Dwarf Star

beyosoco

namloc1980 wrote: »

So these planets/stars only appear on certain days? What do they do the rest of the time?? The link you provided in the OP only has 4 images, yet you claim to have taken many images with various cameras...any chance you can provide these?

If you cannot examine the images I have posted and see what is, what chance of you doing anything but the same with any other image I post....no chance, you will have to get your camera out, and in fairness to everyone posting that is the only way anyone will ever totally internalize the reality of this situation.

namloc1980

beyosoco wrote: »

I'm shocked, wouldn't you think that those watching the sun all day with telescopes would have seen this before now? :rolleyes: Me thinks the scopes come out at night and it ain't out at night it's playing on the other side of the earth where the light is and where they are trying to hide it with chemtrails.:)

Please tell me you realise that there are such things as solar telescopes?? Or do you think telescopes are only for night time!!:pac::rolleyes: There are thousands of astronomers who only observe the sun....I'm pretty sure one of the would have seen this thing by now.

fontanalis

beyosoco wrote: »

I'm shocked, wouldn't you think that those watching the sun all day with telescopes would have seen this before now? :rolleyes: Me thinks the scopes come out at night and it ain't out at night it's playing on the other side of the earth where the light is and where they are trying to hide it with chemtrails.:)

So there are only scopes on one side of the planet? Sorry but this is the most befuddling thread I've ever seen.

namloc1980

beyosoco wrote: »

If you cannot examine the images I have posted and see what is, what chance of you doing anything but the same with any other image I post....no chance, you will have to get your camera out, and in fairness to everyone posting that is the only way anyone will ever totally internalize the reality of this situation.

So you won't post anymore of your 'evidence'??? Says it all really! :rolleyes:

beyosoco

fontanalis wrote: »

It seems your belief in this imaginary planet is based on your belief in chem trails.

Why would I have to believe in something I have photographed so many times?

beyosoco

namloc1980 wrote: »

Please tell me you realise that there are such things as solar telescopes?? Or do you think telescopes are only for night time!!:pac::rolleyes: There are thousands of astronomers who only observe the sun....I'm pretty sure one of the would have seen this thing by now.

So am I and I'm really sure you can find him, I just photograph it, how about you?

beyosoco

namloc1980 wrote: »

So you won't post anymore of your 'evidence'??? Says it all really! :rolleyes:

Yes that says it all:rolleyes:

namloc1980

beyosoco wrote: »

Yes that says it all:rolleyes:

It sure does!

RoboClam

The time, fuel, money and manpower needed to "chemtrail" the sky to obscure this star all over the world makes me wonder why they'd even bother hiding it.

It's been said already, but what about before the invention of the plane? Why was this star not seen then? What possible orbit could it have?

espinolman

RoboClam wrote: »

What possible orbit could it have?

Like a comet and your not goin to see it until it comes up into the ecliptic and then everyone is gonna know about it .

namloc1980

espinolman wrote: »

Like a comet and your not goin to see it until it comes up into the ecliptic and then everyone is gonna know about it .

That's not true. Bodies that are off the ecliptic can be seen just as easily as objects that are on the ecliptic place.

namloc1980

So let's assume this thing is an image of a planet etc. and not a lens flare or something more likely



First of all if it is a planetary body it is either very close to earth and quite small or else it's far away and absolutely enormous. Secondly it appears to have a decent amount of separation from the Sun, maybe 4 or 5 degrees. This should make it easily visible to the naked eye....which of course it's not.

Thirdly why doesn't it appear in your other images of the same scene?????



My guess is either it's a lens flare or something like that or that it was added into the image. All the evidence suggests this is not a real planet or star or whatever.

beyosoco

RoboClam wrote: »

The time, fuel, money and manpower needed to "chemtrail" the sky to obscure this star all over the world makes me wonder why they'd even bother hiding it.

It's been said already, but what about before the invention of the plane? Why was this star not seen then? What possible orbit could it have?

Dunno, I just take photographs of it

beyosoco

namloc1980 wrote: »

So let's assume this thing is an image of a planet etc. and not a lens flare or something more likely



First of all if it is a planetary body it is either very close to earth and quite small or else it's far away and absolutely enormous. Secondly it appears to have a decent amount of separation from the Sun, maybe 4 or 5 degrees. This should make it easily visible to the naked eye....which of course it's not.

Thirdly why doesn't it appear in your other images of the same scene?????



My guess is either it's a lens flare or something like that or that it was added into the image. All the evidence suggests this is not a real planet or star or whatever.

Look at the second image, it's above the sun, just above it, right there in front of you. Alright you might need a decent screen, but it's there and isn't that why I added the other two images with a little decrease in brightness and increase in contrast. Thanks for re posting the images, it's helps remind everyone what this thread is about, your a star:)

namloc1980

beyosoco wrote: »

Look at the second image, it's above the sun, just above it, right there in front of you. Alright you might need a decent screen, but it's there and isn't that why I added the other two images with a little decrease in brightness and increase in contrast. Thanks for re posting the images, it's helps remind everyone what this thread is about, your a star:)

Are you honestly trying to tell us that this thing moved a huge distance in a very short amount of time???????? :pac::pac:

If that was the case it only makes the case for this thing being easily visible even stronger. If it can move that fast it should be visible all the time moving??? :pac::pac:

beyosoco

namloc1980 wrote: »

Are you honestly trying to tell us that this thing moved a huge distance in a very short amount of time???????? :pac::pac:

If that was the case it only makes the case for this thing being easily visible even stronger. If it can move that fast it should be visible all the time moving??? :pac::pac:

At last you're getting the picture, it is easily visible, just follow the steps I outlined in 248 and you too can start posting you tube vids of Nibiru along with the hundreds of others who are taking similar photographs.:)

beyosoco

namloc1980 wrote: »

So let's assume this thing is an image of a planet etc. and not a lens flare or something more likely



First of all if it is a planetary body it is either very close to earth and quite small or else it's far away and absolutely enormous. Secondly it appears to have a decent amount of separation from the Sun, maybe 4 or 5 degrees. This should make it easily visible to the naked eye....which of course it's not.

Thirdly why doesn't it appear in your other images of the same scene?????



My guess is either it's a lens flare or something like that or that it was added into the image. All the evidence suggests this is not a real planet or star or whatever.

And one other little snippet of information for you, the lower image, where you can see the tree, where the planet is directly above the sun, well , if you look at the tree in the other image you will see that I stepped about six feet to my right to take that one and the time data on the image tells me that the top image was taken 62 seconds after the first (lower image). That thing is moving pretty fast, might be the reason for the red flares coming from it don't you think.

Kepti

namloc1980 wrote: »

My guess is either it's a lens flare or something like that or that it was added into the image. All the evidence suggests this is not a real planet or star or whatever.

I had a look at the image in Photoshop and in fairness to beyosoco it doesn't show any signs of being doctored. I'm no Photoshop pro, but he'd have to be pretty good to not leave any signs that he tampered with the image. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Emkay

The Bored One wrote: »

Do you know anyone who has photographed this whose tried viewing it by any means other than Mark 1 Eyeball or a camera though?
Given how it appears in the photographs it could very easily just be diffusion.

Known to me personally? No, but the following information is in the public domain.

Robert S Harrington viewed planet X from New Zealand in the early 90's. Harrington was Supervising Astronomer for the US Naval Observatory. He informed NASA what he had found, but died suddenly, apparently of a previously undiagnosed cancer, before he could return home and publicise his discovery that Planet X was indeed inbound into our solar system! He had been looking for Planet X for some dozen years.

It is relevant to the subject of Planet X that NASA falsely stated in their obituary that Harrington had late in his career become "skeptical" about Planet X. Harrington's colleague in the search for Planet X, retracted any statements he himself had previously made, and was henceforward silent on the subject.

Harrington was interviewed in conversation with Sitchin in 1990. They were in total agreement as to where Planet X would be found, and had each, without any collaboration with the other, drawn its elliptical orbit. Sitchin, of course, knew a great deal about the tenth planet, or Planet X, through his scholarly work deciphering the ancient Sumerian tablets.

Before Harrington actually found the precise location of Planet X, a report was published in the Washington Post on Fri Dec 30 1983, that "A heavenly body, possibly as large as the giant planet Jupiter and possibly so close to Earth that it could be part of this solar system, has been found in the direction of the constellation Orion by an orbiting telescope aboard the US Infrared Astronomical Satellite. "

So Planet X was viewed by IRAS a decade or more before its precise location was confirmed by Harrington, who, conveniently for NASA, then died.

namloc1980

beyosoco wrote: »

And one other little snippet of information for you, the lower image, where you can see the tree, where the planet is directly above the sun, well , if you look at the tree in the other image you will see that I stepped about six feet to my right to take that one and the time data on the image tells me that the top image was taken 62 seconds after the first (lower image). That thing is moving pretty fast, might be the reason for the red flares coming from it don't you think.

Red flares???? Your interpretation of those images as a planet/star or something is so full of conjecture and false logic. Your interpretation neglects the rest of the people on the planet who have eyes and can see these things, if they existed. It totally ignores the fact that no amateur astronomer has reported seeing such a thing. And let's face it if it were as big as you suggest the entire planet should be able to see it. Conclusion. Camera anomaly

robtri

Emkay wrote: »

Known to me personally? No, but the following information is in the public domain.

Robert S Harrington viewed planet X from New Zealand in the early 90's. Harrington was Supervising Astronomer for the US Naval Observatory. He informed NASA what he had found, but died suddenly, apparently of a previously undiagnosed cancer, before he could return home and publicise his discovery that Planet X was indeed inbound into our solar system! He had been looking for Planet X for some dozen years.

It is relevant to the subject of Planet X that NASA falsely stated in their obituary that Harrington had late in his career become "skeptical" about Planet X. Harrington's colleague in the search for Planet X, retracted any statements he himself had previously made, and was henceforward silent on the subject.

Harrington was interviewed in conversation with Sitchin in 1990. They were in total agreement as to where Planet X would be found, and had each, without any collaboration with the other, drawn its elliptical orbit. Sitchin, of course, knew a great deal about the tenth planet, or Planet X, through his scholarly work deciphering the ancient Sumerian tablets.

Before Harrington actually found the precise location of Planet X, a report was published in the Washington Post on Fri Dec 30 1983, that "A heavenly body, possibly as large as the giant planet Jupiter and possibly so close to Earth that it could be part of this solar system, has been found in the direction of the constellation Orion by an orbiting telescope aboard the US Infrared Astronomical Satellite. "

So Planet X was viewed by IRAS a decade or more before its precise location was confirmed by Harrington, who, conveniently for NASA, then died.

when they talked about planet x.... where they not speculating about the tenth planet of the solar system???
Nasa already confirmed its exsistence and dont hide it...
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/29jul_planetx.htm

Emkay

robtri wrote: »

when they talked about planet x.... where they not speculating about the tenth planet of the solar system???
Nasa already confirmed its exsistence and dont hide it...
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/29jul_planetx.htm

NASA stands for Never A Straight Answer.

The IRAS telescope first sighted Planet X before they publicly announced it in 1983. X =ten, i.e the tenth planet, known about and described by the Sumerians long, long ago. Perhaps the IRAS sighting was what prompted Ronnie Reagan to cosily tell us all that if we faced a threat from outside our world, we could all get along just fine!

At any rate, the link you have posted does not seem to be describing the tenth planet discovered some 3 decades ago, but a much more recent 'discovery', if that indeed is what it is.

Incidentally, chemtrail planes regularly draw an X in the sky. Check it out, please, on you tube, where you will find dozens and hundreds and even thousands of X's in chemtrail videos from all round the world.

beyosoco

namloc1980 wrote: »

Red flares???? Your interpretation of those images as a planet/star or something is so full of conjecture and false logic. Your interpretation neglects the rest of the people on the planet who have eyes and can see these things, if they existed. It totally ignores the fact that no amateur astronomer has reported seeing such a thing. And let's face it if it were as big as you suggest the entire planet should be able to see it. Conclusion. Camera anomaly

And my interpretation is that you find it very difficult to trust what your brain says that your own eyes are seeing. Conclusion: Should have gone to specsavers.

ps: Over to you, no doubt you'll want the last word.

robtri

Emkay wrote: »

NASA stands for Never A Straight Answer.

The IRAS telescope first sighted Planet X before they publicly announced it in 1983. X =ten, i.e the tenth planet, known about and described by the Sumerians long, long ago. Perhaps the IRAS sighting was what prompted Ronnie Reagan to cosily tell us all that if we faced a threat from outside our world, we could all get along just fine!

At any rate, the link you have posted does not seem to be describing the tenth planet discovered some 3 decades ago, but a much more recent 'discovery', if that indeed is what it is.

Incidentally, chemtrail planes regularly draw an X in the sky. Check it out, please, on you tube, where you will find dozens and hundreds and even thousands of X's in chemtrail videos from all round the world.

it describes the tenth planet in our solar system next after pluto....

believe it or not normal plaens travel across each others parts as they go from sirport to airport.. nad their contrails will produce an x.....
nothing weird or exciting about that.... they follow flight paths.. just like cars follow roads... and many roads make x's

namloc1980

beyosoco wrote: »

And my interpretation is that you find it very difficult to trust what your brain says that your own eyes are seeing. Conclusion: Should have gone to specsavers.

ps: Over to you, no doubt you'll want the last word.

Maybe you should open your eyes and your mind. You are excluding all other possible explanations because you are determined to believe that this is a planet/star no matter what. You can't explain why other people can't see this (especially if it is so big), why astronomers have missed this apparently massive object or how it manages to move so fast? Your interpretation fails on so many levels I'm afraid. And to top it off you refuse to post the rest of your alleged 'images' of this object. :pac:

Kepti

Emkay wrote: »

NASA stands for Never A Straight Answer.

The IRAS telescope first sighted Planet X before they publicly announced it in 1983. X =ten, i.e the tenth planet, known about and described by the Sumerians long, long ago. Perhaps the IRAS sighting was what prompted Ronnie Reagan to cosily tell us all that if we faced a threat from outside our world, we could all get along just fine!

At any rate, the link you have posted does not seem to be describing the tenth planet discovered some 3 decades ago, but a much more recent 'discovery', if that indeed is what it is.

Incidentally, chemtrail planes regularly draw an X in the sky. Check it out, please, on you tube, where you will find dozens and hundreds and even thousands of X's in chemtrail videos from all round the world.

NASA stands for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. You seem to be misinformed sir.

Could you show us some of these esoteric Sumerian texts which describe Planet X? I've asked a few different people now for these. They seem reluctant to post them for some reason.

Kepti

robtri wrote: »

it describes the tenth planet in our solar system next after pluto....

believe it or not normal plaens travel across each others parts as they go from sirport to airport.. nad their contrails will produce an x.....
nothing weird or exciting about that.... they follow flight paths.. just like cars follow roads... and many roads make x's

I like to call them sky-kisses.

beyosoco

namloc1980 wrote: »

Maybe you should open your eyes and your mind. You are excluding all other possible explanations because you are determined to believe that this is a planet/star no matter what. You can't explain why other people can't see this (especially if it is so big), why astronomers have missed this apparently massive object or how it manages to move so fast? Your interpretation fails on so many levels I'm afraid. And to top it off you refuse to post the rest of your alleged 'images' of this object. :pac:

I knew you'd manage the last word, well done, and in spite of others saying the photographs are not doctored in any way whatsoever you still won't see what is. You win, I give up, I throw the towel in and give way to a superior intellect who can not only tell me what I am not seeing but at the same time not see what he is seeing.

Captain Chaos

The thing is supposedly in a steady x thousands of years elipitical orbit acording to you and it can move that fast across the sky in that time of a few seconds, and that its moving randomly all the time yet still in a massively elongated orbit. The laws of physics do not allow for that in nature unless it's a giant spaceship from the future or something daft like that. A thing that size moving that fast would cause chaos on almost all the planets in the solar system and even the sun's orbit, if it really is a dwarf star because of the mass they do have.

Come on, try and be realistic here.

Kepti

beyosoco wrote: »

I knew you'd manage the last word, well done, and in spite of others saying the photographs are not doctored in any way whatsoever you still won't see what is. You win, I give up, I throw the towel in and give way to a superior intellect who can not only tell me what I am not seeing but at the same time not see what he is seeing.

I said that in my opinion the images weren't doctored. It's dishonest of you to use that to try to prop up your argument while ignoring every other alternative explanation.

robtri

namloc1980 wrote: »

Maybe you should open your eyes and your mind. You are excluding all other possible explanations because you are determined to believe that this is a planet/star no matter what. You can't explain why other people can't see this (especially if it is so big), why astronomers have missed this apparently massive object or how it manages to move so fast? Your interpretation fails on so many levels I'm afraid. And to top it off you refuse to post the rest of your alleged 'images' of this object. :pac:

not that i support this, but we missed the tenth planet for many many a years despite many people looking into the sky...
but thats because space is so vast and out vision is so limited...

but in defence of not supporting this, if its a star, burning bright... in our solar system, there is no way we could miss it no matter how fast it moves... and no chemtrailing would cover it up....

namloc1980

Emkay wrote: »

The IRAS telescope first sighted Planet X before they publicly announced it in 1983. X =ten, i.e the tenth planet, known about and described by the Sumerians long, long ago. Perhaps the IRAS sighting was what prompted Ronnie Reagan to cosily tell us all that if we faced a threat from outside our world, we could all get along just fine!

Of course never let the truth get in the way of a good CT. The reality is that the IRAS was the first space based infrared observatory and like anything new it returned interesting data, not least some new previously unknown infrared sources. When the IRAS team announced their findings they said they didn't know what the infrared sources were without further study, but they could be anything from a planet in the outer solar system to a distant galaxy. Of course the CTers and the press picked up on the planet part and ignored the rest of the findings. No surprise there! :rolleyes:

Emkay

Kepti wrote: »

I like to call them sky-kisses.

I find that truly bizarre. Jesus -please find out about chemtrails and what these persistent contrails - if you prefer to call them that - contain. www.carnicom.com is a good place to start. Kiss of death they might be, but certainly they are not rooted in affection.

namloc1980

beyosoco wrote: »

I knew you'd manage the last word, well done, and in spite of others saying the photographs are not doctored in any way whatsoever you still won't see what is. You win, I give up, I throw the towel in and give way to a superior intellect who can not only tell me what I am not seeing but at the same time not see what he is seeing.

LOL you can't even answer simple questions! :pac: The images may not be doctored but that doesn't mean they show what you think it is. Seriously if you just think about it: no one else can see it/astronomers can't see it/it travels at incredible speed? Come on, be realistic.

beyosoco

Kepti wrote: »

I said that in my opinion the images weren't doctored. It's dishonest of you to use that to try to prop up your argument while ignoring every other alternative explanation.

Nothing has been ignored, sorry if I have embarrassed you by referencing you, thought that was legal on these forums, no propping up necessary thanks.

beyosoco

namloc1980 wrote: »

LOL you can't even answer simple questions! :pac: The images may not be doctored but that doesn't mean they show what you think it is. Seriously if you just think about it: no one else can see it/astronomers can't see it/it travels at incredible speed? Come on, be realistic.

You win, I give up, I throw the towel in (second time), I can't answer a simple question. You are completely right and I totally agree with everything you say. Is that good enough for you? Sorry forgot to say that I am also totally unrealistic. Hmmmmmm:D
,

Emkay

namloc1980 wrote: »

Of course never let the truth get in the way of a good CT. The reality is that the IRAS was the first space based infrared observatory and like anything new it returned interesting data, not least some new previously unknown infrared sources. When the IRAS team announced their findings they said they didn't know what the infrared sources were without further study, but they could be anything from a planet in the outer solar system to a distant galaxy. Of course the CTers and the press picked up on the planet part and ignored the rest of the findings. No surprise there! :rolleyes:

You are choosing to ignore a good part of what I posted.

Robert Harrington devoted more than a decade to finding the exact location and having found the planet, Planet X, he met an untimely end. He was not a backyard astronomer, nor was he promoting any theory, conspiracy or otherwise.

The conspiracy behind this thread is surely that the truth of this planet's existence, and more importantly its path in our solar system, has been hidden from us, by and large, for nearly three decades now, while those in power have been steadily building their underground hidyholes and setting up seed banks, deep, deep underground. Do you really think Bill Gates likes gardening? He has another agenda entirely, as do all his ilk.

Emkay

robtri wrote: »

it describes the tenth planet in our solar system next after pluto....

believe it or not normal plaens travel across each others parts as they go from sirport to airport.. nad their contrails will produce an x.....
nothing weird or exciting about that.... they follow flight paths.. just like cars follow roads... and many roads make x's

Of course regular aircraft follow flightpaths. But their contrails do not persist for hours, do not alter the sky, do not spread and morph into false cloud-type formations, do not obscure the sun. Contrails dissipate quite quickly whatever the atmospheric conditions.

Contrails do not persist; chemtrails do. And chemplanes regularly draw X's in the sky over Ireland. Look at youtube.

Please visit www.carnicom.com, or www.bariumblues.com

Kepti

Emkay wrote: »

I find that truly bizarre. Jesus -please find out about chemtrails and what these persistent contrails - if you prefer to call them that - contain. www.carnicom.com is a good place to start. Kiss of death they might be, but certainly they are not rooted in affection.

Why would they be watching us if not to protect us?

beyosoco wrote: »

Nothing has been ignored, sorry if I have embarrassed you by referencing you, thought that was legal on these forums, no propping up necessary thanks.

You didn't embarrass me. Of course you're allowed to quote me, that's not what I take issue with.

Again, just because the image shows no sign of being doctored doesn't mean that you can rule out every other reasonable explanation. Eliminating one possible explanation does not automatically make yours right.

espinolman

namloc1980 wrote: »

That's not true. Bodies that are off the ecliptic can be seen just as easily as objects that are on the ecliptic place.

They only see what they are looking for ,most people have never heard of planet x .

namloc1980

Emkay wrote: »

You are choosing to ignore a good part of what I posted.

Robert Harrington devoted more than a decade to finding the exact location and having found the planet, Planet X, he met an untimely end. He was not a backyard astronomer, nor was he promoting any theory, conspiracy or otherwise.

The conspiracy behind this thread is surely that the truth of this planet's existence, and more importantly its path in our solar system, has been hidden from us, by and large, for nearly three decades now, while those in power have been steadily building their underground hidyholes and setting up seed banks, deep, deep underground. Do you really think Bill Gates likes gardening? He has another agenda entirely, as do all his ilk.

Really??? Can you point us to a source where Mr. Harrington actually discovered this so called Planet X please?

The rest of your post is full of conjecture and paranoia.

Emkay

Kepti wrote: »

NASA stands for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. You seem to be misinformed sir.

Could you show us some of these esoteric Sumerian texts which describe Planet X? I've asked a few different people now for these. They seem reluctant to post them for some reason.

Be a bit difficult to post Sumerian texts for they are 'written in stone' as it were!

They are very ancient clay tablets inscribed with an ancient language and pictures in relief. Many are held in the vaults of the British Museum, and more in Iraq and Iran too, I believe.

If you want to know more about the Sumerians, read Z. Sitchin's many works, or google Sumer, Sumeria, Sumerian etc. There is a website where you can read the texts in translation, of course. Or you could trawl through youtube's many videos on the subject - there are some good ones among the dross.

Only a handful of scholars around the world are proficient in the language and can decipher the writings. It is said there are still many hundreds of tablets awaiting translation.

Emkay

namloc1980 wrote: »

Really??? Can you point us to a source where Mr. Harrington actually discovered this so called Planet X please?

The rest of your post is full of conjecture and paranoia.

Namecalling Namloc.

Unnecessary and surely against the rules for you to be so derogatory.

It is pointless trying to converse with you.

beyosoco

Kepti wrote: »

Why would they be watching us if not to protect us?



You didn't embarrass me. Of course you're allowed to quote me, that's not what I take issue with.

Again, just because the image shows no sign of being doctored doesn't mean that you can rule out every other reasonable explanation. Eliminating one possible explanation does not automatically make yours right.

And the reasonable explanations for the series of images of what appear to be planets in our inner solar system are?

namloc1980

Emkay wrote: »

Namecalling Namloc.

Unnecessary and surely against the rules for you to be so derogatory.

It is pointless trying to converse with you.

No namecalling. Maybe you didn't read the post? And can't answer a question? Oh well :rolleyes:

Truthrevolution

Emkay wrote: »

Be a bit difficult to post Sumerian texts for they are 'written in stone' as it were!

They are very ancient clay tablets inscribed with an ancient language and pictures in relief. Many are held in the vaults of the British Museum, and more in Iraq and Iran too, I believe.

If you want to know more about the Sumerians, read Z. Sitchin's many works, or google Sumer, Sumeria, Sumerian etc. There is a website where you can read the texts in translation, of course. Or you could trawl through youtube's many videos on the subject - there are some good ones among the dross.

Only a handful of scholars around the world are proficient in the language and can decipher the writings. It is said there are still many hundreds of tablets awaiting translation.

Just out of interest, would you be able to give us a brief description of what some of these Sumerian texts are actually saying, if its no trouble of course......

namloc1980

beyosoco wrote: »

And the reasonable explanations for the series of images of what appear to be planets in our inner solar system are?

It fails on the basis that the entire planet Earth has somehow missed this planet (which would be enormous based on your image)! You still can't explain why 6 billion people have failed to see this?

fontanalis

beyosoco wrote: »

And the reasonable explanations for the series of images of what appear to be planets in our inner solar system are?

So there's more than one, so planet or star?

beyosoco

namloc1980 wrote: »

It fails on the basis that the entire planet Earth has somehow missed this planet (which would be enormous based on your image)! You still can't explain why 6 billion people have failed to see this?

You win, I give up (third time), I find it totally impossible to deal with your logic and reasoning.

namloc1980

beyosoco wrote: »

You win, I give up (third time), I find it totally impossible to deal with your logic and reasoning.

That was easy :pac::pac: