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

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
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.

It sounds like you are trying to weasel out of your claims that every scholar and researcher, aside from Sitchin (using the terms loosely in his case) are corrupt and engaged in a cover-up.

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
You aren't answering any of my questions or giving opinions on the more positive aspects of what I'm posting

Which would be?

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
so your intent is quite clear - simply to rubbish Sitchin (and anyone who even remotely offers a positive word on his behalf).

If by "rubbish" you mean criticize his claims, then certainly. I will happily admit to that.

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
Note that I have clearly stated in my previous posts that I don't agree with many of SItchin's interpretations.

So what? You have yet to say what those interpretations are. And you are hear attacking anyone who criticizes Sitchin, twisting their statements (much like Sitchin twists the words of the ancients) and accusing them of being corrupt.

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
Care to offer a positive word, to represent your discipline in a positive way?

If you want a positive word about Sitchin for the sake of having a positive word?

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
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.

What "behavior" would that be? Pointing out your flawed arguments, for instance? Using facts as opposed to logical fallacies?

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
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?

AFAIK, there's no relationship between cuneiform script and Chinese writing.

Just because cuneiform is the earliest we know of (as of now,) that by no means indicates all writing came from cuneiform.

For example, our own alphabet has its origins in Egyptian hieroglyphs, ultimately.

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.

Hardly.

He is a flaky con man because of all the lies and misrepresentations he states as truths in his books, not because he changed professions.

He is not a scholar, that's the point I was making. Not only is he not a scholar, he is a lying, flaky con man.

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

Here's the demonstration of how Sitchin couldn't read ancient Hebrew, although he himself was Jewish:
Heiser's site

More on the same ancient language:
Heiser's site 2

This link shows you how Sitchin makes up meanings for Sumerian words so that they will fit his cash cow "theories."
Heiser's site 3

Also:

Rob Hafernik is one of Sitchin's most vocal critics. An aerospace engineer, Hafernik worked for NASA and knows all about orbital dynamics and the workings of the universe and rockets. He said he found a problem right from the beginning of Twelfth Planet:

"Instead of quoting standard translations for Biblical verses, Sitchin makes up his own translations, based on his interpretation of 'the parallel Sumerian and Akkadian texts/tales'. Unfortunately, he is using those verses to support his interpretation of those texts."

In other words, his own translation is used to prove his "discoveries" about the texts themselves. He could make them say whatever he wanted. Hafernik says bluntly, "Right away, we're in deep academic doo-doo. [Sitchin]'s let us know he's going to twist the translations around to support his thesis." Sitchin uses his own translation to prove his pre-supposed conclusion. He made the evidence fit the theory, something he and other alternative authors are quick to criticize in mainstream science, especially evolutionary biology.

Sitchin also makes sweeping statements about the technological development of the Sumerians based on a few subjectively interpreted drawings. Hafernik says, "He goes too far, however, when he claims that one of the Sumerian tablets 'shows, without question, a man lying on a special bed; his face protected by a mask, and he is being subjected to some kind of radiation.'"

Ian Lawton agrees: "To use the words without question is, without question, exaggerating a highly dubious and subjective interpretation. This is also a prime example, of which there are many, of the complete lack of any reference as to the location and source of the original seal."

Hafernik says there is very little chance that anyone could challenge this interpretation, not because it is right but because there is no way of tracking down the source for the hand-drawn copy of the Sumerian tablet: "We have no way to know what the original tablet actually showed. We have no reference or citation so we can go look up the tablet. Yet, we have a totally wild claim based solely on this reproduction."

Source

And he's a flake because:

On page 163 of The Twelfth Planet, Sitchen presents a hand-drawn picture, without citation, of a presumably Sumerian cylinder with wings topped by a bird, of which he asked:

"What or who was the Eagle who took Etana to the distant heavens? We cannot help but associate the ancient text with the message beamed to earth in July 1969 by Neil Armstrong, commander of the Apollo 11 spacecraft: Houston! Tranquility base here. The Eagle has landed." As Rob Hafernik points out, this argument is pointless. But why should Sitchin have a rocket-fetish? After all, advanced civilizations should logically have moved beyond the need for fuel-inefficient rockets. However when Twelfth Planet was written, rockets were state of the art.

My emphasis of the flakiest parts.
Same source as above


Harte

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
Chinese language is derived from Sumerian cuneiform script, so in reality the original writings of the civilised human race would have been Sumerian?

No, it's not. Chinese is part of the Sino-Tibetan family of languages. Sumerian, however, is a language isolate, meaning it has no relationship with other languages (though it has been proposed that Sumerian belongs to the Dene-Caucasian superfamily of which Sino-Tibetan is a part. However, being in the same family is quite different than Chinese being derived from Sumerian).

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
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.

Yes you did. He was speaking of Sitchin specifically, and you twisted it to say he was accusing anyone who went outside the mainstream of being a con-man.

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

Where did Sitchin learn Sumerian?

reply to post by WingedBull

You are constantly responding to flyintheointment by slightly misrepresenting several things he says in each post! It looks like you are just deliberately giving him no option but to engage with your misrepresentations so that he cannot participate in a proper debate. You aren't doing your point of view any favours in my opinion just harming intelligent dialogue.

If you aren't attempting the above be careful not to pretend he is saying something he isn't and wasting all our time... Then we can debate what - if any - contribution Sitchin has made. I suspect you are basically trying to stifle real debate here.

And no I will not engage in a pointless argument about what we have and haven't said. There is only so many hours in a lifetime, sorry.

reply to post by xxshadowfaxx


Sure there are things long forgotten in the past.


I wish some morons didn' burn the Library of Alexandria down ages ago.

There was literature in there on things far beyond most would fathom.

That would allow for sitting and study.

I just don't dig in the Nibiru mythology. Not on as many assumptions. Not when things are shady.

The denial of ignorance is based on scientific study. I don't dig Stitchin being the only expertize on such matters.
Even if he was i guess his views are his own interpretation which does not necessarily make for them being right.

I believe in things that exist. Doing so on a single opinion without fail-proof evidence is not my sport.

God with us all,
Peace,

George

Originally posted by GEORGETHEGREEK
reply to post by xxshadowfaxx

 

Sure there are things long forgotten in the past.


I wish some morons didn' burn the Library of Alexandria down ages ago.

I think it was burnt down on purpose (conspiracy theory)

There was literature in there on things far beyond most would fathom.

Yep lots of books and scrolls which MAY have told of our true history.

That would allow for sitting and study.

I just don't dig in the Nibiru mythology. Not on as many assumptions. Not when things are shady.

The denial of ignorance is based on scientific study. I don't dig Stitchin being the only expertize on such matters.
Even if he was i guess his views are his own interpretation which does not necessarily make for them being right.

I believe in things that exist. Doing so on a single opinion without fail-proof evidence is not my sport.

God with us all,
Peace,

George

If Sitchin is right, and I believe he is, then there are three books everyone must read.
1) Lloyd Pye' "Everything You Know is Wrong"
2) Richard C. Hoagland' "Dark Mission"
3) Zecharia Sitchin' "End of Days"

The answers are here in these books, I am in no doubt that we are decended from ET' and this whole charade has been going on for many years and Darwinism is a CROK

reply to post by downunderET


Allow me to spend my time in other things i deem far more important.

I am more concerned on the environment and what the PTB hold for as along with inevitable wars...

here is a lil suggestion on my behalf that i deem worthwhile while taking up less of your time yet being more important.

Prefferably watch in original site in full HD.

Best friendly regards,

George

Originally posted by downunderET
If Sitchin is right, and I believe he is, then there are three books everyone must read.
1) Lloyd Pye' "Everything You Know is Wrong"
2) Richard C. Hoagland' "Dark Mission"
3) Zecharia Sitchin' "End of Days"

The Three Stooges.

I'll wait for the movie.

Wait! What am I saying?

I'll wait for the Youtube clip.

Harte

reply to post by Harte


lol brother!

Originally posted by Pimander
You are constantly responding to flyintheointment by slightly misrepresenting several things he says in each post!

Please tell us what I have "misrepresented". Give specifics.

Originally posted by Pimander
It looks like you are just deliberately giving him no option but to engage with your misrepresentations so that he cannot participate in a proper debate. You aren't doing your point of view any favours in my opinion just harming intelligent dialogue.

Proper debate is not accusing everyone (in this case, mainstream Assyriology, historians and archaeologists) that disagrees with your point of view of being corrupt and engaged in a cover-up. Intelligent dialogue is not avoiding facts in favor of red herring arguments and special pleading.

Originally posted by Pimander
If you aren't attempting the above be careful not to pretend he is saying something he isn't and wasting all our time...

Unfortunately, that is exactly what he said.

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'.

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
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.

Originally posted by Pimander
Then we can debate what - if any - contribution Sitchin has made.

Then debate it. Do not make baseless accusations unsupported by any actual evidence, or defend those baseless accusations while pretending they were never made. Discuss the facts. I am not the one accusing academy of being corrupt, I am not the one creating excuses when the facts do not support my beliefs.

Originally posted by Pimander
I suspect you are basically trying to stifle real debate here.

What utter hypocritical trite. Pointing out baseless accusations and logical fallacies is not "trying to stifle real debate"; however, attacking people for pointing them out it. The only people trying to stifle debate in this conversation are the supporters of Sitchin. They do not want real debate, they cannot afford real debate, as they feed on ignorance, much as their idol did.

Originally posted by Pimander
And no I will not engage in a pointless argument about what we have and haven't said. There is only so many hours in a lifetime, sorry.

So you make accusations (without specifics, without merit) then declare you will not discuss the accusations.

reply to post by GEORGETHEGREEK


There are news articles from 1983 - 1984, all about a new discovery in our solar system. They aren't that old. Yet people seemed to shut up about it.

And you're right, sitchin isn't the only one with expertise on the subject. And I am not saying sitchin is right. However, sitchin had theories, and different interpretations than most. And to me, he makes the most sense. There is no truth, because if there was, there would be no other interpretations. So whether sitchin is right or wrong, he gives his own translation, and it's personally, what I believe in. It makes sense to me. But I am open to other translations, if they make even more sense. I wouldn't deny the truth if it came out. But for now, sitchin is the guy I'm going with.

I learnt about Sitchin about 10 years ago and he definitely gave me an alternate view to many questions that no one could answer effectively. He may not have gotten all the details right, but in my opinion he connected all the dots effectively. I'm sad I did not have the opportunity to attend one of his lectures and also that he wont be around in the runup to 2012. HIs books will always have a place in my library.

Originally posted by xxshadowfaxx
There are news articles from 1983 - 1984, all about a new discovery in our solar system.

Where are these articles?

reply to post by WingedBull


In the style of Dragon's Den; I'm out. I can't be bothered following up on all your craftiness and won't waste my time doing so. Pseudoskepticism. One thing I'll say is that you have a way of misquoting people which is sheerly brilliant. Sit back, relax, job done.

Harte - I'll review the links you posted. Thanks for the information - I think we went in an unfortunate and slightly unnecessary, 'roundabout way' to get to the basic gist of the debate, but I appreciate that you've offered something of substance and ceased arguments.

Pimander - thanks for the support, and for the second opinion regarding what's actually going on here. I'm glad you noticed the misquoting. Winged Bull has ignored many questions and positive statements which would generally garner an opinion from anyone who truly cared about debating the matter. He seems to think I'm only involved in this thread to 'support Sitchin' - which as you'll clearly see, is not the correct interpretation of what I've written.

I won't be checking this thread again, and I only hope that any who follow and look over what's here will appreciate the truth of my motivations. My command of the English language is excellent, and it's extremely rare that anything I write is open to the kind of misinterpretation evidenced in this thread. I can only say it as I see it, which is that there's an undertone of some sort - one that should be carefully weighed before coming to any conclusions.

reply to post by Harte


Quick final point - I saw an exhibit in the Manchester Museum recently which suggested that all languages including Chinese did originate (at least in part) from Sumerian.

There are several indicators aparently, and many authors have commented on the relationship. I haven't the time (or inclination after the debacle of this thread) to get the links, but the data is there to be reviewed. Seeing as you said 'AFAIK' I assume you'd be open to research the possibility a bit more.

So I just thought I'd mention it.

I disagree with Winged Bull's interpretation of 'language isolate'. In itself, Sumerian may have developed 'independently' but (afaik) there is evidence to suggest that many languages did borrow and develop from it, including Chinese (and the related language group it falls within, Sino-Tibetan).

Final two cents. Deleting from my subscriptions.

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
Pseudoskepticism.

Invoked when the believer when their beliefs are challenged and they cannot muster a cogent defense.

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
One thing I'll say is that you have a way of misquoting people which is sheerly brilliant.

You mean by actually quoting you and challenging you on the claims. Did you or did you not make the statements quoted?

You cannot back up your claims, so you are lying and telling us you never made the claims in the first place, that you are being "misquoted". Considering I twice posted what you said and one can easily find the posts where you originally made the claims, it shows your utter lack of disrespect for your fellow members that you would lie and say you never made the claims. It also demonstrates you are not interested in an actual debate, you make claims, those claims are challenged, then you lie and say you never made those claims, then accuse those who challenged them of "not wanting debate". What you wanted was unthinking, uncritical agreement and you have shown you cannot handle anything but. So you throw a fit instead.

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment I'm glad you noticed the misquoting.

And like you, he made a claim he could not back up. Like you, he made a general claim but could not back it up.

Please, demonstrate where you were misquoted. Back up your claims.

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
Winged Bull has ignored many questions and positive statements which would generally garner an opinion from anyone who truly cared about debating the matter.

The only person ignoring questions and statements here is you. I asked you what questions those were and what those "positive" statements were supposed to be. You ignored this.

Again demonstrating you are more interested in being an intellectual child and throwing a fit whenever you are challenged.

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
He seems to think I'm only involved in this thread to 'support Sitchin' - which as you'll clearly see, is not the correct interpretation of what I've written.

You have thus far defended Sitchin and have yet to say what of his "theories" you disagree with.

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment My command of the English language is excellent, and it's extremely rare that anything I write is open to the kind of misinterpretation evidenced in this thread.

Again with the lies.

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
I disagree with Winged Bull's interpretation of 'language isolate'. In itself, Sumerian may have developed 'independently'

It is not that it developed independently...no (satisfactory) connection can be found to any existing language.

I agree with the OP... Scientists have a way of painting themselves in a corner. They come up with a hypothesis and cant except anyone elses if it doesnt fall within their own line of thinking. It doesnt help that some scientists are employed through generous grants...

reply to post by Skywatcher2011


nice explanation. emotions run deep when someone dies. everyone has a right to post their beliefs. and your response was an excellent counter. but in the end, no one changes what they believe.

reply to post by WingedBull

Extremely amusing

You ask me to give examples of you misrepresenting FlyInTheOintment and immediately misrepresent him again. You couldn't buy this.

Originally posted by WingedBull

Originally posted by Pimander
You are constantly responding to flyintheointment by slightly misrepresenting several things he says in each post!

Please tell us what I have "misrepresented". Give specifics.
(snip)
Proper debate is not accusing everyone (in this case, mainstream Assyriology, historians and archaeologists)...
(snip)

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'.

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
Scientists can be bought and sold. Not all of them,

Clearly in the yellow sections emphasised by me you attack FlyInTheOintment for "accusing everyone ." Pardon me

You even saved me the trouble of finding them myself and post the quotes you have misrepresented. Fly clearly posted "Not all academics need be bought off" and then "Not all of them,".

So FlyInTheOintment DID NOT "accuse everyone" at all.

Originally posted by WingedBull

Originally posted by Pimander
Then we can debate what - if any - contribution Sitchin has made.

Then debate it. Do not make baseless accusations unsupported by any actual evidence, or defend those baseless accusations while pretending they were never made.
(snip)

The evidence is above for all to see. My claim that you misrepresented FlyInTheOintment is not baseless - it is the truth. Actually it is you who has misrepresented Fly. You have pretended claims were made that were not. In other words you have made a baseless accusation.

However, congratulations are in order here. I say the evidence is there for all to see but as you have ruined the thread with your baseless misrepresentations, I doubt anyone will even still be following it. Well done!