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.

 

Paging Nibiru Buffs & Phage! New Info (Aug 6th'11)

page: 1
20
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Here we go again!

Take a look at this Stereo Sat Video - Somethings coming in alright but I haven't a clue - relying on you folks to give it the once over!

www.youtube.com...

Wierd object with planets on stereo telescopes ELENIN? NIBIRU? PLANET X?

I really would like to have more input here but I've got to admit this is out of my league and I'm sure many of us feel the same way so go easy. People don't need the insults - just plain English discussion will do.




posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   
I'm thinking dense background star cluster on the stereo ahead shots, possibly the Pleiades? They do not move like a planet or comet would unless it was moving directly toward the camera.

The stereo behind is showing Mercury then Jupiter according to the charts.



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   
I agree with Jibby.

The ahead seems to be a dense cluster of stars.

Behind is definitely Jupiter.



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 11:12 PM
link   
I think that from some of the comments, its seems like that bright light source is the galactic center. Though, I must admit, I do find it quite odd that the pictures go from 40 minutes to 2 hours and the up to 4 hours sometimes.



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 


Playing devil's advocate because I honestly don't know the answer, but, would a star cluster show up brighter than a planet?
Why is Mercury so much less bright than a star cluster millions of miles away?



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   
You remember that part of the "The Matrix" where Morpheus warned Neo about those still plugged in won't accept the truth. I think this is the problem with some. Wicked post. Serve! Serve! Serve!
edit on 6-8-2011 by Hillbilly123069 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 11:21 PM
link   
I'm not sure what we are supposed to talk about here. The man presents no evidence the objects he is labeling are what he says they are.

He says things like "I am saying this is Mercury." Or "I suppose this" or this "must be" that.

No verifiable locations, orbit calculations or anything.

His video is nothing but words and pretty pictures without some kind of corroboration.



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Montana
 


I think like me - perhaps he's hoping someone can clarify or confirm something????

I've paged Phage but guess he's having a nap!



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 


Playing devil's advocate because I honestly don't know the answer, but, would a star cluster show up brighter than a planet?
Why is Mercury so much less bright than a star cluster millions of miles away?


Yes some stars are brighter than planets, from our perspective through the atmosphere. In space I'd imagine stars in Orion and the Pleiades are very bright.
The "objects" do not move at all in the images, Elenin would have some movement over the course of weeks unless stereo ahead satellite stays in direct line with it heading inbound, which isn't happening.

If Elenin was as big as Jupiter or this cluster were in space close by, we'd be seeing it on clear nights. Elenin is pretty close right now and if it was what the rumors say it is, we'd be seeing it right now and we're not.

Turns out this is the center of the Milky Way....


Keep lookin out though.
edit on 6-8-2011 by JibbyJedi because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   
On the website it identifies the Stereo behind object as Jupiter but does not identify it on Stereo ahead:
stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov...

edit on 6-8-2011 by kalamatas because: typo



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 12:57 AM
link   
Is it me,or is this dutchsince posting vids
under a different name.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 


Hope you are right Jib - like you say we should be able to see it by now.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 03:48 AM
link   
y all these flags?

wasnt this already debunked here :

STEREO-A HI1, What is that? 31-07-2011

if im correct...not to be rude but be careful pls with flagging..you brought me in here



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Check out the latest image...




The Earth still seems to far from Mercury to be the moon, but I'm no expert. It's clearly close though, as no light from the sun or light reflecting off Mercury is hitting it...



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   


Playing devil's advocate because I honestly don't know the answer, but, would a star cluster show up brighter than a planet? Why is Mercury so much less bright than a star cluster millions of miles away?
reply to post by superman2012
 
Maybe something to do with the fact that Mercury is a planet, as opposed to a star, which generates it's own light. Conversley, planets reflect light, obviously at a much lower luminosity. I don't wish to patronise you, but the simple fact is that stars are brighter than planets.




posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   


Paging Nibiru Buffs & Phage! New Info (Aug 6th'11),




I've paged Phage but guess he's having a nap!



You sound like some sort of ATS groupie.


To my knowledge it is impossible for a planet this size to exist in our solar system without everyone on earth knowing about it.
As for the video i dont know enough about this stuff to comment.

Guess i'll have to wait and see what "Phage" says

Gues



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by misscurious

To my knowledge it is impossible for a planet this size to exist in our solar system without everyone on earth knowing about it.


You mean like how Neptune, a planet 17 times the mass of Earth, wasn't discovered until 1846? Wiki

I guess that means it didn't exist until one fateful day in 1846 when it was created instantly out of no-where.

Because if we haven't seen it yet, it doesn't exist!

Just saying.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hillbilly123069
You remember that part of the "The Matrix" where Morpheus warned Neo about those still plugged in won't accept the truth. I think this is the problem with some. Wicked post. Serve! Serve! Serve!
edit on 6-8-2011 by Hillbilly123069 because: (no reason given)


Some people invent a truth they want to believe in .. despite lacking substance or valid evidence... Many on ATS are victims of living in a fantasy world where reptiles rule the government, aliens are using crops for artistic expression and there's a planet called Nibiru



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by misscurious

To my knowledge it is impossible for a planet this size to exist in our solar system without everyone on earth knowing about it.


You mean like how Neptune, a planet 17 times the mass of Earth, wasn't discovered until 1846? Wiki

I guess that means it didn't exist until one fateful day in 1846 when it was created instantly out of no-where.

Because if we haven't seen it yet, it doesn't exist!

Just saying.


That's not really a fair comparison, on any level .. You're comparing the capability of people in the 1800s and earlier to spot something vs. our capabilities today with massive telescopes in space, shuttle missions, satellites and the whole nine yards.

At this day and age you can go out and buy your own telescope that's many times more powerful than what they were using back then.

It doesn't compare.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by misscurious
 


Phage is the Rush Limbaugh of ATS. Always look forward to the insights.
And minitatus, with all the cave paintings etc left by mayans, egyptians and everywhere in between, I have my doubts on who was better at stellar tracking.
I agree that there are those who live in their own little worlds. They're called patients, or would-be patients.
As far as evidence I have presented on this particular topic, I seen a whole lot of "it's a proven fake" with no data to back it up. Most want to rattle off and never say anything relevant. The data I read and relayed is right there. You can interpret it as you see it. When someone wants to edit info, in this particular case, the original 1983 IRAS info, that makes me think that someone is hiding something for a reason. Most commonly to have an edge on knowledge. If a person is found guilty of perjury in court, that person's word is meaningless in future testimony. The gov is feeding info out as it sees fit. Half the truth is still a lie.

edit on 7-8-2011 by Hillbilly123069 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
20
<<   2 >>

log in

join