Zecharia Sitchin sumerian literature translations are probably greatly embellished

a reply to: Hanslune


Do you have any other evidence against Sitchin's theories - apart from Heiser the Church man and Wikipedia? I would be interested as I don't find other authors totally disagreeing with Some of Sitchin's theories. You seem to forget the man is writing a theory and not a history textbook, and some of his books date back to the 1970's (I think) and we have learned a lot more abvout the past since then. I have noticed that he has changed his mind on some of the points he raised in his earlier books - which is OK for me if he found himself to be wrong. Neither you nor him were around in those days so neither can claim all the high ground. I don't disagree with the criticism on his cosmology and the possibility of a planet that passes through our solar system as we should have seen it by now according to Sitchin's theory. However I don't know for sure that every part of Mesopotania's City States always completely agreed on the names or lists of Gods or its pantheons, the Bible seems to have trouble with this topic also.

I do think that the Catholic church has gone out of its way to try to produce and qualify its own authors to hatchet people like Sitchin simply 1. over the profit from the alternate books sold. No one can deny the church has come up with some real humdingers when it comes to raising money for itself and 2. someone writing anything that threatens their teachings + making huge profits is going to be despised by the jealous boys in frocks brigade.

Even if Sitchin is wrong on some things, which is fair enough on this kind of topic, and his ideas on Tiamat may well be off-the-wall, his theories flie because they play on people's personal views and discrimination as opposed to Church teachings, so at least he has opened up the flood gates for people trying to find out about their origins, which seem for various reasons to be deliberately hidden from us. I would doubt that he, if indeed he did this deliberately, is the only one to embellish bits of information in order to sell books. (It appears the bible does a brilliant job at this with its teachings on our origins) but also many history books both fact and fiction are renown for their embellishments.

a reply to: Shiloh7

So we give multiple sources disputing Sitchin and they are all wrong. How about you give us some sources supporting Sitchin that are credible?

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: Hanslune
Do you have any other evidence against Sitchin's theories - apart from Heiser the Church man and Wikipedia?

can you actually substantiate Dr. Heiser's alleged connection to the Catholic Church and specifically the Jesuits? The only references I found were from David Icke's website, godlike productions and a blog claiming he was a Jesuit Satanist who works for the CIA. Not exactly good references for reliable information.

I would be interested as I don't find other authors totally disagreeing with Some of Sitchin's theories.

I would be interested in seeing just one individual who is an expert in any ancient languages from the ME that agrees with Sitchins translations.

You seem to forget the man is writing a theory and not a history textbook, and some of his books date back to the 1970's (I think) and we have learned a lot more abvout the past since then.[/quote


technically its closer to a hypothesis than a theory, as for the content of his writing, downplay it all you like but he presents himself as a scholar despite having no background at all in ancient languages, his degree is in economics. He simply never had the appropriate amoun6t of education in Sumerian to take on a task like translation. it's like asking a kindergartener to read War and Peace.

I have noticed that he has changed his mind on some of the points he raised in his earlier books - which is OK for me if he found himself to be wrong. Neither you nor him were around in those days so neither can claim all the high ground. I don't disagree with the criticism on his cosmology and the possibility of a planet that passes through our solar system as we should have seen it by now according to Sitchin's theory. However I don't know for sure that every part of Mesopotania's City States always completely agreed on the names or lists of Gods or its pantheons, the Bible seems to have trouble with this topic also.

I do think that the Catholic church has gone out of its way to try to produce and qualify its own authors to hatchet people like Sitchin simply 1. over the profit from the alternate books sold. No one can deny the church has come up with some real humdingers when it comes to raising money for itself and 2. someone writing anything that threatens their teachings + making huge profits is going to be despised by the jealous boys in frocks brigade.

ironic, isn't it, that you keep tossing around unsubstantiated "data" yet clamor for everyone else to prove their perspective. It' s either hypocritical or disingenuous, take your pick.

Sitchins writings don't threaten anyone let alone the Catholic Church and he certainly didn't get rich off the books. I'm assuming this is a correlation to Dr. Heisner? Please demonstrate what his link to such is as it would appear to me that his initial work involved Hebrew translations which had nothing to do at all with the bible and I can't find anything that supports this lurid supposition.

Even if Sitchin is wrong on some things, which is fair enough on this kind of topic, and his ideas on Tiamat may well be off-the-wall, his theories flie because they play on people's personal views and discrimination as opposed to Church teachings, so at least he has opened up the flood gates for people trying to find out about their origins, which seem for various reasons to be deliberately hidden from us. I would doubt that he, if indeed he did this deliberately, is the only one to embellish bits of information in order to sell books. (It appears the bible does a brilliant job at this with its teachings on our origins) but also many history books both fact and fiction are renown for their embellishments.

that's a long and fancy way of saying his entire flawed premise is little more than confirmation bias for the ignorant. I'm also not quite sure what he bible or church has to do with scientific work particularly when this bit of "work" is on texts predating Judaism entirely.

a reply to: peter vlar

if you want o research some ore on your own, try this for a starting point etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk....

a reply to: Shiloh7

In that long list of yours on what Sitchin got wrong what exactly is left that you think is still valid? Anything?

Unlike Sitchin I have a good understanding of the archaeology and supporting sciences that study the ME. What Sitchin proposed (as I understand it) simply is not support in anyway by the information we now have.

I'm personally non religious and have no great faith (pun intended) in the Catholic church. To discredit Heiser you must find faults in his methodology and evidence and that you aren't tryin' for obvious reasons.

It might be helpful if you stated just what you think Sitchin got right and what evidence supports his ideas.

The simple fact that the MSM promotes the same "Ancient Aliens" blatant propaganda is all the clue one needs to figure out that Zecharia Sitchin was a FRAUD and a puppet for the elite.

That one single fact ALONE ought to tell you that Mr. Sitchins fabrications have a stealth agenda behind them.

That pretty much removes ALL credibility the way I see it.

NOTHING airs on the MSM without there being a hidden agenda behind it.

The evidence showing that his "work" is fraudulent and a complete fabrication is so extensive and undeniable that one would have to be wearing some serious blinders to not be able to see it.

The "Ancient Aliens Debunked" documentary exposes all of the lies behind this fraud:

"...everything Ancient Aliens says about the Annunaki comes from a man named Zecharia Sitchin. To sum up, almost everything that Ancient Aliens says about the Annunaki is untrue, which is not surprising considering they copy and pasted almost everything in this section from the books of Zecharia Sitchin."

a reply to: peter vlar

I just looked at his personal website and Wiki, it came up right away. He is a biblical scholar and he apparently wrote some of his books with the help of a Jesuit Priest, its all on the site. I knew I had heard of him and there is also a fair bit of criticism of his work - but its all theories. Even if we can translate ancient languages, something that always bothers me is how the English language has changed over my lifetime and especially the meanings of some words. I grew up with a little girl name Gay. Today you wouldn't dream of calling your daughter Gay and I expect the ancients were just as lax/changeable/misapproating words then as well, we cannot be sure.

a reply to: Hanslune

Something we do agree on is being non-religious.

What intrigues me is the early reporting in the bible about the people on the earth in Genesis. We have no idea who the Sons of God were and, Sitchin gives a possibility of a group called the Annanaki. I am aware he was financed by the rothschild group and that, in itself, with their ideas of their own superiority and right to rule the world, opens a tentative link as to where some people think their ancient blood lines and rights to behave as they do, come from.

I view things from a theoretical standpoint. If we did not naturally evolve here and were created in some way, then it seems worth keeping an open mind on this creation idea which separates our species and the who and why need an answer. Once an acceptable one arises then the subject will be settled.

Sitchin and others are fascinating to a point because when one looks at some hieroglyphics one sees the outline of a perfect helicopter and that indicates, along with other recognisable shapes that they were either drawn artistically with no thought of their capability or they were drawn from another source of inspiration - there is too much that doesn't fit compactly and feel correct. Also a civilisation built the pyramids and every effort to prove the Egyptians physically lugged up those huge, well cut stones has always failed and looked totally ridiculous. Also there are the Indian Sacred Texts which report flying machines. Unless everyone in those days was high etc there are hints and suggestions that occur too much to be ignorred or written off. I suspect that if we ever answer questions about our beginnings it will be a mixture of a lot of theories.

I look at Heiser purely rom the point of view that he is a religious author with an axe to grind that we all toe the religious line. I should expect his methodology to be exact and correct otherwise it doesn;t say much for his degrees, however its the axe he grinds and of course the lost profits that can't be be ignored either.

I look to authors like Christian O'Brien whose books are absolutely intriguing and well researched and his take on the Annanaki is dissimilar to Sitchin but, he acknowledges they existed and built the actual Garden of Eden after a catastrophe hit the earth and we,what was left of us, were starving and crawling around in the mud. His view is that the Garden of Eden was built to start food production again and that makes considerably more sense to me. They are the ones referred to in the Books of Enoch, but whether they were remnants of a destroyed civilisation or newcomers to this planet, I don't know and wait with baited breath to find out.

originally posted by: Shiloh7

What intrigues me is the early reporting in the bible about the people on the earth in Genesis. We have no idea who the Sons of God were and, Sitchin gives a possibility of a group called the Annanaki. I am aware he was financed by the rothschild group and that, in itself, with their ideas of their own superiority and right to rule the world, opens a tentative link as to where some people think their ancient blood lines and rights to behave as they do, come from.

How did the 'Rothschild's' get into this....I think that is all embellishment to make Sitchin look important, he wasn't

I view things from a theoretical standpoint. If we did not naturally evolve here and were created in some way, then it seems worth keeping an open mind on this creation idea which separates our species and the who and why need an answer. Once an acceptable one arises then the subject will be settled.

Other than what we have found in the archaeological and other scientific areas I don't believe we will find anything of documentary style as the ancients were far clueless about the world before their time than we were.

Sitchin and others are fascinating to a point because when one looks at some hieroglyphics one sees the outline of a perfect helicopter and that indicates, along with other recognisable shapes that they were either drawn artistically with no thought of their capability or they were drawn from another source of inspiration - there is too much that doesn't fit compactly and feel correct.

The ones you are talking about are no perfect and the result of covering over one set of hieroglyphs with another set and erosion blending the too - and human imagination

Also a civilisation built the pyramids and every effort to prove the Egyptians physically lugged up those huge, well cut stones has always failed and looked totally ridiculous.

In your opinion but not that of people who studied the subject nor the ancient people themselves

Also there are the Indian Sacred Texts which report flying machines. Unless everyone in those days was high etc there are hints and suggestions that occur too much to be ignorred or written off. I suspect that if we ever answer questions about our beginnings it will be a mixture of a lot of theories.

Yep flying and flying gods are a common theme in religious writing, man has always admire birds and flight

I look at Heiser purely rom the point of view that he is a religious author with an axe to grind that we all toe the religious line. I should expect his methodology to be exact and correct otherwise it doesn;t say much for his degrees, however its the axe he grinds and of course the lost profits that can't be be ignored either.

Then show is work is wrong

They are the ones referred to in the Books of Enoch, but whether they were remnants of a destroyed civilisation or newcomers to this planet, I don't know and wait with baited breath to find out.

So basically you are a fantasist...what are you waiting for with baited breath I'm unsure of what you meant there?

a reply to: Murgatroid

Hey, if you would go over to the Ancient Civilization Forum and start a thread there and tell us what you feel is the actual ancient history of the world.

a reply to: Shiloh7

hello, i am new and i have a problem from hand surgery that sometimes makes it hard to type so i do not capitalize. Sorry about that, i do my best.when it gets better i try to capitalize names, but that usually does not last.

i have read through this thread and i can see that many people only post things they think are a problem with the Sitchin work and related work, but it is not fair to call him a fraud just because you do not personally know enough to do a better job than he has done. we all know some things but none of us can know everything, and Sitchin has opened up a whole world that did not exist before, and that helps us know some things and figure out others, and we all have to accept the spots that are missing or unclear ans work on what we can understand.

i came to these subjects in my interest in population genetics, and trying to work out the DNA of the biblical giants, and of some animals that seem to have traits that the Anunnuki had, and this includes bigfoot, though i did not know that when i began.

i began in the 70's following animal genetics, after one day i realized that although different animal species do not mate, how come different species such as cats, dogs and horses, all have the similar pattern of coat colors that usually have a solid color body but have white on their toes, chest forehead, tail tip, etc. this is at the locus for 'spotting ' which really means how much white is on the body, and in horses and dogs (don;t know about cats) having too much white can be lethal.

in following Sitchins work, and also reading books that address the geology and changes from comets and pole shifts, i now understand how the coat color similaries came to be. i am working out how to present some of this simply on youtube as a part of my other youtube projects.

but i think many people have a problem from never being taught to know how to evaluate evidence, and work out what is probably true. i learned this in Army Intelligence at a school called USAINTS, that no longer exists. this is the same school Lloyd Pye went to, though we did not go at the same time. i knew Lloyd from working 20 years at UFO conferences he presented information at, and one thing i noticed on this thread was that people mentioning his work and/or evaluations of the star child scull, clearly had not read the reports and findings of DNA tests.

if you do not have the moxie to read these things, and find what to believe, then you need to find others who do read them, to decide who you believe. this will not give you final TRUTH but it will get you progressively closer to it.

you also need to remember that most researchers or scientists have tunnel vision and only know the work they are currently or recently doing. if asked about something related to their work, but not their direct work, they almost always guess, and almost always guess wrong. so it is best to disregard what is actually uneducated opinion, and not blame the person you asked or call them a liar. and blessed is the rare person who can say 'i don't know'.

also many people who could do a bit of this kind of research, never speak about it for fear of being called names or criticized. remember : ANYONE WHO IS NOT BEING CRITICIZED IS NOT DOING ANYTHING IMPORTANT.

i will mention one thing that i find from Sitchins work, and that the reason for the highly diverse group of beings that that include people and animals who have inherited the Anunnuki genes, and why it is hard to classify them into well defined groups.
now we will go to the translation of the Sumerian tablets done by Sitchin in 'the book of enki' and other tablets, incliding the o'briens 'genius of the few' that have bits and pieces of details about the project to make a helper hominid.

'genius' is the o'briens translation of the Karsag Tablets, and the work is done in Eden, which did not have any hominids at all. the Sitchin translations in 'enki' make it clear that the work was done in Africa. in 'genius' it is said that the beings they created as Adamu and Ti-amat, were the beginning generation of the 'patriarchial lines in the bible.

but in the 'enki' version the patriarchs were from the lineages of Adapa and TiTi who came from Enki mating with girls he found at the river who were from the earth population in the forests.

now in both versions they mention that some of the first experiments were not perfect. when they were defective, enki would find some way to help them function with their disability. when one was born with really bad eyesight, he had it tutored to learn music. when superior beings were produced by any means, they would give them tutors to foster their areas of superior intellect.

it is in 'genius' that an otherwise perfect baby was covered with hair , as were the earth hominids, she was send back to the forest with the mother who had donated the ova for the child.
now the o'briens believe the time from the Anunnaki coming to earth to the time the experiments happened, was about 8000 years. Sitchin believes it was 450,000 years. while i think it would take the longer time to get done all that they did, and have the genetics settle into functioning species, it really does not matter, and there is no point arguing about it. the thing to focus on is that (including things from Sitchins other books) beginning from mixing Anunnaki genes with earth human genes, there would be so many rejected specimens, that all would be sent back to the forest, WITH NO RECORDS KEPT ON ANY OF THEM, that over time would all be mating and mixing, and the unworkable genetic matches dying out, that the rejects, all with half Anunnaki DNA, would have produced functioning gene lines of related species that made it without any tutors or extra help from enki.

so the bottom line is that what we call 'bigfoot' has refined it's functioning much sooner than humans have. in many types and different ranges of abilities, it has been here longer than we have. while Melba Ketchum, who found that all genomes of bigfoot she was able to chart, have human female mDNA, she considers it a hybrid.

what it think is that the earth people including many 'higher' animals got the mDNA that was there in the earth beings, and that it is the original mDNA available that the experiments got since the earth females donated the ova, and the male components of the DNA used came from the Anunnaki males, and almost always directly from enki.

a reply to: lizardhaven

Welcome Lizardhaven

Well you packed a lot of stuff into that first post so I'll reply to only one part of it for the time being.

Yes Sitchin was a fraud, he deliberately mistranslated words to fit his bias, he took evidence out of context and generally made up a whole mess of stuff. I'll do just one example; That he made up the idea that Nibiru was a planet, that it was connect with the 'annunaki' and that it moved thru the solar system every 3,600 years. None of that exists in any cuneiform source.

a reply to: Hanslune
Sitchin was an old scholar, an old man when he began to work with the Sumerian tablets, and he found himself in the lime light when he never had expected to be. while he does interpret some words differently than others have done in the past, he supports his choice with evidence such as pictures on tablets, and does not claim that he is always correct.
i could that as his work progressed, what resulted was text that made more sense, and that using it, many unsettled issues were figured out that no one had a clue about before that. also having the Sumerian and other versions of stories that made no sense to me in the bible, now are clearer and make the bible make sense when before it did not.

so while his work might not be perfect, it is helping to unravel problems with the sense it makes.

most of my mysteries are genetic in nature. for several decades i charted the color patterns and characteristics and links of a species of not exactly dogs who had some traits that seemed to be more human than they should be. the most obvious were alleles for hair restriction that humans have. while the society we live in classified them as domestic dogs, i charted differences in heat cycles, weather that triggered heat cycles, length of gestation, etc that were not the same a dogs have. there were also several types of them, and some were not compatible and did not mate with each other. if females came into heat when there were no compatible males, they would remain in a sort of invisible heat that would go on for many months. if a male arrived that was compatible, they would mate within hours. the length of gestation told me what the basic gene line was.
the ones most familiar to people used to be called 'Mexican hairless' and were small like chihuahuas, and most had short black hair on head, feet and tails. if two of these mated the litter would be born exactly 8 weeks and one day from the day of mating. this is about a week shorter than regular dogs. if the gene line was taller one with lighter or longer hair, the litter would be born after 8 weeks and one day, and as long as 3 weeks later. after years i was able to predict the date of birth of these by knowing the coat colors and patterns of the grandparents.

in 'the 12th planet, Sithin mentions that they began the genetic experiments using animals, specifically dogs, horses, lions, and also the earth hominids there at the time. since there are many types and colors of these animals, when the experiments were released back to the forests, not only could the types interbreed, but all of the experiments had half the Anunnaki gene, so there would be a bell curve that reaches way out on both sides to include species that gained many alelles for locus that they previously had a genetic code for only a few choices. many of these individuals had little likelihood of mating with another individual who had a compatible matching gene, so the so the range of possibile pattern or colors would not be seen. but in thousands of years there would be a few matches, in small pocket gene lines.
i had charted color changes in litters that are not seen an any other canine populations. for example if a heavy bodied female with a short or missing tail had a litter, the pups might be born with naked bodies and with short sleek or fluffy black hair on the head. people i placed these dogs with promised they would send photos of pups at regular intervals. on day i got photos from a lady who had 2 pups with regular coats in the litter, and one was black with a lightning bolt pattern of white around the neck. but the new photos showed a black dog with that pattern. no one had notice the dog changed from black to red. i went through many other litter photos and i found out that some of my own dogs born at my house had been born with short black or fluffy long black hair, and the ones with shot black had their hair turn red, while the fluffy black hair turned blond.

one day i was on line looking at photos of Aborigines groups and i noticed what seemed like Caucasian children before puberty age among them with light skin and long blond hair. the text mentioned this happened in a few tribes, and when thelyy matured the hair became black and kinky, changing both color and texture.

now how could i come up with even a notation system to chart the interactions of such changes, which seem to only exist in one race of humans and one race of canines?

it was many years before i read Sitchin's work and UNDERSTOOD that things he had reported described the means which could result in such a pattern of canines having human genes that worked the same way the do in humans.

the words that Sitchin wrote were not in genetic notation, and he could have no idea that what he reported would give others who knew things he did not know, the answers to their mysteries.

if Sitchin was random changing works to suit his theory, or making anything up, or conveniently leaving out something that went against his base beliefs, IT WOULD NOT HAVE FIT THE MATHEMATICAL FORM OF GENETICS IN A WAY I COULD HAVE RECOGNIZED IT AND FIT IT TO A RARE GENETIC PATTERN THAT HAS NEVER BEEN DESCRIBED IN ANY BOOKS.

so he had to have been sticking really close to what he believed the tablets said, and what he believed they said must have been true for how even very strange genetics work. when i try to go back and find what sentence or statement he made it was that let me realize what i did from reading his work. i seldom can find them, but there had to be some connections that fell into place so that i did understand it.

a UFO related researcher, Dr. David Jacobs, worked with people who claimed to have been abducted, and had a bias against that being true. he interviewed many of them and found to his surprise they did not have any psychosis or mental problems and were basically normal people. a later part of the research interviewed people who never had any interest or claims relating to UFOs, and asked them to make up a scenario of being abducted, thinking that the stories would be very similar to what the self claimed abductees claimed in their stories.

again to his surprise the made up stories had little in common with the stories of the self claimed abductees claimed. the details that the self claimed abductees almost always included were never mentioned in the made up reports, no matter how many movies or books they read on the topic.

this is an example where certain truths stand out from what is not true or from the assumption of sloppy work or selfish motives affecting research, that is what many are trying claim invalidates Sitchins work.

a reply to: nOraKat

Yeap, I did the same some time ago. I read many of these Oxford translations and they seem to be very different from what Sitchin wrote.