The Anunnaki or Nibiru never mentioned in movies...why?

Originally posted by torqpoc

Originally posted by Ironclad

Originally posted by HomerinNC
reply to post by dashdespatch

 

can you prove it?
I can prove they were mentioned in anicent Sumerian tablets

No, you can't..!!

Those Sumerian tablets were not deciphered correctly and by a man who was less than an amerature..!!

Yes he can... lordy do you guys just not do your research?

etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk...

Amerature? Do you mean amateur? Seriously that is YOUR level of English and you dare have the audacity to correct someone, anyone, on anything?

T

Just linking to the Etcsl doesn't cut it.
A search of their texts for the word "Anunnaki" returns the following:

No hits: 'anunnaki'

Do you not do your research??? LOL

Anunnaki is the Babylonian term. It might be in there, but in a different spelling.

A search using the term "Anuna" results in a return of 155 usages. Anuna (Anunna) is the Sumerian term.

Harte

So basically what people are saying is TPTB don't want us seeing a movie that is too detailed because it might enable us to recover some unconscious memories?

And if we knew our true origins they would no longer be able to control us because we'd know that everything we have been spoon-fed is bollocks?

I'm not trying to start a big debate or anything. I just want to see if I've got the gist of what some people have been trying to explain. It does make a fair amount of sense that TPTB would try to conceal our true origins from us, because that keeps us in a prison of ignorance, thereby making us docile.

Originally posted by Harte

Just linking to the Etcsl doesn't cut it.
A search of their texts for the word "Anunnaki" returns the following:

No hits: 'anunnaki'

Do you not do your research??? LOL

Anunnaki is the Babylonian term. It might be in there, but in a different spelling.

A search using the term "Anuna" results in a return of 155 usages. Anuna (Anunna) is the Sumerian term.

Harte

It's a lot better than what most other posters have done. I do my research otherwise i'd not have posted that link, what do you have to offer other than a cheap swipe? That's right, not much.

The word "Anunnaki" is not in the Sumerian tablet translations, Anuna is. That's like Americans writing color, when it should be colour. Did you read what the OP and the others were debating? We're not discussing semantics here (well you might be because you're also an amerature), so try to stay in context and on topic if you can dear.

I was stating that the OP is correct, the Anunnaki ARE mentioned in the Sumerian tablets, it might be under the Sumerian spelling of the word but they are mentioned. Is there anything else you'd like to offer which might be of worth this time?

"It doesn't cut it"? What are you? My dad? Go forth and multiply. (if you can't work that one out i'd be glad to explain it to you).

Keep calm and carry on.



T

Originally posted by torqpoc

Originally posted by Harte

Just linking to the Etcsl doesn't cut it.
A search of their texts for the word "Anunnaki" returns the following:

No hits: 'anunnaki'

Do you not do your research??? LOL

Anunnaki is the Babylonian term. It might be in there, but in a different spelling.

A search using the term "Anuna" results in a return of 155 usages. Anuna (Anunna) is the Sumerian term.

Harte

It's a lot better than what most other posters have done. I do my research otherwise i'd not have posted that link, what do you have to offer other than a cheap swipe? That's right, not much.

In fact, I've offered up quite a bit here at ATS on this very subject. Even very recently. For example, I enlightened you that the word can't be found at the link you told the poster to look in, didn't I?

I also told you how to find it.

Just thought it was funny you'd link the ETCSL along with that "research" comment, considering it's been pointed out many times here that the word Anunnaki doesn't appear anywhere in the ETCSL. It just struck me as ironic.

No offense. We agree on the matter that most people here certainly don't know what they're talking about. Well, in this particular section of the forum, anyway. I don't often peruse the other sections, so I can't speak for what goes on in them.

Probably the same, wouldn't you say? LOL

Originally posted by torqpocThe word "Anunnaki" is not in the Sumerian tablet translations, Anuna is. That's like Americans writing color, when it should be colour.

Not really. Both of your examples are in the same language. Akkadian and Sumerian are completely different. But the Sumerian language was kept because it was the only written one at the time the Akkadians took over. I guess they figured it might come in handy.

The language was used for a long time afterward as the priestly language and the language of state as well, IIRC, even though no one spoke it.

Weird, huh?

Gee, I guess I just "offered" you another bit of information there, didn't I? Maybe you already knew that. I think we can agree that most people here don't, as you said.

Originally posted by torqpocDid you read what the OP and the others were debating? We're not discussing semantics here (well you might be because you're also an amerature), so try to stay in context and on topic if you can dear.

Good one.

Yes, we are "ameratures," aren't we? Of course, what the heck would an Assyriologist be doing here anyay?

Reading the tripe about how the Anunnaki were spacemen?

Right.

Originally posted by torqpocI was stating that the OP is correct, the Anunnaki ARE mentioned in the Sumerian tablets, it might be under the Sumerian spelling of the word but they are mentioned. Is there anything else you'd like to offer which might be of worth this time?

Sure. See above.

Yes, the Anunnaki are mentioned in Babylonian writings. So are a lot of other things that sane individuals wouldn't consider to be real for an instant.

Originally posted by torqpoc "It doesn't cut it"? What are you? My dad? Go forth and multiply. (if you can't work that one out i'd be glad to explain it to you).

Keep calm and carry on.

It doesn't cut it if you're gonna give the guy a hard time for not "doing research." I mean, you claim it's in there, so what if the guy followed your link? He wouldn't find it, would he?

See, that doesn't cut it, no matter what your Dad may have to say on the subject.

And I'm calm. Sorry if you were offended.

Harte

Question for all: Just for the sake of argument, say that Sitchin is right; that the annunaki really did create cro-magnon man; that all the "gods" in the bible and elsewhere really are just aliens(which, by the way doesn't mean there isn't a god, per se, just that aliens created us). How would your life change? what would you do differently?

Simply be happy knowing there IS proof of other life

reply to post by TruthSeekerMike


We have more proof than you do sadly. You have scrolls of a story the un mistakably is a re write of a story 1187 yearls older than The TORAH (OLD TESTAMENT), WHICH NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO READ??????

wHAT PROOF DO YOU HAVE BELIEF.

reply to post by HomerinNC


Actually if you watch Prometheus they are sort of mentioned in a roundabout way....

But what I want to know is Who created the Annunaki??? Surely a GOD wouldnt have created such a people who would travel here and mix up our race to be slaves!!

So if not a GOD then who or what??

Actually the Anunnaki have been mentioned in a movie, its a newer movie called Prometheus about a space crew discovering ancient engineers who have seeded the humans on planet earth, a very interesting movie you should watch it. I won't give the ending away, I will say that these engineers' plan was to come back to earth and start a new creation, and what do you think has to come before a new beginning? You guessed it

cause there tryin g to cover it up there already here under the mointains