Saturn....The winged disk...NINIB..Planet Hex

Never mind. Three days with no sleep and ATS don't truly mix, do they?

[edit on 1/28/2010 by Blaine91555]

Just found this in Icke's book. He believes like I do, though I just found this tonight about 15 minutes ago. I had heard of stitichin in regards to Nibiru, but hadn't connected Saturn as Ninib yet. Stitichin hasn't either yet.

He is talking about Stitichns work. He dosen't agree with some of the details..

Stitchin is talking about a planet that he doesn't realize is Saturn. He hasn't linked NINIB to NIBIRU....Read ickes words on stitichn

Utopian as that may sound, there are countless stories from every ancient culture which describe the world in the distant past in those terms. We can recreate that vision again if only we change the way we think and feel. The most comprehensive accounts of an advanced race are contained in tens of thousands of clay tablets found in 1850 about 250 miles from Baghdad, Iraq, by an Englishman Sir Austen Henry Layard as he
excavated the site of Nineveh, the capital of Assyria.

Mat 12:41 The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

This was located near the present Iraqi town of Mosul. Other finds have followed in this region which was once called Mesopotamia. The original source of this knowledge was not the Assyrians, but the Sumerians who lived in the same area from, it is estimated, 4,000 to 2,000 BC.

I will refer to the clay tablets, therefore, as the Sumerian Texts or Tablets. They are one of the greatest historical finds imaginable and yet 150 years after they were discovered they are still ignored by conventional history and education. Why? Because they demolish the official version of events.

The most famous translator of these tablets is the scholar and author Zecharia Sitchin, who can read Sumerian, Aramaic, Hebrew and other Middle and Near Eastern languages. He has extensively researched and translated the Sumerian Tablets and has no doubt that they are describing extraterrestrials (planets). Some researchers say that he used a later version of the Sumerian language to translate an earlier one and, therefore, some of his translations may not be 100% accurate.

**they are not accurate, because Nibiru is NINIB or Niniveh and the men of Niniveh are Sibiru or Hebrew. What does hollywood make for us...2012, Armaggedon, Deep impact, Day after tomorrow, Terminator...are you condemned yet?

I think his themes are correct, indeed other accounts and evidence supports this, but I personally doubt some of the detail. I think that a number of Sitchin’s interpretations are extremely questionable, while I agree with the overall thesis.

According to his translations (and others) the Texts say that the Sumerian civilization, from which many features of modern society derive, was a “gift from the gods”. Not mythical gods, but physical ones who lived among them. The Tablets call these gods the AN.UNNAK.KI (Those who from Heaven to Earth came),and DIN.GIR (The Righteous Ones of the Blazing Rockets). The name of Sumer itself was KI.EN.GIR (The Land of the Lord of the Blazing Rockets and also Land of the Watchers, according to Sitchin). The ancient text known as the Book of Enoch also calls the gods ‘the Watchers’, as did the Egyptians. The Egyptian name for their gods, the Neteru, literally translates as Watchers and they said that their gods came in heavenly boats.

According to Zecharia Sitchin, the tablets describe how the Anunnaki came from a planet called Nibiru (The Planet of the Crossing) which he believes has a 3,600 year elliptical orbit that takes it between Jupiter and Mars and then out into far space beyond Pluto. Modern science has identified a body it calls Planet X which has been located beyond Pluto and is believed to be part of this solar system. But an elliptical orbit would be incredibly unstable and difficult to sustain. Scientists I trust believe that Sitchin is mistaken in his Nibiru theory, though his main themes about the Anunnaki are correct. The Sumerian Tablets, from Sitchin’s translations, describe how, during the early formation of the solar system, Nibiru caused the near destruction of a planet that once existed between Jupiter and Mars. The Sumerians called it Tiamat, a planet they nicknamed The Watery Monster. They say that it was debris from Tiamat’s collision with a Nibiru moon which created the Great Band Bracelet - the asteroid belt which is found between Mars and Jupiter. What remained of Tiamat was thrown into another orbit, the texts say, and eventually it became the Earth. The Sumerian name for the Earth means the Cleaved One because a vast hole was created, they say,by the collision. Interestingly if you take away the water in the Pacific Ocean you will be left with a gigantic hole.
source

More in a moment...

Peace

I'm going to move into some modern myth called....MOVIES.

I want to show you all the imagery, you've already seen.

I want to sing you the words you've already heard.

I want you to see and hear them brand new.

How do we not see these connections...the Judah mind trick. Assertive and persistent force, letting the opponents weakness consume them, by exploiting emotions "tiny nudges at emotional pivot points" they steer whole heads of people....Rosh...The head and most easily toppled part of the body. They tell you this though...
















See the images, hear the names and words...understand them...they are all the same.

More is coming....

[edit on 28-1-2010 by letthereaderunderstand]

I want to know how you get away with cutting and pasting all the information on one thread.

In regards to the information on the thread, its very interesting indeed. I am convinced that there is more to staurn than meets the eye. I am sure that there is life on this planet and what we have been told is all lies.

Scientific theory is NOT Scientific Fact!
That is absurd.
Scientific theory is compiled through Scientific Fact, but theory is an explanation tying them all together.
In FACT, a Scientific Theory may be completely wrong in its face. It is a way to test and predict observations based on independant facts in a way to tie them all together.

I'm actually saddened a bit that our weathermen don't understand this much.
And that is really all I had to say on this topic.
I agree with most that this "theory" (if you even want to call it that) is complete rubbish.

Originally posted by JayinAR
Scientific theory is NOT Scientific Fact!
That is absurd.
Scientific theory is compiled through Scientific Fact, but theory is an explanation tying them all together.

In FACT, a Scientific Theory may be completely wrong in its face. It is a way to test and predict observations based on independant facts in a way to tie them all together.

I won't argue what fact is with you, I'm secure in my understanding.

I see that you are actually trying to convey that a "Myth" (a story to link things together, even if "wrong in its face", just so long as, presented in scientific jargon and published under an affluent publisher, THEN is it acceptable by the Federal Government to be taught as facts, meanwhile not telling people what the difference is between "science fact" and "reality fact".

....Talk to me about space elevators...I don't get it. How does this work?

It's a fact, you find this "rubbish".

I am not hear to connect the dots for you, I'm able to show you the dots, you must experience the connection.

Don't believe in things that are wrong

reply to post by OzWeatherman


More about the Saturn Theory can be found on The Velikovsky Encyclopedia web site.

The entry for Henry Zemel also includes a link to his video, mentioned in the main article.

Velikovsky's book, of course, were not science, but a historical reconstruction. But he correctly said that science would help decide whether his theories were true of false.

Morris Jastrow Jr's article "Sun and Saturn" is also online

reply to post by JayinAR


There is no such thing as scientific fact. The only scientific discipline which has proof is mathematics - everything else has evidence based upon observations.

Due to the stable nature of the orbits of Saturn and Earth, we know neither have moved position by any great amount. We know that, beyond all reasonable doubt. No ancient stories by people who didn't know about Newton's laws of motion can change that. If either planet was in a different position, it would take such a fantastically unlikely (and energetic) event to move them to where they are, in the orbits they are, with their poles where they are, rotating the way they do.

Ancient myths are man's attempts to explain what man saw. They are fantastically irrational explanations for sometimes-physical happenings. Sometimes, though, they are born from religious or spiritual ideas. The fact they might be describing something physical, or might be describing something abstract, means they are practically useless as a method of determining what was. The bible is another great example of that. One day some guy looked around and wondered where everything came from. He had no idea of what space is, or what massive dust clouds in space are, or how physics works. He knows about creating things (as man could even back then create things). And so, from his limited knowledge of the world, his experiences were shoe-horned in to a twisting, illogical tale of how the universe was made - a guy (not unlike him, just far more powerful), created the world, just as he makes bowls and spears. It doesn't mean to say there actually was a God creating the world, just that he thought there was.

Myths are entertaining, but far from science, and far from knowledge. Their only use is from a cultural standpoint.

The Plasma Universe theory ties all this together:

The memorials to plasma discharges in Earth’s prehistoric sky are not confined to images carved or painted on rocks. If ancient artists recorded the life-like configurations of plasma instabilities, we can be sure that the witnesses would also have told stories about the life-like movements and transformations of the instabilities. And if rock art exhibits identical forms around the world, the stories should do the same.

Ancient narratives, passed down from prehistoric times, are called “mythology”. At the dawn of recorded history, every culture was centered around a body of such narratives, harking back to a prior age of celestial wonders. The myths commemorated the activities of gods, goddesses, and cosmic warriors, and in particular the ordeals they faced when serpents, dragons, or other monsters invaded their celestial domain.

A comparison of the themes in these myths—the plots, the characters, the details of divine habitations and relationships—reveals two enigmatic forms of parallelism:

First, among widely separated cultures the same mythic themes stand out, and these archetypes are all intimately linked to each other. The land of the gods was a luminous enclosure or turning wheel. It rested upon a mountain rising to the center of heaven. The mountain became a tower of seven or nine levels or tiers. A dragon, demon, or monster once held a princess captive in the tower. The warrior-hero slew the dragon and rescued the princess. Cross cultural comparison has now documented many hundreds of such archetypes—far too many to be explained by any common view of human history, either archaic or modern.

Second, we find that widespread cultures preserved the same improbable parallels in their complex mythic interpretations of the underlying events. The land of the gods was not just a “place” in the sky; it was the womb of the mother goddess. The cosmic mountain was not just a mountain; it was a river or pillar of fire. The great warrior’s sword was not just a sword; it was a cosmic thunderbolt. The repeated associations suggest a substructure of astonishing unity. The female dragon was the mother goddess in her terrible aspect. The male dragon was the warrior-hero in his terrible aspect. The warrior’s arrows launched skyward became a ladder to heaven. The ladder was a pyramid or tower of seven or nine levels.

The fact that this parallelism has never been explained is only part of the challenge. Here is another part: Of the hundreds of archetypes now enumerated by comparative study, not one answers to the familiar face of nature today. Hence, the dilemma is both inescapable and profound. The events that acted on ancient consciousness are not occurring now. And this means that scholarly investigations into the human past have missed the most fundamental point of all: Our ancestors lived beneath an alien sky.

While the contributors to this Picture of the Day do not all share the same convictions about the things that appeared above the ancient witnesses, all agree that Anthony Peratt’s field work on rock art and plasma discharge configurations has laid the foundation for a breakthrough. People from widely distributed cultures told the same stories because they saw the same drama played out in the sky. A global experience explains global stories. In fact, mythologists for a long time have been seeking just this type of explanation. But they never found a phenomenon that could make sense of the universal patterns. Common elements of nature—sunrise, or the seasons, or thunderstorms—were far too limited and lacked the vital details. Understandably, the mythologists never considered the possibility that the mythic archetypes could have their referents in plasma discharge at a sufficient distance from the earth to have been witnessed globally.

Plasma discharge fills in the details that are missing in other attempts to account for the patterns of ancient testimony. Seemingly disparate mythic content can then be seen as different human interpretations of the same unearthly events: In its most archaic form, the dragon is not earthbound, but moves about in the sky, the domain of plasma. The dragon undulates like a serpent because that is the character of plasma discharge. The dragon has luminous “feathers” or long-flowing “hair” because plasma discharge produces filamentation. The dragon has antennae or horns, wings, arms, legs or other protrusions resembling nothing in nature so much as plasma instabilities. The dragon is either a flame or torch in the sky, or it “breathes” fire, as we should expect. And of course, when the dragon appears cosmic thunderbolts invariably follow—a direct pointer to the electrical nature of the devastating “monster”. Thus, the characteristics of the dragon and the characteristics of plasma discharge can be systematically compared down to every recurring detail.

However, one important aspect has not yet been discussed. Peratt’s model of an enhanced aurora does not address the question of where the surge in the circuit came from. It does not locate the “electrodes” between which the plasma instabilities evolved. But ancient astronomies provide clues that, if followed conscientiously, could revolutionize our understanding of both cultural history and solar system history. They invite us to consider the role of planets in the ancient events. For the world’s first astronomers revered the planets as the greatest gods of primeval times.

More than thirty years ago David Talbott suggested that world mythology reflects a planetary arrangement unlike anything observed today. He identified several planets in an ancient “close congregation of planets in polar alignment”, and he named them. Decades later, this vision has grown to expansive proportions, though it remains tentative in many of its aspects. The underlying reconstruction of the celestial formations led to a collaborative effort and a consensus far greater than the disagreements. Today the most prominent contributors to this consensus are, in addition to Talbott, Ev Cochrane, Dwardu Cardona, Rens van der Sluijs and, most recently, Ken Moss.

Those who hold to the planetary model see the ancient planets as charged bodies on much different paths than today, moving through a rich medium of electrified plasma. Some contributors remain undecided as to the merits of the planetary model. All agree that the first requirement is to identify the formations seen in the sky because as these are confirmed the tests of the planetary model become increasingly precise.

Beyond this, all agree that the planetary model is unthinkable in the gravity-only universe of popular astronomy. In a gravity-only universe, the mythic archetypes can only be ignored, since they could never be comprehended. In a gravity-only universe, our ancient ancestors, required by necessity to honor nature’s ways, were nevertheless obsessed with fantasies that defied nature at every turn.

For Talbott and his colleagues, a milestone occurred when the historical investigation converged with the work of Wallace Thornhill, the leading proponent of the “Electric Universe”. It was Thornhill who convinced Talbott that the formations reconstructed from ancient testimony were plasma discharge configurations. Three years later a convergence of equal magnitude occurred when Anthony Peratt, who had devoted decades to investigating plasma discharge phenomena, informed Talbott that his (Talbott’s) reconstruction of events leading to the mythic “ladder of heaven” matched precisely the evolution of the “Peratt Instability”. This, in turn, led to several years of extensive field work by Peratt, gathering ancient rock art images and related designs by the tens of thousands and verifying that the ancient artists were not hallucinating; they were recording the same configurations that Peratt himself had documented in the laboratory. For Talbott and his collaborators this documentation may well turn out to be the strongest confirmation of the myth-based reconstruction.

The convergence of myth and science in this investigation has established that the “one story told around the world” need not remain a mystery forever. The substratum of human memory is not a “coincidence” to be dismissed. It is an intelligible and coherent set of ancient patterns explicable in physical terms. Our ancestors may well have been obsessed, but for good reason: Their survival depended on the vagaries of plasma discharge, seemingly under the control of capricious gods. So it is not just the gravity-only universe that is at stake here. Also at stake is the twentieth century vision of an uneventful and stable solar system moving with clock-like regularity across billions of years.

The Electric Universe is more than a story about electricity on a grand stellar and galactic scale. It is also about a local planetary system wracked by recent instabilities and cataclysms. But the limits of scientific investigation here should be obvious. Not even the best scientific instruments could, on their own, produce a reliable reconstruction of the ancient dramas. It is therefore essential that we now listen to those who lived through the events, and honor the artists, the chroniclers, the astronomer priests, and the monument builders who helped to preserve the story across the centuries.

Saturn in Ancient Times

The Greeks called it the god "Helios". The Romans called it "Sol". These familiar figures have a long history, and the more one learns about their links to the earlier cultures, the more a mystery of origins comes into focus. Long before Greek and Roman times, the Egyptians worshipped the luminary Atum or Ra, just as the Sumerians honored Utu and the Babylonians the god Shamash. Astronomers and priests celebrated this light of heaven as the "Universal Monarch," the "father" of civilization and the celestial prototype of kings.

There is no mystery as to the present astronomical associations of these figures. But more archaic traditions, coming from many and diverse cultures, identify the great "sun" gods with the motionless center of heaven, the celestial pole. They speak of a primeval sun, an exemplary or "best" sun, ruling before the present sun. The god's station was the summit of the world axis, from which he ultimately fell in a heaven-altering catastrophe. Perhaps the best known story is the Greek account of Kronos, founder of the Golden Age, eventually driven from his seat at the top of the world by his son Zeus.

To what body did these strange traditions refer? Today we take for granted that the ancient words we translate as "helios" and "sol" originated as references to the Sun that illuminates our every day. In many languages the words for this axial figure did indeed become the words for the Sun. But the later identity could not obscure the more archaic idea--of a former, stationary light at the pole, whose every feature defies any identification with the Sun in our sky today.

As strange as it may seem, early astronomical traditions identify the "primeval sun" as the planet Saturn, the distant planet which the alchemists called the "best sun" and which the Babylonians, the founders of astronomy, identified as the exemplary light of heaven, the "sun"-god Shamash. ("Shamash is the planet Saturn", the astronomical texts say.) In archaic copies of Plato's Timaeus, the word for the planet Saturn is Helios, the "sun" god. Popular Greek traditions identified Saturn as Kronos, alter ego of Helios, and Kronos is said to have ruled "over the pole". But only a handful of scholars have bothered to trace the parallel referents in other cultures, or to address the unanswered questions.

Worldwide drawings and symbols of the once-dominant luminary show a disc with rays, a disc with spokes, a disc with a central orb or eye, a disc with a crescent upon it. Today we require a powerful telescope to see Saturn as a disc. We must fly a space probe close to the planet to see rays and spokes. Even then the spokes are intermittent and dark. The ancient astronomers, however, described the spokes as those of a cosmic wheel. They were "streams of fire", the "glory" of heaven.

Our telescopes and probes can see things the ancients couldn't: Saturn's unexpected excess of heat, its radio emissions, its x-rays, its swirling bands of storm-clouds. These things are unexpected to modern astronomers. To the ancient astronomers (had they possessed the technologically enhanced senses of probes), the things our instruments now witness would likely be understandable. For they remembered their gods as energetic and active, wielders of the thunderbolt. And they also remembered the fates of the gods, recounting how the once palpable ruler of the sky went so untouchably far away.

thunderbolts.info...

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by JayinAR

 

There is no such thing as scientific fact. The only scientific discipline which has proof is mathematics - everything else has evidence based upon observations.

Due to the stable nature of the orbits of Saturn and Earth, we know neither have moved position by any great amount. We know that, beyond all reasonable doubt. No ancient stories by people who didn't know about Newton's laws of motion can change that. If either planet was in a different position, it would take such a fantastically unlikely (and energetic) event to move them to where they are, in the orbits they are, with their poles where they are, rotating the way they do.

Ancient myths are man's attempts to explain what man saw. They are fantastically irrational explanations for sometimes-physical happenings. Sometimes, though, they are born from religious or spiritual ideas. The fact they might be describing something physical, or might be describing something abstract, means they are practically useless as a method of determining what was. The bible is another great example of that. One day some guy looked around and wondered where everything came from. He had no idea of what space is, or what massive dust clouds in space are, or how physics works. He knows about creating things (as man could even back then create things). And so, from his limited knowledge of the world, his experiences were shoe-horned in to a twisting, illogical tale of how the universe was made - a guy (not unlike him, just far more powerful), created the world, just as he makes bowls and spears. It doesn't mean to say there actually was a God creating the world, just that he thought there was.

Myths are entertaining, but far from science, and far from knowledge. Their only use is from a cultural standpoint.

So, by this rationale, the Bible is total bunk, just made up hogwash. Hmmm. Seems a lot of people might disagree with THAT too.

reply to post by CaptChaos


No.
Both Helios and Sol were the Sun.
The Greeks called Saturn Cronus, the Romans called it Saturn.

reply to post by letthereaderunderstand


And I'm not going to argue orbital mechanics with you. Others have already tried.
Thanks for the thread, though. I actually read the whole thing.

reply to post by davesidious


As I said, I don't buy the theory.
I have no desire to Wax-Socratic about the definition of "is". Or whatever it is you are on about.

And yes, I understand the difference between an axiom, and a "fact".

Misses the point.
Nobody whose job title ends in "ologist" should confuse theory with fact.

And that someone DID, in this very thread, is sad.

[edit on 28-1-2010 by JayinAR]

reply to post by CaptChaos


Let them disagree. It doesn't magically mean their bible isn't hogwash. An idea is not determined to be correct based on how many people believe it.

reply to post by JayinAR


That planets are affected by gravity, is fact. The law describing how, is theory. Just as evolution is fact, the theory is still called a theory. I think using the word "fact" in this setting is perfectly acceptable. This is not "Nature"

reply to post by davesidious


To each their own, I suppose.
I would consider it somewhat contentious.

Still doesn't change the "fact" that a meteorOLOGIST displayed a lack of understanding in regards to the Scientific Method itself. Whether you think it was acceptable or not.

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by CaptChaos

 

Let them disagree. It doesn't magically mean their bible isn't hogwash. An idea is not determined to be correct based on how many people believe it.

reply to post by JayinAR

 

This is absolutely true

That planets are affected by gravity, is fact. The law describing how, is theory. Just as evolution is fact, the theory is still called a theory. I think using the word "fact" in this setting is perfectly acceptable. This is not "Nature"

This is an absolute contradiction. That gravity exists is a fact. That gravity is the only thing influencing the cosmos, is a theory that does not hold up to observations, unless "magical fairy dust" like dark matter and dark energy are thrown into the equations. Evolution is far from a fact. It is a theory as well. An idea is not determined to be correct based on how many people believe it.

Phage,

I am confident you know exactly what I'm speaking of here. Are you going to weigh in and correct someone who is apparently on the same side of the debate as yourself?

Or is it not worth it to you?

Would you rather satisfy your ego, or satisfy knowledge here.
You know the meteorologist was wrong here.
Care to explain why?

Originally posted by JayinAR
Would you rather satisfy your ego, or satisfy knowledge here.
You know the meteorologist was wrong here.
Care to explain why?

Would you rather I explain why my ego would seem to be irrelevant or explain, once again, my position on the topic of the thread?

If by same side of the debate you mean that the "theory" presented by the OP is nonsense that would appear to include you.

If you're talking about a single comment from Oz (which really isn't relevant to the discussion), sure, I'll weigh in. You're correct that generally speaking, a scientific theory is not a fact, that scientific theories are based on facts. However there are many scientific theories which are regarded in science as fact.

The "theory" of the OP is neither science or fact.

[edit on 1/28/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


Thanks.
I was just curious if you would be so forthcoming with your corrections, if it did nothing to further your stance on a subject.