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.


The Nibiru Myth

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 09:42 PM
Here we go, it's a reference to halos and meridians in the sky, in which Jupiter is within a halo around the moon, or something to that effect. here's the text

VI. Omens From Halos.

Last night a halo surrounded the Moon, and Jupiter and Scorpio stood within it. When a halo surrounds the Moon and Jupiter stands within it, the King of Akkad will be besieged. When a halo surrounds the Moon and Jupiter stands within it, there will be a slaughter of cattle and beasts of the field. (Marduk is Umunpauddu at its appearance; when it has risen for two (or four?) hours it becomes Sagmigar; when it stands in the meridian it becomes Nibiru.

posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 09:47 PM
Hey I don't know if it got mentioned bu the language scholar you were refering to is Dr Michael Heiser. Very impressive guy.

He's the one with the beard and glasses

posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 10:01 PM

umun [BLOOD] (14x: Old Babylonian) wr. u3-mun; u3-mu-un; umun "blood" Akk. dāmu
[1] cuneiform |IGI.DIB|.|DIM׊E| u3-mun
[2] cuneiform |IGI.DIB|.MU.UN u3-mu-un
[3] cuneiform U umun
+ -0 (14x/100%).
3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 (no date)
[1] 11
[2] 1

4 distinct forms attested; click to view forms table.
1. blood (14x/100%)


Akk. dāmu "blood, dark".

See ETCSL: u3-mun=blood.

the sentence that says Marduk is umunpauddu might be a reference to it being red in color after only rising for 2-4 hour. these could be references to the colors it changes as it rises. not sure why the word nibiru would be translated as a color. working on that.

posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 12:12 AM
found some of it. apparently those names are different names for the same heavenly body.

for example, Sagmigar is Jupiter, which is found in the Mul.Apin Tablets for the "Path of Enlil

Jupiter (SAG.ME.GAR) changes its position continuously, crossing the heavens

So, seems Nibiru is also Jupiter?
It just has different names as it moves... which doesn't make sense

The Path of Enlil from the Mul.Apin Tablet

Jupiter (Sagmígar, Nibiru, Umunpauddu, Marduk) and Scorpius [Scorpio] in the Halo, Various Names of Jupiter.

Moon Omens

Jupiter as Marduk, is when Jupiter grows very bright

Jupiter as Sagmigar, is when Jupiter is in the halo with the moon
Jupiter as Nibiru, is also when Jupiter is in the halo with the moon (and on the meridian)

apparently this is due to change of position and also the various omens it portends for the King.

[edit on 29-3-2008 by undo]

posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 02:45 AM
Nibiru means what in what language?

There aren't that many Sumerians running around these days and, for those of us who do study ancient languages, Nibiru doesn't mean "planet of crossing" because it doesn't actually mean anything that I'm aware of. In fact the Sumarians didn't refer to planets specifically - they referred to heavenly bodies or more specifically, the lights above us.

Are we just making this stuff up?

posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 05:31 AM

Originally posted by ashwhy
why has Niribu made the OP'er so angry?

Its not that its made me angry, its just that there are so many threads out there supporting the Planet X theory (all contradict one another) but there is very few if any threads that are against it. So I decided to start one. Its funny how the mist hardcore PX'ers havent come here yet....I wonder why?

posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 06:52 AM

Originally posted by bloodcircle
reply to post by OzWeatherman

I wish you'd cited referenced to each statement so we could verify them, as only a few stood out to me as opinion rather than mythbusting fact.

Thats why I put the references at the end. Its not opinion its research. The whole theory of Nibiru is opinion. The only proof I have seen is shoddy photographs of sundogs and contradicting arguments. One guy said Nibiru was in our solar system near Jupiters orbit, then he withdrew that statement when he realised that it would be visible to us if it were that close. And you think my statements were opinions?

Im not up to date with this nibiru topic, but I am aware of the concept of our suns twin - a dieing star

Since when is the sun dying? Do you have a source to this? Its still got 4-5 billion years till it exhausts its hydrogen supply and starts its final legs

(My point was, I don't think it's all debunked as you put it, but it is just more opinion from an opposing belief.)

Sorry I must have missed something....Can you please point out where I said the Nibiru theory was debunked. And just to add, at least with my opposing belief, I actually use backing evidence. The same cant be said forabout 99.9% of PX'ers

[edit on 29/3/2008 by OzWeatherman]

posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 08:39 AM
I like when things are tied together - like you just did

posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 12:02 PM

Originally posted by diablomonic

erm...rubbish. all orbits are at least slightly eliptical,

Not eliptical like Nibiru's supposed to be though. They settled down quickly

and just because a highly eliptical orbit might not be "long term" (astronomically speaking) stable does not mean a body cannot orbit in that manner for a while, in human terms..., EG in this case, a while might mean, say, 200 orbits, or 720,000 years (this is just a completely pulled out my rear number to make a point).

So are you an astronomer? Got a source for this or did you pull that fact from your behind like the number

Otherwise you make it sound like comets couldnt exist and nothing could ever move out of a circular orbit, like they are on rails or something....

Well youve just proven you know nothing about how comets work. They move using the suns gravitational pull and the outer gas planets. They are not in a fixed orbit like planets are and they are no where near as big as planets

not saying I think nibiru is real, just making sure you dismiss it for the right reasons.

Please add some reasons then

posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 12:44 PM
Posting the link again just to make sure it hasn't been missed

It seems to show the points and story of Planet X throughout the years, was hoping others might have seen it to see what they said about it, but edited my post to fast probably was missed anyway.

posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 01:05 PM

Originally posted by Leviatano
Posting the link again just to make sure it hasn't been missed

It seems to show the points and story of Planet X throughout the years, was hoping others might have seen it to see what they said about it, but edited my post to fast probably was missed anyway.

I saw that article a while back. I had completely forgot about it until now. Thanks for posting it, now it looks like i plagiarised

posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 01:18 PM

Originally posted by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
The things you cite as 'facts' and 'evidence' are merely conjecture on other peoples part, it is the conclusions they have drawn, how do you know we won't find that large eliptical orbits aren't possible?

I'm sorry but this is true. Very little of what has been presented can disprove the existence of a 10th planet.

New objects in this solar system are discovered every year. There have been more than one instance of astronomers finding a new planet. I only heard one instance mentioned by the OP.

If the object is visible from the south pole then why are people saying they should be able to see it from Florida or Australia? That's so ass-backwards I don't know where to start...

If the object is approaching from behind the sun, who is going to see it with their home telescope? And how?

If you ask me: an object does exist in this solar system and it has been seen before. And I could care less whether people 'believe' or not. Truly, the only people getting worked up about Nibiru are the skeptics who are tired of hearing about it... but that's the case with most things.

[edit on 29-3-2008 by NewWorldOver]

posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 01:35 PM
Reply to OzWeatherman:
I thought it might help just clarify a lot of things. Even though it still seems like some things that are generally talking about appear to be left out in that article. Gotta say though still a nice (and long!) thread this has become.

Reply in General:
I kind of agree with NewWorldOrder, but then again I don't like to voice my opinions as much as I like to just simply question things. So I shall just keep throwing in links here and there for now.

posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 01:36 PM

Originally posted by NewWorldOver

If you ask me: an object does exist in this solar system and it has been seen before. And I could care less whether people 'believe' or not. Truly, the only people getting worked up about Nibiru are the skeptics who are tired of hearing about it... but that's the case with most things.
[edit on 29-3-2008 by NewWorldOver]

And what about the people that are new here and the ones that are easily unnerved by the whole PX theory?. An object will be visible at some time from earth even if it is coming from behind the sun. To say that it is always hidden means the object is always opposite the earth and almost travelling in a straight line rather than the orbit that is claimed

Its just plain scaremongering saying all this terrible stuff is going to happen. You dont realise people have committed suicide over the false Nibiru prophecies. One ATS user has actually had a friend kill himself after becoming too deeply involved in the Nibiru cult that said it would appear in 2000. This is one reason why threads like this are created and why skeptics get worked up over it and try to even up the debate. There are a lot of neutral people out there that like to here both sides of the debate

[edit on 29/3/2008 by OzWeatherman]

posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 01:53 PM

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
If the object is visible from the south pole then why are people saying they should be able to see it from Florida or Australia? That's so ass-backwards I don't know where to start...

If the object is approaching from behind the sun, who is going to see it with their home telescope? And how?

The object is not only visible from the South Pole. At the distances this subject is about.....nothing is only visible from that restrictive a position. If the object is described as being inline with the north/south axis of Earth, and visible from the South is definitely visible from Austrailia.....yeah, Florida may be stretching would probably be extremely low on the horizon.

If it's managing to stay completely hidden behind the Sun....( Totally destroying the South Pole idea by the way ) is in complete defiance of Newtonian physics. And I do believe it would have to be matching the Earth's orbit exactly for that to work.

posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 01:58 PM
reply to post by MrPenny

Good point there mate

As I said earlier in the thread, we here in Australia would have an excellent view of Nibiru if it existed and my mates down working in Antarctica would be in full view of it. Isn't it strange how the tourist flights down there dont seem to see anything unusual to as well as the hundreds of scientists from around the world

posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 04:30 PM
OK, as a person who does not believe in Planet X can the true believers verify the facts/ideas/theories and what they are?

  • Its a planet
  • Its a mini solar system
  • Its a spaceship
  • It has an elliptical orbit
  • Its inhabited
  • It will destroy the Earth
  • It will arrive in 2012

Until all the true believers get their story straight, I don't think we're ever going to get the facts straight

posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 04:55 PM
I posted this in another thread this morning, so forgive me if I'm not supposed to do that, but it's entirely relevant.

"Nibiru has a 3630 year elliptical orbit.
We all know that due to the vacuum of space, there is very little resistance, so we know that planet spin could not be the cause of the elliptical orbit, and without gravity affecting it, Newtons first law states it will travel in a straight line. So, it would have to have a central gravitational mass that is strong enough to hold it in an elliptical orbit. OK, so once again, here's the (conservative) calculations for Nibaru's velocity and elliptical circumference:

It's been claimed that Nibaru is currently outside the orbit of Pluto, so we will use this as our starting point. Approximate average distance from Earth to Pluto is 34 astronomical units. 1 AU = 93 million miles.
34*93,000,000 = 3,162,000,000 miles. To cover the distance from Pluto to Earth by 2012, starting our calculations from April 1st 2008, to April 1st 2012: 5*365 = 1825 days. 1825 * 24 = 43800 hours. 3,162,000,000 / 43800 = 72191.780 MPH. Let's approximate to 72200 MPH for next set.
24*7*365=61320 hours. So, 61320*72200=4,427,304,000 miles travelled per year. 4427304000 miles * 3630 years = 16,071,113,520,000. So, 16 trillion (short form) mile orbit or circumference. The calculations are just there to show you how big the magnetic field would have to be from the emminating body. And we know that this body is affected by a magnetic field to keep it in an elliptical orbit, so the real mystery here is, why the hell can't we detect such a majorly massive magnetic field? I mean, the size of this thing would be affecting our solar system (relative to their mass), yet we can see no effect on any of our planets in our solar system, or indeed in Andromeda or any nearby solar system. How can this be? Well, it can't. Simple as that, really."
People will say gas giants and Dolly Partons mammories have an effect on it's orbit path, so it's not elliptical etc. If that were true, the chances of it coming back to the same place even once are astronomical (no pun intended). Whatever it is in space that gives it the eccentric orbit, would have to be in the exact same place 3630 years later, and Nibiru would have to be in exactly the same relation to it for it to go off at the correct path. Now, if there's more than one body affecting it's trajectory, the likelyhood becomes almost impossible. Now take into account that nothing in space is stationary - everything moves relative to everything else, AND stars and planets have a fluctuating magnetic field and wobbly axis of rotation, the odds are like winning the lottery every week, or a month going by without Bush saying something stupid. It's just not going to happen.

[edit on 29-3-2008 by cruzion]

posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 12:10 AM
reply to post by cruzion

Very long and well calculated analysis, cruzion. Thanks for working out the math, though I'd like to add just a bit if I may?

I don't have the skills of calculus to be exact, so this is a layman's explanation to flesh out some points you hit upon.

We have already, through centuries of observations, come to recognize that there are no perfectly circular orbits in nature, in fact Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) was able to make the planet's orbits fit their observed motion by realizing that they all move in ellipses. Now, you mentioned magnetism as a mechanism for keeping objects in orbit -- I won't debate whether it is that, or plain old Newtonian physics (with an improvement by Einstein). We know that objects orbit, and they follow ellipses.

An ellipse has two we follow the 'gravity well' model of a solar system, then the star being orbited will be at one focus. Kepler calculated that for a given period of time, the orbiting body will sweep out an equal area; visualize a pie-shaped wedge. When closer in near the focus (perigee), where the star is, the body will travel faster than when at apogee.

If there exists a large mass, say a 'brown' dwarf, it would be three or four times the mass of Jupiter. IF it is in such an extremely eccentric orbit around our Sun, such that it enters the inner solar system once every 3630 years then it would be moving very rapidly during its few years 'visiting', in order to comply with Kepler's Law.

IF...this object actually exists, and its orbit is so skewed from the plane of the rest of the solar system that it approaches at an extreme angle from the 'South', then it is highly unlikely it formed at the same time as our System. So, is it 'possible' that a 'brown' dwarf was encountered some time in the long-ago past, and fell into the gravity-well (or magnetic influence, if you prefer) of our Sun? 'Possible'...but now we must consider how 'plausible' based on evidence...observed motions of the planets, seemingly unperturbed by a chance encounter with a very massive object that would have had to have been 'captured' eons ago, in order to stabilize into a highly elliptic 3630-year orbit.

Of course, everything I just wrote could be hogwash. It's just that eveerything about science and astronomy and the Cosmos that I have ever read or seen in a documentary screams out to think this through logically, and not jump to fantastic conclusions based on absence of scholarly study.

Thanks for taking time to read....


Oh golly, I just started chuckling to myself as I re-read....I had to share, sorry...but had laughed at your Dolly Parton reference, then I said I'd 'flesh' it out!! LOL!! *wiping eyes*....unintentional Freudian slip....

[edit on 30-3-2008 by weedwhacker]

posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 12:18 PM
The problem is, is that it can't be in a closed orbit around our sun, as the suns magnetic influence does not extend far enough to influence Niburu at the apoapsis (furthest distance). The notion is that, the furher away over time an orbiting body gets, the more it is slowed down by the pull of the main body. Because of the direction of the escaping object, and the pulling influence of the central mass, as the object slows, it will turn. Eventually, the central mass will overcome the escape velocity of the object, and the object will move perpendicular to, then turn back towards the main body. As the object moves from perpendicular back towards gravitational center, it becomes sympathetic, as it's velocity is no longer reduced by the pull from main gravitational body. The more the central body pulls it towards an allignment, the more the orbiting body will speed up, as it's velocity is no longer counteracting the main bodies pull. It will continue to speed up, and move more and more into direct allignment with the gravitational field of the main body, until it comes very close, entering periapsis. This is the capture trajectory, and both the mass of the main body, and the mass of the orbiting body will start really pulling towards each other. This force is not as strong as the force of the momentum of the orbiting body. As it moves past the main body, the field of gravitation will be perpendicular to the orbiting body, and then once it is passed perpendicular, the direction of momentum will be moving away from the direction of the gravitational pull, and this will help change the direction and slow it down. Again, it will be at a point where it is moving away from main body, at at a much closer distance, and again, at some point, the central mass will overcome the velocity of the orbiter, and the orbiter will turn towards the main body again, and start speeding up. The closer they are, the faster this process will happen. The mass and gravity of both objects will in effect, slingshot the orbiting planet around the heaviest mass. But, if the momentum*mass of the orbiter is sufficient, the recovered velocity of the orbiter will already be sufficient enough to send it into another escape trajectory, thus completing the orbit.
We know that at a minimum, Niburu has to be outside Pluto's orbit. So, even though my calcculations of speed were based on a regular average, the size of Nibirus orbit still stands, as half the time it will be going faster than my calculations, and the other half slower. It will be approaching Earth at a faster speed than the 72000mph I had stated. And that increased speed will result in the allowability of greater distance from Earth, in proportion to that speed.
But, as I said, based on the size of that orbit, our sun cannot be the gravitational center. There has to be another, bigger gravity field somewhere. The fact that Niburu comes through our solar system would mean that that gravitational pull would effect us, yet we see no signs of this happening.
There could be a twin to our sun somewhere, BOTH BEING OUTSIDE EACH OTHERS FIELD OF INFLUENCE, and Niburu is just going back and forth between/around the two. But the probability of Niburu staying on a predictable and re-occurring course through two different captures and escapes is pretty slim to say the least.

[edit on 30-3-2008 by cruzion]

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in