Nibiru's 'First Phase' Due Fall 2009!

Originally posted by hildar

Because the following link shows where real planets are if you magnify it you will see lines thru the real planets. So please dont sit there and say oh its one of the normal planets. Same day so therefore something is up. The one at 7 is still there yet is not a known planet.

Hilda

sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov...

Edited cause I forgot link.
[edit on 18-1-2008 by hildar]

The link you have provided above is for an image taken on 29th November 2006. Its in the filename.

How is that link relevant to what you are claiming?

Originally posted by hildar
I hate to say this but we have plenty of people right now proving its not what you say it is.

What did i say it is? I just mentioned HOW it should be analyzed.
And if you're talking to mythatsabigprobe, he just mentioned a couple of possibilities, based on the fact, that the "object" is not present in both pictures in the pair taken of the same area at the same time.

Originally posted by hildar
And believe me these people know what they are talking about. One of which happens to have been a professor at a college teaching Astronomy for over 20 years, Yet according to what you say he doesnt know bull.

Again, i don't know who you're answering to here, but i read through the page again, and the only one who ever called anyone "full of bull" were YOU!

And that was in response to a logical question and / or proposal of an explanation.

You seem to be getting confused here. First you call someone full of bull, then you claim someone else did it.

Originally posted by hildar
So lets see what he says. I also happen to know 4 others who are Astronomers that are looking at the photos this morning. One of which emailed me and said it was real.

I do hope he is looking at BOTH of the pictures in these pairs. Did you even mention this to him? Or did you just send him the ones with the "object"?

Ask him what it means if this object isn't in the other picture, taken of the same area at the same time. And please relay the answer to us.

Originally posted by hildar
I hate to say this but we have plenty of people right now proving its not what you say it is.

You mean it's not what NASA and teh experts who study these images every day say it is.

And believe me these people know what they are talking about.

More so than the experts who study these images every day for NASA?

One of which happens to have been a professor at a college teaching Astronomy for over 20 years, Yet according to what you say he doesnt know bull.

Well, you seem to be implying that NASA and the experts who study these images every day know bull ....

So lets see what he says. I also happen to know 4 others who are Astronomers that are looking at the photos this morning.

I look forward to seeing their explanation as to why it cannot be Mercury, thus meaning that the experts who study these images every day either know bull or are at best out and out liars.

I also look forward to seeing their explanation as to why this object is not, and never has been, visible from every place on Earth.

stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Edit: to add link to real explanation of image, for those who missed it when I last posted it.

[edit on 18-1-2008 by Essan]

So, many are claiming this mystery 'planet' is a) a companion 'star' of our Sun or, b) a 'brown dwarf' about one third the size of our Sun...with it's own system of satellites that are habitable or, c) it is a massive planet, but is hollow and people live inside of it.

a)...companion star...well, that's obviously wrong

b)...a 'brown dwarf' about one third the size of our Sun...hmmm...
The most prevalent stars in the Universe are 'red dwarfs'...these are from one half to one tenth the mass of our Sun. They are 'red' because they burn hotter than a 'brown'.

c)...massive hollow planet...yeah, riiiiiight......

Originally posted by neformore

And how do you know what they beleived? Were you there? Did you experience it?

No.

The answer is you believe what someone else has written - their opinion - on what might be one interpretation of something that they think they have discovered.

Not only that but you seemingly have blind faith in it, without looking at the bigger picture, or considering the facts that people have presented to you.

Now we're all supposed to be here to deny ignorance, right? But embracing one side of a story that you only read in a book and dismissing other relevant information is the absolute height of ignorance.

I choose to believe in what ancient civilizations have written because they didn't just 'guess' everything that they have recorded, they 'pursued' it. Meaning we've spent all our lives pursuing technology and making it faster; ancient civilizations have spent all of their lives pursuing knowledge of the sky and stars. Now do MANY Humans today even consider looking up at the sky? or down to the ground. Hmm, I would say down. Only astronomers look up(and occasional wonderers) and there aren't many astronomers compared to how many people are on this Earth. The ENTIRETY of the ancient civilizations studied the stars and space(THAT WAS THEIR CULTURE) What is ours?(watch television, go to school, get a job, get money, watch television, get money, retire, get more money, watch television, the end) and the generation repeats itself. 'Man', what a perfect circle of dishonesty. Anyways, it is my intuition that I believe the ancient civilizations to be more correct and accurate with their beliefs than ours, and that they knew much more about stars and space(relating to cycles) than 'we' do; Now if you cannot except someone's intuition then you should not go about telling them that they have 'seemingly blind faith' and have reached the 'height of ignorance'..............I believe it is you and many others who are not looking at the 'big picture'. Now re-read your post above and tell me that I am wrong on this.

[edit on 18-1-2008 by xnibirux]

Originally posted by xnibirux
I choose to believe in what ancient civilizations have written because they didn't just 'guess' everything that they have recorded, they 'pursued' it.

Indeed, you choose to believe. But based on what?

They didn't guess at everything they recorded? Then why did they call stars and planets gods?

Originally posted by xnibirux
Meaning we've spent all our lives pursuing technology and making it faster; ancient civilizations have spent all of their lives pursuing knowledge of the sky and stars.

Their entire civilisation spent their entire lives looking at the stars?

Who did the farming, fishing, building, making clothes and generaly worried about surviving then?

Did they live off of mana?

Originally posted by xnibirux
Now do MANY Humans today even consider looking up at the sky? or down to the ground. Hmm, I would say down. Only astronomers look up(and occasional wonderers) and there aren't many astronomers compared to how many people are on this Earth.

Just because you don't use a telescope and some logic, and instead choose to believe in Nancy's dellusional babble about an imaginary planet, doesn't mean others are denying science and logic as well...

There are MANY people involved with astronomy either proffessionally or as a hobby.

In fact, i would say due to some of the benefits of the modern civilisation, the percentage of people, capable of looking at the stars, is now much higher, than it was back then.

And i don't mean looking up at the sky and speculating / guessing about gods and making up stories, but actually looking through telescopes and doing SCIENCE.

Because of this we now now A LOT more about our solar system and the universe, than the ancient civilisations ever did. We can accurately predict the behaviour of planetary bodies, we can acuratelly predict their orbit.

In fact, we can even acuratelly predict, if one doesn't exist - in case it has impossible or conflicting properties, like Planet X for example.


Someone chiseling some stars on a rock, isn't really exact science.
I have a lot of respect for ancient civilisations and what they were capable of at the time.
But you are just making stuff up. Or more likely, just believing it, from Nancy's page.

So it is you, who is guessing and believing, instead of actually pursuing knowledge.


The rest of your post is just the usual new-agey "modern life sucks" rambling, often used to force an appearance of plausibility on crazy "theories".
It's not your fault. You're just repeating what you read.
What the new age books don't tell you, is that life always "sucked".
Another thing they don't tell you, is that there were always people like Nancy, professing doom and people like you, believing it. The only thing different was the way it was supposed to happen.


P.S. What is this "big picture" you are talking about? I mean, i know what the phrase is used for in new age books, but i would like to hear your explanation.

[edit on 18/1/08 by deezee]

Ok, here is what James said about it. So that does explain everything that I put up so far.

Hilda,

What I would tell any person that you had discussed with me over the phone whom was skeptical that this may be ice or whatever on the lens that they are wrong. We have gone over the NASA photos from the website, and we also went over what other Astronomers had and we found the same thing in all photos dating from Dec,28,2007 until today Jan,18,2007. If you look at NASA's Photos from the past few days they are blurred we had the real thing and its still the same as all the rest of the photos. They are all clear and genuine whatever this is its big and unknown.

Now as for it not being on the photos showing the supposed back side of the sun there may be reasoning for this. You see, #1 The other shots would not have been from a direct behind the sun area as in the front. There is a big difference where one is located from the other. In fact that area of the sun is not visible from where its located. Any true Astronomer would know this.

You also asked me if it could be Mars, Mercury, or even Venus. No it is none of the above. In fact if you look in the photos you will see Mercury as a small speck. This is much larger then that. As for the following link may I add its talking about the small white dot. Its not talking about the Planet or Asteroid that is on the right hand side of the sun at all times.

stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov...

We have a total of 7 other astronomers whom have the same evidence now that you have. But from there own telescopes. Many of the astronomers are pros on sunspots and Solar flares, they said that there is a 1/ 1,000,000,000,000 chance that all telescopes could possibly have the same distortion on them. Is it proof that it is Nibiru? Maybe not. But it is proof that it is not a Known planet and it is nothing that we have ever seen before. But can we prove its Nibiru? No, but we also can not disprove it at this time. Therefore until when we get a better look at it, Which I am getting ready now to leave for Canada so I can get the best view of this. We have one very large Telescope there that we use when we need it to see sunspots much closer. This will prove to us what it is.

I will Hilda tell you this, whatever it is, its bigger then Mars and is further away then that. If we find out its a huge asteroid may God save us all. It also is much bigger then Mercury when you look at it.

I am a bit at awe though as to why NASA does not explain what this is. Of course they most likely figured that people would think it was something like ice or a distortion on the lens. Of course with NASA we already know they will keep as much to themselves as possible.


Humbly yours,

James K.

reply to post by hildar


Dear Hilda...

Could you please provide a more detailed explanation of which object in these pictures you are talking about? Maybe make a circle around it?

In some of the earlier pictures you posted, you said it is between 2 and 3 o clock from the sun.

What i was able to see there was a half circle with a ragged edge at the end of one of the solar flares very close to the sun. Was that what you meant?

In the other pictures, there was an object at around 7 to 8 o clock, further away from the sun. And the previous one was not visible there.

I just want to make sure we are talking about the same thing.


Anyway, this scientist you contacted, seems to know what he's doing, even tho he might be slightly on the paranoid side, but i'm still interested in what he has to say.

In any case, it should be much more interesting, than Nancy's delusional ramblings and the Zetan's bad science, we were exposed to so far.

[edit on 18/1/08 by deezee]

Originally posted by hildar
Now as for it not being on the photos showing the supposed back side of the sun there may be reasoning for this. You see, #1 The other shots would not have been from a direct behind the sun area as in the front. There is a big difference where one is located from the other. In fact that area of the sun is not visible from where its located. Any true Astronomer would know this.

This is the only part of his explanation i am worried about..

Stereo pairs of images don't show the front and the back of sun.

The stereo sattelite pair shows the SAME side of the sun. It's just that the two sattelites are slightly spaced appart.

Both pictures still show ALL the same objects, but in slightly different positions. From this, using trigonometry, it is possible to calculate the distance of the objects in the picture. The further apart the two pictures are taken, the more exact the distance calculation can be.

Any true astronomer would know this...


BTW: I allready mentioned, this is exactly how our eyes work. They provide the brain with two pictures, taken slightly appart, and fom this our brain "calculates" the distances of the objects and gives us a three dimensional view of our surroundings.

If you see something with one eye, but don't see it with the other, there could be something wrong with one of them.

The same can be said about the STEREO tellescope sattelite pair.

[edit on 18/1/08 by deezee]

reply to post by deezee


yes you can see part of it it is almost raggedy looking but if its an asteroid, that may explain it, But it was in all of the photos I showed you and its in all of the newer ones as well. they even went back to before the ones I had and it shows even on there telescopes. Which tells me its not ice crystals as 1 person said. The white dot at 7 or so is Mercury or whatever. But the one that is only partially illuminated at 2 is what we are looking at. Which one theory that was discussed was that it may have alot of holes due to meteor hits ect like the moon. that is why they want a better look at it. I cant believe its there but until they find out what this really is they cant be sure if its a planet or asteroid. truthfully now that we have found something I have to wonder if I really want to know what it is. Its scary. But at least hopefully now we will know something.

Hilda

reply to post by deezee


Just so you know there are 2 satellite's. And yes both take photos of the sun from different angles this is what he was looking at. I did not repeat word for word what you had said. I just asked why the other telescope wasnt showing it. And he asked if I meant satellite and I said yes so they checked it. Then he called me back and talked to me again. He then emailed me so that you guys would know there findings without me losing half of it while trying to remember it all.Remember I have 3 kids at home so I cant stay focused on 1 thing for long. Especially when I am chasing away a 4 year old from the cookies.

Hilda

Originally posted by hildar
Just so you know there are 2 satellite's.

I know. That's what i've been saying the whole time - a sattelite pair.

Originally posted by hildar
And yes both take photos of the sun from different angles this is what he was looking at.

I know how stereoscopy works, since i used to work with it myself. It's very interesting how our brain functions. If you alternate between two images on a screen very fast, while special LCD shutter glasses only allow one eye to see each of the two images, you can create the appearance of a three dimensional picture. You can make objects "float" in front of the computer sreen, or even make them appear to be deep beyond the surface of the screen.

With trigonometry you can calculate the distance from these images and the most amazing thing is, that our brain does this constantly. We just don't realize it, but we automatically know how far an object is. If you close one eye, you loose this feeling.

Originally posted by hildar
I did not repeat word for word what you had said. I just asked why the other telescope wasnt showing it. And he asked if I meant satellite and I said yes so they checked it. Then he called me back and talked to me again.

I had a feeling there must have been a miscommunication between the two of you, about what these image pairs are showing.

That's why he thought, one of them is showing the back side of the sun.

But now that you know both images are showing the SAME area from the SAME side, you should make sure, he knows this as well.

This is very important. If the object is in only one of the images, the probability of a CCD malfunction is actually quite high. Especialy if it's not moving. Is it moving?

Originally posted by hildar
He then emailed me so that you guys would know there findings without me losing half of it while trying to remember it all.Remember I have 3 kids at home so I cant stay focused on 1 thing for long. Especially when I am chasing away a 4 year old from the cookies.

That's ok, i understand and everyone can make a mistake.

I just hope you can keep up your newly found approach to this conversation. Isn't it much more pleasant this way, as opposed to calling people full of bull just because they don't agree with you, or because they prefer to base their beliefs on facts rather than what some imaginary aliens have to say?

[edit on 18/1/08 by deezee]

reply to post by xnibirux


Where is it now, and dont say its hiding

Originally posted by hildar
yes you can see part of it it is almost raggedy looking but if its an asteroid, that may explain it, But it was in all of the photos I showed you and its in all of the newer ones as well. they even went back to before the ones I had and it shows even on there telescopes. Which tells me its not ice crystals as 1 person said.

Well, at least now we know what you meant.

What other telescopes are you talking about, when you say it showed up on them? Any pictures available?

Originally posted by hildar
Which one theory that was discussed was that it may have alot of holes due to meteor hits ect like the moon. that is why they want a better look at it.

Because of the distance, i don't think we can speculate on it's shape, simply because it's ragged looking.

Besides, it's partially covered up by the solar flare. My first guess, when i saw it was, that it might even be related to the flare.

The best thing to do would be to make an animation, from pictures taken at regular intervals. This way it would be easy to discern if it is moving and / or changing.

If it's only showing up on one of the pictures in the pair, it could be a few damaged pixels in the CCD chip. This can be the result of the manufacturing process, or even because of too much light exposure, since it is taking pictures of the sun.

Since there is a flare going "through" it, it could be, that a few of the pixels are simply showing it too brightly, causing this appearance, alto the pattern is rather unusual.

If this is in both of the pictures in the pair, there really could be something out there. But what it is, we have yet to find out. If it's a real object, there are definatelly enough people out there, capable of calculating it's trajectory and due to the fact that this is taken by the STERO telescopes, even it's distance and size shouldn't be a problem.


If you have pictures of this "object" taken by another telescope, please post links.

Originally posted by thesun
reply to post by xnibirux

 

Where is it now, and dont say its hiding

Nibiru is currently approaching Jupiter as we speak. Thank You for asking.

Originally posted by weedwhacker

So, many are claiming this mystery 'planet' is a) a companion 'star' of our Sun or, b) a 'brown dwarf' about one third the size of our Sun...with it's own system of satellites that are habitable or, c) it is a massive planet, but is hollow and people live inside of it.

a)...companion star...well, that's obviously wrong

b)...a 'brown dwarf' about one third the size of our Sun...hmmm...
The most prevalent stars in the Universe are 'red dwarfs'...these are from one half to one tenth the mass of our Sun. They are 'red' because they burn hotter than a 'brown'.

c)...massive hollow planet...yeah, riiiiiight......

The answers are both a & b. Our solar system was once a Binary Star System with a sister star known as a brown dwarf, which is just a 'failed star'. The reason I said 'was' a Binary Star System is because only when the brown dwarf ignites does its residing star system become 'Binary'.

Hey xnibirux,

Approaching Jupiter, eh!! Take a look at this:

Distance of Jupiter from the Sun: 483,682,810 miles

Distance of Saturn from the Sun: 885,904,700 miles


Speed of Light per Hour: 670, 615, 200 Miles per Hour

Jupiter minus 1AU, that is Jupiter to Earth = 390, 682, 810 Miles = 0.58 Hours = 34.8 minutes at the speed of light

Saturn minus 1AU, that is Saturn to Earth = 792, 904, 700 Miles = 1.18 Hours = 70.8 minutes at the speed of light

So what you are saying is that something 1/3 the size of the sun, travelling at or nearly at the speed of light will be here before sunrise. Damn, we are all going to die before breakfast. Guess I will just have toast.

Originally posted by hildar

I will Hilda tell you this, whatever it is, its bigger then Mars and is further away then that. If we find out its a huge asteroid may God save us all. It also is much bigger then Mercury when you look at it.

Firstly, my apologies for rabbiting on about Mercury when you were talking about something else altogether. I'm assuming it's the semi-circular 'bracelet' close to the Sun that appear on conjunction with one of the solar flares?

I see nothing to make me suppose it's a planet or other object and certainly no way of determining it's distance from the Sun - so the comments from your astronomer friend seem very odd indeed. Especially since if it's bigger than Mars it'd hardly be an asteroid, would it? And if it's bigger than Mars then obviously it's much bigger than Mercury!

Anyway, if it's close to the Sun, nowt to worry about. If it's further out, and currently just almost 'behind' the Sun, then we'll soon see it better as our relative orbits move. And if it is a planet and is represented by the size of the apparent 'bracelet' then it's the largest object in the solar system after the Sun, even if it's currently in close orbit to the Sun. If it's further out, beyond Mars, then it's probably bigger than the Sun.

On the other hand it may just be an artifact of the imagining process, misinterpreted by over zealous and inexperienced persons .....

Originally posted by Essan
I see nothing to make me suppose it's a planet or other object and certainly no way of determining it's distance from the Sun - so the comments from your astronomer friend seem very odd indeed. Especially since if it's bigger than Mars it'd hardly be an asteroid, would it? And if it's bigger than Mars then obviously it's much bigger than Mercury!

I think this astronomer meant, that it just looks bigger than mercury. So if it was an asteroid, it would have to be very close indeed. I just hope he really is an astronomer.

But this "thing" looks partially obstructed by the solar flare, so if it is behind the sun, it would really be the largest thing in our solar system, just like you said.


The distance calculation shouldn't be a problem, if this "thing" is present in both of the pictures in the STEREO pair.

mythatsabigprobe said it only shows up on the images from the ahead STEREO camera. If this is correct, it is nothing more than an artifact.

Originally posted by Essan
On the other hand it may just be an artifact of the imagining process, misinterpreted by over zealous and inexperienced persons .....

That's the most likely explanation anyway. When people want to believe something, they see it everywhere.

Such a big "object" should have been visible for years if not decades.

It can't just suddenly appear.

And before anyone says it was hiding behind the sun - the Earth goes around the sun for gawd's sake! We would have seen it MOST of the time EACH year and from the apparent size of this "thing" it would have been the largest looking object in the sky, next to the moon and the sun, for a couple of years by now.

Anyway... I'm gonna go compare the images from the two sattelites, to see if it is even present in the other one.

Originally posted by xnibirux
Nibiru is currently approaching Jupiter as we speak. Thank You for asking.

May i ask about the source of this information? Is it the book or Nancy's page?

Thank you!