NIbiru/Planet-X is on it's way, connect the dots.. NIBIRU FOUND! .

Look you can't deny later part of feb through early march earthquakes seem to be on the rise, like 2011 we are coming up to that same position of the last major quake japan march 11 2011.

Look you can't deny later part of feb through early march earthquakes seem to be on the rise, like 2011 we are coming up to that same position of the last major quake japan march 11 2011.

The 1983 article claims it "could" be a jupiter-like planet OR extra-galactic, they had no idea when it was first observed. IRAS did not find a planet though, it did find a number of infrared-luminous galaxies and intragalactic dust. In fact, it initially found 9 unidentified point-like sources of infrared light, listed here:
0358+223 3h 58m 2.8s 22d 18’ 0”
0404+101 4h 4m 44.7s 10d 11’ 52”
0412+085 4h 12m 32.3s 8d 31’ 13”
0413+122 4h 13m 47.3s 12d 17’ 16”
0422+009 4h 22m 54.0s 0d 56’ 6”
0425-012 4h 25m 12.1s -1d 14’ 50”
1703+049 17h 3m 1.4s 4d 57’ 50”
1712+100 17h 12m 57.8s 10d 4’ 8”
1732+239 17h 32m 51.4s 23d 56’ 36”

Here are the papers that identified these objects:
Unidentified point sources in the IRAS minisurvey, Houck et al. Astrophysical Journal, vol. 278, March 1, 1984, p. L63-L66

Unidentified IRAS sources - Ultrahigh-luminosity galaxies, Houck et al., Astrophysical Journal, vol. 290, March 1, 1985, p. L5-L8.

Optical counterparts of unidentified IRAS point sources Infrared luminous galaxies, Aaronson and Olszewski, Nature, vol. 309, May 31, 1984, p. 414-417.

None of those coordinates correspond to the "blocked out area" of google sky, which as I've pointed out countless times, can be accessed direct from the primary source by anyone and in higher quality than is present on google sky. No serious researcher uses google sky to access sky survey data since it's just a second hand source of pre-existing sky surveys and is not as high a quality as the originals.

Here you go, the blocked-out area, direct from the primary source. Incidentally, the palomar sky survey is decades old, it was around long before google sky. In fact, I used to use it back in college before I even started "googling."
[link to archive.stsci.edu]
[link to archive.stsci.edu]
[link to archive.stsci.edu]

No, they didn't. In fact, it's not a telescope (it's a camera) and it's not on their telescope. LUCIFER is an infrared spectrograph for the Large Binocular Telescope. the Vatican observatory's VATT is a totally different telescope, does not use that imager, and its only connection to it is that it's on the same freaking mountain.

SPT is not an infrared telescope. It's a microwave/millimeter wave telescope.
[link to www.jstor.org]

You've been filling your head with too much nonsense.
:nonibiru:

Astromut you ever get the feeling that people post stuff like this just to get a rise out of ya?

Cause I gotta say you do jump on threads about this subject like a virgin in a whorehouse

and after you do ur debunk you spend way to much time defending your debunk, might i suggest the ol' debunk and run method so you can move on to other things.

My suggestion is we collectively note every time these avid naysayers invade a thread attempting to undermine even conversation on the matter, with their fervent arguments. I mean, why do they care so much, if they are so above the ignorant fray in the higher echelons of physics. Why mess with us village idiots?

Making the assumption that myself and others are posting in bad faith and to believe that what we're debunking must be true because we spend time debunking it is not at all logical or rational. I suppose then you believe Saturn lost its rings?
[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]
I've already explained why I'm here, but perhaps to make it easier for you to understand just know this; above all, I'm here because I enjoy being here, which at the end of the day is not so different from why most people come here.

Do you enjoy promoting bullshit, or are you truly dumber than dogshit and actually believe in this Nibiru crap?


Wait, nevermind, I checked your recent postings--it is the latter.