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.

 

Getting Our "Facts" About Nibiru Straight

page: 5
12
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by loagun
 



And yet I have clearly, and several times now showed you that it was downgraded in 2006 after it's original January title of being the 10th planet in our solar system.

Eris was moved to a new classification that according to your posts did not exist till 2006. The discovery of Eris in 2005 cemented the fact that some of the objects in the solar system were not classified properly.


And as I clearly stated several times now this classification already existed with these bodies being referred to as minor planets, subplanets, planetoids, and plutinos.

Are these formal names used for classification? No. You even told us that these were not formal designations being used to classify these bodies.


Just because you said Eris was never categorized as a planet

I don't believe I ever said that. Repeating this is making you look like a liar.


In closing I know Eris lead to the new addition of the term 'dwarf planet' to the category of "bodies too small to be labeled 'planets'" that already existed before the discovery of Eris(I already previously stated the discovery of 2 minor planets before Eris was even thought of)./quote]
You are starting to get it. A series of objects is discovered which shows that there is a type of object in the solar system which deserves its own class.


You however, in review stated Eris was discovered, never labeled a planet, and was discovered to bring forth the new 'dwarf planet' category.

There you go with the lie about me saying that Eris was not classified after its discovery. Shame on you.


While elements of what you are saying may be true, things did not happen the way you are trying to make them appear to have.

This applies to you, but we'll have to agree to disagree. As you get more into the process of understanding the sequence of events you'll figure out what happened.


WTF I am a liar????? Oh please, please, pretty please point out where I lied.

You claimed that NASA confirmed the discovery of new planets in 1983 and 1992. Please show us this fact.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

or did you read about NASA's press release in 1983/84 and again in 1992 concerning the discovery of a massive body in the outer reaches of our solar system. perhaps you read about the Sumerian tablets documenting the 'planet'? maybe you skipped over ancient Egyptian, Mayan, or Greek documentation of the existence of a 10th planet?

These are the outright lies you posted.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The planet 'X' that NASA announced they had tracked in 1983 and 1992, as well as the planet 'X'/mystery planet that astrologers have mathematically predicted throughout history IS NOT ERIS the DWARF PLANET.

You continued to embellish this lie by claiming that NASA was tracking the object.


On a side note, my personal belief is that NASA announced the 'discovery' of 'Planet X' in 2005(Eris) with the intention of confusing, and directing attention away from the planet 'X' they found in 1983.

For someone that shows that they can find articles about Eris why can't you show us that these claims about planet discoveries in 1983 and 1992 are true? My take on it is that you are using Eris as a means of avoiding the real issue which is that you fabricated stories about discoveries of planets in 1983 and 1992 and tracking the planets. I think you are purposely misrepresenting the Eris issue and how classification works to avoid admitting that you lied about planet discoveries.


This is a lie and disinformation being spread from NASA which is another reason why I believe the 'discovery' of Eris was to confuse/distract people from the massive body found in 1983.

You say Eris is a cover up. Really? NOT.

So please show us that you did not make up wild tales, ie falsehoods, about the 1983 and 1992 planet discoveries you claimed happened.




posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by loagun
 


This is just Sitchin's hoax and nothing more. The Sumerians only knew about the visible eye planets. They reported no other planets. In fact, there is little about astronomy from the Sumerians. It is mostly Babylonian and it is the existence of Sumerian names for stars that suggest that the Babylonian information is based on earlier work by the Sumerians.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by loagun
 


right from the Washington Post article of 1983.... thank you....

Thanks for pointing out what a pathetic article that was. The suggestion that it was possibly a planet was one of many possible explanations and the one that was correct was the galaxy explanation.

At least the article does not state that it is a planet. It says that a planet is a possible explanation. There are many liars that think people are so stupid that the article says it was a planetary discovery, but who would so foolish as to fall for that?

Uhhh... anyone who's not foolish enough to believe that astronomers couldn't tell the difference between "a heavenly body possibly as large as the giant planet Jupiter" and your fictional "galaxy" or perhaps anyone who actually believes astronomers couldn't calculate the distance of an object that's "so close to Earth 
that it would be part of this solar system" and your fairy tale "galaxy?"

I love how you constantly bash this article -- even though it's little more than direct quotes from IRAS, JPL and Cornell astronomers -- while never failing to defend the most ridiculous part of it.

So tell us again, which galaxy is the size of Jupiter and so close that it's part of our solar system?



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by NWOnoworldorder
 


You've been mixing apples and oranges. It's easy to do when people use a vague term such as the word size.

Let's see how things got a bit off with a review.

You originally stated that:

if u want to get technical then a brown dwarf is a star that is smaller than a planet and has a mass equivalent to less than one-tenth of the Sun's mass.


I wanted to point out that the size, ie diameter, was incorrect, and that the mass has a range that can be much less than 1/10 of the mass of the sun.


That's a bit off. A brown dwarf would be a little larger than Jupiter.
A brown dwarf runs 10 to 90 Jm. The sun is roughly 1000 Jm so a large brown dwarf is roughly 1 to 9% of the Sun.



really? oh right well tell that to the encarta world dictionary.


also i think thats complete nit-pickery on your part.

the sun is ALMOST ten times the size of jupiter, a brown dwarf is the around the size of jupiter so i think saying a brown dwarf is one tenth the size is pretty darn acurate.

So your response was Encarta provided the information. You also thought it was nitpicking to point out that the size you gave was around the maximum size, ie mass, of a brown dwarf.

After you claimed I was nitpicking I wanted to see your Encarta link to see how you obtained these 2 size values, one for diameter and another for mass.

So now you ask

got what wrong exactly? i can provide links from nasa confirming what i sed if that is at all usefull?

1. You got the diameter wrong by saying brown dwarfs were smaller than planets
2. You gave a mass which was the high end of range for brown dwarfs - not an error, but incomplete

The NASA article mentions the sizes, ie mass, of particular objects. The other article mentions the size, ie diameter, of the sun and Jupiter.

So what do these links have to do with claiming that a brown dwarf is smaller than a planet. The NASA article has a brown dwarf at 20Jm which is 2% of the mass of the sun, well below the 10% you mentioned. Thus neither link confirms what you stated.
edit on 16-2-2011 by stereologist because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 



Uhhh... anyone who's not foolish enough to believe that astronomers couldn't tell the difference between "a heavenly body possibly as large as the giant planet Jupiter" and your fictional "galaxy" or perhaps anyone who actually believes astronomers couldn't calculate the distance of an object that's "so close to Earth 
that it would be part of this solar system" and your fairy tale "galaxy?"

Although this is an incomplete sentence I will try to explain to you what you may have been trying to write.

What this crappy article does not tell you and was reported was that a number of objects appeared in IORAS data that did not have an optical counterpart. That means that when IRAS data was compared to a photograph there were bright marks in the IRAS data, but the photograph done in visible light was dark.

The distance to this object cannot be determined from a single image. It is displacement that gives incite into the distance to an object.

The foolish claim that this object is a "fairy tale galaxy" is ludicrous since that was one of the suggestions from the scientists that made the presentation.


I love how you constantly bash this article -- even though it's little more than direct quotes from IRAS, JPL and Cornell astronomers -- while never failing to defend the most ridiculous part of it.

The possibility of a galaxy was mentioned in the article as were a host of others speculations. The problem with the article is that author does a poor job of representing this list as just speculations or pointing out why such a wide range of issues is being considered.

The most ridiculous issue with this article is that flagrant liars and hoaxers attempt to claim that this article confirms the discovery of a planet.


So tell us again, which galaxy is the size of Jupiter and so close that it's part of our solar system?

And where does it say this in the article? That little laughy face is laughing at your inability to read and comprehend the article.

Please show us where it makes the claim that a galaxy is the size of Jupiter or that a galaxy is close to our solar system.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by discostu123
 


It's good practice to use quotes around material you copy and also to provide a link to the source.

Having said that, I find most of what was written in the post to be good material showing how silly the Nibiru claims are.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 

Spare me the loquacious replies.

Just tell us which "galaxy" was being referenced in the 1983 Washington Post article.

Is that request too difficult?



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 



Just tell us which "galaxy" was being referenced in the 1983 Washington Post article.

Is that request too difficult?


I am going to laugh at your silly attempt to misrepresent the article. Maybe you are being serious and simply don't understand what was written. No specific object is mention in the article. It is a laundry list of possibilities.


So mysterious is the object that astronomers do not know if it is a planet, a giant comet, a
nearby "protostar" that never got hot enough to become a star, a distant galaxy so young that it is still in the process of forming its first stars or a galaxy so shrouded in dust that none of the light cast by its stars ever gets through.


Amazing! Two different galactic possibilities are mentioned. Most of the objects in question turned out to be the latter of the two given possibilities.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
I asked specifically where in the article does it say that the galaxy is the size of Jupiter and so close that it's part of the solar system?

Spare me the weaseling and just answer.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
You wrote this rambling diatribe.

or perhaps anyone who actually believes astronomers couldn't calculate the distance of an object that's "so close to Earth 
that it would be part of this solar system" and your fairy tale "galaxy?"

Please tell everyone how the astronomers measure the distance and why the object is in the solar system.

No fibbing now. Please tell us how this was to be done.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
I asked specifically where in the article does it say that the galaxy is the size of Jupiter and so close that it's part of the solar system?

It says, "A heavenly body possibly as large as the giant planet Jupiter and possibly so close to Earth 
that it would be part of this solar system has been found in the direction of the constellation 
Orion by an orbiting telescope aboard the U.S. infrared astronomical satellite.

YOU'RE the one who claims it was a galaxy.

Do you actually believe you can obfuscate, misdirect and counter-attack your way out of the simplest question?

OK, let's try this one more time. In this post, you said, "The suggestion that it was possibly a planet was one of many possible explanations and the one that was correct was the galaxy explanation." Do you remember writing that?

So if the galaxy explanation was ultimately correct, then WHICH GALAXY was later identified? Yes, I understand that no specific galaxy was mentioned in the ARTICLE. Duh. I'm asking YOU to NAME the GALAXY that was LATER IDENTIFIED as being the "mystery heavenly body" in the 1983 Washington Post article.

See, this is how names work. I believe it was most likely a brown dwarf named NIBIRU (aka Planet X, Hercolubus, Wormwood, Eris, Nemesis, Tyche, etc.)

So what's the NAME of your GALAXY? Or is it one of those generic galaxies 50 billion miles from Earth? Maybe Galaxy X?


edit on 2/16/2011 by GoldenFleece because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by NWOnoworldorder
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


um from whence does this rant come? have i missed something? nibiru is still the same that brown dwarf planet that is very difficult to locate seeing as its a dark planet.

the latest thing that nasa has found on the outskirts of our solar system thats 4 times the size of venus...IS NOT nibiru....just sayin


Lets see a brown dwarf is a star not a planet
just goes to show what BS nibiru is



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 



YOU'RE the one who claims it was a galaxy.

It is a galaxy. The sentence you copied form the article does not say it exists. It says something is in the direction of Orion. The distance to the object is speculated as is the size as shown by the use of "possibly".

On to the next sentence of the article.

So mysterious is the object that astronomers do not know if it is a planet, a giant comet, a nearby "protostar" that never got hot enough to become a star, a distant galaxy so young that it is still in the process of forming its first stars or a galaxy so shrouded in dust that none of the light cast by its stars ever gets through.

Here are the proposals for the object. Notice how the objects range in distance from solar system to millions of light years away.


Do you actually believe you can obfuscate, misdirect and counter-attack your way out of the simplest question?

Personally, I don't believe you are as poor a reader as your posts suggest.


See, this is how names work. I believe it was most likely a brown dwarf named NIBIRU (aka Planet X, Hercolubus, Wormwood, Eris, Nemesis, Tyche, etc.)

Show me anywhere that the article claims it was a brown dwarf. Show me anywhere that it shows that the object was seen to be displaced between images indicating that the object was nearby. Show me anywhere that the object in question had a spectral signature of a brown dwarf. Show me something other than ludicrous trolling behavior.


So what's the NAME of your GALAXY? Or is it one of those generic galaxies 50 billion miles from Earth? Maybe Galaxy X?

There are no galaxies 50 billion light years from Earth!



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 

There are no galaxies 50 billion light years from Earth!

Not light years. MILES. There are no galaxies 50 billion miles from earth. And there are no galaxies the size of Jupiter.

Once again, (after 3 requests), you are unable to provide a name or any corroborating information about your mythical "galaxy", which is smoking gun proof that this article is referring to an object that could only be seen by IRAS, most likely a brown dwarf.

Damn, you never give up, do you?



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 



Once again, (after 3 requests), you are unable to provide a name or any corroborating information about your mythical "galaxy", which is smoking gun proof that this article is referring to an object that could only be seen by IRAS, most likely a brown dwarf.


Once again you fail to point out anywhere in the article where it mentions a brown dwarf or anything like a brown dwarf. You fail to show anywhere where it states that a brown dwarf spectrum was detected. You fail to corroborate anything about it being a brown dwarf.


Show me anywhere that the article claims it was a brown dwarf. Show me anywhere that it shows that the object was seen to be displaced between images indicating that the object was nearby. Show me anywhere that the object in question had a spectral signature of a brown dwarf. Show me something other than ludicrous trolling behavior.


Nothing in the article says or suggests brown dwarf.

BTW 50 billion miles is 540AU. A Jupiter sized planet would be detected out 2100AU by Project PAN-STARRS. Thus there is no brown dwarf with 4x of the distance you are specifying.
edit on 17-2-2011 by stereologist because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
I'm getting sick and tired of every new celestial object being deemed Nibiru. It seems like the descriptions of Nibiru change every day to fit into every new discovery, then when something new comes along the description changes once again. So, here's the challenge to all you Nibiru believers, come up with a set description based on your research so we can stop devoting thread after thread to objects that don't fit the description. It's time for you to get your story straight instead of shoehorning every object in space into your beliefs.


"I'm just getting sick and tired". This is a classic example of how not to start a thread. The No.1 reason? No one is ever going to take into account what you are sick and tired of. Even if they cared a little, they still wouldn't remember to do so. I know I don't care what makes you" sick and tired". If started a thread that said, I'm sick and tired of short meaningless threads on ATS. Would you care? I don't think so. I started a thread that described how I think short threads are hurting the quality of ATS? You may be more apt to listen.

Randyvious



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Goldenfleece, do you know anything at all about IRAS or the IRAS data?

Is your entire premise built on this Washington Post article which is a stunningly good example of how not to write a newspaper article?



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 

Let's see, an object the size of Jupiter, 50 billion miles from Earth , first detected by the infrared IRAS telescope in 1983. You tell me.

Don't you feel foolish for those dozens of posts and thousands of words flatly declaring that this was a "galaxy?"

How can you expect to have any credibility after making such ridiculous and obviously false assertions?

Unlike you, I'm not gonna spend my life on this forum, but I hope other honest posters will see this and realize the lengths you'll go to deceive them. Sad.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 



Let's see, an object the size of Jupiter, 50 billion miles from Earth , first detected by the infrared IRAS telescope in 1983. You tell me.

Don't you feel foolish for those dozens of posts and thousands of words flatly declaring that this was a "galaxy?"

How can you expect to have any credibility after making such ridiculous and obviously false assertions?

Unlike you, I'm not gonna spend my life on this forum, but I hope other honest posters will see this and realize the lengths you'll go to deceive them. Sad.

No where in the article does it say that it is definitely an object the size of Jupiter. No where does it say that there is an object 50 billion miles from Earth.

Actually it turns out that the objects in questions were already discovered.

What does the size of Jupiter mean? It means subtends the approximate angle as the disc of Jupiter.

Seeing that you have made no effort whatsoever to justify your claim that a new object was discovered in our solar system I think it is only reasonable that people will see you as the troll that you are. Although you are demanding proof from me you are avoiding putting your money where your mouth is. Please show all of us that the article shows the discovery of a new object in the solar system. It does not.

It is quite clear that you are staking everything on this pathetic article instead of knowing about IRAS and IRAS data. That is the sign of being another fraud like all of the other frauds that cling to this article and misrepresent its contents.

It is abundantly clear that there are no planet sized objects out to 320AU and certainly no brown dwarfs out to 2100AU. Therefore, there is no brown dwarf out the distance you suggest.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
As far as galaxies go, IRAS catalogued over 10,000 galaxies. Look up something on IRAS. Learn something about IRAS instead of blindly misrepresenting a newspaper article to show all of us what frauds have previously done with this article.

Check out this article if you actually want to learn something.
adsabs.harvard.edu...




top topics



 
12
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join