Page 1 of 46 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 1353

Thread: Sitchin continued...

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    856
    Here's the new thread I promised, and here's the link to the original discussion.
    http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...&start=100&114

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    856
    The poem on Sitchin's website is cute. But it sounds too worshippish (new word?) for me. I don't think Sitchin's intentions are to start a new religion with blind followers looking to him for all the answers. He does want to make everyone aware of the possibilities, and who wouldn't? But when we start accepting everything he says without question, Sitchinism becomes a religion and loses any of the credibility it may have accumulated. People tend to blindly follow, for reasons that others have explained well. That is one of the reasons he is very hesitant to give a return date for PlanetX until he is absolutely positive, other than to say that it is definitely not 2003 (from what I can gather, it would be circa 3400AD). From the little I have read about Sitchin as a person, he is a reclusive-type who does not want this adoration.

    I prefer to submit his theory to healthy skepticism and see how it holds up. But one must not start with the premise that ET's are impossible, because if you do, his theory cannot work. I don't think many people believe ET's are impossible, and due to credible UFO reports throughout history, most people do believe they are possible, if not likely. So far, IMHO, Sitchin's theory has held up very well, other than the argument that his translations don't always agree with the mainstream. But that's a difficult argument considering that any ground-breaking theory will disagree with the mainstream belief at the time. That's why it's ground-breaking.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    27
    Yes, HankSolo you're on to me. I was thinking the poem, and the whole tone of the website was too worshipful.

    When I read Freer's and Sitchin's sites I was hoping they might present some of the foundations for their beliefs, like: these are the tablets and this is the translation we believe is correct, etc. But I guess a person has to read the books and oy! such a lot of books it is.
    That, to me, is always the problem with these sorts of situations. I'd like to be fully conversent with Sitchin's ideas in order to fruitfully participate in a discussion like this, but there are so many, many books to read and I only have one lifetime. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

    At this point I am full of caveats: (I can't read Sumerian! I haven't read Sitchin's books! etc.) But, with these caveats in mind, looking at Freer's and Sitchin's sites raises several red flags for me.

    Red Flags:

    Arguement from suppression. I talked about this on the previous thread. They seem to use the supposed suppression of their ideas as a reason for people to believe their ideas are correct.

    Details details details. This is a very complex history they are postulating. The aliens came here for gold, used genetic engineering on Homo Erectus, used nuclear weapons, etc. etc. Also, they (mainly Freer) present a detailed interpretation of what all this history means: the nature of human beings, the nature of religion etc. This is an awful lot of detail garned from some archeological findings, so to me it seems like wishful thinking.

    Clears up the whole evolution/creation question. I discussed this (ad naseum) on the previous thread.

    You're wrong, so I'm right. There seemed to be a definite tendency toward this sort of thinking--setting up a false dichotomy.

    Questionable interpretations of evolution/natural selection and genetics. I mentioned one of these by Freer on the last thread (confusion of cultural and biological evolution). For Sitchin, there is a lot of confused thinking in his article about DNA. It was hard to figure out exactly what he was saying but it seemed to boil down to: human beings are the ultimate in Earthly evolution so we must gotten DNA from some fabulous aliens. He assumes some sort of evolutionary hierarchy which I think is pretty questionable.

    Worshipful tone. Maybe Sitchin has no say in what goes on his site, I don't know. But I found the tone of the site a little disturbing. That poem, for instance, seemed like the sort of thing you would politely thank someone for, and then gently remind that person that you are not in fact the holder of the key to the universe. Definitely not put it front and center on your website.

    Anyway, sorry I don't have more substantive things to bring to this discussion. All I have is red flags. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

    I asked you about the poem because you seem smart, rational and open-minded so I was curious as to how you interpreted the tone of Sitchin's site, which I found to be rather true believer in tone.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    364
    Hi,
    This might be off-topic, but there are some strange tales about Sitchin on this link that I have not found on any other website. Doesn`t really portray him as a reclusive.
    http://www.davidicke.com/icke/index1a.html

    Be it as it may, Sitchin has really no one to support him in the academia, all his claims he still has to prove as facts and that means a lot of labour.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    116
    On 2002-12-09 14:54, a7304757 wrote:
    Hi,
    This might be off-topic, but there are some strange tales about Sitchin on this link that I have not found on any other website. Doesn`t really portray him as a reclusive.
    http://www.davidicke.com/icke/index1a.html

    Be it as it may, Sitchin has really no one to support him in the academia, all his claims he still has to prove as facts and that means a lot of labour.
    Icke's beliefs make Sitchin's look like the height of orthodoxy.

    "The British royal family, the House of Windsor, is a major Illuminati bloodline going back to ancient times.

    They are shape-shifting reptilians (see The Biggest Secret) and an important part of the web. They are not the top of the pyramid by any means and take orders from above, but they are very much involved in the global agenda and in the sacrificial ritual that always goes with it.

    They are descendants of the Merovingian bloodline out of France which goes back to the Trojan Wars and beyond. It was the Merovingians, the royal bloodline of the Franks (hence France), who founded the city of Paris. They named it after Prince Paris, one of the players in the Trojan Wars story. The Merovingians worshipped the goddess Diana, the Moon goddess, and they created underground chambers for their rituals and sacrifice to Diana.

    Today that same site is still an underground chamber - the Pont de L'Alma tunnel in Paris where Diana, Princess of Wales, was murdered after her car struck the 13th pillar. Pont de L'Alma means bridge or passage of the Moon goddess. Everything to the Illuminati is ritual and for sure that was the case with the ritual sacrifice of Princess Diana on August 31st, 1997."

    "AN URGENT MESSAGE FOR
    WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY
    FROM ARIZONA WILDER
    foreward by David Icke
    by Arizona Wilder

    I have been spending a few days with Brian Desborough and Arizona Wilder, the deprogramming former mind-slave of the Illuminati featured in The Biggest Secret and Revelations of a Mother Goddess. I have witnessed myself the harrassment of constant phone calls which are then hung up and the tones played through the phone which are designed to trigger Arizona back into the programme. Given that those involved keep hanging up, here is a message from Arizona to her former controllers.

    The message is to William F. Buckley, the former host of Firing Line and publisher of the National Review, who is head of the elite Janus Mind Control Operation based at NATO headquarters in Belgium. The message reads:

    "Your efforts to get me back in the programme and the tone triggers you send through my phone are not working and will not work. To use one of your own mind-control rhymes:
    Roses are red
    Violets are blue,
    If you don't stop the phone calls,
    I'll remote review YOU!

    IN OTHER WORDS:

    Roses are red
    Violets are blue,
    Your game is over,
    Whatever you do!

    Love and kisses,
    Arizona"

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Papermache Prince on 2002-12-09 15:39 ]</font>

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    364
    No,no I did not mean all this.
    There is a section called:
    Nexus publishers replies to Gardner claims.

    Therin it reads like this:

    I am also therefore aware that the ideas promoted by two, high-profile researchers of late, Zecharia Sitchin and Laurence Gardner, are contradictory to your own... Thus, when I select speakers for our conference, I always 'check them out' with other conference organisers around the world. You would be amazed at some of the experiences we swap! Admittedly, Zecharia is not considered the easiest person to work with, but he is widely considered as professional, honest and up front.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    116
    On 2002-12-09 15:54, a7304757 wrote:
    No,no I did not mean all this.
    There is a section called:
    Nexus publishers replies to Gardner claims.

    Therin it reads like this:

    I am also therefore aware that the ideas promoted by two, high-profile researchers of late, Zecharia Sitchin and Laurence Gardner, are contradictory to your own... Thus, when I select speakers for our conference, I always 'check them out' with other conference organisers around the world. You would be amazed at some of the experiences we swap! Admittedly, Zecharia is not considered the easiest person to work with, but he is widely considered as professional, honest and up front.
    You might also point out this other response from Nexus press:
    here
    "You accuse me on your webpage as being scathing of your claims about Gardner. This is correct.

    You imply that this is because I have 'massively promoted' Gardner. This is incorrect. I am scathing of your claims because based on my own personal experiences with Gardner and Sitchin, I simply do not believe they are shape-shifting reptilian aliens from another dimension who kill and eat babies at satanic Illuminati ritual sacrifices!"

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    856
    a7304757: I don't see any references to Sitchin, though this Icke guy does have some nasty things to say about Randi, but I'm not getting into that argument! I did a search for Sitchin and came up empty. If you have a link to the specific page, I'll be glad to take a look.

    Plane-arium: I agree with you 100% about the dangers of making Sitchin's theory more than what it should be. If it becomes a "religion", I'm dumping it!

    Freer's site is based on Sitchin's theory, but Freer's contribution is more theological in explaining why people have a need to worship. Sitchin never got into that in his books.

    BTW, although Sitchin has a lot of books, you only need to read the first one (The 12th Planet) to get all the details of his theory that you seek, including his interpretations of relevant Sumerian, Akkadian, and Babylonian texts (almost all of which agree with mainstream translations). His difference is in the interpretations of certain words, and he points out how the "accepted" interpretations of those words do not make sense in the context of the sentence. He then offers his alternatives, and the explanations to back them up, and a new story emerges. You can read the other books if it catches your interest, but the meat of the theory is in The 12th Planet.

    Regarding the red flags, those are good observations but I think you refer to Freer, so that should not discount Sitchin by association. I'll give my thoughts on each:
    Suppression - Things are not true because they are suppressed, you are right. But they are not false either. I believe the sad reality is that there are certain things that will be kept secret from us (including ET-UFO's) for the sake of national security. But I don't think that there's any conspiracy to hide Sitchin's theory, and I don't recall him saying that. There may be resistance, but not suppression.

    Details: Sitchin takes writings from many ancient Mesopotamian sources, and there are thousands of texts that he refers to. He doesn't create "filler" details, but refers to other texts to create a composite picture, and spells everything out in detail. Of course, it remains to be seen whether you agree with his interpretations. And finally he compares it all to the Old Testament, and shows how the OT derived from these texts, and gives a clearer (and more sensical) interpretation of biblical verses through the more ancient Sumerian/Akkadian/Babylonian writings. So there's literally tons of tablets and cylinders, and other texts, and the amount of research he did is impressive. I don't think anyone can make the argument that there's not enough information to formulate the theory.

    Creation debate: He surely does not clear up the debate, as you stated. All he does is give a scientific explanation for the biblical Genesis, based on the bible's source material. Everyone has to agree that he is right before any debates are resolved. But he does a great job in creating a scenario where the two can get along. That was always my big question. I always believed that science could explain everything, and that the supernatural elements of the bible were surely red flags. What Sitchin manages to do is read the bible in its correct context by pointing out the more detailed Sumerian texts, and all of a sudden it makes perfect sense.

    Wrong/right: Again, I don't see Sitchin doing this. However, it is something that many use against him. Since ET's are impossible, he's wrong. Ridicule is another popular, and effective, method to dismiss his claims. One "little green man" comment can destroy an intelligent conversation on the subject!

    DNA: Sitchin is referring to how science is seemingly corraborating his 1976 claim that humans were created by a mixture of Homo-Erectus and Anunnaki genes. Science isn't proving it, but corraborating it, by the discovery of human genes that have no known predecessors.

    Worship: Sitchin does not maintain this website and I'm not sure how much say he has on the content. He does contribute articles from time to time on new material that didn't make his books, and those are listed on the sidebar. I do know that a seminar in Dallas just ended, and apparently the webmaster is in a pretty good mood! No different than the praise I see here for the BA (not saying it's undeserved! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img])

    PS
    a7304757: I just read the article you're talking about. Just says that Sitchin can be hard to work with, but honest and up front. Not sure how that reflects negatively about him. The next sentence says that he got "glowing recommendations" about Sitchin. But what a crazy site!! Sitchin is a shape-shifting, baby eating, alien? I gotta read this...

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HankSolo on 2002-12-09 17:49 ]</font>

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    27
    I wish I could continue with this discussion but I'm really going to have to call it quits for the next week. PAPERS DUE! FINALS COMING UP! AAAAH!
    As I said, I don't have any real substantive critiques of Sitchin to offer, but I was finding it interesting to discuss how we decide which ideas to pursue and which not to persue. Maybe some other time.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    364

    PS
    a7304757: I just read the article you're talking about. Just says that Sitchin can be hard to work with, but honest and up front. Not sure how that reflects negatively about him. The next sentence says that he got "glowing recommendations" about Sitchin. But what a crazy site!! Sitchin is a shape-shifting, baby eating, alien? I gotta read this...
    Perhaps you read Dec 1-2,02 news on Icke`s: UFO shoots down meteor.
    It should have been right where some of the earliest human settlements were discovered. Last week or so the EU also said to have started a satelite to dock onto an comet to divert its course if in conflict with earths orbit.

    It seems to me Nancy with X was believing in Sitchin, he pulled out with Niburu. Nancy has to take revenge on Sitchin somehow, perhaps jointly publish a book with Icke how aliens, zetas, ... can snatch away dangerous comets last minute. How comforting, nothing to fear?
    Meanwhile Sitchin took relationship with Gardner, the duo now has more biblical background for Gardeners claim that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and their off-spring is related to present day royality, with linkage to ancient civilization. I think Gardener claims some royal throne and is heavily involved with Tolkien, perhaps Harry Potter, too? That seems too much to take for Icke, so he had to investigate. Could it have been like this?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    856
    That's very confusing, even for me. To me, it sounds like all these people are trying to associate themselves somehow with Sitchin to give themselves some credibility.

    Nancy Leider is a nut, and this Icke guy seems to be the Mark Hazlewood of the Illuminati. It's unfortunate that they're leeching on Sitchin's reputation, and as soon as May 2003 rolls around hopefully they'll all be discredited.

    Although Hazlewood is now backing off the May 2003 claim, and saying the date is unknown but near. Perhaps 2004 he says, then 2005, 2006, and so on until he has enough $$$ to retire and disappear. Then in 2011 he'll reappear and cash in on the Mayan doomsday.

    This is all very unfortunate because rational people who have read Sitchin, and are open to the possibility, are watching the lunatics running the asylum right now. When it's all said and done, and these hoaxsters are exposed, will Sitchin's theory carry even an ounce of weight in the public's perception? Or will he be forever linked to these lunatics and hoaxsters?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    364
    Isnít it viceversa: To me, the early sumerian scholars a century ago were best, they compared to living traditions like the Bible. Then the modernist came in, said everything previous needs to be viewed with suspicion. There IS a gap between the old approach and the new one. Sitchin may have tried to provide a link, but it rather appears he is off to Hollywood, software movies- cashing in on the inability to find acceptable answers, which established science might take decades or centuries to find yet.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    856
    I see it differently. Sitchin devoted a large part of his life to researching the Old Testament and Sumerian texts, and was a well-respected biblical scholar and one of the few people in the world who could translate Sumerian cuneiform. He broke away from the pack because he could no longer dismiss what he was finding. And he wrote a book to publish these findings. If the fact that he made money off these books is a reason to doubt him, then the same argument can be used against mainstream scholars who make a living pushing their theories. I don't buy that argument. I just think that mainstream scholars have a pre-determined picture of what technology should exist at that time, and that pre-conceived notion influences their interpretations. I can understand why, but it's not the "scientific" way to do it.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    364
    To explain, perhaps take a look at the seal on this link of 1929

    http://www.hiddenmysteries.com/redir/index90.html
    A very conclusive interpretation without advanced technology. To build a stonecircle is one thing, to transform it into an alien base or like another.
    Early achievements have their own right, but outright fantastic explanations creates just more hoax stories.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    856
    Did Sitchin have a different interpretation of that seal?

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    364

    I cannot ascertain.
    I would be very happy if we had databases of all the many seals as possible and to browse them and see as many translations, even automated as possible. But they should start with the early translations.
    If projects like this would develope the danger is that the old translations are not included only zhe modern ones. At the moment one has to be rather happy to find some seals here and there and get some clue to translations.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    856
    Keep in mind that not every ancient text, tablet, or cylinder seal has to do with aliens. I'm sure this particular one is a very normal one. The vast majority are. But some are about "gods", and those are thrown onto the mythology pile. That mythology is what Sitchin seeks to unravel, and he takes it further by asking why it has to be mythology and not actual history.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    364
    On 2002-12-11 10:22, HankSolo wrote:
    Keep in mind that not every ancient text, tablet, or cylinder seal has to do with aliens.
    Don`t underdstand. None of the acknowledged scholars talks about aliens in this connection. Who did bring that in?
    These seals need to be unraveled, but the present day educational community does not see any aliens in them.
    Taking about gods, it has been held for at least a hundert years now that in the stone age in absence of metal a crown of horn often was used. So a horned head is assumed to have been a royalty, later on believed to have had some divinity, a priest - the like, but not an alien.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    856
    You showed a seal along with a simple description, and said that the interpretation can be made without involving advanced technology. I agree. I asked if Sitchin had ever interpreted that seal to show advanced technology, and you said you cannot ascertain if that is true, so I'm not sure what connection you are trying to draw. I figured perhaps that you were hinting that all seals are interpreted by Sitchin to show extra-terrestrials, and that is not the case at all. However, the fact is that some of the seals do show Sumerian "gods", such as Enlil, Enki, Ninharsag, Inanna, etc... Sitchin claims these gods weren't mythical, but actually existed. He claims the seals are not "myths", but are actually depicting historical events. His translations show that Sumer left us a lot of information about these gods (who the Sumerians called "Anunnaki" - meaning "those who from heaven to earth came"), and furthermore, they stated that they learned everything they knew about civilization, mathematics, and astronomy from the Anunnaki.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    364
    All rigth, now I understand what you mean. I think I got the clue.
    There were scholars before Sitchin who claimed the persons you mentioned to be humans to have found portrayed in the Bible as Adam and Eve- later ages made gods like Enlil out of them and recently they became pre sumerian astronauts, so as to resolve the socalled "sumerian problem" of origins. Clever move, I admit. First it was said humanity came from one cradle, then the other way, it appeared at many places - then it came from outer space. Something like thesis, antitheses and synthesis?

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    856
    Well, Sitchin's theory would fit all three origin theories, allowing evidence for each to co-exist. Earth was seeded by Nibiru during the collision (panspermia), Hominids evolved in Africa and spread, and homo-sapiens were "created" by mixing homo-erectus and Anunnaki genes.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    2,830
    All i have to say is: "LETS GET READY TO RUMMMMBBBLLLEEE!!!" [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    364
    On 2002-12-11 18:02, HankSolo wrote:
    Well, Sitchin's theory would fit all three origin theories, allowing evidence for each to co-exist. Earth was seeded by Nibiru during the collision (panspermia), Hominids evolved in Africa and spread, and homo-sapiens were "created" by mixing homo-erectus and Anunnaki genes.
    Do you by chance have any of those seals that Sitchin`s theory refers to? Perhaps there is a problem with translation?

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    856
    I know for sure that they're in his books. It's not just cylinder seals though. It's tablets, stellas, and basically everything they used to write on. The Epic of Gilgamesh and Enuma Elish were also very big clues, and he refers quite a bit to them. You can also check on:

    http://www.xfacts.com
    http://www.mars-earth.com/sitchin.htm

    The second link has video presentations by the Amazing Sitchin himself!

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    364
    Sorry, at short glance I found none. There is one seal that displays two eyes by themselves on a socket, doesn`t convince me being alien. Usually considered a votive to a deity,
    They know Gilgemesh for hundred years or so, how come none before Sitchin discovered extraterrestials therin?
    The problem is that sumerian is very expensive course of studies, very few can afford it and hardly two scholars agree with each other. So they have to form lobbies, the modernists are debunking those eminent at the beginnings and so on, like in any other field of science. I recommend take a look at
    http://www.geocities.com/sa_ga_g
    for a change.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    856
    "They know Gilgemesh for hundred years or so, how come none before Sitchin discovered extraterrestials therin?"

    Could it be because an alien explanation would be ridiculed by the mainstream?

    Gilgamesh was seeking answers to his own mortality. Would he die in a human's lifespan, or a god's lifespan? His mother was a god, making him a demi-god, and he wanted to stake his claim on immortality. That is the story, do you agree?

    Where Sitchin comes in is in tying up all the loose ends of this story, using other archeological and geographic evidence, and saying that perhaps it is actually a true account. And that the "gods" that Gilgamesh was referring to did not exist only in his imagination, but were real beings with incredibly long life-spans. He gives us the complete who, what, and where, that other researchers wouldn't dare to do because they don't allow the possibility of it being real. So there's no reason for them to take it any further than the initial translation. That's the difference between Sitchin and the mainstream researchers.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    424
    Because I'm such a controversial little beastie, I went off to see what I could find about Mr. Sitchin's credentials.

    Though I see a lot of information by True Believers about his expertise, there is no real support for that. He's never authored any important scholarly papers on the Bible. He's not on any academic papers as a Sumerian text specialist. There's some doubt he can even read Sumerian.

    (nice lengthy page addressing lots of points: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corr.../hafernik.html )

    In short, when you research his credits, it boils down to this:
    <blockquote>
    His work demonstrates no recognizable knowledge of anthropology, archeology, theology or astronomy. There is clear evidence of plagiarism, mixing of languages, ignorance of basic fundamentals of Sumerian and Akkadian grammar, misquotes, fictions, speculations, and mistranslations of many ancient works in his books and writings. He has no credibility with any of the experts in Sumerian translations whom he refuses to debate and shows no respect for.
    Sitchin entered the field of Sumerian text translation with a degree in economic history and a short career as a journalist and nothing more.</blockquote>

    from http://www.bibleufo.com/sitchin.htm

    Folks need to start looking into credentials a bit more closely.




    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Byrd on 2002-12-18 16:18 ]</font>

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    4,958
    On 2002-12-18 16:17, Byrd wrote:
    Because I'm such a controversial little beastie, I went off to see what I could find about Mr. Sitchin's credentials.

    Though I see a lot of information by True Believers about his expertise, there is no real support for that. He's never authored any important scholarly papers on the Bible. He's not on any academic papers as a Sumerian text specialist. There's some doubt he can even read Sumerian.

    (nice lengthy page addressing lots of points: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corr.../hafernik.html )

    In short, when you research his credits, it boils down to this:
    <blockquote>
    His work demonstrates no recognizable knowledge of anthropology, archeology, theology or astronomy. There is clear evidence of plagiarism, mixing of languages, ignorance of basic fundamentals of Sumerian and Akkadian grammar, misquotes, fictions, speculations, and mistranslations of many ancient works in his books and writings. He has no credibility with any of the experts in Sumerian translations whom he refuses to debate and shows no respect for.
    Sitchin entered the field of Sumerian text translation with a degree in economic history and a short career as a journalist and nothing more.</blockquote>

    from http://www.bibleufo.com/sitchin.htm

    Folks need to start looking into credentials a bit more closely.




    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Byrd on 2002-12-18 16:18 ]</font>
    I'm amazed at how so many of you can come to conclusions without having actually read Sitchin's work; Instead you filter through the internet and find that which debunks. I've read and reread The 12th Planet, The Stairway to Heaven, Divine Encounters and Genesis Revisited. All of which are very documented. Read these books yourselves(if for nothing other than good sci-fi) before making matter of fact conclusions about him and posting erroneous websites.
    I agree, "folks need to start looking into credentials more closely" because even the skeptics contradict one another! This site in comparision:
    http://skepdic.com/sitchin.html
    That bible site puts in "quotes", in the second paragraph, a most erroneous statement "summing up" Sitchin's work: "... another galaxy..." ?!!
    And doesn't it make sense that a "bible" site would have to dissent Sitchin's theory? Geez! The world's religions and gods would be reduced to flesh & blood fallable beings like ourselves. We can't have THAT can we? All CONTROL would be lost! Think about it.

    Maybe this will help you understand the ramifications of acutally admitting that Sitchin might be right:
    http://www.neilfreer.com/index3.htm#...20ians%20paper

    ps. Hank, great efforts at discussing Sitchin here. You seem very well read with Sitchin's work. Have you read Neil Freer's "Breaking the Godspell"?

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: A.DIM on 2002-12-19 10:36 ]</font>

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    364
    Gilgamesh was seeking answers to his own mortality. Would he die in a human's lifespan, or a god's lifespan? His mother was a god, making him a demi-god, and he wanted to stake his claim on immortality. That is the story, do you agree?
    Not really. from what I learned Gilgamesh was born of mortals, at the the time being, his mother was no god, otherwise there might heve been a problem.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,947
    [Oops! Just read this:

    "The people gather and celebrate around the meteorite, and Gilgamesh embraces it as he would a wife, but his mother, the goddess Rimat-Ninsun, forces him to compete with the meteorite."

    and had to correct my earlier post.]

    So, although historianas seem to be convinced that Gilgamesh was an actual historical figure, in the legend he is indeed presented as the son of a goddess...

    See here.

    Also http://www.soas.ac.uk/Gilgamesh/home.html

    Personally, I find the story of Gilgamesh fascinating -- even without any aliens or Planet X.



    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: informant on 2002-12-19 16:22 ]</font>

Similar Threads

  1. Michael Continued.
    By Gemini in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2008-Apr-14, 01:03 PM
  2. If the space race had continued to this day...
    By EsquireJ in forum Space Exploration
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 2005-Dec-31, 04:43 PM
  3. Project Orion Ban continued...
    By Wayne Smith in forum Forum Introductions and Feedback
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2005-Sep-07, 02:06 PM
  4. Star Formation - Continued......
    By hrherle in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2004-Nov-24, 04:39 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •