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.

 

Can we stop calling Nibiru/Nemesis a hoax..? It is a hypothesis which is yet to be proven.

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by mockrock
Since we only have NASA to trust to confirm or rule out Nibiru, we are never going to know either way..


Really? Only NASA? No one else is capable of confirming or ruling this out?

You are a mess of contradictions, my friend. The "enemy," the one you say we can no longer trust, is apparently the only one you "trust" to know the truth?

And I gotta say, you really swerved after 2005 YU55. I thought you were on the level when you said you were done looking for doomsday. But now it seems you are fully entrenched in this culture of seeking it out.

You may be too far gone, and that's a damn shame.


edit on 19-11-2011 by ColAngus because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by mockrock
It worries me that the Elenin & YU55 was used to stop us discussing Nibiru.


Source?

Or is this just a "theory" of yours?

That's what I thought.



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 


Things hit the Earth all of the time. There are thousands of fireballs a day. Few are mentioned.
As far as bad things happening on drill days, what happened on the recent drill day - nada.

As far as Nibiru existing or any other planet sized object existing in the solar, well that has nothing to do with Elenin or YU55. There in lies nonsense claims.

Do we have to rely on NASA to tell us if a Nibiru exists? No. That is yet another nonsense claim. There are all sorts of astronomers out there from private to public to government groups.

Sedna is not large. It is a Pluto sized object and that is small. Sedna is small compared to our Moon. It is not close to being planet sized.


The problem is Nibiru has been deliberately discredited as wacko, so astronomers and researchers are cautious discussing it. It is very unhelpful just to label things Wacko.. this is an open-minded forum and surely the ideal place to discuss the evidence around Nibiru?

Nibiru is a fictional planet created by a fraud named Sitchin that cannot exist given the properties ascribed by Sitchin. Researchers are not cautious discussing Nibiru. They avoid discussing Nibiru like they avoid discussing the Moon being made of cheese.



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 06:41 AM
link   
Indeed.



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 



But I will say YU55 and Elenin was all part of a plan designed to make it impossible to talk about any space threats.. it is now impossible to even discuss them with someone dismissing it as Elenin YU55 nonsense..


No, Elenin and YU55 were both hyped up by internet hoaxers, such as yourself. The spacefaring governments of the world are negotiating protocols to deal with genuine threats from outer space.

neo.jpl.nasa.gov...

www.state.gov...

www.scoop.co.nz...

Sadly, scientists, engineers and diplomats all over the world are working to save your life.



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Only ignorant people would call it a "hoax". Nibiru does not fit the definition of a hoax. Faking the Moon landings is a hoax.

If someone were to produce evidence of Nibiru that was fake, that would be a hoax.



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Mercurio
 



Only ignorant people would call it a "hoax". Nibiru does not fit the definition of a hoax. Faking the Moon landings is a hoax.

If someone were to produce evidence of Nibiru that was fake, that would be a hoax.



2hoax noun
1
: an act intended to trick or dupe : imposture
2
: something accepted or established by fraud or fabrication


www.merriam-webster.com...

Sitchin did not know how to read Sumerian; everything he wrote in his books is pure fiction, yet he presented it as fact. That is imposture. Since then, Nibiru cultists have been fabricating videos purporting to be of Nibiru. Nibiru fits the description of a hoax perfectly. You also have the burden of proof wrong. It is up to the people who claim that Nibiru exists to provide evidence for it. None has ever been presented that holds up to any scrutiny. On the other hand, the Moon landings were meticulously documented and were observed by millions. They are the exact opposite of a hoax.



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Mercurio
 



Only ignorant people would call it a "hoax". Nibiru does not fit the definition of a hoax. Faking the Moon landings is a hoax.

If someone were to produce evidence of Nibiru that was fake, that would be a hoax.



2hoax noun
1
: an act intended to trick or dupe : imposture
2
: something accepted or established by fraud or fabrication


www.merriam-webster.com...

Sitchin did not know how to read Sumerian; everything he wrote in his books is pure fiction, yet he presented it as fact. That is imposture. Since then, Nibiru cultists have been fabricating videos purporting to be of Nibiru. Nibiru fits the description of a hoax perfectly. You also have the burden of proof wrong. It is up to the people who claim that Nibiru exists to provide evidence for it. None has ever been presented that holds up to any scrutiny. On the other hand, the Moon landings were meticulously documented and were observed by millions. They are the exact opposite of a hoax.



None of us has NASA's billion dollar budget to argue our case.. it pays to promote Apollo.



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 



None of us has NASA's billion dollar budget to argue our case.. it pays to promote Apollo.


It's not a question of money, it's a question of investigative skill. Woodward and Bernstein were making $40 a day, yet they took down an American President.



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by mockrock
 



None of us has NASA's billion dollar budget to argue our case.. it pays to promote Apollo.


It's not a question of money, it's a question of investigative skill. Woodward and Bernstein were making $40 a day, yet they took down an American President.


You don't understand how things work.. Woodward and Bernstein were allowed to reveal the Watergate scandal, due to civil unrest and the real possibility of a revolution.

" Woodward and Bernstein uncovered a system of political "dirty tricks" and crimes that eventually led to indictments of forty White House and administration officials, and ultimately to the resignation of President Richard Nixon."

www.hrc.utexas.edu...

The only thing that matters is continuity, if Nixon's resignation helped continuity it was a small price, just another pawn in the game..



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Dear 2012/Nibiru fearmongers,

KNOCK IT OFF!

There is no Nibiru or any evidence to show a huge object 4x the size of jupiter coming to kill us all.

1) For it to be that size AND be coming to hit us within 13 months or so from now, it would be showing some major effects on the outer planets and the asteroid belt. It is not, if you count a "wobble" or some magnetic field distortion proof you need to do a bit more research on the matter.

2) NASA or the government could not hide the fact a giant planet was coming to hit us, last I checked they can't edit out giant dwarf stars from every one of the 10+thousand of telescopes on the planet(Not including people in the backyard looking at the skies).

3) Again, KNOCK IT OFF! You are as bad as fox news when they had the "Terror alert level" on the screen after 9/11. You do nothing but throw out alarmist ideas and theories that have no credible proof. And no, getting proof from another thread on here or from youtube does NOT count. So please use your brain when it comes to this subject matter. At least approach it with a scientific mind and not some pseudo-scientists paper on it from the 1970s


Thank you.



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 


Thanks for the thread. I just wanted to reiterate what was said back in 1983, I remember the day like it was yesterday. I agree this is no joke, I pulled up the article with the hope it enhances the thread or helps in some way.Below is a quote from the article.


America is now spending huge sums to deploy the massive The South Pole Telescope (SPT) in Antarctica. The final installation will be the size of a mini-mall and will require a massive C-130 airlift effort to transport pre-assembled modules and a large staff to the most desolate, inhospitable and inaccessible region of the world. Why? Because Planet X / Nibiru was first sighted in 1983 and this discovery spurred the USA to build the SPT — humanity's new Planet X tracker.


Here is a link to the full story

yowusa.com...

It was serious enough to The US Government to build the SPT That says all I need to know in itself..s/f op thx



posted on Nov, 19 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by CherubBaby
 


Your source is a Nibiru truther site run by none other than Marshall Masters. You know, Mr. "Nibiru Final Update"? Not even close to credible, let alone unbia$ed.

Do you have any legitimate links whatsoever showing that the U.S. government built SPT for tracking Nibipoo?
edit on 20-11-2011 by ColAngus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Mercurio
 



Only ignorant people would call it a "hoax". Nibiru does not fit the definition of a hoax. Faking the Moon landings is a hoax.

A laughable statement. A bad bluff.

There is nothing factual concerning Nibiru. Sitchin lied about being able to translate Sumerian. He lied about the contents. He even lied about Nibiru being a Sumerian word.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 



None of us has NASA's billion dollar budget to argue our case.. it pays to promote Apollo.

Who needs billions to show that Sitchin was a hoaxer? Amateur astronomers can verify that the predicted positions of the planets matched observation. That in itself shows that there cannot be a planet sized object within 70AU.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 



You don't understand how things work.. /quote]
I would say that about anyone that suggests that amateur astronomers from across the globe are unable to detect the presence of a planet sized object in the solar system within 70AU. Amateurs have access to equipment undreamed of 100 years ago. Amateurs can find Pluto. Amateurs have been asked by NASA to assist in tracking NEOs. Amateurs have detected impacts on Jupiter. An amateur was the first to detect the missing cloud band on Jupiter.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by CherubBaby
 



I just wanted to reiterate what was said back in 1983,

All the article written in 2006 says about 1983 is the lie that the IRAS detected an object in our solar system. Why don't you post the 1983 article instead of posting a lie about it?



posted on Nov, 26 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by ColAngus
 


Truther site? I remember this story in 1983 all over the local news for 3 days and then nothing. Here is a link.

chapter126.wordpress.com...



posted on Nov, 26 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by CherubBaby
 


This poorly written article begins with a suggestive statement which is followed by

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.


All of the objects turned out to be outside of the solar system. They were distant galaxies, the last item in the list of possibilities, and 1 interstellar "cirrus cloud."



posted on Nov, 26 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Poorly written? In who's opinion? Below is one of the quotes from the article.


“All I can tell you is that we don’t know what it is,” Dr. Gerry Neugebauer, IRAS chief scientist for California’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and director of the Palomar Observatory for the California Institute of Technology, said in an interview


Here is another quote ,


“If it is really that close, it would be a part of our solar system,” said Dr. James Houck of Cornell University’s Center for Radio Physics and Space Research and a member of the IRAS science team. “If it is that close, I don’t know how the world’s planetary scientists would even begin to classify it.”


I was just wondering if you realize the suggestive statement was not the statement of the writer of the article was it? It was the saatement of? A Chief Scientist wasn't it?

Do you have links to your other statements of final conclusions. ?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join