The Nibiru Question

kidflash2008 · 12-27-2008, 10:41 AM

The end of 2008 is approaching us and there are more and more threads at various sites about the planet/dark star Nibiru. Nibiru was first discussed by researcher/author Zecharia Sitchin in the early 1970s when he deciphered some Sumerian tablets. Many historians and others dispute Mr Sitchin's interpretations, but he also put in a lot of fascinating tidbits to back up his claim. He also stated the planet was not due until around the year 2600AD, not the current 2012. (He may have changed the date in his later books as I only read the earlier ones.) Here are some points about the Nibiru story:

1. Pioneer 10 and 11 measured the outer solar system for a brown dwarf that some astronomers believed was in orbit around the sun, about 50 billion miles away. The probes did not find any trace of a brown dwarf or any other dwarf star near the sun. The closest star remains Alpha Centauri. Some have argued that the probes were too old and did not have the capabilities to do the measurements. Not only could they measure for radiation and gravitational pulls, they could be programmed from JPL to do the measurements. Even Mr Sitchin was happy when the probes ruled out the brown dwarf. He had always stated Nibiru was a planet in a strange orbit with our sun. It seems many rouge sites went with the dwarf star theory to sound different than Mr Sitchin.

2. As a heavenly body moves toward the sun, it does speed up. When it is close to the orbital path of Neptune, the planet would still be going at a slow speed. It would take decades to get to the earth from that distance. The other problem is the planet (which is supposedly Earth sized or bigger) would of been seen by astronomers, both amateur and professional. An argument is the amateur astronomers would not have the equipment, but many of them spend thousands of dollars on their telescopes. We are not talking about a Walmart type telescope being used. Other arguments are that the planet is approaching from the southern hemisphere, and it would not be seen by us. It still would be seen by amateurs in the southern part, as there are many who do live in Brazil and Australia. The point is the planet would be visible by now, and it would be closer than Neptune to approach near Earth by 2012.

3. Another argument is that it is behind the sun. It would have to be moving at a tremendous speed, and be at the orbital path of Earth. It's gravity would have been noticed causing havoc on the other planets. It would also be visible from the other probes sent to Mars and other planets. They usually send back pictures of Earth from a distance to show us its place in the Solar System. The point is, if Nibiru were on an opposite orbit as Earth, all hell would of broken loose.

4. Then there is the question of life on the planet. If it is so far from the sun as to not get enough heat and the atmosphere is frozen, it could not sustain life as we know it. The Anunnaki have been described as looking just like us, so they would need a climate that is similar to live in. Nibiru would be dark and very cold for most of its orbit. It is possible to be active, creating its own heat, and it could harbor life on the inside. It would have to be primitive life, as seen in the far reaches of our own planet. If Nibiru got its heat from a gas giant, the gas giant would have to have developed into a dwarf star (see number 1). How active can a planet be if it is so far from the sun, its own atmosphere is frozen, and the temperature average is -400 degrees Fahrenheit?

When the science is done, there are always those who cry the scientific community is keeping this one a secret. There are enough amateurs and others out there to keep this from being a secret. Most want to discover their own planet, moon or comet, and they would announce such a discovery immediately. There are many trans-Neptunian planets out there to be discovered, but it is highly unlikely a planet with an orbit described by Sitchin would be out there and support life. I also always ask, but am never answered, why did the Sumerians write about Pluto, but forget its sister planet Charon? Why did they not write about Eris, Makemake, Sedna, and all the other rather large plutoids that have been discovered recently?

This time, the logic overrules any argument for the existence of a planet described by Zecharia Sitchin. If it did, it would be seen by now.

kissbang · 12-27-2008, 12:46 PM

So what you trying to tell me "k flash", all those stretching exercises that i so diligently practise every day (kissing my A good by)
have all been done in vain?

kidflash2008 · 12-28-2008, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kissbang

So what you trying to tell me "k flash", all those stretching exercises that i so diligently practise every day (kissing my A good by)
have all been done in vain?

Yes! The evidence out there does not support a planet like the one described by Zecharia Sitchin. He was the first with the Planet X theory as recorded by the ancients, and many others have stolen his ideas and morphed them into their own. I would not worry about a planet or dwarf star coming near the earth on 2012.

Mingus · 12-28-2008, 05:51 PM

Besides, where else in the entire observable universe do you see a binary star system that features one fixed star and one star with an unbelievably long and odd rotation? It defies the physics of the matter.

kidflash2008 · 12-29-2008, 10:07 AM

The star theory is totally wrong, and the probes themselves proved our sun does not have a companion. While it is possible for a large planet bigger than Terra is yet to be discovered, the orbit would not be as eccentric as suggested without causing major disturbances in the outer planets. The life question is another one to ponder, as it would be so cold the atmosphere itself is solid ice. The only thing these theories do is sell books and DVDs. People will believe them, no matter what evidence is there stating otherwise.

12-27-2008, 10:41 AM	#1
kidflash2008 Senior Investigator Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,726	The Nibiru Question The end of 2008 is approaching us and there are more and more threads at various sites about the planet/dark star Nibiru. Nibiru was first discussed by researcher/author Zecharia Sitchin in the early 1970s when he deciphered some Sumerian tablets. Many historians and others dispute Mr Sitchin's interpretations, but he also put in a lot of fascinating tidbits to back up his claim. He also stated the planet was not due until around the year 2600AD, not the current 2012. (He may have changed the date in his later books as I only read the earlier ones.) Here are some points about the Nibiru story: 1. Pioneer 10 and 11 measured the outer solar system for a brown dwarf that some astronomers believed was in orbit around the sun, about 50 billion miles away. The probes did not find any trace of a brown dwarf or any other dwarf star near the sun. The closest star remains Alpha Centauri. Some have argued that the probes were too old and did not have the capabilities to do the measurements. Not only could they measure for radiation and gravitational pulls, they could be programmed from JPL to do the measurements. Even Mr Sitchin was happy when the probes ruled out the brown dwarf. He had always stated Nibiru was a planet in a strange orbit with our sun. It seems many rouge sites went with the dwarf star theory to sound different than Mr Sitchin. 2. As a heavenly body moves toward the sun, it does speed up. When it is close to the orbital path of Neptune, the planet would still be going at a slow speed. It would take decades to get to the earth from that distance. The other problem is the planet (which is supposedly Earth sized or bigger) would of been seen by astronomers, both amateur and professional. An argument is the amateur astronomers would not have the equipment, but many of them spend thousands of dollars on their telescopes. We are not talking about a Walmart type telescope being used. Other arguments are that the planet is approaching from the southern hemisphere, and it would not be seen by us. It still would be seen by amateurs in the southern part, as there are many who do live in Brazil and Australia. The point is the planet would be visible by now, and it would be closer than Neptune to approach near Earth by 2012. 3. Another argument is that it is behind the sun. It would have to be moving at a tremendous speed, and be at the orbital path of Earth. It's gravity would have been noticed causing havoc on the other planets. It would also be visible from the other probes sent to Mars and other planets. They usually send back pictures of Earth from a distance to show us its place in the Solar System. The point is, if Nibiru were on an opposite orbit as Earth, all hell would of broken loose. 4. Then there is the question of life on the planet. If it is so far from the sun as to not get enough heat and the atmosphere is frozen, it could not sustain life as we know it. The Anunnaki have been described as looking just like us, so they would need a climate that is similar to live in. Nibiru would be dark and very cold for most of its orbit. It is possible to be active, creating its own heat, and it could harbor life on the inside. It would have to be primitive life, as seen in the far reaches of our own planet. If Nibiru got its heat from a gas giant, the gas giant would have to have developed into a dwarf star (see number 1). How active can a planet be if it is so far from the sun, its own atmosphere is frozen, and the temperature average is -400 degrees Fahrenheit? When the science is done, there are always those who cry the scientific community is keeping this one a secret. There are enough amateurs and others out there to keep this from being a secret. Most want to discover their own planet, moon or comet, and they would announce such a discovery immediately. There are many trans-Neptunian planets out there to be discovered, but it is highly unlikely a planet with an orbit described by Sitchin would be out there and support life. I also always ask, but am never answered, why did the Sumerians write about Pluto, but forget its sister planet Charon? Why did they not write about Eris, Makemake, Sedna, and all the other rather large plutoids that have been discovered recently? This time, the logic overrules any argument for the existence of a planet described by Zecharia Sitchin. If it did, it would be seen by now.

12-27-2008, 12:46 PM	#2
kissbang Junior Investigator Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Ontario Canada Posts: 92	So what you trying to tell me "k flash", all those stretching exercises that i so diligently practise every day (kissing my A good by) have all been done in vain? __________________ "Destiny come's to those who listen, and fate finds the rest" Last edited by kissbang; 12-27-2008 at 12:50 PM. Reason: offensively redundant

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

12-28-2008, 05:51 PM	#4
Mingus Investigator Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 336	Besides, where else in the entire observable universe do you see a binary star system that features one fixed star and one star with an unbelievably long and odd rotation? It defies the physics of the matter.

12-29-2008, 10:07 AM	#5
kidflash2008 Senior Investigator Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,726	The star theory is totally wrong, and the probes themselves proved our sun does not have a companion. While it is possible for a large planet bigger than Terra is yet to be discovered, the orbit would not be as eccentric as suggested without causing major disturbances in the outer planets. The life question is another one to ponder, as it would be so cold the atmosphere itself is solid ice. The only thing these theories do is sell books and DVDs. People will believe them, no matter what evidence is there stating otherwise.