Are the 'Hamburg' Transneptunians physical objects?

In 1957 Ludwig Rudolph – in the Magazine Zenit – began to interest himself in the movement of the ‘K,’ the reference star used by Ferguson in 1850. In 1850 Ferguson thought, that he saw the Transneptune (Transneptune = Planet behind Neptune). First Ludwig Rudolph compared ‘K’ to the movement of Hades, which was only 2 degrees away. This Hades, however - which was the same one Alfred Witte temporarily named ‘K’- moved too fast, which pointed to a planet more distant. Therefore, Rudolph tested the movement of Apollon, which was in opposition to ‘K.’ The discrepancy of only minutes led Rudolph to ask: “...Was it Sieggrün’s Apollon that was sighted?”  

This would have meant a 180 degree error for Apollon, which in Symmetrical Astrology is acceptable – except for house placements. On the other hand – and ignoring the known errors of Ferguson’s observations – Ludwig Rudolph correctly pointed out that Apollon was retrograde during this time, while (Ferguson’s) ‘K’ remained in direct motion. It should also be pointed out that the latitude of ‘K’ was observed at +1 degree 23 minutes, while the latitude of Apollon was zero. The two objects could, therefore, not be identical.

With increasing accomplishments in astronomy, the Uranian Astrologers kept hoping for astronomic sightings of their Transneptunians, which did not happen. More and more the opinion was voiced that the Transneptunians possibly were not planets, but a combination of geocentric planetary periods of known planetary bodies. By the end of the 70's, the American James Neely occupied himself with this question and came to the conclusion that the ephemerides of Witte as well as Sieggrün showed the character of independent planets and could not be combinations of known planetary bodies. However,  James Neely pointed out clearly, that the subject of his analysis wasn’t  the question about, whether the Transneptunians are true physical objects.

In order to be able to execute the eternal ephemerides of the Transneptunians, James Neely first analyzed Witte’s eternal Uranus ephemeris. Next he applied this new knowledge to the analysis of the Transneptunian ephemerides and then he derived orbital elements which varied up to 2.06 arc minutes from the original ephemerides. These differences resulted on the one hand from the nature of the eternal ephemerides, on the other they are due to the analysis itself. (The maximum deviation to the Eternal Ephemerides Neely gave as: 2'06" arc minutes for Cupido and Hades; 1'30" arc minutes for Zeus, Kronos and Vulcanus; 0'54" arc minutes for Apollon and Admetos; and 0'18" arc minutes for Poseidon. Hamburger Hefte Journal, HH 2/81).

Furthermore, the analyses by James Neely showed that the ephemerides of Friedrich Sieggrün were not as comprehensive and as well worked out as those of Alfred Witte. The orbits given by Sieggrün for his Transneptunians did not match the published ephemeris material. For example, Sieggrün gave an orbital time of 576 years for his Apollon, while his ephemeris gave 589.42 years. Neely saw himself forced to discard the orbital period given by Sieggrün in favor of those based on the ephemeris. In addition, Neely pointed out an error in the ephemeris for Admetos for 1974 and the years thereafter.

This text is a part of my
Transneptunian Ephemerides 1900-2100,
which I have published in 2000