This Will Blow Your Mind! Anunnaki in the Antarctic?

page: 14
73
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce




Or they think this is a documentary....




wink wink

or not

Yes its a real documentary and Mel Brooks's "documentary" "history of the world" is another great learning tool.
edit on 23-6-2014 by InhaleExhale because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: JesusChristwins
I gave you the titles of 3 books, 3 books written by archeologists and historians, 3 books written from professors. And i ask you now. They claim that the word Annunaki is Sumerian. Who am i supposed to believe? Them or you? It's a rhetoric question btw.

I explained to you why that is.

originally posted by:
a reply to: HarteAlso, why you did not make any comment about these books. Did you even check if they exist, if i did not give you 3 random titles? Or you narrowed your mind and continued straight towards your answer.

I've read Kramer. Haven't seen Child's book. Hooke agrees with me. note the dates given on page 18 (Sumerian) and page 103 (Hebrew.)
From Kramer("History Begins at Sumer - 39 Firsts in Recorded History" Page xxi):


It was probably toward the end of the fourth millennium B.C., about five thousand years ago, that the Sumerians, as a result of their economic and administrative needs, came upon the idea of writing on clay. Their first attempts were crude and pictographic; they could be used only for the simplest administrative notations. But in the centuries that followed, the Sumerian scribes and teachers gradually so modified and molded their system of writing that it completely lost its pictographic character and became a highly conventionalized and purely phonetic system of writing. In the second half of the third millennium B.C., the Sumerian writing technique had become sufficiently plastic and flexible to express without difficulty the most complicated historical and literary compositions.


That two of your sources agree with me and dispute what you claim should indicate that you ought to examine your own position.
Or, alternatively, you could claim (and give evidence that) Hebrew was already a language by then, it was just sitting around waiting for the Hebrews to make their appearance.

Hebrew does not predate Sumerian. Anunnaki is an Akkadian word. The Sumerian term is Anuna.


According to later Assyrian and Babylonian myth, the Anunnaki were the children of Anu and Ki, brother and sister gods, themselves the children of Anshar and Kishar (Skypivot and Earthpivot, the Celestial poles), who in turn were the children of Lahamu and Lahmu ("the muddy ones"), names given to the gatekeepers of the Abzu (House of Far Waters) temple at Eridu, the site at which the creation was thought to have occurred. Finally, Lahamu and Lahmu were the children of Tiamat (Goddess of the Ocean) and Abzu (God of Fresh Water).
source
The terms are often used interchangeably because, as I noted already, they refer to the same group of gods (generally speaking.)

The quote above shows you when the "ki" on the end came in. Assyrian and Babylonian.

They were still using the Sumerian script, but were writing in a different language.

The Sumerian language itself existed alongside Akkadian/Babylonian, used as an "official" governmment/religious language (not unlike the way Latin was used for so long by Catholicism.)


originally posted by: JesusChristwins
Are you an archeologist and a professor? I really doubt it. Have you ever been even once in an archeological research? No. While you base your sayings on wiki (
when wiki is being used as a source i laugh!), i base mine on serious books. When you do the same, we can continue the debate.

Given that I showed you that two of your sources agree with me, I'd say I know quite a bit more about the subject than do you.

Harte



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 02:11 PM
link   
I've seen other sources, who claim that Hitler didn't die in the bunker - so obvious that history was manipulated - so that ppl don't get scared that he lived after... and why not tell it now? Because imagine what one would think if someone stood up about 1945 and said - Oops we didn't tell you that Hitler was living after? Sorry,...

I don't know of any evidence that it so happened but with the lack of evidence of his death and presence of evidence of Nazi moving to South America and Argentina (not too far from Antarctica earth's globe-wise) is not too far fetched. Now I would rather dismiss 'Hollow Earth' - to me there is no such thing, could be either some magnetic disturbances happening like in the Bermuda, etc triangles .. or maybe the 'Hollow Earth' like a WORMHOLE to another world? Then yes, IF there are beings who use wormholes... then that's a teleporter, not a Hollow Earth still.

Using magnetic field of the Earth for levitation may be a Nazi REDISCOVERY of ancient secret knowledge...

I've also read of stories saying aliens reside at the poles, underwater, etc but this part would be speculative on the account they are really here.



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 04:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: LightYearsAhead
I've seen other sources, who claim that Hitler didn't die in the bunker - so obvious that history was manipulated - so that ppl don't get scared that he lived after... and why not tell it now? Because imagine what one would think if someone stood up about 1945 and said - Oops we didn't tell you that Hitler was living after? Sorry,...



So the other sources you will have seen will either be conspiracy theory sites and fiction - and you take them as fact because.........?



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 05:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Harte

Please do tell me where Hooke agrees with you and not me. Cause i read the following


At an early date, but probably later than the Sumerian settlement of the delta of the Tigris-Euphrates, the first wave of Semitic invasion entered the region of Sumer and Akkad, gradually conquered the Sumerians, absorbed their culutre and adopted their cuneiform script, but not their language. The language of the Semitic invaders is known as Akkadian...


The Semitic invaders took the Akkadian language, not the Sumerians! And it says nowhere that the Sumerians took the Akkadian language.

So please (this is humble and honest) do show me what am i missing, what you are seeing and i don't.



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

Actually I had watched a documentary on the history channel which alluded to the fact that Hitlers remains were not 100% confirmed as they were so badly damaged , the Russians supposedly confirmed it
but later evidence had shown that the remains they tested were not hitler's

then there are the FBI files which back up that claim that he was helped to escape by the OSS
and fled to south america , where he would have sought the entrance to Agartha

vault.fbi.gov...



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: JesusChristwins
a reply to: Harte

Please do tell me where Hooke agrees with you and not me. Cause i read the following


At an early date, but probably later than the Sumerian settlement of the delta of the Tigris-Euphrates, the first wave of Semitic invasion entered the region of Sumer and Akkad, gradually conquered the Sumerians, absorbed their culutre and adopted their cuneiform script, but not their language. The language of the Semitic invaders is known as Akkadian...


The Semitic invaders took the Akkadian language, not the Sumerians! And it says nowhere that the Sumerians took the Akkadian language.

The Sumerians were conquered by the Akkadians. Start with Sargon the Great if you're really interested.
Some info:

Later, Lugal-Zage-Si, the priest-king of Umma, overthrew the primacy of the Lagash dynasty in the area, then conquered Uruk, making it his capital, and claimed an empire extending from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean. He was the last ethnically Sumerian king before the arrival of the Semitic king, Sargon of Akkad.

Wiki
Sargon's conquest meant the end of the collection of city-states we refer to as "Sumer." However, because of the script, and the fact that Sumerians and Akkadians knew each other and knew both languages (bilingual) long before the invasion,the people that study in this area (they're called "Assyriologists" - just to add to the confusion) very often refer to all the cultures as "Sumerian." It's become a catch-all, almost.

Here's some info about the two languages:


During the 3rd millennium BC, there developed a very intimate cultural symbiosis between the Sumerians and the Semitic Akkadians, which included widespread bilingualism.[5] Akkadian gradually replaced Sumerian as a spoken language somewhere around the turn of the 3rd and the 2nd millennia BC (the exact dating being a matter of debate).

Wiki (again!)
The Akkadian language is part of the Semitic group of languages, and is not Hebrew.
Do you read your own source? Note:


the first wave of Semitic invasion entered the region of Sumer and Akkad, gradually conquered the Sumerians, absorbed their culutre and adopted their cuneiform script, but not their language.

But you say:

The Semitic invaders took the Akkadian language

I mentioned the Akkadians in an earlier post. Their language belongs to the Semitic language group. They took the cuneiform script but used it for their own language. With the exceptions I already told you about ("official/religious" use.) It is luck for us that the Akkadians adopted the script. They had no written script before, so they had to adapt their language to the script form. In doing so, they created a bunch of dictionaries and lexicons to establish how to "spell" a language that, up to that point, had only ever been spoken and never written.
We have found many of these lexicons and dictionaries and this is what enables us to read Sumerian at all - the fact we can puzzle out Akkadian because the Semitic language group still exists in several forms and many earlier forms have been translated. The Sumerian language was an isolate and is not related to Semitic.

Regarding Hooke, if you look at the two pages I told you to look at, you'll see that Hooke quite clearly (and correctly) notes that the Hebrew language arose long after the Sumerian language.

So, Hebrew is not the oldest.

It would take a great deal more work than you appear to be interested in (given your statements about Hooke) to show you that Anunna (sometimes spelled "Anuna") is the Sumerian word while "Anunnaki" came later. This is why I link to sites like wiki - I don't really want to spend more time finding info for you than you yourself are willing to spend.

Obviously, you can believe whatever you want. It's pretty clear you're not interested enough in the two terms to find out for yourself anyway. If I'm wrong about your motivation, no matter. You'll find out the same thing I found out and tried to tell you.

Harte



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 05:27 PM
link   
odd..



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

True, the hittite language was decoded by chance, they had adopted the cuniform script which though made up of more complex groupings of the triangular shapes was actually a phonetic alphabet like our own in many respects,.
When there language was finally decoded it found to be a indo european language closely related to proto german or old norse and a cousin of the english language which begged the question where exactly did there heavily militarized regimented culture which regarded all hittites as brothers come from, it was taboo in there culture for a hittite to murder another hittite and it was only after they had started to become watered down as a culture and marry into the local mesoptamian and other semitic cultures whom they had conquered along with the new ideas that they brought that these people whom introduced the Iron sword to the world (which is the real reason for there success against perhaps more cultured and long lived empires whose soldiers relied upon bronze - that is until they finally met there match in the Egyptians) that there civilization began to crumble and it crumbled from within, there formidable fortress capital Hatusha was never conquered but fell from within and possible over a war of succession as the old taboo against hittite killing hittite finally fell.
Today we assume that they came from the eurasian step but they may have also come from eastern europe or the step north of india which given there black Iron weapons which they imported with them begs the question were then did Iron first make it's debut as a metal for weapon's and when, what we do know is that they swept through the older civilization and destroyed them but not entirely and before adopting the Cuniform script (most likely through slave's they had taken) they were utterlay alien to the pre extant culures of the region.
www.hattuscha.de...
topdocumentaryfilms.com...
www.omniglot.com...
en.wikipedia.org...
mathewpeet.org...
www.britishmuseum.org...

Even today they are still a mystery despite having cracked the enigma of there language and we are still learning about them, many of there day to day affairs seem to have been unrecorded as was there religion for the most part and it seem's that the adoption of the cuniform script was not universal but more so that there kings could inscribe there names on walls much and only a few of there law's and codes have been revealed to us.
It is one of the ironies of history that only through there superior weapons (much like the goths and romans) did they destroy a more intellectual and advanced culture, namely babylonia, it would be interesting to see what the world today would look like or indeed if the much later heron of alexandria had put the peices he had together and produced a steam engine in roman alexandria (though with the roman slave driven economy it is doubtful it would have had that much of an impact unless they had then seen the potential of the steam train to move there legions more quickly.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 01:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted
So the other sources you will have seen will either be conspiracy theory sites and fiction - and you take them as fact because.........?


I don't claim anything as a fact but I do claim that without proper evidence of how things developed after WW2, there is simply untrusted official explanations.., and history about it. For example, I've read that they name ships differently when putting things on a paper

P.S I do not believe in hollow earth but I do think they may have been after nazi and nazi may have moved some of their high tech there...

antarctica.greyfalcon.us...



There has been no torpedo boat named Maddox in the US Navy. In the Russian documentary, the incident described by Sayerson (misspelt Sireson) refers instead to the destroyer “Murdoch.”

There was, however, no destroyer named “Murdoch” active in the US Fleet in 1947. Instead there was a destroyer named “Maddox” (DD-731), but it did not serve in Operation Highjump. In fact, the USS Maddox was the destroyer fired upon in the Gulf of Tonkin incident of 1964.

According to Frank Joseph the USS Maddox was,“either a torpedo boat, or torpedo-carrying destroyer.”

He goes on to explain what may have happened to the Maddox mentioned in the Soviet report:

A USS Maddox was indeed sunk by enemy action, but five years earlier by a German dive-bomber during the Allied invasion of Sicily. Actually there were at least three American destroyers known by that name (DD-168, DD-622 and DD-731) all of them contemporaneous.

The US Navy has long been notorious for falsifying the identity of its ships and re-writing their histories if they embarrass official policy… So too, the “Maddox” cited by Soviet espionage was similarly consigned to an official memory hole.

If Joseph is correct, then it is very possible that a USS Maddox was destroyed during Operation Highjump, and the US Navy changed official records to hide this.


Maybe this vid will show more info:


edit on 26-6-2014 by LightYearsAhead because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 02:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: LightYearsAhead
The US Navy has long been notorious for falsifying the identity of its ships and re-writing their histories if they embarrass official policy


Any proof at all of that claim?



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 03:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Harte
Do you read your own source? Note:


the first wave of Semitic invasion entered the region of Sumer and Akkad, gradually conquered the Sumerians, absorbed their culutre and adopted their cuneiform script, but not their language.

But you say:

The Semitic invaders took the Akkadian language


Harte


And right below that Hooke writes


The language of the Semitic invaders is known as Akkadian...


If you read closely you will understand that when he says


but not their language.


he is refering to the Sumerians, not to the Akkadians. That's why he correctly adds that


The language of the Semitic invaders is known as Akkadian...


which supports exactly what i have been telling in my posts. I did not make any misunderstandings, did not change my position, did not add anything apart the info i found in the sources i shared with you.

Since i read that Sumerians were ruling Mesopotamia, since i read that they created the great civilization who lived there, i understand that the Sumerians had their language. Akkadian existed too, probably was the second language of the area. And then, since in history almost every conqueror has adopted parts of the civilization he conquered, it was natural for the Semitic invaders to adopt the language of the people they were conquering. Why? Because they were not conquering them as a part of an army sent from Hanaan, but as a part of a settlers' campaign. The invaders knew that they were not going to return to Hanaan, they knew they were going to live in Mesopotamia. I would have no objections if Hooke was telling that the invaders adopted, among the others, the civilization of the Sumerians. It happened in the situation of the Celts in Britain, it happened in the situation of the Greeks in Egypt and Libya, it happened in the situation of the Spanish in Central America.


So basically yes, i believe what i want and you believe what you want.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 05:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: uncommitted

Actually I had watched a documentary on the history channel which alluded to the fact that Hitlers remains were not 100% confirmed as they were so badly damaged , the Russians supposedly confirmed it
but later evidence had shown that the remains they tested were not hitler's

then there are the FBI files which back up that claim that he was helped to escape by the OSS
and fled to south america , where he would have sought the entrance to Agartha

vault.fbi.gov...


For the History channel doc, it's repeating a conspiracy theory based mainly on assuming the Russians who discovered the body are lying. The 'test' it refers to is based if I remember rightly is around a jaw fragment found at the site that was used as a sample which Hitlers dentist said could not be his jaw based on his memory of Hitlers mouth. What it doesn't say in the doc I imagine is that there is no proof the sample used was not from other human remains that were also burned at the site. It's spurious at most and is certainly biased towards attempting to prove its own point.

The FBI vault doesn't back up anything. The FBI have released their own records of information reported to them by the public, the link to the file you provided shows where an investigation took place after such a piece of information was received. It doesn't in any way confirm that Hitler did escape Berlin and fled to South America, it's based on someone saying he did.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 07:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: JesusChristwins

originally posted by: Harte
Do you read your own source? Note:


the first wave of Semitic invasion entered the region of Sumer and Akkad, gradually conquered the Sumerians, absorbed their culutre and adopted their cuneiform script, but not their language.

But you say:

The Semitic invaders took the Akkadian language


Harte


And right below that Hooke writes


The language of the Semitic invaders is known as Akkadian...


If you read closely you will understand that when he says


but not their language.


he is refering to the Sumerians, not to the Akkadians. That's why he correctly adds that


The language of the Semitic invaders is known as Akkadian...


which supports exactly what i have been telling in my posts.

The Semitic invaders already spoke Akkadian, they did not "take" it, like you said.

If this "supports exactly what (you) have been tellintg..." then please show us how this supports what you said here:

originally posted by: JesusChristwins
a reply to: Harte
No sir, Ancient Hebrew texts are much much older than the Sumerian for at least 4 thousand years.


I believe that I've shown to anybody that cares to know the facts that:
A) Sumerian (and Akkadian) FAR predates Hebrew, and
B) The word "Anunnaki" is not Sumerian.

Because of these facts, what you wrote here:

originally posted by: JesusChristwins
I have said it in the past and i will say it again. Anunaki is the other name of Nephelims. Sumerians named them Anunaki. Their original name is Nephelim and it comes from the ancient Hebrew text of the Old Testament.
(my emphasis)
Is utterly untrue.

Of course, the rest of that post is so ridiculous as to eclipse this small point I made (and you refuse to accept.)

Harte
edit on 6/26/2014 by Harte because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Harte

As i say in these situations,

"Ok bro, you know better!"

cause obviously ... wish i could end it
edit on 26-6-2014 by JesusChristwins because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-6-2014 by JesusChristwins because: rage



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: JesusChristwins
a reply to: Harte

As i say in these situations,

"Ok bro, you know better!"

cause obviously ... wish i could end it


Which situations... those in which you are proved wrong?


Cause obviously...



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 10:59 AM
link   
very interesting op. Its a possibility that Antarctica was the lost continent of Atlantis i remember seeing a map thousands of years old showing submerged coastlines.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Aquariusdude




i remember seeing a map thousands of years old showing submerged coastlines.


Do you mean the map that is disussed throughout the thread or another map?



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 06:13 AM
link   
a reply to: draknoir2

How i got proved wrong blind?

Read what i have posted. He is wrong, he does not get from explanations, he believes what he wants. You also.

Can i do anything more to change the stubborn mule? I can't!

This is why i end up saying

"Ok bro, you know better" which also goes for you too.

I have not yet changed my sig. So far everything i have said in this forum, apart the 2012 Olympics, have been 100%. Why? Cause i have spent my entire life in the research of 3 specific subjects which are Orthodoxy, Archeology/History and NWO. Once i am wrong i will be the first who will admit it. Until you understand what i am saying

"Farewell!"



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 07:10 AM
link   
It is ignorance to suggest that Hebrew is older than Sumerian.

Maybe not the "height of ignorance," but it is self-inflicted and purposeful ignorance to suggest such an idiotic thing.

Regarding the term "Anunnaki," I've told you the facts, it is somewhat less ignorant that you didn't know this. However, it is, again, purposeful ignorance that allows you to continue to deny what I told you.

That part doesn't really matter anyway, since it refers to the same group of gods - part of the Sumerian pantheon which continued to be worshipped for thousands of years (in various forms.)


Harte





new topics
top topics
 
73
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in

join