hasn't actually gone to a black hole and report doesn't mean they don't exist if there is other evidence. If you go by the same thinking, you don't know that anything exists outside your direct eye sight until you can see those things un-aided.

By the way, here is some photo evidence of black holes as taken by the Hubble Telescope
space.about.com...



posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


THERE IS NO SOLD EVIDENCE!!! will you please understand that, unless we've been up there, dipped our toe in it and confirmed that it is indeed a black hole, till then, it could be the plug for our universe for all we know. I agree with you on this point, I believe in the existence of black holes, I actually believe that black holes 'spew'd forth' (for lack of a better phrase) our universe, but you only have substantial mathematical evidence, not conclusive, were as I have even less


I think Sitchin did well for this subject, but at the same time, he did very badly, as soon as someone mentions Sitchin, people throw their assumptions of him into the 'fray' for this subject. I believe he wasn't accurate all the time, but alot of his work makes sense to a certain degree. He didn't start the whole planet X, Nibiru theory, he just believed he'd found 'proof' or at least the possibility of proof and perpetuated the theory, and I thank him for it.

I agree about the video, dodgy editing to get his side out LOUD and CLEAR, but if you've been called a liar and a fraud most of your life, surely you'll want to make sure people understand the 'gravity' of this find in Sitchin's eyes, if proved right, this could prove his entire theory. I don't agree with what he did and it did damage his credibility, but you can understand that the astronomer he was talking to would've been 'side stepping' the major factors of the discovery, just so he could keep his job and his credibility, he would've hidden the implications in meaningless jargon etc. Not saying this did happen, and we'll never know unless we see the original, but a reason why he may have done it.

thanks. EMM



posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Just seen the pictures, but I'm sorry, they look like nebulas, stars and galaxies to me, although I am by far an expert, but the fact that we can see them (if these are them), means that they are not 'black' wholes and the title of them needs to be revised, not to mention the entire concept of them considering light and sound is 'escaping/emiting'.

thanks. EMM



posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


The grand canyon, the Marianas trench, these scars are all around us, but the cause of them is still changing, at the moment it is river erosion. Just as I'm sure you'll understand the concept of a black hole has to be revised soon, so too may the theory of how these trenches, canyons and craters came to be on earth. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying craters WEREN'T caused by comets, I'm just saying maybe all of them weren't.

Our perception of the universe, not to mention our world, is changing every millisecond and I refuse to believe we are completely right about everything at the moment, not a chance in my eyes sorry.

thanks. EMM



posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Terrapop
 


thanks terrapop for this thread---i appreciate being kept up to date about what's out there even if this particular mini-solar system doesn't affect us adversely.

the Messiah says that eventually we will see strange things in the heavens that will induce such great fear in those with a weak heart that the sight alone will cause them to lose consciousness.(luke 21)



posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Kinda weird how most of Sitchen's Material has been removed off the internet.



posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
reply to post by jfj123
 


The grand canyon, the Marianas trench, these scars are all around us, but the cause of them is still changing, at the moment it is river erosion. Just as I'm sure you'll understand the concept of a black hole has to be revised soon, so too may the theory of how these trenches, canyons and craters came to be on earth. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying craters WEREN'T caused by comets, I'm just saying maybe all of them weren't.

Our perception of the universe, not to mention our world, is changing every millisecond and I refuse to believe we are completely right about everything at the moment, not a chance in my eyes sorry.

thanks. EMM



Please keep in mind that a THEORY is not just an idea that seems to fit, it is much more then that. Also please keep in mind that there is a huge difference between modifying a theory and eliminating it completely. For example, the theory of evolution shows us that yes evolution does exist but doesn't necessarily fill in every hole and as we do fill in a hole, it is modified, not eliminated.

For your convenience, here is a definition of scientific theory


In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.

It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.


So when we say we have a "theory" of something, we must, as a rule, have evidence or we can't call it a scientific theory.




top topics



 
68
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join