Nibiru

[nuno]

You show me the evidence that they knew of Uranus, Neptune and Pluto -- and not just some 7th, 8th, and 9th planets of indeterminate characteristics -- and I'll give it some thought. You can't just say that "They knew there were 12 planets way back then!" without showing that they actually knew what they were talking about.

Show me that they knew that Uranus is tilted on its axis. Show me that they knew that Pluto was a ball of ice barely the size of the moon. If they were so advanced and had all this ancient knowledge, they ought to have known at least that much.

http://xfacts.com/x4.htm

What other explanation do you have for that symbology then?
The large ones represent planets and the smaller ones represent satellites, now, don't you ask me how do I know that, that's called deciphering, and I leave that to the specialists.
It's just the same thing to say that the Egyptians, Mayans, Incas, Aztecs never existed...., but that's another story.

[bigmattyh]

http://xfacts.com/x4.htm
What other explanation do you have for that symbology then?

You're implying that the only way to interpret that drawing is as a scientific document. Look, the Sumerians had writing. Why didn't they explain, in Sanskrit, what the drawing meant? Why record such a monumentally important scientific discovery in a picture, to be left wide open for interpretation? Pictures don't prove anything.

The large ones represent planets and the smaller ones represent satellites, now, don't you ask me how do I know that, that's called deciphering, and I leave that to the specialists.

So you say. So the "specialists" say. It's all about interpretation. And interpretation is dependent on one's ability to make sense out of what they see. If the "specialists" can make clear sense out of this -- that this carving is proof of the "knowledge" the Sumerians had -- then why is this all that they can produce to support their conclusion? Show me any shred of proof that this is anything other than an artistic work of fancy.

It's just the same thing to say that the Egyptians, Mayans, Incas, Aztecs never existed...., but that's another story.

Um, no. The ancient Egyptians, Mayans, Incans, and Aztecs left behind proof that they existed. We can confirm that they were there because there are plenty of old roads and buildings and artifacts that back up the written accounts. We draw a reasonable conclusion, based on the available evidence, that these ancient civilizations were the Egyptians or Mayans or whoever.

In this case, there is NO evidence that supports the notion that ancient Sumeria was visited by aliens. Yes, we know the Sumerians existed. The evidence backs that up. And it doesn't take a lot of evidence to come to that conclusion. But the claim that they were visited by aliens is a huge claim which requires considerable proof. Proof which does not exist. So until you can find something that definitively proves your hypothesis -- and that says, in no uncertain terms, and isn't attributable to some other, more reasonable conclusion -- you cannot rationally conclude that ancient Sumer was visited by aliens.

[DirectPixel]

The numbers 12 and 24. It's not too hard to picture a belif that those two numbers are "special".

But again, like bigmattyh said, HOW? Have you even taken a look at the entire website? It's nothing but propoganda about UFO's and "secret" planets. Ever heard of something called the "Immortality Ring"? Did you read the "facts" on that as well?

Pages like these are all taking advantage of the human desire to believe the unbelievable. All the facts mentioned on that Planet X website are interpretations of symbols. It doesn't tell you exactly how they did it, and it certainly does not say how their results can be reproduced.

But sure, it's your life. You can live with the belief that there's a Planet X. You can live with the belief that you can live forever. You can live with the belief that you can loose 100 pounds in a week with a "special" drink.

Go ahead, live. Live in your delusional world. Die happy.

[bigmattyh]

Go ahead, live. Live in your delusional world. Die happy.

I would go so far as to say that if you entertain these delusions, you most certainly won't be happy. You will never be happy if you can't square your vision of the world with reality. You will never have certainty of anything if your beliefs and philosophy aren't firmly rooted in the truth. Otherwise, you will be in a constant state of mental turmoil because the events in your life don't make sense.

There are two things you can do when reality doesn't match your beliefs: 1) Change your beliefs, or 2) Change reality. And the latter is much harder to do. Yet people do it. They spin themselves into a real tizzy trying to explain away things that don't make sense to them -- when the prudent thing to do in that case is to examine what you believe and see how it's failed to make sense of the world. And then make an adjustment. If you don't, you'll be more and more disconnected from the real world, spinning story after story to explain this mystical world where nothing makes sense, and everybody's covering up or hiding from the truth.

And as if living in that state weren't enough, there's a whole cottage industry dedicated to selling them something. Like this:

http://xfacts.com/xvideo1/index.html

[Wayne Luke]

Maybe the Sumerians did explain it in writing on how they knew it existed. Scrolls that are known today talk about a planet that is only visible at certain times. However, that in itself is fairly sketchy. And unfortunately, we have lost the great libraries due to war, floods, volcanoes, and earthquakes. Libraries like the one at Alexandria which is well documented and known to exist. Unfortunately, it exists at the bottom of the ocean right now.

Other libraries are being discovered like the villa of Caeser's father outside of Pompeii which was destroyed at the same time. It was one of the largest Roman libraries at the same time and is revealing all types of documents about the era, thankfully preserved by the volcanic ash instead of being destroyed.

Further documents were destroyed when conquerors came in and rebuilt destroyed cities. They used the clay tablets used for writing as bricks and destroyed a lot of knowledge. You can see this in archelogical digs through Mesopotamia and Northern Africa.

Some groups horde documents that would benefit all of mankind like the original scrolls of the Bible held hidden in Vatican vaults and unseen by anyone.

The Dark Ages themselves were so called by the anarchy that was created by the fall of Rome. Books were burnt, scrolls destroyed and a lot of knowledge of that world was lost. We know they didn't have internal combustion engines and such things but what other technologies were lost only to be rediscovered later?

Mankind seems bent on destroying its own history so that we don't know what was known when. Even in the last 50-100 years we have lost a lot. What works were destroyed when Germany was defeated in 1945? How many priceless paintings and documents were destroyed during the world wars? How many ancient archeological sites will be destroyed in Iraq if bombs are dropped? How many were destroyed in 1991? What hidden treasures lie under cities like Jerusulem, Constantinople, Baghdad, Dehli, Cairo, Athens and many other "birthplaces" of civilization that are destroyed by bulldozers to make room for a new skyscraper or shopping mall?

The fact that Scientific study hypothesizes that something is out there and that current astronomers are looking is fascinating enough to me. The myth and legend is also fascinating on its own merits. It doesn't mean that it is an overriding concept or desire nor am I going to form some cult based on it. No rational person would but exploring both the future and the past are fascinating pastimes. Exploring them both at the same time is simply a wonderful way to pass the time.

And yes, I am using more than that one website as my research tool. That is just a new site that I hadn't seen on this topic. Many such sites are simply fanciful and contain supposition and little fact. Others are more based in reality. You have to sift through a lot of chaff to get to the wheat just like any research.

[MacKenzie]

It's just as harmful if you think that anything is possible.

I consider this a very odd and biased statement really, especially considering your statements about what to do if your perceptions do match the reality you see before you.

Is it harmfull to beleive anything is possible? No. Is it harmfull to beleive anything is probable Perhaps.

Sound science, as opposed to crackpot, popculture BS "science", doesn't dismiss anything off hand because there might be a tinge of "kook factor" attached to it. It's not whipping out a "BS detector", it's bashing a single source on a subject that's been speculated for longer than some of us has been alive, and dismissing the entire concept. That's as about as logical and rational as dismissing the concept of water evaporation because some kook with a tinfoil hat spins a spins a interresting tale about how it's spirits sucking away the water.

Now, is it impossible that the ancient Summarians knew about modern astronomy and had located any number of planets? No. But before we start delcaring this harmfull and "BS", NIETHER does it say they did. It leaves the possibility open, because frankly, a rational minded person wouldn't declare it possible or impossible beyond doubt without concrete proof. Declaring such things as fact without proof is better left to religious fanatics and zealots.

Did the ancients know about the tilt of a given planet? Probably not. Does that preclude knowledge at all of said planet? If you were a rational person, you would say no. If you were a bad-science minded person, you would say yes, either you know everything about it or you know nothing at all.

Let's put this up to a test. Is the assertation that the ancient summarians couldn't have known about Uranus because there's no evidence at all that they knew about the tilt of it's axis... a sound one?

Let's examine precidents on the topic of astrological knowledge. How many of people knew of the exact conditions of Jupiter (it's rings, moons, surface appearance) the moment they knew of the planet's existance? Likewise, how many people knew of Mar's exact conditions (surface conditions, rotation and orbital speeds) the moment they knew of the existance of Mars at all?

If you said anything other than "none", I highly suggest going back over the history books and re-examining your logical thought processes.

Now that we've established that ancient summarians could know of a given planet without knowing how fast it spins on it's axis or the tilt of it's axis, you may properly go about determining if the likelyhood of them knowing.

As to whether they did or not, I myself really can't tell you, but consider this "harmfull" if it makes your life more bearable to live, I think it's a possibility worth consideration.

While it might satisfy our egos to brag about our telescopes and our high technology, I would like to point out that what the older cultures on earth lacked in sophisticated sciences, they made up for in the sheer intelligence and observational skills that I think we actually lack today due to our over-reliance on high technology.

Stonehenge, beyond being a marvel of ancient architechure also works as a crude but interrestingly functional calender, marking soltices and such. There are various other examples from ancient cultures that show a rather firm grasp on concept of astronomy, even thosed based on a flawed system such as one that places the earth in the center of the solarsystem. Had some of these ancients had the hubble, I beleive it highly likelly that they'd be whooping our buts in the field of astronomy.

HOW could the summarians know about stuff we have trouble seeing ourselves with high powered telescopes? I really can't answer. We weren't always quite sure how they built the pyramids either, but hey, they *did* build them. I could wageer guesses that they would determine the existance of planets by keen observation. Really, Venus looks simular to any given star in the night sky... but mankind has know that it was quite differant than any other twinkle in the sky. How? Observing the nightsky on an extended basis, noting paths of the constelations, and the inconsistant appearances of this other "star" that shines differantly.

All in all... Anything IS possible, and it's not only healthy to beleive such a notion, but it's imperative to maintain an objective viewpoint. If you start living by the concept that beleiving 'anything is possible' is a harmfull beleif, I'd like to point out the next step is burning people at the stake for blasphemy.

[filburt1]

Yep. I heard about this way back in high school on a rerun of In Search Of (with Leonard Nimoy... kickin' out the jams).

I always thought it was pretty interesting. One of the more intriguing bits of "evidence" supporting the claim was that the planet returns every 3600 years or so -- and coincidentally, every 3600 years on earth, there's a major advancement in technology. The last one was supposedly in 200 BC.

The rest of the evidence is Sumerian wall drawings that show -- whoa -- twelve planets, and Biblical references to the Nefilim.

Now call me crazy, but it's generally scientists who discover planets, and when they do, they can show the evidence through, say, a telescope. If the so-called "twelfth" planet is out there, why has not one astronomer found it? At some point, of course, if you're one of these guys who believes in this mystical heavenly body, you'll have to believe that there's a government conspiracy to cover it up, because that's the only way to explain the lack of hard evidence.

It's a modern form of religion. It makes for a fun story, but don't get too invested in the concept if they can't back it up.

It's really really really really really hard to see something in detail from that far away.

(high school astronomy = educational )

[bigmattyh]

Mackenzie, you didn't get my point.

There are plenty of people who think that anything is possible and almost without exception, these people make no distinction between fantasy and reality. This is not the same as saying that anything is possible and then qualifying it, as you did, by addressing probability. Probability is beyond the intellectual scope of the gullible. They have no fixed beliefs -- or worse, they'll believe anything -- so they have no concept of what is probable and what is not.

It is extremely unprobable that you'll burst into flames as you read this. But is it possible? There's enough evidence regarding spontaneous compustion to make me think it's possible. Or you could burst into flames for some other, unprecedented, unforeseen reason (such as aliens zapping you from above). I'm not going to invest in that possiblity, though, because the chances are so remote of that ever happening.

We don't live on a chalkboard. We don't live in a textbook. Whether it is possible for my bank account to suddenly have $10,000,000 in it without me doing anything is academic and utterly pointless. That's close-minded, sure, but it isn't "one step away from burning people at the stake." (What a ridiculous thing to say.)

I'm close-minded about a lot of things. For instance, my mind is closed to the possibility of me killing you because you disagree with me. Thankfully, most people think like me on this matter. Others, unfortunately, have to live in societies where a powerful leader will do just that -- his mind is perfectly open to the possibility. That doesn't mean I haven't thought about the merits of killing people because they disagree with me; rather, I have thought about the merits, and I have concluded -- correctly -- that simply disagreeing with me isn't sufficient reason to kill someone, for a myriad of reasons which are for another discussion.

We have to live our lives based on reality. And part of reality is acknowledging things for what they are. For instance, I know that a knife is sharp. I know this because of my experience with knives. Can I trust that experience? I can test a knife's sharpness any time I have one handy. I test it; my beliefs about it are validated; I am confident that I know what I think I know.

So I would be a fool to stab myself. And I'd pay for my foolishness with my life. Ask someone who says he believes that anything is possible if they'd be willing to bet their life on that assertion. Tell him that if he stabs himself, the knife will disintegrate into its component atoms on contact. He won't do it because he knows that his life depends on his evaluation of reality as it is -- not as it could be in his imagination.

And that's the crux of what I'm saying. Just because you imagine a thing doesn't mean that it is true. If you're going to believe in something, have evidence to back it up. Otherwise you're basing your world view on fantasies that have no bearing on the real world that you live in.

[bigmattyh]

I'll give you another example of what I'm talking about: the Face on Mars.

I believed in the possibility that the face was a man(?)-made artifact from the moment I saw the pictures for the first time. The first Viking pictures very clearly show a face, "sticking out" of the planet's surface, near some objects that look reminiscent of pyramids and a little "city" with ramparts and walls and everything.

The problem is, though, when NASA returned to Mars 20 years later, satellites showed a lot higher-resolution pictures of the face and the city, and they don't look anything like a face or a city anymore. That didn't stop Richard Hoagland, the leading proponent of the face theory. He'd spent 20 years trying to convince everyone that it was a face, and that Cydonia was a man-made city. The new pictures didn't resemble a face anymore -- so what did he do? He altered his theory. He tells everyone now that the thing is really eroded, that it's half a face, half a lion. And with a LOT of Photoshopping and "enhancement", you can see what he calls "artifacts" in the pictures from Pathfinder, to show what he thinks is a "tank" and a "ziggurat" on the surface of Mars. He's also gone so far as to claim that NASA has deliberately altered the new images (and then using those same images to support his theory).

It's ridiculous the extents to which he's gone to preserve his fleeting theory. He's staked his life and reputation on something that he was so devoted to that he can't stop now.

I'm still open to the possibility that Mars once held life -- human-like life, even -- but trying to fit the latest photographic evidence into the theory just doesn't fly. You can be open-minded about it and have your feet firmly planted in reality. If life really did exist on Mars, it would be wonderful to prove -- but showing altered photos of outlines of rocks on Mars, and claiming that there's a NASA coverup of the "truth" isn't the way to go about it.

The point is: there's just not enough evidence to support the claim. Making the claim so enthusiastically with such slim support is detrimental to the very concept of science and the scientific method. It muddies the line between that which we know and that which we don't, and that serves no one. Scientific discoveries are not a whiz-bang hoopla kind of thing. They require time and patience to build a case based on whatever evidence is available. And I'm not seeing that from these people.

[nuno]

You're implying that the only way to interpret that drawing is as a scientific document. Look, the Sumerians had writing. Why didn't they explain, in Sanskrit, what the drawing meant? Why record such a monumentally important scientific discovery in a picture, to be left wide open for interpretation? Pictures don't prove anything.
So you say. So the "specialists" say. It's all about interpretation. And interpretation is dependent on one's ability to make sense out of what they see. If the "specialists" can make clear sense out of this -- that this carving is proof of the "knowledge" the Sumerians had -- then why is this all that they can produce to support their conclusion? Show me any shred of proof that this is anything other than an artistic work of fancy.
Um, no. The ancient Egyptians, Mayans, Incans, and Aztecs left behind proof that they existed. We can confirm that they were there because there are plenty of old roads and buildings and artifacts that back up the written accounts. We draw a reasonable conclusion, based on the available evidence, that these ancient civilizations were the Egyptians or Mayans or whoever.

In this case, there is NO evidence that supports the notion that ancient Sumeria was visited by aliens. Yes, we know the Sumerians existed. The evidence backs that up. And it doesn't take a lot of evidence to come to that conclusion. But the claim that they were visited by aliens is a huge claim which requires considerable proof. Proof which does not exist. So until you can find something that definitively proves your hypothesis -- and that says, in no uncertain terms, and isn't attributable to some other, more reasonable conclusion -- you cannot rationally conclude that ancient Sumer was visited by aliens.

Look, I will not discuss the readings nor what do they mean, its just like saying that the Egyptians hieroglyphs reading is all wrong, and all deciphering is wrong, it doesn't make any sense.
The same thing goes for the BIG BANG theory, do you believe in it?
Do you believe in Charles Darwin theory?
Do you believe that Dinosaurs were totally wiped off the face of the Earth due to a meteorite?
How did the Egyptians build the Pyramids? Do you know how? I don't, yet, they are there, they exist, and remain a mystery.
Try reading this page about the Pyramids, these are all scientific facts: http://members.tripod.com/sshlb97/aliensite/ancient.htm
Just to show you that the Three Pyramids and Nibiru are a mystery, there are things that science cannot explain.
What if there were no pyramids, would you say they never existed?

[DirectPixel]

Why is it that all your "sources" are on free webhosts, and are peppered with links to "UFO sightings"?

Why not do research at libraries and universities, instead of searching Tripod?

[nuno]

I'll give you another example of what I'm talking about: the Face on Mars.

I believed in the possibility that the face was a man(?)-made artifact from the moment I saw the pictures for the first time. The first Viking pictures very clearly show a face, "sticking out" of the planet's surface, near some objects that look reminiscent of pyramids and a little "city" with ramparts and walls and everything.

The problem is, though, when NASA returned to Mars 20 years later, satellites showed a lot higher-resolution pictures of the face and the city, and they don't look anything like a face or a city anymore. That didn't stop Richard Hoagland, the leading proponent of the face theory. He'd spent 20 years trying to convince everyone that it was a face, and that Cydonia was a man-made city. The new pictures didn't resemble a face anymore -- so what did he do? He altered his theory. He tells everyone now that the thing is really eroded, that it's half a face, half a lion. And with a LOT of Photoshopping and "enhancement", you can see what he calls "artifacts" in the pictures from Pathfinder, to show what he thinks is a "tank" and a "ziggurat" on the surface of Mars. He's also gone so far as to claim that NASA has deliberately altered the new images (and then using those same images to support his theory).

It's ridiculous the extents to which he's gone to preserve his fleeting theory. He's staked his life and reputation on something that he was so devoted to that he can't stop now.

I'm still open to the possibility that Mars once held life -- human-like life, even -- but trying to fit the latest photographic evidence into the theory just doesn't fly. You can be open-minded about it and have your feet firmly planted in reality. If life really did exist on Mars, it would be wonderful to prove -- but showing altered photos of outlines of rocks on Mars, and claiming that there's a NASA coverup of the "truth" isn't the way to go about it.

The point is: there's just not enough evidence to support the claim. Making the claim so enthusiastically with such slim support is detrimental to the very concept of science and the scientific method. It muddies the line between that which we know and that which we don't, and that serves no one. Scientific discoveries are not a whiz-bang hoopla kind of thing. They require time and patience to build a case based on whatever evidence is available. And I'm not seeing that from these people.

Matt, I'll give you another example, what about the Mayans calendar?
Did you know that the Mayans calendar mysteriously ends at 2012?
Why did the Mayans consider year 3113 B. C. as their year zero?
Our year zero represents the year of Jesus birth, so, we had a strong motive to say, hey, this is year zero, we'll start the counting process here, so I think they also had a strong reason to consider 3113 B.C. as year zero, the question is, what happened at 3113 B.C.?
We do not know, but something happened, that's for sure.

[DirectPixel]

Perhaps the royal astronomers said "Hey! Today's the Ruler's birthday! Let's start anew!"

[nuno]

Why is it that all your "sources" are on free webhosts, and are peppered with links to "UFO sightings"?

Why not do research at libraries and universities, instead of searching Tripod?

Why not research it yourself, these are all proven facts, the pyramids are there, all those mathematical "coincidences" were not made up by some guy hosting his site at Tripod.
Is this credible enough for you?

http://www.uiowa.edu/~anthro/webcourse/lost/pyramid.html

Or try this one on google:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=pyramids+mysteries&btnG=Google+Search

That's about 38,100 results, you may choose which ones are credible enough for you.
Good luck.

[DirectPixel]

Like you mentioned, http://www.uiowa.edu/~anthro/webcour...t/pyramid.html is a perfectly good source.

It looks at the topics quite objectively, provides facts as well as analyzations, and is scholarly.

I suggest you read it.