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 - an illusion?

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Why in the world would i make that up... you are so paranoid it's pitiful. I told you that you need to look up this stuff on your own cause you're acting like a little baby that can't do anything by themselves.

look up microquasar... you will find it is a radio emitting x-ray binary.... now look up radio astronomy and open yourself up to a whole new world of information. Was that so hard for little pookie?

... and get off my leg, please.




posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 

And you say this after making this post? www.abovetopsecret.com... Friend, anyone can make a website and call anything a hoax. Are you calling Enoch a fake too? Some of you professional debunkers will go to any length whatsoever to distract and spread did info. I was a History Major in college, and did a great deal of study and research in the Ancient Sumerian culture. And no, they did not carve fiction stories into those clay tablets, no matter how many of you say they did. Believe what you want.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 


Michael Heiser isn't just anyone. He is one of the foremost experts on the Sumerian language and took part in writing the Sumerian Lexicon. While you may have a BS in history and looked at some books on the Sumerians, Heiser has a PhD. with a focus on Assyriology, has actually translated the Sumerian tablets, and has legitimate journal articles published in his name. That is who Michael Heiser is and why his views are so highly valued on this subject.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by SystemResistor
 
This is the best article I ever read on Planet X..I have read tons of info before..thanks...everyone who ever wants to know what the deal is .....go read this article now..and share with others...thanks.




posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaosMagician
 



Why in the world would i make that up... you are so paranoid it's pitiful.

Another whopping failure on your part. Recognizing that you are not telling the truth is not paranoia. It is an observation that you continue to confirm with each post you make.


I told you that you need to look up this stuff on your own cause you're acting like a little baby that can't do anything by themselves.

That is admitting that you are a charlatan. You can't substantiate any of these tales.


look up microquasar... you will find it is a radio emitting x-ray binary.... now look up radio astronomy and open yourself up to a whole new world of information. Was that so hard for little pookie?

More off topic meaningless drivel.

Please substantiate your claim that there are terrestrial x-ray observatories.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 



Are you calling Enoch a fake too?

That is a straw man argument. The issue is the false representation that is make about the Sumerians.


Some of you professional debunkers will go to any length whatsoever to distract and spread did info. I was a History Major in college, and did a great deal of study and research in the Ancient Sumerian culture. And no, they did not carve fiction stories into those clay tablets, no matter how many of you say they did. Believe what you want.

Some of you will blindly follow any charlatan and go to any length to prop up lies such as those created by Sitchin. There are no Sumerian astronomical tablets discussing the ludicrous stories made up by Sitchin. If you actually did any studies of Sumer and its history then you know that there are almost no astronomical records from Sumer.

The Sumerian records contain myths. Call them what you wish: fiction, myths, or whatever. They are not necessarily historical accounts.

Believe what you want even if the evidence against those notions is overwhelming.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by booky
 


That article has nothing to do with Planet X. That article is a bunch of made up fluff that is not related to reality. If you want to know about Planet X you can start with the following wikipedia article:

Planet X

Planet X has been shown not to exist.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Actually if you believe in ACME and what Looney Tunes has to say on the subject. Planet X does exist and Duck Dodger's claims it for Earth in the 24th and a half Century.



-saige-

P.S. -- Sorry Stereologist, but I couldn't help myself.

edit on 17-8-2011 by saige45 because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-8-2011 by saige45 because: corrected spelling



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by ChaosMagician
 



Why in the world would i make that up... you are so paranoid it's pitiful.

Another whopping failure on your part. Recognizing that you are not telling the truth is not paranoia. It is an observation that you continue to confirm with each post you make.


I told you that you need to look up this stuff on your own cause you're acting like a little baby that can't do anything by themselves.

That is admitting that you are a charlatan. You can't substantiate any of these tales.


look up microquasar... you will find it is a radio emitting x-ray binary.... now look up radio astronomy and open yourself up to a whole new world of information. Was that so hard for little pookie?

More off topic meaningless drivel.

Please substantiate your claim that there are terrestrial x-ray observatories.


oh please... everything you bring up, I have to answer for you because you don't know how to ask the right questions on your own. are you trying to tell me that a microquasar is not an radio emitting x-ray binary. I mean really... what the hell exactly are you arguing with? I don't even think you know. I have absolutely no idea where in the hell you get the idea that the binary system that I mentioned that was going through rapid changes isnot observable by a multitude of observatories.

where the hell do you get this?
A microquasar as part of an x-ray binary that emits both radio and x-rays is going to flood the galaxy with x-rays during certain events like supernova. That's just what it does and if it is an established X-ray binary as observable by an x-ray observatory, you don't need to reinvent the wheel to know it's emitting x-rays. You also don't need to be monitoring it's x-rays per se to monitor the rapid changes and intense energy it is putting out because it is observable by alternate means.

I don't understand what is so complicated about this equation.
A fifth grader could understand this.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by saige45
 


That is so funny. That has to be the most intelligent video offered in a long time. It certainly makes more sense than the Nibiru videos.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaosMagician
 


Nothing that you state has anything at all to do with the topic at hand. Even a second grader can see that.

Please substantiate your claim that there are terrestrial x-ray observatories.

Why can't you answer this question? I know that you lied about this. It's rather obvious to everyone that you did.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaosMagician
 



first of all... I never said anything about terrestrial x-ray observatories.

You've made claims about many x-ray observatories all over the world. Yes you have. So where are they?

I have pointed out that x-ray observatories cannot be Earth bound so I am asking what you were referring to.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by ChaosMagician
 



first of all... I never said anything about terrestrial x-ray observatories.

You've made claims about many x-ray observatories all over the world. Yes you have. So where are they?

I have pointed out that x-ray observatories cannot be Earth bound so I am asking what you were referring to.


you care to point this out?... because you are just making stuff up, but then again... now you have to act like you are a genuinely concerned member. I have already explained to I don't know how many times that it doesn't take an x-ray observatory to observe a microquasar. Is it all of the sudden going to make sense to you now? no... it isn't... unless of course you are done pushing people's buttons.

Don't hold your breath for the Academy award, ok?



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaosMagician
 


I see. Now the excuse for not naming them is that you now say that x-ray observatories which you claimed are all over the world observing this object under different project names are not doing that.

Fine. You didn't tell the truth about those observatories and projects as you at first claimed. I accept that.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by ChaosMagician
 


I see. Now the excuse for not naming them is that you now say that x-ray observatories which you claimed are all over the world observing this object under different project names are not doing that.

Fine. You didn't tell the truth about those observatories and projects as you at first claimed. I accept that.


Even though I have already answered your question before... like i have told you, I answered your question in a post I JUST made while telling you i wasn't going to give you the answer.

in the same post... THERE is the answer.

That is how blind you are.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaosMagician
 



Even though I have already answered your question before... like i have told you, I answered your question in a post I JUST made while telling you i wasn't going to give you the answer.

in the same post... THERE is the answer.

That is how blind you are.

Thank you for admitting that you never answered the question. You did make up all of the baloney about all of the project and observatories doing whatever. Fine. You faked it and got caught. So be it.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   
In the OP the following was written:

The ideas are that there is either a polar shift, or some kind of cataclysm related to the existence of a "12th planet" - could it be that both phenomenon are linked, that the pole shift is brought about by an interaction of the afforementioned planet and the Earth?

Is anyone aware of the possibility of a change in the rotational axis without an impact? Can a passing celestial object change the axis of rotation in a noticeable way? I realize that there can be a transfer of momentum in which the rate of rotation slows down,but can the axis actually be rotated? I would think that the energy required to change the angular momentum would be too great for a pass by.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by ChaosMagician
 



Even though I have already answered your question before... like i have told you, I answered your question in a post I JUST made while telling you i wasn't going to give you the answer.

in the same post... THERE is the answer.

That is how blind you are.

Thank you for admitting that you never answered the question. You did make up all of the baloney about all of the project and observatories doing whatever. Fine. You faked it and got caught. So be it.


I just answered you yet again.

I really do hope that you are capable of understanding things one day.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaosMagician
 



I just answered you yet again.

I really do hope that you are capable of understanding things one day.

Thanks for reinforcing the fact that you made everything up and are still balking.

When you find yourself in a hole stop digging.

BTW, anyone got any ideas on the possibility of changing the rotational orientation if a large object passes by?




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join