It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Agent Venom
Indeed, the IRAS story is a favourite among PXers/Nibiru proponents and use it as "proof" for this object being out there. Other favourites include "perturbations of Neptune", which have been explained, a long time ago I might add. And of course we have Sitchin's writings, but lets not even go there! I myself have been researching this matter since the 2003 date of Nibiru's so-called "fly-by of Earth", made popular by Nancy Lieder and Mark Hazelwood. Phil Plait's article is very good and covers pretty much all aspects surrounding this myth. At the end of the day, when we apply current physics, etc, relating to Nibiru and the so-called "facts" and "hard evidence", we simply come up with nothing, nada, zip. It simply does not and cannot exist in the way these people describe it. For people who say, "you cannot disprove something that hasn't been proven to exist", Is partly correct, but we can disprove it in the sense these people speak of it, their so-called "facts" and "evidence" can be disproved and unfortunately for the Nibiru believers, they can be and have been disproved. You cannot believe in something that breaks fundamental laws, but of course, people continue to do so.
EDIT: People should also take the time to visit the following two articles:
[edit on 21/5/08 by Agent Venom]
Originally posted by Evisscerator
I should remind you Agent Venom that Opinions are like a$$holes, everybody has one. You included.
Originally posted by undo
Sitchin arrived at his current position due to a few initial errors, the first being his belief that the cuneiform cylinder seal depicted the sun, when in fact the symbol was a star.
Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
I just find it really interesting that the great artist michelangelo depicted this very event in his painting in the 16th chappel; Adam
look for yourself
Yahweh is in the red "cloud" in the skies, with his elohim carrying him, while touching the man on earth
its pretty blatant, cmon folks.
reply to post by TrulyColorBlind
The alleged “sun” symbol on the seal is not the sun. We know this because it does not conform to the consistent depiction of the sun in hundreds of other cylinder seals and examples of Sumero-Mesopotamian artwork. I will describe the typical depiction (determined with certainty because it appears with texts about the sun god [Shamash Akkadian, known as Utu in Sumerian]) and provide image examples. Sources are provided for readers to check for themselves. The “sun” symbol is actually a star (which in Mesopotamian art could have six or, more commonly, eight points). Lest the modern reader retort that “well, the sun is a star,” I offer several images where the star symbol and the sun symbol (which again, is not that in VA243) are side-by-side and distinct from one another. The Sumerians and Mesopotamians distinguished the sun from stars by using different symbols – and associating each symbol with the sun god and other gods, respectively. There is simply no ancient Sumero-Akkadian evidence to support Sitchin’s identification. 3) If the “sun” is not the sun, then what are the dots? The dots are also stars, as is best illustrated by the Sumerian-Mesopotamian depiction of the Pleaides (seven dots together with reasonable astronomical accuracy since they are visible to the naked eye).b The Pleaides are actually one of the most frequently depicted astronomical features in Sumero-Mesopotamian art. As Sitchin points out (and this is corroborated by actual scholars in the field - it’s common knowledge), stars were associated with or considered to be heavenly beings – gods. In Sumero-Mesopotamian artwork, a star represents either a god or an astronomical body. The same can be said of the sun – it can either reference the literal sun or the sun god. There are three possibilities as to what VA243 is depicting:
(A) It is singling out a deity or special star and associating it with other stars in some sort of zodiacal representation. I don’t consider this likely because there are other far clearer representations of zodiacal constellations. Unless there are clear zodiacal connotations, a star was symbolic of a deity, which brings us to the second option.
(B) More probable is the idea that the central star stands for a deity that has some association with fertility (as in crops) since the inscription describes an offering made by a worshipper (who is named) to a seated god who is associated in the seal with fertile harvest. Since there are two other figures in the seal in addition to the seated god, and one is the offerer, the remaining figure is likely a deity also associated with the offering. In favor of this possibility are the “implements” shown on the seal with respect to these two figures facing the seated god and the figure’s headdress. Also in its favor is the fact that there are literally hundreds of such “offering seals,” and many have a star in upper proximity to the figures’ heads, signifying the figure is a deity (see the example).
(C) Since the star is surrounded by eleven other stars (dots), the artistic depiction could stand for the lead god of the Mesopotamian divine council and its other eleven (upper tier) members. Recall that (as Sitchin again points out) the Mesopotamian council had 12 members. I have noted before that the 12 member council isn’t always consistent in Mesopotamian religion (at times eight gods are considered the council), but 12 is the more prevalent number. This thesis is attractive, but I can’t say there is much to commend it over option B.
The reader might be thinking at this point, “Well, isn’t the sun god the leader of the pantheon – so if this symbology points to the divine council the center symbol could still be the sun?” This would be an erroneous line of thought since in Sumero-Mesopotamian religion the sun god is NOT the high god; the high god is Anu (later, Marduk), not Shamash. These options are admittedly subjective, but one thing is certain – the “sun” symbol does not conform to the abundantly frequent symbol for the sun in Sumero-Mesopotamian art. We are not dealing with a depiction of the solar system. Astronomer Tom van Flandern pointed this out years ago anyway, since the sizes of the “planets” around the alleged sun do not conform to the correct sizes of the planets and there distances from the pseudo-sun are not depicted in such a way as to depict elliptical (or at least varying) orbits. The link to van Flandern’s critique is on my website.
4) There is not a single text in the entire corpus of Sumerian or Mesopotamian tablets in the world that tells us the Sumerians (or later inhabitants of Mesopotamia) knew there were more than five planets. This is quite a claim, but is demonstrable through the work of scholars who specialize in cuneiform astronomy. Below I list all the major works on cuneiform astronomy (catalogues of texts, dissertations / books) and invite readers to check them out of a library and look for themselves. Literally every cuneiform text that has any astronomical comment (even with respect to astrology and omens) has been translated, catalogued, indexed, and discussed in the available academic literature. The tablets are often quite detailed, even discussing mathematical calculations of the appearance of planetary bodies in the sky, on the horizon, and in relation to other stars. The field is by no means new, and is considerably developed.
Originally posted by Malech
The escape velocity is wrong because he's used the gravitational force calculated as the mass. It should just be the mass of the Sun, about 2*10^30 kg.