Ask An Astronomer About Nibiru (Planet X, Tyche, etc.) HERE!

& i have no science degree, but i do have one in journalism, so i know how to research stuff. i'm also a writer who deals most with analytics, critical thinking is what i'm paid for : )

i watch and read science stuff all the time, so i'm no expert, but i'm no dummie either

i had to school some of scientists about the difference between brown dwarf stars and planets. i mean come on

AND OH MY GOD GUYS

what is our collective goal for being here? It's to share info, to share ideas, and then see if we can make out a much clearer view of the world

and we def have to be on the same page about how all sources should be mistrusted - not just independent researchers ... we just don't live in a world where MSM and government has our best interset in mind.

so this bickering, this trying to prove people wrong on any little point that doesn't even matter is just, well, it's futile


try actually considering people's claims, not jumping to conclusions about their crazy or gullible motives - it's just a WASTE OF TME

& www.scientificamerican.com...

for you stereologist

tyche = planet x
it's been called other things too

nemesis etc

it's just a hypothetical big planet out there effecting #

reply to post by ufoinquirer

that's fine if you don't follow along that logic

Learn the basics of word meanings. You are referring to methodology, not logic. In fact, your claims are illogical.

but there is ZERO point in being here

That's just your opinion shared by few.

i'ts like going on an atheist forum and continuing to use the bible as evidence for your claims

A very poor analogy illustrating your lack of understanding of this discussion.

Why does it matter if GLP has an observatory? You could have an observatory. I have an observatory.

reply to post by ufoinquirer

Think of NASA more as a guide, hey did our independent research (and logic) confirm or deny research. Same for when we're dealing with frauds.

That is what happens with any scientific research. Work is checked and rechecked. Measurements and observations are made in different ways and compared. NASA is only one place supporting research. Grants come from all over the world. There are observatories and research locations all over the world. Amateurs provide plenty of important observations. To think that there is only 1 scientific body in the world looking up is simply exhibiting a lack of understanding of science work in general.

reply to post by ufoinquirer

You have for whatever reason chosen not to read the whole thread with the auto bots...you will see people saying they are not auto bots - the same people that gave the first auto responses on the first thread ... without elaborating.

You inability to write a coherent statement is amusing at times. What is even more amusing is what you pass off as evidence. Your claims of autobots (are you a bumble bee fan) is rather amusing since you have no evidence for the claim other than your musings. You should read about the Eliza program before commenting further.

The sheer NUMBER of nonsensical welcome responses with mentions of not being an auto bot should tip you off.

Such a claim simply suggests that you are one of these autobots. Your statements are vacuous and as you say nonsensical.

reply to post by ufoinquirer

Planet x has been renamed so many times - the search for that particular location ended in 1989, due to new measurements of Uranis/Neptune, yes. I understand it very well, I've researched the # out of this, thank you very much. There are other planet x theories out there that remain - the orbits and names of it just keep changing.

Obviously you do not understand.

The search for other objects in out solar system is not related to the search for planet X. The current suggestion that there are other bodies out there is based on rather slim statistical evidence rather than the measurement of the paths of visible objects.

Do you understand the difference?

reply to post by ufoinquirer


Really? So you you are saying that one of your typical vacuous responses shows that you are an "autobot"?

Amusing to say the least.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by ufoinquirer

 

that's fine if you don't follow along that logic

Learn the basics of word meanings. You are referring to methodology, not logic. In fact, your claims are illogical.

but there is ZERO point in being here

That's just your opinion shared by few.

i'ts like going on an atheist forum and continuing to use the bible as evidence for your claims

A very poor analogy illustrating your lack of understanding of this discussion.

Why does it matter if GLP has an observatory? You could have an observatory. I have an observatory.

you're just ignorant i'm sorry

have you SEEn the G L P observatory? it's incredible.

you're just getting obsessed and hung up on semantics. what is your point with all of this, just ask yourself !!!! if i'm not answering everything you say exactly it's because I'm not hung up on the same trees you're hung up on

i'm looking at the forest

you can't keep telling people to trust nasa cuz they use scientific method. we are on a site caleld ABOVETOPSECRET.COM

i never ever said only one scientific body was working on these things - but just that NASA has most if not all the cards (i actually thin kthey don't, seein gas how they're a PR front) and they share those cards with others who then use them to form their opinions and research

you have failed to make any point across

reply to post by ufoinquirer


Can't you use your own words to explain this link autobot?

reply to post by ufoinquirer

i think you're one of those people who, whenever someone disagrees with you, you think they're stupid or ignorant. which is probably why you have fun arguing on these boards.

Is this another autobot response?

We are getting confirmation that you are an autobot.

i tried to use my own words, you don't get them, so i gave you examples from the thread i was talking about

you are useless

i'm stopping, this is pointless

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by ufoinquirer

 

Planet x has been renamed so many times - the search for that particular location ended in 1989, due to new measurements of Uranis/Neptune, yes. I understand it very well, I've researched the # out of this, thank you very much. There are other planet x theories out there that remain - the orbits and names of it just keep changing.

Obviously you do not understand.

The search for other objects in out solar system is not related to the search for planet X. The current suggestion that there are other bodies out there is based on rather slim statistical evidence rather than the measurement of the paths of visible objects.

Do you understand the difference?

whatever, you're wrong, hypotehtical alrge planets outisde solar system theorizied to this day - that is what this theory is based on

reply to post by ufoinquirer


If you are a journalist, which I doubt, can you explain why you have such a poor sentence structure, often incoherent sentences, poor word use, and incorrect word use?

i had to school some of scientists about the difference between brown dwarf stars and planets.

I choose not to believe you. I don't think you know the difference.

because i'm typing fast in between work !!!!!!! i'm a paid writer and analyst

reply to post by ufoinquirer

and we def have to be on the same page about how all sources should be mistrusted - not just independent researchers ... we just don't live in a world where MSM and government has our best interset in mind.

so this bickering, this trying to prove people wrong on any little point that doesn't even matter is just, well, it's futile

I do not think that when you are overwhelmingly wrong about astronomy, NASA, and the Mayans that it is trivial. Maybe you think being so incredibly off base is minor, but that is just you being you.

You are full of assumptions and paranoia. You make overt claims of little merit, most of which are trivial to show as false.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by ufoinquirer

 

and we def have to be on the same page about how all sources should be mistrusted - not just independent researchers ... we just don't live in a world where MSM and government has our best interset in mind.

so this bickering, this trying to prove people wrong on any little point that doesn't even matter is just, well, it's futile

I do not think that when you are overwhelmingly wrong about astronomy, NASA, and the Mayans that it is trivial. Maybe you think being so incredibly off base is minor, but that is just you being you.

You are full of assumptions and paranoia. You make overt claims of little merit, most of which are trivial to show as false.

you haven't shown how i've been wrong about anything - what exacatly have i been wrong about? i don't even think comet elenin is dangerous.

you're just talking out of your ass and getting hung up on preconceptions you have of me, that are totally without merit

reply to post by ufoinquirer

for you stereologist

tyche = planet x
it's been called other things too

nemesis etc

it's just a hypothetical big planet out there effecting #

Nemesis is no longer being considered as a possibility. Tyche is also an unlikely object. Both were based on statistical studies, not observations.

You need to learn something about the search for planet X, which is not the same as the search for other bodies in the solar system.

When people make such big mistakes I really find it laughable that they claim to have taught scientists.

you have yet to show me the logic in why a real person would respond to this

"prove you're not an auto bot by giving me answer to 5 + 5"


with this


"i'm not an auto bot"

and if it was a fluke, why are countless accounts responding in the same stupid way ?