Which Sitchin book is a good Representative

of his work in general?

Which book details his method the best, and are they the same book?

I am considering picking up one of his books, I've gotten curious as to precisely how he goes about doing his work, plus it seems like, if nothing else, it should be entertaining.

Anyone familiar with sitchin have any recommendations? Thoughts? Comments? Cautions?

I'd start with Divine Encounters. It sums up a lot of what his theories are.

Definatley a good place to start.

Thanks for the suggestion. Anyone else have any recommendations? I'm trying to get a wide range of opinions on this.

Does Divine Encounters go into the methodology? I am thinking in particular about the akkadian tablet translations. Does sitchin read cunieform? Or is he working directly off translations?

I believe that he actually reads it. As a note opf caution, there is a gentleman named Michael S. Heiser www.michaelsheiser.com... that states his interpretation is wrong. It's worth reading what he has to say so you can have a balanced viewpoint.

I personally enjoy his writings and they hold a ring of truth to me.

If you want a basic overview of him try this link.

www.halexandria.org...

Continue to search for truth and deny ignorance.

To put my opinion in perspective, it's been about 8 years since I've picked any of them up... But at that time I really like the one "the twelfth planet"

I felt it gave a good general idea of what he was going to talk about in the other books- sort of like a foundation on which he lies his other ideas.

I think it is a good place to start because he really does write in series form- I felt you almost needed the earlier books sometimes to understand the depth of what he was getting at- they are also good to look back through again as you are reading later books to get more out of them.

I greatly enjoyed him- good choice!

I found this website which talks a slight bit about a couple of his books and gives a little background for you as well as links to more about a couple topics. I know he read sumerian so akkadian wouldn't surprise me in the least.
www.crystalinks.com...

Originally posted by Nygdan
Thanks for the suggestion. Anyone else have any recommendations? I'm trying to get a wide range of opinions on this.

Does Divine Encounters go into the methodology? I am thinking in particular about the akkadian tablet translations. Does sitchin read cunieform? Or is he working directly off translations?

Nygdan, I have read only two of Sitchin's books, 12th Planet and (at the request of a friend) Genesis Revisited.

12th Planet was brilliantly debunked by Rob Hafernik (www.geocities.com...).

A blurb about Sitchin says that:

"Zecharia Sitchin was born in Russia and raised in Palestine, where he acquired a profound knowledge of modern and ancient Hebrew, other Semitic and European languages, the Old Testament, and the history and archeology of the Near East. He is one of the few scholars who is able to read and understand Sumerian. Sitchin attended and graduated from the University of London, majoring in economic history. A leading journalist and editor in Israel for many years, he now lives and writes in New York. His books have been widely translated, converted to Braille for the blind, and featured on radio and television."

Sitchin is not a scholar; he never studied Sumerian in a university. His undergraduate degree is in economic history and he has, as near as I can tell, no academic credentials whatsoever. His knowledge appears to be all self-taught; while this is not automatically a bad thing, it certainly doesn't make him a "scholar".

Nor is he one of the "few who is able to read and understand Sumerian"; there are many real scholars out there who teach in Universities, prepare submissions for scholarly journals, develop detailed Sumerian and Akkadian dictionaries and grammars, etc. Most if not all of them consider Sitchin to be a fraud. These include people like Ortiz de Montellano, Jagersma and de Maaijer, Heise, etc.

Another self-description of Sitchin, copied by van de Bogart (www.earthportals.com...), says:

"These astounding statements are made possible by the Sumerian cuneiform deciphering skills of Zecharia Sitchin, a linguist in command of many ancient languages who has set the scientific world on its ear with his astounding interpretations of ancient writings."

Sitchin is not a linguist but a hobbyist, and the only scientific people who are "on their ear" are those who have fallen over laughing at him.

I think the best desctiption of Sitchin, with which I concur heartily, comes from Hafernik:

"Clearly, Sitchin is a smart man. He weaves a complicated tale from the bits and pieces of evidence that survive from ancient Sumeria to the present day. Just as clearly, Sitchin is capable of academic transgressions (fracturing quotes, ignoring dissenting facts), theft of intellectual property (those tables he copied) and flights of intellectual fancy (the whole book, really). Worst of all, he is almost utterly innocent of astronomy and other assorted fields of modern science."

"He nevertheless paints a picture that is very attractive. One wants to believe it, for it explains so many things. Intellectual honesty, however, prevents anyone with common sense, access to archeological and astronomical data and the ability to read from taking his book seriously. In the end, he's just another nut making a living selling books that treat folks to a tale they want to believe in."

quote]Sitchin is not a linguist but a hobbyist,

See, it seems like it keeps getting misrepresented, becuase people keep saying he can read cuneiform, but he has no formal training in it, and the majority of cuneiform scholars disagree with his readings. I get the feeling that he's something like what used to be called a 'diletante' or something like that. Anyway, I am going into this expecting to be more entertained than anything else.

Often, I'll read something from Fortean Times, even tho I disagree with what might be presented entirely, just because its so damned entertaining.

Sort of like reading a comic book at times in all honesty.

Plus, sitchin comes up so much, especially in this forum, that I think I'd be doing myself an injustice in not reading it. Thanks for the heads up tho, I have a feeling I'll be visiting some of those sites.

edit:
However I expect it to not be a complete waste of time, like most of what comes out of crystal links (no offense intended to the poster who noted them)


[edit on 19-10-2004 by Nygdan]

Oh, do read Sitchin, if only for the hilarity aspect. I love the way he sets up an assumption and then goes on to treat it as fact.

And yes, that's correct -- he's a dilletante, but the problem is that he's a dilletante with a vison and an agenda. Well, that, and he's a lousy researcher and a poor scholar and a very inept historian (Gee, Byrd... biased against him after having debunked his nonsense frequently over the past 5 years? Why, whatever gave you THAT idea?)

Gee, byrd, why don't you get off the fence and tell us what you really feel about old Zecheriah Stich 'em?

Nygden, Sitchin is harmless, as long as you don't take him too seriously. when it comes to reading stuff like that, I put him right above people like Nancy Lieder, along with Erich von Daniken and Immanuel Velikovsky.

But yes, he's kind of fun.

reply to post by Off_The_Street


"Sitchin is not a scholar; he never studied Sumerian in a university. His undergraduate degree is in economic history and he has, as near as I can tell, no academic credentials whatsoever. His knowledge appears to be all self-taught; while this is not automatically a bad thing, it certainly doesn't make him a "scholar". "

why not?

schol·ar (sklr)

1.
a. A learned person.
b. A specialist in a given branch of knowledge: a classical scholar.
2. One who attends school or studies with a teacher; a student.
3. A student who holds or has held a particular scholarship.

a learned person, a specialist in a branch of knowledge... Interesting to notice that the meaning n° 1 doean't imply attending a university nor having a paper stating you are a scholar...

"Sitchin is not a linguist but a hobbyist, and the only scientific people who are "on their ear" are those who have fallen over laughing at him.
"

lin·guist (lnggwst)
n.
1. A person who speaks several languages fluently.
2. A specialist in linguistics.

again, nothing implies schools or whatever...


"he is almost utterly innocent of astronomy"

well this is strange uh?
In 76 Sitchin wrote: "I think that when we will be able to see Neptune and Uranus we will learn that their color is green/bue, they will appear very similar in matter of size, conditions, atmosphere and such..."

You know what? That's what we discoveren in the 80's when Voyager 2 came close to the planets...

then....
regarding Nibiru's orbit...


Some say that a planet with a so eccentric and inclined orbit would be scattered away from the solar system... if this could be accepted about 10 years ago, we have at leats 2 cases, so far, that prove this is not true.
They are Sedna (orbtal period of about 11500/12000 years, inclination of 11°) and 2000 Cr105 (orbital priod of about 3100/3600 years and inclination of 22°).

Originally posted by Nygdan
of his work in general?

Which book details his method the best, and are they the same book?

I am considering picking up one of his books, I've gotten curious as to precisely how he goes about doing his work, plus it seems like, if nothing else, it should be entertaining.

Anyone familiar with sitchin have any recommendations? Thoughts? Comments? Cautions?

I suggenst you to read The twelfth planet, genesis revisited, and the lost reals.
These are the 3 most rappresentative, on my opinion.
The first because he introduces the theory and gives the basics....
the second because he offers many indications of scientifical implications and discoveries, on which you can do your researches...
the third is the one that tracks the origin of mesoamerican culture and states it derives from mesopotamic/african population.

Ad by the way this 3rd point has been proven right by some specialists in matter of genetics, linguistic, and archeology.
One name for all: Clyde Winters

then you can do your own conclusions

reply to post by Nygdan


I read his early books on the subject. "The Twelfth Planet" is a good start. Try to find the older ones at the library, as they have not been updated. It is interesting to see how he thought back in the 1970s.

Howdy N

Well.... just a short note

"he is almost utterly innocent of astronomy"

Yes he is rather ignorant but he does seem to be able to read.

well this is strange uh?
In 76 Sitchin wrote: "I think that when we will be able to see Neptune and Uranus we will learn that their color is green/bue, they will appear very similar in matter of size, conditions, atmosphere and such..."

You know what? That's what we discoveren in the 80's when Voyager 2 came close to the planets...

Any small telescope will resolve Nepture as a bluish dot. This has been known since the mid 19th century.

The kind folks at BA provided a later but still servicable cite, from 1928

articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...

So I think you can take that one off the rather short "Sitchin's great discoveries list" LOL

The original question was asked 5 years ago. Check posting dates.

Tragic when there are so many interesting informative books on Sumerian writing and ancient history by people who study and research their subjects, that one would even look at a Sitchin book.

A fraudulent clown making a buck off of fairy tales for the gullible. Just throw in some science fictional elements about alien gods, make up wild translations on the fly, and you're a bestseller.

Bad science fiction masquerading as fact. Not even good reading for 12 year olds.


Mike

My advice would be to compare his translations to translations by academics and also to check out the following sites :

Annunaki and the myth of the 12th planet

Debunking some of Sitchin's work

If you read around a bit, it becomes obvious Sitchin took alot of liberties with the texts, twisting some stuff around to fit in with his theory, making other stuff up, exaggerating and so forth.

I believe the Annunaki gods were real and responsible for creating modern man, but I do not believe everything Sitchin has to say about it so approach his work with caution

Originally posted by cosmicpixie
I believe the Annunaki gods were real and responsible for creating modern man, but I do not believe everything Sitchin has to say about it so approach his work with caution

My question would be exactly why do you believe this at all?

What Sitchin (and your link) claim about Sumer is demonstrably false.

There is no evidence and no reason at all to believe in any of this drivel.

So why do you?

Harte