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.

 

John Moore Nibiru updates - can you afford to ignore this?

page: 19
43
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13
 



SO YOUR ANSWER IS NO YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THE ANNUNAKI VISITED EA*RTH. THANKS FOR SHARING I WISH I COULD SEE WHERE YOU ANSWERED THE QUESTION IN DIRECT YES OR NO FASHION w/o dancing around the answer. But its cool in your heart you know they werehere before. You just dont want to own up as to how they got here for it shatteres your profile look and you cannot have that happen. You know the real deal though so I am cool with that and how many profiles do you have I wonder???

Read what I posted.

They did not get here. They are myth. Only the gullible that have been duped by charlatans think otherwise.




posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SheopleNation
 


You've provided a link to CW Leonis? How quaint. Thanks for the blast from the past.


Yes, I did. Don't mention it.


Yeah, I don't know about this Moore guy, but CW Leonis has always interested me. Those black boxes on google sky interest me the same. The reality is, some day something is gonna hit planet Earth just like it did prior to the Dinosaurs demise. ~$heopleNation


edit on 26-7-2012 by SheopleNation because: TypO



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 

And not one mentions anything like Nibiru. Because the existence of anything like Nibiru is impossible. Those "anomalies" (none) would be ummm....dramatic and obvious.
edit on 7/25/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


With all due respect, Phage, I wouldn't necessarily say IMPOSSIBLE.

Highly unlikely might be a better term.

Until the 70's, it was impossible to build a craft that would one day leave our solar system...and here we are!

I offer that because of the immense size of the known universe, that there exists an unlimited number of impossible things that will be discovered as time goes forward.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE

Originally posted by welshreduk
I often hear how "Nibiru" means "crossing" or "point of transition" so could it be that the word Nibiru was taken out of context and actually simply means the Earth/Solar System "crossing" or " transitioning" the galactic plane or something like that rather than referring to a planet?


Many crop circles depict planets crossing, and many believe crop circles are warnings/messages from higher beings/aliens, here is one crop circle, I'll try to find more:

www.disclose.tv...


You are blowing your argument by using a known hoax like crop circles, to try to augment your position.

You need to stay with ONE fringe topic at a time.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by SheopleNation
 


You missed the point completely. I smirked when I read your post and burst out laughing at the response from oxbow. You did prove his point oh so well.

Posting a link about Nibiru appearing in Google sky is really funny.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by phantomjack
 


The idea that something could be built that would leave the solar system was known long before the 70s. Building that device was done in the 70s.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by SheopleNation
 


You proved his point by showing that Nibiruphiles never listen to facts. They have been claiming that CW Leonis is Nibiru for years now. Every time this claim comes up they're corrected. Yet, as you have so graciously demonstrated, they will continue to try to make CW Leonis Nibiru regardless of facts.


Just because they give it a name doesn't mean that it's not moving. That's a fact jack. Look, I don't even know if Nibiru even exists, I just enjoy discussing the topic. Do I think the world is gonna end on August 17th? = No I don't.

Some of you yes men take these planet X, Nibiru whatever ect discussions way too seriously. You can't even have a little fun discussing the what ifs. You would rather slumber down in your same old boring scientific reckless speculation. Which is fine I guess. ~$heopleNation



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Dizrael
 


we dont know if it exists

We do know it does not exist. If it did, we would not be here.
Nibiru + Earth in it's present orbit = nope.

edit on 7/25/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


The Exodus was Planet X's/Nibirus last pass, many plants, animals and people survived that.


I did this exercise myself last year. Run the 3600 year "event" cycle back through history. If there is anything to the Nibiru claim, you will be shocked to find that there is a pattern of historical / worldly events that occurs ever 3500 to 3600 years. Exodus was one of them. Go back further. 3600 years prior to Exodus was the "great flood" and prior to that? Keep going....find it. 3600 years before the flood? ATLANTIS.

It is suspiciously odd...and aligns perfectly with your claim.
edit on 26-7-2012 by phantomjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by SheopleNation
 


You missed the point completely. I smirked when I read your post and burst out laughing at the response from oxbow. You did prove his point oh so well.

Posting a link about Nibiru appearing in Google sky is really funny.


Well atleast you're intelligent enough to comprehend the joke. You got that going for yuh. ~$heopleNation



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13
 



SO YOUR ANSWER IS NO YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THE ANNUNAKI VISITED EA*RTH. THANKS FOR SHARING I WISH I COULD SEE WHERE YOU ANSWERED THE QUESTION IN DIRECT YES OR NO FASHION w/o dancing around the answer. But its cool in your heart you know they werehere before. You just dont want to own up as to how they got here for it shatteres your profile look and you cannot have that happen. You know the real deal though so I am cool with that and how many profiles do you have I wonder???

Read what I posted.

They did not get here. They are myth. Only the gullible that have been duped by charlatans think otherwise.


Thanks that is all that was asked of you. You all can take the thread

NAMASTE
LOVE LIGHT ETERNIA*******



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


If you believe that then Sitchin must have been wrong with his research. He stated the last time Nibiru passed by was around 500 BC. If Sitchin is wrong then the entire rationale for believing in Nibiru disappears. So are you saying Sitchin is wrong?


Yes. I will go there. Sitchin was wrong. Except, the Exodus did occur around 450BC.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Its just in my opinion not enough time to accumulate real data. From what scientists observe with wise, ive read over and over another ten years we will know and understand a whole lot more.

Wouldnt a dark companion have to get really close before its onserved?

Also, what do you think of this quote from the article I asked you to read?

The simplest way to produce the precession observable is the binary model. In this common stellar system, the observable of a moving equinox (or stars appearing to move relative to the equinox when viewed from earth on the date of the equinox) is simply the geometric effect of a solar system that curves through space as part of a binary system. As the solar system curves through space it gently changes the orientation of the Earth relative to the fixed stars (but not relative to objects within the moving solar system such as the sun or moon). This model requires little or no local wobble and is fully consistent with observations that show little or no precession relative to nearby objects and a full 50 arc seconds of precession relative to distant objects.


And this?


Pretend the straight blue line, drawn through the sun and earth, is the sightline of an observer looking out toward the constellations. Notice the observer now has a changing orientation to distant space, and with each vernal equinox, his gaze can slightly precess (change orientation) relative to the constellations or fixed stars without any wobble of the Earth required. Zoom in to see the “incremental change” in earth orientation that naturally occurs as the sun and solar system curves through space. One year of this change is what astronomers now call one year of precession. In other words, in the moving solar system model precession is simply angular velocity. Kepler tells us celestial bodies in orbit around another mass move in elliptical orbits – and that these orbits increase and decrease in speed depending on whether the two objects are moving closer to or farther away from their common center of mass. This changes their angular velocity. Therefore if the precession rate appears to be increasing, then the sun is in that part of its elliptical orbit where it is moving from apoapsis to periapsis – and according to Kepler’s laws it would be speeding up. Thus the variable rate of precession (known to be speeding up ever since modern records have been kept) is no longer a mystery in the binary model. It is simply the trait of an object in an elliptical orbit. The rate of change can be reliably predicted using Kepler’s laws if the basic orbit parameters are known. In fact we have found that by using Kepler’s laws we can predict the precession rate 10 times more accurately than Simon Newcomb’s constant.


Also in regards to sedna..... " it shouldnt be there" is what intrigues me the most!



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by phantomjack
 


The idea that something could be built that would leave the solar system was known long before the 70s. Building that device was done in the 70s.


Point taken. Though, off topic, the technology with which to do it was not yet invented in the 40's, 50's.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by SheopleNation
Here is what is coming. Plain and simple. It can only be viewed in infrared. This object is huge and there is nothing like it anywhere on Google Sky. ~$heopleNation

Nibiru on Google Sky
Click on the link and you will be the 2 millionth viewer of the well-studied carbon star known as IRC +10216 (or CW Leonis).

CW Leonis

CW Leonis on RationalWiki

-saige-

Edit: Whoops realized I am a late responder to this portion of the party. Carry On!!!

-saige-
edit on 26-7-2012 by saige45 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by phantomjack
 


You can do that with any length of time.

2000 years ago: Foundation of Christianity
4000 years ago: Foundation of Judaism
6000 years ago: Rise of civilization
8000 years ago: Volcanic landslide off Mt. Etna causes a megatsunami in the Mediterranean felt by three continents.

The world is an active place and things are constantly in flux. There is no need for a Death Star to explain these events. Besides, as Erik has pointed out numerous times now, the existence of Nibiru would cause a lot more than just an earthquake or some flooding. It would send the Earth out of the Sun's orbit on just one pass.

On top of that the question must be asked why the Chinese make no reference to this planet. The Chinese have a recorded history going back 4,000 years so they should have existed for at least one pass. So where are their historic documents describing another planet in the sky and mass devastation?



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by phantomjack
 




I did this exercise myself last year. Run the 3600 year "event" cycle back through history. If there is anything to the Nibiru claim, you will be shocked to find that there is a pattern of historical / worldly events that occurs ever 3500 to 3600 years. Exodus was one of them. Go back further. 3600 years prior to Exodus was the "great flood" and prior to that? Keep going....find it. 3600 years before the flood? ATLANTIS.

Simply not true in any way.
1. Exodus has no known archaeological evidence. Exodus does not appear to be true at all.
2. What "great flood" are you referring to. There certainly has never been a global flood - ever.
3. Atlantis does not exist. You certainly cannot date something that does not exist.

There is no 3600 year cycle.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by phantomjack
 



Yes. I will go there. Sitchin was wrong. Except, the Exodus did occur around 450BC.

How did you arrive at that date?



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by phantomjack
 


Actually Biblical scholars place the Exodus to around 1500 BC. To say the Exodus occurred in 450 BC kind of proves your whole point wrong. 450 BC is not 3600 years ago.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by saige45
 


No worries, it happens.

At the same time, whatever could they be hiding here?

What are they hiding on Google Sky?

Could this be the destroyer cometh??? LMAO! This thread would not be the same without the legendary Google Sky Black Box-Gate.


Seriously though, Does anyone have an opinion on exactly what is or is not being hidden behind the black box, Possible lens flare maybe? ~$heopleNation
edit on 26-7-2012 by SheopleNation because: TypO



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 


My thoughts on that is it is a very well thought out theory and like many, fits a lot of facts.

But unfortunately, like many theories, that is all it will remain until it can be proven, which in this case the proof would be to find that companion to the sun.

This is okay because many things in our reality are based upon theory. Sometimes the theory is changed or modified, sometimes it actually gets proven, and in other times it gets dropped either because a better theory is thought out, or it gets proven wrong. And there is nothing wrong with that as that's how science works.


Would a dark object have to be close to us to be observed?

The answer to that question has many, many "depends" attached to it. Those "depends" are all these questions:

How big is it?
How massive is it?
What is it made of?
Does it emit anything? (radio, IR, visible light, ultraviolet, x-rays, gamma rays, etc).
Are we looking in the direction of it? (this last one is very important. Many very small objects that have been discovered because someone happen to see motion in it. Once they do that, they continue to watch it to measure more of that motion, AND they go back and see if it's visible in pictures taken from times past. Sometimes we go back more than 20 years and look. If we find it in those photo's it gives us a better understanding of it's orbit and motion. This takes time and is why you don't see an astronomer seeing motion one day and then publishing the next day)

You have 3 things: the sun orbits another star, that star orbits our sun, or both our sun and that star orbit a common point. With their theory, it will have to be the last option as with the other 2 ideas, the sun's motion through space would be a lot different (and doesn't exist).

In order for the sun and another object to orbit a common point, there would need to be several requirements in mass and/or size of that companion. In other words, a 10 km wide asteroid won't work very well as it is way too small and not enough mass. However the opposite is true too: if it is a object with an extreme amount of mass (but small, like a neutron star or black hole so it's hard to detect), it would need to be very, very far away or else the sun would not orbit a common point, but actually orbit it (and that won't hold true since their theory is based upon the sun's motion through space).

Is it possible? Sure! Does it prove Nibiru? Absolutely not, as again, you can't have something come that close to us and not affect our planet's orbits around our sun in a drastic way.

That statement about Sedan was talking about it being classified as a "Trans-Neptune" or "Kuiper Belt" object. It's orbit doesn't fit either of those. However they think it may be a new classified object from the Oort cloud. However, keep in mind, even the Oort cloud is still theory:


Although no confirmed direct observations of the Oort cloud have been made, astronomers believe that it is the source of all long-period and Halley-type[citation needed] comets entering the inner Solar System and many of the centaurs and Jupiter-family comets as well.[5] The outer Oort cloud is only loosely bound to the Solar System, and thus is easily affected by the gravitational pull both of passing stars and of the Milky Way Galaxy itself. These forces occasionally dislodge comets from their orbits within the cloud and send them towards the inner Solar System.[3] Based on their orbits, most of the short-period comets may come from the scattered disc, but some may still have originated from the Oort cloud.[3][5] Although the Kuiper belt and the scattered disc have been observed and mapped, only four currently known trans-Neptunian objects—90377 Sedna, 2000 CR105, 2006 SQ372, and 2008 KV42—are considered possible members of the inner Oort cloud.[6][7]


Oort Cloud



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join