Debunking Sitchin Debunkers

Perhaps you guys could enlighten me. In this day and age with computer technology are there any organizations who are compiling ALL the many 'tablets' and analyzing the evidence presented by the many translations and interpretation? In other words, sorting the grain from the chaff?
Both of you have obviously studied this subject with meticulous research but we do not appear to have a centralized sort of 'gospel' version of what really happened or what most 'experts' agree on.
Have we any information as to 'when' or 'where' these 'Gods' left or went?
I have read that our DNA appears to have been genetically modified (?) approximately 250,000 years ago when our chromosomes changed from 48 pairs to 46 pairs and then 10,000 years ago when no less than 9 of our chromosomes appear to have again been genetically modified again. There were reports of DNA being taken from the Pharaohs and conflicting reports that it was significantly different to our own but this information appears to have disappeared from sites that were reporting it. I believe it was supervised by Doctor Zahi Hawass but he was recently deposed with the uprisings in Egypt and information has gone with him
I do believe that Sitchin was on to something but that he found it beyond him so, to use the old adage, he decided not to let the truth get in the way of a good story.
Thank you both again most sincerely.

reply to post by OzTiger

In this day and age with computer technology are there any organizations who are compiling ALL the many 'tablets' and analyzing the evidence presented by the many translations and interpretation?

There are not that many translations. There is a dictionary, after all. How many "translations" of Homer are there?
As for interpretations, well...be my guest:
etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk...

reply to post by OzTiger


yeah i had a write up on the morphology of cranial structures of egyptian royals vs. the rest of the egyptian population in...i think it was from the abydos / naqada graveyards. if i remember correctly, the source document was used by the site it was on, as an example of how written data will be presented in their archive, and contained no further information, such as who wrote it. i assumed it was a text inside their archive that they had been given permission to use as an example. it only contained 3 paragraphs anyway, and i'm assuming the full information would've been much longer and indepth as it wasn't a news archive but an archive for research papers. i'll see if i can find it for you.

as far as a compilation of translations of sumerian texts, there's the oriental institute archive of oxford university, which has an ever expanding list of translated texts. it's a work in progress. apparently not all the texts have been translated yet.
etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk...

however, they don't attempt to theorize what it all means. assyriologists basically refer to it as mythology, the same as they do with all other ancient texts.

Thank you for that site - I have bookmarked it and will study in depth later.
I have just seen a video which concludes that the DNA of King Tut and his Father is of "Western European" descent!
I wonder what your opinion is of the fact that over half of Egyptian relief pictures show people with TWO left hands:

I find this intriguing especially as the artists were so meticulous in their depictions of clothing and jewelery to make such a glaring mistake(?).

reply to post by OzTiger

I find this intriguing especially as the artists were so meticulous in their depictions of clothing and jewelery to make such a glaring mistake(?).

Certainly not a mistake. Or do you think they had their eyes on the sides of their heads too?

The torso is twisted to a frontal view at the shoulders so both arms can be seen. It was also crucial to illustrate both hands, but sometimes an artist would show the same hand twice or put the hands on backwards. This doesn’t mean that the person in the portrait was deformed or the artist was incompetent; artists did this because it was more important to show all of the fingers than get the hands in the correct spots.

www.shira.net...

Two right hands:
albertis-window.com...
www.history.com...

reply to post by Phage


phage

you okay? you sound really irritated.

reply to post by undo

you okay? you sound really irritated.

No more so than usual.

reply to post by OzTiger


not sure on the hands. could be related to their beliefs or just an art style.
my theory, as far as their genetics go is they are at a key juncture between three groups: the europeans, middle easterns and far easterns. many of their later statues have features of several people groups, as evidence that they intermarried as their culture aged over the millenia. early on, however, researchers were not able to isolate which group they were interbreeding with, at least according to the cranial morphology i mentioned earler.

reply to post by Phage


Thank you for that, The explanation of this 'anomaly' is the most constructive I have read.
However, the depiction you supplied below is almost a 'mirror' effect and would have been far, far easier to transfer the left arm of the left person on to the right arm of the right person (and vice-versa) as to depict their arms as shown achieves no purpose whatsoever.

To depict the jewelery and clothing so meticulously then to place the wrong hands on the wrong arms (despite the explanation given) seems way out of kilter. Would Leonardo's experts have come up with some similar explanation if he had painted the wrong hands on the Mona Lisa?
I thank you again for your reply.

reply to post by OzTiger

Would Leonardo's experts have come up with some similar explanation if he had painted the wrong hands on the Mona Lisa?

But he didn't, did he?
His artistic (and symbolic) goals were apparently quite different. You know, he used things like perspective and stuff. The ancient Egyptians didn't.

reply to post by Phage


Yes, I was just being a bit flippant but I cannot see anything 'symbolic' in placing wrong arms on pictures especially when (like the sample above) they are right next door to each other. I can understand the explanation you so kindly steered me to but I still cannot come to terms with how beautiful the artists made their impressions and then deformed them with a wrong hand.

OzTiger
reply to post by Phage

 

Yes, I was just being a bit flippant but I cannot see anything 'symbolic' in placing wrong arms on pictures especially when (like the sample above) they are right next door to each other. I can understand the explanation you so kindly steered me to but I still cannot come to terms with how beautiful the artists made their impressions and then deformed them with a wrong hand.

Well, then Oz, what's your explanation on the matter?

Were these politicians, able to shake hands correctly with two people at once?
Surgically replaced hands in order to enhance rowing abilities?
Doubling your hitchiking prowess?
Punishment for clapping too much?

Harte

reply to post by Harte


I do not know, my venerable friend, that is why I am asking.
The explanation, though interesting, does not satisfy my curiosity.
I have not found this 'anomaly' in Sumerian or other ancient depictions and whereas it only shows up on Egyptian paintings and reliefs I have NOT found it on any Egyptian Statue. Is there another explanation for that? Perhaps the etchers and painters had two left hands and the carvers didn't. (smirk). Or is it the fact that the statues are 'full face' on.
I sent our old friend Dr Zahi Hawass an e-mail on this subject but received no reply - after that I have looked at his video's suspecting that he may have had two left hands but unless he has had one removed and a prosthetic one in it's place then it appears he does not.
I wonder what our friend Mr Sitchin would have deduced from this. Perhaps he had a Sumerian word for "southpaw"!
Thank you again for your kind replies.

OzTiger
reply to post by Phage

 

I can understand the explanation you so kindly steered me to but I still cannot come to terms with how beautiful the artists made their impressions and then deformed them with a wrong hand.

That's what happens when you pay your contractors in beer.

draknoir2

OzTiger
reply to post by Phage

 

I can understand the explanation you so kindly steered me to but I still cannot come to terms with how beautiful the artists made their impressions and then deformed them with a wrong hand.

That's what happens when you pay your contractors in beer.

ROFL!

i was not expecting that lol!
mayhaps their definition of beer and ours, is markedly different. lol

reply to post by OzTiger


oztiger

you are such a polite poster. melikes it.
i'm gonna go with the theory that it was an art form until further notice, perhaps having some religious significance.

undo
reply to post by OzTiger

 

oztiger

you are such a polite poster. melikes it.

i'm gonna go with the theory that it was an art form until further notice, perhaps having some religious significance.

An acceptable assumption BUT if it was an 'art form' then why wasn't it applied to the statues? Or, do we apply the suggestion of 'Draknoir2' (I crapped myself too) and assume that the statue carvers were tee-total?

OzTiger

undo
reply to post by OzTiger

 

oztiger

you are such a polite poster. melikes it.

i'm gonna go with the theory that it was an art form until further notice, perhaps having some religious significance.

An acceptable assumption BUT if it was an 'art form' then why wasn't it applied to the statues? Or, do we apply the suggestion of 'Draknoir2' (I crapped myself too) and assume that the statue carvers were tee-total?

If a person viewing a statue wanted to see all the fingers, they need only walk around to the other side of the statue.

Can't happen with a painting.

A bigger question would be why the obsession with showing all the fingers?

BTW, my last post was supposed to be funny.

Harte

Yes, my friend, I was aware of your subtle humour and I always enjoy your posts as they are, as ever, always enlightening and always authoritative.
My obsession with the hands on Egyptian relief paintings goes back a long way. I have always had an inquisitive mind. In my early teens I started to wonder where Mrs Cain came from in the Bible and how come two people could produce two sons but hundreds of races of different colour. I also dared to ask "Who was God talking to when he said 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness'" and why the plural. The explanations I got for this beggared belief. I also got a 'rap across the knuckle' from my Religious Instruction teacher for 'questioning the Bible'. His name was Mr Brabbs and he gained an unasked for notoriety by requesting money from the school funds and applying to Somerset House for his Family Tree so that he could give us a lesson on Ancestry (he was also our History teacher). When he opened the huge brown envelope and stuck the contents on the board we all noticed that he had an ancestor who was "hung for sheep stealing" and every time the poor bloke passed a classroom the boys inside would all "Baaaaa" like a sheep.
I have seen a few video's of Mr Sitchin and whereas he comes across as a very nice bloke he is far from convincing in a few areas although I recognize his dedication to his research.
I am also convinced that there were 'human-like' beings who came to this planet and genetically modified our DNA. When I watch the "Startrek" movies and see the different nationalities of the crew I wonder if the Annunaki were of different species too.
I hope this thread continues for a while.

undo
First let me say that I agree that Sitchin has made glaring mistakes in his Earth Chronicles. And for all intents and purposes, that seems to be deliberate. What I find compelling is that the truth of the matter is woven through out his mistakes and fabrications. What the inclusion of misinformation has done is throw researchers off the scent, and that's likely to be the real fly in the ointment.

edit on 17-1-2014 by undo because: (no reason given)

I would like to ask what you think of the book “WORLDS in COLLISION” written by:
Immanuel Velikovsky?
The author was brutally demonized by many others when the book was published in 1950.