For the best answers, search on this site https://shorturl.im/ax7mY
You're confusing a bunch of new age hogwash with actual science. The planet the Sumerians were talking about is the planet we call Jupiter. But economist Zechariah Sitchen declares himself to be a paleoastronomer and identifies their name "Nibiru" as some Earth-killing fantasy asteroid that's supposed to return and demolish Earth. That concept gets lumped under the heading "Planet X," which refers to any number of fringe theories about "extra" planets in our solar system. None of it really makes sense. It's just the latest doomsaying craze. You seem to have started from the proposition that NASA is evil and untrustworthy, and then gone from there. Further, you seem to be scrambling for any and all reasons to accuse them. Doesn't that sound a tad biased? EDIT 1: Thank you for confirming that you're getting your ideas from Zechariah Sitchin. Now please explain why real scientists and real astronomers should pay attention to an economist with no prior training or experience in astronomy and no prior training or experience reading the Sumerian language and interpreting their culture. Real astronomers don't believe Sitchin and cite very good reasons why his claims don't make sense. Real archeaologists of Sumeria don't accept Sitchin's interpretation of Sumerian reliefs and cite very good reasons why not. None of that stops Sitchin from hopping on every new discovery made by real scientists, trying to shoehorn it back into his claims, and waving his hands vigorously saying he somehow "really" discovered it first. Give it a rest -- Sitchin is a wannabe trying to make a buck off of people's gullibility. EDIT 2: Please supply the names of the qualified, accredited, published scientists who endorse Zechariah Sitchin and his Nibiru claims. I want people who have made reputations for themselves BEFORE endorsing Sitchin, not BECAUSE they endorse Sitchin. What makes you think his and Von Daniken's claims are not "easy to dismiss." These gentlemen each are JUST MAKING IT UP. Their rhetoric consists largely of incessant complaining about how shabbily they were treated by the "mainstream" scientific community, and then scrambling to warp their theories to make them sound congruent to new discoveries. Sitchin pretended to translate Sumerian at a time when it would have been relatively difficult to check up on him. Now that Sumerian is a much more accessible language, Sitchin's translations have been revealed to be so much gibberish. He bluffed, and got caught. Why shouldn't I dismiss it? Von Daniken's fanciful interpretation of artifacts was similarly made when few readers could check up on him. Now decades later his bluffs have been called too. Both these authors bank on their readers' unwillingness to check up on the claims. They simply make it up, count on their readers to believe in it, and dismiss any eventual criticism by saying the critics are ideologically motivated or simply trying to protect their mainstream scientific hegemony. People who find it hard to "dismiss" those findings are the people who desperately want to believe in this New Age hogwash and accordingly turn to people like Sitchin to provide a pseudo-intellectual veneer over what is essentially a belief taken on faith. Pseudoscience is not hard to recognized. Zechariah Sitchin has absolutely ZERO stature in the real scientific community. EDIT 3: I asked for qualified scientists, not more pseudoscientists. Have you actually read anything by qualified scientists? Or are you simply steeping yourself in this New Age rubbish written by self-proclaimed "experts," to the exclusion of all else? EDIT 4: Yes, when cornered pseudoscientists will just accuse their critics of being blind or stubborn. Consider that the reason your arguments aren't convincing is not because I'm stubborn but because the arguments are strained. I think it's hilarious that the web site you posted NAMES several prominent scientists, but doesn't say where they endorsed Sitchin. See, that's Sitchin's whole scam. He and his supporters glom onto the legitimate science of others, which often alludes to some of the same ideas as Sitchin, and try to warp it to fit their wacky interpretations and theories. They think that the superficial similarities will somehow convey the confidence that Sitchin was on the right track. You say these scientists "confirm" Sitchin. But confirmation is an explicit act, and here it has not occurred. I'm reasonably sure Plato, Einstein, and Charles Darwin and all the other cited scientists did not each write somewhere, something along the lines of "Zechariah Sitchin's interpretation of Planet X is correct." You simply don't understand what it means to "confirm" something. Simply having mentioned some of the same words and concepts is not a confirmation of someone's explicit claims. Can you provide the names and references of any appropriately qualified scientists who MENTION ZECHARIAH SITCHEN BY NAME and specifically endorse his ideas? EDIT 5: That's ludicrous. Bob can't say that Steve endorses Ted's ideas if Steve mentions neither Bob nor Ted. But if Bob wants to make it seem like Steve confirms Ted's claims, then he can simply find a few sentences written independently by each person that seem to allude to similar concepts, and try to manufacture a connection. That doesn't mean Steve agrees with the connection. As I mentioned, this is Sitchin's little game. He borrows a little bit from mainstream authors, and retrospectively warps his earlier claims to seem congruent with new discoveries. This is so he can borrow credibility from real scientists. I told you Zechariah Sitchin has no stature in real science. Your inability to name even one single qualified scientist who specifically endorses the claims made by Sitchin is ample proof of that. Handwaving about famous people who wrote about superficially similar topics is not confirmation. You have no idea what confirmation entails. EDIT 6: What's the mystery? If you claim Person A endorses the ideas of Person B, how can you do that without pointing where Person A has said, "I'm aware of Person B's ideas, and I think they're correct." If all you do is point out that Person A and Person B wrote independently about, say, microwave cookery, and never mentioned each other, you have absolutely no basis for saying that Person A has confirmed or endorsed Person B's ideas -- or in fact even knows about them. The implied confirmation scam is very common in psuedoscientists. "Einstein wrote about quantum physics. I write about quantum physics and borrow some concepts from Einstein. Therefore Einstein confirms my findings." NO, NO, NO. That's not how confirmation works. Now do you or do you not have any references from appropriately qualified people who ACTUALLY mention Sitchin and endorse his specific claims? Yes or no. EDIT 7: "Too shocking to accept." Please don't patronize us. The problem with Sitchin is not that his findings would blow our fragile little minds. The problem with Sitchin's findings is that he blatantly lied, and got caught; and that the implications of his findings are completely contradicted by direct observation. Why do you keep ignoring those very simple facts? You're trying to maintain that Sitchin is "somehow" still correct. Please -- the man is an exposed fraud. Give it up. EDIT 8: No, it's not "my opinion." You are the one who said scientists had confirmed Sitchin. In FACT you cannot name one qualified scientist who agrees with him -- only names of people from whom Sitchin stole tidbits of material or to whom he and his followers allude. So because Plato talked about catastrophes, and Sitchin foretells a catastrophe, then Plato "confirms" Sitchin. No. And because some scientists before Sitchin talk about trans-Neptunian objects, Sitchin's later SPECIFIC claims about a SPECIFIC trans-Neptunian object are "confirmed" by them. No. That's the sort of vague handwaving on which most pseudoscience is based. Nor is it merely an opinion that Sitchin lied about being able to read Sumerian. His translations were revealed as purely made-up hogwash. Why would someone only innocently trying to find the truth do something like that? Why would he pretend to read Sumerian unless he was trying to be deliberately dishonest. Go ahead -- keep believing in the Sitchin Planet X religion if you want. But don't try these handwaving stunts to make it seem like Sitchin's claims have any sort of scientific legitimacy. Zechariah Sitchin has absolutely no stature in the scientific community, and nothing you've been able produce has changed that fact. You simply desperately want to believe in Sitchin, Velikovsy, von Daniken, and all the other Ancient Astronaut crackpots. So go right ahead. Don't let the facts stop you.