You are correct, their claims are inconsistent with our observations of the other planets. The whole "hiding behind the sun" thing is laughable too.

I agree with you regarding the high inclination orbit. Of course that wouldn't help them too much, because even in those less studied locations, there are still comets, and where there are comets, there are comet-hunters.

forget the obvious issues of this objects orbit …. what about the effect on the rest of the solar system ?

even assuming this object isnt as big as the Moon, let alone Earth, there is going to be a blindingly obvious effects on every single orbit and that disruption isnt going to just vanish or smooth itself out in the couple of centuries or so between visits.

these nubiru / planet x people have also missed an important trick …. why have it hiding "behind the sun" where its orbit would make it impossible to stay visually hidden (unless it was in the same orbital path as earth) when its easier to hide it by putting it at a high inclination to the ecliptic instead ? Thats still not going to make it invisible but at least its a lot less studied …. the recent red dwarf hunts etc focused on these areas for just that reason …. so it might be mistaken for a star and also minimises the effect on everyone elses orbit except when it comes charging in

Just to clarify, the meat of that article is actually the work of Emma T and bikenbeer2000. I just typed it.

If the orbit of Sedna is possible, why is Planet X or Nibiru not?

Sedna's calculated distance at perihelion is 7.8% of its distance at aphelion.

Using Astrogeek's work in the Nibiru article (which in turn uses Kepler's third law), assuming an orbital period of 3,600 years, Nibiru's distance at perihelion would be 0.213% of its distance at aphelion.

Sedna never comes within less than 76 AU of the Sun (to compare, Pluto is ~29.66 AU at perihelion), wheras Nibiru is purported to actually dive into the closer reaches of the Solar System. Some claims place it between Mars and Jupiter, others in a collision or near-collision course with Earth. Even if we generously granted the former option, that still roughly places Nibiru's perihelion distance a scant 0.64% of its aphelion distance. This eccentricity would result in any number of consequences, including outright ejection of Nibiru from the system and/or severe disruptions of other orbits. The result would likely be a Solar System far different than the one we know.

And yes, if Sedna behaved in this manner, it would suffer a similar fate. However, it does not.

* It's impossible for Nibiru to appear to be even half the size of the sun

If it did, we'd already be screwed. Remember Venus flying off into deep space. Planets don't have Star Trek-style cloaking devices, and they can't turn off their own gravity, only to turn it back on just in time to wipe out Earth. That's more or less what Nibiru proponents are claiming — that a peek-a-boo planet is flying toward Earth, almost completely undetectable except for a few camera-phone photos and grainy YouTube videos, with no gravitational effects whatsoever, but somehow it's still going to kill us. It's utterly insane.

* As have been said many times, it's orbit is impossible and would be highly unstable

Correct.

* Nibiru sightings wouldn't be restricted to sightings in the evening

Correct.

* If we were able to see Nibiru, we would also be able to feel the affects of it

Correct.

* There really is no evidence for this planets exisence whatsoever

None.

but one thing that kind of bugs me a bit is the pictures posted in another thread.

Why? Since Nibiru is impossible, you're left with these options: lens flare, glare in the window, some other optical phenomenon, or fabrication on the part of the poster. All of those options are many, many, many times more likely to be true than the existence of a physically impossible, magical planet or brown dwarf flying largely undetected through the Solar System.

I mean, jeez, what more can anyone say at this point?

even though it looks like the flare is behind the cloud?

It doesn't look like it's a behind any cloud to me. It looks like it was smudged in Photoshop. Or it could be as bikenbeer2000 said, it's filth on the window or just a reflection, in which case the "cloud" would stay put. Regardless of what it is, it isn't "Nibiru" or any other doomsday object.

Is it possible for an object to be there in the sunset one day, and gone the other?

Not an object of that purported size. For that matter, as I've said many times, it never would have gotten there undetected. Peek-a-boo planets don't exist.

Also, what about this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsAOsKoMl84&NR=1? It doesn't seem to be a lense flare since it doesn't move when the camera moves and in this case too some clouds are infront of it. I know, the size is way too big but what could this be?

Here is anothe one where they've added effects to show "Nibiru": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3f4juay1pc&feature=related

It's a reflection in the glass, which would not move as a lens flare does. If you look carefully, you can even see a faint reflection of the camera and operator. The consumer-grade effects applied to the second video don't show anything. That's done simply to make gullible viewers think otherwise.

Seriously, Richard, if you have a camera phone, randomly point it at bright lights, take a few shots and see what happens. I did just that and posted the result over in the "Nibiru" thread. Such is not an ideal method for reliable photography, solar or otherwise.

bikenbeer2002: "The problem with the story about Nibiru is that it's been behind the sun for years and just pops out once in a while to be photographed by a conspiracy theorist."

Peek-a-boo.

Could it be true? And in those pictures it seems like there are clouds infront of the orb, could that happen?

Are these artifacts common in photographs? And IF this by some divine magic actually was Nibiru, wouldn't it be much closer, bigger and more frequentlly visible by now?

Again, thank you for explaining the video to me. It did seem a little to perfect (a smaller copy of the regular sun appearing just beside the sun). As Astrogeek said before, this planet wouldn't be close to that big if it where in fact real.

Please note that I'm not saying that you've got it wrong, I'm just curious about how it can turn out the way it did.

And the girl who posted the pictures on 2012forum claimed with certainty that the window was open when she took the picture. Do you think she's lying or could there be some other glitch that isn't dependent on double panned windows in order for two suns to appear. (even here the clouds were infront of the artifact, which is the part that botters me).

Could this really be something that doesn't belong here?

Perhaps you could update the page with a debunking of these two suns videos, showing how they are done and why they can't be of a second sun? Since Youtube is flooded with this crap I think many would appreciate some debunking of it=)

• It's impossible for Nibiru to appear to be even half the size of the sun
• As have been said many times, it's orbit is impossible and would be highly unstable
• Nibiru sightings wouldn't be restricted to sightings in the evening
• If we were able to see Nibiru, we would also be able to feel the affects of it
• There really is no evidence for this planets exisence whatsoever

Is that correct?

Also, I see now that the Nibiru sightings is quite far off from reality (regarding size, magnitude and so on) but one thing that kind of bugs me a bit is the pictures posted in another thread. Even though it looks like an obvious lense flare on all 7 (I think) pictures, there appear to be some clouds infront of the lense flare. Is there any way that this could be some sort of artifact in the picture even though it looks like the flare is behind the cloud? That is, if we don't assume the one posting the picture somehow edited the picture afterwards. But if we rule out the latter alternative, could something in the camera cause such an artifact or is the only explanation that the picture was edited?

Sorry for bringing this up again even though it was dealt with in another thread, but this is kind of the last piece of the puzzle before I can more or less let go of this whole hoax.

Here is the link to the page¹: http://208.86.157.237/forum/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=11470&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&sid=37cb123975783f7145446d159bdecf0b

I know that The GreatJuju's explanation is the most plausible, but I just can't get it out of my system. So I'm not saying that he is wrong, just asking if there could be another explanation to it?

and in the discussion several tried to catch the object on tape, but no one was successful. Is it possible for an object to be there in the sunset one day, and gone the other? And finally, this kind of apperance would go against what we talked about earlier, right? I mean, it wouldn't be close to that big if it existed?

The fact that it is claimed that a 3,600 year orbit with a perigee at about 1 AU is "stable" defies physics.