nothing to see here

well thats a start, thats the first time you have stated something you think. i cant understand why if you believe that you would be so awkward about the fact that i am just trying to bring to light what i believe as evidence. There are others out there that might be in posession of other possible evidence that may now be dissuaded from posting it because of your attempts to debunk what i am trying to say. As far as i am concerned you have contradicted yourself at almost every turn, but its been fun so thanks. As for dinner, I would politely decline.

If you reread, or read for the first time, my comments in this thread, and try to understand them, you will see that I did not contadict myself. You may also finally see what I was criticizing. So, your lies about me are unfounded.

p.s.

If you go through this thread, my name is "trysts". Top, left-hand corner of the comment box.

That nibiru became loose of its solar system is speculation, however it came from somewhere, if indeed it was loose, then surely its momentum would keep it drifting through space as there would be nothing to slow it down until it got close to other large bodies and their gravitational pull. The idea is that its own sun became a quazar however i dont quite understand why that would cause it to become loose. Im not quite sure how i came to be interested in these things, gradually, i suppose, from originally an interest in ancient history then an interest in secret societies thatseemed to borrow from ancient history, from there i noticed that secret societies tended to revolve around many esoteri peoples and stories fom religion i.e. Enoch, so started looking more closely at that, it was almost as if i was supposed to stumble on this information, like i was guided to it. Thanks for the question and sorry i didnt reply sooner.

Oh, well since the planets came back into the topic.  Forget the likely hood of rouge planets leaving their stars, stuff happens, i don't think niburi is the unique in that. 

however, the earth and moon being formed by a collision in the asteroid belt is just impossible. 

for starters there is an equation that shows where the planets ought to be when a solar system forms.  and earth is there.  as well as the planet that is in the asteroid belt between mars and jupiter, which should be a planet.  i don't think pluto is included, but it defies other rules of solar systems and is believed to be a rouge body picked up along the way, like niburi could have been. 

the theory i heard was the jupiter was too big, and the gravity either ripped the planet apart or didn't let it form in the first place.  this equation has also been supported by other solar systems in the universe. 

now, if the earth was formed as you described, by a collision between niburi and this exploded planet, then why would the earth be round?  how would it have heeled itself, or did the collision knock off all the outer layers and peel it like an onion so it has the nice round shape?  you can substitute earth with the moon and ask the same questions of it.  so, it would have to be that there was a spot on the onion that also happened to be round, also formed in the collision. 

why would it be impossible? all things in space eventually become round, dont they? when rain falls it doesnt fall in the tear shape people assume but as perfect spheres, i know rain doesnt fall in space but the principle is the same, i imagine it has something to do with centrifugal force but astrophysics isnt my strong point, how and why did all the other stars and planets become spheres and not for example cubes?

David Icke is an expert who supports this theory !!?

sorry my friend you ve lost the argument

P.s the moon was originally a satellite of tiamat. Mithras, David Icke just did some research, thats all the vid said.

i must admit that I only watched the 1st 10 mins

but I would not trust any research from that particular "Son of God"

I think david icke is pretty funny in a boris johnson kind of way. I think he kind of knows his stuff having read a couple of his books but theres something not quite right with the fellah. Im yet to be convinced about his shapeshifting reptilian theory although id love to see him proven right.

things in space don't become round after the fact.  as they form from spinning clouds of dust the nartural shape is to be round, or spherical.  it doesn't happen to heal damage.  that is why existing bodies have craters in them.  why asteroids that come from colisions are far from round. 

as for rain drops, they are spheres, but as they fall the friction of the air gives them little tails.  hence the tear shape.  in a vaccuum they would be spheres, though.  so, the space storms have perfetly round rain drops :)

then how did it get here?  it would be abliterated if it were hit by a planet. 

Clearly, superintelligent aliens are making all of once-cubic stars and planets into spheres so that they can play marbles with them.

I find it interesting that our Moon has been discovered to have water in recent news.  This pretty much eliminates the collision theory as the internal water in the moon would have been vaporized during the collision between the Earth and a Mars-sized object.

Also interesting is that NASA came out saying that Mars is not an Earth-like planet, but rather an embryo planet.  An embryo planet is a planet that originally formed around a larger planetary body, not the Sun.

How can you even argue with that? You don't even know what tiamat is. You're not even sure whether tiamat even ever existed. How can you say that the moon wasn't its satellite if you don't even know what it is? Huh? Huh? That would be like if I said "There's a gbiusahncio on your face," and you said "No way; it's my face and I would know what's on it." But how can you deny the existence of something you've never even heard of? For all you know, your face could be a gbiusahncio.

But these bodies recieved the craters after they became round. Sure after a collision pieces of rock would be fragmented but after a while hurtling through space would the friction not round them off somewhat? Also what happens to water, would that not apply to larger solid bodies especially if they are volcanically unstable and malleable? Does the fact that the earth having all of its land on one side and all in one piece (pangea) not support this? I can almost visualise how it would work.

The moon was not hit tiamat was, when the planet cracked splitting into two (kingu) tagged along with the half that became earth.

Unless the water was deposited there by comets and meteors.

I saw men in black too, i like the point it makes, how do we know that the entire universe as we know it is not within a petri dish in a lab which in turn sits on a planet with a solar system in a galaxy, in the universe which in turn is within a bacterium in a petri dish..........

The more that we know, the more we know nothing at all.

Indeed.