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.

 

Where Are You Hiding Planet X, Dr. Brown?

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Where Are You Hiding Planet X, Dr. Brown?


dsc.discovery.com

Mike Brown: I sometimes get hate mail because people are convinced it does exists and I discovered it and therefore the destruction of the Earth is really all my fault. I only WISH I had that much power.

Ian O'Neill: Lol! That's an interesting twist! So you're not hiding the existence of Planet X then?
Or should I say "Nibiru".

Mike Brown: It's funny. I really do get many emails and even worried calls from people who are convinced that I know something and am not telling. It is very hard to convince someone who thinks that there is a conspiracy that you are not part of the consp
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Read the whole interview.

It debunks every 2012 /niburu theory there is.
out of the mouth of the man that supposedly found it lol


So this interview should kill 99% of the niburu theory's.


dsc.discovery.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 5-11-2009 by TheAmused]



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by TheAmused
 



Should but wont.
We are still going to see the same rubbish rehashed time and time again.
Still nice find S&F



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 08:15 AM
link   
God, I feel for this guy. You can explain something to someone over and over and they just won't get it. I remember all the threads from the recent LCROSS mission when I expelled way too much energy trying to convince people that we're not going to destroy the Moon

I don't believe any of the Nibiru stuff, I'll explain. If there was a planet on an orbit which would take thousands of years to complete then it's safe to say that it moves fairly slow. Now, if it were set to collide with the Earth in about 2 years, we would be able to see it, probably even in the day time, with out the aid of a telescope.

Maybe I'm missing something but I haven't seen any large planets in the sky.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadowflux
 


Yes but the planet Xers will explain that, while most of the orbit is slow, it gets really fast as it approaches the sun, then slower again as it moves away. And you can't see it because it's hiding behind the sun....

The madness will not end!



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadowflux
 


yea trying to turn someone over can be quite hopeless sometimes.. people are too skeptical these days, but then again, that could be a good thing i guess



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by TheAmused
 




Mike Brown: Emotion and ignorance. If you ask people to draw planets in the solar system and make them the correct relative size and then draw Pluto, most people will make it about the size of Mercury (which itself will be 1/3 the size of Jupiter). And I think that's because that's what we often see in popular images of the solar system. SOOOOO wrong. I wish I could take all of those images out there and at least make them correct.
It's fabulous that the images are taken automatically and that the first cut at finding moving things is done by computer. It means that even though I was collecting data most nights for 8 years, I still went home every night and slept in my bed. It's a much more civilized way to do astronomy, I must say.

Ian O'Neill: Ha, that sounds like my kind of astronomy too



I don't see how this debunks any theory. The guy doesn't even look up at the sky himself, all he does is go through data collected from the Kuiper Belt which has been filtered by a computer prior to him even seeing the data.

Now I'm definately not saying that Planet X is on it's way here and that it will hit in 2012 (or even come close to doing so) but this guy really is full of himself.

Besides, the interview is completely swamped with "Lol's" and smileys. At a certain point I got the idea that the guy doing the interview (or the one who edited the transcript) was a 14 year old kid. It reads like I'm going through my little nephew's MSN chat transcript which really doesn't add much to the scientific basis it's supposedly portraying.

Poor interview. Poor editing. Even though I am no advocate for Planet X I hardly think this will convince the believers of giving up their belief.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Mokoman
 


I agree. The smileys and lol was a bit excessive.

Also, maybe I misunderstood his meaning but in one comment he says:

“If in 1/2 of the Kuiper belt we find a very smooth distribution of sizes like this, then surveying the other half of the KB it is unlikely we're suddenly going to jump an order of magnitude in size.”

And in another comment he says:

“It's really very fun to come in to your office in the morning, search through data taken (automatically!) the night before, and know that today might be the day you discover something bigger than anything else discovered in 150 years.”

Does he mean “bigger” as far as discovery or “bigger” in size?



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by liveandletlive
 



“If in 1/2 of the Kuiper belt we find a very smooth distribution of sizes like this, then surveying the other half of the KB it is unlikely we're suddenly going to jump an order of magnitude in size.”


I think he's just making sense here. Say we wrote out the numbers 1 to 100, if you count the first fifty and they're all consecutive then it's only logical that the next fifty numbers are more likely to be consecutive than not.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by liveandletlive
Does he mean “bigger” as far as discovery or “bigger” in size?


Could mean either, but bigger in size would mean maybe 100 miles wider than Eris (the biggest - sizewise - object found in our solar system since the discovery of Neptune). Or, for that matter, 1 mile wider ....



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Mokoman
 


If you ask me, the poor quality of this interview is just indicative of the low standards set for what passes for journalism these days.

I think this says it all:


Mike Brown: I don't get paid enough to be part of a conspiracy that big.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by liveandletlive
 


I doubt he meant bigger relative to size, as he clearly already made up his mind that nothing bigger will ever be found, even though he admits that they are only scanning through 50% of the entire 'belt'. He assumes too much, and doesn't back any of his claims up with fact (in this interview)

From what I make up from this poor story is that he (his computer) focusses solely on the Kuiper belt. What he proclaims to be a big discovery therefore means nothing more than the discovery of some rock amongst many others (correct me if I'm wrong here but that's the idea I get after reading the interview)

I'm sure that he is a smart guy who will have a lot of interesting stuff to share with us but the idiot who interviewed him was just too busy crawling up his *** to ask the good questions.




top topics



 
5

log in

join