Lucus And The Return Of Planet X!

reply to post by stereologist


Careful...he made it clear he only speculated it could "be like" a brown dwarf...being that they are impossible to spot and all...

So...you're telling all of us that you just proved something that has not happened yet? Impossible...I don't care if you spent your entire waking life studying physics, psych, and 20 other major sciences, you can't prove something is not going to happen that has not happened.

Another falsehood. Take a basic course in physics and learn why you are wrong.

reply to post by Jenisiz


Being vague is important when perpetrating a hoax. It gives the person making a claim an out.

What is interesting is that whenever a claim is made there is at most one effort to substantiate the claim followed by what I interpret to be extreme anger.

Take a look at the brown dwarf statement. The clarity of the statement instantly told me that the post was not written by austexdude. It was a copy and paste from another website. But the material presented did not defend the claim. As soon as that was pointed out, out came the vitriol. The same thing happened with claims that there has been an increase in fireballs. The problem is that an increase in newspaper articles is not the same as an increase in fireballs. Pointed that out and the screaming began.

reply to post by Austexdude


Actually, I get on here to stay ontop of my toes. Not all information here is rubbish...alot of people post refutable sources and information on things that peak my interests. One such matter is Planet X. I looked into this back in the late 90's. I then started taking physics courses and pursing it with heightened interest. So when I see a topic, I skim through it to see if anything actually relevant has arisn...and unfortunately, none has. Plus, do you have any idea what it's like to have to sit at a desk all day and listen to people talk about why they do this and that. It gets rather boring. So between my 2-3 clients a day, I have to find something to pass the time.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Jenisiz

 

Being vague is important when perpetrating a hoax. It gives the person making a claim an out.

What is interesting is that whenever a claim is made there is at most one effort to substantiate the claim followed by what I interpret to be extreme anger.

Take a look at the brown dwarf statement. The clarity of the statement instantly told me that the post was not written by austexdude. It was a copy and paste from another website. But the material presented did not defend the claim. As soon as that was pointed out, out came the vitriol. The same thing happened with claims that there has been an increase in fireballs. The problem is that an increase in newspaper articles is not the same as an increase in fireballs. Pointed that out and the screaming began.

Didn't catch that one...impressive.

reply to post by Jenisiz


Don't worry about stereo. He is trying his damnedest to cause defamation of lucus's character. Plus he is a disinfo informate trying to claim 2012 is a facade. Just like you see it a lot on the 911 forums trying to make 911 truthers look like nutcases. you can throw all the facts at stereo and the words just bounce off of him.

Originally posted by dragnet53
reply to post by Jenisiz

 

Don't worry about stereo. He is trying his damnedest to cause defamation of lucus's character. Plus he is a disinfo informate trying to claim 2012 is a facade. Just like you see it a lot on the 911 forums trying to make 911 truthers look like nutcases. you can throw all the facts at stereo and the words just bounce off of him.

Which facts?
Am I a disinfo agent too because I don't believe what you believe?

reply to post by Austexdude



damn lucus mods are here to remove you. I am starting to believe this site is now controlled by the government some how. anybody that believes in certain stories that are not MSM seem to want them to disappear. Just like george carlin stated I am waiting for that comet or asteroid to hit earth. =)

edit: which quite frankly trying to give all those 'warnings' brings more credibility to the man.

reply to post by hippomchippo


Nah you are just a debunker. =)

Originally posted by dragnet53
reply to post by hippomchippo

 

Nah you are just a debunker. =)

Personally I like skeptic better.
Though it would be nice to get paid for this.

reply to post by hippomchippo


I'd love to get paid myself for posting for a few hours.

reply to post by dragnet53


Lucus destroys his own character by posting obvious hoaxes.

You claim that someone has posted facts. Please show me where you have posted facts. I'd be delighted to see facts posted.

To use one of your recent comments in another thread:

wherever you got your info about Marduk is a bad place and you should never go back to that site ever.

Wherever you got your info about 2012 is a bad place and you should never go back to that site ever. Was it Lucus' hoax site? Then never go back to that site.

Stereo you obviously are intelligent with a good knowledge of astronomy,
why do you spend so much time on here just trying to prove poeples
ideas or beleifs wrong? You dont seem to bring anything to the table
of your own just quick to shoot others down. Do you beleive all you are
taught without question? I may be wrong but i beleive most here on ATS
are here because they dont beleive or trust what we are being fed.
Is it possible that astrologists may not be entirely correct with their
findings? It appears to me that the more we learn it becomes apparent
the less we know!

reply to post by stereologist


I am borg resistance is futile. Assimilation will begin. Is that right up your alley Stereo? Are you by chance a borg clone?

I can do this all day too. =)

reply to post by lestweforget


Yes, astrologists are wrong, but that's a different story. Astronomers on the other hand have a built in system of checks and balances. Not only do you have every government with their own scientists looking up, you also have universities, private companies, and amateurs. If there were something out there, they'd all have to be in on it, which is quite impossible.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


Astronomers have been wrong in the past as well! Phil Plait talks about the bad astronomer, but yet he works for them (NASA). Every time they find something they say now it is fact, but when hubble was created it has found things that contradicts what they say as fact. I love it how humanity thinks they know everything about space.

reply to post by dragnet53


Astronomers follow the scientific method, therefore they know that what is true one day may not be so the next. They report the observations they have made. However, there are certain things that astronomers know will not change, such as the laws of physics. It is these very laws that make it impossible for Nibiru to be here in a little over 2 years.

reply to post by lestweforget


I have been asked many times about my motivations and I have politely refused to discuss this issue.

I do want to correct you on a few comments:
1. You state "You dont seem to bring anything to the table of your own"
2. "It appears to me that the more we learn it becomes apparent the less we know!"

Statement 1 is not true. I bring lots of my own into posts, but I am always clear to state that these are my ideas, or observations, or experiences, or opinions, or guesses, or whatever. Unlike many people here I do not try to pass off my opinions as fact.

Statement 2 is one way of looking at things. That's true. On the other hand, the more we explore the more we find to explore. Just because there is more to learn does not mean that what has been learned is somehow useless. It provides the foundations for more exploration.

Let's take an example used in astronomy. Gravity is the main force that forms our solar system. It can be used to make incredibly precise predictions about the movements of objects int he solar system. Does this mean that everything about the soalr system can be explained today? No. There are cases where it is unclear what is happening. Does that mean we need to toss away what has already been learned? No. Does it mean that the amazingly precise predictions should be scrapped? No.

It's not a case of the more we learn, the less we know. It's the more we learn, the more interesting we see that the universe is.

reply to post by dragnet53


Can you give us one or more examples? You allude to things that you never seem to mention.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but you never seem to be able to show us anything of interest.

I'd certainly like to see something as you suggest has happened.

reply to post by stereologist


Can you explain to me why when Xcalibur is on you are on? Curious minds want to know.




for every off topic I will paste this twice.