Comments for page "Nibiru"

(no title)

Sat, 21 Jan 2012 12:43:28 +0000

Yes, I have seen this a lot over my back garden, usually at mid day, with a medium density of cloud, when the sun is at it's peak in the sky. It actually looks quite awesome lol.

(no title)

Mon, 09 Jan 2012 19:09:25 +0000

Yesterday I actually saw 3 suns. :-)
But luckily I also analyse what I see and it was very obvious when you know what to look for.
You had blue sky, some nice white clouds and sun that became reddish. And 2 additional suns peeking through the clouds.

What really was causing it was just 2 holes in the clouds that reflected the reddish sunlight that was hitting the back of the clouds.
Because the clouds were pretty dense (except for these 2 holes) the clouds looked white to a blueish sky.

30 minutes later the sky turned reddish including the clouds because the sun was setting. The effect was temporary.

(no title)

Mon, 09 Jan 2012 18:28:29 +0000

In the world of doomsaying, every image ever produced is a perfect representation of reality. Well, unless 'the government' 'airbrushed' it. Then it's not.

Images of the sun and of objects close to the sun are produced with special equipment. However, few people know this so they think pointing a digital camera at the sun will yield good results.

(no title)

Mon, 09 Jan 2012 17:37:35 +0000

I could go out tomorrow and produce the famed 'Nibiru' effect by getting my now quite old digicam and pointing the lens straight into the setting sun. This produces a very simple, sometimes very annoying effect in photography known as a lens flair. All of the proported Nibiru pictures are made using this or very similar simple photography effects. It's the same as the ghost orb effect, where light shines of a little particle of dust in the air, and blows it up 10 times bigger, producing the orb effect. Also, you can create close to perfect forged images using image manipulation software such as photoshop, or even freeware programs found on the internet such as GIMP or other freeware ones.

It IS possible to see two suns though, now you're going to ask me how. Well, on some VERY rare occasions, over certain places, a mirrage is created, distorting the image of the sun in the sky and 'doubling' it, creating the illusion of two suns in the sky. If you google 'China two suns' you will find a beautiful picture of this rare marvel of nature in action. Perhaps this natural, harmless event may explain why there are a minute few historical accounts of two suns in the sky.

Re: Is this really Nibiru

Mon, 02 Jan 2012 03:19:34 +0000

Nibiru does not exist NASA was explaining that on a meeting. Go to no www.nasa.gov for more information.

(no title)

Mon, 02 Jan 2012 00:34:44 +0000

nothing else can explain what keeps the planets orbiting the sun for billions of years our solar system is no different that most other solar systems in the galaxy BINARY

I guarantee you that a binary system would be a complete failure to explain the current solar system.

(no title)

Mon, 02 Jan 2012 00:32:00 +0000

our solar system is a binary motor with two sets of planets spinning in opposite direction coming close enough to each other every so often to propel one another for another orbit..

Look get the Universe Sandbox simulator at http://universesandbox.com/ and try to create a convincing simulation.
I don't care about words, give a simulation and notice what happens when the 2 solar systems merge temporarily.
You try to create the existing planets in the correct orbit. Good luck!

(no title)

Sun, 01 Jan 2012 21:11:43 +0000

our solar system is a binary motor with two sets of planets spinning in opposite direction

So do tell us where these opposite spinning planets are to be found. I'd like to see them.

nothing else can explain what keeps the planets orbiting the sun for billions of years

Erm.. gravity explains it perfectly well, thank you.
Wouldn't you be better off posting this sort of nonsense on ATS? Somebody there might actually believe it.

(no title)

Sun, 01 Jan 2012 19:28:33 +0000

That should say fact not face sorry I am on my phone

(no title)

Sun, 01 Jan 2012 19:27:08 +0000

Howard, I am probably one of the most nervous people who comments on this board and get swept up in any frightening sounding scenario but even I can grasp inertia and the face we are not in a binary system

(no title)

Sun, 01 Jan 2012 19:18:46 +0000

our solar system is a binary motor with two sets of planets spinning in opposite direction coming close enough to each other every so often to propel one another for another orbit.. nothing else can explain what keeps the planets orbiting the sun for billions of years our solar system is no different that most other solar systems in the galaxy BINARY

(no title)

Tue, 22 Nov 2011 04:28:52 +0000

Maybe planet X is not a planet at all, so what would be able to traverse the universe against the ebb and flow?

Kepler's laws of planetary motion don't apply only to planets. In any case, what do you propose that the imaginary "Planet X" might be in order to circumvent our [rather good] understanding of celestial mechanics?

(no title)

Tue, 22 Nov 2011 04:04:09 +0000

Maybe i didnt make myself clear, regardless of what we call it, but for the sake of this conversation lets call it planet X. Not every theory is going to be correct, but lets say one is, that would place planet X in an impossible orbit, hence the statement, Maybe planet X is not a planet at all, so what would be able to traverse the universe against the ebb and flow?

(no title)

Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:33:33 +0000

Planet X is just like a variable X in a formula.
The X does not mean that there is a planet, it is just a parameter.

One could also call it planet A, planet B, Planet C, Planet Epsilon, Planet Y,… just a variable name.

(no title)

Sun, 13 Nov 2011 23:10:14 +0000

to dead ringer this article is old but it is pretty good I think it explain how the hype started :) www.universetoday.com/14486/2012-no-planet-x/

(no title)

Sun, 13 Nov 2011 22:59:47 +0000

"planet x " astronomers call a object that they find that they dont know what it is , they was saying to the newspapers 1983 that they found something , maybe a long distance comet a other galaxy a small planet or a brown dwarf and when they did say brown dwarf the newspaper did write it was a brown dwarf but NASA never did say the newspaper just wanted news :) NASA did say they found planet x because they didnt know what it was :) it was when they found pluto then they did say it was planet x before they did give it a name :)

(no title)

Sun, 13 Nov 2011 22:31:01 +0000

Kepler being mathematician and astronomer, Sitchin being an economics graduate who wrote what amounts to alternate history? I'm not quite sure how you imagine the two to gel together here…

'Planet X', historically, was only a placeholder term so that people knew what idea was being discussed, most likely a planet, and as it turns out not a planet at all, but a miscalculation in the mass of Neptune.

(no title)

Sun, 13 Nov 2011 21:40:51 +0000

If both Kepler and Stitchin are correct in their theory, then maybe Planet X is not a planet at all?

(no title)

Fri, 11 Nov 2011 04:52:04 +0000

Are there any recent artcles from scientists that further debunk Nibiru?

How is it possible to "further debunk" something that has been shown impossible dozens of times over?

(no title)

Fri, 11 Nov 2011 04:49:50 +0000

Are there any recent artcles from scientists that further debunk Nibiru?