Zecharia Sitchin..."he's just another one making a living selling books that treat folks to a tale

Originally posted by mmiichael on page 10:

Originally posted by CoolBlackHole

"... We have to look at an author’s main insights. And one of Sitchin’s is human genes were gravely manipulated in the past and mingled with extraterrestrial genes in a certain degree. Now, everybody looking into this and doing some research will found out there is quite a nice bit of astonishing evidence for it. ...."

"Sitchin first started writing about Sumerian translations and genetic splicing at least 35 years ago. In an era when wild claims of alien intervention were top-sellers. Time has caught up with him. Our knowledge now of these subjects is phenomenal in detail and depth. Nothing Sitchin has said even comes close to the advanced levels of understanding we have today.

If you're interested in any of the subjects above there's a wealth of fascinating literature on them. You'll realize very quickly Sitchin does a weaving of pseudo-science with science fiction that only sounds even plausible to those with no knowledge of the subjects."

Excuse me, but do you have the slightest clue of what you’re talking about?

Our knowledge is much wider than it was a hundred years ago, but that was only a "relative" increase. It is actually still pathetic regarding many important issues of genetics. For instance:

a) How did human DNA historically form/develop? Even today there are still hugest uncertainties on this subject. There are some theories, like the concepts of "evolution" or "creationism", but these remain "incomplete" theories, still leaving some big "holes" in our knowledge. Just two links, of thousands, on the subject: Evolution vs Creationism, or Evolution & Creationism.

b) Another example of our still extremely limited knowledge is the so called "junk DNA", which means that to this date we don't know what the biggest(!) part of our DNA was actually conceived for (which the term "junk DNA", or other similar terms, point at). On this topic there are gigantic 'holes' in our knowledge likewise. Today there exist only hazy clues about what that junk DNA, or parts of it, could be. Again, just an example of numerous websites/-pages on the subject. JUNK DNA:

".... It appears that the languages we were looking for, are, in fact, hidden in the 98%, "junk" DNA contained in our own genetic apparatus. The basic principle of these languages is similar to the language of holographic images based on principles of laser radiations of the genetic structures which operate together as a quasi-intelligent system, as in It particularly important to realize that our genetic devices actually perform real processes which supplement the triplet model of the genetic code." "... Still there is very little knowledge about the relationship between non-coding DNA and the DNA of genes. .... This adds to other factors making it impossible to foresee and control the effect of artificial insertion of foreign genes."

And now, interestingly, Sitchin's insights are tying in with exactly these "holes". Hence his writings are not at all "outdated", but on the contrary very present-day. Just because the said huge holes in our knowledge still do persist, Sitchinss topics are actually "very hot". Maybe too hot for some vested interests... The conspicious enmity against Sitchin should arouse suspicion about what’s really going on behind some scenes, e.g. regarding some still hidden secrets of human genetics.




[edit on 25-1-2009 by CoolBlackHole]

Originally posted by CoolBlackHole

Our knowledge is much wider than it was a hundred years ago, but that was only a "relative" increase. It is actually still pathetic regarding many important issues of genetics.

If you read what I said, I only included our knowledge of genetics as having made a quantum leap forward along with the ability to understand and translate Sumerian writing.

Our understanding of DNA is admittedly still early. But the existence of junk DNA doesn't necessarily immediately vindicate Sitchin's science fictional premises.

He throws off how human-like beings were on a planet beyond Pluto (now not considered a planet) yet provides no explanation how they were able to develop and thrive in temperatures approaching absolute zero, for example.

I can put forward beings from a warm planet in the Alpha Centauri system came to earth to have some fun and genetically spread their wealth with us based on my readings of some ancient writings.

The fact that genetics are not fully understood doesn't make my claim any more solid.

If you accept Sitchin's paperback scholarship and fantastic claims without comparing them to translations of Sumerian writings done by those who are recognized experts, it must mean you want to believe them for some emotional rather than ration reason.

I prefer scientific evidence and demonstrable understanding of one's claimed expertise to simple blind faith.


Mike F

Originally posted by Shawn B.
SaviorComplex your posts in support of the other side to Stichin's claims are crap like the others in this thread.

All the others?

Very telling.

Originally posted by Shawn B.
Nothing but "no it's not" or "he said it's not".

At brass-tacks, isn't that the entirety of posts here?

Perhaps you tell us why you have this opinion.

Originally posted by Shawn B.
No substance at all and terrible/dodging debate tactics....

Ah. You are one of those people; asking for evidence and presenting explanations counter to Sitchin (or other claimants) is somehow lacking substance or dodging. "Don't ask for evidence! Don't present counter-evidence! It is a distraction!"

Since all the posts counter to Sitchin are crap, why don't you do us a favor and just put everyone who doesn't agree with you on ignore.

[edit on 26-1-2009 by SaviorComplex]

One of the best lines ever:

A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.

Yes - science is based on KNOWN fact. Often proven wrong with new knowledge.

All anyone can do - especially in researching ancient times - is report their findings from their perspective and concepts.

Until someone invents time travel - and gets a first hand account - there are no wrongs.

In my opinion - most people who follow this kind of stuff - take it from various sources - not just Sitchen.

reply to post by OzWeatherman


its been six days and counting since this tall tale of a thread started.still a lot is trinkling.i remember when i got tangled with this new age thread 40 years ago, there was no sitchin, no danikin et al and it was just like as if all the informations we were digesting were sci-fi bits being posted on the wall. no internet, no sms, no mms . now we got our laptops and pcs and notebooks and lo!
what happened? we become so critical, so intellectual, logical (kinda remind me of supertramp) and if there is one subtle message that sitchin has decoded from the sumerian tablets that i could say he got it right smack dub is the anunakis' scheme to confuse us.for those who as always wants to agree to disagree check the xtian bible bout the babel tale.

Be positive! Dont masturbate your brains and the brains of others with negative concepts. Nihilism - death. Deveop yourself! self-developement is the only road for mankind, and there is no alternative to it.

Sitchin doesnt have any evidence. This is not science! After 2012 they will tell you: sorry, mistake, Sitchin has decoded those texts in the wrong way due to being drunk in the process and there is error in calculations and this Nibiru will pass some millions years to the right and not in 2012, but in another million years... Sitchin gives you not science but falsification. This is modern technocratic package of an old jewish joke about the end of the world and pocketing all the material values. Like the pickpockets do in the crowd: "Look! A Comet!"... and the pockets of the crowd are empty within secons) the place for Sitchin's opuses is in trash dump. Stuck to scientific facts. Sitchin's theories are pseudo-scientific and bear a political meaning... All internet is swarming with tales about aliens, you will be told how they look like, from which stars came, their names, how they fight.... Holliwood shoots never ending operas about it... Is it not clear that the more details of the life of aliensm the more false all these fantasies and stories...? People cant know anything about the life of the aliens.
In astronomy, like in medicine - if a doctor or astronomer who works for salary, says smth, it doesnt mean that its truth and you should listen to them... The presence of a big telescpoe doesnt mean the presence of the correct conception. So, just clean your head of all this modern falsehoods and better go and plant a garden, or remove rubbish and help some granny to cross the road; its the best you can do, better than to sit in dirt and wait for Nibiru...

Originally posted by Russi

“… Sitchin has decoded those texts in the wrong way due to being drunk…”: Well that is exactly what we call “Civility & Decorum”, didn’t I read that somewhere recently? If you don’t like someone’s argument just accuse him of being drunk. (Snip), (snip), (snip). ; “... not science but falsification”: Each single word of Sitchin’s contains ten times the scientificity of your whole post.; “... old jewish joke...” ---> Oh boy, yes, please tell us some more stories, to help us perceive truth, life, and science. “... trash dump...”: Preschool arguing; “...pseudo-scientific...”: … of course not quite as scienctific as your post; “... tales … Holliwood ...”: That’s where they declined your scripts because they were too scientific;“...the more details the more false all these fantasies and stories...”: aah, I get it, just because your post implies not a single tad of usable argumentation, it is so convincing; “... People cant know anything about the life of the aliens...”: True, many people can’t, only those who have eyes and can read. “... In astronomy, like in medicine - if a doctor or astronomer who works for salary, says smth, it doesnt mean that its truth and you should listen to them... The presence of a big telescpoe doesnt mean the presence of the correct conception.” Sooo convincing again, you must be a university professor – Yale? Following your logic a criminal inspector ought to tell himself in the morning: “Dead bodies don’t mean there was a murder, so why should I go to work?” “...So, just clean your head”: Like you did before posting this? “…of all this modern falsehoods and better go and plant a garden, or remove rubbish and help some granny to cross the road; its the best you can do, better than to sit in dirt and wait for...” We are so lucky to get your advices, and thanks for saving us from “modern falsehoods”. May I help you cross the road next time I see you?

In a nutshell:
- Your post contains ZERO usable information, just a heap of emptiness.
- We don’t need your ‘advices’, if you don’t like the subject, why don’t you just leave the thread.
- You furthermore alleged Sitchin’s theories are “not science”, are “negative”, and are mental “masturbation.” Unlike your post which is a paradigm of positivity and highly scientific writing? Btw, this is your first post in this thread, I’m sure you did carefully read the 10 prior thread pages... You certainly would before speaking about brain “masturbation”, wouldn’t you? Or, could it be you didn’t, because you consider a substantiated discussion and the examination of real evidence/arguments as a mental “masturbation”?

Fact is, Sitchin's writings are actually based on an amazing amount of evidence. That’s why Sitchin is so successful. Some excellent evidence and reference was e.g. already brought in by several posters in this thread. I already pointed out a few of them in my post on page 8. Sitchin is a great author and I advise everybody who wants to find out about some real hot & hidden issues, to read from him.


[edit on 27-1-2009 by CoolBlackHole]

reply to post by WatchNLearn


I'd also add to that noteworthy defense that several artifacts, physical evidence that (partially) adds to my belief that history needs a thorough revision:

Antikythera mechanism

en.wikipedia.org...

Battery's in ancient times

en.wikipedia.org...

The Vimanas

en.wikipedia.org...

The Trilithon stones....

en.wikipedia.org...

The Dogon peoples accounts of the ancient astronauts and so on...

reply to post by WatchRider

WR, thanks for the links.

The “Vimana” is another evidence there were “flying machines” before our civilization. According to en.wikipedia.org... the Sanskrit describing the “Vimana” could be “dating back to as early as 1500 BCE”. There is so much evidence of historic “Ufo-like” sightings/encounters, “flying machines”, and such, it’s simply unthinkable it was all “just made up”. Watch this staggering video:



All that evidence (let alone present-day proofs) proves humans were visited - and very probably profoundly influenced and supervised - by extraterrestrial beings.

"Ancient UFO Art" By WillEase (video)

Alien Chronicles - Compelling Evidence For UFOs and Extraterrestrial Encounters

But why do the mainstream media suppress this information? Read Sitchin, and others like David Icke, Steward Swerdlow, then start connecting the dots …

[edit on 27-1-2009 by CoolBlackHole]

CoolBlackHole
Your reaction to that humble post of mine is amazing!

i did use irony to express my opinion on the works of Sitchin and why not?
I did not carefully read 10 prior thread pages, just three of them but i did carefully read the volumes of Sitchin's talmuds to be able to express my opinion))
And if you are really into critical thinking and more or less familiar with the term scientific evidence you wouldnt deny that Sitchin doesnt have any. even Daniken has some plausible hooksin his works...

I will certainly look through the rest of pages of this thread - i do want to find any facts that could be considered as evidence.

but more interesting seems though this Apophis theory to develop. not nibiru
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by enir nabu
again i say, the stuff Sitchin translates the Sumerian tablets to say make more sense to me as to where we come from, than the fables that the bible and all of those other religious books say.

when you couple a lot of what the Sumerians apparently depicted and wrote with a lot of other writings from people like David Icke, William Cooper, James Redfield, Daniken, etc.,...things that take place today all seem to make more sense. symbolism, esoteric knowledge, technology we have, missing link, etc.,

just have to use your 3rd eye sometimes.

Can I just steal this and make it my own?

Exactly! Some people just have a "knowing" a 3rd eye connection - that sees beyond black and white.

Can I explain it? NO - but having had "experiences" myself - I know they are also not black and white - and must be interpreted. That is why I say "I believe ME and my own insight" - - not fully anyone else's interpretation. To accept as gospel any person's interpretation word for word is a mistake.

When I read Sitchin or anyone else - I know what I am reading is their "interpretation".

=========================

of course you can "steal it"!! LOL! cute!

check me out on my blog if you ever get a chance

www.myspace.com...

you're correct about your insights!

reply to post by CoolBlackHole

It is a fairly well known fact that the Maya had a very well developed class system and one of the desired elite features was to have a long sloped forhead. I believe the skull you show in your post has little to do with genetics and lots to do with infant skull binding, similar to the foot binding done in china.
www.mentalfloss.com...

[edit on 27-1-2009 by MacroVisio]

Originally posted by Russi

"... but more interesting seems though this Apophis theory to develop. not nibiru
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Thank you for the links.

As we know there are many “crazy” looking ancient deities or biests, that appear downright ridiculous today, like e.g. ‘fish-birds’. That “Apep” or “Apophis” following your links described as a giant snake seems to be one of those weird beings ("Some elaborations even said that he stretched 16 yards in length and had a head made of flint. It is to be noted that already on a Naqada I (ca. 4000 BC) C-ware dish (now in Cairo) a snake was painted combined with other desert and aquatic animals as a possible enemy").

At first glimpse all these entities seem to have certainly been invented, thus pure fantasy. But on the other hand it seems a bit far-fechted that someone – let alone many people, over centuries, at different places - would “just” fabricate something that queer. So, were they really all just fantasy?


(Modern replica)

Now, Sitchin delivers some interesting explanations ("crazy" ancient biests - an explanation):

"... Enlil and Enki, two governors of Earth sent from Nibiru to rule Earth, were responsible for all this power and control. They gave the ancient Sumerians their architectural, agricultural, astronomical, and cultural training in exchange for labor and "gifts to the gods" in the form of a lot of mining, food, and material goods. ... The Nibirians disguised themselves as fish-humans, lion-humans, bird-humans, and other creatures to get the people to worship them as token gods, something that Moses violently opposed. Later, the Pleiadians, who were involved in Egypt's 3rd Golden Age, attempted to end the worship of the many Nibiruan and Sirian gods in these lands with the one-god concept."

An advanced civilization would certainly have had very sophisticated genetics or other means like holographic devices - much superior to what we handle today -, to genetically create or feign such weird looking creatures. To get the dumb humans to worship them. My guess is the Nibirians even had some fun playing god and impressing/scaring the humans. Wouldn’t we, if we had similar capabilites to impress e.g. some native tribes (without hurting them)?

So:
- Sitchin actually combines the concepts of “Apophis” and “Nibiru”.
- Your second Wikipedia link btw also endorses, as described by Sitchin, the change from a 'many-gods' concept to a 'single-god' concept: “... In Atenism it is Aten who kills the monster, obviously, since Aten is the only god in the belief system.”


[edit on 27-1-2009 by CoolBlackHole]

Originally posted by MacroVisio

It is a fairly well known fact that the Maya had a very well developed class system and one of the desired elite features was to have a long sloped forhead. I believe the skull you show in your post has little to do with genetics and lots to do with infant skull binding, similar to the foot binding done in china.
www.mentalfloss.com...

[edit on 27-1-2009 by MacroVisio]

Thank you for the link, but, excuse me, that "infant skull binding" concept purports to be a flawed cover up to conceal the ancient human/non-human blending, represented by the famous 'conehead skulls'.

Incan Skulls

ATS thread "Conehead Skulls"

1. Do you really believe “boards” were strapped to childrens’ skulls? That would be sheer torture. "Strapped boards" would in a short time squash the skin, cause bruises, inflammations, etc. The boards would have to be “worn” for many years, almost 365/7/24. And all that torture to make the child “look” a bit better...?

Hence an entirely different undertaking than constricting a waist or a foot.

2. Boards or bindings would eventually cause visible big dents, notches or flat spots on the skull. None of such can be seen in all the old depictions, e.g. the skull at the top of this page has an entirely natural shape. It would be impossible to produce such a result by any “binding” procedure.

3. A “binding” or a constriction will (if at all) at the utmost produce a partially 'elongated' and (pathetic looking) narrowed part of a skull, like can be seen here (third pic on: www.book-of-thoth.com...). But never a “full girth" ‘conehead’ skull like the many ones depicted in the two links above, like famous Nofretete’s (below), or like the skull at the top of this page. Bindings/constrictions will always cause a narrowing and never the said 'wide' skulls' shape. The same applies to constricted waists (corsets) or feet, they always become narrower, not wider.



[edit on 28-1-2009 by CoolBlackHole]

Sorry, have to step in.

Examples of ancient drawings or imagery showing elongated heads, monstrous beings, vessels floating in space, etc - can be isolated and chosen to support even the wildest notions of early history.

One can't just take a skull fragment form half a million years ago, show a head covering from Pharaonic times, and go "See"

We now have hundreds of thousands of artifacts and art from the past. Many thousands of them depict scientific anomalies like multi-limbed humans, multi-eyed ones, giants as big as mountains, etc.

There was no compulsion in the past to be literal. One must take anything from an ancient culture and put it into the context of when it was created and why.

I didn't intent do become involved in a Sitchin debate, but thinking about it more and seeing what others post, I get more and more furious.

Truly devoted people unselfishly devote their lives to the examination and understanding of Sumerian culture. It a tragic insult to these people that someone with no credentials or credibility can put some commercially sellable fantasy spin onto these works, exploiting the still grey areas of things like genetics, astronomy, and translation. Essentially a con-man making a buck as a high tech snake oil salesman.

To make the whole thing more painful, he's defended as some maverick unrecognized genius.

Anyone truly interested in Sumerian writing and mythology can take a look at some real material on the subject. Thousand have already. Universal conclusion - Sitchin is a huckster.



Mike F

Originally posted by mmiichael

Sorry, have to step in.

Examples of ancient drawings or imagery showing elongated heads, monstrous beings, vessels floating in space, etc - can be isolated and chosen to support even the wildest notions of early history.

One can't just take a skull fragment form half a million years ago, show a head covering from Pharaonic times, and go "See"

We now have hundreds of thousands of artifacts and art from the past. Many thousands of them depict scientific anomalies like multi-limbed humans, multi-eyed ones, giants as big as mountains, etc.

There was no compulsion in the past to be literal. One must take anything from an ancient culture and put it into the context of when it was created and why.

I didn't intent do become involved in a Sitchin debate, but thinking about it more and seeing what others post, I get more and more furious.

Truly devoted people unselfishly devote their lives to the examination and understanding of Sumerian culture. It a tragic insult to these people that someone with no credentials or credibility can put some commercially sellable fantasy spin onto these works, exploiting the still grey areas of things like genetics, astronomy, and translation. Essentially a con-man making a buck as a high tech snake oil salesman.

To make the whole thing more painful, he's defended as some maverick unrecognized genius.

Anyone truly interested in Sumerian writing and mythology can take a look at some real material on the subject. Thousand have already. Universal conclusion - Sitchin is a huckster.

Mike F

The same could be said for the possible supression of history and technology by the PTB.
You speak of the none-interventionalist theory on Sumeria.
Well if that's the case why do their own legends tell of being taught all by a higher power?

reply to post by WatchRider


Legends are stories invented to explain the unexplainable. The reasoning is that all legends are based on fact. There is an American legend about a giant lumberjack who had a giant blue ox. He made the Grand Canyon by dragging his axe behind him. I wonder what the fact behind this legend is.

Originally posted by Phage
Legends are stories invented to explain the unexplainable. The reasoning is that all legends are based on fact. There is an American legend about a giant lumberjack who had a giant blue ox.

Obviously it is true! People just don't make things up! And he was probably an alien!

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by Phage
Legends are stories invented to explain the unexplainable. The reasoning is that all legends are based on fact. There is an American legend about a giant lumberjack who had a giant blue ox.

Obviously it is true! People just don't make things up! And he was probably an alien!

Paul Bunyan is a fake-lore based on a real logger.

However - I do believe advanced beings are among us - have always been - are involved in our evolvement - and do communicate by various means with humans.

To me its just logical. As other solar systems are far older then out own.

Originally posted by WatchRider
You speak of the none-interventionalist theory on Sumeria.
Well if that's the case why do their own legends tell of being taught all by a higher power?

Sometimes, a story is just a story. Sometimes a story is created to explain and legitimize certain aspects of a culture or their history. Take Rome for example; Romulus was invented to explain the founding of the city when this knowledge was lost to time. Looking to Rome for another example, sometimes stories are invented to legitimize the actions of rulers. Virgil made the Julio-Claudio Dynasty descendants of Venus to justify the actions of Caesar and Augustus.