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.

 

The Sumarians Were Created By E.Ts No Doubt About It. Watch this...

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   
See 8:45 when they show the scroll of the sumerians and the picture that depicts the solar system almost 100% accurate! from closest planet to the sun to farthest and check out the size resemblance



ITS ALMOST IDENTICAL. IT MAKES TO MUCH SENSE. THE DOUBLE HELIX. COME ON?? WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED?



[edit on 5-5-2009 by king Pop!p]




posted on May, 5 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   
When Planet X hit Tiamat (Earth) could frozen ice melt into Earths craters and scars creating large bodies of waters??

I don't really believe that a bunch of asteroids brang all this water to earth. My theory seems more plausible.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Indeed The Sumerians version seems more likely. One only need to read their texts to realise that their version of how Earthlings came to be, is much more likely sounding than the theory of Evolution, which haven't even managed to provide the Missing Link. (Wonder why, eh?)



[edit on 5-5-2009 by Nightchild]



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   
I agree.

But if it wasnt for religion what would humans think the purpose of Life is? weird aye? Are we just slaves? Thats why threw out civilizations it seemed the norm to have slaves?

It says we were created to assist them to mine for gold to save their planet an I believe so. because look at this little fact.


It's hard to believe, but if all the gold ever mined was weighed, it would amount to between 140,000 and 160,000 tons. That would be a cube of approximately 62 feet on a side. A cubic inch of gold weighs 11.06 oz.
kinda of crazy ain't it? My chain alone has about 4 ounces of that.lol.. They left us with basicaly nothing. What would we do if we need gold to save our planet?



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Wouldnt they have designed us to be bigger and stronger if our purpose was to mine gold. Also if they are so advanced as to get here they must have known you can dig a lot more stuff with some bulldozers and backho's then with a bunch of humans.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Well, even if the current religions wouldn't exist, there most certainly would have been some other religion/s instead. Who knows, maybe the main religion would have been like the Sumerians? On the other hand, much material from the other religions ARE based upon the Sumerian writings.

But yeah, just imagine what would happen with many peoples minds if it actually was officialy known and proven that Aliens created Man as a slave-worker and that the being called "God" or "Yehowah" was one of those ET's.

Regarding gold; Maybe that is where the ancient obsession with gold stems from?



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Makes sense. But how do we know how far advance they really were? The Anunaki that came could of been D students not super scientist on a potentially suicide mission for all we know of and genetic engineering could have been common knowledge for them? Maybe they were Gold Pirates?
Or maybe knowing that they could be stuck on the Earth?

Maybe they did have bulldozers and tech that could do it fast but when they left Man took it apart for other means? If they excavated millions on metric tons of gold that means, that they could have take all their equipment with them including the gold. they could of had bigger ships then the ones in Independence Day?

I say that to say this. No one really knows what the agenda maybe the powers that be do, thats why the suppress the knowledge. Don't you know reality is always stranger then fiction?



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   
I love the ancient Sumarian stories.
But people should also read this, on the man in the video.
Just to put things into perspective, and the flip side of the coin.
It's not a closed watertight case, and it still up for debate. And to be honest it doesn't really look like Zecharia wins. From this wiki article anyway.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nightchild
Regarding gold; Maybe that is where the ancient obsession with gold stems from?


I wonder if it is actually talking about physical gold. It generally seems that way, but like if you look at things like alchemy and that whole turning "lead to gold" stuff, it is just a metaphor for spiritual things, and they use literal things such as gold etc as a cover to keep the knowledge hidden from those who persecuted over such knowledge.

Conflict brings about understanding, and so if you look at things as a consciousness level, then coming to the earth and experiencing duality can bring about a higher understanding of things which non-duality can not. For example, can't really understand hot without understanding what cold is. Good and evil and so forth. So by the experience itself you are creating gold.

In the bible, and pretty much in most all spiritual things I come across, the most valuable thing one can get is wisdom and knowledge. In the OT of the bible for example, where it talks of "making someone rich", it is not talking about a physical thing like gold and such, but wisdom and knowledge.

And of course when you make such metaphors, people eventually get stuck on the literal and things lose their meaning.

This would explain why a civilization with such technology would create humans and "mine for gold". Because it does seem a bit odd that they would do that, when they have technology that is more. I guess of course the humans could have been using some of this technology to do the job.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Nightchild
 


The Sumerian version.
Here are the translations for the Sumerian tablets (the same ones that Zecharia Sitchin "interpreted"). See what you can find that matches anything he claims. I'll make it easy on you, select one of Sitchin's interpretations and I'll find the real translation.

Of course, if you would rather believe the translations of an economist rather than those of actual scholars, that's your business and the deal is off.

etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk...


[edit on 5/6/2009 by Phage]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 03:13 AM
link   
I used to think that the diagram on the seal represented the solar system but as much as I'd love to think that true the truth seems to be that is does not. Read the excerpts from an article below and click here for full discussion (you'll need to scroll down a bit to read the article the following extracts come from).
And considering ancient Astrology only ever took into consideration a certain number of planets (up until Saturn but not uranus, Neptune or Pluto) it speaks to reason that the ancients did not know about any other planets other than Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. There is nothing in any ancient literture that I've been able to find suggesting otherwise and believe me I've searched. This does not mean the rest of the Annunaki tale is untrue - I'm a firm believer they were relating real stories about actual goings on - but that cylinder seal does NOT appear to have anything to do with the planets.

EXCERPTS:


2) 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.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Nightchild
 


The Sumerian version.
Here are the translations for the Sumerian tablets (the same ones that Zecharia Sitchin "interpreted"). See what you can find that matches anything he claims. I'll make it easy on you, select one of Sitchin's interpretations and I'll find the real translation.

Of course, if you would rather believe the translations of an economist rather than those of actual scholars, that's your business and the deal is off.

etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk...


[edit on 5/6/2009 by Phage]


I'm not really a great fan of Sitchin, as I don't agree with his interpretations of what they supposedely needed the gold for.

I do find the actual, ancient tablets MUCH more fascinating. Anyone reading them would. The descriptions of Enkils Ziggurat alone is a perfect example of that.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join