It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Hypothesis: There is no such thing as Planet10

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 05:33 PM

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
It's fine with me that you don't see the connection.

I see the connection.

Let me guess... what the amateur astronomers are seeing in the NE skies are space ships from planet X which is looming invisibly above us. This planet is made of matter that does not react with the matter that we know and understand, yet its inhabitants are composed of normal matter thus they are visible and tangible?

Look, I'm willing to believe that there may be rather large ships in orbit around Earth (though I'm not suggesting that they are extra terrestrial in origin). However, this whole planet X thing has already been proven a hoax. Until recently, I honestly didn't think that people still believed this claim. Sitchin is a charlatan and one of the biggest jokes in the anthropological/scientific communities, and didn't HE originally introduce this theory with his ommission of facts and horrifically bad cuneiform translations? Also, didn't Nancy Lieder start making some of these claims almost ten years ago... yet the world is still in one piece? Didn't she also claim that the Hale Bopp comet was meant to distract the public from the passing of Plantet X, when Hale Bopp actually passed right across the patch of sky where Planet X would have been visible?

I don't trust the government any more than you do... but far too many (obvious) frauds have been involved in this theory. I don't need the govt. to convince me that this is bogus.

posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 06:23 PM
I dunno. I dunno if there's any planet X and I dunno what's up in the sky. That's why I gather copies of cam-shots--to figure out what can be seen photographically that cannot be seen physically.

Have you ever been to They photograph what cannot be seen with the naked eye. That's all they do.

Rense puts up photos that people have developed, and then they look and say, "Well, we never saw that when we took the picture!"

Okay? So, there's a lot we don't know about what is physically present. In light of the up and coming interdimensional physics discipline, all I think we can do for a while is just take lots and lots of photos and ask lots and lots of questions.

Sometimes it takes a while to get one's questions answered.

Now, about that blue orb. Last year [on my rig that crashed] I copied off photos of that puppy [identical size] that were grey, not blue. Do I know what that means? Hell no. Do I get paid for taking photos? No. Do I know what to expect? No. Am I going to be the one who answers these questions raised by weirdness in photography? Again, no.

My nature is to ask question and bring up topics that others overlook, that's all. I pretend no special knowledge. Okay now?

I'm going to leave it to the astronomers to figure out what we're looking at. I'm just glad we have enough astronomers >HERE< that we'll get a good cross-section of replies and responses, for a change.

[Ever been to Bad Astronomy? What a waste of time; they refuse to entertain any novel notion or question at all. At least this place is full of open-minded people.]

new topics
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in