The Elenin/Nibiru conspiracy? Connecting the dots.

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by NeoVain
 


So, it's a star that's made of iron? It's a hot star, but it can only be seen in infrared? I'm sorry physics don't work this way. A star is going to be gaseous and if it's hot it's going to sustain fusion, meaning it will produce its own light, especially if it's a red dwarf. Also, how's this for a tail?



It´s "hot" compared to for example a comet, at some 20-40 degrees celsius above absolute zero(if i remember correctly), but not hot enough to emit its own light. if you want more fact how about this document. www.scribd.com...

Why would anyone do all of this work if its a hoax? with fact that are easily verifiable on google sky? especially note the original nyt article form 1983, which is attached at the end of the document.

Also attaching a picture of a random comet with tail is no evidence. The REAL elenin pics i have seen, do not have a tail. Ever heard of disinfo? what makes you believe that is the actual elenin?
edit on 31-8-2011 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 


Regardless of its temperature a star is going to reflect light. Even a brown dwarf has a similar albedo to Jupiter. Jupiter is a very apparent light in the sky due to the light it reflects from the Sun. A star would be larger and thus be more apparent. As for the 1983 article I have covered this many times. The article is referring to a study that would be published in 1984 by Houck et al. In their study they found ten unknown signatures in the IRAS data. At he time they hypothesized a long list of things, one of which was a planet at the edge of the solar system, but not coming this way. Nine of these objects were identified in 1985 when Houck et al. published their first follow-up study which found that they were ultra-luminous, distant, young galaxies. Then in 1987 Houck et al. identified the final object as an infrared cirrus. To date no new objects have been found within the solar system using IRAS data. As for the picture it was posted on Leonid Elenin's site and was taken by a well-respected amateur astronomer who has discovered his own comet. So to post a picture that is not Elenin, Elenin and Lovejoy would be putting their future as astronomers at risk as anyone would be capable of checking whether or not that picture was Elenin.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by NeoVain
 


Regardless of its temperature a star is going to reflect light. Even a brown dwarf has a similar albedo to Jupiter. Jupiter is a very apparent light in the sky due to the light it reflects from the Sun. A star would be larger and thus be more apparent. As for the 1983 article I have covered this many times. The article is referring to a study that would be published in 1984 by Houck et al. In their study they found ten unknown signatures in the IRAS data. At he time they hypothesized a long list of things, one of which was a planet at the edge of the solar system, but not coming this way. Nine of these objects were identified in 1985 when Houck et al. published their first follow-up study which found that they were ultra-luminous, distant, young galaxies. Then in 1987 Houck et al. identified the final object as an infrared cirrus. To date no new objects have been found within the solar system using IRAS data. As for the picture it was posted on Leonid Elenin's site and was taken by a well-respected amateur astronomer who has discovered his own comet. So to post a picture that is not Elenin, Elenin and Lovejoy would be putting their future as astronomers at risk as anyone would be capable of checking whether or not that picture was Elenin.


Well maybe it is not a star, but it is 4-5 times the size of jupiter, and have 7 satellites, so what would you call it?

Also about elenin, There is no Leonid Elenin, its just a cover, a made up hoax, as explained in this documentary. at 15:40 www.youtube.com...
edit on 31-8-2011 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)
edit on 31-8-2011 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by NeoVain
Why would anyone do all of this work if its a hoax? with fact that are easily verifiable on google sky?


How many times, nothing is verifiable on Google Sky. *Bangs head repeatedly on desk*



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 


No Leonid Elenin? Then who has been discovering asteroids since 2008? Who is the Leonid Elenin that works at the Russian Academy of Science? Who is the Leonid Elenin that went on Russian television and gave an interview? There is absolutely no merit behind the claims that Leonid Elenin does not exist and full merit behind the claims that this whole Elenin nonsense was created by hoaxers with names like Terral Croft and Astrolpatriot.

Furthermore, even if it's not a star it's going to reflect light. Or one of its satellites will reflect light. In short any new object in the solar system with the size you're suggesting is going to very noticeable. And that's not even taking into account the gravitational effects. Explain to me how if Elenin is a giant planet it had no affect on the orbit of the asteroid 1999 RQ176 when it passed within .002 AU.
edit on 31-8-2011 by Xcalibur254 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by NeoVain
 

About Nibiru, I added some info about this, please explain the google sky image and video added and explain it since you claim it does not exist, contradicting this proof.


The image that you believe (not saying you claim because in reality you are just regurgitating what someone else has claimed) to be Nibiru is in fact a Carbon Star.


IRC +10216 or CW Leonis is a well-studied carbon star that is embedded in a thick dust envelope. It was first discovered in 1969 by a group of astronomers led by Eric Becklin, based upon infrared observations made with the 62 inches (1.6 m) Caltech Infrared Telescope at Mount Wilson Observatory. Its energy is emitted mostly at infrared wavelengths. At a wavelength of 5 μm, it was found to have the highest flux of any object outside the Solar System.[4]


Source


Originally posted by NeoVain
 

please go on, as i have plausible evidence for every claim.


From my own research, all evidence provided for the existence of Nibiru is fantastical evidence. There is not one shred of proof for it's existence.

You know what, I'm going to discover a planet that is orbiting around some star that is way far, far away and just call it Nibiru so that we can finally lay this nonsense to rest.

-saige-



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by NeoVain
 


No Leonid Elenin? Then who has been discovering asteroids since 2008? Who is the Leonid Elenin that works at the Russian Academy of Science? Who is the Leonid Elenin that went on Russian television and gave an interview? There is absolutely no merit behind the claims that Leonid Elenin does not exist and full merit behind the claims that this whole Elenin nonsense was created by hoaxers with names like Terral Croft and Astrolpatriot.

A hoax, a cover story, an actor. You mean this guy right? www.youtube.com...
Why would the government want to show stuff like this, if not to calm the masses? Why would they want that? Wouldn´t they rather have mass panic and angry people wanting to know the truth, upsetting their plans for buidling 5000 bunkers to be ready next year?


Furthermore, even if it's not a star it's going to reflect light. Or one of its satellites will reflect light. In short any new object in the solar system with the size you're suggesting is going to very noticeable. And that's not even taking into account the gravitational effects. Explain to me how if Elenin is a giant planet it had no affect on the orbit of the asteroid 1999 RQ176 when it passed within .002 AU.
edit on 31-8-2011 by Xcalibur254 because: (no reason given)


If you checked the links, you would know why it doesnt reflect light. Maybe its because it is surrounded in a huge cloud of iron-oxide particles like they say. Also the planets/satellites is probably inside this iron oxide layer as well, or maybe it is because it is coming from a direction where the suns light make it very hard to observe, if you are not on antarctica. Oh and please explain those pictures where you can clearly see it with the 7 satellites from the 2008 spt footage that was leaked.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by saige45

Originally posted by NeoVain
 

About Nibiru, I added some info about this, please explain the google sky image and video added and explain it since you claim it does not exist, contradicting this proof.


The image that you believe (not saying you claim because in reality you are just regurgitating what someone else has claimed) to be Nibiru is in fact a Carbon Star.


IRC +10216 or CW Leonis is a well-studied carbon star that is embedded in a thick dust envelope. It was first discovered in 1969 by a group of astronomers led by Eric Becklin, based upon infrared observations made with the 62 inches (1.6 m) Caltech Infrared Telescope at Mount Wilson Observatory. Its energy is emitted mostly at infrared wavelengths. At a wavelength of 5 μm, it was found to have the highest flux of any object outside the Solar System.[4]



Source? neither irc +10216 or CW leonis can be verified by google sky as they give no hits, where is your source that this is in fact that star?



Source


Originally posted by NeoVain
 

please go on, as i have plausible evidence for every claim.


From my own research, all evidence provided for the existence of Nibiru is fantastical evidence. There is not one shred of proof for it's existence.

Oh so what do you call all those documents and youtube videos i linked? i say there is clearly more evidence that it exists, than the opposite. Clearly more than that god exists, even.


You know what, I'm going to discover a planet that is orbiting around some star that is way far, far away and just call it Nibiru so that we can finally lay this nonsense to rest.


Please do. Until then, lets stay on topic.

-saige-



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 


I mean this guy.



And can you please explain to me how iron oxide forms in space? You see there's one key ingredient for iron to become iron oxide. It's called oxygen. Last time I checked that doesn't exist in the vacuum of space. Then there's the fact that you can see iron oxide. That means it reflects light.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Well, OP, I'd love to attempt to connect the dots. However, when attempting to read the link you provided to chani, I was only allowed to read so many pages (4 to be precise) then was notified that only registered users can access that area. To date, I have NEVER joined a site that forced me to join prior to being able to read what sent me there in the first place. No dot connecting for me, I guess.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


Also, I thought I should point out that the South Pole Telescope does not take visual images. It's a radio telescope. So it would be quite impossible for them to release images of Nibiru in 2008.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by NeoVain
Please do. Until then, lets stay on topic.


I'm glad you feel we got off topic. I was merely answering your questions.

As for the ramblings of half-wits on youtube. If you wish to believe them, that is your prerogative. Me, for one, I trust what I can see and verify with my own eyes, not what someone else wishes to shove down my throat. For years, people have created images out of what they see in the sky. Oh look mommy, that cloud looks like a boat. Or that grouping of stars looks like a hunter (Orion).

As for Google Sky not showing IRC +10216 or CW Leonis, perhaps you should contact Google and tell them to update their skymap (that is 40 some odd years old). I bring emperical proof that is verifiable and you wish to doubt. Again, this is your prerogative.

I didn't attack you, don't attack me.

-saige-



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by NeoVain
 


I mean this guy.



Yeah thats the same video i posted, same hoax video.



And can you please explain to me how iron oxide forms in space? You see there's one key ingredient for iron to become iron oxide. It's called oxygen. Last time I checked that doesn't exist in the vacuum of space. Then there's the fact that you can see iron oxide. That means it reflects light.

Iron dust or ferric dust maybe was a better word to use, as that is what they used in the video, that you would have known had you actually seen it. Anyway, Iron has a refractive index of 1.51, which would mean it does not reflect much light at all. For example Copper Oxide has a refraction index of 2.705, which would mean it would be considerably easier to detect.
In this article you can see an explanation why iron ABSORBS most light in the visible spectrum, except from red which is a very dark colour, which also would explain it pretty well. www.uco.es...
Ever wondered why mars is red? And why it is so hard to see ? Or maybe you can go out right now and spot it in the sky?
edit on 31-8-2011 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)
edit on 31-8-2011 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)
edit on 31-8-2011 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)
edit on 31-8-2011 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)
edit on 31-8-2011 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by NeoVain
 

Source? neither irc +10216 or CW leonis can be verified by google sky as they give no hits, where is your source that this is in fact that star?

There is fallacy to this logic.

Essentially you state that since you cannot verify the existence of IRC+ 10216 (CW Leonis), then it must not exist. You may not have said this directly but that is what is perceived by me. However, I present this to you, I cannot find reference to Nibiru, Planet X, Wormwood. If, given the current conspiracy theory, man has known about Nibiru for thousands of years (and only known about CW Leonis since 1969) why is it not searchable in Google Sky?

-saige-



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by saige45

Originally posted by NeoVain
 

Source? neither irc +10216 or CW leonis can be verified by google sky as they give no hits, where is your source that this is in fact that star?

There is fallacy to this logic.

Essentially you state that since you cannot verify the existence of IRC+ 10216 (CW Leonis), then it must not exist. You may not have said this directly but that is what is perceived by me. However, I present this to you, I cannot find reference to Nibiru, Planet X, Wormwood. If, given the current conspiracy theory, man has known about Nibiru for thousands of years (and only known about CW Leonis since 1969) why is it not searchable in Google Sky?

-saige-


Actually i do not question its existance, (which is weird by the way, since there is considerably LESS evidence for its existance than there is for Nibiru, which i already doubt by the way) i question that it is indeed the object marked on google sky, infrared spectum, down left of mercury as i pointed out earlier, since it is not marked as such there.
Counterpoint: Why, if CW leonis was found as early as 1969 (long before google or even the internet, most telescopes etc) is it not marked on google sky?



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 


Actually you're right I can't go out and spot Mars. It doesn't rise here for another seven hours. However, if I went outside in seven hours I would be able to see it. So, if I can see Mars why can I not see an object that is larger and closer than Mars? It should at the very least be blocking out stars if for some reason it is reflecting zero light. I will mention however that some forms of iron oxide do have high reflective factors. The lowest I saw was 17% which would still be quite visible at this distance.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


Also, I thought I should point out that the South Pole Telescope does not take visual images. It's a radio telescope. So it would be quite impossible for them to release images of Nibiru in 2008.


Do you know what is the best way to measure an object in space, that emits too little visible light? You send a satellite to the other end, and emit radiowaves. These are then picked up back on earth. Where?



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 


Google's lazy? I don't know. It appears on other online sky maps. Even if it isn't named on Google Sky you could always do some leg work and check out the coordinates for CW Leonis and then compare them to the object in Google Sky. I don't want to ruin the surprise, but they match up.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 


What does that have to do with the South Pole Telescope getting pictures of Nibiru? The SPT is physically incapable of producing a visual image. I have seen the "leaked" images. They are not trying to pass those off as radio telescope returns in any way. They clearly saw the word telescope and assumed it produced visual images. Unfortunately for them a radio telescope does not produce any images and their hoax was found out quickly.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by NeoVain
 


Actually you're right I can't go out and spot Mars. It doesn't rise here for another seven hours. However, if I went outside in seven hours I would be able to see it. So, if I can see Mars why can I not see an object that is larger and closer than Mars? It should at the very least be blocking out stars if for some reason it is reflecting zero light. I will mention however that some forms of iron oxide do have high reflective factors. The lowest I saw was 17% which would still be quite visible at this distance.


Yes, mars is visible, but it is not MADE of iron, and it doesn´t have an iron dust cloud surrounding it. There is just some on the surface and in the atmosphere. Ever wondered how that got there? It is also the closest planet to our own. However, would you say mars is easy to see, compared to more visible objects? Or maybe you have super eyes and see all the red objects, stars of other solar systems. Me, i have bad eyes, i only see the white and the blues myself.





top topics
 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join