So, is nibiru coming?

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally Posted by norman

HMMM! This recent 'v-blogger' has seen something in the NORTHERN SKY. Am I correct in thinking that 'all' the previous proclamations were pointing at the SOUTHERN SKY? The northern ICE is melting very rapidly.

I'll be having a good look at the northern horizon tonight, if it stays clear.

good point! in the washington post article they claim that the IRAS telescope was looking at the northern sky

"The mystery body was seen twice by the infrared satellite as it scanned the northern sky from last January to November, when the satellite ran out of the supercold helium that allowed its telescope to see the coldest bodies in the heavens. The second observation took place six months after the first and suggested the mystery body had not moved from its spot in the sky near the western edge of the constellation Orion in that time."



so what gives?

Originally Posted by odiseo

We know for sure that something will happen in 2012 but the main question is exactly what is it.

How do we "Know this for sure"?

So far all other predictions from 1999 on have missed the mark... so how do we know 'something' will happen 'for sure'

As to Sitchin....

I shall Quote Sitchin....


Nibiru settled into a clockwise orbit (equal to 3,600 orbits of Earth
around the Sun). Nibiru stabilized into a clockwise orbit, equal to
3,600 orbits of Earth around the Sun until 10, 900 B.C.E., when
Nibiru arrived earlier, due to increasing drift from Solaris of
Uranus. Uranus' gravity sped Nibiru's orbit. As a result of this
close encounter between Nibiru and Uranus, one of Nibiru's moons,
Miranda, was captured by and became a moon of Uranus as Nibiru and
Uranus pulled at each other. From 10,000B.C.E. on, Nibiru's
revolution sped to 3.450 Earth years; which makes Nibiru's next
return 2900A.D. rather than 2012 as predicated on the earlier 3600-
year orbit

Sitchin, Z., 2007, The End of Days, pages 315 - 317

As I said... not till 2900 AD Long after we are all long gone

So now we can stop worrying about that silly planet


Besides EVERYONE knows what happened to Planet X

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mg-nI_etQ4c


And Zeta talk... who FALSELY predicted it would be here in 2003, scaring people into quiting jobs, selling homes and buying bunkers was wrong

This is Zeta's orbit for Nibiru

How anyone bought into this is beyond me




What is the matter with everyone? Are you all so sick of life you have a death wish? If Nibiru the Destroyer was indeed coming in 2012 should you not be out enjoying life for the next four years?

Because if Nibiru IS real... when it hits Earth... unless you have a spaceship hidden somewhere, there is NOTHING you can do to prepare PERIOD



Now if as some believe 2012 is a GOOD year, well then why worry?

Silly Lemmings

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally Posted by zorgon

This is Zeta's orbit for Nibiru

How anyone bought into this is beyond me





Silly Lemmings

Hi Zorgon, i have plowed through a good deal of the zeta website but i do not recall seeing that orbit in your above linked picture. i would be interested to see the zetatalk link containing that pic. i noticed that the link to your picture does not appear to be from the zeta site but i could be mistaken

seems they thought about that orbit in a serious drunken state

Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi

Hi Zorgon, i noticed that the link to your picture does not appear to be from the zeta site but i could be mistaken

I will get it for you... it was posted at ATS... I thought I had a link... my bad..

[ChristinCP]

Originally Posted by zorgon

How do we "Know this for sure"?

So far all other predictions from 1999 on have missed the mark... so how do we know 'something' will happen 'for sure'

As to Sitchin....

I shall Quote Sitchin....


Nibiru settled into a clockwise orbit (equal to 3,600 orbits of Earth
around the Sun). Nibiru stabilized into a clockwise orbit, equal to
3,600 orbits of Earth around the Sun until 10, 900 B.C.E., when
Nibiru arrived earlier, due to increasing drift from Solaris of
Uranus. Uranus' gravity sped Nibiru's orbit. As a result of this
close encounter between Nibiru and Uranus, one of Nibiru's moons,
Miranda, was captured by and became a moon of Uranus as Nibiru and
Uranus pulled at each other. From 10,000B.C.E. on, Nibiru's
revolution sped to 3.450 Earth years; which makes Nibiru's next
return 2900A.D. rather than 2012 as predicated on the earlier 3600-
year orbit

Sitchin, Z., 2007, The End of Days, pages 315 - 317

As I said... not till 2900 AD Long after we are all long gone

So now we can stop worrying about that silly planet

Thanks for that Zorgon, I knew that Nibiru wouldn't be around for another few hundred years...but I didn't realize that Sitchin had revised the orbit. I haven't read End of Days yet; I'm still working on Lost book of Enki, but have read all of the others.

Good lookin out

[Brinty]

Originally Posted by ChristinCP

Thanks for that Zorgon, I knew that Nibiru wouldn't be around for another few hundred years...but I didn't realize that Sitchin had revised the orbit. I haven't read End of Days yet; I'm still working on Lost book of Enki, but have read all of the others.

Good lookin out

Like you ChristinCP, I have read all but "End of Days". I got partly into the "Lost Book of Enki" and got fed up with trying to get my head around Sitchin's artificial sentence structure. It was then that I started to have serious doubts about his point of view.

I'm not saying he's deliberately misleading people but while he may believe what he is saying, I feel he covers too many events which start out as conjecture and end up as an accepted fact in his eyes.

I'd love to think he was right and to be present when all the nay sayers were proven wrong.

Oooo! Look at that pig flying by!

[davefla73]

I think Iv seen what is in the vidio, but it was in the sest sky very bright though it was a plane light , but didnt move, its huge, and it was up there for a few hours then was gone. this was in florida

[goody8504]

here's the thing. even if 'something' does appear in the sky as we approach 2012, does that automatically mean it's nibiru? of course not. there are always other possibilities. it could, for instance, be some sort of mothership coming for whatever reason. that's just one example. the problem is that if something were to appear in the sky it would seem to verify both the nibiru and mothership theory. unfortunately, most people are going to claim it's verification for the most well-known theory. all we would be able to tell is that 'something' is approaching earth

[bill7907]

Since most of the top secret projects are hidden, we do not know if Nibiru is indeed on an orbit that would get considerably close to planet Earth.
We cannot refute the idea that Nibiru exist because we know so little about what the Government has up its sleeves up to now.

Anyhow, even if Nibiru would be coming, they would never admit that a planet that big will eventually cause big catastrophes on planet Earth in a future to come.

Originally Posted by bill7907

Anyhow, even if Nibiru would be coming, they would never admit that a planet that big will eventually cause big catastrophes on planet Earth in a future to come.

Hmmm interesting theory... Now a planet that huge coming close... please explain to me just what the government has at it's disposal to hide such a huge planet in the sky?

Of course you could just refute ALL science as well...

Funny no one called 17P/Holmes "nibiru" It was twice as big as Jupiter at one point and very easy to see with the naked eye for weeks

[bill7907]

Originally Posted by zorgon

Hmmm interesting theory... Now a planet that huge coming close... please explain to me just what the government has at it's disposal to hide such a huge planet in the sky?

Of course you could just refute ALL science as well...

Funny no one called 17P/Holmes "nibiru" It was twice as big as Jupiter at one point and very easy to see with the naked eye for weeks

If it's been detected by the IRAS, then it is not visible to the naked eye.
It's as simple as that if they want to hide it.

[BeaTnik-BandiT]

Originally Posted by zorgon

Funny no one called 17P/Holmes "nibiru" It was twice as big as Jupiter at one point and very easy to see with the naked eye for weeks

It actually came bigger than the sun.
Not it's core obviously, but it's gazeous halo.

salute.

Originally Posted by BeaTnik-BandiT

It actually came bigger than the sun.
Not it's core obviously, but it's gazeous halo. .

Quite true but I expected that to be too much for the Lemmings

My favorite part was when it looked like a Giant Cosmic Jellyfish...




It was certainly visible from Earth


oops too big...

http://spaceweather.com/comets/holme...-von-Bagh1.jpg

And here is the the second video where he admits he was wrong......

Nibiru Visible To The Naked Eye Now! - vlog pt 2


"Know this. I never intended to mislead you" ~ PlanetNibiruIsHere

[truthseeker]

Hi Zorgon,

Have you read "Dark Star: The Planet X Evidence" by Andy Lloyd. I have never read Sitchen's work, as I have been largely put off by all the negative press about his ideas and theories. However, I recently read Lloyd's book and found it both interesting and informative. You may well have read the book or at least come across his website at http://www.darkstar1.co.uk/. If not, I recommend a perusal of both.

Anyway, he does not buy into all of Sitchin's stuff, but does treat him respectfully. He speculates tha Planet X is actually one of the moons (or planets?) of a brown dwarf, which as I am sure you know is a kind of failed star, or a star that never came to be. He argues that this is within our solar system, but currently out toward or beyond the kuiper belt. A brown dwarf can apparently be around the size of Jupiter(perhaps a little bigger), though it has a far greater mass than such a planet. It is really half way between a planet and a star, as I understand it (and I am no astronomer). Thus the dark star, according to Lloyd, is a brown dwarf and thus a substellar companion of the Sun.

Lloyd argues that this dark star is currently at aphelion (furthest from the Sun) and in a very elliptical orbit. He believes that the reasons that it is not visible to astronomers, at the current time, are as follows. Firstly, because it is at aphelion and thus too distant to be easily seen. Secondly, because it is somewhere in the direction of Sagittarius, a constellation that can be found in the thickest part of the milkyway as seen from Earth. It is thus indistinguishable from the mass of stars, nebulae, etc. that litter that part of the sky. Thirdly, and finally, a brown dwarf, by its very nature, does not give off much light. The combination of these three, he suggests, is why it has not been identified and seen by astronomers. If it has been spotted, it may have been mistaken for a body outside of our solar system, as its motion through the sky (he suggests a 10,800 year orbit of the Sun) is extremely slow as compared to the orbits of the planets, from Eris and Pluto inward.

He also suggests that the perturbations of Uranus and Neptune can best be understood by the presence of a large Jupiter size body in the outer solar system. Small dwarf planets like Pluto and Eris just do not account for this. Lloyd also suggests that it is not the dark star itself that comes into the known planetary zone when it is as perihelion (closest to Sun) but one of its satelites or moons. He suggests that it is this sattelite or moon that is the famed 'Niburu', which may get as close to the Sun as the orbit of Saturn at certain periods in history/prehistory.

As I am no expert on these things, I have no idea what is and is not possible. However, on the surface, his ideas do seem to have some air of credibility about them. Anyway, I would be interested to know what you think?

If Lloyd is right, then there is certainly no suggestion that either the dark star or one of its moons is going to be entering our planetary zone in or around 2012. I certainly can not beleive any such significant body could be missed if it was actually within the planetary zone of our solar system.

Best Wishes

Truthseeker

[Koyaanisqatsi]

in the youtube video he admits he is wrong. to his credit i dont feel he acted maliciously. he now claims is Sirius. is this true? i have never noticed this bright object before. it has been clearly visible every night in the west southwest sky from sunset until about 9pm. i am ignorant of astronomy.


now here is the dumbest question of all time. i was always taught stars twinkle and planets dont. my amateur observations of the heavens over time has proved this to be true. so if this is Sirius then why does'nt it twinkle? it shines continuously like venus.

go ahead laugh but i hope someone can explain this one to me.

Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi

go ahead laugh but i hope someone can explain this one to me.

No laughing...

The twinkling effect is caused by atmospheric conditions... bright object like Venus or Sirius low to the horizon go through more atmosphere for the light to reach your eye so less twinkle.

Look at how large and orange the moon appears at moon rise or set... Partly due to paralax but also the denser air

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally Posted by zorgon

No laughing...

The twinkling effect is caused by atmospheric conditions... bright object like Venus or Sirius low to the horizon go through more atmosphere for the light to reach your eye so less twinkle.

Look at how large and orange the moon appears at moon rise or set... Partly due to paralax but also the denser air

hmmmm, this answer was profoundly difficult for me to understand so rather than relying on my brilliant colleagues to spoon feed my lazy slovenly self i took the initiative of researching myself so that perhaps i could better understand my colleagues answers to my silly little questions.

As it turns out zorgon wins the cookie with his correct response that the twinkling effect is caused by atmospheric conditions. unfortunately for zorgon, he will receive only 1/2 of his tasty chocolate chip cookie because he suggests that when light goes through more atmosphere it twinkles less. this is in fact wrong. when light travels through more atmosphere it twinkles more, ie objects close to the horizon twinkle more than objects overhead as the light from objects proximate to the horizon obviously travel through more atmosphere to reach your retina. i found a quadrillion websites confirming this and i will simply quote one of many and you can investigate it further if you care too...

"The light would take a longer path through the atmosphere to the observer. That would mean that the light would pass through more disturbed air, making all the twinkling effects even more pronounced. So, stars near the horizon twinkle far more than stars that are nearly overhead."

http://astroprofspage.com/archives/1168

thank you zorgon for at least attempting to address my question.


stars twinkle and in general planets do not because stars are so far away that they are essentially points of light from oblivion. this light source is easily messed with by the atmosphere, as pointed out by zorgon, and messed with even more if the atmosphere is very turbulent. this messing with on behalf of the atmosphere makes the light from distant stars appear to twinkle. planets on the other hand can be considered not just a tiny pinpoint of light from oblivion but rather a disc of light made up of many points of light albeit closer to home. there is power in numbers and so the 'disc' of the planets light is not so easily distorted by our atmosphere and so planets do not appear to twinkle. under extreme atmospheric turbulence however the edges of even the moon for instance can appear to flicker a little.

should anyone want to verify this rather mundane subject i will provide one link of quadrillions covering this subject.

http://astroprofspage.com/archives/1168



so all off my jabbering brings me back to a simple question as yet unanswered. if the object of light in the sky referred to in the ewetube video is indeed sirius then why does it not twinkle?

furthermore i have seen this same thing in the sky and apparently many others have too. again it is not twinkling and appears too large to be a star. so... what is it?

[ABHA]

Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi

hmmmm, this answer was profoundly difficult for me to understand so rather than relying on my brilliant colleagues to spoon feed my lazy slovenly self i took the initiative of researching myself so that perhaps i could better understand my colleagues answers to my silly little questions.

As it turns out zorgon wins the cookie with his correct response that the twinkling effect is caused by atmospheric conditions. unfortunately for zorgon, he will receive only 1/2 of his tasty chocolate chip cookie because he suggests that when light goes through more atmosphere it twinkles less. this is in fact wrong. when light travels through more atmosphere it twinkles more, ie objects close to the horizon twinkle more than objects overhead as the light from objects proximate to the horizon obviously travel through more atmosphere to reach your retina. i found a quadrillion websites confirming this and i will simply quote one of many and you can investigate it further if you care too...

"The light would take a longer path through the atmosphere to the observer. That would mean that the light would pass through more disturbed air, making all the twinkling effects even more pronounced. So, stars near the horizon twinkle far more than stars that are nearly overhead."

http://astroprofspage.com/archives/1168

thank you zorgon for at least attempting to address my question.


stars twinkle and in general planets do not because stars are so far away that they are essentially points of light from oblivion. this light source is easily messed with by the atmosphere, as pointed out by zorgon, and messed with even more if the atmosphere is very turbulent. this messing with on behalf of the atmosphere makes the light from distant stars appear to twinkle. planets on the other hand can be considered not just a tiny pinpoint of light from oblivion but rather a disc of light made up of many points of light albeit closer to home. there is power in numbers and so the 'disc' of the planets light is not so easily distorted by our atmosphere and so planets do not appear to twinkle. under extreme atmospheric turbulence however the edges of even the moon for instance can appear to flicker a little.

should anyone want to verify this rather mundane subject i will provide one link of quadrillions covering this subject.

http://astroprofspage.com/archives/1168



so all off my jabbering brings me back to a simple question as yet unanswered. if the object of light in the sky referred to in the ewetube video is indeed sirius then why does it not twinkle?

furthermore i have seen this same thing in the sky and apparently many others have too. again it is not twinkling and appears too large to be a star. so... what is it?

Hi sirius twinkles like mad and is the brightest star rising in the east, Orions belt points to it, Orions belt is three stars in a line.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally Posted by Lee BURTON

Hi sirius twinkles like mad and is the brightest star rising in the east, Orions belt points to it, Orions belt is three stars in a line.

thanks lee

this object does not twinkle one iota. it looks and behaves like a bigger version of venus. i have not had the opportunity to see where it rises from, but i have seen it setting and appears to set in the west-southwest sky at least here in new orleans. by 9pm it pretty much dips below the horizon and is no longer visible.

i wish i knew what it was especially since i have never noticed it before.

i am sure there is a rational explanation for it i just wish one would present itself so i could just forget about this thing already



correction: at 8pm i tried to see it but could not. must have gone down already. will try earlier next time right after sunset.

Originally Posted by truthseeker

If Lloyd is right, then there is certainly no suggestion that either the dark star or one of its moons is going to be entering our planetary zone in or around 2012. I certainly can not beleive any such significant body could be missed if it was actually within the planetary zone of our solar system.

The fact that there may indeed be a dwarf star companion to our sun is postulated by many astronomers... but at such a distance it does not show up in gravity perturbations.

I have not looked fully at Lloyds work yet, but I will.