Tag Archives: 3600

A New Planet Beyond Pluto? Sitchin is Still Wrong

I’ve been getting emails about the news that some scientists are claiming (note: a claim isn’t the same as established fact) that there is a very large planet beyond Pluto. This naturally excites Sitchinites and other ancient astronaut theorists who follow the work of the late Zecharia Sitchin. This excitement (again) illustrates the poor thinking that is synonymous with ancient astronaut theory. Why? Let’s assume the new is correct. Here’s why Sitchin is still wrong:

  1. If this planet is real, and no cuneiform tablet describes a planet by ANY name beyond Pluto, Sitchin’s claim that the Sumerians knew of such a body is still a fabrication. It is a demonstrable fact, from the content of astronomical tablets left to us that inform us of Sumerian-Mesopotamian astronomy (where else would we get that knowledge?), that the Mesopotamians didn’t know of any planet beyond Saturn (i.e., that could be viewed with the naked eye).
  2. Since there is no cuneiform tablet that associates Nibiru with a planet other than Mercury or Jupiter, Sitchin is still wrong.
  3. Since no cuneiform tablet has Nibiru (or any planet from beyond Pluto) cycling through earth’s orbit every 3600 years, Sitchin is still wrong.
  4. Since there is no cuneiform tablet that associates the Anunnaki with any planet at all, Sitchin is still wrong.

That wasn’t hard, was it? This discovery lends zero credibility to Sitchin’s ideas.

But wait . . .  there’s more.

Here’s the bonus. Such a discovery would actually undermine Sitchin’s claims, disproving them again. Why? If Sitchinites care to do the math on the orbit of the (presumed) new planet, they’ll find that it cannot cycle through earth’s orbit every 3600 years. Oops.

So yes: Sitchin is still wrong.

Read More

New Research on Nibiru Shows Sitchin is Still Wrong

I recently received this short note in email about some work done in the cuneiform sources regarding Nibiru:

Dear Dr. Heiser,

I have analyzed the extant cuneiform evidence in the peer-reviewed publication “The Marduk Star Nebiru” (CDLI Bulletin 2015:3).
I conclude that the hypothesis that the name Nēbiru may be assigned to any visible astronomical object that marks an equinox is supported by cuneiform evidence.   It is clear to me  that Zechariah Sitchin was confused by earlier translations.
Regards,
Immanuel Freedman, Ph.D. SMIEEE
Member, International Association for Assyriology
CDLI = Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative at UCLA.  The article / PDF at the above link is their bulletin. It’s only four pages, and of course verifies what I posted many years ago, that cuneiform tablets do not have Nibiru as a 12th planet beyond Pluto.
My thanks to Dr. Freedman for this notification and link!

 

Read More