Signs of the Crossing of Nibiru

Originally posted by VIKINGANT
Originally posted by jstnbdy

It ain't quite that easily dismissed my friend.

Actually it is. Watch and I will do it again....
I dont buy your story. What else have you got.
See. Easily dismissed.

The evidence for binary precession, the idea that our sun is curving through space in a dual orbit with another object is pretty solid.

As solid as marshmellow.

So don't be so smug and quick to dismiss.

I can't see any other way to deal with "rock solid" evidence from a no name bum amateur astronomer. Get me something from somebody half way reliable and I promise I will treat it with the respect it deserves.

[edit on 6/6/2008 by VIKINGANT]

I'll take the well researched data of the amateur astronomer over the self serving pet theory of the mainstream that has so many holes in it you could drive a fleet of starships through it.
Or over the opinion of some smug smarmy little wise ass posting on the internet for that matter.
NEXT.

One more time, do you smart asses have anything to say about the research on this site? Or are you just going to call the scientists there names and cast insults?
The ploy of the weakminded troll is so passe, You have nothing to debunk the evidence with so ignorantly laugh at it and hope no one notices your stupidity.

www.binaryresearchinstitute.org...

Either address the evidence directly or # off.

reply to post by jstnbdy


Understand your frustration. It just takes an hour or so to wander through the link, still a little more to dabble with calculations and try and absorb the ideas. I can't say it's conclusive, however I lack training in astrophysics and cosmology to qualify as someone who even COULD verify this research.

I think it stands up a whole lot better than conjecture and rhetoric, however, and unless refuted soundly by a credible study with unreproachable credentials, at the very least it is evidence.

Good find, thank you OP. I've saved that to my astrophysics favorites, and will be interested in future developments.

reply to post by jstnbdy

its just a good fantasy/story to scare the kids with........

My kids wont be scared. I will be setting them straight early! The story will only be told to them for chuckles

I'll take the well researched data of the amateur astronomer over the self serving pet theory of the mainstream that has so many holes in it you could drive a fleet of starships through it.
Or over the opinion of some smug smarmy little wise ass posting on the internet for that matter.
NEXT.

I have no theory. The THEORY in question is that of a mythical planetsun hellbent for the destruction of earth. Like I have said many time, there is no doubt in my mind of large objects within and possibly outside the kuiper belt but none that will enter the solar system proper

One more time, do you smart asses have anything to say about the research on this site? Or are you just going to call the scientists there names and cast insults?
The ploy of the weakminded troll is so passe, You have nothing to debunk the evidence with so ignorantly laugh at it and hope no one notices your stupidity.

www.binaryresearchinstitute.org...

Either address the evidence directly or # off.

So trolling ones own thread is a common practice where you come from? And I am quite sure I have no intention of #ing off from my own thread.

I have already looked at that thread. (The institute’s founder is Walter W. Cruttenden, an amateur astronomer – remember)

I saw nothing in there beyond theoretical equations without anything supported or supportable by ‘recognised’ scientists.

I meant no offence towards Mr. Cruttenden. He did a lot of work on this and all credit to him. Now get this info to say NASA and the like and have them verify the info.

Also you might want to have a squiz at Current model of Nibiru debunked

reply to post by VIKINGANT


Of course trolling ones own thread is common where I come from, apparently where you come from as well.
How do you identify this phenomena?
Easy, when the op is presented with evidence instead of addressing the evidence he immediately attempts to turn the topic by attacking the presenter of said evidence with such nonsense as "he's an amateur bum" which in the field of astronomy well over ninety percent of discoveries are made by amateurs.
No one at BRI has made the claim that this object comes into the inner solar system or is about to end life on earth, so your "standard model of Niburu" does not apply.
Luni solar precession (your vaunted peer reviewed theory) has many holes iin it, as discussed in the link I provided to BRI.
Their(BRI) theory solves all of them.
The fact that the theory has not been peer reviewed means nothing at this point. When and if it is addressed by the keepers of the faith in that manner and officially debunked then I will accept it as so.
Until then the theory has merit and should be investigated. Which we both know probably wont happen because the aforementioned keepers of the faith have vested interest in maintaining their own theories in the spotlight regardless of the large gaping holes in them.

I tend to agree. Global warming is a natural cycle of the earth and all man has done is help speed the process up. In my opinion, it will get warmer, ice caps will melt, dumping fresh water into the ocean and seal levels will rise. Then once mother earth has had enough she will take action to correct herself and then things will get a lot colder prompting us into another ice age. We've had them before and will have one again. I believe we are in an interglacial period.

Didn't the planet do the same thing (warming up) before the last ice age?

reply to post by jstnbdy


You clearly mis understand me on several things. First, the article is trying to claim that "Nibiru" is causing the Solar System warming as it aproaches.

Second. I said he was an amateur and a different statement said "no name bum" which is different. Where I am from a no name bum simply mean an unheard of person.

Finally, the info presented was interesting, but my point, (although maybe a little overboard due to tired late night readng and typng) was that the info was presented as "solid" evidence yet is a "theory" that "needs to be investigated"

Ah but they are all "just theories" right?
Interestingly there is another piece of the puzzle, from a NASA probe that was attempting verification of the theory of relativity.

This is from BRI as well:

www.binaryresearchinstitute.org...




I apologize for not having the second article but I did read that NASA is having some problems with that probe as they did find a third unexpected motion in their gyros that coincide with BRI's prediction.
In typical NASA fashion they have scrapped the information and labeled the problem as "faulty gyros" though the equipment was thoroughly tested before launch.

Here is one article stating the "official" reason for the unexpected torque on the gyros. The reason was anticipated prior to launch and tested for, and was expected to not be a problem.
So in true scientific fashion NASA is disregarding the anomalous information and saying it was caused by aberrations that they already tested for and said would be no problem:
einstein.stanford.edu...

I still can't find the article that actually described the "anomalous" torque as describing precession, but I will.

Originally posted by jstnbdy
Here is one article stating the "official" reason for the unexpected torque on the gyros. The reason was anticipated prior to launch and tested for, and was expected to not be a problem.

"official"? Why the quote makrs? If its official than accept it.

So in true scientific fashion NASA is disregarding the anomalous information and saying it was caused by aberrations that they already tested for and said would be no problem:

So we shouldn't accept the word of NASA? They are decieving us?
But an "unheard of" amateur astronomer has much more credibility. Youve convinced me.

einstein.stanford.edu...

I still can't find the article that actually described the "anomalous" torque as describing precession, but I will.

A list of excuses why they have still not 'proven' the theory. This is a 3 year old article. Surely SOMEONE would have something by now.

Besides, something with the word Einstein in it does not necessarily inspire confidence.

All credit to you though. You are giving it a red hot go...Keep it up and you will either convince me you that are right or convince yourself that I am.

Originally posted by VIKINGANT

Originally posted by jstnbdy
Here is one article stating the "official" reason for the unexpected torque on the gyros. The reason was anticipated prior to launch and tested for, and was expected to not be a problem.

"official"? Why the quote makrs? If its official than accept it.

So in true scientific fashion NASA is disregarding the anomalous information and saying it was caused by aberrations that they already tested for and said would be no problem:

So we shouldn't accept the word of NASA? They are decieving us?
But an "unheard of" amateur astronomer has much more credibility. Youve convinced me.

einstein.stanford.edu...

I still can't find the article that actually described the "anomalous" torque as describing precession, but I will.

A list of excuses why they have still not 'proven' the theory. This is a 3 year old article. Surely SOMEONE would have something by now.

Besides, something with the word Einstein in it does not necessarily inspire confidence.

All credit to you though. You are giving it a red hot go...Keep it up and you will either convince me you that are right or convince yourself that I am.

And once again you miss the point. (purposely?)
BRI PREDICTED the anomalous reading.
NASA ANTICIPATED the problem and tested for it and said it would be no problem.
Then when the anomalous reading turns up they change their mind?
Of note is the part where they (NASA) say that at least the aberration is consistent in each gyro and is easily erasable from the data. (how convenient for them that the static problem is so symmetrical in each of the painstakingly constructed and tested gyros eh?)
And that sounds like solid scientific work to you?
Oh, but it comes from NASA and not some amateur bum so we just have to except it?

Btw? The statement about Einstein was a pretty good effort at manipulation? But the article is from Stanford University.

reply to post by jstnbdy


So in short, a slight yet expected malfuntion is proof of a theory? NASA Equipment often malfuntions (even the loos ) but thier explaination is falsified to hide the secondary sun?

I also go back to an earlier comment. Why has it not yet been sighted? Something of this size would be seen by now. If they can see planets in other galaxies.....

Oh...And get off the amateur bum thing.. Amateur and No Name bum are two different things.

[edit on 8/6/2008 by VIKINGANT]

Originally posted by VIKINGANT
reply to post by jstnbdy

 

So in short, a slight yet expected malfuntion is proof of a theory? NASA Equipment often malfuntions (even the loos

) but thier explaination is falsified to hide the secondary sun?

I also go back to an earlier comment. Why has it not yet been sighted? Something of this size would be seen by now. If they can see planets in other galaxies.....

Oh...And get off the amateur bum thing.. Amateur and No Name bum are two different things.

[edit on 8/6/2008 by VIKINGANT]

You know being purposely obtuse the way you are being is not exactly a sign of intelligence, you are skirting trolling techniques again.
The malfunction was not supposed to happen, they foresaw the problem and did exhaustive testing to make sure the equipment would NOT behave in the way that it did.
Given that BRI predicted the anomaly as being attributed to the curving motion of space it bears looking in to. Not being discounted as a malfunction that was supposedly already tested for and wasn't supposed to be able to happen.
But I think you understand that and are just being difficult.

And you were the one that called the scientists amateurs and bums in the derogatory, the next time you are trolling your own thread you should use slurs that won't come back to annoy you? Or just don't use them at all.

And the idea that it has to have been sighted holds no water at all. There are several explanations that may apply. Low reflectivity, no reflectivity at all, a misidentified body, my point is that it does seem the entire solar system is curving through space around SOMETHING.
Even mainstream academia is saying now that the elongated orbits of Sedna and Xena are indicative of an encounter with a large gravity source in the outer reaches of the solar system.
And the extra solar planets they are finding are all in extremely tight orbit around their respective suns. None are sighted directly but are gravitationally lensed against the background of their own star or an occulting star between. So that argument does not hold water either.

I was watching a show yesterday on the Discovery channel about Pluto. In it they mentioned that they have found an object in the kuiper belt that is larger than Pluto and that since the belt extends further out than they expected, that there might very well be another one even bigger than the one they found. Could something like this not be the source of the mysterious gravity pulling at the planets? and not some fantasy planet/star of Nibiru.

reply to post by jstnbdy

I think the only reason you are so obsessed with trolling accusations is that you as a troll need company. The only reason for the smart ass comments is to create a balance for the dumb ass comments being made ( Sorry, I didn't mean that but it struck me as too funny not to use... )

Now lets get back on track and stop with the name calling.

I never insulted you personally only your sources which if you look at it needs varification. Big time.

Using NASAs explaination of an equipment malfunction does not confirm a theory.
"It didn't work because of....my thoery. Dont worry about what NASA have to say abuot it. What would they know?"

My theory is that there are hoards of pixies on space craft that tampered with the equipment. I am currently creating a website with all the data and irrefutable proof and will link it if I can remember the address. (again, out of line I know but I thought it was p!55 funny)

Even if this object you are talking about is as large as our sun, if it had an orbit of 25,000 years it would be so distant it would have bugger all effect.

Really, all I am asking for is something to support this from an independant source not associated with Walter Cruttenden

QBSneak000
Like I have said. I have absolutely no doubt there are Large to very large objects beyond the K belt, just not a second sun or inbound planetoid as some like to suggest.

No, I don't believe there is a second sun either. We would have spotted the light from it long ago. As for it not being reflective or putting off enough light to see it from earth........well if we can see very dim stars such as brown dwarfs and neutron stars from light years away, one as close as the outer reaches of the Kuiper belt would be seen. Unless it is a black dwarf.....which is only theoretical at this point.

Black Dwar Stars