Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,495 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,104,817
Pageviews Today: 1,459,670Threads Today: 292Posts Today: 5,247
11:47 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Debunk this please.

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 16215608
United States
05/17/2012 12:58 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunk this please.
Point: Astromut
Nibirutards: 0
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 10705336


At this stage it's...

Astromut: 5512347

Elenintards: 0

Nibirutards: 0

yoda
S0L4RN1GHTM4R3 (OP)

User ID: 7740691
United States
05/17/2012 12:58 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunk this please.
looked for it myself. and theres nothing! you think it could be unnoticed by so many people?
 Quoting: Plane


Well, if the theory that it is a brown dwarf, yes. The conditions would have to be just right for you to see it, at all.

Like I said, I didn't say it existed, only that it very well could.

It certainly shouldn't be counted out just yet. Just because it may not be "here" just yet, doesn't mean it isn't on its way.

Food for thought.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

John F. Kennedy
S0L4RN1GHTM4R3 (OP)

User ID: 7740691
United States
05/17/2012 01:04 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunk this please.
It sure got quiet.

I wish I could see the reaction on some of your faces with confrontation of logic on such a debatable topic.

ohyeah

pphtt

coffee4
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

John F. Kennedy
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 15866613
United States
05/17/2012 01:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunk this please.
So, I just happened across this video from May 12, 2012.

This very well could be the moon, however, if that were the case, it wouldn't be illuminated as it quite obviously is.

Could this be a celestial body that everybody has been talking about? Is this proof that Nibiru exist?

I'm not confident enough to say that Nibiru does exist, but I'm certainly not convinced that it doesn't.

And before you say it is Jupiter, it isn't. Jupiter was on the right side of the sun only 2 days later, so it couldn't be Jupiter, could it?

[link to www.youtube.com]

Looking forward to any and all opinions.

No flaming please. Some of you are thick-headed enough to completely disregard the existence of Nibiru, but none of you have the evidence to thoroughly deny that it could exist.

Thanks.
 Quoting: S0L4RN1GHTM4R3


NOT the MOON, it was not that close to the sun that I recall and star program says no too. at that time according to star program, Jupiter was transiting. today transit is complete according to my program and give it a couple weeks or so, I didn't check the time, it will be a morning star. Of course, maybe they will let the real new Jupiter Sun some out, although I have no been informed they will, so I will check now and then.

there is nothing close to the sun now, using my dark lense setup I have so I can look at the sun. Nothing moving out of its corona field anyway enough to be seen. If I remember I will look in the early evening before set
Digital mix guy

User ID: 8545181
05/17/2012 01:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunk this please.
So, I just happened across this video from May 12, 2012.

This very well could be the moon, however, if that were the case, it wouldn't be illuminated as it quite obviously is.

Could this be a celestial body that everybody has been talking about? Is this proof that Nibiru exist?

I'm not confident enough to say that Nibiru does exist, but I'm certainly not convinced that it doesn't.

And before you say it is Jupiter, it isn't. Jupiter was on the right side of the sun only 2 days later, so it couldn't be Jupiter, could it?

[link to www.youtube.com]

Looking forward to any and all opinions.

No flaming please. Some of you are thick-headed enough to completely disregard the existence of Nibiru, but none of you have the evidence to thoroughly deny that it could exist.

Thanks.
 Quoting: S0L4RN1GHTM4R3




jacksprat

User ID: 1420740
Canada
05/17/2012 01:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunk this please.
is it the moon?

we are going to have an eclipse soon
jacksprat
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 15866613
United States
05/17/2012 01:07 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunk this please.
So, I just happened across this video from May 12, 2012.

This very well could be the moon, however, if that were the case, it wouldn't be illuminated as it quite obviously is.

Could this be a celestial body that everybody has been talking about? Is this proof that Nibiru exist?

I'm not confident enough to say that Nibiru does exist, but I'm certainly not convinced that it doesn't.

And before you say it is Jupiter, it isn't. Jupiter was on the right side of the sun only 2 days later, so it couldn't be Jupiter, could it?

[link to www.youtube.com]

Looking forward to any and all opinions.

No flaming please. Some of you are thick-headed enough to completely disregard the existence of Nibiru, but none of you have the evidence to thoroughly deny that it could exist.

Thanks.
 Quoting: S0L4RN1GHTM4R3


Nibiru exists, it was here 2000 years ago at the time of christ which people recorded in the NT as the star of bethlehem. It never is destructive to eath in it's passing unless the occupants use their weapons. OK. It is not due 1600 more years
S0L4RN1GHTM4R3 (OP)

User ID: 7740691
United States
05/17/2012 01:07 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunk this please.
So, I just happened across this video from May 12, 2012.

This very well could be the moon, however, if that were the case, it wouldn't be illuminated as it quite obviously is.

Could this be a celestial body that everybody has been talking about? Is this proof that Nibiru exist?

I'm not confident enough to say that Nibiru does exist, but I'm certainly not convinced that it doesn't.

And before you say it is Jupiter, it isn't. Jupiter was on the right side of the sun only 2 days later, so it couldn't be Jupiter, could it?

[link to www.youtube.com]

Looking forward to any and all opinions.

No flaming please. Some of you are thick-headed enough to completely disregard the existence of Nibiru, but none of you have the evidence to thoroughly deny that it could exist.

Thanks.
 Quoting: S0L4RN1GHTM4R3





 Quoting: Digital mix guy


Thanks for embedding it.

hf
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

John F. Kennedy
AstromutModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 922113
United States
05/17/2012 01:07 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunk this please.
Could it not just appear to be "on top of the clouds", because it has such a bright reflection.
 Quoting: S0L4RN1GHTM4R3

No; if that were the case it should not show such a well defined edge, particularly of the left side where it would be causing the cloud to be backlit just as the sun did. You would instead see a bright diffuse glow that only became sharp after the "object" completely emerged from the cloud. The sharp circular edge of the flare in front of the cloud which is no longer being backlit by an object directly behind it is a dead giveaway of a filter flare.
 Quoting: Astromut


Very well then.

One thing about your answer seems very shaky though.

I just don't understand how an artifact, which you state it most certainly is, could EVER appear behind the clouds.
 Quoting: S0L4RN1GHTM4R3

And as I've been trying to tell you, it doesn't appear behind the clouds. You can't see it at first when the cloud moves to its position because the cloud itself is saturating those pixels, no detail can be seen at all, thus you can't see the filter flare. It's there though, and that's why you can see it in front of the clouds once the sun emerges and the cloud is no longer bright enough to saturate those pixels.
astrobanner2
S0L4RN1GHTM4R3 (OP)

User ID: 7740691
United States
05/17/2012 01:08 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunk this please.
is it the moon?

we are going to have an eclipse soon
 Quoting: jacksprat


The moon wasn't near the sun during this video, that I'm aware of.

I figured Jupiter at first, but after some research, I came to the conclusion that it was not.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

John F. Kennedy
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 15866613
United States
05/17/2012 01:08 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunk this please.
I went to look for the Jupiter icon on Soho and low and behold its running again. for how long I don't know, haven't checked NICE CME on it with radiation afterwards need to check for x ray flare or whatever.

Well that nice CME is NOT earth directed at all on Stereo, not even close,
S0L4RN1GHTM4R3 (OP)

User ID: 7740691
United States
05/17/2012 01:09 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunk this please.
Could it not just appear to be "on top of the clouds", because it has such a bright reflection.
 Quoting: S0L4RN1GHTM4R3

No; if that were the case it should not show such a well defined edge, particularly of the left side where it would be causing the cloud to be backlit just as the sun did. You would instead see a bright diffuse glow that only became sharp after the "object" completely emerged from the cloud. The sharp circular edge of the flare in front of the cloud which is no longer being backlit by an object directly behind it is a dead giveaway of a filter flare.
 Quoting: Astromut


Very well then.

One thing about your answer seems very shaky though.

I just don't understand how an artifact, which you state it most certainly is, could EVER appear behind the clouds.
 Quoting: S0L4RN1GHTM4R3

And as I've been trying to tell you, it doesn't appear behind the clouds. You can't see it at first when the cloud moves to its position because the cloud itself is saturating those pixels, no detail can be seen at all, thus you can't see the filter flare. It's there though, and that's why you can see it in front of the clouds once the sun emerges and the cloud is no longer bright enough to saturate those pixels.
 Quoting: Astromut


No, not when it first goes behind the cloud, but a few seconds later before the sun comes back from behind the cloud.

Watch it again, it is very clearly BEHIND the clouds.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

John F. Kennedy
S0L4RN1GHTM4R3 (OP)

User ID: 7740691
United States
05/17/2012 01:10 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunk this please.
I went to look for the Jupiter icon on Soho and low and behold its running again. for how long I don't know, haven't checked NICE CME on it with radiation afterwards need to check for x ray flare or whatever.

Well that nice CME is NOT earth directed at all on Stereo, not even close,
 Quoting: Nobody in Particular


Nah, it was an M5.1, and it was western-bound, not earth-directed.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

John F. Kennedy
Urban

User ID: 1391571
United States
05/17/2012 01:12 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunk this please.
It's nothing you suggested, in fact it's much simpler than that. It's a filter flare. Holding ones' sunglasses up to a camera is not the proper way to image the sun. Furthermore, most cell phone and similar cheap cameras have a piece of glass or plastic protective covering in front of the lens, which automatically provides the surface needed for the formation of a filter flare.
 Quoting: Astromut


The location of a filter flare is directly opposite the optical axis of the bright light source in photo/video.

Meaning, if the sun is in the upper right of the frame, the flare is in the lower left.

This also means that the filter flare moves in precision with the camera movement.

Filter flares do not remain stationary as the camera moves around.

The light may not be nibiru or whatever, but it's not a filter flare.

(if a filter flare does not behave in the same manner as a lens flare, then feel free to correct me)

Last Edited by Urban on 05/17/2012 01:16 PM
"There wouldn’t be such a thing as counterfeit gold if there were no real gold somewhere."

-–Sufi Proverb
AstromutModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 922113
United States
05/17/2012 01:13 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunk this please.
looked for it myself. and theres nothing! you think it could be unnoticed by so many people?
 Quoting: Plane


Well, if the theory that it is a brown dwarf, yes.
 Quoting: S0L4RN1GHTM4R3

If a brown dwarf were in the inner solar system, let alone close enough to appear as a resolvable disc (not point-like) to a handheld camera, it would be inducing massive perturbations in the positions of the planets which would have been noticed by amateurs like me long before now. That's how people like me know that there is no such object in or near the inner solar system.

Not only that, but there's not about a brown dwarf that would make it particularly difficult to see compared to the gas giants of our solar system, regardless of how much of its own light it emitted or didn't emit in infrared. It reflect as much light as Uranus at worst, Jupiter at best ( [link to arxiv.org] ) making it an easy naked-eye object if one were anywhere near here.

Last Edited by Dr. Astro on 05/17/2012 01:15 PM
astrobanner2
S0L4RN1GHTM4R3 (OP)

User ID: 7740691
United States
05/17/2012 01:16 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunk this please.
It's nothing you suggested, in fact it's much simpler than that. It's a filter flare. Holding ones' sunglasses up to a camera is not the proper way to image the sun. Furthermore, most cell phone and similar cheap cameras have a piece of glass or plastic protective covering in front of the lens, which automatically provides the surface needed for the formation of a filter flare.
 Quoting: Astromut


The location of a filter flare is directly opposite the optical axis of the bright light source in photo/video.

Meaning, if the sun is in the upper right of the frame, the flare is in the lower left.

This also means that the filter flare moves in precision with the camera movement.

Filter flares do not remain stationary as the camera moves around.

The light may not be nibiru or whatever, but it's not a filter flare.
 Quoting: Urban


Thank you for your response.

I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks so.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

John F. Kennedy
AstromutModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 922113
United States
05/17/2012 01:17 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunk this please.
...

No; if that were the case it should not show such a well defined edge, particularly of the left side where it would be causing the cloud to be backlit just as the sun did. You would instead see a bright diffuse glow that only became sharp after the "object" completely emerged from the cloud. The sharp circular edge of the flare in front of the cloud which is no longer being backlit by an object directly behind it is a dead giveaway of a filter flare.
 Quoting: Astromut


Very well then.

One thing about your answer seems very shaky though.

I just don't understand how an artifact, which you state it most certainly is, could EVER appear behind the clouds.
 Quoting: S0L4RN1GHTM4R3

And as I've been trying to tell you, it doesn't appear behind the clouds. You can't see it at first when the cloud moves to its position because the cloud itself is saturating those pixels, no detail can be seen at all, thus you can't see the filter flare. It's there though, and that's why you can see it in front of the clouds once the sun emerges and the cloud is no longer bright enough to saturate those pixels.
 Quoting: Astromut


No, not when it first goes behind the cloud, but a few seconds later before the sun comes back from behind the cloud.

Watch it again, it is very clearly BEHIND the clouds.
 Quoting: S0L4RN1GHTM4R3

I watched it many times, it's very clearly in front of the clouds. Again, if it were behind the clouds it would be illuminating them from behind at 1:33. It's not, it presents a sharp edge, there's no diffusion of its light, it's in front of the clouds (or perhaps more precisely, super-imposed on the clouds).
astrobanner2
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1334578
Serbia
05/17/2012 01:17 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunk this please.
Point: Astromut
Nibirutards: 0
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 10705336


are summerians nibirutards too?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 9003020


hahaha. Love this forum.
alien11endsheep
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 15866613
United States
05/17/2012 01:17 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunk this please.
I saw it very clearly when I watched the whole video when it was posted a couple days or so ago, it was IN FRONT OF THE CLOUDS during some of the film. debunked right there.
S0L4RN1GHTM4R3 (OP)

User ID: 7740691
United States
05/17/2012 01:18 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunk this please.
looked for it myself. and theres nothing! you think it could be unnoticed by so many people?
 Quoting: Plane


Well, if the theory that it is a brown dwarf, yes.
 Quoting: S0L4RN1GHTM4R3

If a brown dwarf were in the inner solar system, let alone close enough to appear as a resolvable disc (not point-like) to a handheld camera, it would be inducing massive perturbations in the positions of the planets which would have been noticed by amateurs like me long before now. That's how people like me know that there is no such object in or near the inner solar system.

Not only that, but there's not about a brown dwarf that would make it particularly difficult to see compared to the gas giants of our solar system, regardless of how much of its own light it emitted or didn't emit in infrared. It reflect as much light as Uranus at worst, Jupiter at best ( [link to arxiv.org] ) making it an easy naked-eye object if one were anywhere near here.
 Quoting: Astromut


It may not be a brown dwarf, I realize that the mass of a brown dwarf would probably create havoc, if it were this close. However, that doesn't mean it isn't a planetary body.

It surely isn't a lense artifact, as you claim.

At this point, I'm almost certain of that.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

John F. Kennedy
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 9003020
Romania
05/17/2012 01:20 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunk this please.
Point: Astromut
Nibirutards: 0
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 10705336


are summerians nibirutards too?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 9003020


hahaha. Love this forum.
alien11endsheep
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1334578


not a fair question? maybe i should have said WERE they....
AstromutModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 922113
United States
05/17/2012 01:20 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunk this please.
It's nothing you suggested, in fact it's much simpler than that. It's a filter flare. Holding ones' sunglasses up to a camera is not the proper way to image the sun. Furthermore, most cell phone and similar cheap cameras have a piece of glass or plastic protective covering in front of the lens, which automatically provides the surface needed for the formation of a filter flare.
 Quoting: Astromut


The location of a filter flare is directly opposite the optical axis of the bright light source in photo/video.

Meaning, if the sun is in the upper right of the frame, the flare is in the lower left.

This also means that the filter flare moves in precision with the camera movement.

Filter flares do not remain stationary as the camera moves around.

The light may not be nibiru or whatever, but it's not a filter flare.

(if a filter flare does not behave in the same manner as a lens flare, then feel free to correct me)
 Quoting: Urban


A filter flare does not behave in the same manner as a lens flare. See here:

This guy refers to it as a lens flare, but it's actually a filter flare. Notice how it doesn't move relative to the sun as he deliberately moves the camera around. There are other lens flares also visible, and they do move as he moves the camera.
astrobanner2
S0L4RN1GHTM4R3 (OP)

User ID: 7740691
United States
05/17/2012 01:20 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunk this please.
...


Very well then.

One thing about your answer seems very shaky though.

I just don't understand how an artifact, which you state it most certainly is, could EVER appear behind the clouds.
 Quoting: S0L4RN1GHTM4R3

And as I've been trying to tell you, it doesn't appear behind the clouds. You can't see it at first when the cloud moves to its position because the cloud itself is saturating those pixels, no detail can be seen at all, thus you can't see the filter flare. It's there though, and that's why you can see it in front of the clouds once the sun emerges and the cloud is no longer bright enough to saturate those pixels.
 Quoting: Astromut


No, not when it first goes behind the cloud, but a few seconds later before the sun comes back from behind the cloud.

Watch it again, it is very clearly BEHIND the clouds.
 Quoting: S0L4RN1GHTM4R3

I watched it many times, it's very clearly in front of the clouds. Again, if it were behind the clouds it would be illuminating them from behind at 1:33. It's not, it presents a sharp edge, there's no diffusion of its light, it's in front of the clouds (or perhaps more precisely, super-imposed on the clouds).
 Quoting: Astromut


So, at 1:20 into the video, that object is in front of the clouds?

You must wear glasses I take it?

Please, someone confirm that the object is, indeed, BEHIND the clouds at ~1:20 in the video.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

John F. Kennedy
kcdub0184

User ID: 16210406
United States
05/17/2012 01:21 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunk this please.
Point: Astromut
Nibirutards: 0
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 10705336


Get your facts straight, I'm no Nibirutard. I'm very logical as a matter of fact, I have to be, being in software programming.

I very clearly stated that I'm still on the fence with Nibiru. For you to count it out so absent-mindedly only shows that you're the one "losing" in this game we call life.

Kindly fuck off.
 Quoting: S0L4RN1GHTM4R3


Well said my friend. Most people are still stuck in there little boxs, its sad really.
~the secret to life is to AwakeN before death~(realizing there is no death)~

~How would you approach life if you knew your every thought/emotion dictated every aspect of your projected physical reality?~
AstromutModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 922113
United States
05/17/2012 01:23 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunk this please.
It surely isn't a lense artifact, as you claim.
 Quoting: S0L4RN1GHTM4R3


Yes, it is. It's in front of the clouds, it doesn't illuminate the clouds, and it dims when the sun is covered by a cloud. It doesn't get any more open and shut then that, aside from putting your finger in front of the sun, which again, no Nibiru claimant will do. Show me a video where that dot doesn't vanish when you completely cover the sun with your finger and then you'll have proof it's not a "lens artifact." This video, however, shows a lens artifact.
astrobanner2
S0L4RN1GHTM4R3 (OP)

User ID: 7740691
United States
05/17/2012 01:23 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunk this please.
Point: Astromut
Nibirutards: 0
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 10705336


Get your facts straight, I'm no Nibirutard. I'm very logical as a matter of fact, I have to be, being in software programming.

I very clearly stated that I'm still on the fence with Nibiru. For you to count it out so absent-mindedly only shows that you're the one "losing" in this game we call life.

Kindly fuck off.
 Quoting: S0L4RN1GHTM4R3


Well said my friend. Most people are still stuck in there little boxs, its sad really.
 Quoting: kcdub0184


I don't know whats more sad, that they're still stuck in their boxes, or that they refuse to come out of them.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

John F. Kennedy
S0L4RN1GHTM4R3 (OP)

User ID: 7740691
United States
05/17/2012 01:25 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunk this please.
It surely isn't a lense artifact, as you claim.
 Quoting: S0L4RN1GHTM4R3


Yes, it is. It's in front of the clouds, it doesn't illuminate the clouds, and it dims when the sun is covered by a cloud. It doesn't get any more open and shut then that, aside from putting your finger in front of the sun, which again, no Nibiru claimant will do. Show me a video where that dot doesn't vanish when you completely cover the sun with your finger and then you'll have proof it's not a "lens artifact." This video, however, shows a lens artifact.
 Quoting: Astromut


Well, you're not very convincing, because I can't provide a piece of evidence that I don't possess. That surely doesn't mean that there isn't something there.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

John F. Kennedy
AstromutModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 922113
United States
05/17/2012 01:25 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunk this please.
...

And as I've been trying to tell you, it doesn't appear behind the clouds. You can't see it at first when the cloud moves to its position because the cloud itself is saturating those pixels, no detail can be seen at all, thus you can't see the filter flare. It's there though, and that's why you can see it in front of the clouds once the sun emerges and the cloud is no longer bright enough to saturate those pixels.
 Quoting: Astromut


No, not when it first goes behind the cloud, but a few seconds later before the sun comes back from behind the cloud.

Watch it again, it is very clearly BEHIND the clouds.
 Quoting: S0L4RN1GHTM4R3

I watched it many times, it's very clearly in front of the clouds. Again, if it were behind the clouds it would be illuminating them from behind at 1:33. It's not, it presents a sharp edge, there's no diffusion of its light, it's in front of the clouds (or perhaps more precisely, super-imposed on the clouds).
 Quoting: Astromut


So, at 1:20 into the video, that object is in front of the clouds?
 Quoting: S0L4RN1GHTM4R3

Yes.
You must wear glasses I take it?
 Quoting: solar

Is that supposed to be an insult? I can see just fine. It's in front of the clouds. Keep watching. The sun is just starting to emerge at 1:20, once the sun has fully emerged it's undeniable that the flare is in front of the clouds at 1:33. Hell, it's undeniable by 1:24.

Last Edited by Dr. Astro on 05/17/2012 01:26 PM
astrobanner2
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 5051820
Sweden
05/17/2012 01:26 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunk this please.
Point: Astromut
Nibirutards: 0
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 10705336


Get your facts straight, I'm no Nibirutard. I'm very logical as a matter of fact, I have to be, being in software programming.

I very clearly stated that I'm still on the fence with Nibiru. For you to count it out so absent-mindedly only shows that you're the one "losing" in this game we call life.

Kindly fuck off.
 Quoting: S0L4RN1GHTM4R3


Well said my friend. Most people are still stuck in there little boxs, its sad really.
 Quoting: kcdub0184


Tell me about it.. Astroshill claimed in another thread that "Nibiru doesn't exist", how he could know that beats me,.. but the funny thing was that, in the same thread, he claimed himself to have an "open mind".
S0L4RN1GHTM4R3 (OP)

User ID: 7740691
United States
05/17/2012 01:26 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunk this please.
I'm sorry, but it was at 1:13-1:15, a bit of a better arguement that it is, in fact, behind the clouds.

[link to www.youtube.com]

Last Edited by ****D4RK*ST4R**** on 05/17/2012 01:27 PM
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

John F. Kennedy

News








We're dropping truth bombs like it's the end of days!