It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by kyateLaBoca
I'm not sure what you mean by "other anomalies." When I said, "he did find anomalies," I was refering to the anomalies that already existed from the masses that were known at the time. Its all in that video. He talks about how something is pulling on Uranus and Neptune, and how a large mass(planet X) could account for the strange orbit of those outer planets.
Something a real time astronomer can do[...] if your an average joe, don't expect to be able to hunt and peck for direct statements that say, "The anomalies found were..." Science reports(bio, physics, chem) are never that simple and direct.
but from experiences in reading other science papers, its not always directly stated.
It is a burden for a theoy to present its data/evidence. But then the burden is then handed to the person hearing the theory. It's his choice of whether he wants to accept it or not.
People still discredit evolution. Go fig.
In addition, if a theory is presented, it is a skeptic's job to present counter evidence.
So if your a skeptic the burden is also on you to disprove.
You presented what you felt was counter evidence, but only did so after many posts that had no links.
It hypothesizes planet X exist just like any other hypothesis based on the scientific method.
and points to a general location of the planet from the data they found.
. But you started bashing me for almost no reason, so I wasnt going to sit back and relax.
The focus of this argument has shifted away from whether inaccurate data was used or not to what the hypothesis of his paper is and if he did find anomalies.
As stated in the video they did find some form of pulling on the outer planets, which had to accout for another planet.
as well as others who agree with his translations that talk about planet x.
That debate can pretty much go both ways because there will always be critics and always be believers. We can save that for another time and another place.
But can I also address the same question to you. If your so confident enough that this planet doesn't exist, then why bother?
Originally posted by Der Kapitan
How is it that with all the astronomers in the world, we can find little, teen-tiny chunks of rock and ice at the very edges of our solar system, but no one has found this supposed planet? I can not believe that EVERY scientist in the world is in on some kind of conspiracy to cover this up.
[edit on 18-10-2004 by Der Kapitan]
Originally posted by kyateLaBoca
the main question iswas our evolution modified?
Originally posted by Nygdan
Originally posted by kyateLaBoca
the main question iswas our evolution modified?
On that the evidence seems to indicate no. There is nothing that suggests human evolution was tampered with by intelligent aliens or anything like that. Unless one were to contend that they tampered with evolution in such a way that is entirely undetectable and gives the appearance of having occured normally.
Unless one were to contend that they tampered with evolution in such a way that is entirely undetectable and gives the appearance of having occured normally
Originally posted by Nygdan
Here is my issue with the Harrington paper. The paper begins with the assumption that Planet X exists and uses inaccurate information.
It -clearly- does not support the existence of Planet X. I think he presented it to say, if Planet X exists, this is where to look for it. It takes the anamolies that are known about neptune and uranus and says -if- planet x exists then how does it play a part in these anamolies. Furthermore, it seems that every paper about Planet X, Neptune and Uranus, uses the pre-voyager information.
If Harrington isn't directly stateing critical information, then he, or anyone else for that matter, isn't writting very good science papers.
Fair enough, but Harrington's Paper is not evidence for Planet X, so there is no need to present 'counter evidence'.
Because I was never presented anything as evidence. I was told that there's a french magazine, and dozens of books out there. Thats not presenting evidence.
He apparently wanted to determine where to look for planet x, assuming it exists in the first place. It was a perfectly valid and scientific way to go about things, but its not evidence that it exists in the first place.
I was only joking around about the not presenting evidence. You weren't involved with the main bulk of the thread, so I couldn't have even been talking about you specifically. I was just being sarcastic, not tryig to bash you. If you felt I did, then I aplogize.
exactly. I think if it was too far away, then there would be an issue in measuring.
I agree entirely. However, I would think that if planet X exists, and it is planet sized, then there should be a pull on N, U, and/or Pluto. However I'd think that it could still be there, perhaps far away enough to not have an affect, or in some sort of weird orbit that cancels the affect, or there could be some entirely unknown factor that cancels out the affect
I'm actually getting really insteresting in Sitchin, if for nothing other than entertainment pruposes. Which of his books do you recommend? Do any of them detail his translation? Or is he just reinterpreting the myths, perhaps re-translating some key words? Do any akkadian linguists agree with him?
Originally posted by IQkid
WOW am i the only person that watches the news
kyatelaboca
However, the amount of chromosome pairs is wrong and doesnt match ours. So that's where the idea of the missing link comes into play
we have no way of comparing DNA base pairs with our extinct Home genus relatives
does not tell us how or who did it.
So its a question of where and who is the missing link?
So what would cause that tugging?
He talks about if it exists then it is located in that region.
The critical information is right there,
watch his video
he'd be able to reproduce this same exact experiment
Wouldn't you consider that counter evidence?
Someone even called you out on the anomalies,
Him and many other scientists and philosophers have suffered the same fate when you go against mainstream.
Originally posted by Nygdan
Neanderthal DNA (i beleive mitochondrial) has been used in genetic studies.
[edit on 19-10-2004 by Nygdan]
Why should the chromosome number of man and chimp be expected to be the same? The missing link is merely the intermediates between man and more primitive apes.
From what I understand about the paper thats precisely what he is saying, and thats precisely what the paper is testing, if planet x exists, where is it. The formula he gives, its for finding its location, assuming it exists.
I might watch it, but I don't see any point to it. He's a legitimate researcher, anything he found is going to be in the papers he published.
But, again, the 88 paper simply can't be used as evidence for planet x. It isn't intended as a test for planet x. Its 'experimenting' with something else. I'm not saying that nothing he wrote can be used as evidence, or at least isn't a test for it, but this 88 paper isn't.
Originally posted by kyateLaBoca
www.talkorigins.org...
So you have one pair of scientists saying yes this mt DNA is good enough, while another are saying it is completely inaccurate.
DNA from the nucleus is the best served, which we dont have.
Why should the chromosome number of man and chimp be expected to be the same? The missing link is merely the intermediates between man and more primitive apes.
But we dont know at which stage the DNA pairs went missing and why they went missing. Why does that matter? Becuase thats where the theorys of intervention with aliens comes into play.
If they did play some role in genetic modification, then you would expect such drastic changes. Yes a loss of a few chromosome pairs is a drastic change.
Go to....www.starchildproject.com and try to make time and watch the video.
They just recently found Sedna, which so much more closer then planet x. If they just did this now, how could they have found something so far away?
becuase of school and work.