It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
So mysterious is the object that astronomers do not know if it is a planet, a giant comet, a nearby "protostar" that never got hot enough to become a star, a distant galaxy so young that it is still in the process of forming its first stars or a galaxy so shrouded in dust that none of the light cast by its stars ever gets through.
Optical imaging and spectroscopy measurements were obtained for six of the high galactic latitude infrared sources reported by Houck, et al. (1984) from the IRAS survey to have no obvious optical counterparts on the POSS prints. All are identified with visually faint galaxies that have total luminosities in the range 5 x 10 to the 11th power stellar luminosity to 5 x 10 to the 12th power stellar luminosity. This luminosity emerges virtually entirely in the infrared.
Originally posted by DEEZNUTZ
Why this was linked to Nibiru I have no Idea. I'm not ruling out the possibility that Nibiru/Planet X is possible. And to the people that say we would see by now is not necessarily true. I was always under the impression that it was about 4 times the size of Jupiter and was a Brown Dwarf.
Space is a big ass place and although Jupiter is big it's not that big in the grand scheme of things.
Now assuming that the reports in the early 80's was the first time we picked it up. The Washington Post article of New Years Eve 1983 said that they estimate its 50 000 000 000 miles away.
So again assuming the Washington Post Article is true and that was the first observation then it doesn't have to be travelling near the speed of light or anywhere close to it.
And Brown Dwarfs don't emit very much visible light of their own so would be difficult to spot a relatively small object that emits virtually no light in the visible spectrum.
For humans to claim that we know everything about space and this or that is not possible due to physics or math or whatever is arrogant.
Originally posted by DEEZNUTZ
I used the 50 000 000 000 miles number from the '83 article to illustrate that it doesn't have to be travelling at the speed of light or anywhere near it.
What are your qualifications in terms of degrees?
You seem quite confident that you're right and everyone else is a moron by the tone of your comments.
You know everything about space and astrophyscis, etc.?
I'm not saying that it's true, I'm just saying that an object doesn't have to be travelling super fast to cover a large distance in a relative short peried of time.