Sitchin's theories phony?

I have read Sitchins books and find them INCREDIBLY convincing. They are basically a translation of the ancient texts yet I have heard people say that Sitchin is wrong with no evidence to support this!

Can someone please tell me if Sitchin is right or wrong?

[Edited on 29-2-2004 by Seekerof]

In my opinion it is very probable that he is wrong. There is no other 'evidence' for his theories than his own translations of mythical texts, translations that are nothing like the ones scholars make. The Planet X / Niburu thing has been debunked too much, just go to BadAstronomy and read the convincing argument against their claims. It is almost impossible to be 100% sure that there was no Niburu, but in this case the burden of proof is on Sitchin. Good luck to anyone trying to prove this theory!

planet X is real but it has no effect on us.....its a big black marble sphere near pluto

Originally posted by amantine
In my opinion it is very probable that he is wrong. There is no other 'evidence' for his theories than his own translations of mythical texts, translations that are nothing like the ones scholars make. The Planet X / Niburu thing has been debunked too much, just go to BadAstronomy and read the convincing argument against their claims. It is almost impossible to be 100% sure that there was no Niburu, but in this case the burden of proof is on Sitchin. Good luck to anyone trying to prove this theory!

Yes and then search for PlanetX and look for a topic debunking the Badastronomy site. Yes exactly, I started it because that site is about nothing, only when refering to it as being a real planet, while PlanetX could be also a spacecraft. The only reason www.badastronomy.com is still there is because Byrd as scientist didn't like the idea that it could be true. That however has nothing to do with debunking, just with not accepting something which could be true.

The site which debunkes the sites which try to debunk planetX

The only reason ATS is still refering to sites which make it look like PlanetX is debunked, is because a person didn't accept the idea that it also could be a spacecraft.

Even if Planet X is really a spaceship, the theory still has the same problems. The translations are wrong in key segments:
an article by Michael Heiser. I have found another very large article explaining other mistakes in the theory: an article by Rob Hafernik. Explain to me how your spaceship theory solves these problems.

[Edited on 29-2-2004 by amantine]

Yes, his theories are phony and easily debunked.
Even the Enterprise Mission (www.enterprisemission.com...) has now announced their skepticism about him.

He's made up his credentials, and as for his being one of the few who can read Sumerian -- it's amazing how someone with this claimed expertise has *never* been asked to show up at universities and be a guest lecturer... unlike (say) Wafler, Cohen ,
Hallo (note that this one is doing a lecture on the flying angels ), etc, etc.

It's very telling that although he proclaims himself an expert Biblical and Orientalist scholar -- that NO journal has ever published him (you can confirm this by searching on the science site, "www.scirus.com -- though Velikovsky and some of the other fringe folk appear in journals.

He never appears at universities to lecture on the Bible though he proclaims himself an expert. He never appears to lecture on Sumerian, though there's a demand for these scholars.

I'm not sure if the real term is "fraud" or "self-deluded," but when even the UFO community starts snickering at him, you can bet that his information has been found lacking by a LOT of people who looked into it.

[Edited on 1-3-2004 by Byrd]

Originally posted by Faceless
I have read Sitchins books and find them INCREDIBLY convincing. They are basically a translation of the ancient texts yet I have heard people say that Sitchin is wrong with no evidence to support this!

Can someone please tell me if Sitchin is right or wrong?

How about Both !?

as for Empirical Science, his grand story is a dud,

as for pseudo-scientific conjecture, speculation, A-OK

as for weaving a good yarn, & making your mind think & imagine, he's Top Notch

my opine, its not a waste of time to follow the trails & paths his writings wander thru...[IMHO]

I'm not sure if the real term is "fraud" or "self-deluded," but when even the UFO community starts snickering at him, you can bet that his information has been found lacking by a LOT of people who looked into it.

Hehe....that IS pretty funny...

Interesting stuff, but no, I don't think it adds up...

On the other hand, regardless of sitchins lack of credentials, something to keep in mind is that in terms of archeoligical (did I spell that right? heheh) we have covered probably like what .0000000001 of the possible areas where some sort of ancient advanced civilization could have existed. Just because we havent found it yet doesnt mean its not there.

it is good reading. i try to keep an open mind and accept all possibilities as possibilities.

[Edited on 4-3-2004 by panchovilla]

[Edited on 4-3-2004 by panchovilla]

Have a couple of his books... Genesis Revisited and Cosmic Code. I do find them interesting reads, and well worth going through; there is some information in his books that are worth looking for.

Sure, there's probably some errors or falacies in his accounts; that's usually the case when dealing with subject matter along these lines. There will always be truths mixed in with 'could bes'. This is no different than, say, an ATS posting on reptilian aliens sending a doomsday comet towards earth because the NWO ordered them to.

If anything, Stichlin is much better prepared than Erik Von Dikasomething... the Chariots of the Gods author; Stichlin gives credit where credit is do, and breaksdown/explains his findings. The thing that Richard Hoagland (Monuments of Mars disagreed with was the Nibiru scenerio, one that is rather hard to swallow... an advanced civilization could not develop on a planet that is at absolute zero for the marjority of its orbit. Nibiru, to Hoagland, means something along the lines of 'a great journey'.

About him never being asked to give lectures... do you honestly think an accredited university would allow a speaker with his area of expertise press time? He goes against conventinal archeology, goes against traditional human development... it also probably doesn't help that his books are looked in the New Age section in bookstores.

Is all of his workings right? No, there were a few things I found which didn't seem right; but there was a great deal more that did, at least, feel right.

I am rather suprized over all this, however. ATS has how many sites dedicated to aliens, alien hybrids, alien DNA in humans... everything Stichlin writes about. Is that to say that ATS has, dare I say it, hypercrits?

Originally posted by spangbr
On the other hand, regardless of sitchins lack of credentials, something to keep in mind is that in terms of archeoligical (did I spell that right? heheh) we have covered probably like what .0000000001 of the possible areas where some sort of ancient advanced civilization could have existed. Just because we havent found it yet doesnt mean its not there.

.0000000001 = 1*10^-8 %

Let's take a look at that:
30% of the earth is land. source
Even if only 0.01% of this is an urban area, where we certainly would have found an ancient civilization, we know for sure:

0,3*0,0001=0,00003=0,003% of the earth surface does not contain an ancient civilization.

If we count all the areas which have more than 5 people per square kilometer, we know 54% of the land surface (Source):
0,3*0,54=0,162=16,2% does not contain an ancient civilization.

You argument is completely flawed. Most of the oceans can be excluded, because even a million years ago these were already oceans and no civilization would live there. Furthermore, because there is no evidence for an ancient civilisation, the best conclusion we can reach now is that there was never an ancient civilization. That is not necessarely true, but it's the conclusion that follows all current evidence.

We've found the remains of primitive human societies, but we didn't find anything from an advanced civilization, although an anvanced civilization would much more and much large artifacts,

Originally posted by amantine

.30% of the earth is land.

0,3*0,0001=0,00003=0,003% of the earth surface does not contain an ancient civilization.

You argument is completely flawed. Most of the oceans can be excluded, because even a million years ago these were already oceans and no civilization would live there. Furthermore, because there is no evidence for an ancient civilisation, the best conclusion we can reach now is that there was never an ancient civilization. That is not necessarely true, but it's the conclusion that follows all current evidence.

The thing that has apparently passed by your vision, which is not entirly your fault (since you claim to be a LEARNED man), is the civilizations that were indeed found ouder the ocean's waves.

We do know that earlier in man's history the water levels wer lower than what they are today. We've found evidence of beach sand a hundred miles out into the ocean, indicating this.

We have legends and oral traditions passed down from generation to generation; for example, the native inhabitants of the Canary Islands in the Atlantic Ocean. They tell of a time when their lands were much greater than a few mountian tops; but one day, a flood came, causing them to flee, and stay, on higher ground.

Now, then, are the underwater artifacts.

Within a lake in South America... don't remember which one, ask Gazrok, he'd know... there is a City Of Gold completly submerged under the waters depths. The natives would navigate out to the site and deposite trinkets and offerings to the gods in that are.

In... what... 1968 (?), off the coast of the Bahamas, walls and road have been discovered, these roads leading for miles, and beyond, deep into the Atlantic.

Off the coast of Japan, there have been found complete ruins of pyramids and temples, all under water.

And currently, look at Venice; right here is a prime example of a city being lost to the waters. The Netherlands, too, will probably be completly underwater. When a great world wide destruction occurs, what will be left? Our skyscrapers, which would fall and crumble with time, or these underwater cities, protected from the wind? Water, we have found, is a great preserver of artifacts, because of less erosion and sediment. Venice and Netherlands will vastly out-last us.

The world is made of 70% water... since the water levels were 300 feet less than they are now... here, take an atlas, and look at the oceans. See how much land is now exposed, land that is close to islands and continents? We have numerous tales of sunken cities and sites... numerous photgraphs and reports.

So when you say "never happened because..." you are also saying you are denying the fact of possibility.

As a claimed LEARNED person, isn't this going against what you do... to try and find new things?

You present my post as being totally with nuance. It is an argument against the claim that almost the entire surface of the earth can contain the remains of a possible ancient civilization. I never said there an advanced ancient civilization did not exist. My statement is that with all the evidence now available, it is the most logical conclusion. I do not deny the possibility, but I merely objectively make a conclusion based on current evidence. I never said we shouldn't research anymore and I think you agree with me here.

I said 'most of the oceans'. Ofcourse the shorelines have changed. I think these shoorlines should be researched as well, because of the possibility of evidences of earlier civilizatoins. What I did say, is that we can discount a lot of the mostly deeper parts of the ocean that have been generally unchanged over the last 100000 years.

What you say about water preserving artifacts is very interesting and gives even more reason to research the shorelines. I'm sure that archeologists are looking into these findings now. They are however not an indication of an advanced ancient civilization.

To put it concisely, although more research should be done, the logical conclusion from current evidence is that there never was an advanced ancient civilization.

Forgive me... when I'm reading something, I tend to skip words and stuff. I re-read your post, saw my mistake in passing judgement.

Originally posted by spangbr
... in terms of archeoligical (did I spell that right? heheh) we have covered probably like what .0000000001 of the possible areas where some sort of ancient advanced civilization could have existed. Just because we havent found it yet doesnt mean its not there.

Actually, that's not true. Anthropologists currently use satellite imaging to find ancient roads and settlements. There have been a number of articles about these finds in the past 20 years.

Originally posted by soothsayer
We have legends and oral traditions passed down from generation to generation; for example, the native inhabitants of the Canary Islands in the Atlantic Ocean. They tell of a time when their lands were much greater than a few mountian tops; but one day, a flood came, causing them to flee, and stay, on higher ground.

Settlers to the Canary islands are fairly recent -- Moroccan Berbers from about 3000 BC
www.1st-4-spanish-property.com...

The island is volcanic:
volcano.und.nodak.edu...

Sea levels did change during the "Little Ice Age" which ended about 1600-1700, so there's a good chance that the legends refer to this.

Within a lake in South America... don't remember which one, ask Gazrok, he'd know... there is a City Of Gold completly submerged under the waters depths.

Don't know about cities, but it was common for Karstian sinkholes in the area and other natural wells to be used as sacrificial sites. No cities under them, though.

In... what... 1968 (?), off the coast of the Bahamas, walls and road have been discovered, these roads leading for miles, and beyond, deep into the Atlantic.

Eventually determined to be a natural structure, not artificial. There's still some debate about that, but the current evidence is that they're natural.

Off the coast of Japan, there have been found complete ruins of pyramids and temples, all under water.

One of those is natural in origin. The other one they found recently is indeed a sunken city from about 1500 AD

When a great world wide destruction occurs, what will be left?

Kinda depends on when, and what kind of event. But even a 100,000 years in the future it would be easy to see where our cities had been (by the effects on the soil) and where our roads had been (ditto). If you had good chemical analysis, you could uncover a lot of things about us.

re covering the percent of the earth being flawed. I would concur if all remants were on the surface, however as we all know things get covered over with sand, dirt, water, swamps, etc. over time such that we are not currently aware that there is something there. How many times have we all heard about where there is some digging for something like a sewer or other development that uncovers some artifacts? I suspect there are plenty of things remaining to be discovered on both land and under water. what they are i do not know. but i do know that we have not archeologically (spelling heheh) covered but more than a small percent of the earth.

And the Stichlin thread goes from Sumeria to sunken cities...

Genisis Race by Will Hart,

He talks about older civilizations that are found under the current level of lakes, In reading his thoughts make the statement of a central thought that jump across our world and began with hunters turning into farmers. He pointed out how much labor and thought had to go into getting the area to produce food which we could eat.
He also points out that the people spoke of Gods from the Heavons as teaching them how to farm, dress, and build homes.

Sitchins concept hits a nerve, either your open to his thoughts or closed.

For me our past is hiding from us and yet it is in plain sight. We see yet are blind to what happened even to Christ, how then shall we see yesterday if we have eyes that look only to those ideaologies we are comfortable with. Pushing his words aside only narrow my view of what another person see's. Some people see ghost, just as Sitchin see's a 12th planet. Time will prove both, we will build a telescope able to see if this planet is there and instruments to tell if a non-physical form is standing in the same room with us.

Time, is on our side, and examine all things.

Michael

Ps- Troy was a Myth, yet was found to be real after many laughed at those who said it was real, keep open those doors which might reveal even more truth's.

[Edited on 11-3-2004 by Ark-Angel]