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.

 

Giant Stealth Planet May Explain Rain of Comets from Solar System's Edge

page: 4
60
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   
I am JUST posting this. I did not make it nor do I know enough about SOHO/STEREO to debate this. I just find it interesting.







posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by W3RLIED2

Dont believe me? Check with NASA yourself: CLICK HERE



Thanks much for the post as a whole and the NASA link to the list.
Agreed that Nemesis and Tyche have the same meaning in NASA's list.
But, they don't have the same orbitial parameters.

So how can they be the same?



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Resurrectio
reply to post by buddybaney
 


NO!!! NASA did not admit to anything of the sort. NASA is saying that it might exist. people have been saying that it DOES exist for years. Nothing has been spotted, nothing has been proven.

This article is nothing more than more assumptions and more speculation. If your thread was an actual news story, I would question the motive. But, here on ATS you always have the star & flag seekers.

You really should edit your post, for being intentionally misleading. They have admitted to nothing.

From what I read... This "Nemesis" is not even the Planet X you are trying to sensationalize.

The only news here is "NASA scientist says something MIGHT exist"

BREAKING NEWS!!!! lmfao!!!



Sure they say might but thats just so they can pull the statement if it gets out of hand. How can nasa say might when they have telescopes that can see for light years. Telescopes that can see other galaxy's. Yet they cannot see a planet by our sun that people hear on earth are starting to see? I saw it on thanks giving. It was very cloudy. It looked as if they wear trying to hide it. I had to look at a angle threw 5 clouds to see it. A big white ball that look a little brighter and bigger then the moon. Witch would explain why for the first time ever we got strong winds from north as if the gulf wind stream had broke. To push all these chemclouds in every ones view. Go head and check out the weather for thursday. Look at the cold font that came in. Look at the clouds that came with it.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   
well.. then why is NASA stating this? Sounds like they know more than they want you to think.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


Again....many, many people who don't understand/don't even bother to investigate and learn, post these wild speculations on UTube. Some dude is "worried" that some images were not released...but didn't bother to look into the status of the SOHO, to determine whether there was an explanation for that. Software problems, scheduled maintenance, whatever. Can be looked up.

Meanwhile, where it is a link to TODAY, 1 December, and shows various live images.

sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov...

SO, what did that UTube poster prove, anyway? That he doesn't really know what he's talking about? ( Temporary image anomalies, in the data. He called them a "comet-looking object"..
)

Oh, and another page link, (to their HomePage), with this comment posted:


On November 28, the SOHO team, our data center and computer servers will be moving to another building. We plan to restore operations within 48 hours of our move. During that time, none of the services provided by our servers and this site will be available. However, while no data updates will be propagated to our European mirror site, that site will be accessible. Thank you for your understanding.


sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov...

Finally.....why does no one ever pay attention to the fact that not only NASA operates the SOHO, but also in conjunction with the ESA??


Tempest in a teapot, is what it all is.......



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   
I assume NASA specualted of this for many many decades..where comets come from. As far as i know, in 1986 i was 11 into astronomy. Thier was a series on tv called 'plaent earth' whcih i still have on vcr tapes

Thier was one, about our solar system. The star, in the series was called 'nemisis, the death star'. it was theorized, that this star orbits well outside the solar system, near the oort cloud* where comets supposedly come from. this star nemisis, orbits around the sun, and its gravity knocks comets out of the oort cloud, sending them into the solar system. so to me, NASA does kinda heorize, know something is out thier.
but..theyde have to prove thier is an oort cloud, and nemisis of course, with evidence* actual clear photos of them.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



(Did they stop teaching Astronomy in the schools, or something?)


Indeed! They must be teaching the "new astronomy"

Ok kiddies, put away the Zecharia Sitchin books and learn some real astronomy. So you can tell the difference.

The "new english" they are teaching in school must have the definition of "possibly" defined as "real"
And the story of Henny Penny only gets the Cliff note treatment!
Truly astounding!



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


Anything from SOHO or STEREO is not relevant to this thread. If you read the OP, the "planet x" NASA is talking about is very large, and very far away, therefore not going to be visible by looking at the sun.

It's why these threads get so askew and frustrating.......every person who believes has a different "planet x" from the next. The details do not match. And the details are what matters, not the suppostions about them.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


First off, NO ONE understands. Just because YOUR information comes from men in white lab coats and get their pay checks from the government doesn't mean it's correct.

About the video I posted.

I merely posted it. Whether or not it contains pertinent information or nothing at all is left to the reader to decipher. I was honest and said I didn't know enough about it to even form an opinion.

Hey Weed? If it is wrong then just look at it as job-security for you and your need at ATS. If people aren't wrong once in a while then you'd have nothing to do. So you REALLY should be thanking me.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by buddybaney
 


yea but once "planet X" got close to the sun wouldn't it rapidly heat and be visable though? I don't know if I buy the cold and invisible planet X right next to our sun idea. Why would NASA come out and tell people about it even if it was true? NASA will never make a planet X media confimation. Personally I think X is a comet that passed in 2003 that was as large as Jupiter and should of destroyed Earth and should have dragged Mercury into the sun scientifically but nothing happen because of divine intervention. The Sumerians predicted this and it did happen only a few weeks from their prediction, not bad for a prediction 6,000 years in from the time they were here on Earth. I think we need to stop prediction and start doing more to help the world. There is wonderful information on here but I have yet to see any predictions come true without heavy word manipulation and twisting facts. I'm calling this a troll.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   
A planet MAY exist in the far reaches of the solar system. If this planet is proven to exist but also proven to not cross Earth's orbit it can't possibly be the planet X of conspiracy fame right?

I just want to make sure we get this straight. Nibiru has been accused of speeding up, slowing down, dodging photographs, and changing forms from planets to stars but it is a pretty common element in all the postulations about Nibiru that it crosses our orbit; that being said if this planet stays at the outer edge of the solar system it cannot possibly be planet X.

To put it simply...it may be an unknown planet, but if it stays out there it isn't Nibiru.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by stars15k
 


I beg to differ.

Anything regarding people looking for another planet/sun within our solar system (or see our Sun acting strangely) is very connected. I have every reason to believe, if Nibiru is nearby, our government would hide that information. Because even if people didn't even KNOW about Nibiru (or just an additional planet, period) they would simply Google-it and ((((bam)))) panic would ensue.

So I am quite certain, when they find it (and they probably already have) they will keep it unwraps until all their D.U.M.B.s are burrowed out and ready to go

(am being a little sarcastic but not by much)



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by W3RLIED2
reply to post by Resurrectio
 


We're not just now buying into this. I can only speak for myself, but I also know that there are many other members of this board who have spent hours of laborious research into these topics.


and by research, do you mean reading countless rag websites of people trying to sell survival books and overpriced "survival packs" (aka, 20 cans of spam and a thermos for $250)



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Uh, even if there is a distant trans-Oort planet in orbit around the Sun, it's not your Sitchin-esque planet X with the flying monkeys and 6000 year swoops through the Solar system.

Seriously. Think about any other planet. Ya think Jupiter occasionally just cuts up, makes a few polar orbit passes through the system and then settles back into its normal orbit? No. You know that doesn't happen.

Same with this one. It just trundles around out there, if it exists, in or past the Oort cloud. It's not going to suddenly leap up, make a pass through the inner system, then go back. Doesn't work that way.

By the way, given the number of tidally locked planets and moon-planet pairs in the inner system, and the time it takes for that to happen, you can pretty much 100% count out the fairy-tale of polar-orbit "planet X" "Nibiru" or whatever they're calling it this week. Disturb that and it'll be way more than 6000 years settling down.

And Sitchin apparently never heard of Roche's limit, either. But then, his Sumerian was execrable.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Mr weedwhacker has shown alots of hatred and ignorance on this topic let alone acting like a expert?


Posting government related sites isn't going to help your case, what your doing weedwhacker is copying and posting.

I have seen alot of ignorance on the topic of planet x or whatever.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


May I just remind you, we're still trying to figure out our own DNA.
So you're making it sound like, we've got 'outer-space' ALL FIGURED OUT. We just demoted Pluto for gawd sakes and now...they're having second thoughts.

There's no reason at this time to doubt Sitchens findings. When 'they' get our modern bible figured out then maybe, I'll entertain listening to our modern Know-it-alls.

I am glad you're this confident but there's a fine line for being overly complacent too.

edit on 1-12-2010 by Human_Alien because: grammar



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien
reply to post by Bedlam
 


May I just remind you, we're still trying to figure out our own DNA.
So you're making it sound like, we've got 'outer-space' ALL FIGURED OUT. We just demoted Pluto for gawd sakes and now...they're having second thoughts.


Whether you want to class something as a planet or planetesimal is one thing. Celestial mechanics is quite another. Orbits are the sort of thing that's not THAT hard to calculate. Which is why we've got these really neat things called "ephemerides" which can tell you where the planets will be and have been. Magic!

There's also the whole physics thing where you don't get to take a planet and make it zoom all over the solar system randomly. That's even easier than calculating orbits.

You don't get to make this stuff up. It happens in really predictable ways, unless you're looking for tiny little errors caused by relativity or the like. At the macro-scale, you just don't get planets changing orbits and taking a pass or two through the inner system, then making a few turns and going back to a nice orbital plane orbit.

And maybe you'd care to explain how you get all sorts of nice tidal locks, like the one the Moon has with the Earth, which took eons to happen, that are still nicely locked? A pass of a planet through the inner system would screw that sort of thing to hell and back.

And there's still Roche's limit, which apparently neither Sitchen nor yourself has heard of. You don't get to run a big planet that close to others and not have a happening. Only that requires an understanding of tides, and I guess you don't believe that's predictable either.



There's no reason at this time to doubt Sitchens findings. When 'they' get our modern bible figured out then maybe, I'll entertain listening to our modern Know-it-alls.


Easy. Here you go. Bible: myth. Sitchen: crank.

Seriously, a little college algebra buys you entry into the Wonderful World of Orbital Mechanics, although first semester calculus would really help. Remember, Kepler had this stuff nearly figured out in 1605.
edit on 1-12-2010 by Bedlam because: spelling correction



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   
There are no photos of black holes, but they exist.
Astronomy is full of such issues.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   
A lot of so called thought scientific fact throughout history, has been turned on its head further down the line. A planet x or whatever name you use, may well turn out to be fact soon enough.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by pirhanna
There are no photos of black holes, but they exist.
Astronomy is full of such issues.


The prediction that they existed comes from physics. Astronomy is full of that sort of issue as well.

The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the two foci. It's not just a good idea, it's the law.



new topics

top topics



 
60
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join