PDA

View Full Version : What will happen in year 2003?



sassy
2002-Oct-30, 12:29 AM
Hi all.. I'm new here. I just recently got interested in the Planet X debate, and I'm really not sure what "side" to take..I am assuming the non-supporters and supporters of this issue, are residing here.. So I would really like to ask a favor. I am interested in what makes the supporters believe in Planet X.. and, I am interested in what makes the non-supporters *NOT* believe in Planet X, and the theory that it will erase 90% of the population in May 2003. A brief post would be nice, I'm not really into the heavy, long and drawn out explanations.. Thank you very much /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Senor Molinero
2002-Oct-30, 12:42 AM
Some people have the need to feel that they are a part of something that is bigger than they are. The claims of Sitchin et al are based on wishful thinking and easily debunked. No hard evidence exists proving Planet X. A world of evidence exists against it. The excuses will be many, come June 2003.

Kaptain K
2002-Oct-30, 11:39 AM
There are many reasons not to believe the Planet X stories.

An object on a 3600 year orbit would be inside the orbit of Jupiter by now if it were to reach perihelion by May of next year. At that distance, astronomers can detect objects that are 10-20 Km across.

A large asteroid would be visible in any backyard telescope or even binoculars. Note that these objects are not big enough to have the effect that PX proponents claim.

A planet the size of the Earth would be a naked eye object.

A brown dwarf would be the brightest object in the night sky (not to mention the havoc it would have already done to the outer solar system).

The reasons for believing in PX are...

_________________
Be alert! The world needs more lerts.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kaptain K on 2002-10-30 06:40 ]</font>

Superstring
2002-Oct-30, 11:52 AM
I'm with Kaptain K on this one. It would already be visible to the naked eye by now if it existed. Also there is just no solid scientific evidence whatsoever that it exists. None.

quarkburger
2002-Oct-30, 03:17 PM
What will happen in 2003? I heard that Terminator 3 will be out next summer. That should be good.

Jim
2002-Oct-30, 03:22 PM
Hello, Sassy! Welcome to the BABB.

There are far more Planet X debunkers here than believers, but the pro-PX discussions seem to be of a higher level than those on many pro-PX sites. (Check the Zetatalk IRC Sessions thread for an example.)

The Kaptain lists the reasons Planet X will not put in an appearance in 2003.

But, there is another Planet X... Nibiru... proposed by Sitchin in his "translations" of Sumerian texts. However, he is the only one who gets this from those texts; the other folks - the ones who make their livings translating Sumerian - disagree with his interpretations and point out several errors. ("Nibiru" was also applied by the Sumerians to Jupiter, f'rintsance.)

Sitchin believes PX won't be here until about 3400CE. This makes it a bit harder to disprove it exists, but there is the flimsiest of evidence to support that it does... nothing more than Sitchin's "translations" and his resulting explanations.

Check the New Essay and Exit Mundi threads for links to sites that debunk both versions of PX.

Laser Jock
2002-Oct-30, 03:25 PM
On 2002-10-30 10:17, quarkburger wrote:
What will happen in 2003? I heard that Terminator 3 will be out next summer. That should be good.


/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

Actually I was looking forward more to "Hulk," but that's just me. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Doctor J
2002-Oct-30, 03:46 PM
The question is not why we debunk Planet X, but why anyone would believe it existed in the first place? There are good ideas and bad ideas, and not all ideas are equal....Planet X is a bad idea, doesnt exist and should be given no credence whatsoever...

HankSolo
2002-Oct-30, 06:34 PM
Jim is correct in pointing out the differences between Planet X and Nibiru. Planet X returning in 2003 is an invention by a psychic. The psychic got her idea from Zecharia Sitchin and his 1976 book, The 12th Planet.

Before you make any conclusions about the debunking sites you have been given, you owe it to yourself to read Sitchin's book. The debunking is because Sitchin's ideas go against mainstream beliefs, and not for any scientific evidence. On the contrary, science (and especially the Voyager missions) has been corraborating what Sitchin said in 1976 and that the Sumerians wrote around 4000BC. It is an amazing story in how it ties together so many mysteries of our past and present, in one neat little, scientifically possible, package. Neither science or religion has ever accomplished that. As I've said many times, if Sitchin is making it all up, he's the greatest story teller ever, and well worth the time to read. If you've ever had any questions regarding religion and science, and how they can exist together, you have to read it. It's an engrossing read and short enough. Then you can decide for yourself. I believe Sitchin, until proven otherwise.

And Sitchin himself states that Nibiru is not returning in 2003.

Kaptain K
2002-Oct-30, 07:29 PM
Hank,
I have read Sitchen's book. It ranks right up there with von Daniken and Velikovski on the "hooey" meter!

HankSolo
2002-Oct-30, 09:51 PM
Hooey meter? I like that one /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

But why? If the hooey meter measure ideas that are revolutionary, and go against conventional mainstream science and religion, then it would absolutely rank up there. It is a totally different look at our history, and would basically invalidate lifetimes of work by mainstream archeologists, scholars, and many scientists. So I can see why it would be resisted. So was Darwin's "book".

But nevertheless, it is possible, and having read the book, were you not given a better look at the scientific origins of human religion? Would you agree that it does a great job in explaining a heckuva lot without resorting to magic and the supernatural?

dschon
2002-Oct-31, 04:44 AM
From my short experiences here, most here WERE all debunkers and have now moved on with other bad astronomy topics. Planet X is simply a non-issue. All my teachers laugh with me when I explain Planet X to them, so do all my friends and family...certainly they are not all disinfo agents, but real people and people with heads.

Planet X is merely a doomsday cult trying to make you quit your job/school and waste your life.

btw, looking forward to T3 and Matrix Reloaded (M2) in 2003.

Doodler
2002-Oct-31, 08:18 PM
Matrix 2 and 3 are due out next year!! heehee, massive eye candy for the F/X junkies!

Not too mention LOTR: Return of the King

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Doodler on 2002-10-31 15:18 ]</font>

Doctor J
2002-Nov-01, 05:13 PM
"On the contrary, science (and especially the Voyager missions) has been corraborating what Sitchin said in 1976 and that the Sumerians wrote around 4000BC."

And which Voyager discovery is this??????

Doctor J
2002-Nov-01, 05:15 PM
"Planet X is merely a doomsday cult trying to make you quit your job/school and waste your life."

This is the problem though....There are people actually doing this, for no reason whatsoever (see tt-social posts)....Thats why I keep up with this question, and try to write against this foolish belief when I can...

HankSolo
2002-Nov-01, 06:49 PM
On 2002-11-01 12:13, Doctor J wrote:

"On the contrary, science (and especially the Voyager missions) has been corraborating what Sitchin said in 1976 and that the Sumerians wrote around 4000BC."

And which Voyager discovery is this??????


In the case of Voyager, primarily the appearance, features, and composition of Uranus and Neptune, and its moons, that the Sumerians described 6000 years ago. Sitchin wrote the book in 1976, before anybody could have observed the planets and its moons up close. The Sumerians knew this because the Anunnaki told them.

Doctor J
2002-Nov-04, 04:57 PM
I cant resist this as a follow-up...not having read the Sumerians....in what way did they describe the moons and appearance of Uranus, that would make it different from the way they were described in, say 1970 or 1781?

I beleive that they knew it was a planet, but I am at a loss as to what they could have described (other than very general terms, ie, its blue and its moons are rocky) that could have been known before Voyager...what can they tell that could not have been know at all until Voyager got to Neptune, say?

HankSolo
2002-Nov-05, 05:14 PM
Well, the very fact that Sumerians knew of the existance of Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto would be astonishing in itself, considering Uranus wasn't discovered until 1781. Sitchin goes into detail of the Sumerian descriptions of the two giant outer planets in his book Genesis Revisited. I have to "revisit" it myself to give you details of these descriptions, and I will come back to this topic when I do. However, in summary, he writes about when Voyager beamed back its first pictures of Uranus and scientists started interpreting the data, they matched what he had written in 1976 in The 12th Planet. Realizing this, he sent a letter to a science magazine predicting the appearance and composition of Neptune and a moon based on Sumerian descriptions, before Voyager got there. The magazine did not publish his letter before Voyager arrived, considering it rubbish, but they did later acknowledge publicly that Sitchin had accurately described the planet before Voyager. I'll dig out more details, but I have to remember to bring in the book from home first. The entire book deals with modern science corraborating what was already known in ancient Sumer and saying that in some respects, science is only now catching up with ancient knowledge. It's a good book, but you have to start with The 12th Planet to get an in-depth look at his theories.

EM
2002-Nov-05, 05:37 PM
Check out:

http://www.almanac.com/tour.2003/mars.html

The full text (which is quite informative) is in the print version of the 2003 Old Farmer's Almanac. Having just read Phil's article in Boston.com, I draw parallels between the folks claiming Planet X will arrive in May 2003 and the fact that Mars will have its closest approach to Earth "in thousands of years" this summer (I wish the OFA were more specific; alas, it's not. But there must be a software orrery available that can show when Mars had its last closest approach to Earth).

The claim that Planet X will shine a dull red is congruent with Mars's color. The timing is a bit off; Planet X is due to arrive in May; Mars's closest approach will be in August -- but we should start seeing it get brighter around May. I am eagerly looking forward to getting out my telescope and finally seeing if I can catch more than just a featureless dot. The longer OFA article claims Mars will be the brightest thing the sky during the summer of 03 -- that's enough to make anyone nervous who doesn't know what they're actually looking at. (Folks have mistaken Venus for a UFO on numerous occasions.)

AstroMike
2002-Nov-05, 09:26 PM
On 2002-11-05 12:14, HankSolo wrote:
Well, the very fact that Sumerians knew of the existance of Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto would be astonishing in itself, considering Uranus wasn't discovered until 1781

No, there's no proof of this. This is Sitchin's interpretation again. Interesting, his depictions do not include the Galilean satellites of Jupiter or Saturn's rings, or did I miss something?

HankSolo
2002-Nov-05, 10:32 PM
No, there's no proof of this. This is Sitchin's interpretation again. Interesting, his depictions do not include the Galilean satellites of Jupiter or Saturn's rings, or did I miss something?


I assume the depiction you are referring to is the one showing the sun and the surrounding 10 planets (plus our moon). I really find it funny how people try to come up with other explanations for this. Suppose for a minute that there actually were 10 planets... would you even bother to think of another explanation for that depiction? But since we currently only know of 9 planets, we have to come up with some far-fetched possibilities. In the center is obviously the Sun. The other planets surround it in the proper order and relative size. The only moon is our moon, because that's the only moon of consequence to us, and it is placed next to the earth. In between Mars and Jupiter is a large planet. That extra planet is really what we have a problem with. There's no way that could be true. There has to be another explanation.

Charlie in Dayton
2002-Nov-06, 12:01 AM
On 2002-11-05 12:37, EM wrote:
Check out:

http://www.almanac.com/tour.2003/mars.html

The full text (which is quite informative) is in the print version of the 2003 Old Farmer's Almanac. Having just read Phil's article in Boston.com, I draw parallels between the folks claiming Planet X will arrive in May 2003 and the fact that Mars will have its closest approach to Earth "in thousands of years" this summer (I wish the OFA were more specific; alas, it's not. But there must be a software orrery available that can show when Mars had its last closest approach to Earth).


From Jack Horkheimer's "Star Gazer" page
http://www.jackstargazer.com/
and the show(s) of August 12-18 2002
(both require RealPlayer:
1 minute show http://www.miamisci.org:8080/ramgen/stargazer/SG0233M.rm
5 minute show
http://www.miamisci.org:8080/ramgen/stargazer/SG0233.rm ):

Mars's close approach to Earth on Aug 27 2003 will be its closest since 57,537 BCE. On 14 Aug 2002, Mars was at 248,000,000mi at superior conjunction.
On the following dates the distance will be:
1 Jan 03 190,700,000mi
1 Feb 03 166,000,000mi
1 Mar 03 142,000,000mi
1 Apr 03 116,000,000mi
1 May 03 92,000,000mi
1 Jun 03 70,000,000mi
1 Jul 03 52,000,000mi
1 Aug 03 39,000,000mi
27 Aug 03 34,649,000mi the night before inferior conjunction, and will be 69x brighter than it was on 12 Aug 2002.

All of the "Star Gazer" shows from the year 2002 are available for viewing (requires RealPlayer) at http://www.jackstargazer.com/JHSG_DNLD.html

Personal note (and shameless plug): The Bad Astronomer will be lecturing on Planet X, and The Star Gazer will be giving his lecture "The Star of Cleopatra" at The Amazing Meeting, 31 Jan - 2 Feb 2003, in Fort Lauderdale FL. The Amazing Meeting is sponsored by the James Randi Educational Foundation (www.randi.org). More information about The Amazing Meeting can be found at
http://www.randi.org/jref/conference.html and the links on that page.

The poster is a member of the James Randi Educational Foundation, but has no other connection to the organization. However, if you think I'm gonna miss a chance to plug a meeting where I can get both these guys' autographs, you have a screw loose... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Charlie in Dayton on 2002-11-05 19:01 ]</font>

Jim
2002-Nov-06, 01:24 PM
On 2002-11-05 17:32, HankSolo wrote:


No, there's no proof of this. This is Sitchin's interpretation again. Interesting, his depictions do not include the Galilean satellites of Jupiter or Saturn's rings, or did I miss something?


I assume the depiction you are referring to is the one showing the sun and the surrounding 10 planets (plus our moon). I really find it funny how people try to come up with other explanations for this. Suppose for a minute that there actually were 10 planets... would you even bother to think of another explanation for that depiction? But since we currently only know of 9 planets, we have to come up with some far-fetched possibilities. In the center is obviously the Sun. The other planets surround it in the proper order and relative size. The only moon is our moon, because that's the only moon of consequence to us, and it is placed next to the earth. In between Mars and Jupiter is a large planet. That extra planet is really what we have a problem with. There's no way that could be true. There has to be another explanation.


Sitchin is looking at what is probably an artistic representation and trying to confirm it as scientific evidence. If there were only 9 bodies, he could claim they didn't include the moon because they "knew" it wasn't a planet; if there were 11, he could claim one was Charon, or Nibiru's moon, or another mystery planet.

There are several other representations of the solar system in Sumerian art, some showing as many as 24 bodies circling the "sun" and some showing 10, 11 or 12. One of these has been alternatively described as a representation of Venus surrounded by stars.

Do you know of any Sumerian text that supports Sitchin's interpretation of this depicture? Surely Sitchin isn't basing his descriptions of Uranus and Neptune and their moons based on a picture?

HankSolo
2002-Nov-06, 05:49 PM
People have tried to come up with alternate interpretations of the Sumerian cylinder seal, but nobody has one that makes sense.

Here's a good debunking of an alternate theory:
http://www.sitchin.com/teapot.htm

There is no text directly linking this drawing with our solar system. But there are plenty of Sumerian texts talking about Nibiru, Tiamat, the Anunnaki, etc... so it is not a Sitchin invention. He's just saying that this cylinder seal actually depicts our solar system, and what he says makes sense. Yes, it's speculation, but so is the Venus or Jupiter interpretation that people seem so willing to accept.

It's just that darn extra planet that's the problem! There's no way the picture can be depicting our solar system. Yes, there's a lot of rubble between Mars and Jupiter, and the Sumerians say that a planet crosses there and crashed with another, but modern science has never seen this 10th planet so it can't be true, can it?

Jim
2002-Nov-06, 06:36 PM
There is no text directly linking this drawing with our solar system.

Then it's merely one man's interpretation of a drawing that could easily be an artistic representation rather than a scientific one.

The halls of my office building are lined with artistic representations by high school students of the Responsible Care program. If one were not careful, one could decide that, yes, children really do picnic with dolphins on the beach; I can show them the painting that proves it.

But there are plenty of Sumerian texts talking about Nibiru, Tiamat, the Anunnaki, etc... so it is not a Sitchin invention.

The names aren't, but the interpretation of their meaning is. As I recall, Nibiru is applied to Jupiter in several places in Sumerian writings. Also remember that we use the names of gods for the planets; that doesn't mean we should construe the mythological stories about those gods as some veiled description of actual events involving the planets.

He's just saying that this cylinder seal actually depicts our solar system... it's speculation, but so is the Venus or Jupiter interpretation that people seem so willing to accept.

Exactly.

It's just that darn extra planet that's the problem! There's no way the picture can be depicting our solar system.

And why not? Remember those depictions of 24 heavenly bodies? Is that a picture of the solar system? Or artistic license? What is that drawing some think is Venus really showing?

Yes, there's a lot of rubble between Mars and Jupiter, and the Sumerians say that a planet crosses there and crashed with another...

No, Sitchin says the Sumerians said.

... but modern science has never seen this 10th planet so it can't be true, can it?

Of course, it can, Hank! But I wouldn't bet the farm on one man's highly disputed interpretations of ancient art.

David Hall
2002-Nov-06, 06:49 PM
On 2002-11-06 12:49, HankSolo wrote:

People have tried to come up with alternate interpretations of the Sumerian cylinder seal, but nobody has one that makes sense.

Here's a good debunking of an alternate theory:
http://www.sitchin.com/teapot.htm


Why does there have to be any interpretation of this as a solar system? Why do they even have to be planets at all? I'm sorry, but whenever I look at these things, I see nothing but a symbolic representation of a sun with some spots around it. It could be anything. Maybe they included bright stars as well. Maybe these are the spots you get in your eyes when you stare at the sun.

Perhaps the interpretation that this is a representation of Saggitarius is wrong. I can agree to that to an extent. But just because the ecliptic doesn't pass through the center of Saggitarius doesn't mean it's not Saggitarius either. What rule says the representation has to be an exact copy of what we see in the sky? If that's the case, then Sitchen is wrong as well.

The point is, there's no reason whatsoever to assume that these are even planets, much less accept Sitchen's interpretations of them. There's no evidence that Sitchen is correct. And plenty of evidence that he is wrong. A "reasonable" interpretation is not enough in this case. We need something more concrete than speculation and "interpretation".

Bill S.
2002-Nov-06, 10:44 PM
On 2002-10-30 10:17, quarkburger wrote:
What will happen in 2003? I heard that Terminator 3 will be out next summer. That should be good.


The Return Of The King as well.

And if Nibiru shows up and throws the world into chaos and causes the release of the 3rd in the Lord Of The Rings movie trilogy to be delayed, I say we declare open interplanetary war on 'em.

*******s.

Doctor J
2002-Nov-07, 04:57 PM
On 2002-11-05 16:26, AstroMike wrote:


On 2002-11-05 12:14, HankSolo wrote:
Well, the very fact that Sumerians knew of the existance of Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto would be astonishing in itself, considering Uranus wasn't discovered until 1781

No, there's no proof of this. This is Sitchin's interpretation again. Interesting, his depictions do not include the Galilean satellites of Jupiter or Saturn's rings, or did I miss something?




Don't forget about the crystal spheres on Ptolomey's model of the 'universe'....

there is no evidence other than a depiction of 10 or 24 or however many planets? I see, so there is no position information, that the outer planets were seen near such and such a star or constellation (which the Sumerians used)....so, this could be a nice cozy myth....sort of like the earth emerging from the union of sky and water (hey, that could be scientific as well...) in ancient Sumerian texts....oh puhlease.....


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Doctor J on 2002-11-07 12:02 ]</font>

EM
2002-Nov-08, 08:36 PM
Holy moly, Charlie in Dayton! Thanks for the figures and the URLs -- guess that blows the 3,600-year connection out of the water, doesn't it? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif Have fun at The Amazing Meeting.

a7304757
2002-Dec-01, 05:04 PM
The seal on http://www.sitchin.com/teapot.htm
is really one of many discovered. The one seated is the first king as God the Judge and the others are usually tried for some offence like pretending to be god and bring some offering. This is stated in the signs for those who can read it. Unfortunately the misinterpretation of these seals was the source of so many myths that continued down the millennia to this day and form the bulk of Genesis.

A.DIM
2002-Dec-02, 01:53 PM
The Sitchin books really do seem to fit.

This helps:
http://www.neilfreer.com/index3.htm#target2 ians paper

a7304757
2002-Dec-02, 03:46 PM
On 2002-12-02 08:53, A.DIM wrote:
The Sitchin books really do seem to fit.

This helps:
http://www.neilfreer.com/index3.htm#target2 ians paper


I agree it fits as a prelude to
http://taken.scifi.com/index_flash.html
afterwards you may read
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2074656&device=
Getting Taken

A.DIM
2002-Dec-03, 07:18 PM
On 2002-12-02 10:46, a7304757 wrote:

I agree it fits as a prelude to
http://taken.scifi.com/index_flash.html
afterwards you may read
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2074656&device=
Getting Taken



You, like so many others in here, watch too much tv.

a7304757
2002-Dec-03, 10:28 PM
[/quote]

You, like so many others in here, watch too much tv.
[/quote]

Disagree, Background like this
http://www.davidicke.com/icke/index1a.html
is not from tv.

HankSolo
2002-Dec-03, 10:48 PM
On 2002-12-01 12:04, a7304757 wrote:
The seal on http://www.sitchin.com/teapot.htm
is really one of many discovered. The one seated is the first king as God the Judge and the others are usually tried for some offence like pretending to be god and bring some offering. This is stated in the signs for those who can read it. Unfortunately the misinterpretation of these seals was the source of so many myths that continued down the millennia to this day and form the bulk of Genesis.


I'm not sure I follow. What was the misinterpretation about this seal that created the myths that form Genesis?

Do other seals of this type include the graphic that Sitchin believes shows the Sun and the 10 planets?

Also, why is the judge/king holding a plow?

a7304757
2002-Dec-03, 11:53 PM
>I'm not sure I follow. What was the misinterpretation about this seal that created the myths that form Genesis?

Many such seals were translated differently at various times, resulting in myths. I know one very similar to the one mentioned, where the same historical person is already shown as two, as God and as his devotee.
>Do other seals of this type include the graphic that Sitchin believes shows the Sun and the 10 planets?

I cannot remember having seen this diagram elsewhere. The scene alone does not explain it. The most simple explanation would be that it is an elaboration of the socalled Ash or Telos sign, two crosses +,+ twisted so as to have 8 points. That sign is usually written in front of the kings or Gods name, meaning God, heaven, light, fire, circle and so on –to elaborate this with stars of heaven could be a clue, to make it into a missing planet is far out speculative.
>Also, why is the judge/king holding a plow?
The plow is shown often, other seals show that the people of the king imported the plow into Sumeria and made it the most properous farmland with canaling of the Euphrates and Tigris. So this plow is an additional identification or name sign for that important first king.
A Bad Sumerian Website should be created for like issues. The problem is that sumerian is very expensive course of studies, very few can afford it and hardly two scolars agree with each other. So they have to form lobbies, the modernists are debunking those eminent at the beginnings and so on, like in any other field of science. I recommend take a look at http://www.geocities.com/sa_ga_g and come back for more.