For Late Breaking Developments: Read the 2012 and Planet X News Blog
If You Get It and Want to Get Through It: Join Planetxforecast.info

Debunking the Planet X Debunkers

Yowusa.com
Editorial by Janice Manning
John DiNardo, Contributor
Kurt Norwiky, Contributor
17-February-2009

Page 2 of 2

Debunker Math

Popular because it resonates, the most common debunker attack on this video series is typically directed towards the 2nd segment, Surviving 2012 and Planet X - Part 2 of 5: Scientific Proof.

The video presents data from a 1992 NASA press release and a 1983 U.S. News and World Report article. Both address the existence of Planet X and speculate on the distance of the object. So Marshall raises the possibility that these two reports could be connected.

Yet, disinformation artists and misinformed people attack the video with misleading math. The most common debunker tactic is to ignore the plus sign in the 1992 NASA press release and then simply subtract 7 from 50. They then say that a difference of 43 billion miles is impossible. But is it?

This common debunker math postulates that 7+ = 7, which of course begs the obvious question. Do plus signs simply function as garnish for integers? News flash folks, a plus sign is just a plus sign. Look it up.

Another debunker math assumption is that Planet X is in a stable orbit like the other major bodies in our solar system. A no-brainer for anyone with an auto parts pin up calendar on their wall. However, what we have been reporting on our site is that this object is in an inclined, comet-like orbit and we're not the only ones saying it. What an orbit such as this means, is that the speed of this object varies. Therefore, it is not constant. Yet, all the debunker math we've seen, and we've seen a lot of it, is based on constants.

The problem with constants is that distance and orbits of an inclined, comet-like orbit requires a series of observations. This is why NASA says 7+. At that time, they were only able to determine that the object was beyond 7 billion miles away.

Given that the lid slammed shut on Planet X reporting after this NASA press release, all we're left with is the initial 7+ finding. What we're not being given are the findings of subsequent observations. How convenient it is that the debunkers never mention this fact.

Scroll down to continue...

Yowusa.com Companion Sites

Yowusa.com/Radio	www.Yowbooks.com
www.PlanetXForecast.com	www.PlanetXForecast.info
www.2012PlanetX.com	www.2012PlanetX.info
www.Kolbrin.com

Now MBA's are Doing Debunker Math

Up till now, we've only seen disinformation operatives and self-appointed debunkers. However a new class of debunker has arisen. The MBA astronomer and case in point is seen in another article sent in to us by contributor, Kurt Norwiky. It is an article from George A. Ure, MBA.

Peoplenomics.com, 15-Feb-2009
A Steely-eyed Survey of 2012 Prospects
George A. Ure, MBA, Publisher

However, at about 8:30 into Master's part two, we get two data points:

• Planet X 1983: 50 billion miles out
• Planet X 1992: 7+ billion miles out.

Now, this says that in 9 years, Planet X moved about 43-billion miles, so at the same rate of closure, it should have arrived in 1994 or so. I mean think about it: Something is coming in for nine years at 4.7-billion miles a year, and in 1992 has only 8-billion (or less) miles to go?

The values reported in this video by Marshall were directly sourced to a 1992 NASA press release and a 1983 U.S. News and World Report article. These are documented facts from the public record. However, Peoplenomics.com publisher George A. Ure, MBA invents a whole new value with “only 8-billion (or less) miles to go.” Admittedly, it is the most elegant way we've seen yet, to redefine the functional aspects of a plus sign.

With his other assumption about the “same rate of closure” he is using the same debunker math as disinformation operatives. The constant.

Given all this, we'd love to hear from Mr. Ure about the authorities he used to turn 7+ into less than 8 billion miles without additional observation data. We'd also like to know why he bases his math on a constant velocity when the object is in an inclined, comet-like orbit.

On the other hand, given that the author possesses an MBA we could now be seeing a whole field so science opening up — hedge fund astronomy. The possibilities are endless.

Planet X Special Report

“Chance favors the prepared mind."—Louis Pasteur

Planet X Special Report No. 1: Where is Planet X?

We often received emails from people complaining about the mockery and abuse they receive from family, friends and co-workers when discussing this topic.

Our view is that this topic should never be introduced to others, until they demonstrate a geniune interest.

Nonetheless, those with a genuine interest in the topic will feel a natural urge to share their concerns about a possible threat to themselves and those close to them. Consequently, the most common questions they ask are, "where is Planet X, and what is the most likely worst case scenario?" GO

The Big Six Man-Made Catastrophic Scenarios for 2012 and Beyond — Survival Author Matthew Stein and Jacco van der Worp MSc

As moviegoers flock to see Sony's new 2012 film, critics, debunkers and cynics are spewing forth a flood of poison pen pronouncements. 

Taken altogether, it is a bizarre twist on the Biblical story of Noah and the Flood — and with strikingly similar themes. 

For those new to the topic of 2012, the film is great entertainment, but it also drives home an ancient failing of humanity.  That the common folk are often the last to know, whether by their own choices or those made for them by wealthy and powerful elites.   Ergo, many will never ask, "where will I be in 2012?"  They'll just have enough time to ask, "My God, what's happening?" GO

YOWUSA.COM Announcements

STREAM FOR FREE (Cable/DSL/56K Dial-up) Also For Your Listening Pleasure Terrestrial and Extraterrestrial Disinformation About the Planet X Forecast and 2012 Survival Guide Full Listing of All Cut to the Chase Shows