Duh, don't you know that Nibiru is invisible? No, really, it is. Someone at ATS told me that. Sorry to Hijack this thread, but it seems as good as any place to reveal the truth. Here you go (this is obviously a post from someone who knows what she is talking about, so lets get on with the bunker building)
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
claude strife (guest) 17 Jul 2010 12:03
