Various considerations about Sitchin and your threads

Originally posted by ningishzidda74
I have some more...
i quote from the article:

"His students had added a kind of clay known as montmorillonite to their solution of fatty acids. Somehow the clay sped up the rate of vesicle formation 100-fold. “We spent years working on getting the growth and division stuff to work. That was a pain,” says Hanczyc. “But the clay worked the first time.”

Clay had already proved to be potentially important in the origin of life. In the 1990s biochemist James Ferris of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute showed that montmorillonite can help create RNA. When he poured nucleotides onto the surface of the clay, the montmorillonite grabbed the compounds, and neighboring nucleotides fused together. Over time, as many as 50 nucleotides joined together spontaneously into a single RNA molecule."

Is it enough?
[edit on 5-5-2009 by ningishzidda74]

No, apparently you were talking above your pay grade regarding the "recombinant process."
My request for evidence:

"Please provide a single reference that states that Montmorillonite "has the ability to catalyze the recombination process of DNA."

Your article mentions nothing at all about recombination of DNA.

The rest of your claim is similarly vacuuous.

Harte

Originally posted by ningishzidda74
I bet not, so i continue, do you mind?

"Claims of "thin dark sand" covering Southern Iraq and Syria 4,000 years ago are just that - claims. "

Not just a claim, lol, scientific report:

ssdb.ldeo.columbia.edu...

from the article:

"Our results document a very abrupt increase in eolian dust and Mesopotamian aridity which is AMS radiocarbon dated to 4025±125 cal. years BP and which persisted for approximately 300 years. Radiogenic (Nd and Sr) isotope analyses confirm that the observed severalfold increase in mineral dust was derived from Mesopotamian source areas."


"You spout some crapola that seems to go along with your skewed world view, but where is your supporting evidence that backs up your claim?"

As you can see, i have given you the supporting evidence... who's giving crap? Me or you?

You, of course. You apparently either don't bother to read your own sources or you purposefully don't want readers here to know that you're misrepresenting the facts to support your skewed world view, like I said.

Please note:

Given the uncertainties of carbon dating, the marine dust pulse and the abandonment of Tell Leilan could still have been several centuries apart. But Cullen and deMenocal found in the core another time marker that makes a somewhat tighter connection. Less than about 140 years before the dust pulse is a layer containing volcanic ash. And Weiss had already reported that a centimeter-thick ash layer lies just beneath the onset of aridity and abandonment at Tell Leilan. The strikingly similar elemental compositions of the two ashes imply that they stem from the same volcanic event. If so, then Tell Leilan was abandoned just after the start of a climatic change of considerable magnitude, geographical extent, and duration. "There's something going on, a shift of atmospheric circulation patterns over a fairly large region," says Cullen.

Your source is reporting on a drought discovered by looking at windblown dust. Your source states that the volcanic ash you mention comes from a layer of volcanic ash already deposited that lay under the topsoil which was blown away by arid winds during this "dust bowl"-like climate change that he claims triggered the collapse of the Akkadian Empire.

No volcanic activity (4,000 YBP) was associated with the dust you finally decided to show evidence of.

But thanks, anyway, for making at least some attempt to support a tenuous, and eventually empty, claim.

Originally posted by ningishzidda74
Already told: don't deal with things you don't know.

Whatever you "already told" anyone, your credibility is reduced when you purposefully misrepresent easily verifiable factual evidence.

Harte

[edit on 5/7/2009 by Harte]

reply to post by Kandinsky


"Disregarding the questions about whether the 'sun' is indeed our Sun, the representation of the 'planets' doesn't conform to my understanding. Pluto is problematic. De Grasse presided over it's demotion from planet status due to it's small size. The Sumerian creator of this Seal includes it. Seven other moons are larger than Pluto and the rings of Saturn are absent. I can't accept that it's a real portrayal of our Solar System that adds a 'planet', includes Pluto and neglects larger bodies."

And what about the rappresentation of the solar system put by Nasa on Pioneer?
Is it more accurate?
No proportions, no rings around saturn, no asteroid belts...

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by ningishzidda74
I have some more...
i quote from the article:

"His students had added a kind of clay known as montmorillonite to their solution of fatty acids. Somehow the clay sped up the rate of vesicle formation 100-fold. “We spent years working on getting the growth and division stuff to work. That was a pain,” says Hanczyc. “But the clay worked the first time.”

Clay had already proved to be potentially important in the origin of life. In the 1990s biochemist James Ferris of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute showed that montmorillonite can help create RNA. When he poured nucleotides onto the surface of the clay, the montmorillonite grabbed the compounds, and neighboring nucleotides fused together. Over time, as many as 50 nucleotides joined together spontaneously into a single RNA molecule."

Is it enough?
[edit on 5-5-2009 by ningishzidda74]

No, apparently you were talking above your pay grade regarding the "recombinant process."
My request for evidence:

"Please provide a single reference that states that Montmorillonite "has the ability to catalyze the recombination process of DNA."

Your article mentions nothing at all about recombination of DNA.

The rest of your claim is similarly vacuuous.

Harte

"In the 1990s biochemist James Ferris of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute showed that montmorillonite can help create RNA. When he poured nucleotides onto the surface of the clay, the montmorillonite grabbed the compounds, and neighboring nucleotides fused together. Over time, as many as 50 nucleotides joined together spontaneously into a single RNA molecule"

what does it mean to you?
Nucleotides joining into RNA molecule...
catalysis of genetic reactions.

Originally posted by ningishzidda74
"In the 1990s biochemist James Ferris of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute showed that montmorillonite can help create RNA. When he poured nucleotides onto the surface of the clay, the montmorillonite grabbed the compounds, and neighboring nucleotides fused together. Over time, as many as 50 nucleotides joined together spontaneously into a single RNA molecule"

what does it mean to you?
Nucleotides joining into RNA molecule...
catalysis of genetic reactions.

It means that RNA can self-assemble more quickly on certain types of clay that it can in test tubes.

What it doesn't say (and I note that, now, you are not saying it either,) is:

has the ability to catalyze the recombination process of DNA

Harte

reply to post by Harte


"Your source is reporting on a drought discovered by looking at windblown dust. Your source states that the volcanic ash you mention comes from a layer of volcanic ash already deposited that lay under the topsoil which was blown away by arid winds during this "dust bowl"-like climate change that he claims triggered the collapse of the Akkadian Empire.

No volcanic activity (4,000 YBP) was associated with the dust you finally decided to show evidence of.

But thanks, anyway, for making at least some attempt to support a tenuous, and eventually empty, claim. "

If you cannot do 2+2 it's not my fault.
But i can help you...
what is sitchin theory?
IN 2024 a.D. a nuclear bombing took plae... 7 nuclear bombs where launched on Sinai, and around the Dead Sea.
The impact has produced a burned and radioactive soil, fusion of stones, a deep carving in the Dead sea bed.
Then, powder, ashes and such, raised by the impact and transported by the wind, diffused toward east.
That's the powder the article talks about... exactly like you say:

"layer of volcanic ash already deposited that lay under the topsoil which was blown away by arid winds during this "dust bowl"-like climate change"


The impact and explosion of bombs raised the 'volvanic ash' you talk about...
that is called Volcanic ash, but there is no Volcanic activity.

Obviously the report can't tell 'we found nuclear explosion traces'... the article describes a finding that represents the EFFECTS of the explosion.

reply to post by Harte


"What it doesn't say (and I note that, now, you are not saying it either,) is: "
so your problem is RNA instead of DNA? Cause it is the only difference... we have catalysis in ricombination of genetic material...
am i correct? You are arguing on RNA instead of DNA?

reply to post by ningishzidda74

And what about the rappresentation of the solar system put by Nasa on Pioneer? Is it more accurate? No proportions, no rings around saturn, no asteroid belts...

I don't see the Seal as a representation of the Solar System so I don't regard the NASA plate as relevant.

If I did, I would wonder why the NASA plate clearly shows the planets in scale and with Saturn's rings present, where the Berlin Seal doesn't. One of the bodies on the Seal (not on the NASA plate) is alleged to be our moon. Therefore, why include our Moon and little Pluto when they didn't include several larger Moons than Pluto?

I wasn't clear in my reference to De Grasse Tyson...it was meant to pose the question that if we consider it too small to be a planet; would anyone else? Why add Pluto and the Moon and neglect the larger moons of Jupiter, Neptune and Saturn?

My thinking isn't coming from an anti-Sitchin perspective. It comes from simply disagreeing with his interpretation of the Seal. My other disagreements with his interpretations are based again on being unable to accept 'mythology as reality.'

The history and events of Sumer and neighboring civilizations don't corroborate the Sitchin interpretation. So...by my understanding, the semantics of translations become irrelevant unless I was interested in ancient mythology at an academic level. I'm not interested, but recognize that some people use the semantics to create a plausible veneer of 'reality.' Emperors new clothes...

Sumerian texts could be explicit (they aren't) in stating that aliens landed, converted us into slaves, mined gold, fought with WMD etc. Without facts to support the interpretation...the interpretation must be wrong or it's just a fictional account

Just in passing...I looked at the 'Official Website of ZS' and noticed that several scientific papers and articles are used to support his account of alien intervention over the years. 'Official' implies consent to content by ZS. 'Correlation doesn't imply causation,' but it does on the website...

Originally posted by ningishzidda74
reply to post by Harte

 

"What it doesn't say (and I note that, now, you are not saying it either,) is: "
so your problem is RNA instead of DNA? Cause it is the only difference... we have catalysis in ricombination of genetic material...
am i correct? You are arguing on RNA instead of DNA?

No, I'm talking about recombinant DNA. It was you that used a reference to a thing unassociated with your claim (spontaneous self-assembly of an RNA molecule.)
It would help if you actually knew what you were talking about, I guess, so maybe you should make an effort to understand exactly what recombinant DNA is prior to spouting off a lot of nonsense about how the process has been shown to be "catalyzed" by certain types of clay.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
I don't see the Seal as a representation of the Solar System so I don't regard the NASA plate as relevant.

Very perceptive of you Kandinsky LOL!

The seal in question actually has writing on it that tells us what it is depicting. The stylized image of the Pleiades in the sky is an indicator of what time of year the ceremony being shown is taking place. There are a great many seals that show other things in the sky indicating other times of the year for their contents. One notable one has a crab in the sky - the Sumerians had the first zodiac and our astrological sign Cancer comes from them.

I suppose Sitchin might argue that the Sumerians were overcome by alien crab overlords and taken as slaves to work on the dead bait farms of Niburu or some such nonsense!

Harte

Originally posted by ningishzidda74

Then we read:

He also claims that human descendants of these "gods" killed themselves off 4000 years ago, with nuclear weapons, despite the fact that there is no evidence to sunstantiate this outrageous theory."
As for genetic manipulations, again it is not a Sitchin's claim... it is sumerian and akkadian. Let's read from the Atra Hasis:

Actually there is evidence of entire acres of desert in the middle east that have been glassed as if by a neuclear explosion. The greenish glass of melted sand is almost identical to that of modern neuclear testing over deserts. It has been traded for hundreds of years and worked into artisinal trinkets for the same time. Also there are theories of natural neuclear underground reactions found in africa since evidence of decayed radioactive particals was found and directly linked to past neuclear reactions. If there is such a thing as natural neuclear rections? then it would explain all that thermal neuclear made glass in the deserts of the middle east. The question is how would it have happened above ground?

Originally posted by ningishzidda74

Then we read:

As for genetic manipulations, again it is not a Sitchin's claim... it is sumerian and akkadian. Let's read from the Atra Hasis:

there is an interesting fact that humans contain a funny characteristic on the genetic level. We have 48 chromosomes with 2 of them over lapping or overwritting another 2. Like having 48 lines of code with actually 46 being used. My understanding of this is limited so if anyone can shed some insight as to why this happens I'm all ears. If not I'll guess its not natural.

Originally posted by newyorkee

Originally posted by ningishzidda74

Then we read:

He also claims that human descendants of these "gods" killed themselves off 4000 years ago, with nuclear weapons, despite the fact that there is no evidence to sunstantiate this outrageous theory."
As for genetic manipulations, again it is not a Sitchin's claim... it is sumerian and akkadian. Let's read from the Atra Hasis:

Actually there is evidence of entire acres of desert in the middle east that have been glassed as if by a neuclear explosion. The greenish glass of melted sand is almost identical to that of modern neuclear testing over deserts. It has been traded for hundreds of years and worked into artisinal trinkets for the same time. Also there are theories of natural neuclear underground reactions found in africa since evidence of decayed radioactive particals was found and directly linked to past neuclear reactions. If there is such a thing as natural neuclear rections? then it would explain all that thermal neuclear made glass in the deserts of the middle east. The question is how would it have happened above ground?

Libyan desert glass.

It was explained about three years ago (or so) when they discovered a huge crater that had gone unnoticed because it was so weathered.

There's a link to the article about it right here in this section of ATS. I believe I was the one that put it up, but it's been so long - and nobody wanted to hear it so the thread died - that I can't remember now. I might be thinking about a thread I started about a solid date being found for the eruption of Thera. Nobody wanted to hear that one either.

Funny how we skeptics are the ones constantly being called "closed-minded." I seem to recall very little discussion in the thread explaining the Libyan desert glass. True believers didn't want to know about it, apparently.

Talk about closed-mindedness.

I don't see the thread but I'm not very good with the search function here. Perhaps I posted the info at a different forum.

Here's a link to an article about the crater though

If you look, I'm sure you can google up more (and more recent) info about it.

Harte

[edit on 5/7/2009 by Harte]

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by ningishzidda74

 

And what about the rappresentation of the solar system put by Nasa on Pioneer? Is it more accurate? No proportions, no rings around saturn, no asteroid belts...

I don't see the Seal as a representation of the Solar System so I don't regard the NASA plate as relevant.

If I did, I would wonder why the NASA plate clearly shows the planets in scale and with Saturn's rings present, where the Berlin Seal doesn't. One of the bodies on the Seal (not on the NASA plate) is alleged to be our moon. Therefore, why include our Moon and little Pluto when they didn't include several larger Moons than Pluto?

I wasn't clear in my reference to De Grasse Tyson...it was meant to pose the question that if we consider it too small to be a planet; would anyone else? Why add Pluto and the Moon and neglect the larger moons of Jupiter, Neptune and Saturn?

My thinking isn't coming from an anti-Sitchin perspective. It comes from simply disagreeing with his interpretation of the Seal. My other disagreements with his interpretations are based again on being unable to accept 'mythology as reality.'

The history and events of Sumer and neighboring civilizations don't corroborate the Sitchin interpretation. So...by my understanding, the semantics of translations become irrelevant unless I was interested in ancient mythology at an academic level. I'm not interested, but recognize that some people use the semantics to create a plausible veneer of 'reality.' Emperors new clothes...

Sumerian texts could be explicit (they aren't) in stating that aliens landed, converted us into slaves, mined gold, fought with WMD etc. Without facts to support the interpretation...the interpretation must be wrong or it's just a fictional account

Just in passing...I looked at the 'Official Website of ZS' and noticed that several scientific papers and articles are used to support his account of alien intervention over the years. 'Official' implies consent to content by ZS. 'Correlation doesn't imply causation,' but it does on the website...

Strange, you are not interested in this, not interested in that, when someone tries to make you see things you say you don't care... but you still do your criticism about sitchin...
semantic and linguistic corroborates Sitchin, but you are not interested...
Nasa plaque is less accurate than Sitchin's seal but you are not interested...

then you say sumerian hystory doesn't corroborate Sitchin but atthe same time you ask 'why did they depict the moon and not the larger mons of other planets' and that means you know little about sumerian culture... our moon was deified.. it was Kingu in the enuma elish (we may debate on it) and then it was Sin... other 'moons' were not associated... and still it could have also been 'personal choice'. On your criteria they SHOULD have depict them... maybe the scribe had different criteria and he though it wasn't necessary...

then ok, if you don't WANT to accept it, that's ok, but you should point out that you are simply ignoring things, not debating... if you try to debate or you d criticism you should enter the question end analyze all the pros.
Not saying "I am not interested".

reply to post by Harte


"No, I'm talking about recombinant DNA. It was you that used a reference to a thing unassociated with your claim (spontaneous self-assembly of an RNA molecule.)
It would help if you actually knew what you were talking about, I guess, so maybe you should make an effort to understand exactly what recombinant DNA is prior to spouting off a lot of nonsense about how the process has been shown to be "catalyzed" by certain types of clay."

Either you don't understand or you don't want to...
what i said is that montmorillonite helps catalyze the recombination of dna, not the prodution of recombinating dna...
and that's what the article says... montmorillonite helped in joining to form RNA. That's a fact, you can turn words as you want...

"The seal in question actually has writing on it that tells us what it is depicting. The stylized image of the Pleiades in the sky is an indicator of what time of year the ceremony being shown is taking place."

Uh where does this come from?
The seal reads 2 names and then : 'your servant'... where did you read about festival? Where did you read about the pleyades?
Hope you don't mean the 'seven dots' that sometimes appear in seals... you should know that the pleyades are not 7...

you have a very ambiguous behavior about analyzing evidence lol... when it comes to something that corroborates sitchin it must be 'precise to the word', when it comes to be anti-sitchin a little resemblance is proving for you...

(and there is no resemblance between the '7 dots' in sumerian seals and the pleyades... )




very acurate lol

reply to post by newyorkee


Yes i also thought about it years ago when i started to catalog links about sitchin's theory for my first seminar... i had found an article reporting of a 'natural nuclear reactor' in caves in the center of africa... it reported thesis on how it may occure and how it could be dealt... but it said that, for the process to initiate, it had been necessary having a huge pressure or heat causing fusion of some elemnts, and the artcle could not say how may have occurred in those caves...

Originally posted by ningishzidda74
reply to post by Harte

 

"No, I'm talking about recombinant DNA. It was you that used a reference to a thing unassociated with your claim (spontaneous self-assembly of an RNA molecule.)

Either you don't understand or you don't want to...
what i said is that montmorillonite helps catalyze the recombination of dna, not the prodution of recombinating dna...
and that's what the article says... montmorillonite helped in joining to form RNA. That's a fact, you can turn words as you want...

Is self-assembly of an RNA molecule recombination of DNA?

Certainly not. RNA is not DNA. Recombination is not self-assembly.

So, again, I ask for your evidence that recombination of DNA is "catalyzed" by montmorillonite. Obviously, I don't hold out much hope for your compliance with my request given that you apparently refuse to even try to understand what it is you have claimed.

Originally posted by ningishzidda74you have a very ambiguous behavior about analyzing evidence lol... when it comes to something that corroborates sitchin it must be 'precise to the word', when it comes to be anti-sitchin a little resemblance is proving for you...

That's a real hoot, coming from some poster that doesn't even try to examine the evidence and refuses to even consider the idea that there are real, verifiable explanations for every factual thing Sitchin reports on. Of course, the rest of what Sitchin says is completely fabricated hogwash.
You accuse me of not seriously looking into these claims.
Your hypocrisy is showing:

Originally posted by ningishzidda74
... i had found an article reporting of a 'natural nuclear reactor' in caves in the center of africa... it reported thesis on how it may occure and how it could be dealt... but it said that, for the process to initiate, it had been necessary having a huge pressure or heat causing fusion of some elemnts, and the artcle could not say how may have occurred in those caves...

You again in the above instance have decided not to educate yourself. I'm sure Mr. Sitchin would be very proud of your self-imposed ignorance.
Please note the process you above describe is not only well understood, but it was actually predicted long before such a natural reactor was ever found:

A natural nuclear fission reactor is a uranium deposit where analysis of isotope ratios has shown that self-sustaining nuclear chain reactions have occurred. The existence of this phenomenon was discovered in 1972 by French physicist Francis Perrin. The conditions under which a natural nuclear reactor could exist were predicted in 1956 by P. Kuroda...

...The natural nuclear reactor formed when a uranium-rich mineral deposit became inundated with groundwater that acted as a neutron moderator, and a nuclear chain reaction took place. The heat generated from the nuclear fission caused the groundwater to boil away, which slowed or stopped the reaction. After cooling of the mineral deposit, short-lived fission product poisons decayed, the water returned and the reaction started again. These fission reactions were sustained for hundreds of thousands of years, until a chain reaction could no longer be supported.

There is more information at this source, not that I think you'll actually go there and read it.

Harte

reply to post by ningishzidda74
I've seen several of your posts elsewhere and understand that you enjoy etymology. Many people do on ATS. Phage and Harte are more interested in that approach than I am. They're also somewhat better at it...

In my reading about Sumerian history, I've naturally read some Sitchin, he's unavoidable. As I understand it, he's fringe and widely criticized or ignored. His interpretations are challenged. Several challenges have been issued for him to translate at least one tablet that hasn't already been published. As far as I'm aware, he's declined to meet the challenge with the implication that he is not fluent in Sumerian cuneiform from any period. Funnily enough, I'm not able to translate it either. For this reason, I have no experience with which to evaluate the accuracy of his translations.

If you can understand that...you will understand why I focus my questions on the accounts he claims to have translated. The content can be investigated. I therefore focus on the evidence to support the content of his stories.

If a planet is on a 3600 year elliptical orbit through our Solar System, I would expect to see mention of it in other cultures and civilizations. Comets, meteors and planets have been observed and recorded for centuries by disparate cultures. One would assume a consensus across such cultures at such a large body passing through. Conventional accounts of Sumerian astronomy have neglected to record the event also....or more than the five observable planets?

Based on exoplanets and the planets in our Solar System, there is a 'goldilocks zone' for planets/ bodies to have atmospheres and environments that support life. Too close to the Sun and we have a Mercury...too far and we have Pluto. There aren't any precedents to explain the orbit of the Planet X. I haven't seen a working model that allows for a planet to sustain life and atmosphere when it spends most of it's time many AUs from the Sun.

It's not that I'm uninterested, I think the focus on semantics is a misleading argument. I see no reason to believe in Annunaki or a tenth planet so I don't accept the story. Sitchin represents the account of the story so I don't accept him.

reply to post by Harte


www.rpi.edu...

d.wanfangdata.com.cn...

here are two studies about montmorillonites and the correlation with rna/dna...
play on words if you want, i won't add more on the matter.
The title of the article is self-explaining:

"Montmorillonite-catalysed formation of RNA oligomers: the possible role of catalysis in the origins of life"

The real problem is that for the Annunaki to be able to transfer their knowledge of the formation of Earth and their planets role in that origin, they would have had to be there as witnesses. So did they survive on a planet traveling in the interstellar gulf for potentially millions of years before arriving in this solar system, then witnessed the impact of Nibiru/Tiamat, then hang around for, oh, 4.5 billion years to then begin interacting with mankind?

If that scenario seems too incredible, then the other possible alternative is that Nibiru spawned life and the Annunaki after the impact with Earth - on a world that is so far distant from the sun that it would be nothing more than a frozen dead world with no chance at a liquid ocean. Sitchin must recognize how implausible that sounds since he makes the claim the world is "radioactive" and generates its own heat, sans sun.

Originally posted by ningishzidda74
here are two studies about montmorillonites and the correlation with rna/dna...
play on words if you want, i won't add more on the matter.
The title of the article is self-explaining:

"Montmorillonite-catalysed formation of RNA oligomers: the possible role of catalysis in the origins of life"

So, you have no supporting documentation that Montmorillonite "catalyzes" the recombination process?
Somehow I am not surprised.

Citing the use of montmorillonite in laboratory experiments does not further your argument.

Both articles state basically the same thing, DNA and RNA are protected from degradation when bonded to montmorillonite by Van Der Walls forces. This results in greater production of various resulting organic compounds, including RNA itelf, if the building blocks of same are present.

Nothing more than that has been shown.

Harte