Zecharia Sitchin was the only one who got it right and so called scholars are so jealous ...

Originally posted by Smell The Roses
The thing with Sitchin is that nobody can really, truly, prove him wrong at this point.

Except for the entirety of Assyriology. Sitchin twisted, exaggerated, took texts out of context and was outright wrong, consistently.

Originally posted by Smell The Roses
People are jealous

That is all you have? An appeal to emotion, not facts to back up the claim Sitchin was right and everyone else wrong?

Originally posted by Smell The Roses
He is the only one to really spend as much time on the subject as he did and really understand what was being said in the tablets stories.

What was being said? Which exact texts support what Sitchin was saying?

Originally posted by Smell The Roses
The real truth whether the haters like it or not is that anyone claiming him to be false has LESS knowledge on the subject than he did. That is the REAL true fact.

So, all of Assyriology is less knowledgable than Sitchin?

Originally posted by Smell The Roses
Now people can say he misinterpreted and whatever else they want but the problem is that isn't a fact it is an opinion.

No, it's fact. It's been demonstrated time and again. Sitchin didn't just "misinterpret", he exaggerated, twisted, took out of context and when necessary, lied.

Originally posted by Smell The Roses
So lets be honest here if we want to start bashing Sitchin. I for one love his books and find them to be a wealth of knowledge.

Have you read any book on Assyriology?

Originally posted by Smell The Roses
Not everything in every great book is true. Books have exaggerations just like everything else in life, especially stories.

So you admit he exaggerated yet you think it is the truth?

There may be mileage in the idea that some of the ancient civilisations had contact with otherworldly beings giving rise to many myths. However, Sitchin overstretched himself and strayed into topics he hadn't a clue about.

Another mistake Sitchin clearly made is trying to present the idea that he had pieced together the whole human story from the Sumerian 'myths'. He may possibly have been on to something with the idea of taking the ancient writers literal word for it. But not every religious myth should be taken this way. Not every ancient structure was a launch pad for space ships or built by aliens.

I have learned a lot from some of Sitchins books. But please, don't go down the dead end of seeing him as some infallible guide to ancient history and mythology. He is far from it...

Originally posted by Lynexon
The thing is, people talk about his work as being hokey and false. WHY WOULD HE DO THAT?

For money, of course, the same reason he became a journalist.

It's pure folly to consider him a scholar of any kind. He was degreed in economics history, but became a journalist?

Scholars break new ground in their field, as Heiser has done.

Flaky con men float from job to job like Sitchin, eventually landing a gig where idiots buy into every inane claim he can possibly make up.

Sitchin couldn't translate any ancient tongue, and as far as I can ascetain, never claimed he could, but suddenly he's a "scholar?"

I'm surprised anyone making that ridiculous claim could even spell the word.

This guy was an authority on ancient civilizations.

He was, in fact, no such thing.

If this stuff was false, why would he destroy his career like that?

You don't get it. Making stuff up was his "career."

There would be no gain to lie about this sort of stuff. Tons of ancient civilizations talk about sky gods. Chinese mythology notes people riding shining air crafts when air crafts were things of dreams. The earliest definition of Dragon in chinese was a shining round aircraft.

Please post references for your claims above, along with links if these can be found online. Because I think you've just blurted out a load of hogwash.

In fact, I'm certain of it. Why should anyone believe this, simply because you know how to type it?

Harte

reply to post by Harte


Ah! It's so obvious now... Anyone who decides that they'd like to branch out into new areas of study and investigation must be a 'flaky con man'. Thanks for clarifying your position. Love how you've tried to have the last word in a thread where Sitchin was mentioned in a positive light.

I maintain that Sitchin has done the world (plus the fields of archaeology, anthropology and astronomy) a great service by generating so much interest and collating so many sources for people to investigate at their leisure.
If nothing else, more people will have chosen to study those subjects as a result of his work - which isn't all hocum & bunk, for if it was, there wouldn't be so many people 'wasting their time' trying to posthumously knock him down a peg or two.

General advice to those who aren't yet sure one way or the other: Read his books, check his sources, read from other authors in the field and aim for a better understanding of our origins. Interpretation of ancient languages is a field suffering from a precision-malleability disorder, and many interpretations are only held 'true' due to majority consensus. Just as we see with political whoring, academic allegiance can be bought and sold - with cash, securities, power and influence available as bartering chips. Not all academics need be bought off; a critical mass, correctly positioned, will engender a 'sheep response'.

Look at how much effort has been expended on making sure that his name is rubbished academically, and see how our narrowly specialised academic disciplines ignore obvious links between myriads of clues 'hiding in plain sight' around this old world. It's clear to see that we are failing to grasp some untold mystery, buried by the sands of time, clothed in mythology, nowadays wrapped in a blanket of clandestine 'need-to-know'.

Originally posted by Lynexon
This guy was an authority on ancient civilizations.

Perhaps compared to a layman but nowhere near when compared to actual authorities on ancient civilizations. Sitchin thrived in an atmosphere of ignorance, where his audience did not have access to the information necessary to check his claims. His downfall came when information about these ancient civilizations became more readily available.

Originally posted by Lynexon
If this stuff was false, why would he destroy his career like that?

There was no risk for Sitchin. Time and again he was demonstrated to not just be wrong but to be outright deceptive and he did not suffer for it. There is always an audience to support him, one ignorant of true Assyriology. I guarantee not a single supporter of Sitchin has bothered reading about archaeology, history or Assyriology beyond Sitchin.

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
Ah! It's so obvious now... Anyone who decides that they'd like to branch out into new areas of study and investigation must be a 'flaky con man'.

Much like Sitchin, you are twisting what was actually said. Why do Sitchin and his supporters have an allergy to the truth?

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
which isn't all hocum & bunk, for if it was, there wouldn't be so many people 'wasting their time' trying to posthumously knock him down a peg or two.

On the contrary, it being hokum and bunk is reason enough to challenge Sitchin's claims. All scientists have a duty to combat ignorance.

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
Just as we see with political whoring, academic allegiance can be bought and sold - with cash, securities, power and influence available as bartering chips. Not all academics need be bought off; a critical mass, correctly positioned, will engender a 'sheep response'.

So, instead of demonstrating that Sitchin is accurate, you accuse mainstream Assyriology to be corrupt. You do not have the facts so you make red-herring accusations and special-pleading arguments.

Please refer to the nibiru link below in my signature...

reply to post by WingedBull

It's pure folly to consider him a scholar of any kind. He was degreed in economics history, but became a journalist?

Scholars break new ground in their field, as Heiser has done.

Flaky con men float from job to job like Sitchin, eventually landing a gig where idiots buy into every inane claim he can possibly make up.

Explain to me how I twisted what was said?

I never actually specified the discipline of Assyriology - it seems to be that you are quite possibly trying too hard to hold the high ground. Scientists can be bought and sold. Not all of them, and those who independently achieve the consensus conclusions are probably seen as a bonus for those who would rather we didn't look too far into it.

What about my comments re: encouraging people to study? And do you think I believe everything Sitchin wrote? No - so you cannot lump me in as a 'non-thinking follower'. Seriously; this whole 'fit-it-into-a-little box' attitude is what destroys the advancement of knowledge.

Originally posted by GEORGETHEGREEK
Please refer to the nibiru link below in my signature...

George the greek, you say there are no scientific facts about there being a Nibiru?? Well then I must ask....

What was it that scientists discovered in 1985, which made headline news all over the place?

What was it that, when I was growing up, the book I got, called the 10th planet?

What was it that, it made encyclopedias back in the 80s after this discovery?

And lastly, why did everyone shut up about it, about 2 years after it was discovered? Did they just undiscover it, and then say it doesn't exist, they made a mistake? Or did they cover it up?

Look up news articles about it. It was big time news back in the mid 80's. Not to mention, scientists have never been able to figure out what is causing the tilt and uranus, and neptune. They suspect it has to do with a gravitational pull of an object beyond pluto..... So don't tell me there is no science behind the Nibiru claims. there is, it's just obscured so much, because it's being covered up.

reply to post by xxshadowfaxx


Unfortunately, there's some 'tinned debunks' pre-prepared in response to the claims you make above, which will doubtless be dished out shortly, served with lashings of smug and patronising rhetoric about keeping up with the times.

I'm with you and hear what you're saying; the 'need-to-know' element I described above is what hinders the real truth of the matter being made available to us mere serfs.

Look - Winged Bull & Harte - this was a troll thread to begin with, so this will be my last comment. I don't believe that mainstream academia are 'all in on a conspiracy to cover up the truth because oh noes Nibiru is coming'...

I doubt that a lot of what Sitchin wrote is grounded in truth and proper translation. However, I do believe there was an element of inter-connectedness between many ancient cultures, and I do believe that quite possibly, an advanced human/ extraterrestrial/ interdimensional race of some sort may have been involved. I've seen a lot of the steles, hieroglyphs, tombs, various carvings/ temples/ zigurrats/ cities, and would love to visit more of them to get a real feel for the overarching grandeur of our ancient history. My own conclusions (having often completely discounted Sitchin's interpretation) have supported some sort of external influence/ high technological achievements.

RE: cover-up.

I don't trust the painstakingly slow and restrictive approach being applied to Egyptian heritage sites by Zahi Hawass. He is quite frankly a sinister man with some kind of agenda. Gantenbrink as one example of how evidence would be hushed if Hawass had gotten his way. People like Hawass exist and restrict research. Much of what could be learned about certain ancient cultures is hampered by a lack of excavation - caused either by a lack of expertise or a lack of funding, or by political shenanigans. A globalist approach to the core 'umbrella discipline' of ancient history is required in order to fully connect the dots between all ancient cultures around the world which exhibit the sort of parallel mythology and cultural-linguistic similarities. At the moment, hyper-specialisation restricts information sharing, and as a result progress.

Overall conclusion; why Sitchin's work was important, even if flawed:

It's the same with all branches of science/ research - because only a specialist can understand the latest work, the common man is being edged out of any coherent understanding of where we came from and what our ancestors achieved / endured. My open-handed understanding of what he wrote is that he encouraged a lot of people (myself included) to take an interest in the various fields that his work touched upon.

Some untold mystery, buried by the sands of time, clothed in mythology, nowadays wrapped in a blanket of clandestine 'need-to-know'. Sitchin provides a foot in the door to the common man.

I do believe sitchin was onto something. I don't know how much truth he had in his research, but I really do believe in the basic ideas he had. That yes, there is another planet / star in our solar system. Most stars do have a binary companion, its not uncommon. It's more uncommon to not have one. Now one thing that gets me about the sumerian heiroglyphs, and all over the world is they all have one thing in common. They all have a serpent, snake, or dragon. And I believe that is what depicts Nibiru. The mayan pyramids, have a serpent head built into them. Why? What is it about a serpent that is so important, if not worshipping it? Why would they worship it if it was just a snake on the ground... I'm thinking it has to do more with the appearance of something in the sky. Kind of like a comet, it has a tail like a serpent. And maybe Nibiru does too.. With all the gaps in human history, it does make sense that an extra terrestial race came down from the heavens, and gave us technology, showed us how to be civilized, or hell, even put us here to begin with, and they just come back once in a while to give us a boost. Why? That answer is evasive for now. But this does make more sense than a god saying, hmm, I'll create life today. Maybe God, is Alien. Constant accounts of humans seeing gods come from the heavens.... Or does that really mean aliens coming to earth from space? So I really do believe that sitchin was onto something. Even the archealogical aspect of this world. There are so many thing that even to this day we do not understand. The pyramids, stonehenge, nazca lines only seen from the air, rocks that have been cut so precisely it would have taken far more advanced technology to do than was available at the time. Underwater pyramids off the coast of Japan, underwater cities of the coast of india. The list is endless of unsolved mysteries here on earth. Not to mention crop circles that see far too advanced to humans to do in the timeframe of a single night. So if aliens don't exist and there is no nibiru..... how do you explain all that?

Originally posted by xxshadowfaxx
What was it that scientists discovered in 1985, which made headline news all over the place?

Please show us this article...

Originally posted by xxshadowfaxx
What was it that, when I was growing up, the book I got, called the 10th planet?

Show us this books.

Funny, neither Amazon nor ABEBooks have a listing for the book.

Originally posted by xxshadowfaxx
What was it that, it made encyclopedias back in the 80s after this discovery?

Show us the encyclopedia entries.

Originally posted by xxshadowfaxxNot to mention, scientists have never been able to figure out what is causing the tilt and uranus, and neptune.

Completely and totally untrue.

Yes, Neptune was discovered because of its gravitational pull on Uranus. There was once thought to be an anomaly in Neptune's orbit, hypothesized to be caused by another planet. However, after the Voyager 2 fly-by in 1989 it was determined that the mass of Neptune had been miscalculated; once the mass was corrected there was found to be no anomaly in Neptune's orbit.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say you are remembering correctly. Why is it not a single independent or amateur astronomer has ever found this 10th planet since 1986?

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
I never actually specified the discipline of Assyriology - it seems to be that you are quite possibly trying too hard to hold the high ground. Scientists can be bought and sold.

That is still your only argument. You cannot defend Sitchin with the facts, so you make red-herring special pleading arguments.

Point is Reptillians GOOD or EVOL are real. He helped many except and understand this. I respect him for sharing this with EA inhabitants.

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
reply to post by Harte

 

Ah! It's so obvious now... Anyone who decides that they'd like to branch out into new areas of study and investigation must be a 'flaky con man'.

The above is a straw man, in that I was responding to the assertion that Sitchin was a "scholar."

Please refute my argument, and don't make up your own pretending it to be mine.

General advice to those who aren't yet sure one way or the other: Read his books, check his sources, read from other authors in the field and aim for a better understanding of our origins.

Good advice, but our origins can't be found in any Sumerian text. Why would you think they would know more about this than, say, the Chinese (for a random example.)

Interpretation of ancient languages is a field suffering from a precision-malleability disorder, and many interpretations are only held 'true' due to majority consensus.

However, interpretations of ancient texts should only be considered when they are written by people that can actually read the language, and Sitchin could not.

Harte

reply to post by truthbeetellin


I most wholeheartedly agree! Zecharia Sitchin is the only one who tells the story of the Ancient Sumerians without glossing over it with religious symbolism. I read the Earth Chronicle series and was amazed at the story, it fit very nicely with what I already knew, ET had visited Earth long ago, and had built monoliths that even today could not be constructed.

To date, Sitchin has deciphered more then 2,000 clay cylinders from that ancient land on the Persian Gulf that existed some 6,000 years ago. Some of these fragments, which date to 4,000 B.C., are in museums around the world. One fragment in particular, presently in Germany, indicates that Earth is the seventh planet, counting in from Pluto. The time frame here is four millennia before modern astronomy confirmed the existence of Pluto as an actual planet in our solar system. So how did an ancient race of people know this fact? Sitchin says it is because these ancient people did not come from Earth, but from Nibiru. Profound family squabbles eventually caused the Annunaki to abandon planet Earth, leaving human beings to fend for themselves. These early humans would never possess the ability to travel among the stars like their creators, nor would they possess the immortality of their creators.

source

I am appalled at how so called scholars demonize the man, but then the book religions really want to control the world, and convert everyone to their was, God made everything 6000 years ago and that's it. Everything else is a lie, and Dinosaur bones were placed by the Devil to fool Christians. Yeah, that make sense.

I sincerely believe that Nibiru is inbound, headed for Earth right now. I think NASA and the Vatican are tracking it, and I think the Rich Elite are planning to enlist the human population as slaves for these Ancient Gods, while they enjoy favor, in exchange for all of the gold they have stolen over the years.

The thing that sticks in my mind is this: The human race has come a long way baby. If you look at historical photos, we look better, are taller, better built, and healthier, and a lot more knowledgeable that we were when the Annunaki were last here. We are now like them, complete with the blood lust, killing instinct, cloning capability, genetic splicing experimentation, and yes, incest. We have weapons systems that we can fight them with. WE ARE LIKE THEM NOW.

I happen to be reading "The End of Days" right now, a fascinating book about the return of the Ancient Gods. I am very curious to meet them!

reply to post by WingedBull


I'm not actually arguing with you, though you are trying to make it apear so. Actually, the quoted material you post was simply me stating a variably applicable fact. One which may or may not be applicable in this instance, and as I've already clearly stated isn't applicable in many instances.

You aren't answering any of my questions or giving opinions on the more positive aspects of what I'm posting, so your intent is quite clear - simply to rubbish Sitchin (and anyone who even remotely offers a positive word on his behalf). Note that I have clearly stated in my previous posts that I don't agree with many of SItchin's interpretations.

Care to offer a positive word, to represent your discipline in a positive way? In fact, don't bother - I couldn't care less about what you think or have to say at this moment in time, having seen the way you've behaved thus far on this thread. Cheerio.

Some say he himself was a shape shifting reptilian...I dont know...

reply to post by Harte

Good advice, but our origins can't be found in any Sumerian text. Why would you think they would know more about this than, say, the Chinese (for a random example.)

Well, as I understand it - and I guess by the way you've set this up that I quite probably have - Chinese language is derived from Sumerian cuneiform script, so in reality the original writings of the civilised human race would have been Sumerian?

And your reference to 'straw man' is nonsense. All you've done is tried to make it look as though I've mis-quoted your intended representation of Sitchin. Which I didn't. You quite clearly intended to convey that Sitchin was a 'flaky con man' because he changed his career direction a couple of times. How so? Nobody seems to know; though I'm sure you have your reasons for believing such.

Could you provide me with a source to suggest that Sitchin couldn't read the language he purported to be able to?