Connecting the Nibiru Dots - Politics, Money, Fraud, Theft - Stealing Our Money for Underground Facilities

We'll add the definition of that word to the very long list of things that Nibtards are ignorant of....

Planet 9 is not nibiru, because that is Jupiter.

As for the rest lets just find planet 9 first before we get ahead of ourselves.

Check your private messages in your mailbox.

For everyone else; the mod team will remove threads and posts which include articles without any link to the original source. As it says it bold red text under the post button:
"In accordance with industry accepted best practices we ask that users limit their copy / paste of copyrighted material to the relevant portions of the article you wish to discuss and no more than 50% of the source material, provide a link back to the original article and provide your original comments / criticism in your post with the article."
Do NOT try to circumvent filters by posting articles from banned hater sites without the link.

WTF?!?!

You do know that all these theories are THEORIES, right?

You do know that all these theories are based on observation of certain celestial processes, and not on ALL celestial processes?

You can't talk in absolutes when it comes to theories. You should know that.

But let's see what is the position of the actual astrophysicist that made the study:

"Whitmire found similarities between their Planet X model and Caltech's description of a ninth planet. Is it possible that the two are one and the same?

"I've been part of this story for 30 years. If there is ever a final answer I'd love to write a book about it," said Whitmire, who is now a math teacher at the University of Arkansas."


Weird, so you are saying I should listen to some internet, self appointed space prodigy or an actual scientifically educated astrophysicist?

Because the actual science guy doesn't seem to be as sure as you seem to be. And he was the one making the study.

Are you really so deluded with your time on internet that you actually think of yourself as a credible person to talk to regarding this subject?

People are so funny.

WOW

As I said... scientists all over the World are waiting for your input.

Why are you wasting time online when you could be furthering humans understanding of the Universe?

I am crying that such a prodigy is not in NASA already.

That's a rather pathetic attempt at quote mining. Planet X theories have never looked like the conspiracy version and they have never suggested that a massive Planet will sweep through the inner solar system. You don't seem to understand what a theory is in the first place. The theory is based on evidence and the evidence all points to a planet which remains outside the inner solar system by a large margin. So I'll tell you again; you do not get to co-opt actual scientific theories.

I am just amazed how can people that lived 5000 years before us knew more about the Solar system than we do today.

And furthermore how people like you still exist. This alone proves that evolution is a big ball of balloney.

As far as I know all these official theories from planet 9 to planet x stem from observation of a very limited number of celestial events.

Caltech is making their claim from observation of Kuiper belt rocks and this guy is basing it on Uranus orbit and paleontological records.

Both of them can only come to 1 conclusion, there is a massive, yet unknown planet in our Solar system.

All their predictions on it's orbit and it's mass are simply guessing games. For all they know, it could be coming in our Solar system. Something no scientist in the World will say until they can be 100% correct.

But to say that their estimate of the orbit is in anyway, shape or form a credible opinion is just laughable.


Fact: There is planet X.

Everything else up to this point is just guessing game. And is completely retarded, as a scientist, to take any stance on this.

Well, there was 1 guy on this. I am sure you heard of dr. Robert Harrington. His predictions of planet x came into our inner solar system.

And isn't it funny... you used to have your little cooked up story ready to counter anyone that mentions dr. Harrington. Well, you can't do that any more, lol

:rere23:

Wrong. It's not just a guess, it's based on the evidence of which objects are being constrained by the Kozai mechanism, and it is not the inner solar system planets.

To say that it comes into the inner solar system is just laughable.

Wrong. Fail. Harrington's proposal for Planet X came no closer than about 59.6 AU to the sun. That's about twice the distance to Neptune. And Harrington's version is not even the same as the new Planet 9 version; they're based on wholly separate forms of evidence, the former based on perceived perturbations of the planets that have long since been explained, the latter on the clustering of extreme trans-Neptunian objects. If it exists it does have control over its domain, but that domain exists beyond Neptune.

Of course it is a guess. You have no idea. They look at the data they just got, which doesn't take into account that the orbit is supposedly 15.000 years.

You can't make an observation on behavior of celestial objects in a span of 10 years and make an accurate prediction about the bahavior of the celestial object that influences them.

It's just simply put stupid to make any sort of absolute claims.


As far as Harrington goes.

Look, a couple of years back you would come with your cooked up story, how this is all BS.

You would say that it has been disproven by Voyagers not showing any pull, and by accounting for Uranus orbit, which supposedly show there is no other planet influencing them.

In essence, both those claims are now proven to be false.

Actually the data DOES take into account the orbit, the orbit which best explains the data. Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about.

You don't get it. It's not about looking at how those objects orbits change over time, it's about looking at how those orbits are clustered together and what would be required to cause that clustering.

As far as Harrington goes, his theory has nothing to do with the current theory.

Wrong. The perturbations of Uranus that were initially thought to be caused by a Planet X are still explained within the context of the known planets, principally by a more accurate mass figure for Neptune. It has nothing to do with the current planet 9 theory. You again demonstrate your massive ignorance of astronomy.

you twats still think any forum mods would tell you its real?

Just once thing research the Sun from 2009 till today. This is your Sensor. If anything is coming to us our Sun will tell us this.

If you are not know how the sun behaves then research this first....

lol

Brown and Batygin find that the allowed orbits for Planet Nine have perihelia of ~150–350 AU, semimajor axes of ~380–980 AU, and masses of ~5–20 Earth masses. Using these values and what we know about detection limits of previous and current surveys, we can rule out roughly two thirds of Planet Nine’s orbit, narrowing its position to be somewhere near aphelion.

[link to aasnova.org]

Yep, this sure sounds as they have everything figured out... no guessing here, that's for sure.


And if we take into account thier version as being correct.

We only know the behavior of objects when the planet is in aphelion.

So we have no idea what it's peripha could be.

And let's say if the planet would be in periphelia and we would be 10000 years in the past or future. Would those object group together the same as they are grouped now?

You simply can't make any credible predictions with 10 year observation on a planet with orbit of who knows how many 1000 of years.

For you to make such bold claims, it just shows you are not a scientist.


And I am just in awe how you can think of yourself as better than a man that dedicated his whole life work to this and you just belittle him without any sort of remorse. And the fact that you feel justified doing it speaks volumes.

Fact is, he made a theory on an unknown massive planet. Just like all these guys are now making theories on an unknown massive planet.

You pointing out "but look, this one has 50 AU and that one has 100 AU, they are completely different, unconnected things" is just silly.


Or maybe you are right, and there are 5 different super planets that are out there, and they all observed phenomena that were caused by separate planets.

ROFL

Congrats, the numbers you just posted show a perihelion distance at least 3 times greater than the old Harrington theory, which itself is twice the distance to Neptune. Again, those numbers are based on the evidence from extreme trans-neptunian objects, and shows the orbit required to explain the clustering of their arguments of perihelia.

You can't even get the terms right, and you're talking complete rubbish. Yes, they DID give a range of perihelia and it's nowhere near the inner solar system.

Yes. But seriously, what the ever loving fuck is a "periphelia?" Are you a periphile? LMFAO!

Wrong.

Wrong. For you to state such bold falsehoods shows YOU are not a scientist. I actually am a scientist with a PhD who has discovered a comet. How many celestial objects have you discovered?

The only one I'm belittling is you.

Last Edited by Astromut on 07/28/2016 10:30 AM

Exactly, use your eyes. Stop watching webcam videos and actually go outside and look for yourself. Image artifacts are not a second sun or planet x, funny that they only show up on webcams, never to the baked eye. Now what does that tell you?

Oh look, making fun out of a non English person making mistakes and constant ad hominems.

lol

And as I predicted "that one has 50 AU and that one has 100 AU... seeeeeeeee, they can't possibly be the same" logic.

How funny it must be in your World, where every single point of a theory must be correct. Funny why they call it a theory if you say that all their numbers are surely correct and corroborated with evidence?


As for your PhD... And you spend all your waking time on internet forums talking to random people, showin them the way?

Well if you're baked they might show up next to the pink elephants, but if you're talking about the naked eye you're exactly right. The excuse I hear for this usually goes along the lines of "our eyes can't see infrared light but your cell phone can so you need your cell phone to see it."

That's funny, who came on here and attacked me for being an "internet expert?" Oh right, YOU did. Your english appears fine except that you keep butchering the astronomical terms in hilarious ways.

Wrong. The different theories are based on different sets of evidence. You just tried to conflate them by suggesting that the Harrington Uranus perturbations really were being caused by Planet 9.

No, not nearly, but there you go with the ad hom again.

OP the only thing I can see that would lend credence to a huge unstoppable cataclysm is that Fukushima has never been properly dealt with and continues to poison the earth. You'd think every nation would be on board to fix that shit unless hey know "why bother". The only "cataclysm" that I can somewhat think of is the pole shift. That actually has concrete evidence behind it. But even at that I don't know that it will do much other than make navigation a bitch, or weaken the fields to let in a shit ton more solar radiation. That seems like a more plausible scenario.

Latimer with the GoTo scope always ready

Haha oops, I did mean naked eye. However most of these people filming sunsets must be baked to see nibiru.

No, I made a response to some other guy and you immediately attacked me and insinuated I don't understand what you are talking about.

And yes, if you are going to put yourself in a self appointed position of authourity on the subject I will make fun out of you if you manipulate with the data and words to suit your agenda.

I never claimed to be any sort of expert on astronomy, unlike you.

But unlike you, apparently, I can use logic and common sense.


And if someone has a theory that predicts a super planet with an AU of 50, and another one has a theory that predicts a super planet with AU of 100, I will logically question if they could be one and the same planet.

WHile to you it's completely impossible.

Is it completely impossible that the "new" measurements of Neptunes mass are incorrect and that Uranus is actually affected by something else?

After all, as far as I know, mass is still a calculation, and we still can make mistakes.

And of course some fella made his career on this, so would it be a far fetch that he would try to manipulate data that is in essence unverifiable to make his career?

I am sure other agencies were happy as well, when he "disproved" dr. Harrington.

Ahem:



LMFAO! I'm not the one trying to co-opt the theories or conflate the data.

Good, because I am, you are not.

You aren't using logic. You're attempting to conflate different theories.

Actually the orbits of Planet 9 and Harrington's Planet X are drastically different, look again. More importantly, they're based on entirely different sets of evidence. One had to do with perceived perturbations of the outer planets, already explained, the other has to do with the clustering of the orbits of extreme trans-neptunian objects.

Yup. Harrington's perturbations have already been eliminated and explained. Even if Planet 9 is discovered, it still will not be the cause of those perturbations.

Yes.
Thread: Robert Harrington's Planet X Does Not Exist

That would seem to be at least hypothetically possible to do, but the problem is that it wouldn't stick. You'd be trying to beat a square peg into a hole whose shape is constantly changing. Changing Neptune's mass could be done to make the perturbations in the position of Uranus vanish for a moment in time in the early 90's when the correction was made using Voyager's data, but it wouldn't stay corrected because the true source of the perturbations would not be Neptune. Planet X and Neptune would not occupy the same point in space, nor would they follow the same orbit around the sun. Neptune's changed mass might fix the problem in the apparent position of Uranus in 1992, but the question is, would it remain consistent with the "planet X" version of the solar system nearly 20 years later?

I don't understand. So in this case the position of this planet 9 is crucial to understanding the supposed perturbation.

But when I asked a question if the position of planet 9 has any effect on the grouping of Kuiper belt objects, your answer was a deffinitive NO.

So which is it? Does the position of the planet in it's orbit have effect or it does not?


And even without it, your quote doesn't provide any answer at all. All it does is pose a question in an authoritarian way.

Oh and I almost forgot.

Why don't you adress the point which was crucial when they "disproved" dr. Harringtons work. The point about Voyagers supposedly not showing any abnormal pull.

Funny how that was crucial for the theory to be dismissed, but you just straight out ignore it all the time.

That much is clear.

No. The position of that which is causing the perturbation is crucial to understanding it. Planet 9 is not an explanation for those perceived perturbations Harrington thought were caused by Planet X.

The constraining of the arguments of perihelion of those extreme trans-neptunian objects is constant; it happens throughout Planet 9's orbit. If you look when Planet 9 is at aphelion or perihelion it won't matter; those orbits will still be clustered, they won't appreciably change in their clustering.

You're trying to draw an equivalence between two completely different things. You think that the clustering of orbits of trans-neptunian objects is equivalent to perturbations of the orbits of the known planets. Those are two very different things. The former can be observed simply by discovering and calculating the orbits of said trans-neptunian objects, the latter is a gradual process that requires long term monitoring of the orbit and the changes to the orbit over time.

Are you referring to the Pioneer anomaly? His theory was built principally on the perceived perturbations of the outer planets. While it is true that the Voyager telemetry on the mass of Neptune disproved Planet X, if you're trying to suggest that the Pioneer anomaly was due to Planet X... it can't be. The Pioneer anomaly was in a sunward direction for both probes, which headed out of the solar system in opposite directions...
[link to www.heavens-above.com]
The Pioneer anomaly has since been explained as radiative anisotropy, but regardless, a sunward perturbation for probes on opposite side of the solar system would mean that "planet X" would have to be near the sun and within the inner solar system to explain it.
[link to www.space.com]

I am still waiting for nibiru to come and kill us all.