Planet X Theory Possibly Falling Apart - if so then other theories also falling apart

This is a long post so bare with me...

Well as we all know there is a big possibility that there is a planet x out in space with an elliptical orbit with our sun. If this is true and if there are the so called Annunaki on that planet, then the origins of man are perfectly explained. We know this from 2 forms of evidence that point in that direction becuase of the Sumerian descriptions of the Annanaki and also the fact that there is another object out there pulling on pluto.

Here is the ISSUE: I was listening to the feet to fire radio show and they had an astronomer on talking about planet X. He said that the large planet is said to have an 3600 year orbit and then says that is highly unstable!!!! This can cause the planet to drift off in space. This guy was a PHD in studying planetary orbits and what he said did make sense. Planet X is too large and has a large elliptical orbit which could cause it to be unstable. It would rather drift off into space then stay in our solar system.
It has also been said that planet X has passed us many times in the past, but if there is a high probability of it drifting off into space becuase of its instability then that doesnt leave any room for an advanced civilization to thrive and develop. So that would cancel out the Annanaki.

This entire idea would also harm another theory dealing with the greys or greens or whatever. The Sumerians say that the Annanaki had 'android' beings there to help them out when they were here on earth. Many speculate that these were the greys according to how the Sumerians had portrayed them. So this entire idea would kill idea as well.

This also kills many other theories, which I wont go into. I just hope that the astronomer that made claims about Planet X being unstable is wrong. I would definitely like to see planet X pass by sometime in my life. This would definitely be a site for soar eyes. In fact, it would be better then watching a dumb comet lol.

[edit on 7-6-2004 by John bull 1]

My take on this is that 'Planet X' isn't a planet at all but rather a brown dwarf star. Either way, all of the Nibiru theories do not involve alien life, not many of them do actually. I imagine the reason that the planet or star has such a long eliptical orbit would be that it is doing a figure 8 if you will orbiting Sol , our Sun, then orbiting another star out there in our Solar System.

Most Systems that they have found are all binary star systems, so it is logical to believe that ours may be as well. But why wouldn't they know about another star in our system? Right? Well maybe it has burned out, or maybe we really don't have the technology to find it. Perhaps it is a brown dwarf star or some other type of star that we haven;t categorized yet, who knows.Maybe we have missed it out ther in the Oort cloud somewhere.

But back to the supporting life issue. If it were a brown dwarf star , it could have a system of it's own. Smaller planets that orbit it. Perhaps this life lives on those orbiting satellites. Perhaps this life is much more advanced than our civilization. But think about it, if it is true that the orbit is 3600 years, then what could their civilization developed into in those years? Look at human kind and its development in the past 3600 years. They may be extinct since their last passage, if it is true.

Makes one wonder. They have already considered your problem and trust me, whatever else you may add to it they will have an answer. Who are "they"? "They" know who "they" are.


Nutzo

A brown dwarf or a burned-out star would show up on infrared pictures like a very bright star because it is so close. I think that especially with new satellites like Spitzer we would have noticed a brown dwarf or burned-out star.

The theory fell apart almost as soon as it was announced.

Originally posted by kyateLaBoca
Well as we all know there is a big possibility that there is a planet x out in space with an elliptical orbit with our sun.

Yes, and no.

There are probably more Kupier Body Objects out there other than Sedna. They are probably not planets. However, no outer planets have such an odd and elipitcal orbit that they swing down into our inner solar system.

If this is true and if there are the so called Annunaki on that planet, then the origins of man are perfectly explained. We know this from 2 forms of evidence that point in that direction becuase of the Sumerian descriptions of the Annanaki and also the fact that there is another object out there pulling on pluto.

Err... no. Sorry.

Yes, before Pluto's orbit was well mapped, a few astronomers thought there were more large planets out there. Better observations showed this wasn't true, and the idea was dismissed back in the 1940's or so.

He said that the large planet is said to have an 3600 year orbit and then says that is highly unstable!!!! This can cause the planet to drift off in space. This guy was a PHD in studying planetary orbits and what he said did make sense. Planet X is too large and has a large elliptical orbit which could cause it to be unstable. It would rather drift off into space then stay in our solar system.

Yes, if there was something like this out there at one time, it would be long gone by now. Remember that the solar system is well over 4 billion years old.

It has also been said that planet X has passed us many times in the past, but if there is a high probability of it drifting off into space becuase of its instability then that doesnt leave any room for an advanced civilization to thrive and develop. So that would cancel out the Annanaki.

Actually, it canceled them out long ago.

The Sumerians said that the Annunaki were the gods, and (if you read the Enumma Elish... rather than relying on what people say is in there), you'll see that their home wasn't on a planet. And furthermore, there isn't any planet Nibiru mentioned in there.

If you read up on the civilization and their astronomers, you'll discover that they only knew about six planets (and not Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Sedna) and that they didn't know about Jupiter's moons or Saturn's rings and so forth.

This entire idea would also harm another theory dealing with the greys or greens or whatever. The Sumerians say that the Annanaki had 'android' beings there to help them out when they were here on earth.

No, they didn't.
faculty.gvsu.edu...

The gods had to do manual labor in heaven (sow crops, dig irrigation ditches, etc.) They created humans to do manual labor... not Greys, not greenies, not reptiles. The specific Sumerian word is LU, which means 'mankind/human.' It doesn't mean weirdling or reptile or anything else.

Here's the dictionary link showing 'LU' as the word meaning 'man'
www.ping.de...

Here's the link to the texts in Sumerian (transliterated from the cuneiform). Line 59 specifically says mankind (human) is being created:
www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk...#

Note the "LU" in line 59. First word.

Here's the English translation -- (translated into readable English) -- lines 56 to 61: www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk...#

You can go through the rest of these transliterations and translations on the pages and confirm that yes, "LU" means "human" each and every single time it is used.

I would definitely like to see planet X pass by sometime in my life. This would definitely be a site for soar eyes. In fact, it would be better then watching a dumb comet lol.

I'm afraid you're doomed to disappointment. There's no such planet.

And no, it's not a brown dwarf star. In the first place, brown dwarf stars are *stars* and they shine. Brightly (well, dimly compared to others). It would be hugely massive. It would be like trying to hide a Hummer in a whole parking lot full of Volkswagens.

We'd have seen the thing and know where it was. Heck, even the Australopithecenes would have spotted it.

(edited to correct spelling. Ooops! Thanks, Borg!)

[edit on 7-6-2004 by Byrd]

BYRD, I think you wrong about a few things. Go to www.Xfacts.com. First of all, I know that the sumerians have said they were used by the annanaki to do manuel labor. Thats apparent from what is written but in addition to that, in their inscriptions they have talked about the Annanaki having android beings accompanying them and have also drew them out. Many of the links you gave me are from edu websites which dont mention some of the things the sumerians mentioned.

Whatever the reason behind those android beings, it has been speculated that those android beings may be the Greys, but again thats only theory and thats what I was trying to point out.

Then you talk about the sumerians discovering only 6 planets and contradict the idea that they knew about 10 planets. Why then would researchers such as Zecharis Sitchen, Jason Martell, and many more say that they knew about 10 planets. They dont just make this up. You seem to contradict what many of the experts say. Zecharis sitchen along with others have actually went back and looked into the so called myth pile of the sumerians and examined all their claims of the Annanaki and the planets. But myth or not, they have said that the sumerians claimed to know about 10 planets.

Then you talk about astronomers nixing the idea that there is something pulling on pluto in the 1940's. Why then would Zecharis Sitchen(an astronomer) along with many more astronomers be looking for such a planet and still make claims that there is something pulling on pluto.

Then you talk about what planet X is by saying its most likely a brown dwarf star and say since we cannot find it, it doesnt exist. How do you even know its degree of illumination and the ease with which it can be found considering that we havent even found it! Its only a theory. I've heard of it being a burnt out neutron star, but again thats only a theory, just like it being a brown dwarf. There are also many conspiracies with NASA on this issue, but I said before go to www.xfacts.com.

and even if the Australopithecenes would have seen this so called brown dwarf, they'd be too stupid to coment on it.

Originally posted by kyateLaBoca
BYRD, I think you wrong about a few things. Go to www.Xfacts.com. First of all, I know that the sumerians have said they were used by the annanaki to do manuel labor. Thats apparent from what is written but in addition to that, in their inscriptions they have talked about the Annanaki having android beings accompanying them and have also drew them out. Many of the links you gave me are from edu websites which dont mention some of the things the sumerians mentioned.

Whatever the reason behind those android beings, it has been speculated that those android beings may be the Greys, but again thats only theory and thats what I was trying to point out.

Then you talk about the sumerians discovering only 6 planets and contradict the idea that they knew about 10 planets. Why then would researchers such as Zecharis Sitchen, Jason Martell, and many more say that they knew about 10 planets. They dont just make this up. You seem to contradict what many of the experts say. Zecharis sitchen along with others have actually went back and looked into the so called myth pile of the sumerians and examined all their claims of the Annanaki and the planets. But myth or not, they have said that the sumerians claimed to know about 10 planets.

Then you talk about astronomers nixing the idea that there is something pulling on pluto in the 1940's. Why then would Zecharis Sitchen(an astronomer) along with many more astronomers be looking for such a planet and still make claims that there is something pulling on pluto.

Then you talk about what planet X is by saying its most likely a brown dwarf star and say since we cannot find it, it doesnt exist. How do you even know its degree of illumination and the ease with which it can be found considering that we havent even found it! Its only a theory. I've heard of it being a burnt out neutron star, but again thats only a theory, just like it being a brown dwarf. There are also many conspiracies with NASA on this issue, but I said before go to www.xfacts.com.

and even if the Australopithecenes would have seen this so called brown dwarf, they'd be too stupid to coment on it.

First off, it's ANNUNAKI, not Annanaki. Believe it or not, spelling stuff wrong seriously damages your argument, especially something so big as that. It makes you seem ignorant of the topic, which I know you aren't. You make some valid points, but that website you suggest is less than authoritative. I would sooner trust .edu sites than that one. It seems too skewed in the direction of the phenomenon of aliens and ghosts, etc...

And BYRD, that point about having found the 10th planet by now was exactly what I thought when I started reading this thread. You'd think that we would have found that planet by now had it existed. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

Originally posted by kyateLaBoca
BYRD, I think you wrong about a few things. Go to www.Xfacts.com. First of all, I know that the sumerians have said they were used by the annanaki to do manuel labor.

Kayte... I was translating from the Original Sumerian Cuneiform Texts for you. Yes, I can read some Sumerian cuneiform.

Really.

Yes, those are links to the real texts.

Whatever the reason behind those android beings, it has been speculated that those android beings may be the Greys, but again thats only theory and thats what I was trying to point out.

It doesn't say androids. The Sumerians wrote 'Man'. Human. Lu. Homo Sapiens.

Then you talk about the sumerians discovering only 6 planets and contradict the idea that they knew about 10 planets. Why then would researchers such as Zecharis Sitchen, Jason Martell, and many more say that they knew about 10 planets.

There's astronomical observatories in Babylon and Nineveh, and the only planets they list were Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn.
www.ramtops.demon.co.uk...

www.gatewaystobabylon.com... They had excellent math and could predict most eclipses.

They dont just make this up.

Beg to differ, here, but they do. It sells books for them.

You seem to contradict what many of the experts say. Zecharis sitchen along with others have actually went back and looked into the so called myth pile of the sumerians and examined all their claims of the Annanaki and the planets.

I think it would be terribly unkind if I said Sitchin is an expert only in his own mind... but that really is the way I feel. What I'm saying is what people with PhDs in archaeology and Middle Eastern studies say and what astronomers all over the world say. The ones who are the loudest debunkers of Sitchin are not "jealous" people; they're folks who live there, who have dug up the cities and work with museums and artifacts (Sitchin hasn't, to the best of my knowledge), and people who can walk into a room full of tablets and start reading them just as you would read the newspaper.

Sitchin does not read Sumerian. He is a reporter who decided to read the Bible and proclaim himself a Biblical scholar (and if you think I'm harsh, you should hear what the Biblical Hebrew scholars have to say!)

But myth or not, they have said that the sumerians claimed to know about 10 planets.

Only Sitchin and his crew have. Everyone else says Sitchin is mistaken.

Then you talk about astronomers nixing the idea that there is something pulling on pluto in the 1940's. Why then would Zecharis Sitchen(an astronomer)

He's not an astronomer. He's a former newspaper reporter.

... along with many more astronomers be looking for such a planet and still make claims that there is something pulling on pluto.

The real astronomers are the ones debunking this Planet X and they are the ones saying that better observations accounted for the apparent anomalies.
www.badastronomy.com...

You can see just how much of a fraud they think he is in the Planet X discussion section (many of these folks are real astronomers):
www.badastronomy.com...

Then you talk about what planet X is by saying its most likely a brown dwarf star

I was replying to someone else's comment. And I think the idea of a brown dwarf star is pure nonsense.

How do you even know its degree of illumination and the ease with which it can be found considering that we havent even found it! Its only a theory. I've heard of it being a burnt out neutron star, but again thats only a theory, just like it being a brown dwarf. There are also many conspiracies with NASA on this issue, but I said before go to www.xfacts.com.

Well, we know this because we know how bright brown dwarfs are and how bright nutron stars are and how much mass they have. Furthermore, we know that they're good sources of radiation.
chandra.harvard.edu...

Trust me -- these aren't hard calculations. Anyone with a good calculator and the right set of questions can easily calculate out the gravitational well. It doesn't take an Einstein (or I couldn't do it!)

and even if the Australopithecenes would have seen this so called brown dwarf, they'd be too stupid to coment on it.

Oh, I dunno. We homo sapiens tend to think of non-humans (and humans and humanoids from earlier ages) as being nearly brain-dead vegetables, in spite of considerable evidence that animals are quite aware of nature, and in spite of the evidence of sophistication by early people. Can't be proved either way, but I think they would have certainly noticed something like that.

First off, it's ANNUNAKI, not Annanaki. Believe it or not, spelling stuff wrong seriously damages your argument, especially something so big as that. It makes you seem ignorant of the topic

Easy now, so he mispelled a named. No need to go off like that. Frankly it does not/did not damage his argument. Both he and Byrd are having a great debate/conversation about the matter and I appreciate both their input.

Sorry but I do not like when people jump in and jump on others for their typos and grammar.

well sayed mate,
judging some one only by they'r grammar/typo, it's just futile

Do you people not realise that a planet that far away from the sun would not be able to support life? Also, if it was a "brown dwarf" it's gravity would of been noticed already.

Originally posted by Byrd

Oh, I dunno. We homo sapiens tend to think of non-humans (and humans and humanoids from earlier ages) as being nearly brain-dead vegetables, in spite of considerable evidence that animals are quite aware of nature, and in spite of the evidence of sophistication by early people. Can't be proved either way, but I think they would have certainly noticed something like that.

Man BYRD, honestly...that was the best repsonse I have ever seen on ATS. Thank you very much for using real facts on Sitchin and Sumerian text. If I could vote you "ABOVE TOP SECRET" I would but it seems you might have already received that vote from me a few days ago lol...

BTW, I cut down your post so as not to lose 20 points on excessive quoting. Thanks again for that insightful reply.

Originally posted by Jade Falcon
Do you people not realise that a planet that far away from the sun would not be able to support life? Also, if it was a "brown dwarf" it's gravity would of been noticed already.

Not neccessarily. We know very little of the Brown Dwarf. It was only discovered a fewe years ago. We are still discovering new types of stars even in our advanced time. It is safe to say that we possibly haven't discovered every type of star to date.

My problem with the whole " we would've found it by now" theory is this:

Hubble recently released photos of the farthest galaxies in the universe. Scientists think that we have peered into the outer reaches of space.
At the same time, we are discovering new planets in our own solar system.
There are many things out there to be discovered.

From what I have read, a brown dwarf stars gravity would be much greater than that of Sol. It would not let out much light.

You mention that we would have noticed the gravity , and yes, we certainly would. Have a look at this link.


www.ledger-enquirer.com...

"We make predictions about where the planets will be at any given time based on what we know about their motions, and it turned out that Pluto wasn't big enough to account for all the observed tugging and pulling seen in the orbits of Neptune and Uranus."


Nutzo

Originally posted by Jade Falcon
Do you people not realise that a planet that far away from the sun would not be able to support life? Also, if it was a "brown dwarf" it's gravity would of been noticed already.

Good point, on both that the gravity would be noticed evan from we are in the solar system. So maybe it is just a dark planet that is out there, that has no plant or animal life on it just a desert wastland like mars!

Originally posted by Byrd
The theory fell apart almost as soon as it was announced.

Yes, before Pluto's orbit was well mapped, a few astronomers thought there were more large planets out there. Better observations showed this wasn't true, and the idea was dismissed back in the 1940's or so.

Actually no. The idea has not been dismissed since the 1940. There have been several research papers and theories proposed that seem to indicate that there is at least one big planet and maybe a dead star in the outskirt of the solar system.

The evidence doesn't say that either one of these is coming into the inner solar system, but the evidence seems to point that they are out there.

Here is a link to some information I compiled on this subject.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

BTW, thank you for the sumerian translation.

The Annunaki would theoretically be able to thrive anywhere with their extensive knowledge. There are also ways to bounce a planet outside of the solar system assuming it once there. There is no telling the what they would theoretically be able to do with their knowledge.

The truth is that planet X is nothing but a ball of ice cream (Vanilla flvr) headed for the big splat, and X marks the spot, and that spot is painted right on earth. Sprinkles anyone?

And I'll post it later, but it was a link that stated that Sedna was just a moon, which would account for it's slow rotation and "wobble". There might be a 10th planet after all...

Originally posted by nutzobalzo

Originally posted by Jade Falcon
Do you people not realise that a planet that far away from the sun would not be able to support life? Also, if it was a "brown dwarf" it's gravity would of been noticed already.

Not neccessarily. We know very little of the Brown Dwarf. It was only discovered a fewe years ago. We are still discovering new types of stars even in our advanced time. It is safe to say that we possibly haven't discovered every type of star to date.

My problem with the whole " we would've found it by now" theory is this:

Hubble recently released photos of the farthest galaxies in the universe. Scientists think that we have peered into the outer reaches of space.
At the same time, we are discovering new planets in our own solar system.
There are many things out there to be discovered.

From what I have read, a brown dwarf stars gravity would be much greater than that of Sol. It would not let out much light.

You mention that we would have noticed the gravity , and yes, we certainly would. Have a look at this link.


www.ledger-enquirer.com...

"We make predictions about where the planets will be at any given time based on what we know about their motions, and it turned out that Pluto wasn't big enough to account for all the observed tugging and pulling seen in the orbits of Neptune and Uranus."


Nutzo

And in the next paragraph it is said that the Pioneer probes did not detect any anomoly's, and that the so called "disturbances" that were made a hundred years ago were probobly off by a margin.


Now, I don't doubt that there are other planetoids out there. However, to claim that an ancient civilization is living there is crazy.

Originally posted by Jade Falcon

And in the next paragraph it is said that the Pioneer probes did not detect any anomoly's, and that the so called "disturbances" that were made a hundred years ago were probobly off by a margin.

Now, I don't doubt that there are other planetoids out there. However, to claim that an ancient civilization is living there is crazy.

Right, it didn't detect any anomolies, doesn't mean they aren't there. And I don't like the word probably in a theory. Not long ago people thought the Earth was probably flat and that the Earth was probably the center of the universe. Others claimed different and they were called crazy.

Nutzo

Originally posted by d1k

First off, it's ANNUNAKI, not Annanaki. Believe it or not, spelling stuff wrong seriously damages your argument, especially something so big as that. It makes you seem ignorant of the topic

Easy now, so he mispelled a named. No need to go off like that. Frankly it does not/did not damage his argument. Both he and Byrd are having a great debate/conversation about the matter and I appreciate both their input.

Sorry but I do not like when people jump in and jump on others for their typos and grammar.

I wasn't trying to be harsh. If you'd finish reading what I said, you'd see that I made sure not to call him ignorant. He's doing an excellent job I think. I really wish people would stop taking what I say out of context, and yes, spelling matters some, but like you mentioned, not enough to seriously damage this convo.. So, with that, I'm gonna sit back, grab a beer, and watch this debate continue. Cheers!!

P.S. no spelling errors.. LOOK!!