BannerFans.com
BannerFans.com

The Nibiru Truth (1 of 2) © Exclusive 2017

The Nibiru Truth (1 of 2) © Exclusive 2017

"

"[Music] the speculation of the existence of an additional planetary body in our solar system is not the fringe discussion of decades past in fact as we will see later in this treatment several contemporary mainstream academics and astronomers are busy postulating debating and searching for the existence of such a body in the heavens nonetheless mainstream academia by and large does not support the specific notion of Nibiru as translated by certain individuals from the

early Sumerian cylinder seals specifically VA 243 that is estimated between fifty three hundred and six thousand years old depending on the reference the discussion regarding Nibiru will basically be the explanation of the ongoing confusion and debate regarding the translation of ancient Sumerian Akkadian and Babylonian text along with the scientific debate against its existence there are key individuals that will be cited in this ongoing debate that represent primarily two opposing viewpoints basically the two viewpoints can be distilled

to those that believe the texts are the works of myth and those that believe the texts describe actual events this video is not intended to sway the proponents on either side of the argument the two primary groups are well entrenched in their points of view while one group is obviously relying on the academic underpinning of its position regarding Nibiru the other group holds fast to the argument that any translation can be incorrect even

at the academic level for the purposes of simplification these two groups will be designed designated as the academics and the renegade scholars to be clear about the word renegade the definition applicable here is a person who leaves one group religion etc and joins another that opposes it prior to the release of Zecharia Sitchin's the 12th planet in 1976 there exists only a few academic articles related to the topic of Nibiru in 1961 B lands

burger and JB Kinney or Wilson published article title v tablet of mm of the leash and in 1936 Albert Scott published the article Marv Duke une scenes term which means Marv Duke and his stars this fact is presented here in order to make an important observation the rarity of research material related to Nibiru seems to support the notion that translation of Sumerian cuneiform was and is a rare skillset shared among few at least up

until 1976 and likely well beyond before we move forward it is of vital importance to establish a historical perspective first our discussion involves the earliest writings of man so exactly how old is that to clarify we are talking about languages not cave paintings in this context to gain a full understanding of what is to follow understanding the ancient language timeline is a prerequisite the three oldest writing systems which we currently recognized our cuneiform LMI and Egyptian

although Sumerian has become synonymous with Kenya form that is not exactly accurate the Sumerian writing system along with elamite began at the earliest demarcation of keenya form circa 3200 to 3400 same category at 2500 BCE and 550 BCE respectively ancient Egyptian appears around 3100 BCE additionally two other writing systems are worth mention in this general context the Indus script of South Asia and the quick view of the Americas both appearing approximately 2600 BCE according to

Sumerian astronomy indirectly referenced through the Babylonians Nibiru is a term of the highest point of the ecliptic for example the point of summer solstice and its associated constellation as the highest point in the path of the planets Nibiru was considered the seat of the sumus dais the pastures the stars like sheep in Babylon identified with Marduk the establishment of the Nibiru point is described in tablet 5 of the creation epic Enuma ilish quote when

martouf fixed the locations of Nibiru in Lille and 'ya in the sky in quote Nibiru is mentioned at different astronomical locations in conjunction with the positions of stars and planets mostly as the star of Marduk however the various stars or planets were not subject to any fixed interpretation for example the star of yo was described at various revelation spots including Vela FOMO hot and Venus similar interpretations were made for other stars of the gods

so multiple celestial coordinates must be considered Nibiru is described more closely on a complete cuneiform tablet quote Nibiru which is said to have occupied the passageways of heaven and earth because everyone above and below asked Nibiru if they cannot find the passage Nibiru is Marduk star which the gods in heaven calls to be visible Viru stands as a post at the turning point the others say of Nibiru the post the only one who crosses

the middle of the sea Tiamat without calm may his name be Nibiru for he takes up the center of it the path of the stars of the skies should be kept unchanged in 1936 fmt bold called the above Tex quote objectively the most difficult passage although it has been handed down in its entirety the Nibiru tablet does not provide any essential help for the clarification you in the Akkadian language Nibiru is translated to crossing

or point of transition especially of rivers Nibiru has been associated with the area of Libra the Nibiru constellation rose in the month of Tishri dome around autumn equinox however Nibiru was also a name for the planet Jupiter when observed in the month of Tishri doe reference to Jupiter is found in the moola pen when the stars of in lille have been finished one big star although it's light is dim divides the sky in half

and stands there that is the star of Marduk Nibiru Jupiter it keeps changing its position and crosses the sky this chart was compiled by Michael Heizer a leading academic on the subject of Nibiru since he is a leading critic of zecharia sitchin it has been determined that by using his own research the hypocrisy of academia can be fully exposed we will be revisiting this individuals endeavors shortly but for now let's take a look at

his own chart at number one we have the Anu Malik tablet 5 line 6 where it says he set fast the position of Nibiru to fix their balance number to a new meter leash tablet 7 lines 124 says let Nibiru be the holder of the crossing place of the heaven and of the earth number three the Anu Malik tablet 7 line 126 and 133 131 states Nibiru in his is his star

which he made appear in the heavens the stars of heaven let him set their course let him Shepherd all the gods like sheep number 4 we have the astrolabe be the star catalog it says the red star which stands in the south after the gods of the night have been finished dividing the sky in half this star is Nibiru number 5 we have the mullah pen where it states when the stars of

in lille have been finished one big star although it's night at light is dim divides the sky in half and stands there that is the star of Marduk Nibiru Jupiter it keeps changing its position and crosses sky and we have several more references in the various star lists and also tablets and then there are two omen texts as well this chart represents the generally accepted consensus related to the term Nibiru there are two unequivocal

facts with which the academics agree number one the term Nibiru is real and appears multiple times in the Anu Malik astrolabe B mullah Pen and Kenya form Babylonian tablets rendering various star lists number two among other meanings the academics agree that in several circumstances the term Nibiru is representative of a star planet or God the extent to which this becomes explained away by academia goes to the larger argument of myth versus reality alluded to earlier

and it will be discussed in detail in following sections one can argue there are as many alternate points of view as people who write about Nibiru and do not agree with the academic consensus nevertheless we will discuss the original alternative theory posited by zecharia sitchin it is the most well known and researched of any alternative in the archives opinion it has certainly stood the test of time although the academics would sharply disagree Sitchin was Russian born and

raised in Palestine he graduated from the University of London with a degree in economic history before working several years as a journalist and editor in Israel Sitchin theories are predicated on the premise that ancient myths are not miss but historical and scientific texts one of Sitchin's core assertions is that Nibiru is a planet that orbits our Sun every 3,450 years the following citation summarizes Sitchin's primary theory quote working from the same archaeological discoveries artifacts and recovered

records as archaeologist and linguist have for 200 years Sitchin / pounds that the Anunnaki an advanced civilization from the 10th planet in our solar system splashed down in the Persian Gulf area around four hundred thirty two thousand years ago colonized the planet with the purpose of obtaining large quantities of gold some 250 thousand years ago the recovered documents tell us their lower echelon miners rebelled against the conditions in the mines and then Anunnaki Directorate decided

to create a creature to take their place inky their chief scientist and then hers AG their chief medical officer after getting no satisfactory results splicing animal and Homo erectus genes merged their Anunnaki genes with that of Homo erectus and produced us Homo sapiens genetically bicameral species for the purpose purposes as slaves because we were a hybrid we could not procreate the demand for us as workers became greater and we were genetically manipulated to reproduce eventually we

became so numerous that some of us were expelled from the anunnaki city centers gradually spreading over the planet having become a stable genetic stock in developing more precociously than perhaps the Anunnaki had anticipated the Anunnaki began to be attracted to humans as sexual partners and children were born of these unions this was unacceptable to the majority of the Anunnaki High Council and it was decided to wipe out the human population through a flood that was

predictable when Nibiru the tenth in our solar system and the Anunnaki home planet came through the inner solar system again around 12,500 years ago on one of its periodic three 3600 year returns some humans were saved by the action of the Anunnaki official Enki who was sympathetic to the humans he had originally genetically created for thousands of years we were their slaves their workers their servants and their soldiers and their political battles among themselves the

Anunnaki used us in the construction of their palaces their cities their mining and refining complexes and their astronomical installations on all the continents they expanded from Mesopotamia to Egypt to India to South and Central America and the stamp of their presence can be found in the fatherís reaches of the planet around 6000 years ago they probably realizing that they were going to phase off the planet began to gradually bring humans to independence Sumer a

human civilization amazing in its sudden and mature highly advanced character was set up under their tutelage in Mesopotamia human kings were not rated as go-betweens Foreman of the human populations answering to the Anunnaki some humans were taught technology mathematics astronomy advanced crafts and the ways of civilized society the high civilizations of Egypt and Central America arose the UH nanaki became somewhat more remote from humans by around 1250 BC they had gone into their final phase-out mode the

human population and the forming Kings now left on their own began to fend for themselves for some three thousand years subsequently we humans have been going through a traumatic transition to independence proprietary claims made by various groups of humans as to who knew what we should be doing to get the Anunnaki to return or when they returned perpetuated the palace and social rituals learned under the Anunnaki and sometimes disagreement and strife broke out between them

religion as we know it took form focused on the god or gods clearly and unambiguously known to the humans who were in contact with him as imperfect flesh-and-blood humanoids now absent it was only much later that the Anunnaki were eventually sublimated into cosmic character and status and later on mythologized due to remoteness in time such and further refined the viewers timeline in his book titled the end of days he explained that as Nibiru flew

by Uranus called Miranda a moon of Nibiru such an occurrence a moon of Nibiru striking Uranus would have affected the orbit of Nibiru slowing it down to about thirty 450 earth years rather than 3,600 and resulting in a post diluvial reappearance scheduled of circa 7450 circa 4000 and circa 550 BCE if that is what had happened it would suggest the early arrival of Nibiru in 556 BCE and suggest that its next arrival will

be circa 2900 AD it cannot be overstated that the ignorance of this timeline explanation or the outright perversion of it accounts for the pathetic state of affairs in the pop culture where countless individuals hiromi ously believed the planet Nibiru is about to hit earth with this presentation and others that are delineating the truth the pop culture list can no longer legitimately claim ignorance however many do indeed ignore the truth because it does not put a

colliding planet on our doorstep for several more centuries and even then it not necessarily destined to collide with earth even so the vast majority of the pop culture have moved beyond ignorance and straight into stupidity by claiming a forthcoming Nibiru collision on a monthly basis in general when alternative theories before bed discounts or directly refutes established academic consensus even from within its own ranks one can be assured of an onslaught of discrediting and ridicule unfortunately this occurs most

often regardless of whether the alternative view has merit or not the entire concept of ancient astronauts is nearly completely rejected by mainstream academia Sitchin insofar as his work represents the essence of such Theory has become the favorite target of the after mentioned ridicule and criticism there have been some rather prolific critics however that in their zeal to debunk have left holes in their own academic treatments of the subject this brings up a rather interesting question if

one approaches this subject from the academic consensus point of view is it acceptable to make suppositions in favor of one's argument without actual evidence and then turn around and accuse the target of the criticism of the same behavior apparently that is the case on many occasions in the academic community after all if you have staked your doctoral thesis on the debunking of a single person's work then you would likely go to your grave

defending the position regardless of it being right wrong or somewhere in between better that then suffer being discredited and sub coming to the same exact ridicule leveled by your peers towards your own work fortunately for the academics they rarely turn on one another and consume their own but since Sitchin has become the target of several academics it is worth a bit of time to examine both sides of this issue it is beyond the purview

of this particular work to address the criticisms of the entire ancient astronaut hypothesis with that said the subject of Nibiru offers probably the best examples of the overall academic condemnation there seems to be two primary criticisms of Sitchin regardless of the individual one from the academic camp and one from the scientific camp since there are several individuals standing in line to write the next book or article that debunks kitchen we will focus on two individuals

that represent each of the two primary criticisms to academics that have already before their best efforts in debunking his work without a doubt the number one criticism leveled against Sitchin's research can be found in the effort to debunk his alternative theories based on the premise that he mistranslated either ignorant lee or deliberately the ancient Sumerian texts this quote by Michael Heizer fairly well sums up the translation criticism quote if one wants to know what Nibiru

as an astronomical body is one is dependent on these texts unless like vekar iesson one makes up meanings to prop up a theory one either lets the text tell you what Nibiru is or ignores the scribes in favor of Sitchin in quote as such let us examine what Heiser says the texts actually mean and see if such a criticism is warranted in his paper the myth of a Sumerian 12th planet Nibiru according

to the cuneiform sources Heiser makes the following statement prior to presenting the chart provided previously in the video that lists the occurrences of the word Nibiru quote in the text that follow Nibiru was regarded as a planet specifically Jupiter but once as mercury a God specifically Marduk and a star distinguished from Jupiter if you're confused you're not alone the tri-fold or fourfold if you count mercury designation for Nibiru is why scholars of cuneiform astronomy have

not been able to determine with certainty what exactly Nibiru is we'll go into the problem more in later sections one thing is certain from these texts though Nibiru is never identified as a planet beyond Pluto in quote did you catch that why scholars of cuneiform astronomy have not been able to determine with certainty what exactly Nibiru is yet in the following sentence Heiser State's unequivocal certainty about Nibiru now let's be very clear about this point because

this is a whole academia digs for itself over and over again when arguing translations from ancient texts first Heiser's statement quote one thing is certain from the text though Nibiru is never identified as a planet beyond Pluto in quote is woefully incomplete what should have been said to qualify the statement is quote one thing is certain from the text that we academia have translated thus far Nibiru is never identified as a planet beyond

Pluto in quote the probable reason such a qualification was not given is that it opens the door for the possibility that Sitchin referenced text that Heiser or other academics have yet to translate themselves second even the text that Heiser has translated indicate Nibiru was referenced as more than the planet Jupiter in many cases it is described as a star Heiser himself states quote as noted previously Nibiru was regarded as a planet specifically Jupiter but once

as mercury a God specifically martyred and a star distinguished from Jupiter in quote unless Heiser and the rest of academia have translated every single available text which they had not I would suggest the use of unequivocal statements is rather dubious the overall built-in presumption that he and the rest of academia have translated all the available text pervades Heiser's entire argument and we will go into detail about this in a moment however it is prudent to

make a significant point in this juncture when it comes to translation of ancient texts it is a risky proposition to claim exclusive knowledge of the meanings Sitchin is criticized relentlessly by academia for this very approach ironically though academia does the same exact thing as we can see from just one of Heiser's quotes a good example of where the meanings of translation were either changed or put into another context are the Dead Sea Scrolls the early

mistranslation of the Dead Sea Scrolls clearly demonstrates why it is unwise to convey any translation as the correct one when there is a measurable amount of untranslated material outstanding that statement applies not only decision but also the academics that discredit him in essence the archive cannot reject Hitchens translation based simply on the contention by academia that they know the correct meanings especially when as in this case an academic flat-out says quote this trifold or fourfold

if you count mercury designation for Nibiru is why scholars of cuneiform astronomy have not been able to determine with certainty what exactly Nibiru is in quote we will finish up the translation section by covering what seems to be Heiser's primary argument against Sitchin well Sitchin's entire cosmological mythological system is based on three lines of argument number one the cylinder seal VA 243 in a nutshell the Sun on the seal which allegedly depicts the solar system

is not the Sun based on the consistent style of the actual Sun symbol in Sumeria Mesopotamian seals and art without a Sun you don't have a solar system number two they claim that Nibiru lies beyond Pluto and is home to the Anunnaki neither of which come from the actual text number three the reconstruction of the formation of our solar system accomplished by matching the names of gods and sumerian creation cosmological text with planets and then

describing a cosmic billiards scenario supposedly conveyed to us in these texts cuneiform astronomical texts never list any more than five planets seven if one counts the Sun and the moon and actually tell us which planets are which gods in their mythology it should be no surprise that the scenario Akkadian planet God correlations disagree with Sitchin's okay let's take these in order number one in an open letter hyzer gives a bit more detail in the

form of its question number six quote can you explain why the alleged Sun symbol on cylinder sylvie a 243 is not the normal Sun symbol or the symbol for the sun-god shamash in quote well as it turns out someone answered this question along with the other seven presented in the open letter Alessandro de Montes in fact presented three images captioned quote there are at least five different depictions of the Sun depending on the

period in place the most known sigil of shamash is this at the Louvre museum in Paris in quote Heiser's reaction to the response is a showcase in how academia uses ridicule in place of retort when contrary evidence is presented to its consensus Heiser says your mistake is to vote number one apparently not knowing what the word normal means here for example I never said that the symbol was the exclusive one used and number

two not producing a Sun sign that looks like the one I'm questioning in BA 243 oops the one on the left is closest but lacks a center circle in quote so as you can see he was required to go back and qualify the question to account for the pictures provided and made an attempt at condescension in the process second he claims that a Sun symbol was not produced but he then backtracked further qualification

as there was at least one obviously provided this is a tried true tactic of an academic and his response speaks for itself again notice the presumption that all cylinder seals have been found and translated well enough to establish a convention remember the Dead Sea Scrolls lesson number two Heiser says both the possibility of Nibiru lying beyond Pluto and the likelihood of it being the home of the Anunnaki are not found in the text but

they are found in the text it is just not verbatim nor together the montes once again provided a very cogent response quote as far as I know but I had no access to all the Sumerian material there is no text saying exactly that the Anunnaki came from Nibiru but there is reference in the Anu melis that Nibiru is a planet coming from the outer solar system in tablet one it is said that

Marduk comes from the deep and that it is an invader and in tablet six and seven it is said that Marduk is Nibiru so two plus two equals four Nibiru is a planet coming from the depths invading the solar system for more about this matter you should see my article about the animo leash as for the prominence of the Anunnaki it is said in the anomaly SH that they come from the sky

some of them came to earth and others stayed in the sky there is also reference to Nibiru as the star of onnu in quote number three finally by the third point of his argument we get to the core of why academia is just as guilty as anyone that it blames for begging the question the phrase begging the question refers to the question in a formal debate that is the issue being debated in

such a debate one side may ask the other side to concede certain points in order to speed up the proceedings to beg the question is to ask that the very point at issue be conceded which is of course illegitimate so how does this apply to the third point of Heiser's argument it goes back to the presumption that all that has been uncovered in the text represents all that will ever be uncovered more importantly he

says the text never lists more than five planets well that is where he is really begging the question because there is a huge reality left out of his observation when it comes to translating ancient Sumerian text there is a rather significant lineage of sources that builds on one another it only takes the slightest mistranslation at any particular link in the chain to deliberate into the wrong conclusion again something academia uses to debunk others but

something it rarely admits happening in its own ranks the fact of this matter is that modern scholars rarely possess the ability to translate directly from ancient Sumerian into English or any modern language by far the vast majority require lexical aids therefore the overriding assumption is that the aid is accurate such aids have been proven less than accurate over the last few decades especially but here is a practical concern that is never really addressed in the ticking

this particular translation many sources are incomplete either because a tablet was broken or the lexicon is based on a copy of a copy of a copy that is an undeniable truth one which Heiser conveniently ignores with the use of unequivocal terms such as never thus by his response to the following retort of his third point of argument against Sitchin it becomes apparent it's more about ridicule than actual debate de Montes provided the following response

to 0.3 quote if you would have read stiches books you should know that the problem with the planetary lists is that they have been translated by our a serious in the frame of mind that the ancient peoples only knew a certain number of planets so they rearranged the names of planets and gods to the planets that they thought the Sumerians would know this method resulted in two or more planets sharing the same Akkadian

or area name and being associated to the same dot a typical example is mold Babar that is attributed both to the Sun as Babar was the name for shamash and to Jupiter because Jupiter was supposed to be martyred and Marduk was supposed to be called bull Babar another example is Nibiru that the scholars explained to be a name for both mercury and Jupiter preferring not to say why it would be so in quote

and here is Heiser's responds quote this is absolutely bogus they know what the words in the text mean why do you ask because the vocabulary is known from lexical lists bilingual dictionaries created by the Mesopotamians themselves this response shows where Sitchin nights like the responder are really at the naughtiest serial serial gist out there just hadn't been enlightened by our hero if they had read his books they'd know how to translate this stuff yeah

right in quote the archive hastens to point out the fact that there is nothing of academic value in Michael Heiser's retort at this point he has been reduced to pure ridicule my only guess is that de Montes really got under his skin thus triggering a purely emotional response or he was simply having a bad day either way such a response is indicative of a so-called academic behaving the exact way which he condemns other

so-called non-academics remember hyzers statement one more time quote this trifold fourfold if you count mercury designation for Nibiru is why scholars of cuneiform astronomy have not been able to determine with certainty what exactly Nibiru is in quote yet he and academia at large continue to form arguments as if they know exactly everything about Nibiru the archive rejects that double standard it may seem that we are nitpicking hyzer but the truth is when someone creates a

website called Sitchin is wrong that person has decided to be the debunker representative on the matter de-facto unfortunately this treatment is only focused on the B route similar inconsistencies are replete in academia translations and would warrant an entire book however if the reader would like more information about such inconsistencies the archives suggests following up with the research conducted by de Montes here are the links and we've also posted those in the description as well [Music] we [Music]

See more here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsKl80XIRfE

nibiru youtube

BannerFans.com
The Nibiru Truth (1 of 2) © Exclusive 2017""[Music] the speculation of the existence of an additional planetary body in our solar system is not the fringe discussion of decades past in fact as we will see later in this treatment several contemporary mainstream academics and astronomers are busy postulating debating and searching for the existence of such a body in the heavens nonetheless mainstream academia by and l...