Zecharia Sitchin sumerian literature translations are probably greatly embellished

a reply to: Shiloh7

Shiloh please start a thread over on ancient civ and we can go over that list of wrong you posted item by item.

originally posted by: Agent_USA_Supporter

Ah yes that old Site created by failures whom claim to be scientists and are working trying to grab people's money to by clicking there website which is sitchiniswrong.

If by failure you mean an individual with 2 masters and a phd. Who is capable of translating a dozen ancient languages and is a professor of undergraduate studies. Yup, that sounds like a failure to me!

I wonder how much they are in earning in AD revenue by just spreading there site? i could only even imagine.

Since there are no banner ads on the site I'm going with no profits.

Laughable that site is even trying to debunk Ancient Astronauts to. While at the same attacking Zecharia Sitchin that only is a fail combo.

Why is it laughable? Sitchins alleged translations hinge entirely on AA hypothesis and consequently is inseparable from it.

UFOs in Religious Art? Nope.
Yup.

His take on the Alien Skulls.

Yes,. Virginia, real scientists are aware of these skulls and don't think they are anything alien at all. For the company's website and a couple scholarly articles from peer-reviewed journals about those "alien" alongated Peruvian skulls. click here to go to my post.

There is absolutely no evidence that indicates anything non terrestrial about these skulls. I'm open minded enough to consider the possibility of being wrong but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Real scientists? or more rather government mainstream scientists is the better term i would say.

how many scientists do you estimate are government shills/agents provocateurs?

originally posted by: greyer
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I don't care if you believe me or anyone else, so don't. I'm still going to be verbal on you unbelieving people, it's not going to change anything.

And your belief you do not need to prove anything you say and people should automatically except whatever you believe as truth will result in you continuing to not be taken seriously.

If you have nothing to back up what you say, I think we are done here.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04


Here is a place to start. www.sitchiniswrong.com...

Really? Here is a place to start? sitchiniswrong? typical so far you haven't done any actual research other then relaying an source based on government funded employers.

it's 100% proven wrong.

a reply to: peter vlar

Since there are no banner ads on the site I'm going with no profits.

Ironic you know that you cant host sites for free right? its all hosted by severs, servers arent cheap. According to you the web owner of that site runs it for free.

I'm going with no profits.

Running blogs and an site arent cheap these days. I am sure you could explain that but of course the guy isn't using an free based sever.

how many scientists do you estimate are government shills/agents provocateurs?

Nice deflecting. I already seen shills in other political topics and debates having shills on this debate on the internet on how either Sitchin or that some ancient aliens have being debunked makes me laugh.

Your trying desperately trying to prove and be on the government side of the argument as in this argument.

-There are no Aliens, There Were no Aliens in Ancient Times
-There are no Aliens.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing


I know which crowd you are coming from.


Obama: "No Evidence Aliens Built the Pyramids"

The alien skulls are all bunk. Either they are due medical conditions like the starchild skull or are the result of artificial cranial deformation

Really? the alien skulls are all bunk and either medical conditions or artificial cranial deformation based on what evidence again?

Based on the same Scientists whom are trying how Egyptian moved the Huge Pyramid Stones? by the way that site you posted has earns in google ad sense.

originally posted by: Agent_USA_Supporter
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing


I know which crowd you are coming from.


Obama: "No Evidence Aliens Built the Pyramids"

The alien skulls are all bunk. Either they are due medical conditions like the starchild skull or are the result of artificial cranial deformation

Really? the alien skulls are all bunk and either medical conditions or artificial cranial deformation based on what evidence again?

Based on the same Scientists whom are trying how Egyptian moved the Huge Pyramid Stones? by the way that site you posted has earns in google ad sense.

Yes, and DNA testing done on the Starchild skull proved it was human. The only one who thinks different is Melba ketchum, the person who exclaimed they found bigfoot DNA only to have it turn out to be known animals.

and no, it's not the same scientists, those are completely different fields. Why would people conducting DNA analysis be working on Egyptian Pyramids? Only someone with a completely warped view of the world even puts those two together.

originally posted by: Agent_USA_Supporter
a reply to: peter vlar


Ironic you know that you cant host sites for free right? its all hosted by severs, servers arent cheap. According to you the web owner of that site runs it for free.

Running blogs and an site arent cheap these days. I am sure you could explain that but of course the guy isn't using an free based sever.

Did I say he wasn't paying? No. I said he wasn't making a profit. And for just a few hundred dollars now you can purchase and own your own server to host multiple websites. W have this very setup at my recording studio because my business partner also does web design so we do other people's pages and charge them for the hosting. Also, many universities allow their professors to set up blogs and websites and run them off the university servers at no charge. You're barking up the wrong tree because you have it in your head that Sitchin can't be wrong and anybody who is against him is doing so solely for profiteering purposes which is a ludicrous notion. The only person who has translated those scripts and came to the conclusion of aliens was Sitchin. Multiple, renowned, and highly trained linguists and specialists in ancient languages have studied the same items and none have some even close to the Conclusion that Sitchin did. The only person who profited from this was Sitchin.

how many scientists do you estimate are government shills/agents provocateurs?

Nice deflecting. I already seen shills in other political topics and debates having shills on this debate on the internet on how either Sitchin or that some ancient aliens have being debunked makes me laugh.

Apparently anyone who disagrees with you and can support their thesis with citation s and facts is a shill. Interesting to say the least. And kudos to you for Your deflection. Instead of answering you attacked the premise. Textbook deflection.

Your trying desperately trying to prove and be on the government side of the argument as in this argument.

-There are no Aliens, There Were no Aliens in Ancient Times
-There are no Aliens.

No, I'm on the side of science not government. There is ZERO evidence that any of the elongated skulls that fringe theorists try to link with aliens or human/alien hybreeds are what they claim. Tere is copious evidence done by independent labs, some chosen by the fringe theorists themselves. If anyone is trying to push an agenda its people like Lloyd Pye and yourself.

a reply to: peter vlar

For the "all scientists work for the evil government" scenario I counter by reminding them of :

D A S T A R D

Directorate against science, technology and rational determination, it is a global gub'mint run organization that pays shills to speak against science, logic, rational thought and reality with a specialization in promoting the idea of a large utterly evil global government organization that controls all of established science.

So Agent_USA_Supporter are your a paid member of Dastard or are you simply a willing tool of someone who is?

Oh, and if you say you're not then that is proof that you are, lol

Two can play the' shill name calling' game......try discussing evidence instead its more worthwhile

a reply to: Hanslune


Hahaha. Brilliant! Thank you for alerting me to this nefarious organization. My blinders are now off and I will be on the lookout for these gub'mint anti shill shills.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Hanslune


Hahaha. Brilliant! Thank you for alerting me to this nefarious organization. My blinders are now off and I will be on the lookout for these gub'mint anti shill shills.

Please spread the word about Dastards, oh and the level of our knowledge about it is far greater than the fringe's Global Establishment, at least ours has a name, there's has no name, no leader(s), no administrative centre, nothing, its like they just made it up. While ours has its HQ located under the front company of the Jubail Industrial College in Jubail, Saudi Arabia and it is leader is Farouk Jimmy Al-Shahrani, better known as Fred.

originally posted by: Hanslune
Er so HG with thousands x thousands of years of hunting experience had to be shown by aliens how to make weapons?

This I cannot force persuading on you because it stands for everyone - we cannot look upon the bible and anything of those type ancient scriptures to be words for word terminology - because most importantly they were a poetic culture that greatly used metaphors and parables to speak in everything, that is completely true and not to be overlooked.

Lol, nope look up the initial 19th century translations you'll notice Annunaki are not there either...wrong word - wrong language

Fine, we won't go by any of the words anymore and just by the pictures, they are mysterious enough.

Or you are completely wrong

And I realize this is still speculation, but speculation with a ton of evidence.

originally posted by: greyer

Fine, we won't go by any of the words anymore and just by the pictures, they are mysterious enough.

Since Sitchin was proved wrong your reaction will be to throw knowledge out and not look at it? Okay what does that accomplish?

And I realize this is still speculation, but speculation with a ton of evidence.

Unfortunately without a shred of evidence, remember making stuff up isn't evidence nor is believing what others make up. Have you had the time to look at the development of Sumerian writing? Have you noticed that it developed slowly and did not pop up one day?

I have an idea list for me the three top pieces/items of hard evidence you believe supports your contention?

Thanks

originally posted by: Hanslune
Yes and you need to understand that the evidence shows you are stating made up things are real. We shall treat you with respect but your incorrect info as utterly meaningless.

It doesn't have anything to do with love or respect. It is an argument. I am saying the underwater ruins are real and man made, you are saying they are not.

originally posted by: greyer

originally posted by: Hanslune
Yes and you need to understand that the evidence shows you are stating made up things are real. We shall treat you with respect but your incorrect info as utterly meaningless.

It doesn't have anything to do with love or respect. It is an argument. I am saying the underwater ruins are real and man made, you are saying they are not.

I was speaking in regards to the belief of aliens creating the Sumerian civ. As to underwater 'ruins', it depends on which ones you are referring too. Some are real, some are not and some are just natural formations.

a reply to: Shiloh7

Have you actually read all of Sitchin 's theoretical books?

So which tablets, held in the British Museum are you saying Sitchin's translations from are wrong or are you simply blanketing his work because you don't like his theories or the idea of there being two different sets of people (whatever) on the planet at the time of the supposed Garden of Eden? An important time because much of Western mankind takes that era as the start of our species and the desert religions are funded and founded upon.

Are you saying that God didn't "spit into clay and make Adam" or that Sitchin's claim that mankind was especially 'created' genetically by the interbreeding from one of this world's species and the people on the earth at that time is wrong? Those two views are not that different.

How exactly do you yourself really know in order to be able to tell someone else they are wrong, do you have archaelogical evidence that we have the missing link between ape and man? I'd like to read it and would change my mind were it feasible, I am open to discussion, not closed. I think you don't because you only have the available information to hand like everyone has. Interestingly man is the only species on the earth that history tells us was specially or artificially created. Until you can prove that is not so - what right do you have to criticise someone else's politely put view?

Sitchin's books are his speculation only and he claims nothing else. The guy when interviewed came across as a quiet intellectual, not some leading light determined to take the world by storm or to deliberately change people's views and sell loads of books or web sites - like some of the people who seem desperate to dispel his theories.

I looked at the website you recommended and noted that Michael S Heiser was a Biblical Scholar - with a vested interest in selling his books, ideas and obviously has a vested interest in the biblical side as opposed to the pagan side that Zitchin was theorising on. Sitchin's work is not in the interest of the Catholic community. I also much prefer Christian Obrien's work which has no axe to grind and is exceptional.

Sorry I don't go down the road of the biblical vested interest, which in my view is the least likely to be true concerning mankind's creation.

a reply to: peter vlar

I think you will find Heiser is an author and by getting rid of opposition his publication's views, he sells more to avid Christians.

He has very strong links to the Church and especially the Jesuits - I think that should tell you the old story that the Catholic church funds scholarly qualifications in order to promote its views on religion - which judging by the following on here and whether people know of his Jesuit links, he has done very well.

a reply to: Hanslune

This is a thread about Sitchin's views and translations on ancient civilisation so what is your problem - apart from the fact that I may not agree with your personal view?

I don't know if you are a follow of Heiser and his views which another member kindly pointed me towards, but Heiser has links to the Church and Jesuits so he also has an increditably strong axe to grind for his vested interest. I prefer to read from modern authors like Lawrence Gardner and Christian O'Brien whose research is seen in their bibliographies.

In Sitchin's books, which I don't know if you have read all of them, he covers the title 'El'. I would refer you to the Book of Jasper, which the church fathers decided was definately not to be included after Deuteromyand mosty of us were simply unaware of because it relates that instead of 'El Shaddai' being God who gave the tablets to Moses, it was a Priest called Jethro. Its an interesting read but it shows how all the records and theories are in a state of change due to more information becoming available and people actually wanting more information. El Shaddai links back to God and who God(s) were is what Sitchin theorises about.

I appreciate your keenness or the urge to 'get it right' for your good self, but if I don't agree with you and you take what appear to be a somewhat superior attitude and suggest I move to other threads, it hardly promotes discussion between us as I don't hold you in any form of contempt or belittlement.

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: Hanslune

This is a thread about Sitchin's views and translations on ancient civilisation so what is your problem - apart from the fact that I may not agree with your personal view?

Your last post to which I commented on was outside the range of topics for Origins and more appropriate to Ancient Civilizations.

I don't know if you are a follow of Heiser and his views which another member kindly pointed me towards, but Heiser has links to the Church and Jesuits so he also has an increditably strong axe to grind for his vested interest.

The evidence he provides is from open sources, easily found and used by others, his associations if true do not effect the evidence. Which clearly shows Sitchin made up stuff.

In Sitchin's books, which I don't know if you have read all of them, he covers the title 'El'.

I read the first six and then lost interest driven by their fictional and made up nature.

I appreciate your keenness or the urge to 'get it right' for your good self, but if I don't agree with you and you take what appear to be a somewhat superior attitude and suggest I move to other threads, it hardly promotes discussion between us as I don't hold you in any form of contempt or belittlement.

Again this is the Origins forum for the discussion of evolution and creationism

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: peter vlar

I think you will find Heiser is an author and by getting rid of opposition his publication's views, he sells more to avid Christians.

He has very strong links to the Church and especially the Jesuits - I think that should tell you the old story that the Catholic church funds scholarly qualifications in order to promote its views on religion - which judging by the following on here and whether people know of his Jesuit links, he has done very well.

Just look at the evidence is all you need to do to discount Sitchin's research. Speech to the evidence not the guy you don't like for having discussed it in public.