PDA

View Full Version : Semi Recent United States Naval Observatory Calculations



dagger
2002-Mar-23, 04:10 PM
"Recent calculations by the United States Naval Observatory has confirmed the orbital perturbation exhibited by Uranus and Neptune, which Dr. Thomas C. Van Flandern, an astronomer at the observatory, says could only be explained by "a single planet." He and a colleague, Dr. Richard Harrington, calculated that the 10th planet to be two to five times larger than Earth, and it has a highly elliptical orbit that takes it some 5 billion miles beyond that of Pluto.

In January, 1981, several daily newspapers stated that Pluto's orbit indicates that Planet X exists. The report stated that an astronomer from the U.S. Naval Observatory told a meeting of the American Astronomical Society, that irregularity in the orbit of Pluto indicates that the solar system contains a 10th planet. He also noted that this came to no surprise to Zecharia Sitchin, whose book came out three years prior.

I've corresponded with one who has spoken with Sitchin in a private group. Sitchin knows that X is very close, but because of his position in the scientific community -- well, you figure it out! I'm glad I don't have a Ph.D in front of my last name or hold weight in the scientific community. Sitchin needs to concentrate on selling more books. He's too hot to talk about what he knows.

In 1982, NASA themselves officially recognized the existence of Planet X with an announcement, "An object is really there far beyond the outermost planets." Today NASA is not being forthcoming about X."

Here is the site I took this from:

http://www.metatech.org/planet_x_nibiru_earth_changes.html

Here is a interesting link they post on the above site about a news article posted on Discovery Channel website

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20010702/kuiper.html#

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Mar-23, 05:39 PM
Mark Hazlewood, the author of the book "Blindsided", about Nibiru, is completely wrong in his assertions. The idea of there being a Planet X due to perturbations in the orbits of Uranus and Neptune has long since been shown to be incorrect (see this page for exactly why (http://www.seds.org/nineplanets/nineplanets/hypo.html#planetx)).

Hazlewood's claims of a Planet X are simply wrong. Here is a good website covering the toic (http://www.planet-x.150m.com/main.html). I agree with almost everything I have read there. In one or two cases I have more updated info than that site does (for example, I talked with one of the astronomers involved with a press release about a possible tenth planet, and he told me the article blew things way out of proportion: the object they saw was initially consistent with being a planet, but was later conclusively shown to be a galaxy).

I have a lot of info about this whole mess, and one day I might put a page together. The synopsis is that there is no Planet X like Hazlewood says, and certainly nothing about to come by in a year or so.

dagger
2002-Mar-23, 05:42 PM
Thanks for the info! Any more information you can give out would be greatly appreciated.


James

2002-Mar-24, 12:44 PM
<a name="20020324.6:31"> page 20020324.6:31 aka 2.2
On 2002-03-23 12:39, The Bad Astronomer wrote: To:
Mark Hazlewood:
6:34 A.M. HUb' {he.he}[LOL]
Hazlewood'
1: muMATH page 62 6.3 Integration ... muMATH can ..
2: the syntax ? INT("expr","var");
3: page 63 ? INT(X^2,X); result @: X^3/3
4: ----------LIE-------- output --------
6:36 A.M. PST / from 97209 naturally