The Truth About Nibiru

reply to post by Xcalibur254


You're right. And they are not at all associating it with the Nemesis stuff from before. There were brown dwarfs found near our solar system. blogs.discovermagazine.com...

Originally posted by kisharninmah
reply to post by Xcalibur254

 

You're right. And they are not at all associating it with the Nemesis stuff from before. There were brown dwarfs found near our solar system. blogs.discovermagazine.com...

Yep, and just a little more than a stone's throw away!

Astronomers recently discovered two brown dwarfs in our solar neighborhood, and they’re actually pretty close by: 15 and 18 light years away!

blogs.discovermagazine.com...

i took this pic of the sunset yesterday (nokia c2, 3.2mp) and noticed the 'nibiru' (far left, low down) when i put it onto the computer....!!!



here's a link to the full-sized pic;

reply to post by RoScoLaz


Nice picture, pretty sure that isn't a sun dog because of the cloud and position, size etc. It looks like the positioning of the 'nibiru' I seen summer 2009, similar proportions too, I seen it twice and it was clear as day one of the days, cloudless skies at sunset and the other it was cloudy but clearly visible through thin white cloud and mid afternoon both in SW England. Where was this picture taken?

reply to post by theabsolutetruth


manchester uk.

reply to post by RoScoLaz


It looks like you took the photo through a window.

reply to post by stereologist


nope. standing on my balcony.

reply to post by RoScoLaz

i took this pic of the sunset yesterday (nokia c2, 3.2mp) and noticed the 'nibiru' (far left, low down) when i put it onto the computer....!!!

You didn't notice "nibiru" in the sky when taking the pic? Wonder if anyone outside your camera saw it.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


i take pics of the sunset often from that vantage point. and i agree if something like that was in the sky then plenty more people than just me would notice it (although i didn't when taking the pic). i don't really think it's anything other than an example of some kind of cool lens flare deal.
nonetheless, i took the pic, noticed the 'nibiru' and thought it was interesting.

I agree with you that it is an interesting looking lens flare. I thought it might have been an internal reflection from a window. Nice shot. Thanks for sharing.

thanks Stereo

Originally posted by kisharninmah
reply to post by Harte

 

Lol, I think you're right about the Einstein letter. It was someone at NASA who spoke with Sitchin, and it was about Planet X. Hypothesis/assumption, fair enough, but it wasn't just pulled out of thin air.

Actually, it was.

See, Sitchin claimed it was in Sumerian literature.

But no such planet, or description of a planet, appears in any Sumerian literature ever found.

Until the invention of the telescope, no culture ever mentioned any planet that cannot be seen with the naked eye.

Harte

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by kisharninmah
reply to post by Harte

 

Lol, I think you're right about the Einstein letter. It was someone at NASA who spoke with Sitchin, and it was about Planet X. Hypothesis/assumption, fair enough, but it wasn't just pulled out of thin air.

Actually, it was.

See, Sitchin claimed it was in Sumerian literature.

But no such planet, or description of a planet, appears in any Sumerian literature ever found.

Until the invention of the telescope, no culture ever mentioned any planet that cannot be seen with the naked eye.

Harte

Oh, no. I wasn't talking about the Nibiru thing. I was talking about the rain erosion on the Sphinx. There is physical evidence of some type of erosion that is not caused by flooding. So the hypothesis that it was caused by rain erosion was not pulled out of thin air.

But since you brought it up. There are perturbations in the orbits of the outer planets. That is why some astronomers hypothesized that there might be a large planet in the outskirts of our solar system causing it. They are very slight perturbations but they can be detected. I'd also note that there are other hypothesis as well to explain the phenomena. Pluto was discovered by accident, but it was these disturbances that set astronomers off to look. So the old Nemesis thing (not Nibiru, not Sitchin's thing, I'm speaking of Nemesis and the new one that is out now), not pulled out of thin air.

csep10.phys.utk.edu...

Adding: That is not how science works anyway. You observe something and create a hypothesis and then you experiment to prove or disprove your hypothesis. That's why I will always put out my disclaimer about not being an archaeologist. I don't know what goes into their work, so my speculations about it mean nothing. Plus, I fully acknowledge that I like this stuff because it's cool to speculate. In case it wasn't obvious, I'm a big science fiction person. Emphasis on fiction. Nothing is ever just pulled out of thin air, not for science, not for physics.

reply to post by kisharninmah


Those perturbations were actually explained away by Voyager 2's flyby of Neptune in 1989. The paper on this topic was published in 1993. It turns out that initial estimates of Neptune's mass were off by 5%. This is approximately the equivalent to the mass of Mars.

All that has to do with whether or not some unknown planet exists in our solar system.

My post has to do with whether or not some unknown planet exists in Sumerian literature.

The former, though unlikely, is undetermined.

The latter is explicitly determined. To wit: no, it does not.

Harte

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by kisharninmah

 

Those perturbations were actually explained away by Voyager 2's flyby of Neptune in 1989. The paper on this topic was published in 1993. It turns out that initial estimates of Neptune's mass were off by 5%. This is approximately the equivalent to the mass of Mars.

Yeah, I know the Nemesis thing was outdated. I didn't know that it was completely off the table though. Most things aren't completely proven regardless of data. Data supports hypothesis, that's good. A lot of data supports hypothesis, even better. But you will still have many legitimate scientists who will argue an alternative explanation for even established theories (not fringe - alternative, Sitchin is fringe) using the same data. For example, there are a lot of legitimate Geologists who don't think the impact theory is correct in explaining the 65 million year extinction. My point was just that scientific hypothesis are not pulled out of thin air.

I know this is a stretch, and I have mentioned it before in a similar thread, and I am personally skeptical because it arose from visions/dreams and whatnot, and I trust not my own mind and capacities, for I know it sometimes lies to me, but a warning was issued in my dream of beware the "Black Sun." Having presented a variety of interpretations as to what I think it could be, ranging from a ship, and finally concluding that it is the burnt out remains of a "Black Dwarf" or the final stage of a dwarf star after it has burnt out, basically the idea is that it is the remains of a secondary or binary White Dwarf that once existed in this solar system, and burnt out well before men could write, as presented to me in the course of the vision. You would not be able to see it, from what I was told, because it emits no light whatsoever, and is something of a cross between a planet and a weak black hole. I don't know if it is true, but I do find it odd that we are not indeed a binary system, as there are many more binary stars than singular ones in the galaxy, and it is possible that we may have held a binary status at one time. Could even explain the alleged star sending comets toward earth, if it was a burnt out "Black Dwarf" and could not be seen. I dunno. I don't want anyone to panic, as there was no set date foretold of when it might appear, if it does. But if it is also absent of light or the ability to reflect light, it might also be absent of any identifiable energy, and could be about as hard to locate as a black hole itself, perhaps even harder as it would lack any real accretion disk, except perhaps any meteors or comets its picked up on its way. I dunno... I'd look for a mass of meteors headed this way... and now that I think about it... there is a meteor shower scheduled for Aug 17th, but I wouldn't let it worry you. If it happens, there's little we can do about it, in all reality. I'm sorry to sound doom-ish -- I'm not trying to. I don't know if the thing is even real. But it was shown to be heralded by a sudden worldwide darkness that engulfs the entire planet as it crosses between the earth and the sun and that no one could explain because no one saw it coming. If anything, the hypothesized "Black Dwarf" of my dreams is just another hazard of the universe, akin to wandering planets and black holes, comets, and meteors. Makes me question the concept of intelligent design. We are a moving target for all sorts of terrible things!

Originally posted by Harte
All that has to do with whether or not some unknown planet exists in our solar system.

My post has to do with whether or not some unknown planet exists in Sumerian literature.

The former, though unlikely, is undetermined.

The latter is explicitly determined. To wit: no, it does not.

Harte

Yeah, I know. I was just explaining what I meant by "not pulled out of thin air." You assumed that I meant Sitchin's work. I did not. And even though I know I'm not an arcaeologist, I think it is safe to assume you are not either. I can tell by your responses. And unless you can read ancient Sumerian, your speculations are just as legitmate as mine. I just like this stuff because it is cool to think about. But if you are insistant in debating something that no one is actually debating - knock yourself out.

Where is this Nibru right now, and why is it that no one with instrumentation can see it?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by kisharninmah

Originally posted by Harte
All that has to do with whether or not some unknown planet exists in our solar system.

My post has to do with whether or not some unknown planet exists in Sumerian literature.

The former, though unlikely, is undetermined.

The latter is explicitly determined. To wit: no, it does not.

Harte

Yeah, I know. I was just explaining what I meant by "not pulled out of thin air." You assumed that I meant Sitchin's work. I did not. And even though I know I'm not an arcaeologist, I think it is safe to assume you are not either. I can tell by your responses. And unless you can read ancient Sumerian, your speculations are just as legitmate as mine. I just like this stuff because it is cool to think about. But if you are insistant in debating something that no one is actually debating - knock yourself out.

If you wanted to take the time, you could read cuneiform. ETCSL

You could piece it together out of what you can get there.

But why would you? First, you'd have to get the cuneiform version of whatever it was you were interested in and some of those stories have been pieced together from different copies of the same tale - IOW, you'd need to get your hands on more than one tablet for some of it.

Second, every work Sitchin claimed to have "researched" to figure out how to scam the masses with his flapdoodlery has been translated.

Most of them you can find here (they're also at the first link but the site can be hard to navigate.)

Try this page of the ECTSL site.

Sitchin couldn't translate cuneiform. He used the same translations I linked you to at Sacred-Texts.

I'm a math and science teacher.

Also, I was responding to Excalibur and others talking about a possible planet.

Harte