FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions about Planet X, Niburu, Nancy Lieder, Zecharia Sitchin.
Disclaimer: I'm not an astronomer, I simply gathered the questions and answers, as I understood them, and put them in an easy-to-read format.

Q: Who is Nancy Lieder?
A: Nancy Lieder is a middle-aged woman who claims to be channeling telepathic messages from aliens who reside in Zeta Reticuli system. She runs a website called Zeta Talk, where she posts messages from the Zetas and from herself interpreting the Zetan messages and relating them to current events. In particular, her messages pertain to Planet X and its return, the destruction of life on Earth due to Planet X, as well as numerous political topics. Strangely, she is the 2nd person to claim to be in contact with beings from Zeta Reticuli, the first was Ben Goldman, a 1960s and 70s horror movie producer.

Q: Who is Zecharia Sitchin
A: Mr. Sitchin is a researcher who believes he has found the true translation of some ancient Sumerian seals (like tablets) which document an alien race's visit to Earth as well as the location of their planet and its orbit. The impact of this would be like discovering that some neanderthal man had discovered how to build a computer, drew his designs on a cave wall, and then disappeared with no other trace.

Q: Who is Mark Hazelwood?
A: Mark Hazelwood is a self-proclaimed spritualist who has taken Ms. Lieder's ideas and Mr. Sitchin's works and wrote a book about the topic, concentrating on the rogue planet and its return, as well as the concequences of that return. Mr. Hazelwood is credited with the prediction that the rogue planet would return in 2003. He admits to having no scientific background, and gets numerous things wrong in his book. He says it is in a stable 3,600 year orbit, then contradicts himself saying it's in an unstable orbit (which would mean we can't predict its period). He says NASA, the government, and anyone who disagrees with him, is in on a conspiracy to cover up the truth or have been brainwashed to believe that Planet X / Niburu doesn't exist. Strangely, Ms. Lieder also adopts this same tactic when she's confronted with information that proves her to be wrong.

Q: Where or when did Nancy Lieder show up?
A: Around 1995 Ms. Lieder began posting to various newsgroups that the comet Hale-Bopp was actually not a comet but a government conspiracy to use a nova as a distraction away from the Planet X, which she predicted would be visible to most people after the nova subsided. She also predicted that NASA would say the comet will breakup -in order to explain why it disappears after the nova burst dissipates, I guess- which they never did. Two failed predictions right from the start. Her predictions, which she now claims to not have made, are seen here: http://www.planet-x.150m.com/nancyhb.html.

Q: What is Planet X?
A: The story, as I understand it, goes something like this: 3,600 years ago, the ancient Sumerians were in contact with a group of genetically engineered human-alien hybrids. They wrote down their idea of the universe, and specifically this solar system, on some copper seals. Supposedly, since these aliens had traveled here from their planet as it passed the Earth, they had knowledge of space travel and had seen the solar system during their travels. They got a lot of things wrong, like the number of planets, their order in the solar system, the number of moons, etc. On these seals, one researcher -Zecharia Sitchin- claims to have revised the translation to show they were actually correct and to prove the existence of a planet we don’t currently see: Planet Niburu. Now, it must be said that Sitchin has reached this conclusion by including mythology as well as known history in a strange conglomeration, which many modern researchers disagree with. Sitchin says this Niburu is on a 3,600-year orbit and will become visible to us here on Earth in the near future.

Q: Is Planet X / Niburu in, or the cause of, the Kupier Belt?
A:Many Planet X / Niburu proponents continue to point to the year 1983, where a supposed large body, of some kind, was said by scientists to be perturbing Neptune’s orbit, causing it to wobble. In 1992, however, astronomers became aware of a vast population of small bodies orbiting the sun beyond Neptune. There are at least 70,000 "trans-Neptunians" with diameters larger than 100 km in the radial zone extending outwards from the orbit of Neptune (at 30 AU) to 50 AU. Observations show that the trans-Neptunians are mostly confined within a thick band around the ecliptic, leading to the realization that they occupy a ring or belt surrounding the sun. This ring is generally referred to as the Kuiper Belt, it was never a planet, and this discovery allowed scientists to revise their ideas about the solar system to cancel out what they thought was a wobble. (Thanks Peace Rules)

Q: Is Planet X / Niburu causing comets to fall into the solar system from the Oort Cloud?
A: Recently astronomers have seen evidence of disturbances in what is called the Oort Cloud. They theorize that these disturbances could be caused by a large object, possibly even an undiscovered planet, which they dubbed Planet X. Such a planet would stay outside our solar system in the Oort Cloud, but may be responsible for comets falling into the system in a somewhat regular pattern as it knocks them out of the cloud. This Planet X could never have been in, nor fall into, the inner solar system based on what we know of gravity and orbital mechanics.

Q: Did Planet X / Niburu collide with Earth and form the Moon?
A: More and more evidence is pointing to the Earth having a collision with another large object while the Earth was still a cooling molten body. This collision may actually have torn off a chunk which was captured into orbit and became what we know as our Moon. However, there has never been any evidence to suggest this large object was another planet, nor that it was on any kind of recurring cycle with Earth. Some point to the asteroid belt and claim that it is the remnants of this planet, but scientists have proven that the asteroids that make up the belt could never have been a planet due to the lack of material in the belt. If you gathered all the asteroids in the belt together, they would form a body only half the size of the Moon.

Q: It’s almost May 2003, can we see Planet X / Niburu?
A: Contrary to Nancy Lieder, and a few other’s, assertions, no. Hundreds of amateur astronomers, as well as several well-known professionals, have devoted hours and hours searching the coordinates where Planet X / Niburu are supposed to be. They have never seen anything out of the ordinary. When professional image analysts look at the pictures Ms. Lieder’s “team” has produced, they find not evidence of a planet, but evidence of faulty equipment and image tampering. Ms. Lieder claims Planet X / Niburu is now within Saturn’s orbit, which means it’s closer to us than Saturn is, which also means it should be brighter than Saturn in the night sky. There is no object brighter than Saturn visible in the sky besides Jupiter and the Moon. Currently, Ms. Lieder claims that there is a dark cloud surrounding Planet X / Niburu which polarizes the light that should be reflecting off of it, which effectively makes it invisible to anyone not in the correct place at the correct time. Here is a picture from the Astronomy Picture of the Day site that shows the polarized light from a nebula http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030409.html, which is plainly visible to any astronomer with the proper equipment no matter where on Earth they are located. I should mention that Ms. Lieder also predicted that Planet X / Niburu would become daytime visible sometime in April 2003. It has not done so. Any pictures of this also show the same evidence of faulty equipment or tampering.
**edit September 24, 2003: As many may know, Nancy Lieder revised her prediction several times, then said the Zetans had told a "White Lie" in order to fool the United States government into "tipping their hand" by blockading innocents inside cities to die, and that Planet X was never due to arrive in May 2003. The Zetans now claim that they refuse to tell the exact coordinates and date of Planet X's passage in order to continue foiling the evil US government. At this date, Nancy Lieder also claims Planet X is near the Sun, perturbing the Moon, causing Red Dust to rain upon the Earth, showing up as lens flares, fire dragons, winged personas, and generally causing much havok. She claims Planet X's density bends light around cameras (which we debunkers call lens flares) causes it to have a "repulsive force" which keeps it from colliding with the Sun, and various other fantastical properties.**

Q: Is Planet X / Niburu actually Mars, or any other known planet?
A: No, this viewpoint is only put forward by other doomsday “prophets” who are trying to latch onto the fear and skepticism of the Planet X / Niburu believers. Most likely as a way to carry it over onto themselves when Planet X / Niburu fails to show in May 2003.

Q: Would Planet X / Niburu cause disasters and pole shifts?
A: If a planet with the theoretical mass and orbit that Sitchin gives it were to come close to Earth, it would probably cause huge amounts of damage to both the Earth and itself. The problem with this theory is, if such an object existed it would already have caused huge amounts of disturbances with the other planets during its previous passages. We see no evidence of these disturbances. In fact, all of the planets and moons that we know of can be explained with known laws of physics without resorting to rogue planets careening through the solar system.

As for pole shifts, the magnetic poles of Earth are known to switch positions periodically, which means magnetic north becomes magnetic south, and vice versa. During such a switch in polarity, the magnetic field around Earth temporarily disperses and then reforms. These pole shifts don’t occur on any regular basis, but when they do it takes a matter of many, many years to happen. This would cause a lot of confusion with devices that rely on the magnetic fields of Earth, but not massive disasters (contrary to what you may have seen in the movie The Core). What Ms. Lieder predicts is that the actual north and south poles of the Earth will shift, which would mean Australia would be on the “top” half and America would be the new “downunder”, for example, and that the actual rotation of the Earth will reverse. There is no evidence that this could ever occur, or ever has occurred, anywhere on any planet that we can observe. In fact, such a physical pole and rotation reversal would release such vast amounts of energy that the Earth would once again become a molten fiery mass.

Q: Could Ms. Lieder or Mr. Sitchin be right and we just dont understand some critical bit of information?
A: If only one, or even just a few, pieces of information would validate Ms. Lieder or Mr. Sitchin's theories, then we could entertain this idea. Unfortunately for them, they get so many facts wrong that this simply isn't a possibility. Ms. Lieder's Zetans, for a spacefaring race, have extremely limited knowledge of the cosmos, physics, or orbital dynamics, which is all necessary knowledge to have in order to cross the vast distances of space. Mr. Sitchin and his alien-human hybrids also demonstrate a lack of physics knowledge, and have the added problem of having no evidence, besides Mr. Sitchin's writings, of their existance at all. What we do have is a huge vacuum of information which Ms. Lieder and Mr. Sitchin fill with theory, superstition, mythology, and just plain made-up, magical knowledge. When we apply mathematics, physics, and observation to anything relating to Planet X / Niburu, we simply come up with nothing, nada, zip. Planet X / Niburu, as Ms. Lieder, Mr. Sitchin, and their ilk describe it simply does not and can not exist.

The Bad Astronomer, Phil Plait has devoted a rather large amount of time and webspace to these questions here and is one of my primary sources of information. Thanks BA.

__________________
~Brad - Astropaparazzo
http://signaturedigitalimages.com

Great job Comixx!!! :-) Keep it coming.

Thanks G99.

Like I said above, these are just the questions and answers as I understand them. I tend to take only scientific fact into account and discard anything that requires a leap of faith. A.Dim and other Sitchin followers will probably find my FAQ lacking and not properly taking into account their view of the Sitchin evidence, but I can find nothing supporting Sitchin except himself. This includes any posts here on this board.

If anyone has a question and/or answer they believe should be included in the FAQ, please post it here and I'll edit my post to include it. If I have made any gross errors, please inform me of those as well.

__________________
~Brad - Astropaparazzo
http://signaturedigitalimages.com

This is actually a good thread comixx. The BA should pin this so that it doesn't fall off page 1 of the main PX board.

__________________
Isn't the fact that they don't visit us proof that intelligent life is out there?

The Confused Philosopher - RCAF

I agree.

Great thread, comixx.

Thanks guys...I really appreciate that.

I just got kind of tired of typing the same responses out to questions that I answer concerning PX, etc, so I spent my boring day at work typing up this FAQ. While I did it to simplify my own typing (now I can just link to this thread instead) I also hope it serves as an informational post to others. I certainly wouldn't mind it getting stickied at the top of this forum, but that might seem a bit hostile to the believers. Whatever the case, as always I leave it to the BA to make his own judgements.

I might make a PX photo debunking FAQ too, since all the PX photos posted lately have been one of two catagories: 1) badly exposed who-knows-whats; 2) badly done fakes or manipulated photos. I might post the easiest ways to recognize them for yourselves...like in this post I show some of my criteria.

edit: to add link

__________________
~Brad - Astropaparazzo
http://signaturedigitalimages.com

For clarity, it should be noted that Sitchin has never claimed Planet X would be visible in 2003. Mark Hazelwood is the champion of that idea. He should probably be added to the FAQ.

Actually, Sitchin had one thing right; we know that some large entity did collide with a primitive form of earth. The evidence from this collision is still visible, just look to the moon and the asteroid belt near Mars.

You're right about one thing though, if the world ended every 3,600 years, clearly, there wouldn't be much left today. That's just common sense.

Also, many Planet X proponents continue to point to the year 1983, where a supposed large body, of some kind, was said by scientists to be perturbing Neptune’s orbit, causing it to wobble. In 1992, however, astronomers became aware of a vast population of small bodies orbiting the sun beyond Neptune. There are at least 70,000 "trans-Neptunians" with diameters larger than 100 km in the radial zone extending outwards from the orbit of Neptune (at 30 AU) to 50 AU. Observations show that the trans-Neptunians are mostly confined within a thick band around the ecliptic, leading to the realization that they occupy a ring or belt surrounding the sun. This ring is generally referred to as the Kuiper Belt, it was never a planet.

Great post, by the way, I hope others will continue to add to it.

Good Q&A! I agree with Peace, it was my understanding that Sitchin never proposed a May 2003 date, that is a Zeta thing. Also Sitchin and his followers call the planet Nibiru, Zetatalk calls it Planet X (it took me a while reading the Planet X forum to figure that out)

Anyone have an idea for what we should call this foum after May 15th? Can't call it the 'Planet X' forum anymore since its appearance will have come and gone.

Peace is correct: Sitchin's Nibiru is NOT due to appear this year. He doesn't give an exact date, but I believe the next passing is still several hundred years ahead. This is the primary reason why I ended up "championing" Sitchin's work after joining this site; I couldn't believe all the rubbish spewing from Leider & Hazelwood and the subsequent erroneous statements being made about the Sitchin paradigm.

Actually, the asteroid belt is manifestly not due to collision. We have discussed this in previous threads.

And as the timeframes are off for the collision, I'm not sure what we should say about Sitchin "getting it right". There may have been a collision that created the moon, it's looking more and more likely that there was, but it occured early on in the formation period of our solar system and as the orbital mechanics of a large planet/brown dwarf interloping in the inner solar system and causing such a collision don't work out, I'm inclined to say Sitchin got it wrong.

By the way, that discussion about the Kuiper Belt was a nice summary. Of course, it goes against Sitchin who wants one of those objects, seemingly beyond that orbital radius, to make inner-solar-system forrays.

Well, Sitchin's ideas are still wrong. We'll have that to discuss.

After learning about Sitchin's "paradigm" I can see why rubbish came spewing out. If you're going to abandon science to the winds in favor of conjecture about Sumerian documents, you better believe some others who abandon science to the winds will one-up you in implausability.

Tell us JS, in your mind, isn't this "beating a dead horse"?

I think as long as there are people who don't see the astronomical foibles, the horse is not only not dead but is threatening to run away.

I'm not altogether comfortable with the analogy though. Perhaps we should try for another.

JS Princeton vs. A.DIM:

Hey, cant you guys just agree to disagree? What A.DIM and his camp seem to me to want is simply for people to agree there may be some possibility, however slight, that something like a long-period planet on a highly inclined from the ecliptic orbit could exist. What JS Princeton seems to want is for A.DIM to agree that Mr. Sitchin's physics just dont add up to current knowledge, and while we dont have the entire picture yet, we do know that nothing Mr. Sitchin has ever said about orbits, etc. stands up to observable data thus far.

A.DIM: Sure, maybe there is something out there we dont see, or haven't accounted for, but where's the evidence? (Besides Sitchin's theories)

JS Princeton: I'm glad you're on these boards. The voice of reason and fact...but perhaps all the data isn't fully in and understood yet?

__________________
~Brad - Astropaparazzo
http://signaturedigitalimages.com

Great, and needed, post, but this bit is slightly more complicated.

It kind of implies that perturbations of Neptune/Uranus, earlier attributed to a 'Planet X' (not Nancy's!) were explained by the accumulation of small bodies in the Kuiper Belt. In fact, perturbations of the size claimed turned out to be mis-observations as a result of the fly-bys of the Voyager probes past the Outer Planets. These allowed revision of the masses of the gas giants, which in turn have eliminated the perturbations. So there is nothing to explain.

(Of course there may be large bodies out there at sufficiently great distances - and there could even be Mars-sized objects in the Kuiper Belt, but these are not either of the Planet Xs mentioned above)

Other trivial nit-pick - evidence (including her bitterness towards him - When Kooks Collide!) suggests that Hazelwood was originally a Nancy camp-follower rather than proceeding straight from Sitchin. He just seems to have been quicker to realise the commercial opportunity TEOTWAWKI represented...

__________________
Fin
Skep-ti-cult® member #488-28303-790

Quite right, but before they figured this out, their investigation led to the discovery of the Kuiper belt. Much like Clyde Tombaugh's search for Percival Lowell's Planet X, led to the discovery Pluto, which is now beginning to look like a KBO itself, not a planet. It’s a vicious circle, is it not? At any rate, thanks for pointing this out. Every scrap of information people add, will only succeed in making Comixx's FAQ all the more complete.


I suppose I should be more specific, Sitchin got it partially right; there was a collision of some kind, with a primitive form of Earth. I think the latest research is now suggesting an asteroid about the size of Mars, colliding with an evolving form of Earth, around 4 billion years ago. Though I think a definitive answer is still up in the air, at this point. You've got me on the asteriod belt, I've always understood that part of that debris was created from the early collision with earth. I've probably read some "Bad Astronomy" somewhere. Not sure how this got trapped in my head.


Bravo! Great job, Comixx. This PX FAQ of yours was a great idea. It's really shaping into a great source of referrence for those new to the PX insanity. And what timing, this could really provide some much needed relief to those who stumble onto "other" websites, and get the blazes scared out of them.

The problem is that the model of a very elliptical orbit tends to scatter the orbitting body. All it takes is the slightest perturbation; highly elliptical orbits are those that are most unstable. That's actually the reason the orbits of the planets are so near circular, the elliptical orbits that are needed by Sitchin for large bodies just prove to be dynamically unfavorable. Capture processes for such bodies in the ellipticities needed by the Sitchinites are out of this world. When the cross-section is such that such a capture couldn't occur in the age of the universe, you have a problem. Right now, it would seem that the ellipticity is so ridiculously high (a ratio of major to minor axes of 1:tens of thousands being very generous) and with the size requested (planetary) the capture timescale for objects in our galaxy is well over a Hubble Time. More than that, I haven't seen a system that could capture a highly elliptical orbit as is needed to show first the fact that there has been no observation of such a thing.

No, the orbit is physically untenable from any way you look at it.

To put it a different way: there's a small chance that tomorrow quantum fluctuations will cause you to be able to walk through solid concrete. However, the time-scale for such a confluence of improbables is so long we call it an impossibility. There are many "impossibilities" in physics that are just so very unlikely that's how they are labeled.

And don't misunderstand me. This isn't just a remote possibility: this is a possibility that flies in the face of all Copernican principles ever considered. It's just as likely to be correct as Creationism, so I lump them together.

Comixx, you are right, but there's no fun in agreeing to disagree. JS makes good points based on current knowledge, but current knowledge is only true until the next discovery. All the data isn't in yet, and it isn't fully understood. Anyone who believes it is, is a detriment to advancement.

Plus, wouldn't it be boring if everyone on this board just sat around and agreed "Planet X doesn't exist"? What kind of discussion would that be?

Here's a sample:
"Planet X is impossible"
"Yeah... what he said..."
"Yeah"
"Yeah"

I enjoy reading A.DIM's posts, and we happen to agree on this topic. I also enjoy reading the views of the "dark side". :wink:

This is a great post, Comixx. It really encapsulates the whole Planet X thing. The beauty of it is that when you put all of Nancy's history together, there's no other conclusion but "Scam" that can be drawn. And I think that A.Dim and JS are at their best when engaging in spirited discussion. Disagreement doesn't make me uncomfortable, and two really smart guys hammering it out is a great way to present an issue.

Hank...what FACTS do you have to present that disprove the points that JS made?

Not "maybe", not "this interpretation", not "all the data isn't in", not "you just don't understand"...

FACTS, Hank...proven scientific unshakable FACTS...

"My guy's right 'cause I feel he is" just don't cut the mustard.

I see this so often in so many discussions. The idea that Established Theory Q isn't right, because more is being discovered every day and we might find something someday that upsets the applecart. Fine and dandy -- what we've got to this point that is factually, evidentially, and scientifically proven will stand on its own until that extra bit of evidence shows up. Naturally, that extra bit of evidence will have to be such that some or all of The Sciences as we know them will have to be totally recombobulated. But we'll wait for it.

You know what? That extra bit of evidence never shows up...and until it does, the mindset that makes Established Theory Q incorrect is WRONG!

You want us to believe you're right? Then PROVE US WRONG! But stop with this "I'll get around to it someday" cr*p!

[/rant]

__________________
"If a tree is cut down in the rainforest, and is used to make paper to print a book, and the book is really bad, and there's nobody that will read it, do you still hear a sucking sound?"
Charlie in Dayton, A.AsC.

If you're referring to the "data" pertaining to Planet X arriving here by May 15th, it's more than obvious there's no data to support this. Time is running out, this data has less than a month to present itself. Besides, the burden of proof is on the Planet X proponents, and I challenge any of them to put one scrap of tangible evidence on the table.

Planet X may exist. It is just a physical impossibility for it to exist as Sitchin describes it.

Saying that Planet X as Sitchin describes it may yet be discovered to be true in the future is like saying it might be discovered that humans can walk through concrete walls. The possibility is too remote to be discussed with a straight face.

Ah, now I remember. Very interesting read, can anyone verify this?


http://www.sitchin.com/asteroid.htm

Great work, Comixx. Much needed. I get a feeling that visitors genuinely concerned about Planet X often come to this forum looking for answers, but just lurk.

__________________
"The moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all the arguments for it, and become blind to the arguments against it." -George Bernard Shaw

That's some pretty Bad Astronomy. First of all, constituency of a planet is ONE explanation, but Eros is not necessarily a normal asteroid, nor is this the only explanation. Sitchin claims like many bad astronomers (with a small b) that this makes the rule. It does not.

He then outlines his "theory" which is really nothing more than unfalsifiable and pragmatically impossible ideas about cosmogony. Yes, this site is bad astronomy. The press conference was real, the conclusions drawn from it are giant leaps of faith.

Well, since a few new people have joined in, and have been asking almost the identical questions to the ones I outlined above, I wanted to move this back onto the first page. I hope that's not too rude...I just want the information to be easy to find.

__________________
~Brad - Astropaparazzo
http://signaturedigitalimages.com

I, for one, thank you. I've only been paying attention to PX with half of one ear but, now that it's almost here :wink: , I wanted to brush up on it. I'm most interested in what the PX proponents are going to claim when nothing happens (which is one thing I haven't seen discussed anywhere).

__________________
Beady's Corollary to Occam's Razor: "The likeliest explanation of any phenomenon is almost always the most boring."

Thanks Beady.

The "What will Nancy say when it doesn't happen?" threads are here, here, and scattered into other posts all over. I think she'll just smooth-talk her followers into a new timeline, and browbeat any dissenters into submission with insults and profanity...what I wish would happen is she'd seek help for her schizophrenia and a class-action suit is filed against her estate on behalf of all the mental anguish suffered by us all due to her...I'll take my $.02 share of that, it's bigger than my NASA check.

__________________
~Brad - Astropaparazzo
http://signaturedigitalimages.com

Hi, all
Interesting stuff here. One thing I wanted to mention is that there is other evidence of a collision with Earth in the distant past. I visited the huge crater in Arizona. It is so deep that people at the bottom look like ants. Pictures of it can also be found on the net.
I have also read about cataclysms and pole shifts, though I am no expert. I read that the remains of tropical plants have been found in climates where they shouldn't be, and fish fossils have been found in mountains. These have been attributed to a shift and accompanying cataclysms. Rock changes have also been attributed to these. Is any of this accurate? Or are there logical explanations for these things?
BTW, I have been lurking this forum for only a couple of days, but what I have found is very interesting.

__________________
Don't put off till tomorrow what you can avoid altogether.