Re: Planet X/12th Planet Retrograde Orbit

Article: <[email protected]> 
Subject: Re: Planet X/12th Planet Retrograde Orbit
Date: 9 Apr 1998 02:41:34 GMT

In article <[email protected]> John Ladasky writes:
>>> You postulate concentrated energy beams that radiate from
>>> the Sun and push the planets along .. why don't we see a 
>>> transient acceleration?
>>
>> (Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
>> You do see transient acceleration.  You call them 
>> perturbations, atmospheric distortions, ghost factors that 
>> have a null effect on the whole, or whatever. .. Are you stating
>> you have NO aberations in orbits you observe that you
>> cannot explain, fully, with your orbital mechanics?  None?
>> (End ZetaTalk[TM])
>
> The burden of proof is on you.  You're the one with the new
> hypothesis.  Aren't *you* stating that an object is entering 
> the solar system that behaved in a way that defies our 
> understanding of gravity, propelled by a brown dwarf that 
> defies our understanding of thermody - namics and optical 
> astronomy.

Retrograde orbits are certainly not unknown, and Niburu / Wormwood /
Marduk / 12th Planet / Planet X or what ever you want to call it comes
in from Orion every 3,657 years and roars through the solar system on
its long elliptical orbit around TWO TRUE foci, is not propelled by a
Brown Dwarf, it IS the Brown Dwarf, a small one, 4 time the size of
Earth, 23 times (not 68 as you calculated) times the mass, and emitting
a bit of light into its atmosphere from deep ocean rips, has an
atmosphere as it is mostly a water planet as is ours, and is surrounded
by a red iron ore cloud that gives it a redish glow when seen from a
distance.  Regarding a retrograde orbit being a new hypothesis, the
Zetas wish to speak to you about this, since you engaged them.

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
In this matter the burden of proof is on US?  We will place our
explanation of why a retrograde orbit is taken by the the rogue planet
that is termed Planet X by the horified technicians who discovered it
when they were set upon the task, or the 12th Planet by the ancient
Summerians, as Sitchin so carefully documented and laid before those
who care to think rather than dismissively retreat to comfortable
denial, along side your explanation of why the known planets in your
Solar System all circle in the same direction any day!  You're ON, and
just because your explanation is not NEW is no reason for the burden of
proof not to be upon YOU TOO.  The theory that the Earth is flat is
older than your current model of the Solar System, but does age grant
it immunity from scrutiny?  
(End ZetaTalk[TM])

Along those lines, this is what the Zetas have said in the past about
the Orbital Plane, at http://www.zetatalk.com/science/s64.htm

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
Planets orbiting a sun invariably line up into an orbital plane,
looking a bit, if one were to speed up the process, like a flying
saucer. Why would this be so, and is there a relationship to the shape
that solar systems take and the familiar shape of our ships? There is
indeed a relationship, as what is termed the flying saucer is shaped to
simulate the gravity dynamics of a solar system so that it can become
its own little solar system when instigating its own gravity field. A
flying saucer in motion can turn sideways or upside down, and the
passengers are unaffected. They are, gravity-wise, in their own little
world. Solar systems do not take this shape by accident, though there
is no comparable effect on Earth for man to study and point to. Gaseous
planets, such as Saturn, have rings in a plane, but nothing orbiting
the Earth, man-made or otherwise, is so affected. 

The planets are lined up in a plane not because of anything inherent in
themselves, but because of a drama that is taking place in their sun.
All suns, being hot and therefore liquid or vaporous in the main,
rotate, and do so for the same reasons that the Earth rotates - parts
of the core are seeking to escape this or that side of the Universe,
and due to the motion of rotation that this escape attempt initiates,
these same parts find themselves back where they started from, not
having any brakes as it were in a liquid or vaporous environment. The
Sun's influence on its planets is more than light, more than the solar
wind in all its components, more than the magnetic field it generates
which reaches out beyond the planets. The Sun's rotation reflects the
influences on it, those parts of the Universe that exert a
gravitational pull or a magnetic clash, or if there are other large
bodies close enough, a repulsion force. 

A sun's rotation does not just happen, it begins due to attraction or
repulsion. This is what begins the motion. A sun's rotation reflects
this, and whatever rotation institutes within the sun has a dominant
effect on the planets that are about the sun. Why do the planets not
orbit in all directions? Logically, if there were no enforcement, it
would be chance, yet it seems instead to be the rule. A sun's rotation
indicates where the dominant forces are on the sun, and these dominant
forces effect more than the sun. They rule the planets too, pulling and
pushing on them, as well. But beyond these outside influences, the
rotation of a sun has an effect on her planets, as the streams within
her core, being uneven in their composition, pull and push on the
planets as they may be susceptible to these forces. Thus, coalescing
planets may not start out all in a line, but as they are pushed and
pulled they tend to move as far or as near as they can get, and in the
end, are in a line with the sun's moving parts, as this is where far
and near lie.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])