Debunking Sitchin Debunkers

a reply to: Harte

maybe you need to read that again.

Coming soon: Debunking Sitchin's Debunker's Debunker's Debunker's Debunkers, A Counterpoint to a Refutation's False Hoax, or Was It?

Surely it will be a productive time that couldn't be spent better.

originally posted by: conundrummer
Coming soon: Debunking Sitchin's Debunker's Debunker's Debunker's Debunkers, A Counterpoint to a Refutation's False Hoax, or Was It?

Surely it will be a productive time that couldn't be spent better.

the premise of the thread is:

sitchin wasn't always right, but he also wasn't always wrong and for sure, he didn't write the sumerian texts. if you bring up the word "sumer", the knee jerk reaction by sitchin debunkers is to assume it's about sitchin. so i'm debunking the claim that the sumerian texts were written by sitchin, since you can't have a decent discussion about the topic without sitchin debunkers automatically referring to sitchin and his mistakes.

he also unravelled many interesting connections between ancient cultures, and the best approach is to verify it yourself, not fall back on -- oh sitchin wrote it, it must be wrong.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
What I find compelling is people who cling to these theories Sitchin had without anything more than an education gleamed from a computer monitor. Real scientists have studied these things, and they've discredited him because his translations and his science were bad.

Happens all the time. Just because we would want to believe something is true, doesn't make it so.

Does one ever consider that people want to believe something is not true, and therefore reject justification and evidence no matter what it is to morph reality into the frame of their own belief system? I am not saying vice versa does not happen but it is probably 50/50.

First of all, mainstream religion is just like mainstream archaeology or even UFOs - it has been controlled by ego driven power hungry individuals who want nothing more than to prevent the population of planet earth from obtaining knowledge. An example is the book of Enoch. Just because some Europeans 100s of years ago decided that it was to be removed from the literature of the bible people like You and I have to argue about why it was taken out and exactly what happened. Well behind all the arguing there is a truth, and the truth behind the book of Enoch is that the the book of Enoch was too questionable to keep in the bible because it was more aligned with what Sitchin had to say about the Sumerians.

So we have to weigh out both alternatives - the cover up of true history because the world powers do not want civilization to learn about an Alien Truth, and what evidence all the skeptics bring to the table in argument against what Sitchin had to say about his research and translations.

In all effort, the root translations of Sitchin are true but still questionable. All of the details are added disinformation because one cannot release such facts and evidence without the powers knowing about it. They facts still align with most other myths of ancient cultures - that around the time of the great flood giants or aliens came down to earth and taught humanity to get back on the right track, amongst many other questionable things.

originally posted by: undo

originally posted by: conundrummer
Coming soon: Debunking Sitchin's Debunker's Debunker's Debunker's Debunkers, A Counterpoint to a Refutation's False Hoax, or Was It?

Surely it will be a productive time that couldn't be spent better.

the premise of the thread is:

sitchin wasn't always right, but he also wasn't always wrong and for sure, he didn't write the sumerian texts. if you bring up the word "sumer", the knee jerk reaction by sitchin debunkers is to assume it's about sitchin. so i'm debunking the claim that the sumerian texts were written by sitchin,

"The Lost Book of Enki."

he also unravelled many interesting connections between ancient cultures, and the best approach is to verify it yourself, not fall back on -- oh sitchin wrote it, it must be wrong.

No, he dug into work already done by others that unraveled many interesting connections. He sites these people (mostly) in "The Twelfth Planet."

Harte

a reply to: Harte

the lost book of enki is not a sumerian text. it's a fiction, written by sitchin as a fiction, but meant to portray how he thinks it might have went down.

every book of non-fiction contains references to works that other people have done. you're just nit-picking again.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Harte
the lost book of enki is not a sumerian text. it's a fiction, written by sitchin as a fiction, but meant to portray how he thinks it might have went down.

LOL
You ever run a search on that title here Undo?

originally posted by: undo
every book of non-fiction contains references to works that other people have done. you're just nit-picking again.

So, what do you call it when a poster claims that Sitchin himself "unravelled many interesting connections between ancient cultures?"

Had you said "cited many interesting connections between ancient cultures," I would have agreed.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

well some of his theories were his own and, he popularized the topic so more people are familar with his rendition.

If you want to say that the ideas he presented have validity even though he added a bunch of fraudulent stuff, it seems like the better course of action is to distance the appealing ideas from Sitchin, not try to debunk his debunkers.

originally posted by: conundrummer
If you want to say that the ideas he presented have validity even though he added a bunch of fraudulent stuff, it seems like the better course of action is to distance the appealing ideas from Sitchin, not try to debunk his debunkers.

well his debunkers are using his mistakes as a reason to ignore actual sumerian literature.

originally posted by: undo

well his debunkers are using his mistakes as a reason to ignore actual sumerian literature.

Much of what he claimed didn't involve Sumerian literature. Plenty of skeptical people stick to his eccentrically orbiting pretend planet.

That's nowhere in any literature.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: undo

well his debunkers are using his mistakes as a reason to ignore actual sumerian literature.

Much of what he claimed didn't involve Sumerian literature. Plenty of skeptical people stick to his eccentrically orbiting pretend planet.

That's nowhere in any literature.

Harte

oh i know this. it says i know this in the op. i've repeated it on here many times, just to get people like yourself to quit assuming everything sumerian is sitchin. weren't you the one that said you thought heiser was right that the anunna were princely blood?

Our below is a mirror of the above. Our earth is a mirror of the heavens. Our earth is a mirror of the mind. Our temple. Egypt is that mirror, the Nile from down to above... But that does not matter. Care, love, happiness. True love matters as if anything else does not matter beside it though it benefits... Wisdom etc. benefits.

My dad in heaven is the real cause, these fallen beings who taught us that information and wisdom matters most are yet are not for they know not the word that is and always will be. Beware.

a reply to: undo

sitchin wasn't always right, but he also wasn't always wrong and for sure, he didn't write the sumerian texts. if you bring up the word "sumer", the knee jerk reaction by sitchin debunkers is to assume it's about sitchin. so i'm debunking the claim that the sumerian texts were written by sitchin, since you can't have a decent discussion about the topic without sitchin debunkers automatically referring to sitchin and his mistakes.

For a theory to be true, every part of its premise must be true. Otherwise, you only have a preordained outcome that your twisting facts to fit. That is Sitchin's greatest fault, his egregiously interpreted Sumerian texts that he has you believe mention alien planets, where none do. It's almost comical. Yet people wanted to believe it.

Sitchin was smart, he was an intelligent man, he knew how to twist facts to suit his alien planet narrative and selectively interpret ancient tales to help build that narrative. When the facts got in the way, he attacked them as falsehoods - case in point Howard Vyse's pyramid discoveries of the late 19th C.

Sitchin thus was disingenuous in how he amassed his "facts," his peculiar interpretations of ancient texts to arrive at his populist "Ancient Aliens" conclusion. PS: such ideas did not originate with him (or Von Daniken), as they had been bandied about since the 50's in certain magazines from which those two writers jumped onto that bandwagon.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

For a theory to be true, every part of its premise must be true. Otherwise, you only have a preordained outcome that your twisting facts to fit.

no, i don't buy that. his theory about nibiru is not the same as the sumerian texts and it's not the same subject as the rest of his information, most of which is actually in the sumerian texts.

case in point:

enki is actually in the sumerian texts. his akkadian name actually was ea. he actually is yahweh in the bible, as is enlil and anu. the texts actually do talk about a flood and a guy who was warned and told how to build an ark to survive it. the anunna actually were BORN in the heavens, not on the earth, and they actually did come down to the earth and intermingle with humans. these things are not sitchin's imagination.

his mistakes (from what i can tell) are:
--nibiru the planet
--shem the rocket ship
--abzu the gold mine
--apsu the sun

there's a few more as well, but considering he's covering thousands of years of ancient history, including sumer, egypt, akkad, greece and babylon, that's actually a pretty good record for error.

originally posted by: undo

originally posted by: conundrummer
If you want to say that the ideas he presented have validity even though he added a bunch of fraudulent stuff, it seems like the better course of action is to distance the appealing ideas from Sitchin, not try to debunk his debunkers.

well his debunkers are using his mistakes as a reason to ignore actual sumerian literature.

There is no (as in zero) Sumerian texts that say aliens came from the sky to visit them. There are no Sumerian texts that detail the Anunnaki as Stichin claims them to be. There is zero reference of Nibiru being a planet. Stichin has done nothing to advance our understanding of history or any culture. He was an outright con-man and dishonest swindler of the gullible people's money.

You keep saying Stichin did work that helped advance our understandings on certain subjects.

This is clearly wrong. He did nothing to help anyone but himself, while hurting people along the way.

He was a very bad person and an intentional liar.

Please explain what Sitchin DID do that was correct and helpful instead of offhandedly making remarks that you have not supported with factual evidence. Please.

And thank you.

MM

a reply to: Mr Mask

in the ancient aliens debunked video, the gentleman references a passage (not from sitchin but from the actual sumerian texts) that says "The Anunna, (the gods), whom An conceived in the sky" - he tries to make the claim that that means princely blood and doesn't have anything to do with them coming down to earth from the sky. So my question is, if they were conceived IN THE SKY, how the heck did they get to the earth? the book of enoch talks about more such visitations, when it says 200 watchers descended to mt. hermon, interbred with human females, creating a race of hybrids.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Mr Mask

in the ancient aliens debunked video, the gentleman references a passage (not from sitchin but from the actual sumerian texts) that says "The Anunna, (the gods), whom An conceived in the sky" - he tries to make the claim that that means princely blood and doesn't have anything to do with them coming down to earth from the sky. So my question is, if they were conceived IN THE SKY, how the heck did they get to the earth? the book of enoch talks about more such visitations, when it says 200 watchers descended to mt. hermon, interbred with human females, creating a race of hybrids.

So...Gods make babies in the sky. And what of the Sumerian texts that also speak of the Gods from the ocean? or that there is no other planets? Or that our planet is actually just a disk? Again, there is zero texts that claim visitors from another planet or space ships, or aliens, or any nonsense Sitchen outright stole or invented dishonestly.

There are no Sumerian texts that speak of aliens.

Please show me the text. And not from a Youtube video. Lucky for both of us almost all the Sumerian texts are archived and searchable to the public. Please show me what texts support your idea that Suma knew of aliens or visitors or even dimensional beings by showing me the text.

Not a Youtube video.

You will find all the translated texts here. With a search bar for easy finding.

etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk...

Thank you.



MM

a reply to: undo

enki is actually in the sumerian texts. his akkadian name actually was ea. he actually is yahweh in the bible, as is enlil and anu. the texts actually do talk about a flood and a guy who was warned and told how to build an ark to survive it.

That was never in dispute in this thread, and "Sitchin debunkers" do not, in general, dispute Sumerian theogony. Scholars are well aware of the large number of similarities between Sumero-Akkadian texts and the Bible. (Although it's not true your claim that Enki was Yahweh, as by the time the Hebrews vacated Nippur and Ur after the fall of the 3rd dynasty of Ur, they had transformed themselves to embrace Canaan and Eastern Semitic names into their Sumero-Akkadian tales as they fled west - "El," for instance belongs to the Canaanites.)

The Sumerians knew of 5 planets - period. Seven if you include the sun and moon. They had no inkling whatsoever of the outer planets and certainly nothing about a rogue planet on a 3,600 year orbit.