connect the DOTS, do the MATH and smell the COFFEE

Just to remind ourselves: The US east coast blizzard prediction maps are NOT video footage!...for the simple reason there are most likely no weather satellites to record that in spite of we are TOLD and led to BELIEVE. The imagery that you see as weather forecast is a translation (from numbers to pixels) or modeling of data that comes from WITHIN our atmosphere. I am talking about thermometers, barometers, radar and weather balloons which combined supply sufficient data in order to produce a so called satellite view and thus render ASSUMED video footage from a real orbital 'weather' satellite obsolete.

NASA openly admits to this and it is easy to grasp once you know what to look for. Observe the recent Tweet by NASA and notice the used language in particular:

Our supercomputers @NASA_NCCS crunched the data to show the cloud flow of #Blizzard2016: https://t.co/W7NwdBQbbnhttps://t.co/qHL3pp7Vgk

— NASA (@NASA) January 22, 2016

The text right below the Tweet provided by NASA but not shown in picture above:

NASA's GEOS-5 provides a satellite view of historic winter stormThe near-real-time GEOS-5 ATMOSPHERIC DATA assimilation system ingests more than 5 million observations every 6 hours producing comprehensive analyses & forecasts of the atmosphere each day.

Get it?

First and foremost: the GEOS-5 assimilates ATMOSPHERIC DATA and so NASA tells you that what they show you comes from WITHIN our atmosphere..NOT from some supposed satellite!!!

Furthermore: Global MODELING and assimilation office; Supercomputations by NASA's supercomputers had to be made in order to PROVIDE an image because it wasn't an image from the start like in the case of an actual photo or video. It's a composite, a model, an illustration, an assimilation of data indeed....so why need a satellite then?..Go figure!

NASA's GEOS-5 provides a 'satellite view', as in: as if it were filmed by a satellite.

Learn to read between the lines, to dissect text like a lawyer, to read the fine print even when it isn't provided because words do have meaning.

Ushering in Planet X by re-branding it Planet 9. Notice how the pictures provided in both articles are nothing more than artistic renderings which is typical for space agency 'photos'. On top of that are the titles of articles linked below a clue that it is not certain at all that this Planet 9 would be real.

The first title is: 'Ninth Planet' MAY exist in solar system: US scientists. May?! Define may:

How about DOES exist if it is so certain.

The second title is Scientists: GOOD evidence for 9th planet in solar system. Define good:

Does the alleged existence of Planet 9 has your approval? In 'science' one would expect a term like irrefutable or absolute, don't you think?

http://news.yahoo.com/ninth-planet-may-exist-solar-system-us-scientists-174753045.html

http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-good-evidence-9th-planet-solar-system-171654347.html

Since when is there water to be found in vacuum space? The answer is: never.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3400739/Just-popping-walk-Tim-Peake-prepares-make-historic-spacewalk-repair-faulty-power-unit-space-station.html

The so called space walks are filmed in a huge swimming pool with a mock up space station and the right color for chroma key compositing (blue or green screen).

In the article this is shown in a short video (almost at the end) and it is deliberately shown to you so your free will is not violated. You can choose to either lie to your self OR to discern the information provided to come to the simple and truthful conclusion that we were and are fooled and mocked big time with the whole so called 'space program'.

If you justly and humbly admit the latter then follow up by wondering and researching the WHO and WHY of it.

This David Bowie tribute shot in space!? Watch closely and think again.

Admittedly, NASA deserves it. I mean with the bs of the ice moons, Pluto, the epic footage of the dark side of the moon, the several discoveries on Mars etc.; Photoshop and its pilots is not cheap you know. Probably more money is also needed for the upcoming stunts like the 'discovery' of alien life for example. Maybe not as soon as 2016 but surely soon enough.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/16/10289030/nasa-budget-increase-2016-congress-funding

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/622515/Did-scientists-pick-first-intelligent-radio-waves-distant-alien-planet-Australia-telescope

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-capture-black-hole-eating-a-star-and-then-vomiting-it-back-out-a6751976.html

Yeah, yeah, yeah..and the moon attracts oceans (but not lakes) but at same 'time' the earth can't attract the moon, how does that even make any sense?

If you agree to the terms and conditions of so called scientists you are bound by the laws that science presupposes. Mind you that in the definition of presupposition there is 'uncertainty' for it is a belief of some sort. Study basic contract law to grasp how your thoughts/speech relates to matter; how agreement is analogues to signing a contract.

http://www.blastr.com/2015-11-4/nasa-just-saw-something-come-out-black-hole-first-time-ever