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.
Originally posted by Melbourne_Militia
Does anybody else feel like there is a convergence of theories and that this may be just one part to the entire conspiracy "theory" itself pertaining to all ideas that get posted on ATS?
Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Astronomers have discover many trans-Neptunian objects since that article was written.
Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
reply to post by undo
Yeah maybe. But it's name literally means "planet of the Crossing," which they themselves named. This only adds to the curiosity surrounding the evidence, IMHO.
“place of crossing” or “crossing fee” – In the Gilgamesh epic,6 for example, we read the line (remarkably similar to one of the beatitudes in the sermon on the Mount): “Straight is the crossing point (nibiru; a gateway), and narrow is the way that leads to it.” A geographical name in one Sumero-Akkadian text, a village, is named “Ne-bar-ti-Ash-shur” (“Crossing Point of Asshur”). Another text dealing with the fees for a boatman who ferries people across the water notes that the passenger paid “shiqil kaspum sha ne-bi-ri-tim” (“silver for the crossing fees”).
“ferry, ford”; “ferry boat”; “(act of) ferrying” – For example, one Akkadian text refers to a military enemy, the Arameans: “A-ra-mu nakirma bab ni-bi-ri sha GN itsbat”7 (“The Arameans were defiant and took up a position at the entrance to the ford [gate, crossing point]”). In another, the Elamites are said to “ina ID Abani ni-bi-ru u-cha-du-u” (“[to] have cut off the ford [bridge, crossing way] of the river Abani”). I think the “root idea” of the nibiru word group and its forms as meaning something with respect to “crossing” is clear, and so we’ll move on.8
One
thing is certain from the texts, though: Nibiru is NEVER identified as a planet
beyond Pluto.
Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
I see the arguments well. I don't totally think they refute the theories completely. Not mention it being a religious motivated scholar discrediting the subject. Moreover, this subject cripples the legs of most religions.
But when the author makes mediocre points that only disprove an angle, rather than the idea, I get thrown off.
Moreover, this subject cripples the legs of most religions.