Poll-Planet "X"

Orbital anomalies have been rejected by who and on what grounds? Somewhere on the Xfacts site you can see the head of NASA quite happily postulating the possibility of an extra planet and agreeing on a lot of aspects Sitchin mentions.

Sitchin and Lloyd Pye both help to better explain the moon's apparent largeness in comparison to the size of the earth, the amount of spacial debris, the asteroid belt, why the Pacific Ocean is still a 7mile deep crater covering 1/3 of the earth's surface and so forth.

It's by no means accepted even amongst the scientific community that there simply is no possibility of there being an extra planet or more in the solar system.

Of all the options I have looked at, Sitchin and Pye offer what is to my mind the most reasonable explanation of events ;_)

Originally posted by Nairod
Orbital anomalies have been rejected by who and on what grounds?

Astronomers, based on the evidence. as i stated above, the original evidence that lead to the original proposition that there was another unknown planet in the solar system were orbital anamolies (i am not sure what was 'anomolous' specifically) for neptune and uranus. This lead to a massive search, resulting in the discovery of Pluto. However, Pluto's mass was found to not be enough to account for the problems, thus another search for another planet was begun. Unfortunately (and beleive me, I'd like for there to be another unknown planet right in this solar system) the mass of neptune (I am pretty sure it was neptune, not uranus) was measured more accurately by a space probe and it was found that the original estimate was an overestimate, and the masses of the two planets and pluto were sufficient. Thus the strong evidence for another planet, the evidence that resulted in searching for it in the first place, was gone.

It's by no means accepted even amongst the scientific community that there simply is no possibility of there being an extra planet or more in the solar system.

I didn't say that. I said that there is no evidence on which to even think that there -is- one there. There is quite a difference between those two statements.

Of all the options I have looked at, Sitchin and Pye offer what is to my mind the most reasonable explanation of events

Why is it the most reasonable?

Because they account far more for the aspects that I mentioned and more that I didn't than standard science which postulates a myriad of different theories.

Alessandro Morbidelli working at the French observatory C�te d�Azur wrote a journal regarding why he believed there will be an extra planet discovered in the solar system, provided a diagram of its elongated orbit and showed its entry in Sagittarius and its exit in Aquarius. In Feb 2003 issue of Science & Vie, Valerie Greffos goes into more detail about it.

It's not back yard amateurs that're looking for it, so there's signs somewhere of the existance of another

Originally posted by Nairod
Because they account far more for the aspects that I mentioned and more that I didn't than standard science which postulates a myriad of different theories.

Space aliens from an unknown planet better account for the moon being 'big', the asteroid belt and the overall shape of the pacific ocean?

It's not back yard amateurs that're looking for it, so there's signs somewhere of the existance of another

I'd like to learn more about those indicators, whatmagazine is that? Science & Whatnow?

[edit on 1-10-2004 by Nygdan]

No, I honestly don't think planet X as described exists. I really believe we would have found it by now.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Nairod
Because they account far more for the aspects that I mentioned and more that I didn't than standard science which postulates a myriad of different theories.

Space aliens from an unknown planet better account for the moon being 'big', the asteroid belt and the overall shape of the pacific ocean?

It's not back yard amateurs that're looking for it, so there's signs somewhere of the existance of another

I'd like to learn more about those indicators, whatmagazine is that? Science & Whatnow?

[edit on 1-10-2004 by Nygdan]

I'm not going to go into every aspect of the work that they've done, if you want those answers go find the twelfth planet in a library.

The magazine is french, and I gave its name...

The reason I believe is really personal and has nothing to do with anyone's theory, it's a dream in the dream I look much different than my body here I am tall and have white hair although I am not old we are talking in a language that I understand only during the dream the way a word is said can mean a whole group of thoughts we are dicussing planet X and the planet earth . As I look around a massive red sun dominates there is also another small blue sun, I have thought impressions flooding my mind that the world I am on is very old compared to earth the plants and animals have been imported from other places. it becomes another type of day now the small blue sun casts a different kind of light six or seven hours later light briefly fades for about four hoursthe stars are visible much much more than would be seen on a earth night we go into a dwelling or structure it is well lighted but the light comes from the walls as and the walls have a organic feel. There is much more but I want to stay on topic.

Originally posted by Nairod
I'm not going to go into every aspect of the work that they've done,

Apparently you won't go into any.

The magazine is french, and I gave its name...

Ok, I thought maybe it was cut off and was supposed to read 'Science & Views' or anything like that.

According to Sitchin (and I know how much everybody loves him), the asteroid belt was the planet Tiamat, and when struck apart, a large chunk created our pleanet Earth... our moon, however, was a moon of Tiamat which was to become a planet in its own right (when doing planet/moon size comparisons, ours is too large... even when compared to other moons).

This exploded planet created the Firmament in the heavens, seperating the waters above and below (in essence, the watery Earth and Mars from the icy moons of Jupiter and Saturn)... firmament meaning "hammered bracelet".

In accounts of missing matter/mass, this was attributed to Jupiter; from the explosion, Jupiter "absorbed" some chunks, while others became moons. Comets, too, in this theory, are remanents of Tiamat.

Now my comments...

But with all the talk of Nibiru? If one planet was destroyed, surely the other would be as well? If Tiamat formed the asteroid belt, thus keeping its original orbit, what of Nibiru? Wouldn't the 10th planet be more than likely a collection of space chunks instead of a single formed mass? This might help explain the Oort Cloud, the collection of comets and asteroids outside our solar system... from being broken up, the Sun lost its grip on Nibiru, and the pieces gathered there...

Or, in regards to Sedna, as seeing how it comes from the proper direction indicated by the Sumerians (Orion), it could, in effect, be a surviving moon of either Tiamat or Nibiru... being of smaller size and mass, it wouldn't hold the 3600 year time frame that the 10th planet was said to have, and so would have a longer time of orbit.

I am still sticking with my first post, though, in that the asteroid field is more than likely the remains of a tenth planet...

Originally posted by soothsayer
our moon, however, was a moon of Tiamat

Then why do analyses of moon rocks indicate that they were terrestrial? The asteroid belt is made up of non accreted bits left over from the original accretionary disk of the solar system, nothing indicates that the materials they are made up of was ever sorted like that of a planet.

Comets, too, in this theory, are remanents of Tiamat.

Comets are ice and dirt mostly tho

I don't know why there is all this 'Mysique' to a planet called 'X'. The only reason that it's called that would be because it's the tenth planet in the solar system.

Well, where is it? I thought Nancy Rieder told us it was going to arrive in our sight by June 2004. And it is already October, or is the calender system in U.S. wrong?

[edit on 10/1/2004 by surfup]

Mr. Nygdan is correct in just about every one of his posts, as near as I can figure.

There was no 'fifth planet" that was pulled apart by Jupiter's gravitational pull or an explosion or a collision with another planet, according to most cosmologists; adn Mr. Nygdan states, that arew as debris left over from the accretion disk, and, thanks to the gravitational aceleration of Jupiter, was unable to form into a planet (www.solstation.com...). Bode's Law, or the Titius-Bode relationship doesn't bear up under rigorous mathematical inquiry (for more details, review www.spirasolaris.ca...).

The only thing I would dispute with my eteemed colleague Mr Nygdan, is his comment that the discoverer of Pluto was a "Thomas Clyde".

Last month I took a Saturday evening tour of Lowell Observatory on Mars Hill in Flagstaff, Arizona, where Clyde Tombaugh made his discovery in 1930. Tombaugh was only 24 at the time and he survived to 1997. He was a giant.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Mr. Nygdan is correct in just about every one of his posts, as near as I can figure.

Ahem, you figure right. Man, you deserve a medal for being so observant! (ok, enough self aggrandizing)

thanks to the gravitational aceleration of Jupiter, was unable to form into a

I had no idea that it had anything to do with jupiter. Whoops, there goes a little ignorance, off to the land where ignorance goes when its denied. Thanks for that.

[not]"Thomas Clyde" [but rather ]Clyde Tombaugh

Oh man, and I had just looked at the name a little while before posting.

He was a giant.

[joking] AHA! Now I have you, he wasn't a giant! How ridiculous to even suggest he was! [/joking]

According to Sitchin's translation of the enuma elish, and as is shown on the xfacts site, he says that not a whole planet was destroyed, but a large part was knocked off and destroyed.

There's a lot of information on those sites Nygdan. Have you read those before questioning and doubting everything I say without doing any research on it?

Originally posted by Nairod
According to Sitchin's translation of the enuma elish

Wait. Why did he retranslate the enuma elish. Its already been translated, and I don't think that anyone has been able to show that Sitchin is trained to even read akkadian/sumerian. Why don't any of the people who can actually read these texts agree with his interpretations?

Have you read those before questioning and doubting everything I say without doing any research on it?

I've read sites just like it, they're almost allways a waste. Instead of wading thru the terrible reasearch and the constant futile search for references and sources, I tend to expect people promoting those sites to, at the very least, highlight the particular information that they think is noteworthy, let alone actually discuss the source documents and present the references. I am sure that they present an interesting and cohesive story. I have often been told by people that the fact that the story over all 'gels' or whatever is good enough for it to be true, but personally I require higher standards of evidence.

I agree with Byrd (and the astonomers) I believe there could be planet sized bodies in the ort cloud. But as far as a giant planet whizzing through the solar system every several thousand years, inhabited by aliens bent on our destruction....

You expect too much, I'm only ever going to provide the basics. If you choose not to follow that up, that's fine. But you can't criticise what you haven't researched

I remember the theories about "Gor" a few years back, as well as Altair and the Krell, Then there's mongo . . .

Tell ya'll what- one of you people who is into Sitchin's "translations" needs to go learn Akkadian and see for yourself if Sitchin makes as much sense as all of the real scholars who say he's wrong.

If you are convinced and can prove to others that Sitchin is right, I'll pay off the student loans you took in order to learn Akkadian. (or i'll just teach you how to shoot craps so that you can pay it yourself).