May 29 2012 - Most recent Nibiru/Planet X pictures - Very Clear!

page: 16
17
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


How many times must you be told? Harrington was looking for Lowell's Planet X. This was a planet that would cause perturbations in the orbits of the gas giants. These perturbations were explained away when Voyager 2 did a fly-by of Neptune in 1989.




posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


Einstein wrote a preface to Hapgood's book. At the time paleomagnetism, plate tectonics, and isostacy were unknown or in an infant state of development. Today Einstein would not give a suggestion to follow that path since the evidence against ECDs is overwhelming.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 



Plate tectonics and Planet X are obviously related.

Completely unrelated. Plates are driven by the internal heat of the Earth and not from outside forces.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


How many times must you be told? Harrington was looking for Lowell's Planet X. This was a planet that would cause perturbations in the orbits of the gas giants. These perturbations were explained away when Voyager 2 did a fly-by of Neptune in 1989.


Please link me to the scientific evidence that the unknown pertubations of Neptune and Uranus were explained by the fly-by in 1989. Also please explain to me why Harrington ordered an infrared telescope for his work in NZ years after the flyby apparently explained the pertubations.

Also, I think you'll need to add to the debunking of ancient civilizations in your signature, at least a dozen ancient cultures have referred to a 2012 target:

"Sooooo... Just a coincidence that these other cultures have a 2012 target?

Hopi Predict a 25yr period of purification followed by End of Fourth World and beginning of the Fifth.
Mayans Call it the 'end days' or the end of time as we know it.
Maoris Say that as the veils dissolve there will be a merging of the physical & spiritual worlds.
Zulu Believe that the whole world will be turned upside down.
Hindus Kali Yuga (end time of man). The Coming of Kalki & critical mass of Enlightened Ones.
Incas Call it the 'Age of Meeting Ourselves Again'.
Aztec Call this the Time of the Sixth Sun. A time of transformation. Creation of new race.
Dogon Say that the spaceship of the visitors, the Nommo, will return in the form of a blue star
Pueblo Acknowledge it'll be the emergence into the Fifth World
Cherokee Their ancient calendar ends exactly at 2012 as does the Mayan calendar.
Tibetan Kalachakra teachings are prophesies left by Buddha predicting Coming of the Golden Age.
Egypt According to the Great Pyramid (stone calendar), present time cycle ends in year 2012 AD"

From church of critical thinking website:

churchofcriticalthinking.org...

edit on 13-6-2012 by PlanetXisHERE because: spelling
edit on 13-6-2012 by PlanetXisHERE because: spelling



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 



Einstein was referring to Hapgood's work.

Hapgood referred to geographic poleshifts.

Many believe geographic poleshifts are caused by regular passes of Planet X.

I don't see any misrepresentation.

Einstein wrote a forward because he thought the idea should be checked out.
Hapgood invented the idea of ECDs because he was interested in old maps. He was looking for a way to hide all traces of an ancient advanced civilization and he could hide it under the ice of Antarctica with an ECD. Turns out that ECDs are impossible.

Some people have taken created a new idea that is also impossible: a pole shift (not an ECD) caused by a near pass of another large celestial object. Although vaguely similar it is not the same as an ECD. It is impossible as well.

Mixing ECDs and pole shifts is the problem here.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


How many times must you be told? Harrington was looking for Lowell's Planet X. This was a planet that would cause perturbations in the orbits of the gas giants. These perturbations were explained away when Voyager 2 did a fly-by of Neptune in 1989.


Please link me to the scientific evidence that the unknown pertubations of Neptune and Uranus were explained by the fly-by in 1989. Also please explain to me why Harrington ordered an infrared telescope for his work in NZ years after the flyby apparently explained the pertubations.

Also, I think you'll need to add to the debunking of ancient civilizations in your signature, at least a dozen ancient cultures have referred to a 2012 target:

"Sooooo... Just a coincidence that these other cultures have a 2012 target?

Hopi Predict a 25yr period of purification followed by End of Fourth World and beginning of the Fifth.
Mayans Call it the 'end days' or the end of time as we know it.
Maoris Say that as the veils dissolve there will be a merging of the physical & spiritual worlds.
Zulu Believe that the whole world will be turned upside down.
Hindus Kali Yuga (end time of man). The Coming of Kalki & critical mass of Enlightened Ones.
Incas Call it the 'Age of Meeting Ourselves Again'.
Aztec Call this the Time of the Sixth Sun. A time of transformation. Creation of new race.
Dogon Say that the spaceship of the visitors, the Nommo, will return in the form of a blue star
Pueblo Acknowledge it'll be the emergence into the Fifth World
Cherokee Their ancient calendar ends exactly at 2012 as does the Mayan calendar.
Tibetan Kalachakra teachings are prophesies left by Buddha predicting Coming of the Golden Age.
Egypt According to the Great Pyramid (stone calendar), present time cycle ends in year 2012 AD"

From church of critical thinking website:

churchofcriticalthinking.org...

edit on 13-6-2012 by PlanetXisHERE because: spelling
edit on 13-6-2012 by PlanetXisHERE because: spelling


Hey genius, I already provided you a link to the paper and information that both he and I are speaking of - adsabs.harvard.edu...

Harrington never saw anything, he simply had a hypothesis about it. It was based on information that has been proven wrong. As someone has said previously - valid hypothesis, just wrong.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


Uh I would rethink the part you posted about Buddha and 2012, I'm Japanese and I know of not one Buddhist in Japan that thinks 2012 is the Golden Age that Buddha talked of.. Of course I'm Shinto and even our beliefs don't coincide with that either.. so I'm wondering where that even came from..



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 



Plate tectonics and Planet X are obviously related.

Completely unrelated. Plates are driven by the internal heat of the Earth and not from outside forces.


I'm well acquainted with the Convection Theory of Plate Tectonics. It obviously explains a lot. Does it explain everything? No.

Do you understand the difference between a theory and a law?

There is much evidence of previous geographic pole shifts. Did they happen by magic? This link outlines the overwhelming evidence of past geographic pole shifts:

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


Einstein wrote a preface to Hapgood's book. At the time paleomagnetism, plate tectonics, and isostacy were unknown or in an infant state of development. Today Einstein would not give a suggestion to follow that path since the evidence against ECDs is overwhelming.


Specifically, Einstein, who knew nothing about planetary geology (why should he, it was no more his subject of interest or study than dentistry was), but did understand due scientific process, said:

"His idea is original, of great simplicity, and – if it continues to prove itself – of great importance to everything that is related to the history of the earth’s surface

And of course, it didn't. Tectonics provided a much better explanation of what Hapgood described, and other of Hapgoods assertions were shown to be untrue (or based on ideas of the time, which have since shown to be untrue as new data has come to light).
edit on 13-6-2012 by AndyMayhew because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 


All they did was exchange one assumption of the planetary masses for another assumption of different planetary masses - fairly worthless assumptions until they have better knowledge of the mineral make-up of Uranus and Neptune - and proof of nothing - until they can at least send seismic waves through the cores to have a better understanding of their content and hence masses.

Also, no one has adequately explained the voyager anomalies - which is best explained by the presence of Planet X.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 



Plate tectonics and Planet X are obviously related.

Completely unrelated. Plates are driven by the internal heat of the Earth and not from outside forces.


I'm well acquainted with the Convection Theory of Plate Tectonics. It obviously explains a lot. Does it explain everything? No.

Do you understand the difference between a theory and a law?

There is much evidence of previous geographic pole shifts. Did they happen by magic? This link outlines the overwhelming evidence of past geographic pole shifts:

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...


So, are you arguing pole shifts or an imaginary planet here? Evidence of pole shifts is much more abundant, whereas there is no evidence of your planet. If you're trying to argue one causing the other, the only relation is the theory that your imaginary planet could have caused the pole shift.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by AndyMayhew

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


Einstein wrote a preface to Hapgood's book. At the time paleomagnetism, plate tectonics, and isostacy were unknown or in an infant state of development. Today Einstein would not give a suggestion to follow that path since the evidence against ECDs is overwhelming.


Specifically, Einstein, who knew nothing about planetary geology (why should he, it was no more his subject of interest or study than dentistry was), but did understand due scientific process, said:

"His idea is original, of great simplicity, and – if it continues to prove itself – of great importance to everything that is related to the history of the earth’s surface

And of course, it didn't. Tectonics provided a much better explanation of what Hapgood described, and other of Hapgoods assertions were shown to be untrue (or based on ideas of the time, which have since shown to be untrue as new data has come to light).
edit on 13-6-2012 by AndyMayhew because: (no reason given)


Plate tectonics is great for explaining gradual changes brought about by the slow movement of the plates, which varies from approximately 0cm to 10 cm per year depending on the plate.

Hapgood was not trying to explain gradual crustal movement.

He was interested in why major geological changes ocassionally seemed to happen suddenly:


Hapgood collected geomagnetic rock samples, finding evidence that the most recent earth crust displacement must have occurred between 17,000 to 12,000 years ago. The North Pole would have moved from the Hudson Bay area of northern Canada to it's current place in the Arctic Ocean. More recently, Langway and Hansen (1973) gathered climactic data pointing to a dramatic change in climate at 12,000 years ago. At that time, the Pleistocene extinctions, rising ocean levels, the close of the ice age, and the origins of agriculture all seem to coincide."


www.bibliotecapleyades.net...



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyswatter

So, are you arguing pole shifts or an imaginary planet here? Evidence of pole shifts is much more abundant, whereas there is no evidence of your planet. If you're trying to argue one causing the other, the only relation is the theory that your imaginary planet could have caused the pole shift.


Please show me where science has a definitive answer as to why poleshifts occurred.

Oh, you can't because there is none!



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


I actually have covered the claims regarding ancient civilizations. Unfortunately it was in the middle of a thread so I can't link you to it. Quickly though, the Hopi have nothing to say about 2012. For whatever reason people try to connect the Blue Star Kachina "prophecy" to 2012. Unfortunately for them, 1.) This "prophecy" makes no mention of 2012 and 2.) The Hopi have come out and disavowed it as one of their prophecies. The Maya never referred to 2012 as the "end days." There is a single reference to the date and it pertains to a religious ceremony that would have been held in Tortuguero. If I remember correctly the only sources for the Maori and Zulu claims come from New Age authors with no backup. Kali Yuga began in 3102 BC with the departure of Krishna and will last 432,000 years. I can keep going but instead I will direct you to a thread of mine. If you actually have proof that another culture mentioned 2012 feel free to provide it. I have leveled this challenge at numerous people now and not a one has actually been able to provide primary sources for these claims. Instead the best they can do is cite a New Age/Doomsday author or website and always the information is pretty much a copy-paste job.

2012 and Other Civilizations



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
reply to post by flyswatter
 


All they did was exchange one assumption of the planetary masses for another assumption of different planetary masses - fairly worthless assumptions until they have better knowledge of the mineral make-up of Uranus and Neptune - and proof of nothing - until they can at least send seismic waves through the cores to have a better understanding of their content and hence masses.

Also, no one has adequately explained the voyager anomalies - which is best explained by the presence of Planet X.


They exchanged one assumption (by Harrington) for data gathered on the flyby, not assumption vs. assumption. This data showed that the perturbations were explained by the observed difference. The observed difference was not a hypothesis.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


I know what Hapgood was trying to expain - I have his book. Do you? Everything he produces (a lot of it is aboute paleomagnetic orientation) is better explained by plate tectonics. Added to which, a lot of his data (like the dating of glacials etc) has since been shown to be very very wrong.

It was a good idea at the time, but was quickly falsified by new research.

In any case, it has nothing to do with a couple of lens flares captured by someone photographing the sun through an aircraft window!

Do you realy think 2 massive objects close to the sun can only be seen from one aircraft and from nowhere else on Earth????????



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


It's the Pioneer Anomaly and it has been solved.

Pioneer Anomaly Solved!



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE

Originally posted by flyswatter

So, are you arguing pole shifts or an imaginary planet here? Evidence of pole shifts is much more abundant, whereas there is no evidence of your planet. If you're trying to argue one causing the other, the only relation is the theory that your imaginary planet could have caused the pole shift.


Please show me where science has a definitive answer as to why poleshifts occurred.

Oh, you can't because there is none!


I've never attempted to spout off about evidence of why a pole shift happened; I've only mentioned that there is evidence that they have occurred. You're the one attempting to draw conclusions here, that the pole shifts are caused by your imaginary planet. Sitting there and saying "It must be Planet X, because there's no other evidence!" doesnt work, sir. You've got no evidence of that, either.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Incidently, there IS evidence of pole shifts. And evidence that it can take only a few million years to take place .....


geoweb.princeton.edu...

www.nature.com...

Doesn't need an imaginary planet from a storybook to happen, though



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Aren't you guys getting tired of this yet?

Seriously, until it shows up and gets verified by sources other than cat ladies and tin-foil afficionados, the whole debate is a big fat waste of time.

Time is the great equalizer, though both sides will molest it to fit their position. If January 2013 comes without nary a whiff of Nibiru, we'll say that's it. Done. Case Closed. The other side will say "The caluculations were wrong, it's still coming" just like in 2003, and then this mess will just continue on.

And if it does show up, we'll all be dead. So why not just go enjoy life, take your kids to the park, whatever?!?!?!

Some of you need a good kick in the nads.





new topics
top topics
 
17
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join