It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Various considerations about Sitchin and your threads

page: 6
13
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by KRISKALI777
 

Have a look at Secrets of Yonaguni. It's a very balanced account by someone who has been there. Enjoy the pictures, but the writing is where the points are made.


If you honestly believe all of these "formations" are natural, I'd like to see other examples that you must have.


I'm not saying 'all formations are natural' until you define 'formation,' why not post a couple and surprise me?


although Sitchins' views may be considered "fringe", there is still a lot that is unknown, so therefore, one view has no more weight than another. Unless that is you believe every theory presented by academics?


Aliens genetically creating humans to mine gold to support the atmosphere of an unknown planet isn't 'fringe.' Planets that travel on a 3600 year elliptical orbit aren't 'fringe.' Sitchin isn't fringe...he tells 'mistruths' for money and book sales. The argument that 'a lot is unknown...one view has no more weight than another' is a cul de sac. It allows for the possibility that Rincewind the wizard is being chased by a hundred-legged trunk on a world supported by elephants riding on a giant turtle.

Your link to a 'tenth planet' has been read a few times and begs the question..have you read it? It has nothing to do with Sitchin
A more recent article adds more information. You should read it...

Is there really a 10th planet?




posted on May, 21 2009 @ 01:23 AM
link   
Interesting in that based on new classifications there might not even be a 9th Planet. Or if one includes what are being called dwarf planets, there are 11.

Couldn't those guys who came here 450,000 years ago to create human goldiggers even get their astronomy straight?

Or is there a possible mistranslation of Sumerian writings?


Mike



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 



Oh well, with your ridgid views, and ridicule; you clearly must know everything!

Next time I want to know the answer to questions that are probably as old as mankind itself, I'll know who to ask.
It would be good to see some definitive links of absolutes, rather than basing your opinion on a few odds and sods.
Instead of worrying over my ability to read a particular internet article, maybe you should also look at what you've written in past posts and explain your own anomolies!
Do not twist my words.



I'm not saying 'all formations are natural' until you define 'formation,' why not post a couple and surprise me?

Actually you stated that you thought Yonaguni was infact a natural formation. I was simply asking that, if that is so, can you show me OTHER formations that exhibit similar characteristics?
I doubt it.



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by KRISKALI777
Actually you stated that you thought Yonaguni was infact a natural formation. I was simply asking that, if that is so, can you show me OTHER formations that exhibit similar characteristics?
I doubt it.

How about a link to a photo of the island of Yonaguni itself?
Link

The island is part of the same geologic formation as the submerged "pyramid" (as true believers refer to it.)

I suppose that the coastline of Yonaguni Jima was also carved out by humans?

Harte



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by KRISKALI777
 


Oh well, with your ridgid views, and ridicule; you clearly must know everything!

Quite the contrary. I don't hold rigid views and I don't know everything. As for ridicule, if there was any, it was unintentional. The 'Rincewind' reference was a comment on the logic that all things are possible, not a comment on you. Twisting words is not my thing and most of my posts are reasonable and polite. Other members have been fielding the same points for years and opt for less tolerance to avoid endless point/rebuttal threads. Any 'anomalies' on my part can be pointed out and I'll either explain them or admit fault...cos I'm not rigid


Sometimes locations are presented as 'mysterious' that I haven't heard of. I look for information and draw a conclusion. The information is always out there in some degree. A common feature of some members is to ask for links and then ask for more. It aids discussion and the spread of information, but could be just as easily accomplished by them.

Back OT, so far there has been no evidence that a race occupied Earth for 450 000years. No bones, no artifacts. No evidence of Planet X with a 3600 year elliptical orbit. No spaceport.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Interesting to note, the Sumerians believed their gods came from another planet, not heaven, they called it the heavens, but it was not like a heaven in modern religion. there was only 7 (not 12, like sitchin says) sumerian planets, all accurately placed, except for nibiru, though it is commonly interpreted as jupiter. Many of his translations have the same meaning but are not bulls eye accuract translations, which may lead to misinterpretation.
It is an interesting theory, but is flawed in some aspects.



new topics

top topics
 
13
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join