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

Why is it that Robert Schoch is recognized by Egyptology,as changing the very thinking of the Sphinx, But Egyptian history isnt being changed to validate his reasoning's behind his proof. Is he right or wrong,and does it change what we know of Egypt today as a whole? Egyptologists still cant come together as a community,and give answers on how and why the Pyramids were built. I find it hard to believe ANYONE,especially scientists with grandiose ideas,who like to be right,all the time. MHO.....

Update

I have refrained from engaging in a debate about one piece of supporting evidence Sphinx re-dating. I will allow readers to review Schoch's work for themselves. I will also refrain from feeding the troll.

I intend to report back on my question to Robert Schoch about whether I am right regarding his theory. Suffice it to say after a brief look he is puzzled as to why Harte stated that he is not the guy to trust on his own theory. We will see if we get more of a response when Schoch returns from travelling.

Originally posted by sonnny1
Why is it that Robert Schoch is recognized by Egyptology,as changing the very thinking of the Sphinx, But Egyptian history isnt being changed to validate his reasoning's behind his proof. Is he right or wrong,and does it change what we know of Egypt today as a whole?

Straw man. Egyptology "recognizes" no such thing from Schoch, nor does Geology.

Egyptologists still cant come together as a community,and give answers on how and why the Pyramids were built. I find it hard to believe ANYONE,especially scientists with grandiose ideas,who like to be right,all the time. MHO

Straw man. No Egyptologist (indeed, no scientist) has ever claimed to be "right all the time." In fact, Egyptology has a theory they all agree on about why the pyramids were built. "How" is not a concern of Egyptology, which is a branch of Anthropology, which is the study of Man, not architecture.

Of course it is an interesting question, so theories abound about how.

Theories have to fit the evidence. ALL the evidence. Not one single tiny piece of evidence that was gathered without being thorough.

Harte

reply to post by Harte

Of course it is an interesting question, so theories abound about how.

Most people that discuss these issues with the per-imposed ideals of proving their perception's true and right. Though with this thread thus far, there has been very formidable and rather lopsided ideals of where credit should be delivered.
Communal situations are not the only place for diversity and segregation by our mere color, religion's or , for that matter, our self interpretation's. When it comes to being an absolutely diverse individual, it had to be Sitchin. He not only provided every shred of research back round for his reader's, he provided an alternative answer for the exact thing we are discussing here. "How did we get here as we are?" implication's.
I am an atheist, I don't banner it on my shirt sleeve for everyone, but I do make it known as to cut through the mumbo jumbo and get right to the point. Sometimes my preference gets shunned, which is all right by me. But when someone is arguing a point of view without the slightest consideration or further investigation such as Sitchin's works, they or the conversation for that individual becomes one sided and rather mundane for furthering the feasibility of such epiphany's.
One thing we do "HAVE TOO" understand is that even with the lack of some point's made with diversity, the analogy stays the same as far as Sitchin's work's go. No matter what the religious may say about me or my choice to be atheist, no matter what you harte may have to say to any poster arguing and vying their interpretation as more applicable, without diversity, it personally allows me to sit back , scratch my head and wonder "How can not this person see that there may be some very strong probabilities in these 'Validations' of our very existence through Sitchin's research?" Makes me shudder, but in the long run, it is all about teh diversity of metaphysical state.
Finally got through the "Pyramid Wars" in the "War of the Gods and Men" series, absolutely mind boggling how one could come to these conclusion's and have it present itself so eloquently and tangibly with nothing more than an "Out of the Box" perception on humanity...
Thought I would throw another post in here to keep this one going, every good thread needs a "Jump Start" (Pun intended...LOL) to keep thing's "Alive" for the rest of us "Out of the Box" thinker's!!

reply to post by alyoshablue


Yes you mirror my thoughts on all this about the Anunaki and the gold thing. They would be able to do a deal with them, and pay with gold. A good movie I saw was called `battlefield earth`, with John Travolta. Aliens arrive beat Earths military in minutes. Then start mining gold. Which is very much prized back on their home world. To me, I thought it was or could apply to the Anunaki. Some people say that they release movis ect and tell us what is going to happen. Well thats just a crazy idea from me.

reply to post by illuminnaughty

To me, I thought it was or could apply to the Anunaki. Some people say that they release movis ect and tell us what is going to happen. Well thats just a crazy idea from me.

Well, you know what they say about science fiction and the like "With in the science fiction of it all, lies a glimmer of truth."
I am under the assumption that the Anunnaki were mining gold to re;ease into their atmosphere to protect them from ultraviolet and gamma rays from their passing of the Sun's they have to traverse to remain as a civilization. Apparently the Nirubu planetary trajectory is supposedly to have interaction with two sun's from our solar system and another far off one. That is why it takes them 3600 years to make a complete orbit back to our solar systems sun.
And for the record, this may be the event that the Mayan calendar postulated on as well, the return of Nirubu in it's orbit-able succession.

Originally posted by Allred5923
One thing we do "HAVE TOO" understand is that even with the lack of some point's made with diversity, the analogy stays the same as far as Sitchin's work's go. No matter what the religious may say about me or my choice to be atheist, no matter what you harte may have to say to any poster arguing and vying their interpretation as more applicable, without diversity, it personally allows me to sit back , scratch my head and wonder "How can not this person see that there may be some very strong probabilities in these 'Validations' of our very existence through Sitchin's research?" Makes me shudder, but in the long run, it is all about teh diversity of metaphysical state.

Look,

There's too much woo on the internet. I'm trying to provide balance.

Don't assume that I can't "see" anything. I have "seen" this. I used to even believe it.

I'm lazy, but I get motivated when I'm interested. I should have stayed lazy, I could be one of the bobbleheads here agreeing with all the others, slapping them on the back, giving them "stars" etc. instead of imparting what I've come to learn.

Sitchin couldn't read cuneiform. He tried to act like he could. That makes him a fraud. End of story.

Harte

Great thread and topic,

Zecharia Sitchin provoked a lot of people and minds in his lifetime, and good on him for doing so. We need more people like him these days. Just because whatever came out of his mouth or papers didn't agree to the fact-track, doesn't give anybody the right to discredit everything he stated as false.

Besides... due to the widening of public knowledge regarding corruption and deceit being fed to the masses, myself and i'm sure a whole lot more people will be accepting these kind of pseudoscientists (as you call them) over the sophisticated & narrow-minded type.

... and to the ones attempting to bash FlyInTheOintment... Give up lol, you're not doing yourself or anyone for that matter any favours.

reply to post by Harte

Sitchin couldn't read cuneiform. He tried to act like he could. That makes him a fraud. End of story.

Boy harte, did I hit a nerve or what? Chill out with the self perception attitude and validation. and "Don't be lazy" when trying to validate a controversial rebuttal, it leaves one to think you aren't as sharp as you presume to be.

Zecharia Sitchin (1920-2010) was an internationally acclaimed researcher and author of 14 books that retell the history and prehistory of mankind and planet Earth by combining archaeology, the Bible, and ancient Mesopotamian and Egyptian texts with the latest scientific discoveries ranging from space exploration to biology. Able to read millennia-old Sumerian cuneiform tablets, his writings treat ancient sources not as myth, but as records of actual events. The result is a saga of flesh and blood, astronauts, gods and Earthlings, and a chain of events from the past that leads to a prophetic future.
Mr. Sitchin’s research and books have been featured in dozens of journals internationally, most recently in an article appearing in The New York Times on Jan. 10, 2010. He was heralded as the 1996 Scientist of the Year by the International Forum on New Science, and has been a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Oriental Society, the Middle East Studies Association of North America, and the Israel Exploration Society.

"Demand the evidence for Alien DNA"

I know you have been around these forums for sometime now Harte, but there may be some evidences of the Sitchin saga you would rather not comply to as factual. That is alright by me, but it seems Mr. Sitchin has been accredited by higher echelons of practical and new sciences by various groups from around the globe.
All I get from you is "He's a fraud" with no validation. And if there is something that indicates other wise, lay it on me so I can research your "Evidence" to make sure it isn't a lopsided self encouraged denunciation of your own personal take of his credentials, K? Thanks,

I took the opportunity to research farther into your claims Harte. There is only one "1" website dedicated to Mr. Sitchin being misinformed or having error's in his chronological listing's of the translations and the supposed irrefutable translations there of.
For the sake of conversation, I will link this website so others may read of it's contents, but by way of the argument's presented by the self acclaimed scholar of this created web page, he has only to argue translator inconsistencies, which may very well be misinterpreted by the so called scholars themselves. With so many variables of definitions and meaning's, it may very well be the issues we have with even the translations of some stone written hieroglyph's that speak so broken and rather unintelligible by way of chaotic reading.
As for the groups that do recognize Mr. Sitchin for his new scientific and scholarly ways of interpreting the Cuneiform texts and Sumerian, Assyrian and Egyptian writing's, it would rather seem he was in a proper group of his constituents and not being brought to light as a poser, if you will, of such probability being a feasible and practical hypothesis of such evidences.
On the web page I discovered, the author openly states that he knows there will be refuted believer's in Sitchin's work, with that being said, and with him claiming such high practicality to his creating his web site to argue these points, it seems if he lacks the "Lack Luster" of having any true descriptive argument other than self interpretation from old science research and acceptances.
But, for those who are interested:

Zecharia Sitchins Errors: An Overview

Originally posted by Allred5923
reply to post by Harte

 

Sitchin couldn't read cuneiform. He tried to act like he could. That makes him a fraud. End of story.

Boy harte, did I hit a nerve or what? Chill out with the self perception attitude and validation. and "Don't be lazy" when trying to validate a controversial rebuttal, it leaves one to think you aren't as sharp as you presume to be.


I know you have been around these forums for sometime now Harte, but there may be some evidences of the Sitchin saga you would rather not comply to as factual.

What is factual is that Sitchin never provided a single translation for any cuneiform writing ever discovered.

That is factual.

Originally posted by Allred5923 That is alright by me, but it seems Mr. Sitchin has been accredited by higher echelons of practical and new sciences by various groups from around the globe.

It may "seem" that way to you, but he has not been accredited by anyone other than publishers of fringe hooey. Like the source you used for your quote about Sitchin's many "accolades."

Sourcing the dust jacket of the man's book is not gonna mean much, you know.

Originally posted by Allred5923
All I get from you is "He's a fraud" with no validation. And if there is something that indicates other wise, lay it on me so I can research your "Evidence" to make sure it isn't a lopsided self encouraged denunciation of your own personal take of his credentials, K? Thanks,

Use the search function. Look for my posts on the matter. You'll find all the evidence you'll ever need - far, FAR more evidence that Sitchin ever provided for his "theory."

Originally posted by Allred5923
I took the opportunity to research farther into your claims Harte. There is only one "1" website dedicated to Mr. Sitchin being misinformed or having error's in his chronological listing's of the translations and the supposed irrefutable translations there of.
For the sake of conversation, I will link this website so others may read of it's contents, but by way of the argument's presented by the self acclaimed scholar of this created web page, he has only to argue translator inconsistencies, which may very well be misinterpreted by the so called scholars themselves.

Given that you apparently know absolutely nothing about cuneiform, I'll let that pass with the admonition that you might want to look into this. And with this note: Michael Heiser is not a "self-acclaimed" scholar. He's the real deal. He is a recognized expert on ancient Middle East languages. He is merely the only such scholar to have bothered to even discuss a fringe author like Sitchin on the internet. Most Assyriologists have never even heard of Sitchin. That I can guarantee.

FYI, the Akkadians copied the Sumerian writing system. That made it necessary for them to create Akkadian-Sumerian lexicons and dictionaries. We have found some of these.

Akkadians spoke a language that was a version of Semitic - one of the languages of the Semitic language group.

Given that we could translate all the ancient Semitic we ever found before Sumer was even discovered, you should see here that there is no "misinterpretation" unless the Akkadians themselves misinterpreted.

Sargon the Great was Akkadian, if you wanted to google this up and find out the era I'm talking about here.

Originally posted by Allred5923As for the groups that do recognize Mr. Sitchin for his new scientific and scholarly ways of interpreting the Cuneiform texts and Sumerian, Assyrian and Egyptian writing's, it would rather seem he was in a proper group of his constituents and not being brought to light as a poser, if you will, of such probability being a feasible and practical hypothesis of such evidences.

Please list these groups and their affiliations.

Harte

reply to post by Harte

Please list these groups and their affiliations.

Harte

I don't have the list in front of me at this moment, but if given the chance to validate your take of Sitchin inadequacies of being a fraud turn out to be the right answer and not some kind of self interpreted ideology or hatred towards his assumptions because of religious implications and such, I will personally apologize to you with a thread of self humbling attributes.

I have just started reading the 4th volume of the Earth chronicle series, with having finished the "Wars of Gods and Men" the book was quite accurate for the epics that had taken place at that time, and that seems to give a better explanation of the way the religious texts should have been assimilated into and understood other than a no answer full of love implication.

I will research, but not for thing's you have written or authored over his legitimacy, If you could just produce the evidence that Sitchin is irrefutably wrong with tangible evidence and not by sheer speculation, I will read it in it's entirety and with unbiased insight.

I respect your choice of your personal research and analogy, but I also have to be totally swayed to think that his "Assumptions" weren't pure madness. The evidences are very compelling, and though I am not an ancient civilization cultural and interpreter of such languages as cuneiform and Assyrian texts, I do know there is much missing from our current knowledge that has answers, just aren't going about it the right way for absolute disclosure.

I have currently been experiencing financial woes, I no longer have internet at my private home, so if it takes me time to get my argument and research back too you, please forgive me for the lapse of recontact times...

One other thing that had crossed my mind harte... "If there were ancient alien renditions of art done by ancient civilizations and prehistoric man, what is the chances of the Sitchin epiphany being rather relevant and not so "Fringe scientific" but lost and now just being retained by his conglomeration's of civilizations and people from around the world as a singular event, with the same encounter's?"

Originally posted by Allred5923
reply to post by Harte

 

Please list these groups and their affiliations.
Harte

I don't have the list in front of me at this moment,

I understand completely.

Originally posted by Allred5923
but if given the chance to validate your take of Sitchin inadequacies of being a fraud turn out to be the right answer and not some kind of self interpreted ideology or hatred towards his assumptions because of religious implications and such, I will personally apologize to you with a thread of self humbling attributes.

No need. Apologize to yourself for allowing yourself to be misled.

Originally posted by Allred5923
I have just started reading the 4th volume of the Earth chronicle series, with having finished the "Wars of Gods and Men" the book was quite accurate for the epics that had taken place at that time, and that seems to give a better explanation of the way the religious texts should have been assimilated into and understood other than a no answer full of love implication.

This is a seperate consideration though, isn't it?

I mean, religion could have and likely should have been very different from what it is today, regardless of Sitchin's mischaracterization of the past.

Originally posted by Allred5923
I will research, but not for thing's you have written or authored over his legitimacy, If you could just produce the evidence that Sitchin is irrefutably wrong with tangible evidence and not by sheer speculation, I will read it in it's entirety and with unbiased insight.

How about the fact that Sitchin claims the Sumerians knew about all the planets when they never, ever mention any more than the five you can see with the naked eye?

What sort of evidence of this would be "irrefutable" to you? Do I have to quote every astronomical script ever found?

Originally posted by Allred5923
I respect your choice of your personal research and analogy, but I also have to be totally swayed to think that his "Assumptions" weren't pure madness. The evidences are very compelling, and though I am not an ancient civilization cultural and interpreter of such languages as cuneiform and Assyrian texts, I do know there is much missing from our current knowledge that has answers, just aren't going about it the right way for absolute disclosure.

Obviously, there's more that we don't know than there is that we do know.

Regarding Sitchin, my distaste for him is not due to his belief that aliens intervened. It is due to his purposefully ignoring actual facts that are known, and purposefully mischaracterizing other facts that are known, in his attempts to convince his readership.

Originally posted by Allred5923
One other thing that had crossed my mind harte... "If there were ancient alien renditions of art done by ancient civilizations and prehistoric man, what is the chances of the Sitchin epiphany being rather relevant and not so "Fringe scientific" but lost and now just being retained by his conglomeration's of civilizations and people from around the world as a singular event, with the same encounter's?"

Short answer - pretty darn slim chances.

Harte

reply to post by Harte


I still haven't' compiled a list for Sitchin's support, but I wanted to let you know I am still here, with your last statement of of

short answer-Darn slim chances

I would beg to differ with that kind of argument. It, too me and many others that for all the registered and self interpretative inclinations of religious texts, and referral to higher deities and possibly omnipotent creator, it would seem as if there was much more that was lost other than the truth of our existence on our planet.
And, if I remember right, Sitchin had implicated that there was "12" planets that were cataloged and realized by the Anunnaki creed. This was brought forth as comparing the 5 planets man may be personally aware of but the approach to earth allowed all twelve planets to be cataloged in descending order, not ascending from earth as a starting point of the count.
The possibility still stands for me as being probable to the answers that remain unanswered by mainstream science and religions. When using references of these set ideologies, one is surely to get the same answer over and over with open ended answers as well. This at least explains what was once unanswerable by theology and religions, not to mention the fact that people of those by gone eras were very possibly expressing themselves with actual events and tribulations instead of being some made up bed time story such as myths and folklore.
Chronologically, I tend to sway towards the ancient civilizations wanting to be able to record their endeavors and share them with future populations as a matter of fact translation. And with the coincidences of the biblical, Inca, Aztec, Toltec, Mayan, Egyptian, Akkadian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Mesopotamian, Chaldean, Sumerian, etc., etc., can all fit so nicely together with out any justified connection from one to the other being connected by nothing short of a lineage of history that has been lost? I have to agree that these chances are rather staggering for a fact based argument, but isn't funny how it took a decades of theologists, scholars and other studiers of ancient civilizations to finally realize that there were forms of answer's for the very most profound inquiries of mankind to finally link "ALL" of civilization's of writing and written interpretation to actually find a beginning and an end with in these chronologies of the ancient civilizations? That, in itself, is way to coincidental for me to accept as nothing more than mistranslation and reconstruction of stories/myths or legends to come out so uniquely explanatory and decisive.
Like I have said before, I take Sitchin's works as a "Probable" explanation of possibilities for these matters, but with the research of many renown researchers, going all the way back to the late and mid eighteenth century, someone had to get it straight sooner or later of exactly why we as a civilization can't figure out the implications of the why's, when's and where's of our existence, but yet can manipulate DNA just as they had done (With respect to Sitchin's finding's and research done by other scientists of these matters.) in the ancient past and our very beginning's.
Explain places like Puma Punko , or the Easter Islanders? The Towers of Babylon, the Hanging Gardens, the Light house of Alexandria? Are these all fables or myth's? We know they are not, but that was only because of research after the fact of disclosure of them being nothing else but myth and legends. I think we have to remain open minded with this issue, because it may be the answer of all answer's that we long for. Even the city of Troy was thought to be a mythical tail, low and behold it has been discovered and proven fact that it truly did exist as a city of description from past down stories and written texts.
If I had the financial and scientific know how to visit all of thee fore mentioned sites around the world to justify my appetite for these implications to be true, I would be on my way to investigate. But, as thing's "Truly" are for me, I can only go by what is being presented and how that evidence can be either manipulated or translated by myself, opposed to others self interpretations for it to be something of feasibility or tangible proof's.
Right now I am in the middle of reading "Lost Realms" of the Sitchin collection. I am at the point of how the variances from one place to the other seems similar both in lore and existence. Elohim/Abraham, Tenoch/Enoch, etc., etc., The information is offered Harte, it is another story on how it is accepted and digested as food for thought or fodder for the fields. The coinciding facts presented by Sitchin of all the ancient civilizations is an astounding feat of research to even be able to conceive such an epiphany moment of our past, and not to mention how easily it supports from one civilization to another as the stories/Legends or myth's get past along from generation to generation. Not to mention all of the religious texts and inscriptions from around the world from all different time spans and their ability to intertwine to be one in the same story throughout written languages. there are very many more comparisons that have been made that just escape the odds of being chance.
For us to be here at this moment to debate such thing's as this is a feat in itself. We are potentially discussing the very premises to which we have derived from, but not with out protection of our self protection of intellectual prowess of these being fact or falsified interpretations of the same author and the research it involved. If you agree that these ancient civilizations were as highly evolved as they appeared to be, and with out some other force of nature by means of higher life forms helping them in their struggles/construction's/Reading/writing/Arithmetic/Geography/Metallurgy and an all out understanding of what earth and it's natural resources have to offer, this is something that would have taken much, much longer in the evolutionary clock standards of intellectual abilities.By comparison, scientists and theologists pretty much agree that they "DON'T" know these answer of higher development and where it all began, but with Sitchin's works and with the research he has provided, it lays a basis of the probabilities of the truth in our ancient past.

reply to post by sonnny1

Why is it that Robert Schoch is recognized by Egyptology,as changing the very thinking of the Sphinx, But Egyptian history isnt being changed to validate his reasoning's behind his proof. Is he right or wrong,and does it change what we know of Egypt today as a whole?

Robert Schoch has his PH.d. in geology, which in turn to me gives him a much more loftier interpretation of land forms and variable structural and edifices deterioration by means of the elements of earth. I know the Sphinx has some sort of secrets, what they are? I do not know, but for an individual to reassess the over all erosion of the Sphinx and declare it to be from either a mote or torrential rainfall, I am more inclined to trust the Geologist rather than an Egyptology. The only thing that comes as a destructive to such monuments is after time is elements/erosion implications.
Schoch deserves to be listened too, but as many can see as with the Sitchin dilemma, their are those who argue their points without open minded interpretation of such ideologies.
Robert Schoch replies

reply to post by Allred5923


Thank You for the reply. Do you have that LINK article in .pdf form? I would love to read it.
Again, thank you.

Originally posted by Allred5923
I still haven't' compiled a list for Sitchin's support, but I wanted to let you know I am still here, with your last statement of of

short answer-Darn slim chances

I would beg to differ with that kind of argument.

Well, I said it was the "short answer, right?

Originally posted by Allred5923It, too me and many others that for all the registered and self interpretative inclinations of religious texts, and referral to higher deities and possibly omnipotent creator, it would seem as if there was much more that was lost other than the truth of our existence on our planet.
And, if I remember right, Sitchin had implicated that there was "12" planets that were cataloged and realized by the Anunnaki creed. This was brought forth as comparing the 5 planets man may be personally aware of but the approach to earth allowed all twelve planets to be cataloged in descending order, not ascending from earth as a starting point of the count.

However, no ancient writing, Sumerian or otherwise, has ever bween found that indicates anything other than 5 known planets. How do you reconcile this verifiable fact with Sitchin's claim?

Originally posted by Allred5923
And with the coincidences of the biblical, Inca, Aztec, Toltec, Mayan, Egyptian, Akkadian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Mesopotamian, Chaldean, Sumerian, etc., etc., can all fit so nicely together with out any justified connection from one to the other being connected by nothing short of a lineage of history that has been lost?

You shouldn't be surprised that Sumer, Akkadia, Assyria, Babylonia and Chaldea have similar mythos. Hebriac myths also all (basically) stem from that same mythology.
There is absolutely no connection whatsoever between any Western Hemisphere culture and any of the others you list. That is, until the Spanish imposed their beliefs on the natives of the New World.
The fact that you can state that there is such a connection means nothing, other than that you are either misled, or unaware.

Originally posted by Allred5923 I have to agree that these chances are rather staggering for a fact based argument, but isn't funny how it took a decades of theologists, scholars and other studiers of ancient civilizations to finally realize that there were forms of answer's for the very most profound inquiries of mankind to finally link "ALL" of civilization's of writing and written interpretation to actually find a beginning and an end with in these chronologies of the ancient civilizations?

No such link exists, ergo no, I would have to say it's not funny. What is funny is the idea idea that you think this is factual.

Originally posted by Allred5923
Like I have said before, I take Sitchin's works as a "Probable" explanation of possibilities for these matters, but with the research of many renown researchers, going all the way back to the late and mid eighteenth century, someone had to get it straight sooner or later of exactly why we as a civilization can't figure out the implications of the why's, when's and where's of our existence, but yet can manipulate DNA just as they had done (With respect to Sitchin's finding's and research done by other scientists of these matters.) in the ancient past and our very beginning's.

There exists not a single iota of evidence of any manipulation of DNA in our genetic code, nor in that of any other life form on the planet. If you wish to believe Sitchin, be aware that you are doing so on faith alone, exactly like centuries of ignorant people believed every word the Pope said (and, of course, some still do - poor souls.)

Originally posted by Allred5923
Explain places like Puma Punko , or the Easter Islanders? The Towers of Babylon, the Hanging Gardens, the Light house of Alexandria? Are these all fables or myth's? We know they are not, but that was only because of research after the fact of disclosure of them being nothing else but myth and legends. I think we have to remain open minded with this issue, because it may be the answer of all answer's that we long for. Even the city of Troy was thought to be a mythical tail, low and behold it has been discovered and proven fact that it truly did exist as a city of description from past down stories and written texts.

I'm not aware that any of these things actually need explaining. Obviously, the lighthouse at Alexandria couldn't light a ship on fire that was miles out in the ocean - that's an exaggeration. But otherwise, what exactly requires explanation about these things you listed?

Also, though I agree that Troy has likely been found, the fact is (last time I checked,) the site we now refer to as Troy has yet to be connected with the Troy of Greek mythology.

Originally posted by Allred5923
If I had the financial and scientific know how to visit all of thee fore mentioned sites around the world to justify my appetite for these implications to be true, I would be on my way to investigate. But, as thing's "Truly" are for me, I can only go by what is being presented and how that evidence can be either manipulated or translated by myself, opposed to others self interpretations for it to be something of feasibility or tangible proof's.

You are only looking at fringe ideas. I suggest you try and find the "mainstream" views concerning these things you are curious about. If you do this, you'll find all the information that I've found.

See, I used to believe - like you. I resent, now, being lied to by some of these con men.

Originally posted by Allred5923The coinciding facts presented by Sitchin of all the ancient civilizations is an astounding feat of research to even be able to conceive such an epiphany moment of our past, and not to mention how easily it supports from one civilization to another as the stories/Legends or myth's get past along from generation to generation. Not to mention all of the religious texts and inscriptions from around the world from all different time spans and their ability to intertwine to be one in the same story throughout written languages. there are very many more comparisons that have been made that just escape the odds of being chance.

Again, you're accepting Sitchin's word purely on faith. Like I said, if that's what you want, be aware of what you are actually doing.

It takes time, but try to verify what Sitchin claims. You'll find he's lied to you about several things, and mischaracterized practically everything else he writes about.

Originally posted by Allred5923If you agree that these ancient civilizations were as highly evolved as they appeared to be, and with out some other force of nature by means of higher life forms helping them in their struggles/construction's/Reading/writing/Arithmetic/Geography/Metallurgy and an all out understanding of what earth and it's natural resources have to offer, this is something that would have taken much, much longer in the evolutionary clock standards of intellectual abilities.By comparison, scientists and theologists pretty much agree that they "DON'T" know these answer of higher development and where it all began, but with Sitchin's works and with the research he has provided, it lays a basis of the probabilities of the truth in our ancient past.

The bolded part above is simply not the case. The fact that you haven't bothered to look into the mainstream ideas concerning these matters by no means indicates that we don't know how "higher development" began. Of course, "higher development," as speculated on by Sitchin, never really existed in the first place.

If you postulate a thing that never existed, such as rocketry in Sumer ala Sitchin, you can quite easily and naturally follow that train of thought to a statement like "Scientists don't know how they did this."

Harte