Nibiru and the six papers it was posted in

Planetary. in other words, while entering our systems, it would have leached onto one of the outer planets.

If there are two planets and one is smaller then the other which gravity will be stronger? The bigger planet is our sun.

You don't need infrared to see pluto. If you intend to tell me a planet is coming from out of the solar system to Earth in 4 years, you're ignorant of physics. Such a planet at such a size would be breaking up, leaving a gas trail, or both.

Do you know what infrared is? Infrared is a light spectrum humans can't see, it detects heat, not cold.

no, it has to come closer to some other bodies. The sun isn't the sole gravity well in the system.

And the sun alone would curve such a planet out of our way.

Yes the planet does come closer to other bodies, earth, mars, the sun. The sun is basically our main gravity well in this arm of our galaxy. The sun wouldn't deflect the oncoming planet, more so pull it in.

Then it doesn't exist, because then your saying it's further then Pluto but will arrive here in 4 years. That's impossible without it breaking up.

The ancients whom have seen it says there was parts of it breaking up and leaving a trail, the horns of the planet, the firey tail, etc.

Then it would be clearly visible in unpopulated regions.

You can't see it under the ash and ice.

It is not made of rock, it is a brown dwarf star. A sub-stellar object with a mass below that necessary to maintain hydrogen-burning nuclear fusion reactions in their cores, as do stars on the main sequence, but which have fully convective surfaces and interiors, with no chemical differentiation by depth.

Pulled the above from wikipedia. heres the link

en.wikipedia.org...

Just wondering did you do any research on this theory or not?

[edit on 26-8-2008 by Quickfix]

reply to post by Quickfix


1. No matter what a planet had in its atmosphere, it still would reflect sunlight and be seen.
2. The NASA discovery could of been wrong. It is possible for someone to jump the gun. The people who run NASA are only human.
3. Still didn't answer the question on why the Sumerians forgot about Eris, but remembered Pluto even though Eris is larger.
4. What about Charon, which is roughly the same size of Pluto? Or the other planets that were newly discovered?
5. Why did they not have Saturn with rings?
6. They also thought the world was not a spherical shape, wouldn't the aliens have taught them about their own planet before discussing Pluto?
7. How could humanoid type life forms live on a planet that would be very cold and dark most of its orbit?

Use a little logic on the Nibiru theory. That is not to say there aren't any more Earth sized planets beyond Neptune, just no Jupiter sized ones that get close to Mars. When it last appeared why didn't all the civilizations note its arrival? They were very good with writing down other phenomena, why would they miss Nibiru?

reply to post by Quickfix

If there are two planets and one is smaller then the other which gravity will be stronger? The bigger planet is our sun.

No. It doesn't matter. Even the sun orbits around the common center of it and it's planets. It is not stationary. Even Senda causes the Sun to move a little our of place.

Do you know what infrared is? Infrared is a light spectrum humans can't see, it detects heat, not cold.

Do you know what sunlight is? It will bounce off, no matter what, exceptions being a blackhole. you would see such a massive planet, NO MATTER WHAT!

Yes the planet does come closer to other bodies, earth, mars, the sun. The sun is basically our main gravity well in this arm of our galaxy. The sun wouldn't deflect the oncoming planet, more so pull it in.

Uh, no. There's a bout a billion other, stronger suns in this arm alone in the galaxy. Our sun is not special.

And it wouldn't deflect it. it would curve it out of our way.

The ancients whom have seen it says there was parts of it breaking up and leaving a trail, the horns of the planet, the firey tail, etc.

The ancients who saw it didn't exist because if they saw it like that it wouldd be close enough so that A) parts would still be orbiting us and B) it would have broken up by now.

You can't see it under the ash and ice.

Then it doesn't exist. Ash and ice do not form around a gas giant unless its rings. AND, Ice and ash are particular IDEAL light bouncers, thus FURTHER disproving you.

It is not made of rock, it is a brown dwarf star. A sub-stellar object with a mass below that necessary to maintain hydrogen-burning nuclear fusion reactions in their cores, as do stars on the main sequence, but which have fully convective surfaces and interiors, with no chemical differentiation by depth.

wikipedia must be wrong. it can't have caves and designs if it's a gas giant and something that big wouldn't have caves as they would collapse under the gravity.

Originally posted by Quickfix
I'm no expert either, just very odd that the government would post the jupiter sized planet in the papers then pull it the next day.

The government posted nothing.

The Washington Post (a newspaper) published an article which misinterpreted and misquoted what the scientists who made the discovery said. Several other newspapers picked up the article from the Post.

Nothing was pulled. There was one article, with no followup because it turned out there was no sensational value to the story.

If you really want to know about it read this instead of listening to a kook like Mark Hazlewood, who by the way, said Nibiru was going to be here in 2003.

[edit on 26-8-2008 by Phage]

Originally posted by NinguLilium
www.metacafe.com...

check this one out!

They found Nibiru in the 80s.

OMG Not nibiru again so when did they ever say it was called nibiru? it is called planet x like anything new they find they call planet x yawn yawn here are some facts so get used to it.

Nemesis, the Sun's companion star, 1983-present

Suppose our Sun was not alone but had a companion star. Suppose that this companion star moved in an elliptical orbit, its solar distance varying between 90,000 a.u. (1.4 light years) and 20,000 a.u., with a period of 30 million years. Also suppose this star is dark or at least very faint, and because of that we haven't noticed it yet.
This would mean that once every 30 million years that hypothetical companion star of the Sun would pass through the Oort cloud (a hypothetical cloud of proto-comets at a great distance from the Sun). During such a passage, the proto-comets in the Oort cloud would be stirred around. Some tens of thousands of years later, here on Earth we would notice a dramatic increase in the the number of comets passing the inner solar system. If the number of comets increases dramatically, so does the risk of the Earth colliding with the nucleus of one of those comets.
When examining the Earth's geological record, it appears that about once every 30 million years a mass extinction of life on Earth has occurred. The most well-known of those mass extinctions is of course the dinosaur extinction some 65 million years ago. About 25 million years from now it's time for the next mass extinction, according to this hypothesis.
This hypothetical "death companion" of the Sun was suggested in 1985 by Daniel P. Whitmire and John J. Matese, Univ of Southern Louisiana. It has even received a name: Nemesis. One awkward fact of the Nemesis hypothesis is that there is no evidence whatever of a companion star of the Sun. It need not be very bright or very massive, a star much smaller and dimmer than the Sun would suffice, even a brown or a black dwarf (a planet-like body insufficiently massive to start "burning hydrogen" like a star). It is possible that this star already exists in one of the catalogues of dim stars without anyone having noted something peculiar, namely the enormous apparent motion of that star against the background of more distant stars (i.e. its parallax). If it should be found, few will doubt that it is the primary cause of periodic mass extinctions on Earth.
But this is also a notion of mythical power. If an anthropologist of a previous generation had heard such a story from his informants, the resulting scholarly tome would doubtless use words like 'primitive' or 'pre-scientific'. Consider this story:
There is another Sun in the sky, a Demon Sun we cannot see. Long ago, even before great grandmother's time, the Demon Sun attacked our Sun. Comets fell, and a terrible winter overtook the Earth. Almost all life was destroyed. The Demon Sun has attacked many times before. It will attack again.
This is why some scientists thought this Nemesis theory was a joke when they first heard of it -- an invisible Sun attacking the Earth with comets sounds like delusion or myth. It deserves an additional dollop of skepticism for that reason: we are always in danger of deceiving ourselves. But even if the theory is speculative, it's serious and respectable, because its main idea is testable: you find the star and examine its properties
However, since the examination of the entire sky in the far IR by IRAS with no "Nemesis" found, the existence of "Nemesis" is not very likely
www.nineplanets.org...





[edit on 8/26/2008 by altered_states]

1. No matter what a planet had in its atmosphere, it still would reflect sunlight and be seen.

Great, then finding it should be much easier, something hot and reflective. Though i still have my doubts about it being able to be seen by the human eye since it was spoted by something infrared.

2. The NASA discovery could of been wrong. It is possible for someone to jump the gun. The people who run NASA are only human.

Though what was seen, was seen from the infrared telescope, so its not going away, they even kept IRAS up even past its date of "uselessness." True humans do make mistakes, but something set up to see things specifically humans can't see is why it was set up in the first place.

3. Still didn't answer the question on why the Sumerians forgot about Eris, but remembered Pluto even though Eris is larger.

I answered it, though its not a deffinate answer. And had to do with knowledge being passed to them, maybe Eris was never spoken about.

4. What about Charon, which is roughly the same size of Pluto? Or the other planets that were newly discovered?

The knowledge that was given to the Sumerians things could of been left out. (why i dont know)

5. Why did they not have Saturn with rings?

Like how come are there no rings around saturn on the tablet? Why i wouldn't know, but theres still lots of things from way back when people still have to figure out.

6. They also thought the world was not a spherical shape, wouldn't the aliens have taught them about their own planet before discussing Pluto?

The planets in the tablet are round not flat.

7. How could humanoid type life forms live on a planet that would be very cold and dark most of its orbit?

Since the brown dwarf is very big it supposedly has a few moons or planets orbiting it, i would guess one of those would have life.

Use a little logic on the Nibiru theory. That is not to say there aren't any more Earth sized planets beyond Neptune, just no Jupiter sized ones that get close to Mars. When it last appeared why didn't all the civilizations note its arrival? They were very good with writing down other phenomena, why would they miss Nibiru?

I've thought about that for a while. To show that something may have been written down maybe a few thousand years ago, i would only think to look in the bible. Though some of the things in the bible have been altered over time, it is also a collection of books over time. Some of the books have hidden truths. The book of exodus and jasher (joshua) have some things in them that would only happen if something like a brown dwarf were to pass by, unless you belive theres a god out there.

Exodus 9:23-26 and Joshua 10:11-16 each version of the bible is different.

Oh God!

Great, then finding it should be much easier, something hot and reflective. Though i still have my doubts about it being able to be seen by the human eye since it was spotted by something infrared.

That doesn't mean you can't see it. The sun is visible in infrared light, but it's quite obviously visible by us.

And it has to be visible if it's as large as people say. Uranus is visible to the naked eye! imagine a freaking brown dwarf!

The planets in the tablet are round not flat.

He's talking about Earth.


And reptilians can't exist on such cold worlds because they are reptilians and cold blooded. If they were warmblooded, it still begs to question how their cold blooded ancestors survived?

And no light on such worlds. So how cold they ever evolve into humanoid shapes?

[edit on 26-8-2008 by Gorman91]

reply to post by Quickfix


A brown dwarf was ruled out by the space probes Pioneer 10 and 11. One of their missions (If they lasted that long, which they did) was to detect if there was a brown dwarf near our solar system. The measurements taken showed there was none.

That doesn't mean you can't see it. The sun is visible in infrared light, but it's quite obviously visible by us.

And it has to be visible if it's as large as people say. Uranus is visible to the naked eye! imagine a freaking brown dwarf!

Yup, thats a good point. Though why it can't be seen i don't know, but it sure can be seen from infrared. SPT, IRAS, etc.

The planets in the tablet are round not flat.

He's talking about Earth.

So on the tablet earth isn't shown as round? Reason why anyone thinks the earth is flat because your walking on earth and the shape is flat due to eye sight (looking out the window terrain looks flat).

And reptilians can't exist on such cold worlds because they are reptilians and cold blooded. If they were warmblooded, it still begs to question how their cold blooded ancestors survived?

And no light on such worlds. So how cold they ever evolve into humanoid shapes?

The aliens could of very well been on a moon or planet orbiting the brown dwarf.

[edit on 26-8-2008 by Quickfix]

Originally posted by kidflash2008
reply to post by Quickfix

 

A brown dwarf was ruled out by the space probes Pioneer 10 and 11. One of their missions (If they lasted that long, which they did) was to detect if there was a brown dwarf near our solar system. The measurements taken showed there was none.

Do you have a website to show? I just went to wikipedia and the description of the Pioneer 10 and 11 missions were to take pictures and observe Saturn, Jupiter, the Sun and other stuff (though nothing related to brown dwarfs). I went to Nasa's site and it had the same basic discription, did i miss something?

It doesn't matter. If it's past Earth, there's no light, and certainly not enough on a brown dwarf.

reply to post by Gorman91


So no light rules out the possibility of life? What if they lived underground? Or what if they moved from one habitable moon/planet onto the moon/planet for a reason.

Some people have yet to find out where they come from, so finding out where aliens come from maybe a bit trickier.

[edit on 26-8-2008 by Quickfix]

reply to post by Quickfix


No. No light rules out humanoid life.

Life can easily survive on any energy source. Chemical, light, magma heat, etc etc.

But no light makes humanoid greys or reptilians 100% impossible, along with those life forms where statistically impossible to begin with/

reply to post by Quickfix


Did you miss this?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The article you are referring to was wrong. It was not posted by "the Government". It was not "pulled". There is no planet, there is no brown dwarf.

reply to post by Gorman91


Yeah no light could not form the humanoid greys or reptilians. Though they could come from other places. The planet maybe the 2nd home, but not the original place.

Though theres plenty of evidence showing the existance of alien beings.

I'm a Nibiru skeptic obviously (lol) and i'm obviously one whom believes the passing of the planet is true.

reply to post by Quickfix


But even greys and reptilians are impossible.

Upright postures are simply not nature's favorite. The wide variety of life that's right bellow us in intelligence is NOT upright in posture.

If we use Earth as an example, upright posture came about only because man used his arms as upside down legs in trees. When we came down, we were already upright from using our hands in trees.

The only other life form that's upright and comes to mind would be the penguin. Which, like monkeys, also came from trees. They just were already upright as a good means of balance probably. And when they cam down, it was beneficial to have upright posture in the seas.

If we don't use Earth as an example, then life is anything, and therefor the humanoid shape is thrown out all together because their planet could be radically different.

[edit on 26-8-2008 by Gorman91]

The government posted nothing.

The Washington Post (a newspaper) published an article which misinterpreted and misquoted what the scientists who made the discovery said. Several other newspapers picked up the article from the Post.

Nothing was pulled. There was one article, with no followup because it turned out there was no sensational value to the story.

If you really want to know about it read this instead of listening to a kook like Mark Hazlewood, who by the way, said Nibiru was going to be here in 2003.

I did notice what you posted, i just have yet to go through the entire website you posted. So the newspaper that interviewed the lead scientist misinterpreted and misquoted what he said.

Well, it could easily be more propaganda covering up the truth once again, or it could just be propaganda from the start.

Though having the government controling Nasa, newspapers, T.V., radio, scientists, politicians, schools, people and just about everything would make the story look true due to its mistake in the first place.

The big mistakes by the government are usually the best ways to find truthful information. Mistakes like newspaper postings, speeches, etc.

How many times has this Op contradicted themselves?

If Nibiru is covered in ice like you say, then the need to spot it using infrared is waste of time. Ice reflects light, not absorbs it

Stars, even brown dwarfs are made of gas, they do not contain ice

Large planets and stars, usually emit to much heat to be covered in ice

Op has constantly referred to the alleged Nibiru to be a planet and star

The interpretation of Nibiru came from Sitchin, who does not have a degree in ancient languages. 99.9% of REAL ancient texts scholars, specialising in Sumerian interpretations, disagree with him.

reply to post by Gorman91


Your someone whom believes in evolution, good i have a few questions.

What happened to our hands on our feet?

Why are chimps/apes/monkeys/gorillas not still evolving into humans?

Why is it that humans have 46 pairs of chromosomes and some chimps/apes/monkeys/gorillas have 48 pairs of chromosomes?

It is true that humans are related to chimps/apes/monkeys/gorillas because some of our genes do come from them, but where do the rest come from? The rest of our genetic makeup is completely alien.

Fits in with the Nibiru theory, that humans were created beings and that did not evolve from chimps/apes/monkeys/gorillas.

[edit on 26-8-2008 by Quickfix]

What happened to our hands on our feet?

Why are chimps/apes/monkeys/gorillas not still evolving into humans?

Why is it that humans have 48 pairs of chromosomes and some chimps/apes/monkeys/gorillas have 50 pairs of chromosomes?

The common ancestors of apes and humans did not have "hands on their feet"

How do you know they are not evolving? Evolution is a very slow process. Why would they evolve into humans?

Humans don't have 48 pairs of chromosomes and apes don't have 50 pairs.

Nice work. You're doing a great job of displaying your ignorance.


[edit on 26-8-2008 by Phage]