I really don't think that truthseeker actually understands any 2012 claim.

Scientific proof is showing a model or formulas that predict where the so called planet will be at the exact date and time so telescopes can point to that coordinate and check your data.

Prove it by giving the orbital elements of this planet X so it can be peer reviewed.

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/44997/NASA_Scientist_Speaks_About_2012/

He clearly states: There is not threat to earth in 2012!

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/planetx/

I read at this link: As much as I know anything in science, I know that there is no Planet X as described by this latest crop of Chicken Littles. How do I know this? Well, we'll have to look a little bit at the claims of the people doing the doomsaying, and why what they say is patently false.

PROVE IT

it doesn't matter how much research you've done unless there is scientific proof

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/44997/NASA_Scientist_Speaks_About_2012/

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/planetx/

You have to make up your own mind based on the evidence.

Make your mind up? You call that science?

This may a lengthy critique, but rest assured completely clueless on the facts. This person has not done any real research and the critique serves no merit. I stand by my research 110%. You have to make up your own mind based on the evidence.

For one, I am positively amused by responses like yours.

This may a lengthy critique, but rest assured completely clueless on the facts. This person has not done any real research and the critique serves no merit. I stand by my research 110%. You have to make up your own mind based on the evidence.

Just to be clear, when you say "make up your own mind based on the evidence" you really mean trust a narrow minded fool instead of scientists? Give us some thoughts on the critique you've gotten from ThreeFangCat instead of just saying "it's wrong" like a stubborn kindergarten-child. Actually, my guess is that you indeed was proven wrong on so many accounts that you don't even know how you should adress the points made by him/her. Am I right?

Jason Martell
Xfacts.com

Anyway, it was nice of him to acknowledge my effort, although I don't think I can help him much on the UFO front.

The first speaker, Jason Martell, is a classic Nibiru proponent. He has a website, and a book for you to buy. There is always a website and a book…

Spot on!

X = 10 in roman numerals. :-)

Yes, I suspect ThreeFangCat know this, but that isn't what the "X" originally meant in Planet X. Martell has no basis for claiming that X means 10 in that context.

Jason did an excellent job presenting data to support the search for Planet X. VanFlandern ignored the fact and talked about hypotetical theories as a means of midirecting the listeners from critical issues.

I laughed at it. I really did. Where is the critical thinking when people need it? :-P

He correctly notes X means unknown, but also suggests it means TEN.

X = 10 in roman numerals. :-)

Props to you, its great to see loads of YouTubers spending time to debunk this rubbish.

We have issues starting right from the beginning of the video, outside of wasting 75 seconds of my life with a silly introduction. The host sets the stage with this quote, "But, if you come here with preformed opinions, you're not going to get much out of this. So I want you to take some time, and be very open minded." If the evidence is valid, what does my preformed opinion have to do with it? It's like he knows valid evidence is in short supply and he's trying to excuse that in advance, in order to avoid critical thinking by the audience.

The first speaker, Jason Martell, is a classic Nibiru proponent. He has a website, and a book for you to buy. There is always a website and a book…

Finally, at 12:20 Martell starts speaking. He starts off with the mythology concerning the term Planet X. He correctly notes X means unknown, but also suggests it means TEN. There is no support for this in astronomy. The term was used with Percival Lowell's search for another planet back in 1906 when there were just 8 planets (Pluto was discovered in 1930.) It's worth noting that when Pluto was discovered, it was no longer Planet X by definition. Further, once Pluto was discovered, the fact the next planet would happen to be the 10th one, is mere coincidence. Humorously, with Pluto kicked out of the planet club, the next planet found would be #9 again. See Absolute Astronomy, for more details. This, in of itself, isn't catastrophic, but it is indicative of the sloppy nature that runs through Martell's supposed research.
reference: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Planet_X

At 13:15, Martell displays a diagram from the Encyclopedia Britannica. First off, that reference is incorrect from any information I can find, it is from the 1987 New Science and Invention Encyclopedia. It's a children's reference. Second, Encyclopedias are never used as references in serious research. Third, if the encyclopedia shown has an reference for where they got this information, it is not displayed by Martell nor any website with references to it that I have found. I saw once a similar magazine diagram concerning hypothetical objects in our solar system, but cannot relocate it, perhaps this is the course. In any case, this diagram is used as evidence for Nibiru to this day despite being an unreferenced source by such websites as The Rabbit Hole.
reference: http://rabbithole2.com/presentation/news/cosmic_news/dead_star_in_1987_encyclopedia.htm

Next assertion comes at 14:30. "A lot of the satellites that they have released over the last few years have a very interesting connection or correlation to the idea of looking for large bodies in our solar system." This is patently untrue. It is true that some satellites could be used for such a purpose, but as we'll see, this isn't the case. The first example satellite is WIRE (Wide Field Infrared Explorer). The primary purpose of WIRE (detection of various types of galaxies) was shifted over to astroseismology and planet-finding due to a technical problem. However, this planet-finding is for extra-solar planets, as indicated by this statement, "The planet-finding program searches for stellar occultations by large planetary bodies as they pass through WIRE's line-of-sight to its target star." This, at this point, Martell is either ignorant of the WIRE mission, or purposely misleading.
reference: http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/wire/

The next zinger happens about about 15:00. Martell says, "The whole idea that a planet could have an elliptical orbit .. be in an orbit like this… was something kinda unknown to science." This is particularly amusing because the graphic he is using to show the Nibiru's orbit also shows Pluto's elliptical orbit. Pluto, of course, was discovered in 1930 and Kepler's laws of motion had been known for much longer. (Kepler lived in the late 1500's to early 1600's.) This again is not a piece of evidence, so losing it is not critical to Martell's case, but indicative of the questionable research presented in this video.
reference: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/kepler.html

About 15:30, Martell properly identifies that the satellites we are launching are to look for extra-solar planets, failed suns, brown dwarves (he seems unaware that a brown dwarf IS a failed sun by listing them separately). He goes on to further properly identify that infrared allows them to penetrate clouds of dust and probe deep, deep in space. However, by 16:10, he blurs the Spitzer mission as follows, "This is one of the latest packages we have in space to detect, you know, large bodies within our solar system, or, you know, very far out in the solar system as well." Spitzer's mission, while not specifically discounting such capability, clearly is more broadbased in intent. No language in the mission statement indicates a strong role in our local system.
reference: http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/mission/32-Mission-Overview

At 17:15, Martell provides yet another moment to illuminate his relative ignorance of astronomy. Pointing at an infrared image of a galaxy, he states, "Under the SIRTF's infrared technology you can see these are all little planets, or, you know, stars within this galaxy, here." Again, not a critical part of the Nibiru proof, but he displays massive ignorance for the astronomy. At that magnification, you can't see a planet. or a single star, but rather areas of high brightness from star concentrations. Anyone with even an amateur knowledge of astronomy should be laughing at this point.

By 18:40, Martell starts getting into the idea there are press releases 'reigniting' the idea of another object in our solar system. While this may be true, it is worth noting that any papers of potential new large objects in our solar system have ALWAYS been closely covered by the press. When the promise of a new planet runs out, so does the press coverage. Never mind the fact that the clear majority of work in astronomy has been on galaxies, supernovae, extra-solar planets, etc, for quiet some time. A new planet or companion sill always get top billing. This amounts to a type of observer error: the press releases favor the large objects in our solar system.

At 19:05, we start with the 1983 IRAS (Infrared Astronomical Satellite) minisurvey. This is important, it has been falsely used as evidence for Nibiru for years. Nothing is further from the truth. What happened is the scientists had unidentified objects, and so they gave speculative identifications, "Unidentified Point Sources in the IRAS Minisurvey" in the paper. One of the speculative identifications for one of the objects in the IRAS minisurvey was listed as a blackbody. That could mean planet. A Washington Post writer, Thomas O'Toole, covers the story and throughout his coverage, HE emphasizes the planet conclusion. Note from the language of both the scientists quoted and the original article: they have not stated definitively they have a planet at any point. By 1984 and 1985, identifications started flowing in on the previously unidentified point sources. None of them were a planet, but rather galaxies or galactic cirrus, so the press promptly lost interest. Contrast this against Martell's story, which claims IRAS could see, "This whole new vast array of planetoids and planets and failed suns" Compare that to the literature. This statement is not close to what IRAS was doing. To give voice to this discussion, I have included a video on this issue in addition to the scholarly sources and the Washington Post story.
first paper reference: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1984ApJ...278L..63H/L000063.000.html
Washington Post reference: http://redxpro.com/articles/wp_12_30_1983.html
ID reference 1984: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1984ApJ...278L..19L
ID reference 1985: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1985ApJ...290L...5H
ID reference 1986: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1986AJ.....91...56A
ID reference 1987: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1987ARA%26A..25..187S/0000187.000.html
video debunk of IRAS/Nibiru link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrsGpRKuon8

So, at 19:30, Martell points you that Z. Sitchin goes to meet with Dr. Robert S. Harrington of the Naval Observatory, claiming that the two, "shared a similar pattern for the idea of another body in our solar system." This is far from the truth. The noticable similarity between the two men's hypothetical objects was that they were in eccentric orbits. However, Sitchin's view of an object on a 3600 year orbit with an eccentricity well over 0.9 is in no way compatible with Dr. Harrington's Planet X, which was laid out in detail in the paper, "The Location of Planet X." Harrington's calculations showed the possibility for an object with an orbit of 1019 years, a mass of 4 earth masses, and an eccentricity of 0.411, which means it won't come into the inner solar system at all. These two objects are not similar at all, so the Nibiru proponents cannot hijack Harrington's work and say it supports their hypothetical planet. You can't go changing around variables on a mass scale and expect it to still work.
paper source: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?db_key=AST&bibcode=1988AJ.....96.1476H&letter=.&classic=YES&defaultprint=YES&whole_paper=YES&page=1476&epage=1476&send=Send+PDF&filetype=.pdf

At 20:00, Martell starts talking about the orbital pertubations of the outer planets that led real scientists, like Dr. Harrington to look for another large object out there. However, Martell blurrs other issues into the story, whereas Dr. Harrington was primarily interested in orbital pertubations of the planets, particularly Neptune. He definitely wasn't into moons getting shuffled about, that is an issue of Sitchin and not reflected in Harrington's professional papers.

Finally, by 20:40, Sitchin's ideas get some discussion. The first, most important thing to know about Sitchin is that he has no education for translating Sumerian script, despite Martell hyping his research credentials. He has been proven to make up translations however necessary to support his pre-ordained conclusions. This is illustrated in full detail by Dr. Michael Heiser, who has been trained in many such languages and whose work is consistent with the rest of the broad base of information we have about how to translate Sumerian. At any rate, Martell falsely adopts the translation, "planet of the crossing," This translation is false. As Dr. Heiser points out, the word means simply, "crossing." Note, there is no astronomical take on this meaning, in fact, it seems more concerned with ferry crossings. Another definition of it is simply, "Jupiter," a planet which was known to the Sumerians. At no point does it mean anything else.
reference: http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/
Nibiru definition: http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/nibiru/nibiru.html

Then, Martell incorrectly asserts that the Sumerians, "accurately cite all the other planets in our solar system." Although he doesn't give evidence for this belief, it is well known it comes from the now famous seal, VA 243. In it, there is a figure in one corner, and at the center of that figure is apparently the sun, and the other objects are supposedly planets. However, Dr. Heiser points out, the Sumerians had a very specific symbol for the sun, and that wasn't it. Also, the text on the seal have nothing to do with astronomy. Curiously, Sitchin's explanation happens to conform to human knowledge of the solar system at the time he wrote the book. Since then, we've made discoveries not accounted for in that figure, such as Eris (bigger than Pluto) and the fact that Pluto is a binary world with Charon. Wouldn't it be that if the Sumerians had some special knowledge, that this would have predicted these facts? Or did Sitchin simply conform the figure to the current solar system as understood by man? A link to Dr. Heiser's paper on the subject is included.
reference: http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/VA243seal.pdf

At 22:25, Martell talks about how we don't use the pertubation method any more to find planets. Truth is, we never used this method to find planets. We used it to suggest good places to look for planets. This is how Neptune was found: calculations suggested a good place to look for it, and then it was proven to exist with telescopic evidence. This fact, although simple, cannot be understated. The calculation gets backed up with reproducable telescopic evidence. This telescopic evidence is decidedly missing in the entire Nibiru enterprise.
reference: http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/neptune.html

This is where we get into what Martell DIDN'T SAY. He didn't say why Dr. Harrington's ideas were abandoned. What happened was Voyager 2 measured the mass of Neptune more accurately, correcting it by 0.5% (which is equal to the mass of Mars, BTW), utterly shattering Dr Harrington's calculations. With the new mass figure, the calculations no longer called for another planet. This is common knowledge to everyone with even a passing understanding of astronomy. Thus, Martell either knows it and is ignoring it because it doesn't fit his vision, or is ignorant of it. Take your pick, it's either dishonesty or ignorance; certainly a critical flaw in a researcher either way. Instead, Martell uses the abandonment of Dr. Harrington's ideas (and other extra-planet hypotheses) to portray science as unfairly biased against these theories, when this isn't true. Dr. Harrington's papers, and Dr. Murkai's papers, all passed peer review and were published.
reference: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Planet_X

Martell continues with the claim Takashi Mukai of Kobe university believes there is another planet at 22:40. This took forever to research because the man's name was really Tadashi Mukai. So I found the news release, "Japanese scientists eye new planet," from 2008, which led me to Dr. Mukai's original paper and source of the news article. Here is the rub, the computer model they used calls for a planet 30-70% of Earth's mass, a period of 1000 years and a perihelion > 80 AU, never coming into the inner solar system. Like Dr. Harrington's hypothetical planet, this hypothetical planet also does not fit the Nibiru vision at all. Martell chooses not to divulge this information, instead making it out like Mukai's calculations support his idea. Amusingly, less than a minute later he rails against TNO (Trans-Neptunian Object) discoveries of recent years being described as Planet X, stipulating that the planet in question is 4-8 times the size of Earth. And yet, Dr. Mukai's hypothetical world does not fit that measure.
news reference: http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Japanese_scientists_eye_new_planet_999.html
paper reference: http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/135/4/1161/pdf/1538-3881_135_4_1161.pdf

After about 11 minutes of Martell speaking, he's been shown to be incorrect on every major claim he has made. Not only are there strong indications he is ignorant of even basic astronomy, but there are strong indications that he knows specific parts of the research he has done doesn't support his conclusion, and purposely misrepresents those parts to make a better case. Now you might think I'm being hard on him, but I'd like to show you the video, "Jason Martell's Planet X 2008 Research." Within 20 seconds of the start of this video, Martell states, "Dr. Mukai, of the Kobe University in Japan, plotted the diameter of a planet between 4 to 8 times the size of the Earth on a highly elliptical orbit." At this point, it is difficult to believe this was a mistake. Rather, it is a direct LIE about Dr. Murkai's work.
video reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS3MOoX3WUk

It is at this point in I will quit commenting on the video you sent me. Mr. Jason Martell is clearly a combination of ignorance and dishonesty, and he makes no case for the existence of Nibiru. The man is a 2012 profiteer and a clear waste of time. If you think there is some specific assertion he makes worthy of analysis, let me know. However, as you can see, responding to a long video full of errors and deception takes much more time than the simple act of linking it to me.