I should note that the camera work in the video I posted which is or should be the same as the one in the original post is in much better condition.

Strange that one should be so erratic and the other more stable. Maybe they were filmed by two different people or in different locations. It comes across a little dubious to me.

- Lee

[edit on 4/18/2008 by Cuhail]

Originally posted by Tekniq
Oh and one more thing explain to me why all of a sudden we are getting way more sightings of UFO than we've ever seen!!??
[edit on 18-4-2008 by Tekniq]

Maybe it is because people claim virtually everything seen in the sky or a picture is a ufo and many are implying ET craft. The number that seem to be truly unexplained does not seem to have gone up, but hoaxes have.

I don't know if anyone else noticed it, or i missed it on another post, but did anyone see the russian moon rover parked outside the window in the beginning?

Its things like this that ruin the credibility of ufology
Shame on You

The OP's first post, second video. Program called Celestia, its open source and you can add anything you want to it. In fact, I do believe the Nibiru add on is out there somewhere, I remember seeing it.

EDIT: Decided to do this math...
IF Nibiru for some reason was going exactly Earth's orbital speed (unlikely I know), then it would take 57.8 days to traverse ONE AU....

Uranus is 19 AU (approximated)... thats 1098 days.
Or, about Three Years.

In short, for it to get past or near earth, it needs to be further out than Uranus and traveling very very fast (in which case, it would 'pass us' more frequent)... or as close or closer than Uranus, going as fast as earth or..if closer... slower than Earth.

In short, we would be able to visually see it if it were as big as some claim... or detect it if it were as smaller as others claim. Either way, it is not out of our reasonable technology to detect a planetary body within 20 AU...with ease.

One LY speed is to fast. The planet would be GAMMA RAYS. Any matter going at light speed is converted into energy. Or so I read somewhere (don't take my word on this, can someone double check?)


Either way.. I agree with the majority of comments focused on this being bunk. However, I will just leave and shut up now. I have added all I can add.

[edit on 19-4-2008 by Foxe]

OPs entire timeline scenario is straight out of Sitchin's books. I have read them all....over the last 10 years.

OP must have just discovered Sitchin.

This vid. is complete crap, you don't even have to look at the manequin made out of playdough to see it either, just look at the soccalled astronaut flipping around the old video camera as if to give you the impression that there is whieghtlessness thier and that just completely looks stupid on they're part even more so than the cheapo specailFX as far as i'm concerned.

"GOOD FOR A LAUGH THOUGH EH!!"

[edit on 19-4-2008 by damdevildog]

[edit on 19-4-2008 by damdevildog]

Originally posted by HellHound63S
How does presenting a thoery discredit ufology?

Considering there are as many theories regarding UFOs as there are believers, there cannot be a Grand Unified Theory to discredit UFOs. One can only debate the evidence (or lack there of) as it comes along.

Originally posted by HellHound63S
The strangest things often turn out to be true, such as quantum physics, black holes and a round earth.

You are presenting a fallacious argument. First, things such as black holes and quantum physics, while once theory and debated within the scientific community, were argued via empirical evidence, observable phenomenon, and scientific theory. The argument presented by Tekniq is none of these things; he presents misinterpreted mythology along side science fiction.

Second, just because claim A turns out to be true, it does not mean claims B, C, and D are true also, especially when the claims are not related to each other.

Originally posted by HellHound63S
Neat ideas all, none of wich could ever have any proof you "deny ignorance" crowd will ever accept. To deny ignorance means to learn, but I don't see any debunkers here ever learning anything, accept how to flame someone with in the T&C.

And you are engaging in the exact same behavior you accuse the skeptics of. Your mind is already made up, and no evidence to the contrary will sway you from that. You refuse to look at evidence to the contrary of your beliefs, and thus refuse to learn, just as you accuse the skeptics of. And, on the flip side of your accusation that skeptics won't accept evidence, you appear to accept any and all evidence, without question, because it fits your pre-concieved notions.

So, please tell us, how are you any different than the skeptics you attack?

No one has attacked or "flamed" Tekniq. Debate and disagreement, presenting opinion and evidence to counter and debunk someone's claims is not an attack on them. Only the closed-minded, the arrogant, and the immature would think otherwise.

Originally posted by HellHound63S
To all you dreamers and believers, don't you dare ever give up just because someone says your nuts, those people often should be eating there own words, but never admit it.

We've been waiting 60 years now. Given the track record, I wouldn't look for us to be eating our words any time soon.

Sorry buddy, but the sun outputs only 1372 W/m^2 of power. The best a solar panel that is the size of a head of a pin could do with 100% efficiency (which is well beyond anything we have now) is a few milliwatts.

Everyone is expressing their opinion and think they are scientist and astronomers but yet and still you all didn't prove me wrong and non of you all are doing simple google searches on the Anunnaki to see if it is tru or not!!

[edit on 21-4-2008 by Tekniq]