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.

 

Nibiru does not exist-proof

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Yeah, I heard something about that. Its not like it matters though. If something big does hit us, we won't even know because it will happen to fast. If something grazes by us, do you think that we will feel anything from it?




posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by KaginD
 


Yes, if it grazes by it will cause more problems as the earth goes through the dust trail of the asteroid, the earth will be bombarded by millions of smaller meteorites and though it would burn up high in the atmosphere and will create a spectacular display for us, that is the positive effect of that.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by peacejet
All right eveyone, I am one of the persons who believe that Nibiru does not exist and have some proof for that, and I hope that it would be helpful to all of us.

Ok, to start as nibiru approached the sun the amount of solar activity should and was expected to increase in the years leading to 2012 due to the gravitational disturbances and coincidentally 2011 is the peak year of solar activity in the sun's 11 year solar activity cycle.

But, recent data from the ulysses probe found out that the activity is at the lowest ever in 50 years,


Data from the joint NASA and European Space Agency Ulysses mission that reveals the sun's solar wind is at a 50-year low.


If nibiru was to approach in 2012 it would have already started gravitationally disturbing the sun and cause huge solar flares and now how come in the time leading to 2011 peak solar year, there is no activity in the sun


And that minimum solar activity is only causing the changes in weather we see in earth and other planets.


The sun's current state could result in changing conditions in the solar system.


This clearly shows that even if nibiru existed as many say, it must be turning away from us based on the activity of the sun.


So, I would like to hear from all of you, regarding this,

Here's the link,

www.nasa.gov... ference.html


Don't you know? All the little red men living in the sun have to turn down the power so The little green men's planet doesn't get incinerated by the sun and they can safetly pass by. Sense we're just primitive beings it doesn't matter that we are going to have an ice age and everyone dies cause of it. We're like the annoying red ant hill on the front lawn that every one wants dead anyway.

Sorry couldn't help it and if anyone beat me too it darn I was too slow. Now if anyone adopts this theory I'll sue for copyright infringment and being stupid, unless you can actually prove it's true by providing me with the actual planet and beings that inhabit it lol.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Darthorious
 


I acceot your point of view that we are primitive and are helpless when something like this happens, but atleast we will be knowing in advance of the things to come.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by KaginD
Yeah, I heard something about that. Its not like it matters though. If something big does hit us, we won't even know because it will happen to fast. If something grazes by us, do you think that we will feel anything from it?


Last estimate I heard if we were hit by something that could destroy the planet we would have about 0.05 seconds from impact until all life ceased to exist. That would be either be 1 huge thing, or one fast moving object.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 09:30 AM
link   
I watched a documentary on asteroids and stuff like that. NASA is developing a way to knock an asteroid off of its course by sending a rocket up with a missal attached to it. They wouldn't aim it at the asteroid though, instead they would aim for next to it so the gravitational pull would knock it off its course with Earth. What I didn't get though is why they would attach a missal to the rocket
Why not just send the rocket up alone? Plus, they are in developmental stages right now, so it something was coming at us today we wouldn't have anything to divert the thing...



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by KaginD
 


These kind of ways to deflect asteroids are in the planning for a long time by various scientists and why NASA isnt designing it is because of the high cost involved and there are plans to deflect asteroids by sending missiles and destroy it, but it will cause millions of smaller asteroids which if gets through the atmosphere will cause more damage, and also a plan to send a rocket to the asteroid and fire the thrusters and deflect it from its orbit if it is a relatively small asteroid.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by peacejet
reply to post by Darthorious
 


I acceot your point of view that we are primitive and are helpless when something like this happens, but atleast we will be knowing in advance of the things to come.


Oh I'm not saying it will or won't heck for all we know there could be a cloaked ship circling our planet for the past 1000 years nothing is certain one way or the other. And I do believe there is another planet that orbits our sun, I'm just not so certain we will see it in 2012 or even in our life time. Just because a calender ends doesn't mean the planet will.

After all from what I've seen the maya calender appears to be a circle. Who's to say it doesn't start over on that date. They based it off of what we believe were the stars and planets maybe that is the amount of time it takes for one full cycle of the entire solar system instead of 24 hours in a day its 1000's of years in a "solar system"

Just making fun of some of the more extreme groups out there that will go to any length to prove they are right when they are obviously wrong. Like to y2k glitch had some people believing the whole world was gonna stop and some believing it would end or christ would come back in the year 2000, and when he didn't they said he did. etc...



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Darthorious
 


But i dont think nibiru exists at all, I have seen the marshall masters video and in one of the parts, there is the distance of the hot object, which he states as nibiru and at 1983 it is about 40 million miles and in 1998 it is at 7 million miles and why is it taking such a long time for the 7 million miles to be covered.




posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATruGod

Originally posted by peacejet
reply to post by Crabmeat
 

Yes, thats what Iam saying nothing is going to happen in 2012, as usual the year will roll be as it always does.


So your disproving Nibiru in 2012?

Or Completely?



Your title states



Nibiru does not exist-proof


Could you clarify this?



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 09:48 AM
link   
To have "absolute proof" that Nibiru didn't exist, one would have had to mapped out EVERY astronomical object out to a space of about (offhand WAG here) twice the diameter of the orbit of Pluto.

Have we done that yet? If not, then no, we don't have "absolute proof", we have "strong evidence to suggest", or "circumstantial evidence that disproves", or even "no evidence to indicate", NOT "absolute proof".



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by ATruGod
 


Iam disproving the existence of nibiru entirely, because just think about the fact that it is a dwarf star and is in a elliptical orbit with a orbital period of 3600 years, how is this possible, everyone knows that binary star systems have the stars that orbit around with respect to a common center of gravity, more like twin stars




posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by sir_chancealot
 


All space objects beyond pluto in the kuiper belt are being searched for new planets with few luck, but as you say the entire zone hasnt been mapped, but I am saying this based on the inactivity of the sun and the sun should have been becoming more and more active around the 2011 peak solar year of the 11 year cycle and also if nibiru approached.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by peacejet
 



So you don't actually have proof, just a theory? We know Eliptical orbits are possible, look at Haleys Comet. Is it really that far out there to think there could be a planet in a similar orbit that takes a bit longer?

I'm on the fence with the whole Nibiru thing, but to say you have proof it doesnt exist is a bit...out there.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ATruGod
 


According to the statistics given regarding nibiru, nibiru got far away from the sun in the orbital time period, at the perigee of the orbit, the gravitational effect of the sun would be weak at that distance and the star can drift away from the solar system unlike the example of halleys which just goes to kuiper belt.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by peacejet
reply to post by Darthorious
 


But i dont think nibiru exists at all, I have seen the marshall masters video and in one of the parts, there is the distance of the hot object, which he states as nibiru and at 1983 it is about 40 million miles and in 1998 it is at 7 million miles and why is it taking such a long time for the 7 million miles to be covered.



Well like you said it may not be what he thinks it is at all, is it possible that these are 2 separate bodies, or that his interpitation of the actual distance is flawed, there are too many unknown variables to determine anything other than there is a light there and is/or was at one time occupied by some type of matter that emitted light.

You could speculate that what are the chances there was a body or mass in 1986 that had an occurance that caused it to stop emitting light except for a piece of the mass to have somehow escaped the "death" (for lack of a better term) of the remaining mass and be propelled in a certain direction only to get caught in another gravitational field and held there.

I believe that many think it may be another planet heading here and I also believe that there is another plant. But personally do not believe that is the one. But it really doesn't matter what I believe because none of it can be proven either way.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Darthorious
 

You are correct, both of our points cannot be clearly proven, lets wait and time will tell, who is correct.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   
First Nibiru does exist cause I have been there second the recent sorm activity is bieng caused by the approch of nibiru third annunki are nasa do you really think they want you to know that it is coming consdering they want to destroy all life that does not bow to them. Fom my understanding it is on a collision course . 2012 marks the return of maya on dec.21 2012 we will finally have proof that there is life out and we are not alone


if you wish contact me aedenhursch@gmail.com



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by peacejet
 

Why I do not believe in Nibiru.
I have readen a lot on Nibiru and I would like to share my opinion.
One of the "evidence" on which it is based the Nibiru theory is one tablet
that Zacharia Sitchin says it would have been engraved by an ancient
civilitation, with an unkown planet on it. Well, in front on my desk there
is a drawning by my son: there is a tall man (me) a small child (he)
and the sun in the sky. Now let's put this drawning in a bottle and hide it in my garden. Let's say in the year 4000 someone will find the bottle.
This will be his conclusion: in the year 2008 there were no planets but the earth in the solar system (in fact on the drawning there is only the sun), and on the earth there were no females.

So: that tablet proves nothing !



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by peacejet
 

To qoute one of your posts you say "I am disproving the existence of Nibiru entirely, because just think about the fact that it is a dwarf star.....". So which is it? you say you are disproving it and then state that its in fact a brown dwarf. Which is it?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join