Holy Crud, I Found Nibiru.....

Originally posted by revmoofoo
reply to post by cluckerspud

 

Dude! Sitchin hasn't even been dead for a year yet and you're bashing him? A little respect for the dead goes a long way.

Nuff said.

Rev

I'm pretty sure people were "bashing" him long before he died.

Reptilians, lol.

I will be quite honest and admit that most times I don't know what to believe anymore. I read a little of all of it with some interest, formulate my thoughts and usually keep them to myself. Then I'll just wait to see what happens.

It is my belief and opinion, however, that real life really is so much stranger than any fiction. In fiction, it's usually one author (or a few) with the whole story planned out, the characters filled in and figured out, their actions and reactions drafted and predictable.

Then there's real life, with billions of people and living things all around us constantly moving and changing, and each one of them is a story in and of itself. No nice, neat little package, and virtually no predictability. With that said, who's telling the truth and who's not and why? Why do you believe? Why do you not believe? In the end, it won't matter anyway.

As someone said earlier, 99% of us conspiracy theorists are just guessing anyway, and I am definitely one of them. I would love for us to find peace with each other. Maybe when that happens, we can start working together to fix this horribly broken society. Let's start with free education and healthcare.

Namaste.

reply to post by Caji316


There is a small hole in your reasoning.

If man made laws are fallible, then this belief in God (in the sense of a man-made definition of what God is) is fallible as well. Just saying...

As far as this Nibiru is concerned, personally it sounds like complete nonsense. Unless there is an object moving faster than the speed of light heading our way, we will for sure see it coming.

Yes, it is possible for objects to move faster than the speed of light, the only catch is that they must have been created moving this fast to begin with, such as during the Big-Bang. Studies have shown the possibility that objects were blasted out MUCH fast than the speed of light. I forget where I heard this information from. I think it was a Popular Science mag. This would be one of the only plausible explanations as to how this object would be able to get on top of us without us ever knowing it was coming. However, for an object to slow down enough to stick around the earth, it has been speculated that the amount of energy needed would be the same (if not more) than that to go from standing still to faster than light. SO, the chances are very minimal that this is ever logically possible, unless the ETs are EXTREMELY advanced. This is just a side though.

Supposedly it requires a high powered infra-red telescope in outer space to currently see Nibiru

reply to post by cluckerspud


Yes, just like the greenhouse effect and global warming are two entirely separate phenomenon.

Originally posted by stereologist
Sitchin has been bashed for years because his stories are nonsense. They fail on a number of grounds including physics, geology, astronomy, and most importantly archaeology.

Lets not forget his incorrect translations..

Mr. Sitchin goes on to claim (p. 143) that the Sumerian syllable MU was adopted into Semitic languages as "SHU-MU," which he translates as "that which is a MU" (by implication, “that which is a rocket ship”). Allegedly, "SHU-MU" then morphed into Akkadian shamu and Biblical Hebrew shem. We will consider the Akkadian word first, and then the Hebrew word.

His lack of understanding Sumerian grammar and proper translating has been noted by many scholars. And the overall community within agree.

Does Akkadian shamu come from Sitchin’s "SHU-MU"? Does Sumerian even have a word that means "that which is a MU"? Contrary to Mr. Sitchin, Akkadian shamu does NOT derive from SHU-MU, nor does shamu mean "that which is a MU." First, Mr. Sitchin's translation of shu-mu presupposes that "SHU-" is what's called in grammar a "relative pronoun" (the classification of pronouns in all languages that mean: “that which”). Mr. Sitchin is apparently unaware of Sumerian grammar at this point, because the Sumerian language does not have a class of pronouns that are relative pronouns! One need only consult a Sumerian grammar to find this out, such as John L. Hayes, A Manual of Sumerian Grammar (p.88).

Zecharia Sitchin's Errors

Why anyone claims this is bashing is by far the worst argument. Truth hurts sometimes. I'm sorry that any of you feel this is bashing.

Originally posted by CLPrime

Fact: such a planet as described by Sitchin would be detected by amateur astronomers.
Fact: it is not.

For the sake of completeness, I must say... there is that theory out there that Nibiru is a brown dwarf, which would make it (optically) invisible until it gets fairly close.

That being said, I agree with you. Nibiru is pseudoscience at its best. And I'm embarrassed to admit that I used to believe in it. In my defense, though, I was 12 at the time. Actually, that should probably tell you who this whole Nibiru thing is aimed at.

Nibiru is Sitchins hype and he said it was a planet based off what he learned from the Sumerian's. Sitchin was shown to have very little expertise in this field and would not answer the real experts like Mike Hiesner PHD in ancient languages or anyone else for that matter. Sitchin has been debunked so many times yet un-educated people keep claiming this planet is real.

The only thing that will be coming to pay us a visit will be Wormwood and its a Brown dwarf star. The Bible hasnt lied yet so be ready, for its coming.

Originally posted by Gab1159
By the way, cloaking is scientifically feasable, so I guess we're back at the core of the problem, aren't we?

Sure, it's feasible. But what evidence do you have to support such a theory is being used?
Someone threw out the idea that chemtrails are somehow cloaking it by altering our visible spectrum.
Again where is this evidence? And what about satellites that our outside of or spooky chemtrail world?
Infrared, x-ray, UV satellites all above your chemtrails. Even those do not detect it.

And for the record, I can't find anywhere that Zecharia said this was being cloaked. Another example of how these things spin out of control and new people modify old stories. A brown dwarf allegedly bound for earth in 2012 would be visible at this point.

Originally posted by Gab1159
Thank you for your input. Noted and shelved.
This won't lead anywhere. Out of despair:
Have a nice day...

This won't lead anywhere, because Zecharia does not claim its being cloaked. His research does not mention it being cloaked. This has only been a defense mechanism by his followers in the years after as to why we are not seeing it.

In fact if you google Nibiru is being cloaked

You will see that most of the results are of amateur youtube posters and social forums. All claiming, "My Theory" etc etc. None of these people are versed in science, archeology or anything for that matter. Bedroom Investigators. That have reshaped wrong ideas into something even more wrong.

If Nibiru were comming towards Earth head on, how would we detect it? Other than the object slowly looks brighter in the sky each year? To me alot of objects seem to move and twinkle in the sky.....

Originally posted by frugal
If Nibiru were comming towards Earth head on, how would we detect it? Other than the object slowly looks brighter in the sky each year? To me alot of objects seem to move and twinkle in the sky.....

Infrared, X-Ray satellites etc would detect it, gravitational disturbances as well.
With then naked eye it all just looks like twinkles.

reply to post by BoneMosaic








Need something from Nasa ? How about the discovery of 20 new comets.

Link


See now, I think you gotta ask yourself. Why arn't we hearing anything about this.


I had to take the third vid down because of TnC.. Apologies.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by timewalker

 

The idea of Nemesis was that it was a possible explanation for what appeared to be periodic extinctions of Earth. That idea has not panned out. The star would not necessarily be too cool to detect in the optical range. If it were, then WISE which ran out of coolant last October, should have detected a possible companion to the sun. It did not.

Are you positive about that? You must have telepathy.

The first release of WISE data, covering about 80 percent of the sky, will be delivered to the astronomical community in May of next year.

They have not even released the data yet. Spring 2011

Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) is a NASA infrared-wavelength astronomical space telescope launched on 14 December 2009,[1][2][3] and put into hibernation February 1, 2011.

Wiki

Oct. 2010

The WISE science team now is analyzing millions of objects captured in the images, including many that have never seen before. A first batch of WISE data, covering more than half the sky, will be released to the astronomical community next spring, with the rest to follow in 2012.

source

The first release of WISE data, covering about 80 percent of the sky, will be delivered to the astronomical community in May of next year.

JPL July 2010

Originally posted by randyvs

I love the uncertainty in her voice and how she says:

It might appear larger when it's next to the sun, because of some type of magnification from the suns magnetic field.

She goes on to say:

And it's possible that the magnetic field would make that object appear larger. I don't know, I'm just guessing, I'm guessing.

1) Note the uncertainty in her voice when she says magnification
2) Again listen to the inflection in her voice when she says magnetic field this is a great example of people
taking Z S ideas and making them your own.)
3) More uncertainty in her voice when she says larger

Remarks are at @ 8:00 minute mark. Listen. Do you trust her?

She is just guessing. GUESSING!!!!!!!! She even says that She is Guessing!!!

Originally posted by cluckerspud

Originally posted by leaualorin
Wait and see !

See what? Keplars Law shows that we would be able to SEE it.
We don't. FACT.

Not if it's approach is from the southern quadrant. You would have to physically be south of the Equator to be able to see it. That is why every time it comes it is such a big surprise. It is not only predicted in the "Tell," or story of, but also in the drawings, and stone carvings of the Ancient Sumerian and Egyptians, and other South American megalithic drawings and paintings.

reply to post by cluckerspud


Huh, do I trust her? Whats trust got to do with this? She is simply explaining how there is a possibility for something to stay hidden from view. Do I trust her? An assessment of what she is letting us know, dosn't involve
trust. I'm not planning on marrying her . Hell I don't even care if she sleeps around.

Originally posted by autowrench

Originally posted by cluckerspud

Originally posted by leaualorin
Wait and see !

See what? Keplars Law shows that we would be able to SEE it.
We don't. FACT.

Not if it's approach is from the southern quadrant. You would have to physically be south of the Equator to be able to see it. That is why every time it comes it is such a big surprise. It is not only predicted in the "Tell," or story of, but also in the drawings, and stone carvings of the Ancient Sumerian and Egyptians, and other South American megalithic drawings and paintings.

So you admit it would be seen.
you:

Not if it's approach is from the southern quadrant.

Our satellites in space have a much better view than that of the southern quadrant.yes?
Nothing detected.

Originally posted by randyvs
I'm not planning on marrying her . Hell I don't even care if she sleeps around.

She sounds like she'll believe anything, chances are she has slept around.
"like oh my god, your an internet tycoon"
"lets dance"
"your place or mine"

reply to post by cluckerspud

She sounds like she'll believe anything, chances are she has slept around.

Defense lawyer right?
When faced with inarguable eyewitness tetimony ( evidence ). Attack the credibility of the witness.

You animal!

Originally posted by randyvs
Defense lawyer right?

When faced with inarguable eyewitness tetimony ( evidence ). Attack the credibility of the witness.

You animal!

Unfortunately there are no eyewitnesses here. But I see your point. However I'd like to point out out that youtube posters are not on this "animals" radar. Remember this thread is bout Zacharias inaccurate information. Not the inaccurate info put forth by those who came after. Thanks for sharing though.