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.

 

Can someone confirm this re supposed proof

page: 3
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   




posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by JonoEnglish
it claims a scientist Roger E. Anderson has proof.


I'd hardly call him a scientist, if the owner of the site and so forth is Roger E. Anderson. Furthermore, there is no scientist or scholar named "Roger E. Anderson" publishing anything on Sumeria.

If someone comes along and claims to be all-knowing about "Nibiru" and they aren't archaeologists or historians or linguists, then they're getting their information from sources that may not be very picky about how true the material is.

Here's a link to a REAL scholar's paper (student, actually) who went through ALL the cuneiform texts and picked up every single reference to "Nibiru." He names the source and quotes the lines (so you can doublecheck him -- the mark of an honest scholar.) There's 17 references and none of them are to planets and only part of them involve stars.
www.michaelsheiser.com...

Judging from the web page, it's the "same-old same-old." Repeats Sitchin, adds some info from Wikipedia, stirs in some millennialism, and announces proof. Wouldn't surprise me if there's a book somewhere to be sold.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   
I didn't say it was or was not a prominent red star in the sky. I simply pointed out that you had never bothered to check what I stated, yet you jumped on the bandwagon to proclaim I had been successful in identifying the image.

As I pointed out the image is bad. It came from a terrible camera. It was enlarged as evidenced by the pixelation. There was extreme distortion in the image and no reference such as land forms, or other stars to provide some sense of scale or position.

Having pointed out that I ran a test to see if there were a simple explanation for the image. I provided one that was proclaimed correct with a double check.

BTW, the lens flare comment was in reference to something else. It was my confusion as to what you were referring to all. All of this derogatory commentary concerning the lens flare is due to a miscommunication between you and me as to which image was being discussed. You looked at one and I another and this has led to your petulant commentary that got yourself a notification from the mods.

Do you have any thoughts on this photo and story? Please avoid further cherlish behavior.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics
 
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join