The Planet X conspiracy

Scruff

Heard of scientific musing of there being undiscovered plants/dwarf planets beyond Pluto but never of this Planet X/Nibiru conspiracy. Me thinks this is the place for it instead of the Astronomy forum...until its confirmed by the Pope in September.....

http://www.sott.net/article/298701-Is-life-as-we-know-it-going-to-end-The-scientific-case-for-Nibiru-Planet-X-that-will-not-go-away

degrassinoel

really old theory, but a fun one. Most of the stuff you'll find on it is rubbish though, "Planet X is coming 201X(insert number for relevant year)"

Zecharia Sitchin's theory is good, but it's way out there..
He basically translated a bunch of ancient Sumerian stuff that relates to both the Annunaki and their planet (planet X/Nibiru)

He comes across as genuine in any of the old videos i've seen him in, pokes fun at himself frequently but is/was (he's dead now) adamant about his translations being correct. Afaik his daughter runs his old website now and well, she's cashing in on his books with new editions and greatest hits type deals. But if you're looking for a decent free insight into his books, he goes into some pretty cool detail in his videos. The quality is usually crap but he's worth listening to at least.

This one is fairly decent

I wont link it (copywrite) but there is an audiobook of his most famous or bestselling book "The 12th planet" on youtube too. Interesting listening if you're that way inclined

Scruff

So it seems that this planet might actually exist! Although it IX now and not X as Pluto has been demoted

One example of a load of articles recently from respected sources
http://www.space.com/31671-planet-nine-discovery-explained-infographic.html

ScumLord

As far as I know the nibiru thing comes from a overinterpretation of one piece of one fresco and it only makes any sense to interpret it as Sumerians knowing there were nine planets in our solar system if you completely ignore everything else we know about Sumerian culture.

Up until telescopes were invented people could only see 5 planets, although, I don't think there's any indication they knew the planets were actually planets.

We haven't as such found another planet yet, but it seems like there is another large planet out there influencing the smaller dwarf planets at the edge of our solar system. There could be more planets for all we know, that part of our solar system is like a rubbish tip, it's made up of loads of leftover material that got pushed out.

Borisgem8

Nibiru is said to be the red planet that comes close to the earth and shed red dust. People believe it was responsible for the "Red sea" in the Bible. That is what I understand from it anyways.

4068ac1elhodqr

Those Sumerians & Annunaki fellows seem to pop up together a lot in media-folklore, along with owls.

From watching the 'allegedly true' movie 'The 4th Dimension' they seem like a great bunch of lads, just lacking in general etiquette and manners.

I use an extracted 30sec mp3 playback of their robotic type friendly chit chat voice as a response to Mumbai based call centers inquiring about mis-sold PPI refunds, or lottery wins from Nigeria - they don't ever call back afterwards.

ScumLord

Borisgem8 wrote: »

Nibiru is said to be the red planet that comes close to the earth and shed red dust. People believe it was responsible for the "Red sea" in the Bible. That is what I understand from it anyways.

What people?

There's also no evidence that ancient cultures knew that the planets were actually planets. They didn't have the modern version of the solar system.

Emme

ScumLord wrote: »

What people?

There's also no evidence that ancient cultures knew that the planets were actually planets. They didn't have the modern version of the solar system.

The Mayans
http://www.starteachastronomy.com/mayan.html

The Dogon of Mali
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/mitos_creacion/esp_mitoscreacion_1.htm

Ancient India
http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/t_es/t_es_shah_m_astronomy_frameset.htm

ScumLord

Emme wrote: »

The Mayans
http://www.starteachastronomy.com/mayan.html

The Dogon of Mali
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/mitos_creacion/esp_mitoscreacion_1.htm

Ancient India
http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/t_es/t_es_shah_m_astronomy_frameset.htm

The links are basically backing up what I'm saying. Bar the second one, I'll have to look into the Dogon people. The third links says they thought the planets revolved around earth, not the sun.

The planets stand out because they move when stars don't. Ancient people recognised this and made them gods, they didn't really know they were other planets. They're concepts of the universe were insightful for the time but flawed.

Basically the start were used as calendars though. The egyptians made start maps so they knew when floods were coming, or when the best time to sow or harvest was. They basically took their start maps as the gods talking to them telling them when to do stuff. They didn't really have any idea of the true state of our solar system.

degrassinoel

So planet X could still be a thing - news is a few months old and tbh i just haven't had time or the inclination to post until now :P

Technically, pluto's not a planet anymore so we've only 8 planets in our solar system.
Planet X will have to be demoted to Planet IX for all intents and purposes..
Anyways, if ye didnt hear on the news or read it elsewhere, here it is..

Basically, gravity is acting like there's a massive planet out there (don't get your hopes up for one with life on it) with an odd and extremely long orbit - which takes approximately 10-20k years to come full circle.



So, how much credence would a discovery like this have on the Planet X theory? Probably not a whole lot if it cant support life. However, It's pretty awesome news that in our back garden there's very likely something we could imagine only in some of the maddest theories. Maybe it's not so mad after all

ScumLord

degrassinoel wrote: »

So, how much credence would a discovery like this have on the Planet X theory? Probably not a whole lot if it cant support life. However, It's pretty awesome news that in our back garden there's very likely something we could imagine only in some of the maddest theories. Maybe it's not so mad after all

It doesn't really give any credence to the ancient theory. Generally because that evidence is based on misunderstanding or wilful twisting of ancient symbolism.

We don't actually have much proof of the planet, we have a theory that addresses anomalies and it's probably a true theory. It's going to be extremely hard to find because it's going to be next to impossible to see. People don't realise that once you get out past Pluto things become practically invisible because there simply isn't that much light out there. In the space between stars you could probably be right next to a planet and the only way you'd know it was there would be a blank spot that you couldn't see stars in.

This planet isn't that odd in the context of other solar systems we've been watching for planets. Many have large planets with eccentric orbits.

King Mob

degrassinoel wrote: »

S
So, how much credence would a discovery like this have on the Planet X theory?

A lot of the Planet X was tied into the whole 2012 deal. And we all know how that went.

ScumLord

King Mob wrote: »

A lot of the Planet X was tied into the whole 2012 deal. And we all know how that went.

Planet x comes from the Sumerians I think, which were in Iraq. It's based on a misinterpretation of one symbolic tablet that shows nine star symbols and people have jumped to the conclusion that those stars represent planets. When the people who study Sumerian culture say the stars clearly have a different meaning based on the rest of the tablets found. I can't remember now what it was but it has nothing to do with planets.

Of course ancient alien dogma constantly mixes and matches cultures and time periods separated by hundreds of years to construct a theory out of unrelated artifacts and myths. It's likely they showed sumerian artifacts then applied some mayan myths on top of it and constructed a story.

degrassinoel

King Mob wrote: »

A lot of the Planet X was tied into the whole 2012 deal. And we all know how that went.

the whacky ones yeah, Sitchin's wasn't ever associated with it

King Mob

degrassinoel wrote: »

the whacky ones yeah, Sitchin's wasn't ever associated with it

Not sure why you would separate Sitchin's one from "the wacky ones".
The only big difference between them and his is that they just put a deadline on their claims that came and went.

ScumLord

degrassinoel wrote: »

the whacky ones yeah, Sitchin's wasn't ever associated with it

Had a look at his page on wiki. He's clearly just making stuff up. His story wasn't constructed from evidense, he's just made it up and is looking for anything he can use as evidense to attach up he's story. The dates are way off on everything he talks about. He's saying planet x would have orbits as short as 3600 years, when modern astronomers say it would be more like 20000 years. He also says the asteroid belt was made from one of planet x's moons and is only 4000 years old.

We know far to much about our local solar system for he's theories to have any credibility. We have asteroids for the asteroid belt on earth and they're much older than 4000 years old.

degrassinoel

ScumLord wrote: »

Had a look at his page on wiki. He's clearly just making stuff up. His story wasn't constructed from evidense, he's just made it up and is looking for anything he can use as evidense to attach up he's story. The dates are way off on everything he talks about. He's saying planet x would have orbits as short as 3600 years, when modern astronomers say it would be more like 20000 years. He also says the asteroid belt was made from one of planet x's moons and is only 4000 years old.

We know far to much about our local solar system for he's theories to have any credibility. We have asteroids for the asteroid belt on earth and they're much older than 4000 years old.

Eh k, but that's got feck all to do with Sitchin and the whole 2012 thing. Also, have ye watched the video i linked in the previous page?

His wiki page isn't really going to tell you a lot about his theory other than what other people think of it. Have a look at the video when you get a chance it's around an hour long and it's worth it if even to debunk it properly.

degrassinoel

King Mob wrote: »

Not sure why you would separate Sitchin's one from "the wacky ones".
The only big difference between them and his is that they just put a deadline on their claims that came and went.

Precisely why they were whacky. Same people made a fortune with that kind of doomsaying in booksales and lectures - and then, when it all passed over like it was just another day.. they're nowhere to be found. Whacky. And the theory having a sellbydate disproves it fundamentally after that date has come and gone without said incident occurring.

Fact is, any eejit can claim this and that and make a few quid from it if it's loud enough, especially these days. And there were eejits aplenty in 2011. Even the discovery channel and nat geo had shows on it nearly every night

The PX theory is an old one and a lot of people cashed in on it.
That's why i'd put more stock in Sitchin's work than i ever would have in any of the others.

Tbh i feel like i'm on the defensive here rather than having a discussion about the theory, so can you do me a favour and tell me your thoughts on it?
And i mean Sitchin's one, not the rest.

ScumLord

degrassinoel wrote: »

Eh k, but that's got feck all to do with Sitchin and the whole 2012 thing. Also, have ye watched the video i linked in the previous page?

His wiki page isn't really going to tell you a lot about his theory other than what other people think of it. Have a look at the video when you get a chance it's around an hour long and it's worth it if even to debunk it properly.

I may watch it later but I probably won't get the chance. The problem is there's no evidence to back up what he's saying. He's interpretation of historical evidence is flawed and his attempts at astronomy is laughable.

It's a clear example of biased thinking. He wants there to be aliens so he's twisting facts to suit he's fantasy. The theory of aliens seeding earth is in direct competition with evolution, because evolution explains humanity.. So you really have to ask yourself which theory you believe, ancient aliens or evolution.

degrassinoel

ScumLord wrote: »

I may watch it later but I probably won't get the chance. The problem is there's no evidence to back up what he's saying. He's interpretation of historical evidence is flawed and his attempts at astronomy is laughable.

It's a clear example of biased thinking. He wants there to be aliens so he's twisting facts to suit he's fantasy. The theory of aliens seeding earth is in direct competition with evolution, because evolution explains humanity.. So you really have to ask yourself which theory you believe, ancient aliens or evolution.

Alright so, Though from what i can see, you're debunking it without listening to the guy's theory. And you're entitled to do so, but it's not exactly a healthy discussion if you're ignoring the main body of the subject to launch an attack.


So i'm gonna take that as either you trying to get a rise out of me for the information i brought to the thread or that you're just being cynical for the sake of it. In either case i don't think this warrants any further interaction from me to you on this matter.

ScumLord

degrassinoel wrote: »

Alright so, Though from what i can see, you're debunking it without listening to the guy's theory. And you're entitled to do so, but it's not exactly a healthy discussion if you're ignoring the main body of the subject to launch an attack.


So i'm gonna take that as either you trying to get a rise out of me for the information i brought to the thread or that you're just being cynical for the sake of it. In either case i don't think this warrants any further interaction from me to you on this matter.

I've followed these theories for a while now, I've heard them, I don't really need to listen to many new videos (although I do) because there's been nothing new added.

I am watching the video now during my lunch break and he's really just reinterpreting images clearly showing other things and rewording known science or ignoring known science when it interferes. I'm watching him now showing a tablet that shows people drinking beer and saying it's something entirely different and linking symbols to planets, the symbols are nowhere near looking like the planets the wants them to be.

He's also saying science can't explain the asteroid belt which is untrue. All he's drawings of planetary orbits are just coming from he's imagination, there's literally no other source for his projections, he can't show any proof in sumerian tablets, this is just him creating content to back up he's false theories.

I'm not trying to get a rise out of you, this guy is spreading lies and those lies should always be challenged. it's pseudo science at it's best. His interpretations only work in isolation, once you take into account all the archeology from that time period he's explanations fall apart. It's in the same league as creation theory but at least creation theory is based on something other than the flights of fancy of small collection fiction writers.

degrassinoel

ScumLord wrote: »

I'm not trying to get a rise out of you, this guy is spreading lies and those lies should always be challenged. it's pseudo science at it's best. His interpretations only work in isolation, once you take into account all the archeology from that time period he's explanations fall apart. It's in the same league as creation theory but at least creation theory is based on something other than the flights of fancy of small collection fiction writers.

lol sure..

One thing i'm certain of SL, you didn't read the wiki, and you, at best skipped through the 2 hour long video just so you could throw in some bait.

Look, it's very obvious to me that you've no interest in discussing this topic without being cynical. And tbh, the way you're posting at me (and you are) - i don't need the hassle, the stress, or to be baited any further into this by you.

ScumLord

degrassinoel wrote: »

lol sure..

One thing i'm certain of SL, you didn't read the wiki, and you, at best skipped through the 2 hour long video just so you could throw in some bait.

Look, it's very obvious to me that you've no interest in discussing this topic without being cynical. And tbh, the way you're posting at me (and you are) - i don't need the hassle, the stress, or to be baited any further into this by you.

I don't understand that. I skipped through the wiki and watched about 20 minutes or so of the video. The video starts out with misinformation and continues throughout. It's the same story it's always been.

I don't see why you'd see me disagreeing with you and highlighting the problems with this theory as baiting you?? Is this a thread where we can only agree that planet x is true?

degrassinoel

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't understand that. I skipped through the wiki and watched about 20 minutes or so of the video. The video starts out with misinformation and continues throughout. It's the same story it's always been.

I don't see why you'd see me disagreeing with you and highlighting the problems with this theory as baiting you?? Is this a thread where we can only agree that planet x is true?

I thought i was pretty clear but, If you need more information on why i've given up discussing this matter with you, pm me.

King Mob

degrassinoel wrote: »

Precisely why they were whacky. Same people made a fortune with that kind of doomsaying in booksales and lectures - and then, when it all passed over like it was just another day.. they're nowhere to be found. Whacky. And the theory having a sellbydate disproves it fundamentally after that date has come and gone without said incident occurring.

I'm still unsure what makes the theories any more different from each other.
They both rely on the concept of a planet coming into the inner solar system.
They both insist that ancient people knew about it and that it was coming back. The people who claimed it would happen in 2012 had the same kind of evidence Sitchin uses to come to his conclusions.
Sitchin only goes a step further by including alien gods, which by rights would make it whackier, no?

degrassinoel wrote: »

The PX theory is an old one and a lot of people cashed in on it.
That's why i'd put more stock in Sitchin's work than i ever would have in any of the others.

Plenty of people make money off Sitchin's work and work like it.

degrassinoel wrote: »

Tbh i feel like i'm on the defensive here rather than having a discussion about the theory, so can you do me a favour and tell me your thoughts on it?
And i mean Sitchin's one, not the rest.

I don't think that Sitchin's theory is good or rational and offers no evidence.
I don't think that this new planet offers a good reason to believe in Sitchin's claims or any other claims about planet X. This is because first, no one who ever made any such claims ever provided any evidence that lead to the discovery of this planet. And secondly, that this new possible planet cannot possibly be the planet they are claiming since it doesn't come anywhere near the inner solar system, which is an important part of most of the planet x claims.

Tzar Chasm

I've always assumed, and this is a manyfold assumption, that if these translations are accurate, and there were visits from ancient aliens, then the projected planetary orbits are the flight paths of their ships.

What does the ISS look like from the ground, its a point source of light, reasonably simmilar in intensity and trajectory to one of the planets.

So you could see how they migh gt conflated, especially if the people on the ground had no knowledge of space travel

ScumLord

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

I've always assumed, and this is a manyfold assumption, that if these translations are accurate, and there were visits from ancient aliens, then the projected planetary orbits are the flight paths of their ships.

I don't think the sumerians showed any projected orbits for planets. By most accounts they believed the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. So again we're back to sitchin just making stuff up and hoping no one fact checks what he's saying, or believes that the entire global scientific community is hiding the truth or just to stupid to see it was aliens. His entire theory is based on one seal and reinterpreting their myths based on that seal and the ancient alien story.

Sitchin also thinks the aliens are coming to earth to get our gold. Even though they probably had to fly past asteroids full of the stuff to get to earth where most the gold is rare, sparsely distributed and hard to get at. We also still have all our gold. The big problem with mining earth is that it's a more energy intensive process for a space faring species than just going to a solar system and taking whatever is floating around.

What does the ISS look like from the ground, its a point source of light, reasonably simmilar in intensity and trajectory to one of the planets.

Reasonably, although it's very different to anything else in the sky. Planets would be very predictable compared to the ISS which could be there one night and gone the next because of it's proximity to earth. If the space ship is any further away we can't see it.

So you could see how they migh gt conflated, especially if the people on the ground had no knowledge of space travel

I think they'd make a huge distinction. Even if the aliens said we're the god jupiter, they'd have to do it at a time when the people couldn't see jupiter or they'd wonder how he could be in two places at once.

degrassinoel

King Mob wrote: »

I'm still unsure what makes the theories any more different from each other.
They both rely on the concept of a planet coming into the inner solar system.
They both insist that ancient people knew about it and that it was coming back. The people who claimed it would happen in 2012 had the same kind of evidence Sitchin uses to come to his conclusions.
Sitchin only goes a step further by including alien gods, which by rights would make it whackier, no?


Plenty of people make money off Sitchin's work and work like it.

I don't think that Sitchin's theory is good or rational and offers no evidence.
I don't think that this new planet offers a good reason to believe in Sitchin's claims or any other claims about planet X. This is because first, no one who ever made any such claims ever provided any evidence that lead to the discovery of this planet. And secondly, that this new possible planet cannot possibly be the planet they are claiming since it doesn't come anywhere near the inner solar system, which is an important part of most of the planet x claims.

Nah, the deadline where the worlds collide or the whole mayan calendar thing and nibiru will appear in 2012/3/4/5/6 etc.. all a cash-in as i said before. They probably have some basis on the older theories, such as Sitchins. ie: they're (or rather, were) using Sitchin's theory to create their own fantastic doomsaying, end is nigh, tales to sell a few books or seats in a lecture hall.

Grand, thanks, Sitchin doesn't exactly provide evidence, he provides a translation of actual historic relics (sumerian cuneiform) which contained various information (most of which is fairly dull, day to day kind of things like shopping lists and so forth) However, there are some interesting ones, which are shown in the video in post #2 which should not be possible. Coincidence? Maybe. Pretty cool ones though. Of course there's plenty more to his theory than just a tenth planet, and 3000 year orbit but it's a translation of pieces of clay, those same pieces of clay could just as easily have been scrawled on by a child or a storyteller, or a madman.. who knows right?

Anyway, so he spends years sifting through the cuneiform tablets and translating all sorts of crap, mostly shopping lists, and either uncovers something we didnt know about our own solar system, or randomly creates a fairytale with some factual basis in truth (these actual tablets do exist) and over the course of the years as our technology gets better and better, it looks incredibly likely that there is a rather large planet out past pluto see post #10

Does it mean he was right all along? Nope. Does it mean he was wrong all along? Nope.

What does it mean? It means there is a coincidence between the theory and the tenth(read ninth, alas poor pluto, we hardly knew ye) planet, but that's all.

One could theorise that the planet (which is most likely a gas giant) was knocked from it's orbit at some point which may have been closer to earth to be visible every few thousand years, but i haven't heard any yet so i'll leave that to whoever.

I like Sitchin's lectures, he was a nice guy, and he told a good story. Give it a watch and see what ye think

Tzar Chasm

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't think the sumerians showed any projected orbits for planets. By most accounts they believed the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. So again we're back to sitchin just making stuff up and hoping no one fact checks what he's saying, or believes that the entire global scientific community is hiding the truth or just to stupid to see it was aliens. His entire theory is based on one seal and reinterpreting their myths based on that seal and the ancient alien story.

I dont subscribe to the flat earth theory having ever really held traction amongst all but the most backward of societies, once a society develops the 3 R's I would expect there to be some level of society to figure thes things out, geocentric models and epicycles I accept, but ya have to credit them with enough intelligence to figure that out.

He's not alone in his theory that alien races may have visited earth at some point in our history

Sitchin also thinks the aliens are coming to earth to get our gold. Even though they probably had to fly past asteroids full of the stuff to get to earth where most the gold is rare, sparsely distributed and hard to get at. We also still have all our gold. The big problem with mining earth is that it's a more energy intensive process for a space faring species than just going to a solar system and taking whatever is floating around.

Its entirety possible that aliens visited with no more purpose than to observe us, maybe they landed for repairs, maybe there is a collective narative running through these stories linking back to an event

Reasonably, although it's very different to anything else in the sky. Planets would be very predictable compared to the ISS which could be there one night and gone the next because of it's proximity to earth. If the space ship is any further away we can't see it.

Well FTL systems by their nature wouldn't appear as stars, but maybe something slower, and quite substantial like one of these generational ship concepts, that might show up.

I think they'd make a huge distinction. Even if the aliens said we're the god jupiter, they'd have to do it at a time when the people couldn't see jupiter or they'd wonder how he could be in two places at once.

I'd say we named the planets after them

ScumLord

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

I dont subscribe to the flat earth theory having ever really held traction amongst all but the most backward of societies, once a society develops the 3 R's I would expect there to be some level of society to figure thes things out, geocentric models and epicycles I accept, but ya have to credit them with enough intelligence to figure that out.

Why would any person just spontaneously come up with the theory that the earth is actually a globe? The thing is the historical record clearly shows the sumerians did think the earth was flat. It wasn't really until the Greeks come along that the globe earth theory pops up and even then it's not until Islam comes along that people have the mathematical tools and the ability to cover vast territories due to their empire to even be able to prove the theory. That's in AD, thousands of years after the sumerians.

Its entirety possible that aliens visited with no more purpose than to observe us, maybe they landed for repairs, maybe there is a collective narative running through these stories linking back to an event

Yeah, I think if aliens do know we exist they're studying us and we'll never see them until we become a space faring people, our only value to them is as something to study, other than that there's nothing on this planet that they'd need.. But that's a flight of fancy. I'm just imagining what ifs, I can start linking pieces of evidence to my theory but since I just came up with it in a flight of fancy it's no more a valid theory than star wars is a valid description of what's going on in the next galaxy over..

Well FTL systems by their nature wouldn't appear as stars, but maybe something slower, and quite substantial like one of these generational ship concepts, that might show up.

It might but at the same time it may not stand out as anything all that unusual to ancients. They would be used to seeing shooting stars, comets and everything would have been much clearer to them back then. One star out of place would have been an oddity, we don't often see to many records of comets and the likes, they may have seen objects like that in the sky as fleeting and not worthy of being mentioned in the same sentence as the planets. If something's important to the ancients they write it down. Mars has an erratic orbit from our perspective too, it dances around the sky, it is somewhat counter intuitive to think it's the same thing as jupiter and sets a precedent for stars to do strange things.

King Mob

degrassinoel wrote: »

Nah, the deadline where the worlds collide or the whole mayan calendar thing and nibiru will appear in 2012/3/4/5/6 etc.. all a cash-in as i said before. They probably have some basis on the older theories, such as Sitchins. ie: they're (or rather, were) using Sitchin's theory to create their own fantastic doomsaying, end is nigh, tales to sell a few books or seats in a lecture hall.

They claim the knowledge comes from "anicient carvings" and "clues" which have the same validity as the evidence Sitchin uses. (The cravings actually say no such thing the clues use very spotty reasoning.)

And again, Sitchin and co. seem to do fairly well for themselves selling books, videos and lectures.
Why is what he and his company do any different to what the 2012 believers did? Why does them monetising their theories make them untrustworthy, but the same is not true for Sitchin?

degrassinoel wrote: »

Grand, thanks, Sitchin doesn't exactly provide evidence, he provides a translation of actual historic relics (sumerian cuneiform) which contained various information (most of which is fairly dull, day to day kind of things like shopping lists and so forth)

No, he provides his translation and interpretation, which are at odds with pretty much every expert in the field.

degrassinoel wrote: »

However, there are some interesting ones, which are shown in the video in post #2 which should not be possible.

Can you point to a specific example of one of these things and explain why is is not possible?

degrassinoel wrote: »

Anyway, so he spends years sifting through the cuneiform tablets and translating all sorts of crap, mostly shopping lists, and either uncovers something we didnt know about our own solar system, or randomly creates a fairytale with some factual basis in truth (these actual tablets do exist)

Or he sees a seal, gets a dumb idea stuck in his head and then twists and bends things to fit that theory either for profit or because he genuinely believes and doesn't critically examine it.

Also, he did not uncover anything about the solar system.

degrassinoel wrote: »

and over the course of the years as our technology gets better and better, it looks incredibly likely that there is a rather large planet out past pluto see post #10

Does it mean he was right all along? Nope. Does it mean he was wrong all along? Nope.

What does it mean? It means there is a coincidence between the theory and the tenth(read ninth, alas poor pluto, we hardly knew ye) planet, but that's all.

But again, the proposed planet does not share any characteristics with his claimed planet x. It does not have a 3600 year orbit that brings it into the inner solar system. It is likely not a rocky planet. And it does not have alien gods living on it.

The only thing in common is that it is an extra planet.
The 2012 believers were as equally right about that.
And broken clocks are right twice a day.

degrassinoel wrote: »

One could theorise that the planet (which is most likely a gas giant) was knocked from it's orbit at some point which may have been closer to earth to be visible every few thousand years, but i haven't heard any yet so i'll leave that to whoever.

No, one couldn't. If such a massive planet existed and had such an elliptical orbit and blasted through the inner solar system regularly, then the inner solar system most likely would not have been able to form rocky planets. The distribution from that planet would make it far too chaotic for large stable bodies to emerge. Nevermind the fact that such a body in an orbit like that wouldn't likely last very long itself.

Then even ignoring that, the idea of a planet of that size being put into a huge orbit like that would take a huge amount of energy. An event like that would be hard to miss and would have caused massive disruption to the rest of the solar system.
And even then, it would require at least a few of these events to change it's orbit from a relatively short, hyperbolic one, to a longer, more circular one.

To buy this version of the theory, you have to ignore physics.
But then, this is true is you are buying into Sitchin's explaination for the asteroid belt anyway.

degrassinoel wrote: »

I like Sitchin's lectures, he was a nice guy, and he told a good story. Give it a watch and see what ye think

There's better, more compelling sci-fi out there that doesn't require you to put stock in some one who in the best case scenario is delusional or in the worst case, actively scamming people.