link to Home Page

Re: Zacharia Sitchin

Article: <6hafdv$> 
Subject: Re: Zacharia Sitchin
Date: 18 Apr 1998 15:04:31 GMT

In article <> Randomity
> Could someone please present me with a cogent argument either
> in support of or against the concept of a 12th planet with a 3,600
> year elliptical orbit.

The best argument is in the geological evidence that our Earth
presents, in 3,600 periods, approximately.  Velikovsky has collected
and presented many of these in his book Earth in Upheaval.  Where many
attack the messenger, throwing all Velikovsky's insights out when fault
can be found with anything he said, these scientific studies he quotes
were NOT done by him, and stand on their own merits.  For instance:

Earth in Upheaval, pp 14 & 74 & 180, Sea and Land Changed Places

(Cuvier) found in the gypsum deposits in the suburbs of Paris marine
limestone containing over eight hundred species of shells, all of them
marine.  Under this limestone there is another - fresh water - deposit
formed of clay.  Much of France was once under sea;  then is was land,
populated by land reptiles;  then it became sea again and was populated
by marine animals;  then it was land again, inhabited by mammals.  And
as it was on the site of Paris, so it was in other parts of France, and
in other countries of Europe.

The Himalayas, highest mountains in the world, rise like a thousand
mile long wall north of India.  Many of its peaks tower over 20,000
feet, Mount Everest reaching 29,000 feet.  Scientists of the nineteenth
century were dismayed to find that, as high as they climbed, the rocks
of the massifs yielded skeletons of marine animals, fish that swim in
the ocean, and shells of mollusks.  This was evidence that the
Himalayas had risen from beneath the sea.  

In many places of the world the seacoast shows either submerged or
raised beaches.  The previous surf line is seen on the rock of raised
beaches; where the coast became submerged, the earlier water line is
found chiseled by the surf in the rock below the present level of the
sea.  In the case of the Pacific coast of Chile Charles Darwin observed
that the beach must have risen 1300 feet only recently - within the
period during which upraised shells have remained undecayed on the