Just do us a favor, and pass it on.

Guys thanks for the quick reply, everything you say makes sense :)

Wonderful wonderful site and great initiative !

This shall be my set-goal for the year 2013.

Hi rasalhague,

Step on your toes anytime, that's what they're for. And, oh yes I am very serious, as serious as a heart attack.

What I mean by dimension is … that Planet X, being a brown dwarf, a "sub-stellar object" (see: en.wikipedia.org… ), in relation to light spectrum, the property of having a "powerful infrared signature" (see: yowusa.com… ). So of course Planet X is "bound by the laws of physics".

Nope, I didn't get the idea from Nancy or Zeta talk. I got the idea from a variety of sources and the reason that I cannot recall where from is because the sources are multiple and scattered.

As far as Nancy's prediction for a polar shift on Earth in 2003, being an intuitive, I can understand how Nancy could easily misconstrue 2003 for 23. Could it be possible that her prediction points to the "23 enigma"? I'm not defending her, I'm merely speculating. I've just only recently heard of Nancy Lieder and have watched a few of her videos and looked around her website a little. I don't know for a fact that Nancy Lieder is credible or not. I haven't got that far in my research.

Apparently Steve Russel also mentions the year 2003 (See: www.bibliotecapleyades.net… )

Yes Planet X is mostly invisible to the naked eye because it doesn't reflect much light and it's surrounded by a dust cloud.

1. What leads you to the conclusion that it must be close, when you obviously can't see it.

I don't know where Planet X is, I was just saying that it 'could' be closer than we realize. If I could provide hard core evidence of Planet X and it's whereabouts, then I predict yet another attempt on my life. Besides, the evidence would disappear.

2. You say that we feel the effects of Nibiru? I would like to disagree on this one, but feel free to support that claim with some evidence (peer-review would be nice). Do you know what a planetary body four times earths mass would do to us? I can assure you that neither you nor I would live to tell about it. I've taken the time to read through many, many journals dealing with the search for PX, and none has proven to be correct in their asumptions.

Common sense dictates that there is a common denominator to a relatively recent substantial increase in earthquakes and seismic activity, tectonic plate activity, volcanic activity, sink holes, sea swelling and subsequent flooding, etc. I can provide evidence for all of these increases but probably not be able to supply indisputable evidence linking them all to Planet X.

And, no, the solar minimum cycle has nothing to do with the magnetic pull of the Sun by Planet X. It has to with gravitational force…

"Something out there beyond the farthest reaches of the known solar system seems to be tugging at Uranus and Neptune. Some gravitational force keeps perturbing the two giant planets, causing irregularities in their orbits. The force suggests a presence far away and unseen, a large object that may be the long-sought Planet X."

(See: "Clues Get Warm in the Search for Planet X" @ www.book-of-thoth.com… )

Logic follows that Planet X would be "tugging" on our Sun as well as Earth.

I'm running out of space, I'll be back for part II.

Toni

I have no doubt that at the right time — right in the eyes of whoever decided these matters — the existence of Nibiru will be officially confirmed.”
—Zecharia Sitchin

The biggest 2 pieces of software concerning astronomy…

The biggest 2 free, easy to use, pretty looking and hardly at all scientific pieces of software concerning some aspects of astronomy, yes.

That's my biggest gripe with using Google and WikiSky and whatnot as 'evidence', and I and others have had looong debates on YouTube and the like about them.

"Oh great, you've found a missing image in Google Sky, but you can see it here over at NASA SkyView, no problems at all"
"But, but, that's from OLD surveys, it was covered up because it was NEW imagery from the SDSS"
"That's funny, the SDSS didn't survey that area of the sky…"
"I didn't mean SDSS, I meant Hubble."
"Oh look, Hubble hasn't gone near that spot either…"
"Well, obviously proof of them hiding something, they've removed all traces of it from every site. Conspiracy, I say. Connsssspiiiiraaaacccyyyyy!"

Google Sky, WikiSky, Microsoft whatsitsface… they're all handy to get people interested in the flat imagery of space, and how different instruments see space in different ways, visible light, infrared etc etc. But when it comes to using Google as evidence, or as the go-to program that every astronomer uses, as the ultimate infallible piece of astronomical software, nah. I'm not following anyone on that.

Just try telling some of these people to go to a local astronomy club or simply 'look up' on a good night. The number of excuses you'll get for even this shows how much they cling on to using a processing error as proof of a conspiracy.

The biggest 2 pieces of software concerning astronomy — Google Sky and Microsoft..something (forgot the name ) have a blurry spot on the sky in the exact same region.

That is because they both get their images from the same sources — the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and the Digitized Sky Survey. It's an imperfection in the stitching process that results in the blank area you see.

If you're familiar with astronomy, you should know that an incoming planet cannot be hidden by blanking out Google Sky or Microsoft Telescope.

1) There are better ways of hiding something in graphical data that don't involve an obvious blank spot.

2) The images are not real-time, but usually a few years old (current to whatever DSS release is being used).

3) People do still occasionally look at the actual sky.

I have a pretty decent level of maths and astronomy as I am passioned about this in general, that is why all the claims concerning the existance of a 10th HUGE planet in our solar system seem so childish . Especially if you know a little bit about gravitation and orbits.

Anyway, one thing still concerns me, as I did not find enough information about this, and this seems a FACT.

The biggest 2 pieces of software concerning astronomy — Google Sky and Microsoft..something (forgot the name ) have a blurry spot on the sky in the exact same region.

Why would this blurred out spot be there in the first place, and 2 — why both programs have the same problem in the exact area?

I really don t believe in coincidences,that is why I am asking.

Besindes this we are golden :)

So, any of you guys know a little bit more about this blurry area on Google Sky that is supposed to hide an incoming planet ? Coz this is all I hear lately.

Thank you !

Claude