Current model of Nibiru debunked?

Nibiru is a fictional creation from the Illuminati greatest myth write of our time... Zachruis Sitchin. The Jew, the Hybrid-Reptile. Ask yourself this, all other conspiracy writers either: Self publish their books, and get a hard time about it, and secondly use facts to back up their claims. ZS does neither. His 25 books or whatever on the subject have been published by companies like Harper-Collins. Hmmm :S

He's one of them!

This is all a build up to a FAKE UFO Invasion. If we do see it, it will be faked!

Just remember... If this thing does come, we can't do anything about it. So please just relax on this subject, thier are more important things.

X

posting a reply so i can see latest response. the thread did not page over correctly

reply to post by Agent Venom


But, the technological "gods" didn't use the primitive stone tools to mine the gold themselves, that's why they created the slaves, silly! You must have missed that part of it. The stone tools were perfectly good enough for slaves to use for mining.

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


A "fake UFO invasion?" Yes, there will be a fake UFO invasion, but only to distract us from the real one when it comes later. Consisting of smaller ships, designed for entering into planetary atmospheres, all based on their good ol' mothership named "Nibiru." Yes, that's what I said. Nibiru is nothing more than a planet-sized space ship. Remember the episode of Star Trek, "For The World Is Hollow And I Have Touched The Sky? And, do you also remember when Nibiru was here that other time and broke up the original Earth into smaller parts? All the little parts of Earth became the Asteroid Belt between Mars and Jupiter. Of course, this happened a long time ago.... How do you think those ancient gods flew around? In tiny UFO's? Not hardly. They used their cleverly disguised Nibiru, which only looked like a "red planet." It's like the poster above said: Just wait and see. Time will tell all.

reply to post by TrulyColorBlind


Actually, FYI, the body that hit Earth was absorbed by the Earth. You can see this by the size of the metal core of Earth. It's almost twice as big as it should be. Not to mention it happened a few billion years ago.
You'll have to try that story on someone stupider/gullibler.

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:
spider.ipac.caltech.edu...

adsbit.harvard.edu...

[edit on 21/5/08 by Agent Venom]

I should remind you Agent Venom that Opinions are like a$$holes, everybody has one. You included.

Now, I don't know what all the flap is over Planet X or Nibiru and from what I have been able to tell, the nay sayers have little credibility while the crowds that support the notions or ideas that Planet X or Nibiru are using historical, scientific and biblical data to back up their claims.

Most Debunkers eventually lose their credibility because of their pursuit of glory and fame at the expense of other people, while losing objectivity in their desires or jealousies of the objects of their affections.

This professor says this, that one says that, who knows for sure which is true because they often use their OPINIONS rather than cold hard facts that can be proven or disproven.

I would, if I were you, take a good hard look for information on SILOE and Project Kerigma, and their associations with the Vatican / Catholic Church.
Also looking at VATT and VULCAN telescope projects as well. You might be surprised at what you find out.

[edit on 5/26/2008 by Evisscerator]

Thanks to Agent Venom for creating this thread.

As far as I'm concerned, Nibiru is a myth. While the "theories" surrounding its existence are sometimes interesting (except when these "theories" degrade into nothing more than bad science fiction plots) In the end I find them to be unsubstantiated.

Originally posted by Evisscerator
I should remind you Agent Venom that Opinions are like a$$holes, everybody has one. You included.

Well you included too then hey bud? I guess the actual people who worked with IRAS just had "opinion" too.

[edit on 26/5/08 by Agent Venom]

reply to post by undo

Here is the text that you say doesn't exist; it is a Hittite text titled "KINGSHIP IN HEAVEN" which deals with the heavenly origin of the Gods, excerpt:

"Formerly, in the olden days, Alalu was king in heaven;
He Alalu was seated on the throne.
Mighty Anu, the first among the gods, stood before him
Bowed at his feet, set the drinking cup in his hand......"

You may question Sitchin's interpretations but don't accuse him of fraud.

reply to post by Ameneter


Fraud? He says himself, it's a work of fiction. The Lost Book of Enki is fiction, interlaced with his theories and references to the ancient texts. It is not on the same vein as The Earth Chronicles.

Another way to put it is, it's a dramatization.
He made stuff up based on his theories and created a story,
which allowed him some leeway to extrapolate what it all
might mean and how it may have come about. That's not
fraudulent, that's writing fiction. Just because it is fiction,
doesn't mean it absolutely isn't true. It's just not as
solid as his Earth Chronicles because it doesn't provide
the textual support, as you mentioned. Well it can't provide it
in some cases, because it's a dramatization.

[edit on 27-5-2008 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.

Next problem was, he noticed something odd was going on in the Enuma Elish and created his theory of what it all might mean.

First oddity was, Abzu and Tiamat became gods, who interacted with each otehr as if they were intelligent beings and not a swamp and a dragon in the woods. In essence the Enuma Elish was a huge puzzle and he was determined to figure out what it meant. He decided it was an allegory about the planets. And it all goes downhill from there.

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.

Wait wait..I'm no Stitchen believer but did you actually just state this?

Are you referring to Cunieform cylinder that had the solar system in it?
Are you stating that it's a FACT the symbol was a star (which the Sun is) that is not our Solar Sun???
Sorry I just want to clarify, because if that's what you're saying it's mathematically unfathomable, let alone a fact.

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
studentorganizations.missouristate.edu...

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

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
studentorganizations.missouristate.edu...

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

 

I assume this is a joke post, but it's actually quite hard to tell the difference between the posts made by people intending to present serious evidence and people mocking the topic.

Misnaming the Sistine Chapel the "16th Chapel" is the sort of thing a post containing "serious research into Nibiru" might be expected to do...

LW

reply to post by 1nelove


yep, that's what i am saying.
they had a different symbol for the sun than they did for a star. the
one in the cylinder seal was the star symbol. it was depicting a specific star, not a planet and not the sun. i realize the sun is a star but that's not how they depicted the sun. also, and this is pertinent -- it can still be the solar system, but the chances of it being our solar system are less definitive since the symbol is a star not the sun

From Dr. Michael Heiser, scholar and linguist of ancient languages

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.

This link shows the cylinder seal and further describes its contents.
www.sitchiniswrong.com...

[edit on 29-5-2008 by undo]

[edit on 21/5/08 by Agent Venom]

Now, I don't know what all the flap is over Planet X or Nibiru and from what I have been able to tell, the nay sayers have little credibility while the crowds that support the notions or ideas that Planet X or Nibiru are using historical, scientific and biblical data to back up their claims.

[edit on 5/26/2008 by Evisscerator]

You're probably either one of the most ill-informed people ever, or you're blatantly trolling.
You totally have the cart before the horse. The 'crowds' that use scientific data are the debunkers. Let me repeat that one more time. The crowds that use scientific data, are the debunkers.
The people that are pushing Nibiru are using historical data that is open to interpretation, and flat out lies to further their agenda.
Also, just because something is in the bible, does not mean it is true.

Nibiru is only 4 times that of earth. How does that compute? just to keep a slim chance for discussion. What if they are 100,000+ years ahead in evolution ( as books contend), could they have found a way to manipulate magnetic fields?

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.

No, the number I have plugged in as the gravitational force is the gravitational constant: 6.67*10^-11, with the units canceled out a few places downstream.

If you have something to contribute, write it on my blog. You don't have to go whispering about it on ATS.

I dont get the logic of him using information referenced from mr sitchin as the basis for his calculations, yet in other debunks he completely disagrees with mr sitchin.

a little choosey for his own benefit if you ask me.