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.
Humm, I wonder what's the difference between not being able to see NEAR-EARTH OBJECTS and objects, planets, and even large stellar objects such as a brown dwarf, or a red dwarf somewhere within the Oort cloud
When an astronomer claims "we should have been able to see such objects" is an OPINION, meanwhile models say a different thing...
Originally posted by stereologist
You make a false claim and you stand by it defiantly. Great. I expect no less from you.
Originally posted by stereologist
Let me give you a hint. The NEAR-EARTH OBJECTS objects are small.
Originally posted by stereologist
Let's see. You posted a series of articles. You misrepresented them. You have misquoted me. You failed to
..........
Originally posted by gamma 49
If you are certain nibiru does not exist why bother with the thread. This has been discussed to death,drop it already.
80% of the norm is binary or trinary in the known universe so why is it so hard to believe
we may have a binary system. Again why bother your mind is maid up,so stop with this subject enough already.
Originally posted by serbsta
reply to post by gamma 49
The government and news media don't show stuff about dancing pixies from the far away planet of Bunnydump either, doesn't make it real.
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
You do realize that that is in no way a prophecy, right? So you are totally wrong on this point. Further, that section of the Enuma Elish you linked has been misused and abused. Nibiru is referring to Jupiter, hence the 'winged disc' theory is explained. So that makes you wrong on that point as well.
Once again you have failed to show proof that:
- Ancient people prophesied that a planet called Nibiru will come and destroy Earth.
So the above is obviously a lie, yet you are still defending it. Does this make you utterly and incomprehensibly ignorant OR just a bit too stubborn? I think the latter.
[edit on 19/5/2010 by serbsta]
No matter what "technology" you use you need to run at least 20-50 models giving similar constraints, which is the MINIMUM, to corroborate your results, yet I can show you as many and probably more models that say such objects are closer than you claim.
Originally posted by gamma 49
you havnt really solved anything.
so google have small sections blocked....why???
you just put a ? for that other sky thing he mentioned...which means like me..you have no idea what it is..so you cant comment on it.
why is NASA blocking things silly? because they always do it? then the question remains....why???
why is soho on and off all the time? did they tell you it wasnt because of nibiru?
sure tectonic plate movement causes quakes...perhaps he means whats causing the extra movements than normal.
ok so the polls have been moving over a couple hundred years...no need to slate his spelling just to try and make his theories sound less plausible.
how would googling meteorology solve anything? if a cosmic source was affecting our weather..then a meteorology google search would really help you. you solved nothing here.
volcanic activity.....see above for earth quakes.
increased UFO activity...you had no answer at all for that one.
so only a few countries are creating underground storage facilities with no clear explanation...the question is still WHY???
and he mentioned ancient civ's and religions and all you had to comment on was his caps?
what do i think about nibiru? probably not true...but im open to the idea and dont slate someone for believing in it.
what do i think of you? ignorant to the max...and you really didnt answer or solve any of his questions.
Originally posted by serbsta
reply to post by dragnet53
Stubborn about history? I rather be stubborn than try and invent my own. What does this thread have to do with the Maya? This thread is about Babylonian/Sumerian translations and transliterations of cuneiform script. If you have examples of tablets which support your argument post them here and we'll discuss by all means, otherwise your posts are off topic.
That thread you linked, I already posted there and questioned the validity of the source, as did many other members. The validity is questionable to say the least.
[edit on 19/5/2010 by serbsta]