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: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 03:35 PM
reply to post by cruzion

Sorry, cruzion, very fascinating diatribe, though a little difficult to follow without paragraph breaks. I kept up with you, even if the science was questionable, especially your propasal about 'perpindicular' motion, it just doesn't fit with observed motions. I'm afraid that it, your post, realy left me cold at the end, however....

You claimed another 'companion' star to our Sun in order for a 'Niburu' to exist...your claim that there's not enough 'attraction'....well, there is no evidence of this companion, as far as I know. Perhaps you have a link to this data? In absence of data, this is a fantastic claim, and very hard to reconcile with known observations.

Finally, gravity works very well, the Einstenian theory, combined with Newtonian Laws of motion, in describing and predicting celestial motions.

Not every object that passes by a larger mass will always fall into a stable orbit...this idea has been shown quite often in our use of a planet's gravity to provide a 'slingshot' effect for quite a few of our spacecraft, especially as example: Apollo 13.

After the damage on the Service Module, and since the vehicle had already completed its burn for TLI, the trajectory was altered slightly to utilize the Moon's gravity for a 'free return trajectory'. Obviously, time was of the essence, (consumables were lost in the explosion of the O2 tanks) and there was insufficient fuel to 'reverse' course any other way. So, a minor alteration resulted in the 'slingshot' effect around the Moon, instead of the original Lunar Orbit Injection used for other Apollo missions.

Of course, even after the 'slingshot', other minor corrections were needed to ensure the TEI...those people were literally off the charts, thinking 'outside the box' in order to successfully save the crew. Pretty amazing, shows lots of intelligent people work at NASA, and shows how the science of orbital mechanics is as solid as Mathematics, since that's really the basis of it.

Once again, I didn't intend to argue about the 'Magnetic Universe' theory, there are other threads that take care of that subject. I detected (pun) a little possibility that that was what you alluded to in your post, and felt I had the right to step up and give an alternate view, however 'mainstream' it may appear to be.

That being said, it seems that you and I agree with the OP, at least, about the unlikelihood of a 'Nibiru', if I read your posts correctly? Perhaps for different reasons, but time will tell...

Hope I didn't misunderstand, if so, we can meet on a different thread if you wish.

Cheers, WW

[add] I hope I didn't appear to take the thread off topic with the Apollo reference, I just don't edit myself well sometimes!!!

[edit on 30-3-2008 by weedwhacker]

posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 03:44 PM
As ]I stated earlier, I do not believe in Nibiru. However, I was watching the "Universe" show the other night on the History channel, and they stated that virtually all of the exoplanets discovered to date have HIGHLY elliptical orbits. In fact, several scientists think that perhaps our planets may be the exception, as they are much closer to circular than elliptical.
Therefore, I think we have to be careful using the argument that Nibiru cannot exist because its orbit would eventually degrade to circular. That was the prevailing scientific thought prior to 1995, but once exoplanets were discovered, astronomers have been rethinking the circular orbit inevitability.
I think there are plenty of other reasons to deny its existence, not the least of these that no other historical culture mentioned it, human-like beings could not exist on a planet where there was very little solar light and warmth, an object transiting through the Kuiper zone would inevitably collide with objects, etc.

posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 05:06 PM
Well if Nibiru is Jupiter, which the Babylonian Astrology catalogues seem to indicate, I don't see how it could be arriving here any time soon. Unless it's a giant spaceship and just sorta flys around every so often.

posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 08:19 PM
LOL! I just put out the twin sun idea as a possibility. I was just going with the flow. There is no data what so ever. It was just an idea that popped into my head.
I think the whole Niburu as an orbitting body is totally false, hence the previous posts, and rough calcs as brief examples as to why.

posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 08:35 PM
reply to post by cruzion

cruzion!!! So, all of that math you posted, and all that I posted in response...???!

Well, I stand by my posts. Hope you weren't just writing for the sake of writing, because I seriously took note of your posts, and attempted to respond in an intelligent manner, all the time not going off-topic.

Well, since we're in Skunk Works, I guess the leash gets a little longer, and there's more, no harm!!

Back to the OP's premise....I stand with him; it's a myth. I've written a lot, but haven't changed MY opinion, just hope I've had some influence on others'...!!!

Best, WW

posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 08:41 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

hopefully, you noticed that the babylonians called jupiter nibiru when it was on the meridian in the sky ? they called it marduk when it was very bright. they called it sagmigar when it was in the halo with the moon,etc

posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 08:48 PM
reply to post by undo

undo....that is interesting info, thanks!

BUT, it was still Jupiter, right? As far as I know, Jupiter and its dozens of moons haven't come into the inner Solar System to wreak havok for some time...well, since FOREVER!!


posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 08:56 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

yes, it was still jupiter. nibiru is jupter, according to the babylonian astrology catalogues. it's mentioned in the section called "Omens of the Moon" and described in more detail elsewhere in the catalogues.

there was also a nibru.
nibru was Enlil's city in ancient Sumer and is better known today as Nippur (or at least, that's what they say).

nibru means "gate" and "place of the crossing", just like nibiru does.

reposting of the data"

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.

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

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 30-3-2008 by undo]

posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 09:02 PM
reply to post by undo

undo...."King of Akkad"????

OK, you claim to be a writer, in your avatar/screenname. I see examples that lead me to doubt that claim, but I ignore for now......

Please focus on this question: Who or What is the 'King of Akkad'? Yeah, I could do a Wiki search, but ould like to hear it from you first...

Thanks, WW

posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 09:10 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by undo

undo...."King of Akkad"????

OK, you claim to be a writer, in your avatar/screenname. I see examples that lead me to doubt that claim, but I ignore for now......

Thanks, WW

there was more than one, so it must be a generalized .... "whoever happens to be king of akkad at the time" type of deal. one was called enmerkar, for example.
those are not my writings. those are from the babylonian mul.apin tablets.

The Mul.Apin [i.e. Mul and Apin] tablets contain the most comprehensive surviving Babylonian star and constellation catalogue from before 600 BC.

Mul.Apin Tablet 1. Larger plate (67 KB) ©

Further Information: WA 86378 [BM 86378] Mul.Apin tablet 1 [pictured] is in the British Museum, London. [The tablet is 8.4 centimetres high incised with miniature cuneiform writing.] This principal copy of Tablet 1 probably dates circa 500 BC and is a late Babylonian copy. The earliest copies were recovered from the royal library of the Assyrian King Assurbanipal (667-629 BC) in Nineveh (and also from Assur). The text of Tablet 1 was able to be restored with the aid of five copies - one dated to the Neo-Babylonian Period, two from Assurbanipal's library [hence written before 612 BC when Nineveh was sacked], and two from Assur. [The first part of Mul.Apin to be published was this almost complete copy of tablet 1 by Leonard King in CT 33, Plates 1-8 (1912)].*

The principal copy of the second tablet is VAT 9412 from Assur, dated 687 BC. (This is the oldest of the texts.) Multiple copies of tablet 2 are known: principally three from Assur, three from Assurbanipal's library, and one dated to the Neo-Babylonian period.

posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 09:47 PM
Just because I don't want to see this thread die yet, I shall throw more fuel into the fire. Only this time it will be helpful (perhaps?) on the Nibiru exists side

(In no way do I feel strongly one way or the other about this planet existing or not existing, I am merely just cruising about the net gathering sites and linking them here

The first link I found almost nothing about this "Nibiru" or "Planet X" besides that alleged release date of 2003. Other than that this person didn't really claim much more, than just to talk of the "plan" initiated by those who "lived" on "Nibiru" Even though I tried to argue in fact of the Nibiru case, it seems the link has betrayed me anyway as in the end he states the purpose.

Something will be coming our way very soon but it will not be Nibiru.
(But then again, look at my source. It's no wonder It wouldn't have proved a very good argument for me anyway :lol

Another source I came by was: (Warning rather lengthy and probably isn't best if one sat down and read the entire thing. Lord knows I didn't.)

But in this article several points and figures are brought up before one even reaches the question of "Does 'Nibiru' return?" (Or does it even exist for that matter?).

Later after reading through some of the "fluff" we arrive at:

Planet Marduk
Upon its appearance: Mercury.
Rising 30 degrees of the celestial arc: Jupiter.
When standing in the place of the celestial battle:

To which brings us to this part, which who knows if we can take to heart as to how to true it might be. (:@@

These instructions for observing the incoming planet clearly refer to its progression from an alignment with Mercury to an alignment with Jupiter by rising 30 degrees. This could happen only if the orbit of Nibiru/Marduk is inclined 30 degrees to the ecliptic. Appearing 30 degrees above the ecliptic and disappearing (to a viewer in Mesopotamia) 30 degrees below it, creates the "Way of Anu", which forms a band extending 30 degrees above and below the equator.

Then, We arrive at the alleged spot to which this planet or dwarf should (Could?) be.

The incoming planet as it curves around Jupiter will arrive at the place of the Celestial Battle in the asteroid belt, the "Place of Crossing" (and hence the name Nibiru).

To which a passage follows:

When from the station of Jupiter
the planet passes toward the west,
there will be a time of dwelling in security...
When from the station of Jupiter
the Planet increases in brilliance
and in the Zodiac of Cancer will become Nibiru,
Akkad will overflow with plenty.

( Top external information comes from this source. Except for the one in which I listed the source underneath)

Now am I advocated that I believe Nibiru to exist? Nope, I am merely just throwing data out there to be torn asunder if you will by those who know it best. Of course these links may have been thrown in countless times by various people, but I have yet to see it and a bit to tired to hit the search :p. Though I will have to say, my argument for the reasons as to why "planet X" exist kind of sucks.
perhaps I just didn't have the heart in it to try and win the argument, or maybe I'm just to tired. Either way, Go at it.

posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 10:10 PM

is that a sitchin translation of the tablets? he has some good stuff but had decided something was wrong with the translations and retranslated them to support his growing hypothesis he originally forumlated when he mistook that one cylinder seal to contain a depiction of the solar system with the sun in the middle, but the figure in the middle is the symbol they used for star not sun. they always depicted the sun with the sun symbol and a star with a different symbol, which is what is in the cylinder seal. why they would do that, i have no idea, but i'm thinking the seal is not showing the sun at all. .

posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 11:43 PM
reply to post by undo

To be quite honest I am not at all completely sure, it's probably because it is already so late in the night for me I can't wrap my mind around the idea of actually beliving into the Planet X stuff. I will more than likely wake up early in the morning and give a better analysis (and possibly more links) but as for now, I thought I would just make a stance on trying to give belivers a chance (Even though I know it is a high possibilitiy it may not be out there.)

posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 12:34 AM
reply to post by undo

Ah, thanks undo, in the Museum of London, I will be there within a few months (London, of course...but will get to the Museum while in town).

Sorry if I'm too dense, is there a link to your last post? I mean, how were the cunieforms translated, and is it corraborated?

Sorry if I sound too skeptical, but incredible claims require incredible proof....yeah, corny phrase, where did I hear that before????/

edit...just saw some posts up above, so forgive me if this is old news......going to read now......

[edit on 31-3-2008 by weedwhacker]

posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 12:49 AM
reply to post by Leviatano


Those are interesting finds, and a great post...haven't read thru them all.

BUT, is there any chance that ancient translations may have been, errrr...mis-interpreted at all?

Well, even if not mis-interpreted, could they be somewhat unnecessarily fatalistic in the interpretations, since the apocalypse didn't happen THEN...and what did they observe, according to the translations?

I mean, if this horrible massive planet ravaged our Solar System in Babylonian times, then I doubt we'd be here today discussing the possibility...

If, on the other hand, a comet was unusual event in one's lifetime, but not a Planet Destroyer, it indeed might get some attention in the 'media' of the day, even if in a clay cunieform....

Anyone have data to corroborate?


posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 01:27 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

It is safe to say that there is a high margin in which they are misinterpreted, but some (if not all?) can safely say that it has been implanted in so many texts that it makes one wonder, what they saw? It also has been used over and over through these various texts as a way to explain disasters. (The great flood being one of them)

I think before we can move on to figuring out what this "nibiru" or mysterious object is, we first need to find out if it's a: Planet, A brown dwarf, a comet, or just asteroids. There just seems to be to many varying opinions floating about on the net that one can't even keep up with after a while! Though one thing always seems to show from it that kind of catches my eye. That is the accounts of beings that are tall, and "other-worldly" whether there angels, aliens or devils. They are depicted in various mosaics, and in writing forms as well. So, what do we believe in now? Science that changes constantly? Or old writings and drawings that may not be translated properly? Just because they appear frequently should we label it as a planet? Or as a mini solar system with it's own array of planet that doesn't follow our "ideal" model?

Only time will tell, and when it does who knows. Hopefully it won't be boring though.

posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 05:36 AM
Can we please stop using the term "magnetic field" when referring to the force of gravity ? They are two completely different things. As for "the Sun's influence not extending far enough to exert a gravitational force on an object with a 3600 year orbit", that is just laughable. Long period comets can have orbital periods of millions of years, and yet they are still gravitationally bound to the Sun.

As for those "calculations" done earlier in this thread, if it was that easy to work out the orbital velocities and trajectories of objects in the Solar System, why did it require a brilliant mathematician like Isaac Newton to invent an entirely new form of mathematics (calculus) before it could be done ? Anyone could have done it on the back of an old envelope

[edit on 31-3-2008 by Mogget]

posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 06:48 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

The broad astronomical content and significance of the (two-tablet) Mul.Apin series had been identified by the English assyriologists Archibald Sayce and Robert Bosanquet in a journal article published in 1880. The first part of the Mul.Apin series to be published was BM 86378 in Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum: Part XXXIII (Plates 1-8) by Leonard King (1912). This tablet is almost complete copy of tablet 1. See also "A Neo-Babylonian Astronomical Treatise in the British Museum and its Bearing on the Age of Babylonian Astronomy." by Leonard King (Proceedings of the Society for Biblical Archaeology, Volume 35, 1913). This article by the English assyriologist Leonard King drew attention to the importance of this text for identifying the Babylonian constellations. In the next two years numerous articles and books appeared that utilised its star list information in the attempt to identify the Babylonian constellations and the stars that comprised such.

I believe the babylonian languages were translated well before sumerian, as sumer was buried under 8 ft of flood silt from the Black Sea Flood for some 5900 years Otherwise I'd assume Samuel Noah Kramer translated the language, but this is not the case. Babylon and babylonian language translation has been around for a long time.

posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 03:29 PM

Originally posted by OzWeatherman

Myth- Nibiru has a highly eliptical orbit and only reaches our solar sytem every 3600 years
Fact- According to astronomers, eliptical orbits are highly unstable. Chances are that if there was a planet in such an orbit would either revert to a circular orbit as it nears the sun, or fly off somewhere into space due to the distance from the sun

Our own planet has an eliptical orbit as does all of the planets....I believe you might have mistyped in the op..

[edit on 31-3-2008 by Combatmed1]

posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 09:10 PM
OK Mogget, go for it. Let's see the calculations you have for Niburu's possible orbit path. I'm sure your disparaging the effort because you have some much more worthwhile and accurate equations, right?
Also, there's a huge mass difference between a brown dwarf and a comet.
Also, wouldn't we be able to detect the gravitational field that effects Niburu?

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in