It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Stargates are real

page: 161
<< 158  159  160    162  163  164 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 09:54 AM
reply to post by undo

Hi Undo, not sure if this is of any help. I tried to see if i could find when/why the word ka was somehow connected to sound but didnt come up with much. There were a few hits to myspace pages for "ká-dingir", but only in reference to the users name. I didnt spend too looking so will have another go later.


The sequence KÁ-DINGIR-RA is followed by the determinative KI, meaning that it must be the name of a city. Only one city is written as KÁ-DINGIR-RA, and that would be Babylon. In fact, the logogram KÁ represents the word babu ("gate"), DINGIR resolves to ilum ("god"), and RA is the genitive case in Sumerian for dingir. Together the sequence gives Babilum, or "Gate of the God", where the god in question would be Marduk, the patron god of Babylon.


I will have another look later as i have a few things to do now.

posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 10:35 AM
posting to get it to page over so i can read enduser's newest post. for some reason, pushing the arrows doesn't work!

posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 10:44 AM
reply to post by enduser

ohmyword. this is awesome data.

The sequence KÁ-DINGIR-RA is followed by the determinative KI, meaning that it must be the name of a city. Only one city is written as KÁ-DINGIR-RA, and that would be Babylon. In fact, the logogram KÁ represents the word babu ("gate"), DINGIR resolves to ilum ("god"), and RA is the genitive case in Sumerian for dingir. Together the sequence gives Babilum, or "Gate of the God", where the god in question would be Marduk, the patron god of Babylon.

RA is ENKI ( dingir means god, goddess, deity). And babu (gate) you gotta know is the later name for abzu. the abzu of tiamat. (the gate of chaos) tower of babel.

the catholic scholars were originally at a disadvantage as were later protestant scholars, because the concepts of the old testament were only partially revealed in archaeology. that is, till sumer was discovered. now the big argument is (from the secular side) that the sumerian evidence doesn't prove the bible but in fact, proves the bible was a case of plagiarism. it's just similar history told in a different timeframe, based on an oral tradition maintained by the slaves.

anyway, catholic scholars did, however, have later babylonian data on tiamat, so they assumed the dragon was a woman because tiamat was the goddess of babel and also a dragon. thus you see them depicting satan as a female in the passion of christ with mel gibson.

it isn't true that tiamat was a goddess at all. tiamat was the gate of chaos, or rather, to be more specific, part of the gate system (the wormhole).

[edit on 26-10-2008 by undo]

posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 11:00 AM

ra. isn't that interesting?

posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 12:18 PM
i gotta make a small correction, just to be sure i don't get blowback on this:

ra depicts the genitive case of "dingir"
perhaps it became a name in its own right because i had already reached the conclusion that EA was RA, from my reading of the egyptian " legend of the destruction of mankind," in which RA was described in almost the same exact words as Enki's (and therefore Ea's) E.ABZU (his city).

notice how the same words and their definitions are repeating over and over/

i wonder if this could also indicate my other theory that the eye of ra was a later name for the star gate?

because to say the god's ka, doesn't make sense.
it's like it's possessing something. we have any language experts here? i would like to know how to read this ka-dingir-ra phrase correctly. what is possessing what? if dingir means god..

oh nevermind. had a brain dump, temporarily. it would read, god's gate. or gate of god.

hey, anyone familar with the egyptian "ka?" things that make you go "hmmm"....

[edit on 26-10-2008 by undo]

posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 02:32 AM
Nevermind Found it :up

posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 02:57 AM
reply to post by zorgon

oh that.

well i had reached the conclusion that it was weird and left it at that. it would otherwise require i establish some complicated global conspiracy like this one:

the problem with that is, some of the buzz words in it, like "ba'al" are not exactly an accurate description of the situation. this partly due to the fact that the english translation of the text is weak (hebrew is pretty complicated by comparison) and secondly because it's too generalized. "ba'al" was a generalized term that translated, simply meant "Lord" and could be applied to a god, an angel or a human being of elevated social status. since the hebrews were in captivity at the time of their adoption of phoencian words and concepts (which you can see later echoes of in psalms), some researchers have taken the english translation of the word and assumed that it was originally less offensive than it was later presented as. oy. untangling this stuff is like pulling teeth.

the etymology of ba'al appears to be enlil, who appears to be jehovah. i did a big etymological study on it. this is further evidence that what started out as a word that applied only to enlil, ended up being applied to whoever. lol thus we end up with "babilu" for enki's gate. he had usurpred enlil's title.

etymology is


see variations.

to the phoenicians, in the case of ba'al, the name could be applied to the hebrew jehovah as is. to apply to other gods, additional words were added - ba'alzebub, for example. to differentiate, the hebrews didn't use the ba'al word in the text to define jehovah/yahweh because it was used too often to depict the national gods of phoenicia. therefore, the god of the phoenicians was called "ba'al" by the hebrews, generally speaking, but had its etymological roots in enlil!

we can thank the namshub for that little bit of "chaos."

i suppose you could look at it like a hebrew refusing to use the word "god" because it's been so ecumenized, the distinction is blurred. i know seeing sherry's phrase "priests of ba'al" automatically sends the message to a believer that perhaps the priests in question are not exactly kosher. but to a scholar of the languages, it would read differently. they would see, "priests of the Lord". seeing as how "priests of baal" is the title of her article, it's gonna read like one big contradiction to some people, and i just decided the amount of work that would be necessary to prove or disprove anything on the topic would require writing a huge book. if you aren't accurate and practically anal about it, it can be construed to be things that frankly, it isn't and never was. in addition to the language, it's necessary to know the history.

le mew, le sigh, le abzu.

[edit on 27-10-2008 by undo]

posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 04:44 AM
here's another thought:

now we know that "ilu" is from "il" which is from "lil" which is from "enlil".
enlil's name has several interpretations and therefore, several cuneiform glyphs, but the one most seem to ignore is the one for ilu that is for dingir (digir), god, goddess, diety.

this one.

what does that really look like? a star right?

hold on to your hats.

since it's in the word "babilu"

is it possible the word babilu actually means "star gate" or "gate of heaven?"

"It's not 'Door to Heaven', it's... 'Stargate'."
Dr. Daniel Jackson, doing a Conveniently Precise Translation of Egyptian hieroglyphs

enlil had become associated with heaven. his name means lord of wind, lord of air, lord of heaven, and several other lord titles. (en means lord in sumerian-akkadian)

so the name for heaven/god/goddess/deity (ilu, dingir, digir) was dissected from his title, lord, and applied to the gate (abzu, bab). heaven and star were synonmously translated, and you have stargate. the abzu. the abyss. the bottomless pit.

either that, or i'm totally wrong and i have to start my translations all over again

maybe someone mistranslated digir as deity/god/goddess, or didn't notice it had been melded with heaven/star by the time of the rebuilding of the "tower of babilu". i'm guessing since enlil was a entity before babilu was rebuilt that the word means all of the above -- deity/god (in his case)/heaven/star.

what we need to do now is see whether it's refering to the sun or not. once we do that, we can determine if it's jsut a reference to it being an astronomical tower or if it's really a device for interplanetary travel.

[edit on 27-10-2008 by undo]

posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 05:48 AM
and the answer is, apparently it was not built for astronomy purposes, specifically, it doesn't appear to be a tower for babylonian astrology/astronomy.

the symbol for sun is the first symbol (on the left) in this image

not this

so the "tower of babilu" was not for worshipping utu or shamash nor for charting the course of the sun.

this, however, doesn't account for An (later called Anu), the god of the heavens, who has the same symbol as Enlil's "ilu", the digir/dingir symbol above. how very curious.

[edit on 27-10-2008 by undo]

posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 08:31 AM
Hi Undo,

I am new to ATS, and your threat is one of the first I read.

I really facinated with your research. Reading from page 1 and continue one page a time. It has been a while and you still come up with new thoughts! Very nice.

I really thank you and zorgon for providing "connection" between ancients text, bible, and universe.. this threat is the missing link I have been looking for.

I will keep following your threats and will contact you someday.


posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 09:18 AM
i guess i need to address this other character, An or Anu.
i just don't know what to make of him, especially since his glyph is the same as ilu, which is enlil.

what does it mean, i dunno! as a christian, my first impulse is to assume it's some kind of an attempt to disenfranchise enlil of his title. why else would the deity symbol (later possibly the star symbol or the heaven symbol), which was clearly from enlil's name -- ilu, be attributed to a totally different deity with a different name? if someone has any clue as to why this would happen that actually has a trail in the sumerian texts that can be followed (refrain from quoting the lost book of enki, as sitchin wrote that as a dramatization and at the moment, we have enough speculation with just my wacky theories), feel free to share it!

on the other hand, it may be that it was just the end result of the developing approach to worship of the gods, as taught by priests of the time:

1. one was of the heavens (An)
2. one was of the air. (Enlil)
3. one was of the water. (Enki)

still... something's wrong.

if An was the father of Enlil, and ilu is the same symbol for both, it's in reverse order. ILU would be first and AN second, if both share the same word found only in Enlil's name and not in An's name. argh.

[edit on 27-10-2008 by undo]

posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 09:30 AM
reply to post by berikutnya

you're welcome. but don't be too happy. i am still not totally convinced of my own theories. i just don't get some of this data. it's really...messed up.

posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 09:36 AM

Originally posted by zorgon
This thread has been running for two years precisely because there is a LOT of evidence...

Your evidence seems very poor. Give 1000 random people your evidence and I doubt they would say "stargates". This would not sway a jury as you say.

Originally posted by zorgon
You cannot see 'the big picture' by looking at only a single piece of the puzzle.

Sounds familiar and convenient.

Originally posted by zorgon
However if you google Star gates you will find more and more people coming around... and many insiders like 'Henry Deacon', Dan Burisch and others are talking about star gates, natural portals and the "Looking Glass" technology at Los Alamos....

Do you really think a technology like this would stay under covers? I know people who work for nasa, govt's etc, top researchers in the fields of physics; Friday afternoon journal clubs often end up as "I wish we could do [insert scifi X] but here is why its not possible"... etc etc. These people WANT to find things like you talk about, but have never experienced them.
We all want the new model for quantum effects to fail, as it would make the universe so much more boring!

Originally posted by zorgon
What gets my dander up is when people scream the government is lying... they are covering up the truth... then when you SHOW them an official document that does indeed show the truth... they refuse to even look at it...

Honestly, do you really consider one mans opinion to be fact? It's bunk science, you can tell just by looking! No respectable scientist would put their name to that piece of junk, because it would mar you for the rest of your career. And not because we don't love new ideas, it's because the ideas presented are little more than science fiction; no testable hypotheses, no experimental data, and far greater minds than him call it bunk. Sorry. Science works on TESTING, REPRODUCIBILITY, not making stuff up!!!

Originally posted by zorgon
I see UFO stuff everywhere on this site... I see FOIA papers on UFO's made a big deal of here... yet when I posted some real documents on a Lunar Nuclear power plant from NASA, a fusion rocket in 1992 by the fusion researchers at Wisconsin U and the "Looking Glass paper from Los Alamos... it ends up in skunkworks...

UFOs are great. I have a few (see my other threads) that will
release on a semi regular basis to see what people do. Pretty simple to make your own saucer craft these days. All it means is unidentified craft - nothing more.

Honestly, I would love stargates to exist. Wouldn't you? I just want something more than wishful thinking. Come to think of it, how do you score on this:

posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 09:55 AM
reply to post by benjiskylar

okay this thread is speculative. so you have nothing to worry about. no one is going to run over to iraq and dig up the euphrates river.. at least, i hope not. if there's really a star gate device there, leave the blasted thing alone.

posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 10:59 AM
reply to post by reconpilot

oh, well i apologize then.
lets move on.

posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 02:08 PM
reply to post by benjiskylar

Wormholes Take on a New Dimension
BBC News

more about Krasnikov's puckered wormhole theory

the guy's no slouch

Wormhole Theory Return to Modern Relativity
12.1 Metric Engineering
NASA inertia manipulation plans

black hole

[edit on 27-10-2008 by undo]

posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 07:52 AM
an entire page of science papers on the topic

sorta unrelated but interesting none the less. an entire page of articles from
Research & Technology at the
NASA Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field

[edit on 28-10-2008 by undo]

posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 08:24 AM
anybody know what this white thing looks like?


it's from a flash presesntation i found in the archives at NASA Glenn Research.

it's a space station model. isn't it interesting?

[edit on 28-10-2008 by undo]

posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 09:18 AM

Originally posted by undo
anybody know what this white thing looks like?


it's from a flash presesntation i found in the archives at NASA Glenn Research.

it's a space station model. isn't it interesting?

[edit on 28-10-2008 by undo]

This reminds me of a picture from the JL moon pics thread. I like the helicopters in space too!

posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 09:22 AM
could be a moon base airport model. but helicopters on the moon? *scratch head*

what i found so interesting was their choice of shape. it makes sense, for docking, but it's still an interesting shape.

new topics

top topics

<< 158  159  160    162  163  164 >>

log in