More Planet X Images — SelfInformYourMind vs. NibiruShock2012

Selfinformyourmind's ‘About this video,’ he or she claims that NibiruShock2012's images and his or her images are pictures of the same object - Planet X.  If this is the case, then both sets of images should be contingent in a few vital ways.  To name a few; the number of moons/objects orbiting the primary object, the text encoded onto the images (dates, image number etc.), the apparent size of the object passing in front of the primary object and the magnification of the images.

The Number of Moons/Objects Orbiting
the Primary Object in Both Photos

YOWUSA.com’s analysis of nibirushock2012’s images identified 7 objects as having some sort of recognisable orbit around the primary object.  As both NibiruShock2012's and Selfinformyourmind's pictures are supposedly from the same source, both sets of images should have the same, or if not, at least a similar amount of objects with signs of orbit around the primary object.

The 7 objects, as shown in NibiruShock2012s second video.

However, in Selfinformyourmind's images, this isn’t the case.  No objects seem to orbit the primary object other than the one passing in front of it

The image above shows one orbiting object, as in Selfinformyourmind's images

The difference between the pictures with regards to objects orbiting the primary object is Nibirushock2012's images have at least 7 objects showing signs of an orbit, and Selfinformyourmind's pictures only have one.

The Text Encoded onto the Images

A trend exists in NibiruShock2012's images with text. Without fail, there was always in the two videos from February, 2008 at least a date in the bottom left and what appears to be an image number in the lower right. Only once do we see an indication of any other marking by the source on the images, and that is in NibiruShock2012's second video, in which a block of ‘something’ appears on the far right.

This image is one of Nibirushock2012's images with the text common to all of the pictures circled.

In Selfinformyourmind's images there is a date in the lower left, but everything else is blocked. Furthermore, in all of Selfinformyourmind's images, there is a tiny line of text in the top left which is also blocked out. This line doesn’t appear in any of nibirushock2012s images. The font and size of text are also very different.

This is one of Selfinformyourmind's images with all apparent blocks of text circled.

The Size of the Object Passing in
Front of The Primary Object

We aren’t given enough information to determine the exact physical size of the objects in any of the images. However, that isn’t a problem. We can simply use the primary object as a reference to determine the size of the object passing in front of it.

If we were to say that Selfinformyourmind's images were indeed the same objects as the pictures in NibiruShock2012's images then we have to recognise that the primary object in Selfinformyourmind's images is slightly bigger. Again, in keeping with the temporary assumption that both objects are the same, let’s put this down to the fact the telescope used was more magnified than in nibirushock2012's images.

To compensate for this, I edited both sets of images so that the primary object (large circle) appears the same size in both sets. With that in mind, the object orbiting in front (smaller circle) isn’t the same size.

The Magnification of the Images

All modern telescopes allow users to adjust common and basic variables to aid the user in viewing charted objects in the sky and recording specific locations of sightings. At its most basic, the modern telescope allows the user to adjust magnification, angle and direction of sight.

This author has to question that, if these pictures are of the same object, why in these sets of images did they magnify the object? And more importantly, why did they only choose to do it ever so slightly. There would be no benefit in doing that.

Conclusion

Selfinformyourmind stated that these images were from the same source as NibiruShock2012's images. The goal of this article was to investigate this and determine if it was a plausible claim. The evidence presented challenges this claim and leads to the conclusion that these pictures are not of the same object.