It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Is 12th planet proof of sitchin annunaki story.

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 11:23 PM
Ive been looking at this site for awhile and i can't remember if anything was posted about this so pardon me for repeating a topic if i do. But I see alot of threads that ask for proof of reptillians or greys or just aliens in general. And I wonder what everyone thinks about the 12th planet that was announced half a year ago if i remember correctly. I believe I read that the planets orbit cycle of one year equaled 3600 of our years. And you have Zecharia Sitchin the author of the 12th planet who claimed there was a 12th planet with a 3600 earth years orbital cycle. Supposedly he received his information from deciphering sumerian tablets and he stated this years before the official announcement. So if this fact of a 12th planet is true then isnt that some proof of the reality of his theory of aliens. Is that proof that the annunaki exist on a 12th planet in our solar system. what does everyone think of this?

P.S. I believe they named it xena.

posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 11:50 PM
xena was an unofficial name for the object larger than pluto found out in the kuiper belt. it would have only been the 12th planet if the first proposal was accepted by the IAU that made the asteroid ceres, pluto and charon planets. this proposal was thrown out (and rightfully so). technically, assuming that the old 9 planet was still in existence, "xena" would have been the 10th planet from the sun, not the 12th.

btw, the object has an offical name, now. it is not "xena", that is just what the discoverer (whose name escapes me at this time) was calling it. it was a nickname.

back to the subject on hand. does this prove anything? nah, but it's possible. if the ancient tablature was correctly deciphered, there could be other objects that revolve around our sun that the aliens consider planets that we don't. maybe their definition is different than ours. i mean, we've only had a definition for a few months
or maybe there are other large ojects orbiting closer than "xena" is to our sun that we just haven't discovered yet. we're FAR from charting all the sky.

so in short, this really proves nothing, but maybe someone else out there knows a little more about this subject than i do to make things more interesting.

[edit on 6-10-2006 by ChocoTaco369]

posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 12:42 AM
Think of it this way - there are thousands upon thousands of similar objects like that out there.

Does simply calling an object a planet lend credence to anything? No, it doesn't. It's just a name.

new topics

log in