I disagree. That's only two years from now! Unless this thing is the blackest object ever detected, it would be quite bright in the sky, because it's supposed to be Earth-sized or larger. Even being generous with orbital speeds, it would be at Saturn's distance right now (at most), and visible to the naked eye or possibly binoculars. It would have been spotted. Remember, this thing has to be in the plane of the ecliptic, since it passes by planets, so I think it would have been spotted by any number of surveys, both amateur and professional.

BA, I stand corrected. I didn't think about that one enough. I would say it's possible if it's moving *very* fast and it's *very* dark... but it's supposed to be on a closed orbit, and presumably not made of coal dust!

You're right, such an object almost certainly would have been spotted visually by now. Which fact also makes no impression on the TBs.

Does anyone save these predictions and ask the TBs afterwards about them? (Not that they are bothered by being proven wrong.)

I think it's becoming increasingly difficult for objects to remain unspotted for long. A decade ago, I think it would have been much easier to overlook something like this, but now, with all these large-scale sky surveys(NEAT, LINEAR, SLOAN), only the smallest, darkest, and slowest moving objects can remain hidden for long.

However, I wouldn't say it was impossible yet. Random chance alone might allow an object to be in a place where nobody is looking until it's too obvious to miss. Or an object may be seen and imaged, but not recognized for what it is. Comet Hyakutake in 1996 was only found 2 months before it's closest approach.

Not that I'm saying Nibiru exists, you know, I'm just saying it's still possible (just very improbable).

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

In the first (or second) post of this original thread, the supposed coordinates of planet x were given at http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use90207.htm

Now, I have to admit, I am an illiterate when it comes to cooridinates and such. Just out of pure curiosity though, has anyone checked out the validity of these supposed coordinates? I don't buy the Planet X story but the fact that they put actual specifications on how to find it makes me even more curious. Thoughts on this? Thanks for all of the input by the way:^)

~Kasandra~

I just read through the coordinates page again and its just plain confusing to me...maybe I need another cup of coffee?? It sounds really choppy or something. Is there any easy way to explain this or am I just being idiotic?

~Kasandra~

I just checked their co-ordinates against my planetarium program. The co-ordinates they give put it between Orion and Taurus. They give a visual magnitude of 11. This would be in easy reach of any amateur 'scope of 6" or larger. If it was where they say and as bright as they say, somebody would have seen it by now.

By the way. Their orbital mechanics are totally bogus. There is no way that it will completely traverse the solar system (in, around the Sun, and out) in three months. Won't even go into their contention that the Sun has a dark companion at the other focus of the orbit. If so, it is the only orbit in the known universe with a mass at both foci.

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

Thanks a million, Kaptain K, for your speedy and easy to understand reply:^)

~Kasandra~

I'm not sure if anybody had mentioned this, but the Hazlewood guy seems to think that the approach is coming in two years, not Sitchin. I think Sitchin still thinks the year 3760 or so... which would put an earth-sized (or larger) object out past the Ort Cloud presently, and quite possibly undetectable by our current technological means. Of course, I'm not validating Sitchin's position, just pointing out that he might be a 'lesser crackpot' in the realm of crackpots [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] He's basing his ideas solely on the re-interpretation of the ancient Sumerian texts, which unfortunately, are nothing but legend without one of the writers to back them up. Perhaps if Sitchin is correct, we'll know in another 1760 years
for sure [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Mark

There are regular discussions on "sci.astro" on Usenet on just these issues whenever Ms. Zetatalk posts. She has variously claimed that what the Zetas mean by magnitude isn't what we mean by magnitude and/or that the object can only be seen with the right sort of red filter. As for the movements, well, according to her gravity doesn't work the way we think it does - for one thing, there is a repulsive element to it that helps keep the Moon from falling on us (which otherwise it would do).

Isn't watching a creative imagination at work fun?

Geesh! What nonsense

Really? Thanks for the tip, I'll dismantle the stack of turtles that I was holding the moon up with later. I'm sure they will come in handy for something; soup perhaps.

[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

Ms. Zetatalk's high point might have been when several sci.astro members brought a telescope to a street near her house and offered to show her that there was absolutely nothing where she claimed Planet X was supposed to be. She declined this opportunity.

I thought (unless this happened more than once) that they offered to show her comet Hale-Bopp, which she claimed did not exist and said was a conspiracy. IIRC, she refused to come out of her house. I think this was described in Sky and Telescope or Astronomy magazine (I forget which one, or maybe it was another one I subscribe to). It was also described in sci.astro.amateur, so a search in dejanews might turn it up.

Found it. I browsed some of the old messages from dejanews and re-read some of the hilarious stuff (although also frustrating stuff) that was discussed.

The night was described here:

http://www.laughton.com/paul/rfo/nancy/mark.html

and pictures are here:

http://www.laughton.com/paul/rfo/nancy/nancy.html

Oh my gosh...that was so funny! LOL. Thank you for taking the time to find that...it was worth it in my opinion:^) I would have LOVED to have been there!

~Kasandra~

"The best you can hope to do is educate people who don't know anything about the subject, showing them what nonsense this all is. "


I took the above comment and highlighted. Basically I fall into a that very same group of people who needs to be educated about why it is all nonsense.

So if you can, show some more debunking sites, or whatever information you have. Thanks

<a name="20020324.6:24"> page 20020324.6:24 aka What 2 coord`$
On 2001-12-03 13:08, Opal27 wrote: To: 2
In the first (or second) post of this original thread, the supposed coordinates of planet x were given at http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use90207.htm
1:7:37 am LEFT 386/20 : 486/100 RIGHT red
2:Mae 23 2002 parameter PANELS shift
3:Portland OR settings CONTROLS | Settings
4:45^31' AND bar bar
5:122^41' 2SET TIME Time
IF you mean Portland, Or they are given at
4&5 above.. if you mean Nibiru then spell it out caus i dont spell WELL