PDA

View Full Version : Planet X: The South Pole Telescope



parallaxicality
2009-Apr-23, 12:07 PM
Is there any way I can disprove the assertion that the South Pole Telescope is being used to track Nibiru?

Jason Thompson
2009-Apr-23, 12:17 PM
Probably not, but you could ask why Nibiru is not visible in any other telescope in the southern hemisphere, or why the most often quoted images of 'Nibiru' said to be taken by that telescope were dated January, which is the one time of year when that telescope is no good for anything, what with 24 hour sunlight and all....

ineluki
2009-Apr-24, 10:00 AM
Is there any way I can disprove the assertion that the South Pole Telescope is being used to track Nibiru?

You could illustrate Jason's first point with a globe, that might help some to understand how the spatial arrangement is impossible.

Extracelestial
2009-Apr-24, 10:39 AM
Is there any way I can disprove the assertion that the South Pole Telescope is being used to track Nibiru?

Nothing that requires spending some time studying, learning and thinking would convince a die hard CTer that the scope isn't used for watching Nibiru.

However, if you're up to somebody earnestly interested, this comes to my mind:

#1 Quote (Wikipedia": The South Pole Telescope (SPT) is a 10 meter diameter telescope located at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, Antarctica. It is a microwave/millimeter-wave telescope that observes in a frequency range between 70 and 300 GHz. The primary science goal for SPT is to conduct a survey to find several thousand clusters of galaxies, which should allow interesting constraints on the Dark Energy equation of state. Unquote
Searching for unluminous objects (e.g. planets) in this wavelength is plainly not working

#2 try (you - the hoax proponent) to check the search schedules of SPT with the position of the alleged object. Not that I'm very optimistic that a CTer would endeavor in such outrageous task.

#3 common sense: if the nerds and geeks, spooks and black men of the SPT already know that we're all doomed and that Nibiru is coming what's the point in watching it closing in? Admittedly, some people in Jackass crave for such fun but these hardly will have a university degree.

Extracelestial

vonmazur
2009-Apr-24, 04:14 PM
Guys: The real reason that the South Pole is mentioned by the whackamundoes, is; that was the way it was in the 1950's movie, "When Worlds Collide...." (Actually it was South Africa, but that is close enough for the nut jobs...)

Dale

Gandalf223
2009-Apr-24, 04:47 PM
Is there any way I can disprove the assertion that the South Pole Telescope is being used to track Nibiru?

No. The thing about dedicated conspiracy theorists is, they are so convinced that their own delusion is real that they cannot accept anything that contradicts the delusion.

I leave you with an applicable quote that has, so far, withstood the test of time:

“Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it." Ayn Rand

Gillianren
2009-Apr-24, 06:17 PM
No. The thing about dedicated conspiracy theorists is, they are so convinced that their own delusion is real that they cannot accept anything that contradicts the delusion.

You're assuming that the person asking the question is a dedicated conspiracy theorist, not necessarily a reliable assumption. In fact, that seems to be the general assumption here. There are people who believe such things because they haven't heard anything to contradict it, and once presented with evidence, they say, "Oh." I've had it happen with 2012 several times. A brief explanation of the Mayan calendar was all it took. Heck, I actually explained Nibiru to someone a while ago, including the lowdown on Nancy, and got, "Oh." Sometimes, a simple explanation will do wonders.

As to Ayn Rand, well, even a broken (analogue!) clock is right twice a day, anyway.

A.DIM
2009-Apr-24, 06:44 PM
Is there any way I can disprove the assertion that the South Pole Telescope is being used to track Nibiru?
I doubt it.
Any search for Nibiru (as described by Sitchin) would necessarily be conducted in the southern hemisphere as it is said to approach the solar system from below the ecliptic, some 30deg., in the direction of Saggittarius. Fortunately, the SPT can view this area well; unfortunately, the MW in this part of the sky also makes it a veritable haystack of stars.
If they're looking for a BD or subBD, I wish them luck, even more if they're looking for a planet.

Jason Thompson
2009-Apr-24, 07:06 PM
I doubt it.
Any search for Nibiru (as described by Sitchin) would necessarily be conducted in the southern hemisphere as it is said to approach the solar system from below the ecliptic, some 30deg., in the direction of Saggittarius.

Umm, due to a combination of spherical geometry and the tilt of Earth's axis, Saggittarius, while a southern constellation, is visible up to 55 degrees north depending on the tmie of year. In other words it can be viewed from practically the entire human-inhabited region of the Earth!

You don't have to be in the southern hemisphere to see constellations south of the ecliptic. Nibiru, if it exists, simply cannot be hidden to the extent of only being visible from the south pole. It's a planet for heaven's sake! I can see Pluto with a 4-inch scope from my garden on a good night. How can anything as big as Nibiru not be visible yet?

A.DIM
2009-Apr-24, 08:48 PM
Umm, due to a combination of spherical geometry and the tilt of Earth's axis, Saggittarius, while a southern constellation, is visible up to 55 degrees north depending on the tmie of year. In other words it can be viewed from practically the entire human-inhabited region of the Earth!

You don't have to be in the southern hemisphere to see constellations south of the ecliptic. Nibiru, if it exists, simply cannot be hidden to the extent of only being visible from the south pole. It's a planet for heaven's sake! I can see Pluto with a 4-inch scope from my garden on a good night. How can anything as big as Nibiru not be visible yet?

I didn't say Sag can't be viewed from the northern hemisphere, nor did I mean to imply it; only that the southern is more conducive to watching it year round, if it's there.
Besides, how big and how close do you think it's supposed to be?

R.A.F.
2009-Apr-24, 09:00 PM
...how big and how close do you think it's supposed to be?

You're asking for the distance and size of a mythical planet?? :lol:

Jason Thompson
2009-Apr-24, 10:33 PM
I didn't say Sag can't be viewed from the northern hemisphere, nor did I mean to imply it; only that the southern is more conducive to watching it year round, if it's there.
Besides, how big and how close do you think it's supposed to be?

Well, since Nibiru always seems to be connected with 2012, and is usually described as being planet-sized (usually bigger than Earth), it has to be closer than Pluto already or else it can't be here in three and a half years. That makes it easily visible to anyone who looks for it.

Even if we do restrict the viewing to the southern hemisphere, that's still three inhabited continents with their share of amateurs. That's a lot of people who could see it if they looked up.

A.DIM
2009-Apr-25, 11:33 AM
You're asking for the distance and size of a mythical planet?? :lol:

Well, I asked what Jason thinks about its size and distance...

:neutral:

A.DIM
2009-Apr-25, 11:38 AM
Well, since Nibiru always seems to be connected with 2012, and is usually described as being planet-sized (usually bigger than Earth), it has to be closer than Pluto already or else it can't be here in three and a half years. That makes it easily visible to anyone who looks for it.

Even if we do restrict the viewing to the southern hemisphere, that's still three inhabited continents with their share of amateurs. That's a lot of people who could see it if they looked up.

Well, if you're looking for Nibiru as described by Sitchin you've got a longer wait than 'til 2012.

If you want to disprove Nibiru in all other incarnations, have at it; it shouldn't be too hard given they're wrong to begin with (eg. returns in 2012).

Starfury
2009-Apr-25, 02:39 PM
The simple fact is, there is no planet X, not in the sense 2012/Nibiru believers think anyway.

A planet of the mass and size described by Nancy Lieder/Mark Hazlewood would have been detected long ago. Plus these characteristics don't come even close to matching the observed characteristics of brown dwarfs!

It doesn't matter which Southern Hemisphere telescope you use--Anglo Australian Observatory, European Southern Observatory, South Pole Telescope--you will find nothing if you're searching for Nibiru. Or Northern Hemisphere telescope for that matter.

R.A.F.
2009-Apr-25, 03:25 PM
Well, I asked what Jason thinks about its size and distance...

Semantics...whatever...


Well, if you're looking for Nibiru as described by Sitchin you've got a longer wait than 'til 2012.

I know that everytime you see the word "Niburu" you think "Sitchin", however since Sitchinism is a forbidden subject on his board under the "no religion" rule, then why did you bring him into this discussion to begin with??

boppa
2009-Apr-25, 05:08 PM
Semantics...whatever...



I know that everytime you see the word "Niburu" you think "Sitchin", however since Sitchinism is a forbidden subject on his board under the "no religion" rule, then why did you bring him into this discussion to begin with??

since when has `Sitchinism' been a religious subject??

I must admit I see Niburu I automatically think of Zecharia

same as if I see Zeta I straight away think of Nancy

(or is Leiderism a religion/forbidden subject as well now??)


confused......

Jason Thompson
2009-Apr-25, 05:23 PM
Well, I asked what Jason thinks about its size and distance...

What I think about its size and distance is that no description I have read is consistent with something that could not be seen by amateurs.

And returning to your point about year-long observation, that still rules out the SPT, since for several months in summer they have either 24 hours of full sunlight or else nothing darker than twilight.

Moose
2009-Apr-25, 09:29 PM
since when has `Sitchinism' been a religious subject??

I suspect an earlier comment of mine (of a few months ago) may not have been sufficiently clear. Sitchinism isn't an explicitly banned subject by name, but the topic currently does trigger two (and a half) existing prohibitions.

Religious advocacy is forbidden, full stop. That means discussions of Sitchin, Mao, the Vatican, my cat Zoe, and/or the BA's stubbed left big toe may not focus on the religious aspects (if any) of those topics.

Sitchin's ATM ideas have had many kicks at the ATM can, and so the ATM component(s) of Sitchinism will fall under the same sort of mostly-prohibited category as EU. If you can demonstrate to a mod or admin that you have something genuinely new to bring to the table, and you're prepared to defend it, then a new ATM thread is possible, though still unlikely. ATM advocacy (with or without Sitchin's name on it) outside of ATM will trigger the usual penalties. Spontaneous debunkings are probably misplaced, but okay.

Any other aspect of Sitchinism that is likely to restart certain old feuds (which is nearly all of it, apparently) should probably be avoided for everyone's sake, because sufficiently rude behavior will trigger the "be nice" rule. Believe me when I say the mods aren't interested in seeing this behavior resuming.

The non-existance of Nibiru itself (and the current roles of certain telescopes) is probably okay as a topic, as they deal directly with astronomy. That Sitchen has ATM and religious components isn't necessarily a problem so long as the discussion remains tightly focused on the astronomy. Same basic deal as if the Vatican's observatory were to decide to fund NASA's repair of Hubble or something.

Just so the mods aren't going to get dragged into it (kicking and screaming) with the ban-cannon, guys, the topic is fair game so long as you stick very closely to the telescope and the non-existance of Nibiru/Planet X type bodies in our solar system.

As always, if you have any questions or concerns, contact a mod/admin or use the report button.

Gandalf223
2009-Apr-26, 06:52 AM
Any search for Nibiru (as described by Sitchin) would necessarily be conducted in the southern hemisphere as it is said to approach the solar system from below the ecliptic, some 30deg., in the direction of Saggittarius.

The last I heard, Nibiru was coming at us from Orion, behind the blank rectagular area that Google Sky refuses to show us at approximately RA 5h53m Dec 5°59'.

Now you tell us that Google isn't hiding Nibiru back there after all. Aw shoot. All those nights in the back yard for nothing.

Hmmm. I wonder what they are hiding there....

Alan G. Archer
2009-Apr-26, 07:26 AM
The last I heard, Nibiru was coming at us from Orion, behind the blank rectagular area that Google Sky refuses to show us at approximately RA 5h53m Dec 5°59'.

Behold....

Tedward
2009-Apr-26, 10:01 AM
I did not think the south pole telescope was an optical one? Or is this another the hoax uses for reference and I have missed the point?

But, I would have thought that drawing a few tangents on a circle with a bit of leeway and demonstrating that for the south pole scope (in theory) to see anything when the rest of the world cannot, it (X) has to be extremely close to the earth or S Pole and very small and quite stationary. Outside that cone (or tangents for viewing for other places) it would be visible should its position be known.

A.DIM
2009-Apr-26, 12:24 PM
Semantics...whatever...

Sorry, no; what he thinks is wrong.
Nibiru is not said to return 2012.
Plain and simple.


I know that everytime you see the word "Niburu" you think "Sitchin", however since Sitchinism is a forbidden subject on his board under the "no religion" rule, then why did you bring him into this discussion to begin with??

You don't want to know what I think when I see "Niburu", but yes, when I see "Nibiru" I absolutely think Sitchin, and rightly so, this name for a perturber body in our solar system, a "planet x", started with his work, in '76.

A.DIM
2009-Apr-26, 12:39 PM
What I think about its size and distance is that no description I have read is consistent with something that could not be seen by amateurs.

As I said, if you expect Nibiru to return in 2012 you're using misinformation.
I've not read where Sitchin makes this claim. But if one reads his work s/he can pretty well know that Nibiru has another 1500yrs or so, unless something sped up its orbit.


And returning to your point about year-long observation, that still rules out the SPT, since for several months in summer they have either 24 hours of full sunlight or else nothing darker than twilight.

Yeah, perhaps I should've simply stated the SPT would provide optimal viewing if searching for a substellar object in Sag, towards the heart of the MW. Telescopes at low latitudes in Australia, South Africa, South America would provide good viewing as well.

The bottom line though is if there's large purturber body in our outer system, as described by Sitchin, I doubt amatuers, let alone those professionals looking for a perturber, would be able to see it right now.

A.DIM
2009-Apr-26, 12:48 PM
I suspect an earlier comment of mine (of a few months ago) may not have been sufficiently clear. Sitchinism isn't an explicitly banned subject by name, but the topic currently does trigger two (and a half) existing prohibitions.

Religious advocacy is forbidden, full stop. That means discussions of Sitchin, Mao, the Vatican, my cat Zoe, and/or the BA's stubbed left big toe may not focus on the religious aspects (if any) of those topics.

I find the only thing "religious" in Sitchin's work is his use of mythical and religious texts as protoscientific and historical texts when interpreting.


Sitchin's ATM ideas have had many kicks at the ATM can, and so the ATM component(s) of Sitchinism will fall under the same sort of mostly-prohibited category as EU. If you can demonstrate to a mod or admin that you have something genuinely new to bring to the table, and you're prepared to defend it, then a new ATM thread is possible, though still unlikely. ATM advocacy (with or without Sitchin's name on it) outside of ATM will trigger the usual penalties. Spontaneous debunkings are probably misplaced, but okay.

Any other aspect of Sitchinism that is likely to restart certain old feuds (which is nearly all of it, apparently) should probably be avoided for everyone's sake, because sufficiently rude behavior will trigger the "be nice" rule. Believe me when I say the mods aren't interested in seeing this behavior resuming.

The non-existance of Nibiru itself (and the current roles of certain telescopes) is probably okay as a topic, as they deal directly with astronomy. That Sitchen has ATM and religious components isn't necessarily a problem so long as the discussion remains tightly focused on the astronomy. Same basic deal as if the Vatican's observatory were to decide to fund NASA's repair of Hubble or something.

Just so the mods aren't going to get dragged into it (kicking and screaming) with the ban-cannon, guys, the topic is fair game so long as you stick very closely to the telescope and the non-existance of Nibiru/Planet X type bodies in our solar system.

As always, if you have any questions or concerns, contact a mod/admin or use the report button.

Moose, thanks for the clarification.
I don't want to advocate for Sitchin, but if someone raises "Nibiru" in thread I feel it necessary to proffer correct info. Most questioners still operate on misinfo.

Jason Thompson
2009-Apr-26, 04:21 PM
The bottom line though is if there's large purturber body in our outer system, as described by Sitchin, I doubt amatuers, let alone those professionals looking for a perturber, would be able to see it right now.

So what's it supposed to be and why couldn't we see it?

R.A.F.
2009-Apr-26, 04:38 PM
...if someone raises "Nibiru" in thread I feel it necessary to proffer correct info. Most questioners still operate on misinfo.

If it is your contention that Sitchin's "version" of Niburu is "correct" (ie. real), then the rules of this board require that you present credible, convincing evidence that Sitchin is in fact correct.

...either that, or withdraw the "correct" remark from your post.

The following..."if someone raises "Nibiru" in (a) thread I feel it necessary to proffer Sitchin's version of the info."...would be a satisfactory change.

A.DIM
2009-Apr-26, 08:12 PM
If it is your contention that Sitchin's "version" of Niburu is "correct" (ie. real), then the rules of this board require that you present credible, convincing evidence that Sitchin is in fact correct.

:rolleyes:

It is my contention that Sitchin's hypothesis for a perturber called Nibiru is the original hypothesis for a perturber called Nibiru, the correct version, regardless if it's real.
The Twelfth Planet, 1976

As far as I know, Sitchin never claimed it would return in 2012 or would be visible any time soon; that's the incorrect info, the misinfo, regardless if it's real.


...either that, or withdraw the "correct" remark from your post.

The following..."if someone raises "Nibiru" in (a) thread I feel it necessary to proffer Sitchin's version of the info."...would be a satisfactory change.


Well, I did say "according to Sitchin" a couple times I think, but yes, please think of it as if that's what I meant by "correct info."
I'd like to think you knew that.

Jason Thompson
2009-Apr-26, 09:16 PM
I repeat the question: what is it supposed to be and how is it invisible?

A.DIM
2009-Apr-26, 09:59 PM
I repeat the question: what is it supposed to be and how is it invisible?

According to Sitchin it's a large planet on an elliptical orbit which approaches the solar system from below the ecliptic (some 30deg) every 3600yrs; last pass some 2200yrs ago.

I think without knowing exactly where to look or its proper motion, and it being almost 1500yrs away, it is effectively invisible, if it's there.

R.A.F.
2009-Apr-26, 10:27 PM
I did say "according to Sitchin" a couple times I think, but yes, please think of it as if that's what I meant by "correct info."

Thanks for clarifing that your use of the word "correct" was in no way related to the correctness of Sitchin's ideas.

Jason Thompson
2009-Apr-27, 12:05 PM
According to Sitchin it's a large planet on an elliptical orbit which approaches the solar system from below the ecliptic (some 30deg) every 3600yrs; last pass some 2200yrs ago.

Approaches the solar system, or is part of the solar system? Just out of curiosity, what is the evidence for this?

A.DIM
2009-Apr-27, 12:53 PM
Thanks for clarifing that your use of the word "correct" was in no way related to the correctness of Sitchin's ideas.

You're welcome; although I'm unsure how my repeated use of "as described by" and "according to" intimated "Nibiru is real, Sitchin says so."

A.DIM
2009-Apr-27, 01:01 PM
Approaches the solar system, or is part of the solar system? Just out of curiosity, what is the evidence for this?

If it returns every 3600yrs it'd have to be part of the system, no?
I say it approaches because people usually envision planets in our solar system as being in the same plane with fairly circular orbits. Nibiru's orbit is supposed to be highly elliptical, taking it far beyond pluto and other TNOs, while being below the ecliptic almost entirely; it crosses above the plane at perihelion, somewhere near the asteroid belt, according to Sitchin. He interprets many ancient near eastern texts to draw his conclusions but the Enuma Elish (describes the celestial battle which created heaven and earth) and Mul.Apin(the "plow star"), are primary.

Jason Thompson
2009-Apr-27, 03:28 PM
If it returns every 3600yrs it'd have to be part of the system, no?

Precisely, which is why I picked up on your description of it as 'approaching'.


I say it approaches because people usually envision planets in our solar system as being in the same plane with fairly circular orbits.

This is an astronomy forum. Most people here won't have had any problem with Pluto having a highly inclined eliptical orbit, and that was considered a planet until a few years ago. Similarly with the other dwarf planets and KBOs. In other words I don't think your use of terminology was appropriate for the readership, which is why I picked up on it.


He interprets many ancient near eastern texts to draw his conclusions but the Enuma Elish (describes the celestial battle which created heaven and earth) and Mul.Apin(the "plow star"), are primary.

Ah, right. I was rather hoping for some more concrete astronomical evidence that such a body exists than some interpretation of ancient texts.

A.DIM
2009-Apr-27, 04:15 PM
Precisely, which is why I picked up on your description of it as 'approaching'.

This is an astronomy forum. Most people here won't have had any problem with Pluto having a highly inclined eliptical orbit, and that was considered a planet until a few years ago. Similarly with the other dwarf planets and KBOs. In other words I don't think your use of terminology was appropriate for the readership, which is why I picked up on it.

I see.
Well, I'd venture to say the readership here is learned enough to know what I was talking about, whether regarding elongated elliptical orbits beneath the ecliptic or a hypothetical planet which doesn't arrive 2012.


Ah, right. I was rather hoping for some more concrete astronomical evidence that such a body exists than some interpretation of ancient texts.

Well, there are the Kuiper cliff, cometary wake, elongated, elliptical orbits of various TNOs, recent discoveries suggestive of a large body in the outer system (eg. Sedna, CR105, etc.)...

captain swoop
2009-Apr-27, 04:56 PM
Please not another Sitchin thread!

Jason Thompson
2009-Apr-27, 06:34 PM
I see.
Well, I'd venture to say the readership here is learned enough to know what I was talking about, whether regarding elongated elliptical orbits beneath the ecliptic or a hypothetical planet which doesn't arrive 2012.

Using unclear terminology and then indirectly criticising the intelligence of someone who seeks clarification is something I really do not appreciate, thank you. I believed I knew what you were talking about, but I thought I would check. Why not use the more precise terminology in the first place?


Well, there are the Kuiper cliff, cometary wake, elongated, elliptical orbits of various TNOs, recent discoveries suggestive of a large body in the outer system (eg. Sedna, CR105, etc.)...

Thank you, that is what I was actually asking for, but none of this would have been known to Sitchin in the 70s. So how do the two connect? There still seems to be a large gap between 'suggestive of a large body in the outer solar system' and 'evidence of a body that swings into the inner solar system every 3600 years'.

R.A.F.
2009-Apr-27, 08:24 PM
There still seems to be a large gap between 'suggestive of a large body in the outer solar system' and 'evidence of a body that swings into the inner solar system every 3600 years'.

Thats where the "faith" aspect of Sitchinism comes in. You either believe in it or you don't.

If you are looking for objective evidence for the actual existance of Sitchin's Niburu, there simply is none...

captain swoop
2009-Apr-27, 08:37 PM
no no no Stop retreading the Sitchin! Moose already posted on this further up the thread, did none of you read it?


Sitchin's ATM ideas have had many kicks at the ATM can, and so the ATM component(s) of Sitchinism will fall under the same sort of mostly-prohibited category as EU. If you can demonstrate to a mod or admin that you have something genuinely new to bring to the table, and you're prepared to defend it, then a new ATM thread is possible, though still unlikely. ATM advocacy (with or without Sitchin's name on it) outside of ATM will trigger the usual penalties. Spontaneous debunkings are probably misplaced, but okay.

Any other aspect of Sitchinism that is likely to restart certain old feuds (which is nearly all of it, apparently) should probably be avoided for everyone's sake, because sufficiently rude behavior will trigger the "be nice" rule. Believe me when I say the mods aren't interested in seeing this behavior resuming.

The non-existance of Nibiru itself (and the current roles of certain telescopes) is probably okay as a topic, as they deal directly with astronomy. That Sitchen has ATM and religious components isn't necessarily a problem so long as the discussion remains tightly focused on the astronomy. Same basic deal as if the Vatican's observatory were to decide to fund NASA's repair of Hubble or something.

Just so the mods aren't going to get dragged into it (kicking and screaming) with the ban-cannon, guys, the topic is fair game so long as you stick very closely to the telescope and the non-existance of Nibiru/Planet X type bodies in our solar system.

Moose
2009-Apr-27, 08:50 PM
Right. Enough with the Sitchin.

I said the non-existence of a Nibiru/Planet X type body is okay as a narrowly focused astronomical discussion. I will emphasize that this is only as it relates directly to the OP, and/or the real use of the telescope in question. I also explicitly said and will reemphasize that while Sitchin was not prohibited by name, he currently lies under two separate existing prohibitions against further promotion of his ideas. That means "Sitchin said this, this, and that" is not an appropriate subject any more than open advocacy is.

A.DIM, you should now consider this clarification phrased in the form of a warning.

A.DIM
2009-Apr-27, 09:10 PM
Using unclear terminology and then indirectly criticising the intelligence of someone who seeks clarification is something I really do not appreciate, thank you. I believed I knew what you were talking about, but I thought I would check. Why not use the more precise terminology in the first place?

I'm sorry Jason, I didn't mean to insult your intelligence. I assumed, wrongly perhaps, that being a member of BAUT since '03, you'd seen where Nibiru, according to Sitchin, is not said to return 2012; my mistake.

Personally, I still view Nibiru's orbit as approaching the solar system, even while it is supposed to be part of the system. I guess because its aphelion is supposed to take it so far beyond TNOs.


Thank you, that is what I was actually asking for, but none of this would have been known to Sitchin in the 70s. So how do the two connect?

Well, he postulated there would be such a body and these evidences, discovered many years later, would seem to support it.


There still seems to be a large gap between 'suggestive of a large body in the outer solar system' and 'evidence of a body that swings into the inner solar system every 3600 years'.

Indeed. We may yet find a large planetary body in the outer system but unless it has an orbit as described by Sitchin, then it's no Nibiru.

A.DIM
2009-Apr-27, 09:11 PM
Yes, sorry Mods, I felt I needed to reply to Jason.

There's no need for further discourse whcih regards the topic.

A.DIM
2009-Apr-27, 09:11 PM
Right. Enough with the Sitchin.

I said the non-existence of a Nibiru/Planet X type body is okay as a narrowly focused astronomical discussion. I will emphasize that this is only as it relates directly to the OP, and/or the real use of the telescope in question. I also explicitly said and will reemphasize that while Sitchin was not prohibited by name, he currently lies under two separate existing prohibitions against further promotion of his ideas. That means "Sitchin said this, this, and that" is not an appropriate subject any more than open advocacy is.

A.DIM, you should now consider this clarification phrased in the form of a warning.

I do.

I was only answering questions.

Sorry.

boppa
2009-Apr-28, 01:57 PM
re the 2012 part- I know Nancy Leider has been part of pushing this since the failure of her 2003 planet X arrival (like most of her zetatalk stuff its just someone elses ideas with the zetas tacked on)

She also has been pushing the south pole telescope is being used by NASA to monitor planet X idea- the o.p. actually sounds a lot more like her than Z.S.

piknar
2009-Apr-28, 02:06 PM
fyi,

http://www.google.com/sky/#latitude=13.250639570043104&longitude=-33.0029296875&zoom=7&Spitzer=0.00&ChandraXO=0.00&Galex=0.00&IRAS=100.00&WMAP=0.00&Cassini=0.00&slide=3&mI=1&oI=1

and i got it from the youtube vid posted in 2008...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnMbaOdUEME

lets debate now, what is it at the paws of leo, makes me think of the sphinx, no?

parallaxicality
2009-Apr-28, 02:12 PM
I've just given Wikipedia's Nancy page a major revamp. Please let me know what you think:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nibiru_collision

Swift
2009-Apr-28, 06:34 PM
fyi,

http://www.google.com/sky/#latitude=13.250639570043104&longitude=-33.0029296875&zoom=7&Spitzer=0.00&ChandraXO=0.00&Galex=0.00&IRAS=100.00&WMAP=0.00&Cassini=0.00&slide=3&mI=1&oI=1

and i got it from the youtube vid posted in 2008...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnMbaOdUEME

lets debate now, what is it at the paws of leo, makes me think of the sphinx, no?
piknar,
First, welcome to BAUT. You might wish to review the rules.

Second, what exactly is your point and what is on the video? It is common practice around here to summarize what is on a video (some people can not view videos) and to explain what point you personally are trying to make about it.

slang
2009-Apr-28, 08:03 PM
fyi,

http://www.google.com/sky/#latitude=13.250639570043104&longitude=-33.0029296875&zoom=7&Spitzer=0.00&ChandraXO=0.00&Galex=0.00&IRAS=100.00&WMAP=0.00&Cassini=0.00&slide=3&mI=1&oI=1

and i got it from the youtube vid posted in 2008...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnMbaOdUEME

lets debate now, what is it at the paws of leo, makes me think of the sphinx, no?

This google sky image was discussed here (http://www.bautforum.com/astronomy/86645-help-verify-these-images-please.html). It is an IRAS image of a very bright IR source.

piknar
2009-Apr-29, 03:49 PM
I was a skeptic of planet x, or niburu, until i saw these images..i try to keep an open mind, and am more interested in the social effects on us from these celestial events.

my point is that if you look at amenhotep III and akhenaten and the new worship of the sun disc god aten, the 1st monotheistic religion, you will realize that 1 pharaoh turned everything upside down. atentists became to be the Judaic peoples, and they celebrate the moon and the night. with 2 suns for a few yrs you can understand how the exodus began. even judaic art always showed a winged planet on their pottery, supposedly it will look like blue horned sun once this sun comes close to ours and gets charged up just like Tesla showed wireless lights in 1894 chicago expo. anyways, what is interesting in wiki on Dakhamunzu, that her husband pharoah (amenhotep III or akhenaten) was called the 'Nibhururiya lord' by the Hittite king Suppiluliuma. Niburu coincidence?

also the 1st known recorded influenza pandemic occurred around the akhenaten/tut time.

Velikovsky sounds haunting about how electromagnetic waves can trigger biological triggers to behave differently. Also a couple of eathquakes in last couple of weeks (italy and mexico)

Yes, your link points to a discussion of nobody really adding anything new to the images posted....but thanks for pointing it out.

Too bad you did not watch the vid, it is interesting. it shows that the iras images are being updated, as the black sun was in different position than what we have today.

yes it is on the ecliptic, yes north of mexico is our sun's ecliptic, and you will notice from the vid, that the red dwarf sun was between the paws of leo. Now it is between leo and cancer. So it is moving pretty fast for 1yr between video in 2008 and april 2009.

anyways, such an object in our solar system should be the biggest discovery in a century. And google made a 40 yr contract with nasa, so they show but they don't say??

And the vatican/lockheed has a probe around this dwarf sun and 4 planets called keregma...12 spheres makes sense now with a black sun.

Our sun also has the least sun spots in a long time, baffling the scientists, yes solar minimum, but if this black sun is on the ecliptic than that would also simply explain all the perturbations on all the planets & our sun for the last few yrs..even a comet had disintegrated recently around our gas giants, and that was weird too, but not too weird with this in our area of the solar system.

Has anyone named this thing from nasa/esa yet? Given it a number, anything? Any news would be much appreciated, even a link with answers, or a better discussion on this celestial event than the usual banter of conspiracy theories.

peace.

parallaxicality
2009-Apr-29, 04:45 PM
By those images, do you mean the images supposedly taken by the SPT in January? Because those have been debunked; they're an expanding gas cloud around the star V838 Mon.

Gillianren
2009-Apr-29, 05:06 PM
I was a skeptic of planet x, or niburu, until i saw these images..i try to keep an open mind, and am more interested in the social effects on us from these celestial events.

Well, the first step here is to show scientific evidence that there are celestial events, a thing not yet done.


my point is that if you look at amenhotep III and akhenaten and the new worship of the sun disc god aten, the 1st monotheistic religion, you will realize that 1 pharaoh turned everything upside down. atentists became to be the Judaic peoples, and they celebrate the moon and the night. with 2 suns for a few yrs you can understand how the exodus began. even judaic art always showed a winged planet on their pottery, supposedly it will look like blue horned sun once this sun comes close to ours and gets charged up just like Tesla showed wireless lights in 1894 chicago expo. anyways, what is interesting in wiki on Dakhamunzu, that her husband pharoah (amenhotep III or akhenaten) was called the 'Nibhururiya lord' by the Hittite king Suppiluliuma. Niburu coincidence?

Yes? Honestly, I think you've got some of your history just the tiniest bit skewed.


also the 1st known recorded influenza pandemic occurred around the akhenaten/tut time.

Probably. However, it's kind of difficult to really diagnose past epidemics successfully. And, of course, there's that important word "recorded." ("First known recorded" is redundant.)


Velikovsky sounds haunting about how electromagnetic waves can trigger biological triggers to behave differently. Also a couple of eathquakes in last couple of weeks (italy and mexico)

Gee, earthquakes in earthquake-prone locations? I'm stunned! However, it is as much evidence as Velikovsky ever provided for anything--not much.


Too bad you did not watch the vid, it is interesting. it shows that the iras images are being updated, as the black sun was in different position than what we have today.

You are aware that "black sun" is an assumption on your part, right, and that you must provide scientific evidence that it's a valid description?


yes it is on the ecliptic, yes north of mexico is our sun's ecliptic, and you will notice from the vid, that the red dwarf sun was between the paws of leo. Now it is between leo and cancer. So it is moving pretty fast for 1yr between video in 2008 and april 2009.

I'm not even sure what that first sentence even means.


anyways, such an object in our solar system should be the biggest discovery in a century. And google made a 40 yr contract with nasa, so they show but they don't say??

Yes, it would be. Whoever could provide evidence of such a discovery would be famous. Their name would go down in history. And it's hardly as though NASA controls all astronomy or Google is the way astronomers search the sky, after all.


And the vatican/lockheed has a probe around this dwarf sun and 4 planets called keregma...12 spheres makes sense now with a black sun.

"The Vatican/Lockheed"? Where did you get that piece of information?


Our sun also has the least sun spots in a long time, baffling the scientists, yes solar minimum, but if this black sun is on the ecliptic than that would also simply explain all the perturbations on all the planets & our sun for the last few yrs..even a comet had disintegrated recently around our gas giants, and that was weird too, but not too weird with this in our area of the solar system.

How would it explain that?


Has anyone named this thing from nasa/esa yet? Given it a number, anything? Any news would be much appreciated, even a link with answers, or a better discussion on this celestial event than the usual banter of conspiracy theories.

Well, since conspiracy theories are pretty much what there are . . . .

piknar
2009-Apr-29, 05:14 PM
This image (http://www.bautforum.com/attachments/astronomy/9894d1238606623-help-verify-these-images-please-2.jpg) also better here (http://www.google.com/sky/#latitude=13.250639570043104&longitude=-33.0029296875&zoom=7&Spitzer=0.00&ChandraXO=0.00&Galex=0.00&IRAS=100.00&WMAP=0.00&Cassini=0.00&slide=3&mI=1&oI=1)

R.A.F.
2009-Apr-29, 07:28 PM
Velikovsky...

Not a name that inspires confidence on this board.


...as the black sun was in different position than what we have today.

How did you determine that what you are looking at is a "black sun"? For that matter what is a "black sun".


...such an object in our solar system should be the biggest discovery in a century.

If it were real, and that is a very large IF.


...google made a 40 yr contract with nasa...

Cite please...


...the vatican/lockheed has a probe around this dwarf sun...

Any evidence for this claim besides youtube vids?


...even a comet had disintegrated recently around our gas giants, and that was weird too...

If you are speaking of Shoemaker/Levi 9, it responded to gravity as predicted.

Can you discribe just what was "weird" about it?


...or a better discussion on this celestial event than the usual banter of conspiracy theories.

Unless you can provide some form of objective, credible, convincing evidence to support this idea, then I guess you'll just have to endure the usual banter.

piknar
2009-Apr-29, 08:46 PM
To Gillianren:

Yes? Honestly, I think you've got some of your history just the tiniest bit skewed.

Which part of our history?



my point is that if you look at amenhotep III and akhenaten and the new worship of the sun disc god aten, the 1st monotheistic religion, you will realize that 1 pharaoh turned everything upside down.


atentists became to be the Judaic peoples, and they celebrate the moon and the night.


with 2 suns for a few yrs you can understand how the exodus began. even judaic art always showed a winged planet on their pottery, supposedly it will look like blue horned sun once this sun comes close to ours and gets charged up just like Tesla showed wireless lights in 1894 chicago expo. This was an idea born in me head with the aid of imagination.


anyways, what is interesting in wiki on Dakhamunzu, that her husband pharoah (amenhotep III or akhenaten) was called the 'Nibhururiya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Nibhururiya) lord' by the Hittite king Suppiluliuma. Niburu coincidence?



[Quote:
Velikovsky sounds haunting about how electromagnetic waves can trigger biological triggers to behave differently. Also a couple of eathquakes in last couple of weeks (italy and mexico)

Gee, earthquakes in earthquake-prone locations? I'm stunned! However, it is as much evidence as Velikovsky ever provided for anything--not much.

I threw in Velikovsky to give a hint of using imagination. Yes i agree it is a bad area of the net to throw it in, but his study into the chronology of the list of pharoahs is why i added his electromagnetic stuff. btw, he was truly thinking out of the box, and i am trying that too. Tell me which architect started with evidence, it was always an idea 1st.


You are aware that "black sun" is an assumption on your part, right, and that you must provide scientific evidence that it's a valid description?


Yes i agree, it was my imagination, can i patent that. come on get real, no kidding. Does this black sun have a name yet?



Quote:
anyways, such an object in our solar system should be the biggest discovery in a century. And google made a 40 yr contract with nasa, so they show but they don't say??
Yes, it would be. Whoever could provide evidence of such a discovery would be famous. Their name would go down in history. And it's hardly as though NASA controls all astronomy or Google is the way astronomers search the sky, after all.

I agree with you fully, i am just a amateur mycologist that loves mushrooms(paul stamets,Terence Mckenna), which led me to plants(cleve backster, jagdish bose), which brought me to light, earth and water. Beacuse i live in Toronto i decided to find some ancient sites around here and came upon Peterborough Petroglyphs(teaching rock), which led me to dreamer's rock and than to the ancient copper mines of lake superior....why? i started to correlate things? I am i believe a 'new' shaman, a jack of all trades master of none. To give evidence is to make it copyright, and i believe in open source just like this forum uses php on apache servers. you may ask what is open source, to me in mycology it is like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3gy79DNr2Y). So i think even Galileo would have shat his pants if he could see iras through google.



Quote:
And the vatican/lockheed has a probe around this dwarf sun and 4 planets called keregma...12 spheres makes sense now with a black sun.

"The Vatican/Lockheed"? Where did you get that piece of information?
I posted the same as my 1st post on a few forums and came across a thread here (http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message529526/pg7). Don't believe everything you read tho!!




Quote:
Our sun also has the least sun spots in a long time, baffling the scientists, yes solar minimum, but if this black sun is on the ecliptic than that would also simply explain all the perturbations on all the planets & our sun for the last few yrs..even a comet had disintegrated recently around our gas giants, and that was weird too, but not too weird with this in our area of the solar system.

How would it explain that?

Play with some magnets!

To R.A.F

Quote:
...google made a 40 yr contract with nasa...

Cite please...


here is the link (http://www.google.ca/search?q=nasa+google+40yrs+deal&ie=utf-8)



Quote:
...the vatican/lockheed has a probe around this dwarf sun...

Any evidence for this claim besides youtube vids?

Here is the link (http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message529526/pg7). Can you pls forward me the youtube vids you mentioned?



Quote:
...even a comet had disintegrated recently around our gas giants, and that was weird too...

If you are speaking of Shoemaker/Levi, then there was nothing "weird" about it's behavior.

True dat!! you got me there, couldn't cite it even when going through my web history.....How about the perturbations of the planets tho? Are we losing bees? looks like a beehive out there!!

R.A.F.
2009-Apr-30, 02:18 AM
I threw in Velikovsky to give a hint of using imagination.

Problem with that is Velikovsky has been so throughly debunked , any mention of his name comes off as a joke...

...and I'm sure that is not how you meant it.



...he was truly thinking out of the box, and i am trying that too.

Why not "think" within the realm of possiblities? You know...stuff we actually have evidence for.


i am just a amateur mycologist that loves mushrooms...

No comment...

Gillianren
2009-Apr-30, 03:36 AM
Piknar, if you're putting your ideas ahead of your evidence, you're going about it the wrong way. You seem to be freely admitting that you've made up history. If you make things up, you can prove anything, right?

piknar
2009-Apr-30, 05:16 AM
Ok once again, can anyone clarify for me, what am i seeing at the paws of leo in infra red?

I posted here to get a simple answer. I thought somebody would by now have clarified it for me, specially here, where you all pride yourself on evidence.

I am only human and naturally try to connect the dots in my head to the level of knowledge i have attained. Due to the open source nature of this site, I thought I would be able to utilise available knowledge here to answer the evidence i put forth.

But you very quick to point out the flaws in my perception & character. I feel like you look down on me, very ego driven as opposed to even trying.

You all seem to be twitter dinosaurs to me. Brain farting continually insults at character and drawing lines in the sand, and calling out absolutes as evidence...

again, what is on the ecliptic in leo? If you don't know, why brain fart? you can go to twitter to do that, this is a forum, and i have submitted my queries...

Van Rijn
2009-Apr-30, 05:36 AM
This image (http://www.bautforum.com/attachments/astronomy/9894d1238606623-help-verify-these-images-please-2.jpg) also better here (http://www.google.com/sky/#latitude=13.250639570043104&longitude=-33.0029296875&zoom=7&Spitzer=0.00&ChandraXO=0.00&Galex=0.00&IRAS=100.00&WMAP=0.00&Cassini=0.00&slide=3&mI=1&oI=1)

As Slang pointed out (http://www.bautforum.com/1478958-post49.html), this was discussed in a previous thread. Here's part of ngc3314's analysis. He considered various possibilities, and this is what he came up with.



Next try: look at the IRAS sky maps using Skyview. Whoa, there it is, bright enough for streak artifacts at 12 microns. Check coordinates - that's just about where CW Leonis is, a long-period variable and carbon star. Ahhhhh, the ADS shows that this is also known as IRC +10216, which rings a bell as a dust-shrouded star which is among the brightest IR sources in the sky. Knowing that, I can get the IRAS fluxes, which are the brightest for any object I've ever checked (being a galaxy type and all). That sure looks like the ID.

Edit to add:

I should mention that CW Leonis is about 650 light years away.

slang
2009-Apr-30, 07:43 AM
(thanks, Van Rijn)


Yes, your link points to a discussion of nobody really adding anything new to the images posted....

I struggle to understand what makes you say that. BAUT member ngc3314, and he usually knows what he's talking about, identifies exactly what is in the image. If that is not really something new to you... why ask about it in the first place?


Too bad you did not watch the vid

I generally do not watch youtube videos posted here without description by people whose name I don't recognize. As it turns out, those are almost always crank videos, that make one cringe for time lost forever. If you want more people here to watch a video, describe what's in it. Or even better: just write down whatever it is you want to argue, with no video whatsoever.

Swift
2009-Apr-30, 01:59 PM
<snip>
But you very quick to point out the flaws in my perception & character. I feel like you look down on me, very ego driven as opposed to even trying.

You all seem to be twitter dinosaurs to me. Brain farting continually insults at character and drawing lines in the sand, and calling out absolutes as evidence...

again, what is on the ecliptic in leo? If you don't know, why brain fart? you can go to twitter to do that, this is a forum, and i have submitted my queries...
piknar,
I strongly advice that you review the rules of the board, as well as the advice for conspiracy supporters.
(http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/86593-advice-conspiracy-theory-supporters.html)

Politeness is required here. Do not call other members insulting names. And if you feel people have been rude to you, DO NOT debate it or call them out in thread, report the post using the red Report triangle in the upper right corner of the post.

You did not appear to come into this thread to just simply "ask a question".

lets debate now, what is it at the paws of leo, makes me think of the sphinx, no?

If you wish a debate, particularly in the CT forum, there are rules to that debate. You need to become familiar with them.

If you are simply asking a question, then ask the question, and read and accept the answers you are given.

Consider this an official warning. Further problems may lead to a suspension.

Thank you for your cooperation.

A.DIM
2009-Apr-30, 02:23 PM
I'm still trying to figure out what piknar's posts have to do with the OP.

Is the SPT needed to find "planet x" in Leo?

sts60
2009-Apr-30, 02:46 PM
And the vatican/lockheed has a probe around this dwarf sun and 4 planets called keregma...
No. Quite apart from the fact that there is no evidence for any such collaboration between LM and the Vatican, and no evidence of such a vehicle being built, launched, or operated, the nearest star other than our own Sun is several light years away. The nearest brown dwarf stars, ε Indi Ba and ε Indi Bb, are about 12 LY away. The most distant space probe is Voyager 1, now about ten billion miles (~16*109 km), or 0.002 light years, away.

In other words, the nearest extrasolar star of any kind is about four light years away; the farthest we've gotten is about three-quarters of a light day. And that's taken Voyager 1 over three decades to get that far. Even New Horizons (2006), launched on the fastest escape trajectory ever, will take nine years just to get to Pluto - a little over a third of the distance already covered by the long-lived Voyager. When exactly was this alleged LM/Vatican probe supposed to have been launched, anyway? 54 AD?

Nor could you hide a much closer brown dwarf, which would be an easy telescopic object for many observers if it was even roughly within reach of our space technology. Your claim is not only evidence-free but simply unphysical.

Sam5
2009-Apr-30, 03:21 PM
Guys: The real reason that the South Pole is mentioned by the whackamundoes, is; that was the way it was in the 1950's movie, "When Worlds Collide...." (Actually it was South Africa, but that is close enough for the nut jobs...)

Dale

Yes, I saw the movie when it first hit the theaters:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXeT-yHNcFI&feature=related

Celestial Mechanic
2009-Apr-30, 03:50 PM
I'm still trying to figure out what piknar's posts have to do with the OP. Is the SPT needed to find "planet x" in Leo?
No. No one can see Leo from the South Pole at all since most of it is at a declination of 15 degrees north.

All this obsession with telescopes at the South Pole is due to a complete misunderstanding of the geometry of what is visible in the sky at different locations on the Earth. Any object in the Southern Celestial Hemisphere can be seen from anywhere within the Southern Geographical Hemisphere. Observing from anywhere between (say) 20 and 70 degrees south latitude will guarantee that every object in the Southern Celestial Hemisphere can be seen well above the horizon at some time during the year. Observatories near the equator will see objects near the South Celestial Pole too low in the sky; observatories near the South Pole will see objects near the Celestial Equator to low in the sky.

A.DIM
2009-Apr-30, 06:51 PM
No. No one can see Leo from the South Pole at all since most of it is at a declination of 15 degrees north.

All this obsession with telescopes at the South Pole is due to a complete misunderstanding of the geometry of what is visible in the sky at different locations on the Earth. Any object in the Southern Celestial Hemisphere can be seen from anywhere within the Southern Geographical Hemisphere. Observing from anywhere between (say) 20 and 70 degrees south latitude will guarantee that every object in the Southern Celestial Hemisphere can be seen well above the horizon at some time during the year. Observatories near the equator will see objects near the South Celestial Pole too low in the sky; observatories near the South Pole will see objects near the Celestial Equator to low in the sky.


Thanks CM; my question was rhetorical.

Rm Riberra
2009-Apr-30, 07:35 PM
Based on this site
http://yowusa.com/planetx/2009/planetx-2009-04a/2.shtml

Scroll down to
Where We're Looking and Why
....
Consequently, our best estimate is that it is located in or near the constellation of Horologium, somewhere beneath the orbit of the Planet Saturn.

If this estimate holds for the next six months, Planet X will pass directly below the orbit of Mars sometime between late 2009 and early 2010. Will everyone with a telescope on Earth be able to observe it then if that is the case? No.

Assuming the forecast stands true in the next six months or so, the viewing angle from Earth will be even steeper. That is assuming that Earth and Planet X happen to on the same side of the Sun at that time.
.....
If it is observed, it will likely appear as a dark red blotch, not a bright point of light.

Note than I am not a supporter of Planet X stuff... however this site seem more "critical" by its approach.

parallaxicality
2009-Apr-30, 08:05 PM
I need more help. Sorry to shift gears a bit but I didn't want to start another thread on the same topic. Is there any reliable source I can cite that shows that the overwhelming majority of scientists today do not believe that Planet X, as conceived by Percival Lowell, exists?

Van Rijn
2009-Apr-30, 08:38 PM
I need more help. Sorry to shift gears a bit but I didn't want to start another thread on the same topic. Is there any reliable source I can cite that shows that the overwhelming majority of scientists today do not believe that Planet X, as conceived by Percival Lowell, exists?

By that, are you referring to the idea of a massive planet perturbing Uranus and Neptune? Yes, that idea has been discredited.

parallaxicality
2009-Apr-30, 08:50 PM
That's the problem. I need a source that says that this idea has been discredited. I've found a lot of sources referring to Standish's calculations, but I need a source saying that the majority of astronomers accept them as conclusive evidence for the non-existence of Lowell's Planet X

Van Rijn
2009-Apr-30, 09:16 PM
That's the problem. I need a source that says that this idea has been discredited. I've found a lot of sources referring to Standish's calculations, but I need a source saying that the majority of astronomers accept them as conclusive evidence for the non-existence of Lowell's Planet X

You want poll results? I don't really understand your question. And please, as specifically as possible, define what you are suggesting by "Lowell's Planet X."

parallaxicality
2009-Apr-30, 09:28 PM
I know. I don't know where I could find such information either. And yes, I am referring to the Planet X that supposedly created gravitational perturbations in the orbits of Uranus and Neptune and was effectively disproven by Myles Standish in 1993.

Gillianren
2009-Apr-30, 10:08 PM
Wait, his name was Myles Standish? Ye Gods. Was he American? Because, if so, what were his parents thinking?

Nick Theodorakis
2009-Apr-30, 10:29 PM
Wait, his name was Myles Standish? Ye Gods. Was he American? Because, if so, what were his parents thinking?

That he might become a military adviser for some pilgrims?

Nick

R.A.F.
2009-Apr-30, 10:29 PM
I need a source that says that this idea has been discredited.

How about the simple fact that there has been no planet that "fit" Lowell's specifications discovered in all the years since he proposed it.

The "discreditation" comes with that lack of discovery.

MartianMarvin
2009-Apr-30, 11:10 PM
The Wikipedia entry on Lowell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percival_Lowell#cite_note-16) refers to a book written by a Tom Standage; I believe that might be a good place to start.

ETA: More details: the Voyager 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_2#cite_note-5) flyby provided better estimates of Neptune's mass, which accounted for the discrepency between the expected and observed orbits of both Uranus and Neptune.

A.DIM
2009-May-01, 12:49 PM
That's the problem. I need a source that says that this idea has been discredited. I've found a lot of sources referring to Standish's calculations, but I need a source saying that the majority of astronomers accept them as conclusive evidence for the non-existence of Lowell's Planet X

Lucky for you wiki is wrongly considered a "source" and the entry for Pluto states, "Today the overwhelming consensus among astronomers is that Planet X, as Lowell defined it, does not exist."

Of course, there is the "coincidence" Pluto was discovered at Lowell's coordinates for planet x ...

parallaxicality
2009-May-01, 01:23 PM
I know it does. Because I wrote it. Now I'm being asked to shoulder the burden of proof. Hence my searching for a source that confirms it.

Alan G. Archer
2009-May-01, 01:38 PM
The last I heard, Nibiru was coming at us from Orion, behind the blank rectagular area that Google Sky refuses to show us at approximately RA 5h53m Dec 5°59'.

Now you tell us that Google isn't hiding Nibiru back there after all. Aw shoot. All those nights in the back yard for nothing.

Hmmm. I wonder what they are hiding there....

I believe the correct coordinates for the blank rectagular area in Google Sky given by YouTube scholars is 5h 53m 27s, -6 10' 58".

Attached is the same area viewed with the Aladin sky atlas using DSS2.

A.DIM
2009-May-01, 01:50 PM
I know it does. Because I wrote it. Now I'm being asked to shoulder the burden of proof. Hence my searching for a source that confirms it.

And rightly so.

I thought you were the author, parallaxicality, and was thinking facetiously when presenting the page to you. I should've used a smilie. :)

To me it seems the Standish paper is the primary source for a mainstream consensus, or opinion, on Lowell's planet x.

parallaxicality
2009-May-01, 02:58 PM
Be as facetious as you want.

I've ordered some books on 48 hour reserve. So we'll see what happens.

Jason Thompson
2009-May-01, 04:13 PM
Of course, there is the "coincidence" Pluto was discovered at Lowell's coordinates for planet x ...

Why do you put 'coincidence' in inverted commas? That suggests you think there was more to it than that. Pluto is too small and distant to be having any significant effect on Neptune or Uranus, so what else would you call it but a coincidence?

CJSF
2009-May-01, 04:19 PM
I've heard about this coincidence all my life, but I wonder how precise the location was. When it was "at" Lowell's coordinates, what does that mean? How many arcseconds (is that the right unit)?

CJSF

parallaxicality
2009-May-01, 05:32 PM
It wasn't at Lowell's coordinates. Lowell had two possible coordinates listed, and Pluto was 6 degrees off from one of them.

sts60
2009-May-01, 05:51 PM
Consequently, our best estimate is that it is located in or near the constellation of Horologium, somewhere beneath the orbit of the Planet Saturn.

Then it should be easy to image. Where are the images?

If this estimate holds for the next six months,

They're claiming an orbital path for an object, but they don't know if it's even roughly on that orbit?

Planet X will pass directly below the orbit of Mars sometime between late 2009 and early 2010.

Then it's either already deep inside the solar system, and if it is a brown dwarf would already be one of the brightest objects in the sky - in addition to perturbing the orbits of various planets and active spacecraft - or it's so far out that to pass Mars within the next year it must be on a hyperbolic trajectory - in which case, it's not even part of our solar system, and thus would never have been observed before, invalidating all the Planet-X-in-the-past stories.

Will everyone with a telescope on Earth be able to observe it then if that is the case?
No.

No telescope needed; it would be a brilliant naked-eye object.

Assuming the forecast stands true in the next six months or so, the viewing angle from Earth will be even steeper. That is assuming that Earth and Planet X happen to on the same side of the Sun at that time.

They say they know where it is now, and where it's going to be at a certain period, but they don't really know where it will be?

If it is observed, it will likely appear as a dark red blotch, not a bright point of light.

Sheerest nonsense. A brown dwarf that close would be a brilliant object, and so would any planet. An object surrounded by a dust cloud would be even brighter.

Note than I am not a supporter of Planet X stuff... however this site seem more "critical" by its approach.

That speaks poorly of the competition, because the passage you quoted above is not only drivel, but self-contradictory drivel at that.

R.A.F.
2009-May-01, 07:18 PM
It wasn't at Lowell's coordinates. Lowell had two possible coordinates listed, and Pluto was 6 degrees off from one of them.

Also, Tombaugh had been "comparing plates" in a section of the sky with (I believe it was something like) 40,000 stars per plate. He soon grew weary of this, and as a bit of relief, moved his search to a section of the sky with fewer stars per plate, and that is when he "found" Pluto. Call it coincidence or luck it really doesn't matter, it's just the way it happened.

Rm Riberra
2009-May-01, 07:27 PM
Note than I am not a supporter of Planet X stuff... however this site seem more "critical" by its approach.

That speaks poorly of the competition, because the passage you quoted above is not only drivel, but self-contradictory drivel at that.
Possibly the passage I quoted is out of the global context
That is why i give that link for full reference
http://yowusa.com/planetx/2009/planetx-2009-04a/2.shtml

http://yowusa.com/planetx/2009/planetx-2009-04a/1.shtml

Start with Dr. Robert Harrington
in
Here a Constellation, There a Constellation chapter (middle of the page on page 2)

Note than I am not a supporter of Planet X stuff... however this site seem more "critical" by its approach.
By that I mean that they don't use Sun dog images or SOHO Bogy and say "that is Planet X " like the typical other sites.

Rm Riberra
2009-May-01, 07:58 PM
I believe the correct coordinates for the blank rectagular area in Google Sky given by YouTube scholars is 5h 53m 27s, -6 10' 58".

Attached is the same area viewed with the Aladin sky atlas using DSS2.
Read
The Insidious Nature of Red Herrings...(Chapter)
The author suspect than -that missing Orion panel -could be a very crafty misdirection

http://yowusa.com/planetx/2009/planetx-2009-04a/2.shtml

R.A.F.
2009-May-01, 08:03 PM
...they don't use Sun dog images or SOHO Bogy and say "that is Planet X " like the typical other sites.

The "information" presented is still wildly "in error" so I really fail to see any distinction between that site and "typical other sites".

A.DIM
2009-May-01, 08:31 PM
Why do you put 'coincidence' in inverted commas? That suggests you think there was more to it than that. Pluto is too small and distant to be having any significant effect on Neptune or Uranus, so what else would you call it but a coincidence?

You're right, it was coincidence or accident. I think I put the quotes around it because in parallaxicality's wiki entry for Pluto, he ends the "Demise of Planet X" section with:
"Lowell had made a prediction of Planet X's position in 1915 that was fairly close to Pluto's actual position at that time; however, Ernest W. Brown concluded almost immediately that this was a coincidence, a view still held today.[38]"

This last sentence reads, to me, as if the "view still held today" might yet be changed, that perhaps Brown was too hasty in his conclusion. I think we know otherwise but it could be fodder for PXers.

R.A.F.
2009-May-01, 08:42 PM
This last sentence reads, to me, as if the "view still held today" might yet be changed, that perhaps Brown was too hasty in his conclusion.

Doesn't "read" like that to me...does it to anyone else?

Swift
2009-May-01, 09:20 PM
Note than I am not a supporter of Planet X stuff... however this site seem more "critical" by its approach.
By that I mean that they don't use Sun dog images or SOHO Bogy and say "that is Planet X " like the typical other sites.

Rm Riberra,
If you are not a supporter of Planet X, then you might wish to clarify as to exactly what your point it.

If you find something interesting on this website you keep linking to, then you need to explain, in your own words, what exactly you find interesting. If there is something on it you have a question about, then you need to explain your question. Just posting links and saying "look at this" is not helpful.

If you find something on that website that you believe supports the existence of Planet X, and that is what you are telling us, then you are advocating that postion. In that case, you have to address people's questions back to you, and with more than a link to a website, but with an answer in your own words.

If you have any questions about this, please PM me or another moderator.

Alan G. Archer
2009-May-01, 10:02 PM
Read
The Insidious Nature of Red Herrings...(Chapter)
The author suspect than -that missing Orion panel -could be a very crafty misdirection

http://yowusa.com/planetx/2009/planetx-2009-04a/2.shtml

The YouTube scholar I was referring to was NoStarPanel and his or her video, "Stars missing in Orion** of Interest to Nibiru Researchers," at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21Tzd5pp0fM.

I see a teachable moment arriving in about four years.

Rm Riberra
2009-May-02, 05:20 AM
Rm Riberra,
If you are not a supporter of Planet X, then you might wish to clarify as to exactly what your point it.

If you find something interesting on this website you keep linking to, then you need to explain, in your own words, what exactly you find interesting. If there is something on it you have a question about, then you need to explain your question. Just posting links and saying "look at this" is not helpful.

If you find something on that website that you believe supports the existence of Planet X, and that is what you are telling us, then you are advocating that postion. In that case, you have to address people's questions back to you, and with more than a link to a website, but with an answer in your own words.

If you have any questions about this, please PM me or another moderator.
So I will ask questions.

Is there any scientific explanations for the assertions claimed below from page 2 (bold are mine) and why this is happening in the recent years ?
Quote


It is also important to note that while the unproven Planet X observation theory of Dr. Harrington is a key element in our research, it is but one of many. Other data we used in the formulation of our forecast include:

Orbit perturbations of the outer planets

Temperatures of the cold outer bodies rising beyond seasonal effects

Electrical phenomena around planets and comets

Observations of the Sun unleashing plasma towards a single direction

Recent Southward deformation of the Earth's magnetic field

This is only a partial list of the data. There is much more, and it is being reported on an ongoing basis by NASA, JPL, major observatories and so forth. It is important to note that, while the data is mostly being reported, the context is not.

Jason Thompson
2009-May-03, 04:03 PM
So I will ask questions.

Is there any scientific explanations for the assertions claimed below from page 2 (bold are mine) and why this is happening in the recent years ?
Quote

Before we seek scientific explanations we have to establish that these things are in fact happening. What are the sources for those claims? If the outer planets' orbits are being perturbed, for example, why do GOTO telescopes still work? I also haven't seen any indication of a preferential directionality in solar flare or CME activity.

Rm Riberra
2009-May-03, 07:40 PM
Before we seek scientific explanations we have to establish that these things are in fact happening. (snip)

Ok- lets start with
Temperatures of the cold outer bodies rising beyond seasonal effects


Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune's Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar Activity, Scientists Say

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=469DD8F9-802A-23AD-4459-CC5C23C24651

Question, if as the report state that is caused by an increase of the Solar activity why Venus and Mercury are not experiencing a warming too ?

Laguna
2009-May-03, 08:12 PM
Ok- lets start with
Temperatures of the cold outer bodies rising beyond seasonal effects
Well, Jason already started with your claims about the pertubed outer planets and solar flares, but ok.


Question, if as the report state that is caused by an increase of the Solar activity why Venus and Mercury are not experiencing a warming too ?
As far as I remember, from what I read elsewhere, the reasons for the warming are still unknown and an increase in solar activity was ruled out as a contributing factor.

Rm Riberra
2009-May-04, 04:37 AM
If the outer planets' orbits are being perturbed, for example, why do GOTO telescopes still work?

Well I think the author make reference to the perturbation of the orbits of Neptune and Uranus and the work made by Dr. Robert S. Harrington

"Dr. Robert S. Harrington, the chief astronomer of the U.S. Naval Observatory, took a puny 8-inch telescope to Black Birch, New Zealand, one of the few viewing points on Earth optimal for sighting Planet X, which he definitively calculated to be approaching from below the ecliptic at an angle of 40 degrees."


http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1988AJ.....96.1476H

Laguna
2009-May-04, 04:56 AM
Well I think the author make reference to the perturbation of the orbits of Neptune and Uranus and the work made by Dr. Robert S. Harrington

"Dr. Robert S. Harrington, the chief astronomer of the U.S. Naval Observatory, took a puny 8-inch telescope to Black Birch, New Zealand, one of the few viewing points on Earth optimal for sighting Planet X, which he definitively calculated to be approaching from below the ecliptic at an angle of 40 degrees."


http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1988AJ.....96.1476H
And he found nothing...

How does this explain why GOTO teleskopes still work?

Rm Riberra
2009-May-04, 05:11 AM
And he found nothing...

The rumor is that he died before releasing it...

http://yowusa.com/planetx/2008/planetx-2008-05b/1.shtml

However during that epoch (1983) The Washington Post released a discovery made by IRAS

http://www.mgr.org/WPostPlanetX.html



How does this explain why GOTO teleskopes still work?

You will have to describe to me what GOTO telescopes are?And why this is revelant about the 1983 research conducted by the late Dr Harrington ?

Van Rijn
2009-May-04, 05:28 AM
Well I think the author make reference to the perturbation of the orbits of Neptune and Uranus and the work made by Dr. Robert S. Harrington

"Dr. Robert S. Harrington, the chief astronomer of the U.S. Naval Observatory, took a puny 8-inch telescope to Black Birch, New Zealand, one of the few viewing points on Earth optimal for sighting Planet X, which he definitively calculated to be approaching from below the ecliptic at an angle of 40 degrees."


What I see in that 1988 article is an argument for the possibility of a planet at around 100 AU from the sun, not a nearby approaching planet that somehow isn't obviously visible.

And you might be interested in this article from 1993:

Planet X - No dynamical evidence in the optical observations (http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1993AJ....105.2000S/0002000.000.html)

Rm Riberra
2009-May-04, 05:42 AM
What I see in that 1988 article is an argument for the possibility of a planet at around 100 AU from the sun, not a nearby approaching planet that somehow isn't obviously visible.

Are you refering to the 50 trillion miles distance or the 50 billion miles, when you say 100 AU from the Sun in 1983?

See the note down the page
link
http://www.mgr.org/WPostPlanetX.html

"PLEASE NOTE: The distance from earth of a mysterious object in space was reported incorrectly in some editions yesterday.
The correct figure is 50 billion miles."



And you might be interested in this article from 1993:

Planet X - No dynamical evidence in the optical observations (http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1993AJ....105.2000S/0002000.000.html)

Effectively that is interesting, thanks. :)

Van Rijn
2009-May-04, 06:08 AM
Are you refering to the 50 trillion miles distance or the 50 billion miles, when you say 100 AU from the Sun in 1988?


The suggestion was an orbit around 100 AU, or more than 9 billion miles, about three times as far from the sun (or Earth, it doesn't matter much with these numbers) as Pluto.

And the discovery of Eris (a tiny world that would not perturb Uranus or Neptune and currently at around 100 AU) should give you some idea of what we really are finding at that distance.

The article does not discuss a giant nearby approaching planet that somehow could only be detected by a select few. That's pure nonsense.

Gandalf223
2009-May-04, 06:44 AM
The YouTube scholar I was referring to was NoStarPanel and his or her video, "Stars missing in Orion** of Interest to Nibiru Researchers," at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21Tzd5pp0fM.

I see a teachable moment arriving in about four years.

Looks as though I need to expand my definition of "scholar."

Tedward
2009-May-04, 09:32 AM
Well I think the author make reference to the perturbation of the orbits of Neptune and Uranus and the work made by Dr. Robert S. Harrington

"Dr. Robert S. Harrington, the chief astronomer of the U.S. Naval Observatory, took a puny 8-inch telescope to Black Birch, New Zealand, one of the few viewing points on Earth optimal for sighting Planet X, which he definitively calculated to be approaching from below the ecliptic at an angle of 40 degrees."


http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1988AJ.....96.1476H


You have lost me now. Is the X thing revolving at a rate that only New Zealand can see it, that is at a phenomenal rate around the solar system in time with the earths rotation or is the world turning and anyone within reason can see it. That is South America, big chunk of. Australia, probably a very big chunk of that continent and possibly South Africa and probably more due to the tilt?

Jason Thompson
2009-May-04, 11:20 AM
Ok- lets start with
Temperatures of the cold outer bodies rising beyond seasonal effects

Question, if as the report state that is caused by an increase of the Solar activity why Venus and Mercury are not experiencing a warming too ?

That's a big if there, and how would an approaching lpanet cause warming on the outer planets?


Well I think the author make reference to the perturbation of the orbits of Neptune and Uranus and the work made by Dr. Robert S. Harrington

"Dr. Robert S. Harrington, the chief astronomer of the U.S. Naval Observatory, took a puny 8-inch telescope to Black Birch, New Zealand, one of the few viewing points on Earth optimal for sighting Planet X, which he definitively calculated to be approaching from below the ecliptic at an angle of 40 degrees."


http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1988AJ.....96.1476H

Definitively calculated how? And if a 'puny 8-inch telescope' could be used to observe it then that still leaves many hundreds of amateurs who could also observe it. Where are the other observations of it?

Additionally, why is a spot in New Zealand optimal? Spherical geometry means that anything visible from New Zealand can be seen from an awfully large part of the Earth's surface. So, in the intervening years since his death, not one amateur with a scope 8-inches or above has happened upon it? Not even with the publication of Harrigton's work on the web in more recent years?


However during that epoch (1983) The Washington Post released a discovery made by IRAS

Yes indeed. An exciting discovery. Until later analysis showed that it actually wasn't a planet at all, or even part of our solar system. This is how science works. Initial discoveries are analysed and reclassified as more data is made available.


You will have to describe to me what GOTO telescopes are?

They are telescopes with a computer-driven mount. Simply out, you align your mount axis with Earth's, then you tell the telescope what object you want to look at and it swings around to aim at the precise point where that object is in the sky. It's significant for the claim about planetary perturbations because only this year I used a ten year old GOTO scope to look at Neptune and Uranus. That means the data used to program that scope was at the very least ten years old, and yet Neptune and Uranus were both smack in the middle of the field of view when it swung around to look at them. If they are being perturbed why are they still appearing right where they were predicted to be years and years ago?


And why this is revelant about the 1983 research conducted by the late Dr Harrington ?

Um, you were the one who brought Harrington up in response to the question about GOTO scopes, so you tell us.

captain swoop
2009-May-04, 12:11 PM
Um, you were the one who brought Harrington up in response to the question about GOTO scopes, so you tell us.

Indeed, that's the way it works here

TR1D3NT
2009-May-04, 01:44 PM
As I said, if you expect Nibiru to return in 2012 you're using misinformation.
I've not read where Sitchin makes this claim. But if one reads his work s/he can pretty well know that Nibiru has another 1500yrs or so, unless something sped up its orbit.

If early humans like the Sumarian's talked about the return of Nibiru, or any "cycle" in fact, before 1 A.D or even later such as 1582, then would the introduction of the Gregorian calender not interfere with these timings and cycles, it is a different mathematical system, I also think that some cults like the Masons still refer to the pre-greg system. Also Sumarian systems used the 360 degree cycle for 1 year not modern day 365, "if i remember correctly, but I am too lazy to check"

TR1D3NT
2009-May-04, 01:52 PM
No. No one can see Leo from the South Pole at all since most of it is at a declination of 15 degrees north.

All this obsession with telescopes at the South Pole is due to a complete misunderstanding of the geometry of what is visible in the sky at different locations on the Earth. Any object in the Southern Celestial Hemisphere can be seen from anywhere within the Southern Geographical Hemisphere. Observing from anywhere between (say) 20 and 70 degrees south latitude will guarantee that every object in the Southern Celestial Hemisphere can be seen well above the horizon at some time during the year. Observatories near the equator will see objects near the South Celestial Pole too low in the sky; observatories near the South Pole will see objects near the Celestial Equator to low in the sky.

Are there, "if any" benefits of having a telescope in the south pole?. e.g less pollution, colder climate for the lenses, no light pollution, would any of this help to detect fainter signs of something otherwise invisible nearer the equator?

Swift
2009-May-04, 02:37 PM
Hi TR1D3NT, welcome to BAUT.


If early humans like the Sumarian's talked about the return of Nibiru, or any "cycle" in fact, before 1 A.D or even later such as 1582, then would the introduction of the Gregorian calender not interfere with these timings and cycles, it is a different mathematical system, I also think that some cults like the Masons still refer to the pre-greg system. Also Sumarian systems used the 360 degree cycle for 1 year not modern day 365, "if i remember correctly, but I am too lazy to check"
The change of the calenders might change the specific dates things would happen on, but it wouldn't change, for example, the length of the cycle. If a planet had a 732 day orbit (to pick an arbitrary number), it would still have the same orbit.


Are there, "if any" benefits of having a telescope in the south pole?. e.g less pollution, colder climate for the lenses, no light pollution, would any of this help to detect fainter signs of something otherwise invisible nearer the equator?
Short answer - no. And there are a heck of a lot of telescopes in the Southern Hemisphere between the South pole and the equator. There are a bunch of university scopes in the Andes, for example.

geonuc
2009-May-04, 04:41 PM
Short answer - no. And there are a heck of a lot of telescopes in the Southern Hemisphere between the South pole and the equator. There are a bunch of university scopes in the Andes, for example.
The key factor being they are located at high elevation.

JayUtah
2009-May-04, 05:12 PM
That's a big if there, and how would an approaching lpanet cause warming on the outer planets?

That sort of question exemplifies the difference between science and pseudoscience.

The Planet X crowd produces a laundry list of supposed observations that are not explained by prevailing models: the outer planets are perturbed, the outer planets are being warmed, etc. But then they beg the question that these effects are the result of some approaching Planet X. Where is the test for that causation? In other words, pseudoscientists hold a proposition by default while scientists hold propositions only after they have been tested.

"The outer planets are perturbed," is not just a one-dimensional question. There is one discernible type of discrepancy that results from having inaccurate orbital models. There is another discernible type that results from an actual perturbation caused by the gravity of an interloper. You can't just say, "The model is incorrect, therefore my theory is correct." You have to show that your model predicts the actual observed behavior. That means computing where must like the perturber and then observing that something is indeed there. Planet X enthusiasts cannot do this.

"The planets are getting warmer," is not by itself proof. If Planet X is the warming effect, then obviously the energy to warm those planets is visible to the planets. But strangely enough that energy cannot be detected directly. Radiant thermal effects are a situation in which the effect can be seen, but also the cause (directly). Hence the "warm" planets cannot be attributed to a Planet X without us being able also to observe the energy by primary means.

If Planet X causes an increase in solar output, which warms the planets, then we must indeed ask why not all Solar System planets exhibit the observable warming that an increase in solar output would produce. Again, you cannot simply avoid doing these tests. Simply pointing out that one prevailing model doesn't account for all observations doesn't give you license to claim that your new model does, without conducting explicit tests of it.

Laguna
2009-May-04, 05:15 PM
The rumor is that he died before releasing it...
Rumors...
There is the rumor around here about an invisible elve living in one of our members backyard...

Rm Riberra
2009-May-05, 04:11 AM
They are telescopes with a computer-driven mount. Simply out, you align your mount axis with Earth's, then you tell the telescope what object you want to look at and it swings around to aim at the precise point where that object is in the sky. It's significant for the claim about planetary perturbations because only this year I used a ten year old GOTO scope to look at Neptune and Uranus. That means the data used to program that scope was at the very least ten years old, and yet Neptune and Uranus were both smack in the middle of the field of view when it swung around to look at them. If they are being perturbed why are they still appearing right where they were predicted to be years and years ago?


Thanks for that explanation...



Um, you were the one who brought Harrington up in response to the question about GOTO scopes, so you tell us.

I took the liberty to present Harrington work because it say that the perturbation observed in the orbit of Uranus and Neptune were small



That means the data used to program that scope was at the very least ten years old, and yet Neptune and Uranus were both smack in the middle of the field of view when it swung around to look at them. If they are being perturbed why are they still appearing right where they were predicted to be years and years ago?

The author have never pretended that Uranus or Neptune have quitted their orbits.

Rm Riberra
2009-May-05, 04:54 AM
"The planets are getting warmer," is not by itself proof. If Planet X is the warming effect, then obviously the energy to warm those planets is visible to the planets. But strangely enough that energy cannot be detected directly. Radiant thermal effects are a situation in which the effect can be seen, but also the cause (directly). Hence the "warm" planets cannot be attributed to a Planet X without us being able also to observe the energy by primary means.

The way they seem to explain why some planets or moons are getting warmer is because of the electromagnetic perturbation caused by Planet X approach which is triggering activity causing the warming.Not because of the heat of their hypothetical Planet X.

For example
Researchers credited Pluto’s warming to possible eruptive activity and a delayed thawing from its last close approach to the Sun in 1989.


And the recent storm activity on Jupiter is being blamed on a recurring climatic cycle that churns up material from the gas giant’s interior and lofts it to the surface, where it is heated by the Sun.
Source
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html

Note than "being blamed on a recurring climatic cycle" seem very hypothetical.

Also declaration by those scientists...
“Global warming on Neptune's moon Triton as well as Jupiter and Pluto, and now Mars has some [scientists] scratching their heads over what could possibly be in common with the warming of all these planets ... Could there be something in common with all the planets in our solar system that might cause them all to warm at the same time?”

...for sure open the door for Planet X promotors wild speculations.

Jason Thompson
2009-May-05, 10:01 AM
I took the liberty to present Harrington work because it say that the perturbation observed in the orbit of Uranus and Neptune were small

The author have never pretended that Uranus or Neptune have quitted their orbits.

How small are the perturbations?

Neptune takes about 165 years to complete one orbit. That means that from our point of view it moves about 2.2 degrees across the sky every year. Break that down further and it works out to about 22 arcseconds per day. However, its apparent size as seen from here is only 2.3 arcseconds. That means that every night it has moved across the sky by about ten times its own apparent diameter. That's noticeable.

It doesn't take long for a perturbation to produce a noticeable discrepanacy between where it should be and where it is. I didn't say it had to have 'quitted' its orbit for the GOTO telescope not to work properly. The point is that a GOTO scope, when properly aligned and set up, will put the object you want right in the middle of your field of view. As in, if you had a set of cross-hairs in the eyepiece the object would sit right on the intersection. If you miss-set the date by one day, you'll notice. Perturbations in the orbit would show up by the object consistently not being in the centre of your field of view, especially after ten years of using incorrect data about its position.

Gillianren
2009-May-05, 05:18 PM
Note than "being blamed on a recurring climatic cycle" seem very hypothetical.

But a giant planet swinging into the system that hasn't been noticed by astronomers is less so?

Rm Riberra
2009-May-05, 07:28 PM
But a giant planet swinging into the system that hasn't been noticed by astronomers is less so?
If you have read my post carefully you will see that I use the word hypothetical also for Planet X + wild speculations. :)

R.A.F.
2009-May-05, 07:42 PM
If you have read my post carefully you will see that I use the word hypothetical also for Planet X + wild speculations. :)

If you believe that "sprinkling" an occasional hypothetical into your posts will allow you to circumvent the rules of this board, well, you might want to re-think that strategy.

Rm Riberra
2009-May-05, 08:03 PM
How small are the perturbations?

Neptune takes about 165 years to complete one orbit. That means that from our point of view it moves about 2.2 degrees across the sky every year. Break that down further and it works out to about 22 arcseconds per day. However, its apparent size as seen from here is only 2.3 arcseconds. That means that every night it has moved across the sky by about ten times its own apparent diameter. That's noticeable.

It doesn't take long for a perturbation to produce a noticeable discrepanacy between where it should be and where it is. I didn't say it had to have 'quitted' its orbit for the GOTO telescope not to work properly. The point is that a GOTO scope, when properly aligned and set up, will put the object you want right in the middle of your field of view. As in, if you had a set of cross-hairs in the eyepiece the object would sit right on the intersection. If you miss-set the date by one day, you'll notice. Perturbations in the orbit would show up by the object consistently not being in the centre of your field of view, especially after ten years of using incorrect data about its position.
Well after reading the abstract given by Van Rijn the explanation is clear --that the anomalie disappear when one properly account for the correct value of the mass of Neptune and properly adjust the orbit of Uranus to the observational data...

But why it took so long to find the correct value of the mass of Neptune?

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1993AJ....105.2000S/0002000.000.html


Harrington

http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1988AJ.....96.1476H

parallaxicality
2009-May-05, 08:16 PM
Because the accurate measurement wasn't taken until Voyager 2 passed by Neptune in 1989

Rm Riberra
2009-May-05, 08:17 PM
If you believe that "sprinkling" an occasional hypothetical into your posts will allow you to circumvent the rules of this board, well, you might want to re-think that strategy.

I am not a supporter of the Planet X catastrophic scenario ... I am only interested to find if there is or if there will be "something new" to see in the night sky in the coming years.

R.A.F.
2009-May-05, 08:53 PM
...I am only interested to find if there is or if there will be "something new" to see in the night sky in the coming years.

Why didn't you just say so?

No, there is no credible evidence that there is/will be "something new" to see in the night sky...at least not anything like the planet X folks would have you believe.

NickW
2009-May-06, 12:36 AM
Sure, there might be some new stuff, like supernova, or a bright gamma ray burst. Just keep looking up :)

Jason Thompson
2009-May-06, 08:08 AM
Well after reading the abstract given by Van Rijn the explanation is clear --that the anomalie disappear when one properly account for the correct value of the mass of Neptune and properly adjust the orbit of Uranus to the observational data...

But why it took so long to find the correct value of the mass of Neptune?

Because when all you have are observations from some 4.5 billion kilometres away it is hard to be precise. However, when you swing a probe past the planet, as NASA did with Voyager 2 in 1989, then you have more precise data to work with.

This is why you should never rely on data and papers over 20 years old without checking first to see if any new developments have taken place. Can we now assume you will be retracting any claims about Harrington's 'definitive' calculations of the location of Planet X?

piknar
2009-May-06, 02:50 PM
Thank you for all the responses, i am impressed with the responses since my last post.

And apologies for my lack of real data.

baut, you made me dig deeper before i forward it to you.

I agree the links i posted earlier were to vague from yt and google. Apologies.

Now i have made a google kmz file (http://faithless.com/planet.x.niburu.kmz) with exact coordinates of what i presume to be planet x/niburu around our binary star, (iam calling it 'black sun' for now, ok?) I am posting the file (http://faithless.com/planet.x.niburu.kmz) for all, as i know that all you avid astronomers wouldn't be without google sky either.

As you all have telescopes of your own you will shine your eyes there pls with the exact coordinates i have in the kmz file for google earth/sky application. From the application you should be able to get the exact coordinates for your methods of verifying the data i submit.

Hopefully we get better images from baut members...And a more focused discussion on these images. Thank you.

captain swoop
2009-May-06, 08:08 PM
WHat 'binary star' ?

piknar
2009-May-07, 10:58 AM
I just updated the kmz file with the co-ordinates of our binary star...

Also note that Orion and Leo share niburu at differing times on its approach, and it makes sense now why the egyptians built the giza complex around the sphinx, it is a configuration of where niburu will come from.

R.A.F.
2009-May-07, 02:07 PM
Thank you for all the responses, i am impressed with the responses since my last post.

If this were true, then why do you continue to post of a "binary star" when there is absolutely no evidence for one?

piknar
2009-May-07, 02:31 PM
You 1st have to give me a kmz file with exactly what you mean by cwleonis or 164whatever to prove what you say. Until than, I wait for your response on what i have submitted.

R.A.F.
2009-May-07, 02:44 PM
You 1st have to give me a kmz file with exactly what you mean by cwleonis or 164whatever to prove what you say. Until than, I wait for your response on what i have submitted.

Sorry, but no, the burden of proof is on you to prove yourself right...not on anyone else to prove you wrong.

That's how it "works" when you make extraordinary claims on this board.

piknar
2009-May-07, 03:07 PM
Yes I agree, so before submitting my data after the remarks of ngcrafdimslanggilliancrowd. I had a lot of things to do, I 1st had to be more specific, and at that time being on a ubuntu 64 i had trouble getting googleearth to work as it is only made for 32 bit ubuntu and 32 bit xp, so i got vmware and installed black edition xp and than google earth, damn was it slow, no 3d rendering, so i went and rebooted in xppro64 and installed google earth there, now she was zooming in nice to what i wanted to show, yup there she be. So i put coupla pointers into a kmz file.

Note i am a great believer in technology, and love the idea ac clarke put forth with supermind or groupmind. Using todays tech is not a sin dude, how else and what better way do you have to reference all this data.

NickW
2009-May-07, 03:10 PM
Using todays tech is not a sin dude, how else and what better way do you have to reference all this data.

Umm....no one said that it was. What does this have to do with answering the question that was posed to you?

piknar
2009-May-07, 03:20 PM
Like i said, it did not satisfy me. period. It was a flimsy in the wind bunch of mass herd mentality without any substance and so i brushed it aside like fodder.

I added with more specificity, of density within dimension with the help of layman tech.

R.A.F.
2009-May-07, 03:48 PM
Like i said, it did not satisfy me. period. It was a flimsy in the wind bunch of mass herd mentality without any substance and so i brushed it aside like fodder.

Sorry, but your "satisfaction" is irrelevant.


I added with more specificity, of density within dimension with the help of layman tech.

captain swoop (one of our mods) asked you a question...I asked you a question...and NickW asked you a question...

Could you answer those questions before you proceed into the "density within dimensions"?

...thanks.

piknar
2009-May-07, 03:50 PM
so is yours. it is irrelevant. these are proving grounds, not best banter.

piknar
2009-May-07, 03:53 PM
Sorry, but no, the burden of proof is on you to prove yourself right.

this only if you work within an open source framework..the door must be open to all.

R.A.F.
2009-May-07, 03:57 PM
...these are proving grounds, not best banter.

Well, if the criteria was "best banter"...I always "win"...

...and I am of course "kidding". :)

Jason Thompson
2009-May-07, 04:11 PM
so is yours. it is irrelevant. these are proving grounds, not best banter.

So start proving things then.

Swift
2009-May-07, 04:36 PM
this only if you work within an open source framework..the door must be open to all.

piknar,
I have no clue what an "open source framework" has to do with any of this. What is relevent is that on BAUT there are rules and you are not following them. You are advocating a very non-mainstream idea. Our rules require that you prove your idea and that you answer all questions about your idea. And proof is most definitely not "prove me wrong".

If this is unclear to you, I strongly suggest you review the rules of this board (http://www.bautforum.com/forum-rules-faqs-information/32864-rules-posting-board.html#post564845) and the suggestions for this forum (http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/86593-advice-conspiracy-theory-supporters.html). If you continue to disregard the rules, you will be given time off to study them, in the form of a suspension.

Consider this an official warning.

piknar
2009-May-07, 04:57 PM
piknar,
I have no clue what an "open source framework" has to do with any of this.


kmz file is here (http://faithless.com/planet.x.niburu.kmz)

kml zipped into kmz files pls. So that we know what you talking about. ppl on this board should start using the tech out there that can help describe what they talkin' about! And ofcourse if wrong or there is better answer, than change it, like wiki. the file i am posting can be easily changed and put forth for all to see in some kml app. i am hoping that someone will prove me wrong.
that google is wrong. according to the open source framework of kml and all the apps that utilise this standard.


Apologies to all at baut. Warning has been registered.

Swift
2009-May-07, 05:05 PM
I gather (after a little Googling) that kmz is a file for Google Earth. Ok, that's nice, but its not proof. It is not up to us to break out the telescopes and go looking at some spot in the sky. You want to show that there is something at that spot in the sky, it is up to you to do so.

And lets say I did go look, and I came back here and said "nope, nothing there", would that be enough of a response to you?

Lastly, explain to me how this mystery planet or star (I'm not quite clear what you think is there) is visible on Google Sky, but thousands and thousands of amateur and professional astronomers have seen nothing?

HenrikOlsen
2009-May-07, 05:05 PM
kmz file is here (http://faithless.com/planet.x.niburu.kmz)
The tech that is relevant in this case is the English language, used in posts here.

Links to other sites are largely irrelevant, especially if reading them requires the installation of specialized software, so start answering questions by writing the answers in this thread, utilizing the technology of this board.

Your kml/kmz fetish will not be accepted as an excuse for not answering.

Laguna
2009-May-07, 05:14 PM
Funny my Google Earth is running perfectly smooth on my Ubuntu64....

Concerning the kmz file.
I call foul! You took google earth, switched into sky mode, zoomed all the way in and took one of the faintest objects you could find.
An object even the professional telescope, that took the image, was not able to resolve. And now you ask the amateur astronomers with their equipment to proove its not pX. Sorry this will not fly.

In my opinion you are pointing to a galaxy far^20 away.

piknar
2009-May-07, 05:16 PM
Last week i did not know kml, i was forced by baut forum members to be more specific and learn it quickly to respond to baut members.

Its is the 1st time i made a kmz file, you call that a fetish?

Jason_Roberts
2009-May-07, 05:20 PM
I call foul! You took google earth, switched into sky mode, zoomed all the way in and took one of the faintest objects you could find.
An object even the professional telescope, that took the image, was not able to resolve. And now you ask the amateur astronomers with their equipment to proove its not pX. Sorry this will not fly.

In my opinion you are pointing to a galaxy far^20 away.


I just noticed this, too.

I can't believe I went through all of that for nothing. Though, to be honest, I don't think I was expecting to find anything in the first place.

R.A.F.
2009-May-07, 05:25 PM
...i was forced by baut forum members to be more specific and learn it quickly to respond to baut members.

"baut members" require evidence...which so far your "response(s)" have not included...


Its is the 1st time i made a kmz file, you call that a fetish?

Who called it a "fetish"??

Jason_Roberts
2009-May-07, 05:29 PM
"baut members" require evidence...which so far your "response(s)" have not included...



Who called it a "fetish"??

Eh, Swift did but he edited it out in order to be more to the point or direct.

I do similar things all the time. The "edited by" tag doesn't show up if you catch something you want to edit fast enough.

Laguna
2009-May-07, 05:33 PM
Oh and I have a question.
You claim the marked object to be planet x. Why this object?
Why not the one above of it? Or the object on the lower left of you binary star?
Oh and speaking of the binary star. You know what the world "binary" means?
And why is this exactly nibirus binary star and not this (http://www.materialordner.de/OiVZMQ94QTthIpGtKGR30PBfaFTCA2Ed.html) one?

Laguna
2009-May-07, 05:34 PM
Eh, Swift did .
No Henrik did. And its still there... :lol:

piknar
2009-May-07, 05:36 PM
i know you'll think i am crazy if i told you the images were better yesterday than today.

Also looking at the yt vid that i got this info from the images are even better. So last yr was better than this yr.

doing a google search on google earth, i found that updating to the new google earth will do just that, make the images fainter.

Laguna
2009-May-07, 05:40 PM
i know you'll think i am crazy if i told you the images were better yesterday than today.

Also looking at the yt vid that i got this info from the images are even better. So last yr was better than this yr.

doing a google search on google earth, i found that updating to the new google earth will do just that, make the images fainter.
No comment...

But wait. Let me reboot to Windows. There I have an older Google Earth Version...

R.A.F.
2009-May-07, 05:42 PM
i know you'll think i am crazy if i told you the images were better yesterday than today.

Also looking at the yt vid that i got this info from the images are even better. So last yr was better than this yr.

doing a google search on google earth, i found that updating to the new google earth will do just that, make the images fainter.

Re-posting from earlier today...


captain swoop (one of our mods) asked you a question...I asked you a question...and NickW asked you a question...

Could you answer those questions before you proceed into the "density within dimensions"?

Will you be answering these questions, or not...

piknar
2009-May-07, 05:44 PM
Here is the yt user (http://www.youtube.com/user/anno3672) that posted 2 videos, and this was the start of my journey.

the images they have are amazing.

Laguna
2009-May-07, 05:50 PM
Here is the yt user (http://www.youtube.com/user/anno3672) that posted 2 videos, and this was the start of my journey.

the images they have are amazing.
Could you please use your own words!

By the way. The older GE version shows the same picture.
Not that I exected it to show me a shiny picture in super duper resolution...

R.A.F.
2009-May-07, 06:09 PM
Here is the yt user (http://www.youtube.com/user/anno3672) that posted 2 videos, and this was the start of my journey.

the images they have are amazing.

Irrelevant...could you please answer the question(s) that have been asked of you?...personally, I've asked you 3 times now, and you seem to be ignoring me (and the others who have asked you questions.)

piknar
2009-May-07, 06:21 PM
Irrelevant...could you please answer the question(s) that have been asked of you?...personally, I've asked you 3 times now, and you seem to be ignoring me (and the others who have asked you questions.)

Ok, can you pls ask me the question one more time, I may have not understood the question. And I apologise if I came across ignoring you or others. My lil'noggin is shooting off in so many directions i just don't know where to begin and whether I am going to get a shalacking from the baut members.

the 'my_binarystar.kmz' is right to assume that it has similar qualities. I concur and thank you for clearing that up for me.

Jason_Roberts
2009-May-07, 06:23 PM
No Henrik did. And its still there... :lol:

Yikes.

Do people often lose their eyesight around 26-27?

Laguna
2009-May-07, 06:26 PM
Yikes.

Do people often lose their eyesight around 26-27?
Only when reading the wrong webpages. :lol:

R.A.F.
2009-May-07, 06:53 PM
Ok, can you pls ask me the question one more time, I may have not understood the question.

Read the thread...you only have to go back a page to find the questions...

Sheesh....

piknar
2009-May-07, 07:04 PM
If this were true, then why do you continue to post of a "binary star" when there is absolutely no evidence for one?


Fine, i will cease to post. It is the answer yes?

R.A.F.
2009-May-07, 07:10 PM
Fine, i will cease to post. It is the answer yes?

No...actually If I "wanted" anything, it was for you to provide evidence for your "ideas"...

Swift
2009-May-07, 08:31 PM
Here is the yt user (http://www.youtube.com/user/anno3672) that posted 2 videos, and this was the start of my journey.

the images they have are amazing.

Ok, can you pls ask me the question one more time, I may have not understood the question.
First, I will not/can not watch YouTube videos - it is a banned site at work and I don't have the baud rate at home.

So, am I to understand that your belief in something (Planet X?) is based entirely on some videos posted by someone on YouTube? What exactly, in your own words, is presented in these videos? Is it anything beyond some picture from Google Sky and some "oh my gosh, look at that!"? What other evidence do they present?

And what exactly do they claim?

That might be a good place to start.

piknar
2009-May-07, 09:44 PM
Well they propose niburu and why orion missing images and where it is, through google sky. and that is in leo

I have attached the images in question of niburu that are screenshots from the video.

The kmz file is very small even for your baud rate, once ofcourse you get GE down.

Jason_Roberts
2009-May-07, 11:36 PM
Well they propose niburu and why orion missing images and where it is, through google sky. and that is in leo

I have attached the images in question of niburu that are screenshots from the video.

The kmz file is very small even for your baud rate, once ofcourse you get GE down.

Are you honestly suggesting that is an image of Niburu, piknar?

Because if so, you may wind up disappointed.

If not, my mistake.

NickW
2009-May-08, 01:50 AM
The kmz file is very small even for your baud rate, once ofcourse you get GE down.

Why would he download google earth? Even the youtube user you linked to says (in the comments of the video) to use the web based version because it provides better pictures. What exactly is the coordinates that you think it is at? And dont try to make me download anything, I am sure you can just type the them out.

Jason_Roberts
2009-May-08, 03:52 AM
He has two different videos up. Here's what I got out of it.

First, two completely different set of coordinates are given:

• 9:47:27, 13:16:27
• 9:47:47, 13:16:42.8

I must also mention he actually doesn't even give the proper format that allows Google Sky to search under. He lists the 'long-hand' version like 9h 47m 27sec - 13º 16' 27" for example. Google Sky *never* accepts that as proper syntax. (Well, from me anyhow.)

If you view these two videos you will find yourself looking at clips of the person recording his computer monitor. He didn't even bother to at least attempt a video capture with FRAPS or something along those lines. You end up looking at a picture, of a picture of a picture.

I eventually managed to find the location. It basically points to a typical astronomical object, being either a distant galaxy or nebula. This is at the very maximum extent that the zoom feature allows.

The worst part however, is how they arrived at the vaguely planetoid object in the image above from a few posts ago. (http://www.bautforum.com/attachments/conspiracy-theories/10086d1241732042-planet-x-south-pole-telescope-niburu.jpg) The person shooting the video tells us that he "actually saved a copy of this as a .jpg" so he can "zoom it up bigger and closer" to get more accurate "detail" out of it. He points out "two impact craters" from this overblown, heavily compressed .jpg.

But that's not actually the image linked above: He brings up what he claims to be a photograph of "Planet X" that he obtained through some means he doesn't mention, and attempts to associate it with his Google Sky "findings" while having absolutely nothing to do with it at all.

If someone could actually point out what that object he believes to be Planet X is, as well as its name, the whole thing would be cleared up nicely.

And I am very curious where the director of this video claims to have gotten his picture of Planet X.

NickW
2009-May-08, 04:16 AM
not to mention that he is saying to use the IR feature of Google Sky, but when you are zoomed in that much, it doesnt show anything IR. I found that kind of intrigueing.

H4wkeye
2009-May-08, 11:33 AM
My opinion:There is no Planet X aka Nibiru.Even if there was,its a normal planet,not going towards Earth.If it was REALLY going towards Earth and they say its 5 times the size of Jupiter if i believe,well wouldnt you think someone would notice it?Unless it uses some kind of star trek romulan cloaking device xD.

ZappBrannigan
2009-May-08, 02:45 PM
If someone could actually point out what that object he believes to be Planet X is, as well as its name, the whole thing would be cleared up nicely.
Hmmm. If that's the terminator on the left side, I might guess... Io? If that isn't the terminator, and it's a potato-shaped object, I don't have a clue. I'm not up on my potato-shaped celestial objects.

It's so fuzzy and low-res... maybe he just took a picture of a potato...

Jason_Roberts
2009-May-08, 02:49 PM
Hmmm. If that's the terminator on the left side, I might guess... Io? If that isn't the terminator, and it's a potato-shaped object, I don't have a clue. I'm not up on my potato-shaped celestial objects.

It's so fuzzy and low-res... maybe he just took a picture of a potato...

Io is actually pretty round.

...wait, maybe it is a potato.

Laguna
2009-May-08, 04:09 PM
For me these pictures look like someone took the picture through a tube.
Pointing to whatever background which is out of focus .

NickW
2009-May-08, 04:12 PM
It kind of looks like when you take an afocal picture through a telescope to me. I bet if we had the original picture and not some screen capture of a screen capture we could probably figure it out pretty quick.

Jason_Roberts
2009-May-08, 05:08 PM
For me these pictures look like someone took the picture through a tube.
Pointing to whatever background which is out of focus .

Which image are we talking about here?

The capture from Google Sky that anyone can get to, or the suspicious .jpg that he says depicts "Planet X?"

If it is the .jpg, there are countless ways it could have been made, doctored or tinkered with. It will never be clearly shown, or posted somewhere on the internet. He appears to depend on it being as obscure and fuzzy as possible.

A clear image or full-resolution version of this "Planet X" would spell ruin for his hoax. Its fabrication would become instantly apparent.

It might sound like I am not giving him a fair chance and am immediately calling foul on his "evidence." But considering what is presented I don't feel like I am being totally unfair in doing so.

EDIT: I've decided to ask the maker of the video to upload or supply a full-resolution version of the image that he says to be Planet X. I don't think one will be forthcoming, but I didn't think it could hurt to ask either.

tusenfem
2009-May-08, 06:42 PM
Here is the yt user (http://www.youtube.com/user/anno3672) that posted 2 videos, and this was the start of my journey.

the images they have are amazing.

My goodness, that vid is pathetic, can't they even try to focus the camera, use a real program for movie editing inwhich they can just import the images at significantly better resolution? And the grany pic supposedly Planet X shows some remarkable similarities with just a planet with aurora or a specific moon of Saturn.

ravens_cry
2009-May-08, 06:48 PM
I have found indisputable proof of Planet X (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdAvMw-2zk4).
Spectrographic analysis suggests it is rich in illudium phosdex.

NEOWatcher
2009-May-08, 07:19 PM
I have found indisputable proof of Planet X (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdAvMw-2zk4).
Spectrographic analysis suggests it is rich in illudium phosdex.
Oh my gosh, you're right. His flight path matches the orbit of planet x very precisely.

Celestial Mechanic
2009-May-08, 07:38 PM
My goodness, that vid is pathetic, can't they even try to focus the camera, use a real program for movie editing inwhich they can just import the images at significantly better resolution? And the grany pic supposedly Planet X shows some remarkable similarities with just a planet with aurora or a specific moon of Saturn.
Sounds about par for the course for all those UFO films and videos over the years. Why can't they operate their lenses correctly?

Rm Riberra
2009-May-08, 07:48 PM
Because the accurate measurement wasn't taken until Voyager 2 passed by Neptune in 1989
Thanks,
Sorry for the delay.I took some days off.Replying to the questions was so much time consuming that I have only read the intro of the abstract so i missed the Voyager 2 info.

Rm Riberra
2009-May-08, 07:54 PM
Because when all you have are observations from some 4.5 billion kilometres away it is hard to be precise. However, when you swing a probe past the planet, as NASA did with Voyager 2 in 1989, then you have more precise data to work with.

This is why you should never rely on data and papers over 20 years old without checking first to see if any new developments have taken place. Can we now assume you will be retracting any claims about Harrington's 'definitive' calculations of the location of Planet X?

I will.

Appleblythe
2009-May-09, 05:21 PM
I've always been interested with this. I hope you'll be able to find some informative answer to this.

Jason_Roberts
2009-May-09, 05:29 PM
I've always been interested with this. I hope you'll be able to find some informative answer to this.

This forum has enough information on Planet X to keep you busy until the date of the next doomsday prophecy.

Moose
2009-May-09, 10:50 PM
This forum has enough information on Planet X to keep you busy until the date of the next doomsday prophecy.

Technically, the forum has enough information on my left big toe to keep anyone busy until the next doomsday prophesy, given how often they come.

Celestial Mechanic
2009-May-10, 04:46 AM
Yikes. Do people often lose their eyesight around 26-27?Only when reading the wrong webpages. :lol:
OK, OK, I'll only look at godlikeproductions until I need glasses! :lol:

NickW
2009-May-10, 05:11 AM
I only looked through godlikeproductions for a brief time. Quite frankly, it was a circus. First and last time visit there.