[INLINE]
______________________________
[All.............] search
Home | News | Contact Us | On Demand Audio | Upcoming | Privacy Policy
|
Free Newsletter
______________ Subscribe
Quick Links
[LINK] About Our Mission
[LINK] About Our Show
[LINK] About Our Team
[LINK] What We Talk About
[LINK] Resource Links
[LINK] What People Say
[LINK] Photo Gallery
[LINK] Interview Library
[LINK] Your Support
[LINK] Free Newsletter
[LINK] Audio on Demand
[LINK] Events
[LINK] Products for Exploration
Topics
[LINK] Ancient Mysteries
[LINK] Laura Lee Articles
[LINK] Holistic Health
[LINK] Music
[LINK] New Science
[LINK] How To
[LINK] The Unexplained
[LINK] Wisdom Traditions
Tom Van Flandern, Astronomer, and author of Dark Matter, Missing
Planets & New Comets.
__________________________________________________________________
AN ASTRONOMER'S ANALYSIS OF THE AKKADIAN SEAL
by Tom Van Flandern
Referring to Figure 101, p. 205 of Sitchin's "Twelfth Planet": a large
star symbol is in the center. It is way too small in diameter relative
to the planets; but we might overlook that as artist's license, if only
the planets were shown to scale.
Next we note that nine raised circular impressions ("orbs") surround
the star in roughly a circle, located weaving in and out among the
star's rays. However there is no obvious beginning or ending place
along the circle. Nothing appears to mark the place where "Pluto" is
followed by "Mercury". (Sitchin's arrow marker is not part of the
original Seal.) Indeed, nothing identifies any of the orbs. Their
identities must be guessed by inference. Two additional orbs appear
farther out than the close circle of nine. Their relationship, if any,
to the orbs in the inner circle is unclear.
It was said that the third orb could be identified with the Earth
because it was accompanied by another orb which represented our Moon.
This is far from obvious. First, there is nothing whatever to suggest
that the orb at about one o'clock is the "third" in any sequence. Next,
its diameter is distinctly smaller than the diameter of the next
clockwise orb, which the text associates with Venus. Venus and Earth
should be about the same size, or Earth slightly larger; but the Seal
as interpreted has it the other way around.
The orb associated with the Moon is one of the two outer orbs, and the
smallest overall. Although it is about the right size relative to the
Earth (1/4), it's association with the Earth is not obvious, since its
spacing from the Earth-orb is about the same as the spacing between any
of the orbs. Specifically, it is farther from the Earth-orb than the
Mercury-orb is from the Venus-orb. If the outer orbs are supposed to be
moons, then "Mercury's" presence there would suggest that it was a moon
of Venus. That might be acceptable, because there is some evidence that
Mercury did start out that way billions of years ago. But in saying
that I am clearly stretching to accommodate the depiction. Tighter
logic would dictate that a Mercury-orb farther from the Sun than a
Venus-orb, yet closer to the Venus-orb than the Moon-orb was to the
Earth-orb, was simply incorrect in both respects.
Things do not improve after that. The Mars-orb is too large in diameter
relative to both Venus and Earth: it should be half of Earth's
diameter. Then we come to the three largest orbs more or less in a
line, each progressively larger than the last. Associating Nibiru with
the first of these is easy, since the solar system has a gap filled
with asteroids there; so any orb whatever could be argued to be the
missing parent of the asteroids. But we do not have that kind of
freedom with the solar system's two giant planets. Jupiter is larger
than Saturn in reality, but the reverse is true of the orbs. Moreover
the relative sizes are way off. Jupiter should be over ten times the
diameter of the Earth.
Both Jupiter and Saturn have other identifiers as well. Between them
they have several of the solar system's largest moons. And Saturn has
rings, arguably the most distinctive feature of any planet. But nothing
whatever appears to support the association of these two orbs with the
giant planets we know. The relative sizes are wrong with respect to the
other planets and with respect to each other; and no moons or rings are
suggested.
It doesn't get any better, because next we have an orb which does not
correspond to anything known in the solar system, in a location which
would be unstable for anything to form. Moreover the association of
anything with Pluto is questionable, since Pluto would remain unknown
even to advanced interstellar visitors, unless they carefully scanned
the skies checking every tiny spot of light among hundreds of millions
of brighter star images.
This is true even for advanced interstellar travelers. The volume
enclosed by Pluto's orbit is so vast that the galaxy's 200,000,000,000
stars could be placed inside its orbit without touching! Pluto is
smaller than many solar system moons (including our own), and in any
case is a "double" object, since its moon Charon is fully half its
diameter and relatively close. Pluto's orbit crosses Neptune's; and
there is good reason to suspect that Pluto & Charon are escaped moons
of Neptune, not true planets. Nothing about the Pluto-orb suggests an
identification with Pluto. It is merely that both are "left over" after
discussions of the eight major planets are done.
An association of the stray orb with asteroid or possible comet Chiron
(not to be confused with Pluto's moon Charon), which is in an unstable
orbit between Saturn and Uranus, would be easier to support than the
Pluto identification. But from its relative size and spacing, why not
associate this orb with Titan, Saturn's largest moon and the largest
moon in the solar system? It seems as entitled to that status as is the
orb associated with the Earth's moon. The non-uniqueness of any of the
associations is plainly evident.
The orbs associated with Uranus and Neptune look about equally large,
and are intermediate in size. That is as much as one can say for them,
since the sizes relative to inner or other outer planets are not
correct; and the next object around the circle is the Venus-orb.
In summary, the Seal does not, by itself, suggest anything more to an
astronomer than an artistic rendition of a star surrounded by planets.
There are simply no instances where consecutive identifications of orbs
with real planets support one another. Each must be argued ad hoc, and
each is problematic.
Given the lack of easy recognition of familiar solar system bodies, the
extension to unfamiliar ones (based on the Seal alone) must be regarded
as an act of pure faith. Perhaps the Akkadian Seal depicts some other
planetary system around some other star; but it seems most unlikely to
refer to our own solar system.
* Meta Research -- On The Origin And Nature Of Celestial Bodies
__________________________________________________________________
More information on this guest or topic?
Favorite Products
Cocoon Nutrition
Anti-aging and disease-reversing Growth Hormone. 28,000 studies,
stimulates tissue repair...
Wholesome Fast Food Blend
50 phytonutrient-rich whole foods, whole food concentrates, vegetables,
and herbs.
Vitalzym
Total system, the most complete and effective enzyme supplement. Find
out what your enzymes do for you!
Sweet Leaf STEVIA
All Natural Herbal Sweetener. Nutritious herb 30 times sweeter than
sugar...
Marketing Solutions
Generate Customers Using The Internet ... Even if you only do business
in a small local area.
____________________________________________________________
Conversation for Exploration with LAURA LEE
Copyright © 1995-2004 Seven Directions Media Inc. All rights reserved.
Legal Notice / Terms of Use