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.

 

Planet X. Hiding behind another celestial body ?

page: 3
15
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


You must first proof Nibru is real.
Before you can say what is or what isn't, if you cant even provide this fundamental evidence then the only proof you have is belief and speculation.

Thinking outside the box is fine, and i encourage this. But passing a belief off as absolute proof is wrong and totally outrageous.
this Nibru rubbish is a ideology nothing else.




posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by TheCosmicOcean
 


OMG


I thought we already have this talk.

Niburu comes from Stichens entrepratation fro the Sumerian clay tablets.

This same Sitchen is debunked and it seems he is a science fiction author.

The idea of a 10th planet is however very real. and their seems to be evidence for it's prescence because a top of their field scientists to use very expensive telescope and sattalite time to search for it. You can read this in the article.

I read about an event what however unlikely it could be, could explain why we have not found anything yet.

I even posted it is a speculative thread. Nothing more.

What does this mean.
I offer the evidence for this idea.

I do not offer evidence for Niburu.

This thread is not about Niburu. It's about the possibility of my idea can actualy take place in reality.

So get your Niburu talk some place else.
It has nothing to do with this thread.

Unless all the conspiracies are true and they are keeping it a secret for us of course.


But there are other threads that discuss that idea. Please go spewing your Niburu ranting where there are actualy people that talk about Niburu.

Thank you.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 06:38 PM
link   
actually i think the theory goes that nibiru/planet x is not visible due to the ecliptic at such an angle that it's only visible if viewed from an observatory in the south pole for now,and that observatory is even closed off by the military or something. But in 2012-13 it will begin being visible by the naked eye to the majority in the southern hemisphere and becoming more visible as time passes by. That being said, the closest approach could occur anywhere from 2017 to 2035 but it's effects will be very clear much sooner than the end of that spectrum.

[edit on 11-4-2010 by The Quiet Storm]

[edit on 11-4-2010 by The Quiet Storm]

[edit on 11-4-2010 by The Quiet Storm]



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Where did you get this idea? Nibiru can't exist. If it did we'd see perturbations in the orbits of the other planets. Why wasn't the planet visible a few months back when earth was on the other side of the sun? Let's see. That's because this is all made up baloney.

What's much more interesting is the search for actual planets or other objects in orbit around the sun. So far this search has shown that objects must be small - not planet sized, or very far away.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Quiet Storm
actually i think the theory goes that nibiru/planet x is not visible due to the ecliptic at such an angle that it's only visible if viewed from an observatory in the south pole for now...


That doesn't work. Just as the North Star is visible to pretty much anyone in the northern hemispere, the south celestial pole is eqally visible to anyone south of the equator. The southern hemisphere not only hosts several world-class observatories (particularly in Chile & Australia), there are also thousands of amateur astronomers with very good equipment.

There is no part of the sky that can "only" be observed from one small area. "Planet X" cannot hide.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by The Quiet Storm
 


The telescope in Antartica is there for a reason and it is not Nibiru.

Check this out !





posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 08:49 PM
link   
If this video is correct, which I doubt, it implies that this object is likely to be larger than Vesta. The image is about as good as Vesta taken from the Hubble. Now Vesta is 530km in diameter.

The reason I doubt this is what is claimed is that Vesta is bright enough at times to be seen with the naked eye. So anyone with an idea of where to look could find Vesta using binoculars.

This object if real would be visible to binoculars or small telescopes. No details would be visible, but the object would be.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


I doubt it is real. But he,. What if ?





posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 09:12 PM
link   
I always wonder what the original image was.

It makes you wonder how people supposedly get a hold of a video from a station in Antarctica showing something no one is supposed to notice. Then it get posted on YouTube and no one takes it down.

Although no dimensions were given I suggested it is on the order of the size of Kansas and Nebraska combined. Anyone thinking big is something like the size of an aircraft carrier or Manhattan is way off.

If a star ship was this big it could take a small asteroid in tow and slam it into the earth for the slam dunk total annihilation routine. Of course we'd see this coming months out.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Well they would probably just vaporize us with a giant laserbeam.

You don't get to be an advanced space faring race if you would pick the hard way.

Unless it's just for entertainement of course.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Dumping a rock onto the earth is a lot more devastating than a laser beam. An energy beam of any sort requires a huge device capable of delivering a huge amount of energy. instead of shipping that mess across the galaxy and building it in the first place you just zip across the galaxy, show up and act like a tow truck to slam some local rock into the planet.

It may be the "red neck" approach to devastating a planet, but it would be simpler and a much cheaper way to go.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Cheaper ? why do you assume the use money. And why do you assume they can't generate more power then you can dream of ?



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 10:48 PM
link   
I'm sorry. I am using the term cheaper in the sense of being less costly and that doesn't necessarily mean money. It can mean time, energy, resources, etc.

Here to build a device is an expense in terms of labor and resources. Then the device has to be maintained. That is a cost. It has to be moved from origin to destination. It takes up space.

You get the idea.

There are no free rides when it comes to energy. Why speculate that physics stops working?



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


Deleted.

~ Zeus

[edit on 12-4-2010 by Zeus2573]



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Zeus2573
 

That's what happens when you put someone on your ignore list.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Yes, I know Phage I just realized that.

Although I'm not stupid, I feel pretty stupid at the moment.

That's what I get for jumping the gun.

I could of swore I took him off the ignore list. I thought I took everyone off.

Guess not.

~ Zeus



[edit on 12-4-2010 by Zeus2573]



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 05:56 AM
link   
I used the DSS (Deep Sky Survey) Plate Finder to look-up the original plate where the "Huge UFO Mother Ship" appeared. It only showed-up on a single image that was part of the SERC-J sky survey. The photo was taken at the UK Schmidt Telescope at Anglo-Australian Observatory on October 11, 1977 (more than 25 years before the South Pole Telescope was built).

The feature doesn't show-up on any other image. It could be a flaw or contamination on the plate.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Saint Exupery
 

You mean this one?



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


the ocultation of the star - by the asteroid will only last a short time

if you believe another cellestial body is really occulting your alleged planet x - please look at a solar system simulation

to put it bluntly - all the celestial objects in our solar sustem rotate arounf the sun - with orbital " years " from just days [ mecury ] to mearly 80 years [ pluto ]

during which time the earth revolves around the sun once every year [ obciously ]

so please explain how any body can occult another continously ????



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   
i'm fairly certain that the first video acidtastic posted was a video of Betelgeuse. Orion's shoulder.




top topics



 
15
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join