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

page: 51
43
<< 48  49  50    52  53 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrUncreated
If any of this were real, TPTB would know about it. And if it were real, I doubt we'd even have had a presidential debate, or even bother having an election. There would be no future.


Not following the logic, care to expound on this statement?




posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Here is another good video I just noticed, observe how the small white orb remains as the Sun goes behind the cloud, whereas a len flare should disappear when the main light source is blocked.

Also, you can easily see the small white orb go behind the cloud, can someone please tell me how a lens flare can move behind a cloud? Kind of defies logic, doesn't it?




posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


I think it's funny as we get closer and closer to this "date" that people are claiming everything they see is Nibiru or some destroyer planet. I asked you a question a page or so back, it was ignored as I am sure you will ignore this post but here goes anyhow..

It's a planet in our solar system... one of the ones we all know and love well..

Another hint: it ain't Nibiru...



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 



Also, you can easily see the small white orb go behind the cloud, can someone please tell me how a lens flare can move behind a cloud?

BEHIND the cloud? How do you conclude that a white orb is BEHIND a white cloud? That kinda defies logic.

If the people who make these videos would do this simple test we wouldn't have these videos.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Here is another good video I just noticed, observe how the small white orb remains as the Sun goes behind the cloud, whereas a len flare should disappear when the main light source is blocked.

Also, you can easily see the small white orb go behind the cloud, can someone please tell me how a lens flare can move behind a cloud? Kind of defies logic, doesn't it?


No, not really.

The only thing that defies logic is that people are actually so gullible as to believe a massive body in the sky is only visible to a few select people with cell phone cameras, and it is completely invisible to observatories, amateur astronomers, universities and colleges with telescopes, and to all the many people who actually make watching and photographing the sun with filters a hobby. THAT is what defies logic.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 


Astronomers have discovered it.

Like Eugene Shoemaker, he "dies" in a car accident one day, near Alice Springs (how far from Pine Gap is that?), and his lab burns down the next day. It is pretty obvious he was taken out and his records destroyed on purpose, unless you are "gullible" enough to believe everything the MSM tells you.

Many astronomers have died under mysterious circumstances, the ones who would fields of study would expose them to Planet X, sure some were old, but they did not die in their sleep or from natural causes, and they seem to die in pairs, deep space astronomers:




posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   
What complete and utter nonsense


We would A) be able to measure the gravity of that object, and B) see sunlight reflect off it.




John sounds like a reasonable guy...


No he isn't



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 



Astronomers have discovered it.


No, they haven't. If they did they would rush to publish the discovery so they could have first dibs on naming it.


Like Eugene Shoemaker, he "dies" in a car accident one day, near Alice Springs (how far from Pine Gap is that?), and his lab burns down the next day. It is pretty obvious he was taken out and his records destroyed on purpose, unless you are "gullible" enough to believe everything the MSM tells you.


Gene Shoemaker died because he instinctively pulled to the right to avoid a head on collision. Unfortunately, he was in Australia where the other driver instinctively pulled to the left. His laboratory is still there.


Many astronomers have died under mysterious circumstances, the ones who would fields of study would expose them to Planet X, sure some were old, but they did not die in their sleep or from natural causes, and they seem to die in pairs, deep space astronomers:


Many shoe salesmen have died under mysterious circumstances. Many waitresses have died under mysterious circumstances. Many real estate agents have died under mysterious circumstances. What did they all know?



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


I have looked everywhere for info on Shoemaker's lab burning down the day after he died and can't find anything. Could you show me some links to the information? thanks



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   
His lab didn't burn down the next day. I think it was TWO YEARS later. And it was not fully destroyed. And he wasn't even an astronomer. He was a geologist, who helped find the Levy comet with his wife, who WAS an astronomer, and DID survive the perfectly mundane crash. She didn't find anything odd about it. They were not used to driving on the side of the road that they were on, and he swerved the wrong way and into traffic. His wife (nor he) said anything about Nibiru. This is just typical misinformation to try and spin the ludicrous Nibiru theory.

And it still doesn't negate that EVERY DAY astronomers look at the sun. And they do NOT see this planet. Because it doesn't exist. Sun flares filmed by a kid using his cell phone and covering it with his fingers is hardly scientific research. Pxih would have you believe that all astronomers who sight this thing are offed by the government. It's utterly ludicrous, with no basis in fact.



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   

McCanney's head popped out of the hole a few years back. He's been making wacky claims for decades, but like most tabloid scientists, it was the internet where he finally found an audience (his website is at www.jmccanneyscience.com...). That, and fringe radio shows. He was an infrequent guest on many of these programs, but of late-- probably due to several astronomical events, like the appearance of some bright comets-- he has been getting more time. He's been on "Coast to Coast AM" quite a bit, for example. His spiel on these programs is pretty much what you'd expect: he says that everything we know about astronomy (and really, all of science) is wrong. He says that NASA is lying to you, scientists are lying to you, I am lying to you. And, of course, only he knows The Truth.


From Bad Astronomy..

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 




John sounds like a reasonable guy


He probably does but I will not waste my time with this unless at least a better set of ideas (I do not particularly require facts for it to become interesting to me) are put behind it...



However there is a national security directive for all government employees including scientists not to talk about this.


This excuse can go far but not as far as the issue at hand. The number of possible direct reports would make it impossible to silence, we are talking about a world, hell, sol system changing event here there wouldn't be any NDA or National Security Contracts that would prevent leakage. When hiding a secret in a pyramidal structure the lowest in the structure people have access to the secret, understanding of the full implications and possibility of validation the more impossible it is to keep it a secret. Especially in a democratic society with low social and moral standard, were personal gain, fame and recognition beats most other characteristics that would counter the impetus to spread the news, even if it was restricted to government you could imagine how price of food and fuel would rise...



Nibiru gives off light in the infrared spectrum, like billion of other objects in our universe


So I presume by the gives off that you (or John) supports the theory of a brown dwarf system or a similar thing, but the brown dwarf somehow is a star (contradiction) and can only emit a selected radiation spectrum (heat). It would be more interesting if theories would be changed to make it a Dyson sphere (then even the link to gold would make more sense than the preservation of one of the planets atmosphere). Even so planets (and brown dwarfs included) do not emit "light", unless they are recently formed (heat), what you normally can see "Jupiter, Saturn, Mars or Venus with the naked eye" is solar light reflection.

The "coming at us from out of the Sun" part would be a factor, but there are other non-US controlled satellites that would notice that (and the effects would already have began to be felt...

Now consider the only 2 options you covered. The government would be politically dead even if A) happened, especially if any margin of error existed. If option B failed to materialize fully they would in best of circumstance be jailed, if it did materialize there wouldn't be any way to keep it a secret long enough to all those involved to escape the wrath of the populace...

The Nibiru tail needs an update and redesign or at least someone that pulls it out of the more absurd concepts and presents it with some more consistency...

Has there been any disturbance on tidal waves you can point to us?



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Panic2k11
 


There are billions of celestial objects in the universe that can only be seen with special IR instruments because the reflect and/or give off no visible light. True?

This object is supposedly 4x the diameter and about 25x the mass of Earth, don't you think that's a little small even for a brown dwarf?

As for the tides, wouldn't the object need to be at a certain close distance to overcome the gravitational forces of the moon on our tides?

If you are familiar with the formula for gravity you will note r squared being the denominator means the effect of distance falls off rapidly, hence the moon and not the Sun affects the tides of earth.

Here is a neat little video I came across recently which provides much circumstantial evidence for Planet X, including comets over the past decade, and a five to tenfold increase in EQ's this decade over the past century or so, please explain that one to me.



Here is the video:



And here is the article:

Article: Strong Circumstantial evidence of Planet X



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 



There are billions of celestial objects in the universe that can only be seen with special IR instruments because the reflect and/or give off no visible light. True?


False. The only objects that don't reflect light are black holes. Sure not all objects have the same albedo but that doesn't mean they don't reflect light.
edit on 10/11/2012 by Xcalibur254 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 




As for the tides, wouldn't the object need to be at a certain close distance to overcome the gravitational forces of the moon on our tides?


So the object can be responsible for increased volcanic and tectonic activity but will have not effect in water ?!?
edit on 11-10-2012 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 




As for the tides, wouldn't the object need to be at a certain close distance to overcome the gravitational forces of the moon on our tides?


So the object can be responsible for increased volcanic and tectonic activity but will have not effect in water ?!?
edit on 11-10-2012 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)


Psst, he has no idea what he is talking about. Its best to just go for the ride and listen to his cries for attention rather than questioning it. It can actually get sort of entertaining at times.



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 




As for the tides, wouldn't the object need to be at a certain close distance to overcome the gravitational forces of the moon on our tides?


So the object can be responsible for increased volcanic and tectonic activity but will have not effect in water ?!?
edit on 11-10-2012 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)


Outstanding observation!

Since gravity has influence on all mater, I would also like an explanation for this: why would Nibiru's mass not have a gravitational effect on the Earth's water? The moon and sun have quite a bit of effect on it.



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 
Mind you this graph is a little misleading. Since Geological science, is a science after all, it is always making advancements. Advancements in quake detection; advancements in quake definitions; advancements in quake causes/effects. The data from 5, 10, 15, 20... (x) years ago becomes outdated and unusable for current study because the methods used to detect and define quakes were different than what is used now. It is relevant for historical purposes with regards to the effects of quakes and sometimes causes.

Ultimately, one cannot state that since we detected 5 quakes in 1950, 50 quakes in 1970 and 200 quakes in 2010 that we are experiencing more quakes now than compared to 60 years ago. This is an untrue statement. One can, however, state that since we detected 5 quakes in 1950, 50 quakes in 1970 and 200 quakes in 2010 that our detection methods have improved and that the total number of detection devices in the field have risen.

-saige-



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
August and September have come and gone and no planet has come within five Earth diameters of Earth. Sounds like John Moore's sources were lying through their teeth. (Or at least, someone was!)



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by saige45
 


You are absolutely correct. The graph shown by PlanetX is very misleading. Looking at it, one would think that over the past 2 decades there have been a MASSIVE increase in the amount of earthquakes.

The truth is, it's not that the amount of earthquakes have increased, instead, our ability to detect even the smallest quakes that happen very deep within the Earth is what has increased. Especially over the last 2 decades!

If one bothers to do the research on the history of earthquake detection and the Seismometer, you'll find that the seismometers used, even towards the last part of the 20th century were no where near as accurate or as sensitive as the equipment that has since been used for the past 2 decades.

Couple that with the increase of connecting the networks with the internet (another thing to come out over the last 2 decades) so that information can be shared, you have a LOT more data on earthquakes and the amount you can detect.

Because of this, it would make MUCH more sense to take a look at that graph and limit the time span to the past 20 years (however, considering how fast technology advances, even then you have to be careful). Let's look at this chart here covering 1990 to 2010:



Source: British Geological Survey

(very good article there on whether or not earthquakes are increasing or not by the way).

As you can see, there is no increasing trend there at all for up to 2010. I'm sure if we do some more digging we can include 2011 and the first part of 2012, you'll find the trend is still the same: not increasing.

This is something that really irritates me to no end: people using data that they don't understand, or do not know how read, nor do they take into account changes in technology, and present it as proof of something.
I'd much rather they show it as ASK if it looks that way. Get input from others, and see if there might be a reason that a chart looks a certain way or not (that or stop using charts that are made like that to mislead on purpose).





new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 48  49  50    52  53 >>

log in

join