A different view on Nibiru.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


Thanks Xcaliber254. I was sort of there, but definitely off the mark. Thanks for posting the correct use of the term nibiru and also showing the difference in usage between the two civilizations.

reply to post by 1PLA1


I'm to tired to look at what was said exactly, but they used gold particles and put them into the atmosphere to keep the heat in. It says somewhere they it would reflect light off, but I think they got the wording wrong. This is one reason I don't really post threads up, because people don't read everything and post whatever just for the sake of starting an argument. And once the thread gets to long, it all starts going into a chaotic spiral because no one (most of the people) don't take the time to read up on the thread.

reply to post by autowrench


Thanks. I would like to be clear in saying that everything I''ve posted was from the book, not written by me. I'm just trying to share the info I came across and have an intellectual conversation with people who have the same interests, not starting argument. ATS should have some type of system where people can mark other people as baddies in that forum category, and keep them from being able to post, since all they do is post crap and try to start things.

reply to post by YouCanCallMeKM


So you are a book burner, a person who wants to stop the discussion and hear only a single point of view.

Then start your own forum. This is a public forum. If material is posted then anyone is able to say what they think although rebuttals do happen.

Consider the gold issue. If gold is added to the atmosphere then the atmosphere becomes heavier. Gold particles are too heavy to remain aloft and will fall. What prevents the gold particles from acting as nucleation points and being dropped out of the atmosphere? Nothing.

None of this makes sense and none of it appears to be new. It is just the same old-same old being recycled by Drunvalo. You can tell it is a Drunvalo original idea because it is so obviously nutty that it defies belief.

Here are examples of Drunvalo himself and not something he borrowed from others:
1. There is a giant white pyramid in Tibet that is empty except for the flower of life pattern
2. When he tries new meditation techniques it causes black helicopters to arrive to observe his methods
3. He is a super evolved being that borrowed the body of Akbar who borrowed it from Bernie
4. He claims to be so smart he even teaches gods new tricks

What if all of the inhabitants of Nibiru are dead when it floats by next?

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Tayesin

 

Sitchin is a fraud. He makes claims about Sumerian astronomy in which he claims to translate tablets that do not exist. Very little is known about Sumerian astronomy because the tablets which are thought to have been written have not been located.

Yes, yes, we've all seen you assert this over and over... with never a hint of what makes your perception the correct one. But since this is not your field of specialty what you say can only be your own personal opinion... and thus can be prone to being incorrect should further information come to light.

Originally posted by stereologist
I realize that you personally claim to have been mentored by someone that also worked on the translations. Unfortunately it appears that your mentor also fooled you and has no academic credentials or has worked with the people that you were told she worked with. That's quite sad that someone bamboozled you. They should not have done that.

Yes... nicely put. I just came off a one hour phone call with her and now have the information about the names she gained her degrees with that gave her exactly 17 letters after her name.

And due to your displayed arrogance of the past I will not share this with you. If anyone here benefits from this information it may well be DJW, who has displayed a greater depth of humility and humanity in his communications than you could ever muster in a lifetime.

Grumpy old man out

reply to post by Tayesin

Yes, yes, we've all seen you assert this over and over... with never a hint of what makes your perception the correct one. But since this is not your field of specialty what you say can only be your own personal opinion... and thus can be prone to being incorrect should further information come to light.

There are online translations of the tablets. Where are the astronomy tablets? There are people in the field such as Heiser that point out that there are no such tablets. This is not my opinion, but the statement of people in the field.

Yes... nicely put. I just came off a one hour phone call with her and now have the information about the names she gained her degrees with that gave her exactly 17 letters after her name.

And due to your displayed arrogance of the past I will not share this with you.

Her yo make a claim and refuse to back it up. I asked about information on papers published by your mentor and you have refused to provide any information. My belief is that you do not have the information. Now you have some more made up names or names that do not corroborate your claims.

It would be a simple matter for you to provide even a simple shred of evidence to support your claims. Your refusal has come with all sorts of excuses.

There simply isn't anything to these claims is there?

Click here for more information.

reply to post by JibbyJedi

The notion that Earth was cracked in half and yet somehow reformed back into a sphere, leaving ancient artifacts 100s of thousands of years old still intact just below the surface.... is a bit ridiculous to me.

But Earth is not a sphere at all, it is more like a squashed ball. I once say a model of Earth without the ocean water. Where the Pacific Basin is, there is a rather large chunk missing, as if something came along at hit the Earth in the distant past.....Actually, Earth is little more than half a planet, if you take into account all the stuff that is missing.

The upshot of all of the Nibiru claims is that there is no unknown planet in the solar system. In fact, there cannot be one that has an orbit that enters the orbits of the known planets. This is a well established celestial mechanics issue. A planet and orbit such as the one suggested would not have a stable orbit. That is the reason that Nemesis was dropped from consideration.

In addition to gravity studies eliminating the possibility of an unknown planet with the properties ascribed to Nibiru there are whole sky surveys. The importance of whole sky surveys is that they look in all possible directions. There cannot be a direction in which the celestial object can "sneak through." Whole sky surveys today can detect Earth sized objects out as far as 8x the distance to Pluto. There are no unknown planet sized objects out that far. A recently completed survey of the Kuiper belt turned up no objects larger than Pluto-sized objects.

If there is an unknown planet then it must be very far away and never enter the part of the solar system where the known planets orbit.

reply to post by autowrench

But Earth is not a sphere at all, it is more like a squashed ball. I once say a model of Earth without the ocean water. Where the Pacific Basin is, there is a rather large chunk missing, as if something came along at hit the Earth in the distant past.....Actually, Earth is little more than half a planet, if you take into account all the stuff that is missing.

As a matter of fact, current thinking is that a cosmic collision during the early stages of the Solar System gouged out the depression that would eventually become the Pacific Ocean. The chunk that was gouged out eventually became our Moon. The problem is, this would have happened about 4 billion years ago, long before there was life on this planet. That there would be any sort of record or archaeological artifact depicting this is absurd.

reply to post by autowrench


The Earth is an oblate sphere. The small amount of "squashing" is hard to detect. You might want to read up on the Newtonian vs Cartesian arguments. It's quite interesting. Cartesians suggested the Earth was prolate.

The Pacific basin has been suggested as some sort of missing chunk of the Earth. Those ideas are old and discarded over a century and a half ago.

The volume of the Pacific basin is small compared to the volume of the Earth. I'm not quite sure why you think that the Earth is "little more than half a planet." What missing material are you talking about?

Getting back to the issue of the Earth forming a sphere, look up the definition of a planet and notice that part of the requirement is that it has sufficient mass to form into a sphere.

Here the wikipedia quotes material from the IAU
Planet

(1) A "planet"1 is a celestial body that: (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

reply to post by DJW001


DJW001 are you crtain about the Pacific basin being associated with an impact? The Pacific plate is much more recent. Plate movements should have removed all traces of the basin billions of years ago.

reply to post by stereologist

DJW001 are you crtain about the Pacific basin being associated with an impact? The Pacific plate is much more recent. Plate movements should have removed all traces of the basin billions of years ago.

It was so long ago it's hard to remember. The original theory dates to 1878, and was proposed by Charles Darwin's son. A few years later someone named Osmond Fisher came up with the Pacific Basin part. Obviously, the Earth would have been very plastic and the gouge would have filled in long before the plates as we know them formed, so, no, probably not. In fact, I'm not entirely sold on the "planetismal impact" theory myself. The results coming in from Kepler really have me questioning all of our models.

Maybe Nibiru is really a some sort of "ship". I'm not saying this guy is %100 right with what he's saying. There will never be a story without something seeming/being wrong. It's a matter of putting those little bits and pieces of truth together and getting closer to the "real" truth.

reply to post by YouCanCallMeKM


YouCanCallMeKM, the problem with these Nibiru claims is that they involve a planet. You suggest it might not be planet after all, but a ship of some kind. The problem is that a planet would have an affect on the things around it. The most important of these is gravity. Gravity is what shapes the solar system and the universe. Objects also reflect light. It can be seen.

Drunvalo as I mentioned before doesn't have a little problem here and there. He has enormous problems with his claims and these problems are overwhelming. If Drunvalo were interested in the truth he would mention these obvious issues and discuss them. He does not and will not because he is more interested in repeating some other person's tale.

One of his big claims is of a big white pyramid in Tibet. Ever heard of this? Ever seen a photo of it? It should be visible on Google Earth, but it is not. The only person claiming this is Drunvalo.

The claims of Nibiru by Drunvalo are as truthful as the white pyramid he claims is in Tibet. Neither exists.

Originally posted by stereologist
This is just Sitchin's baloney.

The translations are all wrong. Nibiru was not a planet. The Sumerian astronomical tablets are missing. It is the use of Sumerian names by Babylonians that suggests that the Sumerians did astronomy. Marduk is Jupiter. In 1 place Nibiru is a reference to Marduk.

No planet could have the orbit given by Sitchin and be stable. Sitchin did not know this when he created his fiction. His tall tales were recognized as hogwash decades ago.

What are those beings that were discovered. They are about 14 to 18 feet tall or taller. Are these a hoax? should i get the proof on youtube? Are they real, or is the video's on youtube a hoax then, if not then there must have been beings of that sort.

Also, if these beings could inhabit earth, then why did they not move from their own planet to save the peoples? Let their planet die, and go to earth. I don't see the logic to stay on the planet and protect it with gold. I think that if this true, they tried to inhabit earth and the earth inhabitants or whatever, fought back. Obviously, WON.

reply to post by cloaked4u


A little help would be useful. You say there are some beings that are 14 to 18 feet tall. I have heard that larger than lifesize statues have been claimed to be made 1 to 1. That makes as much sense as claiming that Lincoln in the Lincoln memorial was made 1 to 1.

Very cool thread in the bible Genisis 6:4 it talks about the nephilin as being sons of god and also being giants