Was Sitchin wrong? [Archive] - The Project Avalon Community Forum

Tony

6th July 2011, 09:31

I need some help!

Perhaps you have already done this, I have just looked a site called, Sitchiswrong.co
If you go to THE ELECTRONIC TEXT CORPUS OF SUMERIAN LITERATURE and press advanced search, then type l=a-nun-na t=DN ( the first letter is el) you get the translation of Sumerian text from the clay tablets.
(The Sitchiswrong site has a video to show you what to do.)

He is suggesting that the whole Annunaki/Niribu is a fallacy. You are invited to ready for yourself.
I have no idea, and there is a lot to read! Perhaps there is a code, but it does make one wonder!

Below is a sample of what you might find. Life is never simple is it?

ETCSLtranslation : t.1.6.2

Ninurta's exploits: a šir-sud (?) to Ninurta

1-16. {(1 ms. adds before line 1:) An, king of the gods, majestic one:} O king, storm of majestic splendour, peerless Ninurta, possessing superior strength; who pillages the mountains all alone; deluge, indefatigable serpent hurling yourself at the rebel land, hero striding formidably into battle; lord whose powerful arm is fit to bear the mace, reaping like barley the necks of the insubordinate; Ninurta, king, son in whose strength his father rejoices; hero whose awesomeness covers the mountains like a south storm; Ninurta, who makes the good tiara, the rainbow (?), flash like lightning; grandly begotten by him who wears the princely beard; dragon who turns on himself, strength of a lion snarling at a snake, roaring hurricane; Ninurta, king, whom Enlil has exalted above himself; hero, great battle-net flung over the foe; Ninurta, with the awesomeness of your shadow extending over the Land; releasing fury on the rebel lands, overwhelming their assemblies! Ninurta, king, son who has forced homage to his father far and wide!
17-23. Inspiring great numinous power, he had taken his place on the throne, the august dais, and was sitting gladly at his ease at the festival celebrated in his honour, rivalling An and Enlil in drinking his fill, while Bau was pleading petitions in a prayer for the king, and he, Ninurta, Enlil's son, was handing down decisions. At that moment the lord's battle-mace looked towards the mountains, the Šar-ur cried out aloud to its master:
24-47. "Lord of lofty station, foremost one, who presides over all lords from the throne dais, Ninurta, whose orders are unalterable, whose allotted fates are faithfully executed; my master! Heaven copulated with the verdant Earth, Ninurta: she has born him a warrior who knows no fear -- the Asag, a child who sucked the power of milk without ever staying with a wet-nurse, a foster-child, O my master -- knowing no father, a murderer from the mountains, a youth who has come forth from ……, whose face knows no shame; impudent of eye, an arrogant male, {Ninurta} {(1 ms. has instead:) Ninĝirsu}, rejoicing in his stature. My hero, you who are like a bull, I will take my stand beside you. My master, who turns sympathetically towards his own city, who is effective in carrying out his mother's wishes: it has sired offspring in the mountains, and spread its seeds far and wide. The plants have unanimously named it king over them; like a great wild bull, it tosses its horns amongst them. The šu, the saĝkal, the esi (diorite), the usium, the kagena (haematite), and the heroic nu stones, its warriors, constantly come raiding the cities. For them a shark's tooth has grown up in the mountains; it has stripped the trees. Before its might the gods of those cities bow towards it. My master, this same creature has erected a throne dais: it is not lying idle. Ninurta, lord, it actually decides the Land's lawsuits, just as you do. Who can compass the Asag's dread glory? Who can counteract the severity of its frown? People are terrified, fear makes the flesh creep; their eyes are fixed upon it. My master, the mountains have taken their offerings to it."
48-56. "Hero! They have appealed to you, because of your father; son of Enlil, lord, because of your superior strength they are looking to you here; since you are strong, my master, they are calling for your help, saying, Ninurta, that not a single warrior counts except for you! They wanted to advise you about ……. Hero, there have been consultations with a view to taking away your kingship. Ninurta, it is confident that it can lay hands on the powers received by you in the abzu. Its face is deformed, its location is continually changing; day by day, the Asag adds territories to its domain."
57-69. "But you will force it into the shackles of the gods. You, Antelope of Heaven, must trample the mountains beneath your hooves, Ninurta, lord, son of Enlil. Who has so far been able to resist its assault? The besetting Asag is beyond all control, its weight is too heavy. Rumours of its armies constantly arrive, before ever its soldiers are seen. This thing's strength is massive, no weapon has been able to overturn it. Ninurta, neither the axe nor the all-powerful spear can penetrate its flesh, no warrior like it has ever been created against you. Lord, you who reach out towards the august divine powers, splendour, jewel of the gods, you bull with the features of a wild bull, with a prominent backbone, …… this fellow is clever! My Ninurta, whose form Enki contemplates with favour, my Uta-ulu, lord, son of Enlil, what is to be done?"
70-95. The lord cried "Alas!" so that Heaven trembled, and Earth huddled at his feet and was terrified (?) at his strength. Enlil became confused and went out of the E-kur. The mountains were devastated. That day the earth became dark, the Anuna trembled. The hero beat his thighs with his fists. The gods dispersed; the Anuna disappeared over the horizon like sheep. The lord arose, touching the sky; Ninurta went to battle, with one step (?) he covered a league, he was an alarming storm, and rode on the eight winds towards the rebel lands. His arms grasped the lance. The mace snarled at the mountains, the club began to devour all the enemy. He fitted the evil wind and the sirocco on a pole (?), he placed the quiver on its hook (?). An enormous hurricane, irresistible, went before the hero, stirred up the dust, caused the dust to settle, levelled high and low, filled the holes. It caused a rain of coals and flaming fires; the fire consumed men. It overturned tall trees by their trunks, reducing the forests to heaps, Earth put her hands on her heart and cried harrowingly; the Tigris was muddied, disturbed, cloudy, stirred up. He hurried to battle on the boat Ma-kar-nunta-ea; the people there did not know where to turn, they bumped into (?) the walls. The birds there tried to lift their heads to fly away, but their wings trailed on the ground. The storm flooded out the fish there in the subterranean waters, their mouths snapped at the air. It reduced the animals of the open country to firewood, roasting them like locusts. It was a deluge rising and disastrously ruining the mountains.
96-118. The hero Ninurta led the march through the rebel lands. He killed their messengers in the mountains, he crushed (?) their cities, he smote their cowherds over the head like fluttering butterflies, he tied together their hands with hirin grass, so that they dashed their heads against walls. The lights of the mountains did not gleam in the distance any longer. People gasped for breath (?); those people were ill, they hugged themselves, they cursed the Earth, they considered the day of the Asag's birth a day of disaster. The lord caused bilious poison to run over the rebel lands. As he went the gall followed, anger filled his heart, and he rose like a river in spate and engulfed all the enemies. In his heart he beamed at his lion-headed weapon, as it flew up like a bird, trampling the mountains for him. It raised itself on its wings to take away prisoner the disobedient, it spun around the horizon of heaven to find out what was happening. Someone from afar came to meet it, brought news for the tireless one, the one who never rests, whose wings bear the deluge, the Šar-ur. What did it gather there …… for Lord Ninurta? It reported the deliberations of the mountains, it explained their intentions to Lord Ninurta, it outlined (?) what people were saying about the Asag.
119-121. "Hero, beware!" it said concernedly. The weapon embraced him whom it loved, the Šar-ur

Who's for reading more?

Calz

6th July 2011, 09:37

Nice timing. Going down that trail in another thread as well:

In the name of truth, let's throw a curve ball in the mix - How accurate was Zecharia Sitchin's deciphering of ancient Anunnaki texts ? ? ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIwZKJK4IJc&feature=BFa&list=PLB83DC6D908DDBDA4&index=27

Tony

6th July 2011, 09:43

I'm just listening to it! How that for synchronicity!!!!

Calz

6th July 2011, 09:44

I'm just listening to it! How that for synchronicity!!!!

Makes a compelling presentation.

Teakai

6th July 2011, 09:47

Hi Pi n eal - Arizona Wilder who is apparently an illuminati escapee (? is that the right term?) did an interview with David Icke and in it she told him that Zecharia Sitchin was a disinfo agent.

The interview is quite long and it's up on you tube. I would have posted the relevant part only it was a while ago that I saw it and I don;t recall which part it's in.

HURRITT ENYETO

6th July 2011, 10:00

I believe Sitchin did indeed 'embellish' a lot of his Sumerian translations and just down right made some of them up!!
For instance some of the translations he made were using modern terms which simply did not exist in Sumerian times.
I have some major issues with Sitchins work but having said that his work is very enjoyable and i have great respect for the man.
He was one of the people who played a major role in my awakening and opened my eyes to a lot.
For this reason alone i am very grateful to Zechariah Sitchin.
You know what they say, a Sitchen in time saves nine :) (sorry about that):thumb:

Hurritt

christian

6th July 2011, 10:05

To put it in a nutshell:

Sitchin compiled a giant load of literature on the Sumerian tablets etc.
How could his every last word and interpretation be correct?
But the major message of an alien race genetically engineering seems clear, as mainstream science cannot account for the sudden birth of the Sumerian civilization and not least for their immense feats in science, art, etc.

Teakai

6th July 2011, 10:11

Ooh, la - I found a small video where Arizona tells David Icke about Zecharia Sitchin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzxIzx32GDo
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzxIzx32GDo

Warning: contains mention of shapeshifters.

Tony

6th July 2011, 10:12

Calz

6th July 2011, 10:22

Perhaps someone can help me out as well.

I remember hearing from what I thought to be a reliable source that Zecharia was actually channeling annunaki (automatic writing) on at least some of his material.

I am still trying to backtrack and find that source.

I did find a *hint* of sorts in that direction with the Jordan Maxwell Camelot interview.

Anyone???

I accepted Stitchin hook, line and sinker until it later came out (I think from Jordan Maxwell who was a good friend of his) that a lot of his material was "channeled" (automatic type writing) from the Annunaki.

Like always probably a shade of grey ... no doubt still a lot of good information.

Oh no you didn't say the "C" word did you... that's like a shot to the groin.

from credible too incredible in the space of 9 letters.

Thou the waters are muddied I will still review his material.

Trying to follow up on this without much luck so far. Here is some text in Jordan Maxwell's Camelot interview from 2009 talking about Stitchin. At that point Jordan would not come out with it since it was revealed in a private conversation. It must have been later when he did.

KC: I understand. Now, I don’t know if you’re willing to talk about this, but Zecharia Sitchin and you sat down and you asked him to tell you a secret. Based on all your time with him, the things that you had done for him, etcetera, etcetera, you basically said: Tell me something that I don’t know.

JM: Yeah.

KC: Are you willing to talk about that?

JM: No.

KC: Because I think that that is a clue that people would really benefit from knowing.

JM: Yeah. I don’t think I want to talk about that.

KC: Okay.

JM: Because...

KC: Do you feel that Zecharia would not like that information out there?

JM: No. It was that it was a private conversation and when I asked him... Because, like I said, at one time I was in business with Zecharia. I had a contract with him, and so we were business partners, and so I felt a little bit more of a leeway to talk with Zecharia in private. So I asked him one time some very personal questions about his work and it was absolutely mind-blowing and staggering, the things he was telling me.

And then... Well anyway, then he told me some things about myself and I was amazed. I never heard such a thing, that what he was being told, or wherever he got it from, he had a view on me, who I am and what I’m doing. But at that time we were talking, it was a private conversation, and I think it’d be better just left private.

KC: Okay. Fine.

JM: All I will say is this: Zecharia Sitchin is a fascinating man and a brilliant writer, and I love everything he’s doing, and I love the man. He’s a very dear friend and I love Zecharia Sitchin. He’s a very, very gentleman kind of guy, and so... I like that.

http://projectcamelot.org/lang/en/jordan_maxwell_interview_en.html

Calz

6th July 2011, 10:26

You know what they say, a Sitchen in time saves nine :) (sorry about that):thumb:

Hurritt

Ooooh ... well played HURRITT :haha:

christian

6th July 2011, 10:42

the major message of an alien race genetically engineering seems clear, as mainstream science cannot account for the sudden birth of the Sumerian civilization and not least for their immense feats in science, art, etc.

Seems clear??? To who? None of us "know."

Let me put it in different terms:
Mainstream science accepts only the dogma of evolution, this is everything evolved by itself gradually.
But mainstream science cannot account for the birth or the feats of the Sumerians.
So it is clear as daylight, that there must have been some boost or outside influence.
So when it came to finding the spot in human history, that needs to be examined further, Sitchin hit it, as the Sumerian tablets give a lot of possible answers to that riddle, of course none of us know. But it's safe to say that you must start somewhere when you unravel the history of humanity and he made he great contribution.

What you quoted from Sitchin goes into the more convoluted stories, where errors in translation/interpretation are most likely to occur, but the basic message I derive from Sitchin's books is: The clay tablets tell the story of the genetic engineering of modern day humanity by an alien race and these stories were alterated and adopted in the bible and other ancient books. I still don't know, if the stories on the tablets are true, but they provide a sufficient answer for the flaw in the mainstream theory of evolution.

Calz

6th July 2011, 10:48

christian

6th July 2011, 10:50

christian

6th July 2011, 11:01

I suggest you give a listen to the youtube(s) posted by DoubleHelix.

He suggests Zecharia varies from the scribes of the time on a number of issues. I am not a linguist ... but sounded reasonable to me.

I bet he does.
I read stuff from "Sitchin debunkers" before and the way I see it, it's to be appreciated that there are peer reviews of his work, but saying that his entire work is a hoax and all the rest of it, because he made mistakes in his translations, is nonsense. Of course there are mistakes, what would you expect? You will not find a "proper" translation anywhere, but that doesn't turn every last effort to provide one into garbage.

So of course it's a good thing to bring more clarity into the translation, interpretation, value and validity of the clay tablets.

Sitchin jumped to conclusions, some of them are surely wrong. But that doesn't make it right to jump to the conclusion that all he did was wrong.

It's very odd that his work is hardly peer reviewed in a sober way, but instead going into the extremes of either believing his every last word of condemning him as a pseudo-scientist, neither gives him the right credit.

Davidallany

6th July 2011, 11:21

Regardless of whether or not the late Mr. Zecharia Sitchin was wrong or was dis-informer, he did move many people with the work he presented regarding Sumer. Thus opening the door not known by many to look into the legend and investigate it further. What if he was telling what he knew to the best of his knowledge, what if he was discredited by Charles's people?

QJDjAPNMfBM

Steven

6th July 2011, 11:35

Fred Steeves

6th July 2011, 11:40

Sitchens also showed a lot of very interesting pictures from the tablets and such in his books. A picture paints a thousand words. In any language or translation.

Cheers,
Fred

HURRITT ENYETO

6th July 2011, 11:42

Sitchin used terms in his translation, that were not known in Sumerian times.
He's entitled to do so as an author, when it appears to be appropriate. When Nostradamus made his predictions first, there were a lot of things he could not label precisely and he would surely appreciate someone in more modern times to interpret his quatrains appropriately with the terms that we know today (of course I'm referring to Dolores Cannon here).

Sitchin channeled from the Annunaki.
Saying the Annunaki is like saying the Asians. There are lots of different factions among them. So it might be true or not, might be good or not...

If only it were a simple matter of semantics or getting a interpretation wrong the fact of the matter is that a lot of Sitchins work is just that, HIS INTERPRETATION.

For instance nowhere in the Sumerian tablets does it say that Nibiru is a planet (and that's a pretty big detail to get wrong or 'interpret'.
When these things were pointed out to him he either refused to discuss it or stuck to his version of the tablets being the only version that was true.
All i am saying is that it is more than mere miss translations.

Hurritt

Calz

6th July 2011, 11:44

Yes, he has been wrong on many things. That is why it is important not to buy anything already, but to keep searching to increase the data available. I guess he has been wrong on thing we actually think he is right, and right on things he actually was wrong.

But on the other hand, if that was not Sitchin, we would not even talk about the Sumerian tablets.

Namaste, Steven

Nothing is written in stone ... :sorry: (couldn't resist)

But we don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Most everything comes to a shade of grey and that is certainly the case here.

I had heard there was a number of other researchers who did not agree with Zecharia but I didn't really research it. Anyone that has something of value to offer will have debunkers of all sorts ... to be sure.

And that is why we have a forum like this ... and a thread like this.

Should be an interesting one :nod:

christian

6th July 2011, 11:47

If only it were a simple matter of semantics or getting a interpretation wrong the fact of the matter is that a lot of Sitchins work is just that, HIS INTERPRETATION.

For instance nowhere in the Sumerian tablets does it say that Nibiru is a planet (and that's a pretty big detail to get wrong or 'interpret'.
When these things were pointed out to him he either refused to discuss it or stuck to his version of the tablets being the only version that was true.
All i am saying is that it is more than mere miss translations.

You are right. But how to translate it all right and then interpret all of it right (translation is to some degree interpretation anyways)? And if you want to be sure of everything, you will have to cut your analysis of the tablets very short, if you want to proceed, you have to speculate. So everyone is entitled to his opinion there, I figure.

So a sober peer review is of course appreciated, but please no more Sitchin bashing, I read that so often.

HURRITT ENYETO

6th July 2011, 12:04

Tony

6th July 2011, 12:26

What this does throwing up, is this forum.

Sometimes this forum reads like Facebook, just speculation on hearsay! Some threads are very important with their questioning and investigation, but seem to get hijacked by smug quips. There are now some writers I just do not go near as they are just involved in trivial pursuits. I do not believe a word they say, so it is of no interest. I'm sure others feel the same way about me!

I didn't know that there was another thread like this one, because on taking a quick look at it, it too was going off at a tangent.

I know from others, that there is genuine fear, about hearing all this stuff, and do not know what is true and what is not. Then one reads someone smugly saying “I'm not frightened why should you be?” Fear is a normal human experience, do not look down your nose at them!

If Sitchin is wrong then a lot of this is information could be wrong, and only promotes falling into the hands of disinformation. If anything is important in life, this situation we face is it. It's not good coming back at me with, “Oh no it's not.” Explain your thoughts properly.

Then one reads, “We are all going to ascend!” Where on earth did you get that from? It's no point saying, “Someone told me.” It doesn't make that true. I do not care how many angels you think you are seeing.

The mind is very tricky character. We have two ends of fantasy land going on here.

gabbahh

6th July 2011, 13:01

Are there any other known translations of the Sumerian Tablets?

gabbahh

6th July 2011, 13:10

Are there any other known translations of the Sumerian Tablets?
After some searching:
http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/edition2/etcslbycat.php
is the page where you can select translations of the the tablets.

Too quick, once more.

Just did a search for Nibru on that site and these are the many results:
http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?simplesearchword=nibru&simplesearch=translation&searchword=&charenc=gcirc&lists=

Note: I assumed that Nibru = Nibiru, since I could not find any references to Nibiru

TraineeHuman

6th July 2011, 13:40

Cidersomerset

6th July 2011, 14:02

Hi pie'n'eal The Sitchin/Annunaki story is one of the fundamental linch pins of human/alian
interaction and inspired many of us to look in that direction and a lot of it makes sence.....
The trouble is like everything with only his research to rely on it is open to his personal
interpretation.....So I have always thought we need corroboration....

Michael Tellinger is starting to come into it from a different angle ,again full of personal bias,
which is natural..I feel there is deffinately a lot in the Summarian tablets about our ancestry
and alian contact....That was the reason we invaded Iraq......Saddam had absolutaly nothing
to do with 9/11.. and the reason the national museam was targeted ,against all military logic..

This Michael Heieser may have some valid critisms ,but he is far to negative for my liking
Here is a link to a late 2010 interview with Michael Heieser on the 'Truth Frequency' radio with .

Chris & Cheree..... Cheers ..Steve
mf2DfyKQjhU

http://truthfrequencyradio.com/archives/2269

Operator

6th July 2011, 14:02

Tony

6th July 2011, 14:19

I do not believe a word they say, so it is of no interest.

Here's an anecdote/riddle:

You arrived at a crossroad and you have to make a decision to turn left or to turn right.
At the crossroad there are 2 brothers. One is always telling the truth, the other one always lies.
You can ask one of them one question. How would you find out which way to go ?

Now here's the solution: Ask one of them which way his brother would point out to be the right road.
If you happen to ask the truth teller he would know his brother would lie and point in the wrong direction.
If you happen to ask the liar he would know his brother would point the right direction but lies about it.

So there may still be value in listening to liars ... but you have to know that they are lying.

Here's another interesting phrase from Michael Tsarion related to the sentence above:
"Don't blame someone for selling you a lie, blame yourself for buying it" (Perhaps not his exact words).

So liars are interesting people, they are the ones most likely to reveal agendas !

I like your thinking! But we have all bought into the agenda. If I were a true blue buddhist, then I have only myself to blame.
But someone not only keeps moving the goal post, they keep changing the rules of the game, and the little old lady next door, cannot understand it.

A lie isn't so easy to spot, once it has gone down a line of experts. By the time it has got to us it has turned into a belief system.
Maybe it's not a lie but a partial truth, which satisfies some, so they do not have to think any further. This is done all the time. In fact it is the story of my life as a spiritual seeker.

Now these two brothers. Are they smoking anything strange?

Calz

6th July 2011, 14:27

Now these two brothers. Are they smoking anything strange?

One might suggest one of the brothers is smoking our fear ... whilst if not for the other we would not be here.

Course ... maybe I am smokin and not even near!!! :smokin:

Hey that rhymes :music:

Arpheus

6th July 2011, 14:41

We have a similar thread on nexus with the sam videos from that Phd guy,i watched all 13 of them and then i went on to do some research on the web,and here is what i found,sitchin is a fraud he is not and never been a linguist you will not be able to find anything about his credentials anywhere because there are none and that speaks volumes,yet he calls himself an expert in sumerian?Is that some sort of joke or what?Anyone can go out there and call themselves an expert in something then go write a book about it,but you better have the feacts and proof to b ack up your work work or else is a pile of junk and BS with vewry little truth in it,i advise anyone who resnotes with his work to go do some googling before defending the man you will be amazed,he is no expert in sumerian and has never been period and thats a FACT.In my opinion he is a minion funded by TPTB to spread disinfo more then anything else and thats the bottom line,feel free to research his credentials you wont find any he has NONE!

Operator

6th July 2011, 14:45

But someone not only keeps moving the goal post, they keep changing the rules of the game, and the little old lady next door, cannot understand it.

Yeah good one. I picture it like this:
It's like observing a kind of chess game. But the rules are far more difficult also there are not only 2 players there are an unknown number of multiple players.
And they're playing not on 1 board but on several layers of boards.
Not all the players are present on all layers and they keep changing the rules.
So try to get everyone on one page with that one ... :rolleyes:

A lie isn't so easy to spot, once it has gone down a line of experts. By the time it has got to us it has turned into a belief system.

Correct ... it's tough indeed. But wouldn't there be a big change if all of a sudden we're telepathic and could read minds ?
Lies wouldn't stand a chance to survive another second ....

Maybe it's not a lie but a partial truth, which satisfies some, so they do not have to think any further.
Most of the time the lie is packaged and wrapped up with some nice looking truth. Otherwise the herd is not going to bite and swallow.
You're not supposed to chew too long (might reveal the content before you swallow).

In fact it is the story of my life as a spiritual seeker.

Welcome to the club. I'm pretty sure the club is growing in numbers and in strength ;)
So let's aim for reaching some point within this life :peace:

Now these two brothers. Are they smoking anything strange?
I am starting to wonder if smoking that stuff is strange indeed. Maybe it's a good habit who knows.

jimbojp

6th July 2011, 15:45

Maybye this whole story of two brothers one good, one bad is a myth...
Could they be the same entity, taking on two different roles, with the ability to change roles at any time,
So there is no christ and there is no anti christ maybye its the same entity? Feeding on my ignorance, on my attatchments and aversions.
:wacko:

Calz

6th July 2011, 15:48

Omni connexae!

6th July 2011, 16:02

Hello all,

From my experience within the New Age/Conspiracy/Truthseeker community (and before you oppose my terminology: I agree I have just lumped it together in a perhaps unjust way. But, I trust you understand what I mean by that, and if so: my terminology has met the purpose, so I kindly ask anyone to not get stuck on that point.) I have found there is a few "archetype" perspectives developed concerning everything regarding the Sitchin, the Annunaki and so on (Some of which have been displayed in this thread already.) :

1. Sitchin is a shill, therefore, cannot be taken seriously.

2. Sitchin is sincere, but given the nature of this research, can never be 100% correct, and we therefore should not discount the research based inconsistencies alone.

3. Science has become a form of dogma, and we can't trust it alone. There is more then meets the eye. If we look for solid proof, we could never find the "truth". This will then be used to somehow solidify, or back up, the claims of someone who talks about things that are metaphysical or "beyond science".

4. Many claim direct experience with such entities and beings. They know what they saw, and no rational way of thinking is seemingly able to discredit absolutely anything they say, because they just know it.

There are many more perspectives, and variations of the above, ofcourse. But in the sake of this conversation, I would like to move on now and address a few points. If you feel the perspectives I have offered don't do them justice, or that I have missed a key "archetype" that should be discussed here, by all means let it be known. Now then..

Hello Chiquetet,

To put it in a nutshell:

Sitchin compiled a giant load of literature on the Sumerian tablets etc.
How could his every last word and interpretation be correct?
But the major message of an alien race genetically engineering seems clear, as mainstream science cannot account for the sudden birth of the Sumerian civilization and not least for their immense feats in science, art, etc.

Let me put it in different terms:
Mainstream science accepts only the dogma of evolution, this is everything evolved by itself gradually.
But mainstream science cannot account for the birth or the feats of the Sumerians.
So it is clear as daylight, that there must have been some boost or outside influence.
So when it came to finding the spot in human history, that needs to be examined further, Sitchin hit it, as the Sumerian tablets give a lot of possible answers to that riddle, of course none of us know. But it's safe to say that you must start somewhere when you unravel the history of humanity and he made he great contribution.

I understand you have offered a nutshell of your perspective here.

However, I have a few concerns. In the sake of constructive conversation, I ask for you to back up what you have said before we go further:

1. Why do you suppose that the major message of an alien race genetically engineering seems clear?

2. Why do you suppose that mainstream science cannot offer an understandable account for the sudden birth of Sumerian civilization/science/art?

3. If I may push for elaboration: for what reasons do you liken the scientific theory of evolution to that of a dogma? How are you defining dogma here?

-OmniC

shijo

6th July 2011, 16:42

I most definately heard in an interview a while ago(was it with Jordan Maxwell?) who was at one time in business with Mr Sitchin, that his books in various places are labelled under fiction,sounds about right to me.However i enjoyed them all tremendously without having to believe a thing.

christian

6th July 2011, 17:03

1. Why do you suppose that the major message of an alien race genetically engineering seems clear?

Out of all the information that can be derived from the clay tablets, the story of the genetic engineering is told pretty detailed and there are the famous illustrations, so that single parts of the whole story may be mistranslated/interpreted, but the story as a whole seems pretty clear, I figure.

2. Why do you suppose that mainstream science cannot offer an understandable account for the sudden birth of Sumerian civilization/science/art?

Well, is there an explanation? Right before the Sumerian civilization came into existence, people were rather primitive and then all of a sudden there were cities and all these scientific and cultural feats, they already knew about the outer planets and when NASA was sending a mission to explore (I think it was) Phobos and some other planet, Sitchin was able to tell them what they would find, based on what he got from the tablets, and he was proven right. How could they have known all that? The tablets give a straight answer, the Annunaki gave them this knowledge.
I'd like to refer to Dr. Arthur Horn's book "Humanity's Extraterrestrial Origins". I cannot quote it right now, because I gave it to an American friend, who studies anthropology. Dr. Horn was totally convinced of Darwinism and the theory of evolution, he knew there were flaws in it, but he was sure, by the time there would be evidence, that would fill in the gaps. Then one day he met a psychic accidentally, after the meeting his belief system in general was shattered and he began to open his mind and think outside the box. He then investigated everything beyond the mainstream, that he could find about anthropology, which he taught at university at that time and came up with that book eventually, it's outstanding especially because the in depth comparison between the mainstream view and the alternative viewpoint. I would also refer to that book to answer your third question.

3. for what reasons do you liken the scientific theory of evolution to that of a dogma? How are you defining dogma here?

A theory is a possible explanation. It becomes a dogma, when you say this must be true, although you have no sufficient proof. When you look how the mainstream scientific community deals with the theory of evolution today, I think it's safe to say, that it's a dogma, because every other opinion is ridiculed and condemned and you can virtually get no funds for investigating in any other direction.

Cidersomerset

6th July 2011, 17:10

Hi All...just relistened to the Michael Hieser interview .....He is a classic mainline acadmic Skeptic.....Give me the evidence ? , where is it written ? show me sitchens credentials ?....etc..
All valid questions , but again he gives his views on the tablets ...Nowhere are aliens , 12th planet 3,600 eliptical orbits mentioned anywhere...
His take seems to be the ancients were much cleverer than we give them credit for.......They needed no alian tech,to raise the pyrimids ,build massive structures,
He quotes Wally Wallingtons building technique ,which is very clever and something similar could have been usesd to raise large blocks...But I have not seen archaeolical evidence from mainstream sources other than the Egyption 'Shaduf'....It certainly does not explain Balbeck and the larger blocks lifted all over the anciant world....Other questions he just brushes off.....No imagination if you ask me..LOL

Anyway if you have not listened to him before, you should just for balance , and to get frustrated like I did..Lol

Heres Wally Wallingtons Clever Contraption/concept...

bsoYkGb7p28

Another possibility is deffinately mysterious ,was he a genius , did he have help ?
The man who built Coral Castle Florida ,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhzC_8-kszA&feature=related
Hr9U1cP68eU

CRANE EQUIPMENT (MACHINE HISTORY) ORIGINS OF THE MODERN DAY CRANE

The principles of operation of today's CRANE EQUIPMENT is taken for granted, however, we thought you might be interested in learning a bit about the history of the Crane and its development into the modern age of technology.

CRANE EQUIPMENT ANCIENT EGYPTIAN TECHNOLOGY Image of a shaduf

The problem of lifting heavy objects has preoccupied mankind since ancient times. The earliest representation of CRANE EQUIPMENT appeared during Ramses’ reign in Egypt in 3000 B.C. Although rudimentary, the principles of leverage to lift heavy weights had been mastered!

Image of a shaduf used as early crane equipment in EgyptThe SHADUF consisted of a long, pivoting beam balanced on a vertical support. A heavy weight was attached to one end of the beam and a bucket to the other.

The user pulled the bucket down to the water supply, filled it, then allowed the weight to pull the bucket up. The beam was then rotated to the desired position and the bucket was emptied.

When correctly balanced, the counterweight can support a half-filled bucket, so some effort is used to pull an empty bucket down to the water, but only the same effort is needed to lift a full bucket.

The Shaduf was a water lifting device used by the early Egyptians, particularly in the Nile River Valley civilization. The Nile River flooded every year from July to October but people started preparing for it in May. This time was called Ahket. The floodplain wasImage of a shaduf used by the ancient egyptians 4,250 square miles long and the ecology of the River heavily affected whether or not the civilization was thriving. The flooding took care of soil enrichment for the next year but during the harvest season, an irrigation system was needed. That is why the Shaduf was invented. Farmers from ancient Egypt would turn the the stick, then drop the bucket in the water, lift it up when it was full, and then turn the stick again and set the bucket on land. The shaduf was then used to carry water from the riverbanks to plots of farm land.

Image of a shaduf still used today to draw and lift water

The shaduf was originally developed in ancient Mesopotamia, and appears on a Sargonid seal of c.2000 BC.

Though rudimentary, this early lifting device was the forerunner of what was to become thousands of years later, a sophisticated technology developed over many centuries into the crane equipment used in industry today.

It has been suggested that the massive stones used in building the pyramids of Egypt were raised by an ancient variant of this device.Image of a shaduf used in Africa

It is still used in many rural areas of Egypt, India, Africa and Asia today to draw water for land irrigation.

In India the device is called a denkli, or paecottah.

It is estimated that a shaduf can raise over 2,500 litres of water per day. Shadufs can be used in a series where it is desired to raise water to a height exceeding the range of a single one.
bullet .........See Link below for images

http://mcaleese.com.au/acm/crane_history1.htm

SORRY PIE'N'EAL HAVING FUN GETTING CARRIED AWAY.........AND PROBABLY SHOULD BE>LOL>

Tony

6th July 2011, 17:13

Thank you all for keeping this thread sharp!

sshenry

6th July 2011, 17:16

Maybe the question we should be asking ourselves isn't whether or not Sitchin was wrong (or right), but why will it concern so many if he is (or isn't)?

Forevernyt

6th July 2011, 17:27

Let me put it in different terms:
Mainstream science accepts only the dogma of evolution, this is everything evolved by itself gradually.
But mainstream science cannot account for the birth or the feats of the Sumerians.
So it is clear as daylight, that there must have been some boost or outside influence.
So when it came to finding the spot in human history, that needs to be examined further, Sitchin hit it, as the Sumerian tablets give a lot of possible answers to that riddle, of course none of us know. But it's safe to say that you must start somewhere when you unravel the history of humanity and he made he great contribution.

What you quoted from Sitchin goes into the more convoluted stories, where errors in translation/interpretation are most likely to occur, but the basic message I derive from Sitchin's books is: The clay tablets tell the story of the genetic engineering of modern day humanity by an alien race and these stories were alterated and adopted in the bible and other ancient books. I still don't know, if the stories on the tablets are true, but they provide a sufficient answer for the flaw in the mainstream theory of evolution.

I'm beginning to doubt parts of the "THEORY" of evolution. Notice, it's still a theory. I watched an excellent documentary called Expelled. If you haven't seen it, I would recommend it. It's on Netflix available for streaming. Anyway, Ben Stein (yes, Bueller, Ben Stein) interviews a bunch of scientists who believe that evolution is wrong/flawed. The posit a "Intelligent Design" to life. Not creationism, but they believe to have life, spontaneously evolve on the planet would be an astronomical number to achieve. So the bottom line was, Ben had the top scientist who believed in Evolution and sat him down and basically said, how did life start. Of course, he talked about the amino acids and the molecules and how they combined and how DNA formed to create life. Ben then asked, how does DNA work. The scientist explained that DNA holds all of the information to create every cell in your body and gives it the purpose it need to fulfill. Then Ben had him. He then asked, well, who put the information in the DNA?

The guy just stared at him.

I've never read any of the Sitchin books, but I've read enough to get the gist. The bottom line for me is, there is way too much time between what happened on this planet BEFORE humans arrived and before our recorded history to account for everything they way it's taught in schools. Something happened here. Something is probably still happening and something will continue to happen here.

The information in DNA came from somewhere.

Hervé

6th July 2011, 18:27

[...]2. Why do you suppose that mainstream science cannot offer an understandable account for the sudden birth of Sumerian civilization/science/art?
[...]-OmniC

... you know, there's this story of an archeological dig on this planet way out in the galactic bush... what they found was that all of a sudden horses and buffalo graveyards were replaced by huged heaps of rusted metal, plastic and round rubber things.

The guess is that Crustaceans must have come down heavy on that puny planet.

They also found these monasteries deep down under the surface. They figured these must have been monasteries because they found an awful lot of white garments; all with the same cut and fashion. They seemed to have worshipped some kind of god represented by three equidistant conical shapes expanding from a central dot. Who knows what that was...

8492

Anyway, according to some deciphered records, it all happened in a blink of an eye right about their 1900-2000 years of some unknown calendar.

Omni connexae!

6th July 2011, 18:39

Hello Chiquetet,

1. Why do you suppose that the major message of an alien race genetically engineering seems clear?

Out of all the information that can be derived from the clay tablets, the story of the genetic engineering is told pretty detailed and there are the famous illustrations, so that single parts of the whole story may be mistranslated/interpreted, but the story as a whole seems pretty clear, I figure.

Are you able to offer any examples here, that we can all easily look at, that show how the story of genetic engineering is clearly told? Perhaps a link to a picture(s) that convinces you with a short description of why it does convince you?

2. Why do you suppose that mainstream science cannot offer an understandable account for the sudden birth of Sumerian civilization/science/art?

Well, is there an explanation?

I would expect someone who feels able to discredit a scientific explanation, to atleast be aware of, and understand, such scientific explanations, and therefore be able to point out any false premises and or logical flaws in such theory's.

Are you suggesting that there is no generally accepted scientific theory regarding this?

Right before the Sumerian civilization came into existence, people were rather primitive and then all of a sudden there were cities and all these scientific and cultural feats

Well, if we go back to right before Sumerian culture we find ourselves in 5300 BC, the start of the Ubaid period. It is primitive, people living in huts etc. By the end of it, the Ubaid period is marked by a distinctive style of fine quality painted pottery which spread throughout Mesopotamia and the Persian Gulf.

1200 years later, things are moving on, and we find ourselves in 4100 BC, the start of the Uruk period. (4100BC-2900BC) Trade is picking up along the canals and rivers of southern Mesopotamia, facilitating the rise of many large, stratified, temple-centered cities with populations of over 10,000, it is generally accepted this was also the time that slaves started being utilized. This primitive form of civilization, exported by Sumerian traders and colonists, had an effect on all surrounding peoples, who gradually evolved their own comparable, competing economies and cultures. During this period Uruk became the most urbanised city in the world, surpassing for the first time 50,000 inhabitants by the end of this 1200 year period.

You can find out more by reading here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer), or by doing a quick online search.

Firstly, I see no "all of a sudden" jump from primitive culture to large cities and civilizations. We are talking in terms of a couple thousand years here.

they already knew about the outer planets and when NASA was sending a mission to explore (I think it was) Phobos and some other planet, Sitchin was able to tell them what they would find, based on what he got from the tablets, and he was proven right. How could they have known all that? The tablets give a straight answer, the Annunaki gave them this knowledge.

Again, I must ask you to provide something that we can all look at: that clearly shows they already knew about the outer planets and a short explanation of why you feel this is the case.

Dr. Horn was totally convinced of Darwinism and the theory of evolution[...] Then one day he met a psychic accidentally[...] his belief system in general was shattered[...] He then investigated everything beyond the mainstream... and came up with that book eventually, it's outstanding especially because the in depth comparison between the mainstream view and the alternative viewpoint. I would also refer to that book to answer your third question.

When referring to a book, it is common practice to point out exactly what part you are referring too, and why you support this position.

3. for what reasons do you liken the scientific theory of evolution to that of a dogma? How are you defining dogma here?

A theory is a possible explanation. It becomes a dogma, when you say this must be true, although you have no sufficient proof. When you look how the mainstream scientific community deals with the theory of evolution today, I think it's safe to say, that it's a dogma, because every other opinion is ridiculed and condemned and you can virtually get no funds for investigating in any other direction.

Are you suggesting that the theory of evolution has no sufficient proof?

I hope not. Although, perhaps you are saying the theory of evolution cannot possibly explain human evolution alone.

If this is the case, I will again ask you to provide something that we can all look at here, that illustrates your position, and a short explanation of why you feel this is a valid position.

-OmniC

Hervé

6th July 2011, 18:55

Maybe the question we should be asking ourselves isn't whether or not Sitchin was wrong (or right), but why will it concern so many if he is (or isn't)?

Here are some of the reasons from archeologist and author Jonathan Gray and his direct enquiry to Mr. Sitchin when still alive:

8491

With Mr. Sitchin’s help, this bothersome matter could surely be resolved.

I waited… and waited… Seven weeks passed…

I recall vividly that Tuesday morning at the Thames post office. My heart was thumping heavily as I tore open the envelope. And there, inside, was a photocopy of my letter, with Mr. Sitchin’s few brief notes scribbled over it.

Now all would be clarified. I read on:

MY QUESTION NUMBER 1 WAS: I notice you translate “nephilim” as “people of the fiery rockets” and also “those who came down from heaven” (as closely as I remember the wording) Could you please explain how this is arrived at, using the rules of Hebrew morphology? Where do you get your understanding that "naphal" has to do with fire or rockets? In what ancient text does naphal have to do with fire or rockets?

SITCHIN’S COMPLETE RESPONSE: The Sumerian terms DIN and GUR - “people of the fiery rockets”; Anunnaki - “those who came down from heaven”. Full stop.

MY COMMENT: But, Mr S, did you see my question, which ancient text?

MY QUESTION 2: Which Sumerian text says that the Anunnaki come from the planet Nibiru - or have a connection to Nibiru, a 12th planet, or some other planet? Also that Nibiru is a planet beyond Pluto?

SITCHIN’S RESPONSE: Have you not read my books?? Stop.

COMMENT: Indeed, I had read his books. But my question was: where is the ancient text that says these things?
Okay, I had to be totally fair, so I referred Sitchin’s response to linguistic expert Michael S. Heiser, who earned his M.A. and Ph.D. in Hebrew Bible and Semitic Languages at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

DR HEISER’S RESPONSE: “Nice answer: ‘it's in my books.’ My point precisely. It’s in his books, but not in the Sumerian texts.”

MY QUESTION 3 TO MR SITCHIN WAS: Why do many of your important word meanings or translations of Sumerian and Mesopotamian words, differ so much from Mesopotamian cuneiform bilingual dictionaries?

SITCHIN’S RESPONSE: They do? Give a couple of examples!

Our friend Mr. S sounded surprised. But he had thrown down the challenge. So that was the direction now to go.
You ask, why must I pursue this? Two reasons:

1. Millions of well-meaning people had taken his theory on board. Whole lots of people were staking their lives – and even basing their whole world view - on Mr. S’s integrity.

2. I was responsible for having quoted this dear man as a source. In my book Dead Men’s Secrets I had cited Sitchin as a knowledgeable authority concerning the Sumerians.

Excerpts from J. Gray's "Is this really Sitchin Fiction?" (http://www.beforeus.com/sitchin-fiction.pdf)

Forevernyt

6th July 2011, 19:01

Let me just quickly add to my statement above. Darwin's Theory of Evolution can explain the eventual evolution of species in existence. In other words, you have an eohippus (small prehistoric horse). You can track this creatures eventual evolution into the modern day horse. So, i would say some of the theory is well founded. But it still cannot and does not explain HOW life started and WHERE the information in DNA comes from.

christian

6th July 2011, 19:18

Hello Chiquetet

Hello Omni connexae!

Let me make this perfectly clear, if you just want to defend your prejudices, that's fine with me, but don't expect me to continue the conversation then.

You want to tell me about the proper procedure in a debate and then you quote Wikipedia?

I told you, why I cannot quote the exact page in Dr. Horn's book. There are one or two chapters about Darwinism, evolution, etc. You don't have the book at hand anyway and if you had it, you could easily read these chapters through.

The story of the genetic engineering is told in depth in Genesis Revisited from Sitchin, I gave that also away to an Israeli friend, so don't ask for quotes. Read the book, if you are truly interested in figuring out the truth and don't have me spell it all out for you.

The very famous cylinder seal image I was referring to is this:
http://schooloftantra.net/articles/AncientAnthrology/NinmahEnkiThothAdam_Sitchin1990p162.gif

Concerning the knowledge of the outer planets and that other moon (I think it was Phobos and another one): Sitchin wrote a letter to NASA when they started a mission, containing what he expected to be found on the basis of what he learned from the Sumerian tablets, and they obtained just the results that Sitchin wrote them before.
That's why I'm saying: There is no mainstream scientific explanation for the origin of that knowledge, or is there? Maybe the Sumerians were just lucky guessing. Or to get more outlandish, maybe they were highly psychic. Well, the Annunaki told them, is another possible one.

Last but not least the theory of evolution: We humans started as a one cell organisms and so on, right? So where is the paleontologic proof of all the races that were in between? There should be a chain, so we can trace it back exactly, like now we are human, the organism before that was a orang-utan or whatever, this developed out of xyz, and then there would need to be some proof of the phases in-between all those. And of course lots of aberrations. Because Darwin denies God and calls him a "blind watchmaker", so every progress in evolution is just random. Strange, that we don't see fossil proof for all the cases, where the blind watchmaker messed up over and over.

There is a point to evolution, meaning that naturally some annomalies occur and sometimes one certain type is more likely to survive and will be the predominant or the only one of a certain species, so it all develops. But that doesn't tell it all.

There is a point to genetic engineering, as we see a lot of hints, that point to that and it would explain where modern day man came from.

There is a point to seeding, meaning that certain animals and plants were brought here from somewhere else, again as there are hardly any in-between fossils, dating back to a certain point in time certain fossils are suddenly found.

There is a point to creationism, as things naturally seem to strive towards harmony and not towards a state of chaos, so there seems to be an pattern that interpenetrates everything in the universe.

I really suggest, if you want to continue to talk about Sitchin, you should read his books first, at least Genesis Revisited and The Twelfth Planet (which I also gave away to a German friend), I won't do the work for you. Enjoy!

Omni connexae!

6th July 2011, 21:09

Hello Chiquetet,

Let me make this perfectly clear, if you just want to defend your prejudices, that's fine with me, but don't expect me to continue the conversation then.

...if you want to be perfectly clear, I suggest you point out exactly what prejudices I'm apparently defending.

I'm just offering the light of reason, to help OP and everyone reading get to the bottom of this.

To be clear: I am not attacking anyone's beliefs or ideas. I am also not coming from a biased "Sitchen is a crack-pot" perspective. Although, after reading through the letter Amzer Zo has provided, my perspective is beginning to shift.

I am just offering a critical perspective. :)

You want to tell me about the proper procedure in a debate and then you quote Wikipedia?

Yes, Wiki often has alot of bunk. However, the page and quotes I have used are the generally accepted understanding. This page has been verified. There is also an extensive list of sources provided at the bottom of the page that I personally verified before making my post.

Now then, if you have something you object to regarding the information itself, then by all means, spill it. Bashing Wiki itself, without addressing the information I have provided, is a cop-out.

I told you, why I cannot quote the exact page in Dr. Horn's book. There are one or two chapters about Darwinism, evolution, etc. You don't have the book at hand anyway and if you had it, you could easily read these chapters through.

Yes, but it stands to reason that if you understood what he was saying: you would be able to roughly explain exactly what he was saying and why he was saying it, in your own words, and provide reasons for why you agree.

You see, if your unable to do that: the premises behind your claims are faulty to say the least.

The very famous cylinder seal image I was referring to is this:
http://schooloftantra.net/articles/AncientAnthrology/NinmahEnkiThothAdam_Sitchin1990p162.gif

Are you suggesting this picture actually constitutes to something that backs up the case of aliens genetically manipulating humans?

Concerning the knowledge of the outer planets and that other moon (I think it was Phobos and another one): Sitchin wrote a letter to NASA when they started a mission, containing what he expected to be found on the basis of what he learned from the Sumerian tablets, and they obtained just the results that Sitchin wrote them before.
That's why I'm saying: There is no mainstream scientific explanation for the origin of that knowledge, or is there? Maybe the Sumerians were just lucky guessing. Or to get more outlandish, maybe they were highly psychic. Well, the Annunaki told them, is another possible one.

Do you have any online source, what so ever, to back up this claim? A copy of the letter? A story written about it in a blog? Anything?

Last but not least the theory of evolution: We humans started as a one cell organisms and so on, right? So where is the paleontologic proof of all the races that were in between? There should be a chain, so we can trace it back exactly, like now we are human, the organism before that was a orang-utan or whatever, this developed out of xyz, and then there would need to be some proof of the phases in-between all those. And of course lots of aberrations. Because Darwin denies God and calls him a "blind watchmaker", so every progress in evolution is just random. Strange, that we don't see fossil proof for all the cases, where the blind watchmaker messed up over and over.

Those who disagree with evolution often claim there are still "missing links", and this is reason to doubt that humans naturally evolved from other species.

Allow me to show you how this is nonsense.

You are basically saying:

we have animal A (such as humans) and animal B (such as Australopithecus afarensis, aka Lucy)

but where is animal C, in between them?! Where is the missing link?! The problem is that we definitely have an animal C that goes in the middle (such as Homo erectus) -

but then you can turn around and ask, well! Where is animal D that's between A and C?! And what about E in between C and B?!

And you could go on, and on, into absurdity, where you won't be satisfied until we have a fossil animal from every single generation that existed in between A and B... that's simply not going to happen.

Considering how hard it is to find fossil animals, the human ancestor record is actually quite impressive. Take a look here at this outline of important hominid fossils:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

And tell me if you still think we're missing some links. :)

There is a point to genetic engineering, as we see a lot of hints, that point to that and it would explain where modern day man came from.

Care to point out some of these "hints"?

There is a point to creationism, as things naturally seem to strive towards harmony and not towards a state of chaos, so there seems to be an pattern that interpenetrates everything in the universe.

Actually, I happen to be working on a theory at the moment regarding emotions and spirituality, how emotions evolved, how the the universe's intrinsic nature is that of harmony, and how this is all connected with morality because of how emotions evolved. I can't go into much detail now, but I do plan on posting it here when I'm done, I'll PM you when I do. The main goal is to try and bridge the large gaps between spirituality, science and morality.

I really suggest, if you want to continue to talk about Sitchin, you should read his books first, at least Genesis Revisited and The Twelfth Planet (which I also gave away to a German friend), I won't do the work for you. Enjoy!

Do the work, for me?

I'm only asking you to back up your claims.

Please, don't take these posts in the wrong way. I am trying to help get to the bottom of this, that's all. Nothing personal. I feel I have got on your nerves or something judging by the opening of your last post (I could be wrong.) If that is the case, then I'm sorry.

But this is a theory that is causing alot of serious, unwarranted fear in alot of people. So it must be treated seriously.

Pie'n'eal started this thread to discuss the possibilities etc. You entered, and made some very large, unfounded claims, that many well-meaning people are basing their whole world view on.

As is often the case in alternative community's, we are faced with the same epistemological problem: you have disregarded any report from the mainstream as obviously biased, but are not so selective when building up claims in its place.

-OmniC

kersley

6th July 2011, 22:11

Find the tablet where it say's the Annunaki came from Nibiru? If this exist i'll like to see it. Maybe someone should contact Alan Alford and ask him what he thinks?
Thanks

Omni

6th July 2011, 22:53

Teakai

7th July 2011, 00:23

Are there any other known translations of the Sumerian Tablets?

There's this, gabbahh - but it's a completely different translation to an academic one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQrGCOZTvVI
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQrGCOZTvVI

Even if one is non religious it is well worth the watch through imo.

Erich

7th July 2011, 00:58

I've gone crazy three or four times trying to decide. If we disregard Sitchin for a moment, are there any other sources for Annunaki, Nibiru, gold-mines, etc...?

Hervé

7th July 2011, 01:37

Excerpts from J. Gray's "Is this really Sitchin Fiction?" (http://www.beforeus.com/sitchin-fiction.pdf)

I've gone crazy three or four times trying to decide. If we disregard Sitchin for a moment, are there any other sources for Annunaki, Nibiru, gold-mines, etc...?

You mean besides the ones funded by PTB/W?

Click on the bolded blue title above for one...

onawah

7th July 2011, 02:45

I am no scholar or linguist, but I do read widely. I have read most of Sitchin's books and found them to be very plausible. The works of Michael Tellinger and Sir Lawrence Gardner, whose works also ring true for me, agree with Sitchin's conclusions on many points about the Annunaki.
Mr. Robert Dean has said that he agrees with Gardner's views. Gardner claimed to have access to many ancient texts that have been held in secret for centuries, though we will probably never know anymore about that, since he is dead now as well.
I think much truth that has been lost can be recovered through intuition and channeling, memories from past lives, etc. but on subjects of this nature, it's difficult to be 100% sure of anything. Scholars can come to opposite conclusions after studying the same data. Information can be falsified, copied wrong, misinterpreted.
It's just a matter of how YOU see the world as to what will ring true for you.
Until we have CURRENT conclusive scientific proof that Niburu is a real planet that is or at least was populated by Annunaki, these questions will remain for most people.

Calz

7th July 2011, 04:46

The reason why Sitchin's work is well known is that a publisher financed its publication. It would be interesting to know what the publisher's links are. There are and have been a number of far more accurate and, I understand, more talented Sumerian scholars than Sitchin. Why didn't that publisher support one of them instead?

There is much truth to this. Even mentioned in the youtube presentation is that for a number of people if it makes it to print ... then it must be so.

Very similar to an embarrassingly high percentage of people who feel "If it isn't on CNN then it must not be true" sort of mindset.

Calz

7th July 2011, 05:12

Maybe the question we should be asking ourselves isn't whether or not Sitchin was wrong (or right), but why will it concern so many if he is (or isn't)?

Well I guess the most obvious would be whether or not we should be looking for Nibiru every 3600 years?

:peep:

Sooner or later I will track down where I got the information that Zecharia had been "channeling" Annunaki during his writing. Perhps we can flush it out if Kerry is having a conference about Sitchin. Seems to have been what I considered a "reliable" source.

Anyway ... people have varied opinions on "channeled information". In this case I would consider it along the lines of the "who is writing the history books". Book of Enoch should be considered when looking at the Sumerian material (regardless of source).

Also bear in mind that even deliberate disinformation peddlers have to include enough truth or credible, verifiable information to be taken seriously (then throwing off people with a mis-direct of sorts as to "who to blame" for whatever).

Not at all saying Zecharia material is (or isn't) disinfo ... merely trying to elaborate on why I feel this (and most all others) is not a black and white case.

And as already mentioned in this thread ... he certainly *did* open many people's eyes to a history that was not taught in school (or church).

TraineeHuman

7th July 2011, 06:09

I have a question for anybody who didn’t (or doesn't) realise Sitchin was almost about as obviously a disinfo agent as you could get. How many of the other “expert sources” are either deliberately or unwittingly propagators of disinfo, or of half-truth designed to throw you off the scent? How do they all survive financially?

I don’t claim to be super-intuitive. But I’ve developed my intuition further than about 90% of the individuals who charge for psychic readings at New Age fairs. And to me it seemed intuitively obvious from the beginning that Sitchin had just loads of dark energy around him. And that Sitchin probably couldn’t have written even a shopping list without being dishonest.

Calz

7th July 2011, 06:23

Calz

7th July 2011, 06:39

And to me it seemed intuitively obvious from the beginning that Sitchin had just loads of dark energy around him.

FWIW I had watched the full version of the Arizona Wilder interview with Icke (that Teakai posted a small clip of). Been awhile but she made *very* dark suggestions.

One person's word ... doesn't mean it was true. Consider she was a mkultra type victim so it is *possible* that one of her "alters" (split personalities) could have been programmed to release that sort of information. Who knows??? Just throwing it out there.

DoubleHelix

7th July 2011, 07:09

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9_Dr2wM9zc&feature=player_embedded

TraineeHuman

7th July 2011, 07:15

[QUOTE=TraineeHuman;257327][FONT="Verdana"]

FWIW I had watched the full version of the Arizona Wilder interview with Icke (that Teakai posted a small clip of). Been awhile but she made *very* dark suggestions.

One person's word ... doesn't mean it was true. Consider she was a mkultra type victim so it is *possible* that one of her "alters" (split personalities) could have been programmed to release that sort of information. Who knows??? Just throwing it out there.

Unfortunately I consider Arizona Wilder as a very unreliable source, and in my opinion not worth listening to at all, unfortunately. All I was saying was that I consider I personally detected lots of dark energy and dishonesty around Sitchin (from my long-distance intuitive perception).

christian

7th July 2011, 07:17

Calz

7th July 2011, 07:20

Unfortunately I consider Arizona Wilder as a very unreliable source, and in my opinion not worth listening to at all, unfortunately. All I was saying was that I consider I personally detected lots of dark energy and dishonesty around Sitchin (from my long-distance intuitive perception).

I don't disagree at all ... just throwing it out there :)

I enjoy Icke and thus watched it a long time ago.

Calz

7th July 2011, 07:36

Interesting thread. Thanks pie'n'eal. I haven't read Sitchin's books. It's a shame they appear to connect dots that are non-existent. I remember reading his funding ties were to like the Rockefellers or something. Although my memory on that is a bit hazy. I haven't checked out any debunked sites about Sitchin either. But I am certainly interested in the Anunnaki. Does anyone have a source explaining Sumer and the Anunnaki that is not reputed to be channeling the info? Or reputed to make stuff up about it? I don't trust Sitchin's info enough to read his books.

Perhaps someone can help me out as well.

I remember hearing from what I thought to be a reliable source that Zecharia was actually channeling annunaki (automatic writing) on at least some of his material.

I am still trying to backtrack and find that source.

I did find a *hint* of sorts in that direction with the Jordan Maxwell Camelot interview.

Anyone???

I first heard this from Bill Ryan saying Jordan Maxwell told him that(or something along those lines). It's a post on this forum. Although I don't remember where. Maybe in the Anunnaki thread Bill made would be my guess.

Thanks Omni.

I was fairly certain it was within camelot/avalon in some fashion or another.

Cal

Spot on Omni :thumb:

--------

(snip)

One veteran researcher, who Kerry Cassidy and I also know personally, knew Zecharia Sitchin very well. This person told us that Zecharia had told him that his books were NOT translated from the Sumerian - but were actually channeled products of automatic writing.

We were also told that Zecharia Sitchin was paid on a retainer basis by the NSA, who always wanted to be kept up to date by Sitchin about what the Anunnaki were up to - because it seemed that Sitchin had a direct telepathic line to the Anunnaki in real time. (Note: there is quite a lot in Sitchin's books that is certainly disinformation - possibly deliberately inserted by the Anunnaki themselves). But quite a lot of the basic story is probably quite true.

Bill Ryan
Project Avalon
April 2011

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?20331-The-Anunnaki&highlight=zecharia

161803398

7th July 2011, 08:10

I never read Sitchin because I think its a bunch of crap and a useless diversion....a fairy tale to keep us occupied thinking about garbage. I think there were people of some sort here on earth for a very long time. My thoughts just based on my own speculation is that there was a nuclear war long ago and we bombed ourselves back to the stone age...which we will do again because we aren't, generally, as a species, very mentally or emotionally developed. There's some very good people in the world but they don't have or want power. We follow the psychopaths who are motivated by their own sick, lying instincts. We still haven't been able to overcome this even when we know the truth.

Tony

7th July 2011, 08:15

Being mislead.

Neuro Linguistic Progamming is like jamming two ideas into one hole, it is meant to confuse. This could be intentional or just bias data. This often happens when putting a bolt in at the wrong angle and getting a cross thread. Pride makes you try harder to getting thing in, common sense says, “Take it out and try again, and get it straight this time.”

It is very easy to twist an argument in ones favour, as we are very clever animals. We all fall into some sort of camp/group so we all have some bias. It's important to acknowledge this.

When I here the words in the Bible about pulling down the temple, to me that is about pulling down fixed concepts in the mind. To someone else they may take that more literally. I am so biased, that the meaning I put on it even over rides, the meaning that the originator may have put on it. Because it makes sense to me.

The point about Annunaki, Enki and Niribu is at this moment irrelevant. At the moment it is a misleading devious diversion.

When talking to people about the uneasy feeling in the world, about health, diet, media, banks, daft laws, wars, education, mind and consciousness they can see this for themselves. They may not be able to join all the dots up, but we can give them something to consider, and because they slowly begin to trust us they may reflect on it some more.

Sticking Annunaki and Niribu in the conversation negates all credibility. This is jamming two ideas into one mind, it will not go. To me that is why it is being propagated!

Evolution is about consciousness, and even that is being hijacked into a wooly belief systems. Pure consciousness is all you have, it is all you are.

How to play nicely- simple inside and complex outside. A yogi in a cave can be simple in both, but we are householder and have to function in a chaotic world. Find essence and everything else sorts itself out.

Because of clinging to human emotions the outer world will never make sense. The emotions are important though, as they can help to find ones way back to the source, 'your' pure consciousness. As long as we drop the clinging.

Calz

7th July 2011, 08:37

The point about Annunaki, Enki and Niribu is at this moment irrelevant. At the moment it is a misleading devious diversion.

(snip)

Sticking Annunaki and Niribu in the conversation negates all credibility. This is jamming two ideas into one mind, it will not go. To me that is why it is being propagated!

If it was simply (and verifiably) a matter of studying "history" that would be one thing.

In the "white man" thread we have been taking a long look at the *possibility* (suggested by Lord Sid) :laser: that Enki is returning (and Enlil has *perhaps* never left).

Perhaps "at the moment" Enki and/or his faction are "arriving" which, *if true*, would not make it irrelevant nor a devious diversion.

Setting aside Nibiru ... are you suggesting those entertaining such ideas lack credibility???

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?20586-Has-white-man-colonised-planet-Earth

Tony

7th July 2011, 08:50

Omni connexae!

7th July 2011, 15:30

...if you want to be perfectly clear, I suggest you point out exactly what prejudices I'm apparently defending.

The fact, that evolution is like a dogma is undeniable, where do you see fundings for mainstream investigators in the field of searching for evidence for E.T. genetic engineering?

dogma

n. pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-m-t)

1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.

[Latin, from Greek, opinion, belief, from dokein, to seem, think; see dek- in Indo-European roots.]
_________________________________________________________________

Evolution is nothing like a dogma. Your disparaged use of the word will not change that.

Evolution has been supported by archaeology, anthropology, paleontology, paleoanthropology and biology. You could say that no discipline, discovery, theory or philosophy of science provides any challenge to evolution. In fact, evolution has been argued to be the most solidly and widely supported theory in science. That has absolutely nothing to do with it being pushed like a dogma.

So, some random guy comes along and says all you guys must be wrong, all he has to support his claims are some crazy interpretations of some tablets and texts that does not even use the "dictionary" we have found, that tells us what they say. Then you wonder why people like this are not taken seriously. Why such theory's are not funded?

It is no coincidence, that the only people who believe such theorys, are the same people that see no value in genuine critique (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique).

Saying there is more then meets the eye, and that science cannot find out the whole truth for us is one thing. I would strongly agree.

Saying that the highest supported scientific theory is a biased dogma for the likes of "blind men", without making any suitable claim in it's place is another.

That, is the definition of pure ignorance.

If anyone honestly believes they hold the information that suggests evolution is all wrong and we were clearly genetically manipulated, I suggest they get off their backside, build a strong case and let the scientific community know about it.

Something of this nature would be the most historic discovery ever. If you can't be bothered, or are unable to do that, please stop spouting unfounded non-sense that jeopardizes the whole alternative community.

That is all.

Sticking Annunaki and Niribu in the conversation negates all credibility. This is jamming two ideas into one mind, it will not go. To me that is why it is being propagated!

I suspect the same.

Forevernyt

7th July 2011, 15:40

I feel that Evolution is mostly right. But as I mentioned before, there are things that Evolution cannot account for. However, if you question the theory of evolution, you get shot down by those scientists in high places, who's whole livelihoods are based on the theory. Rather than keeping an open mind and investigating, they disparage and eventually drive away those who question Evolution. Watch the documentary Expelled. It explains it much better than I can.

Evolution works well with the history of species and their changes over the years. Evolution does not do so well, when the question of how or why life started. Where did the information from DNA come from? This most important issue, evolutionary scientists have no answer. People believe what they believe. Some so strongly as to close themselves off to any other possibilities.

Omni connexae!

7th July 2011, 17:57

Hey Forevernyt,

I feel that Evolution is mostly right. But as I mentioned before, there are things that Evolution cannot account for. However, if you question the theory of evolution, you get shot down by those scientists in high places, who's whole livelihoods are based on the theory.

For what reasons do you think they based their livelihoods on this theory?

Rather than keeping an open mind and investigating, they disparage and eventually drive away those who question Evolution. Watch the documentary Expelled. It explains it much better than I can.

I have watched it. For anyone that hasn't, it can be watched here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj8xyMsbkO4).

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a 2008 documentary film, directed by Nathan Frankowski and hosted by Ben Stein. The film contends that the mainstream science establishment suppresses academics who believe they see evidence of intelligent design in nature and who criticize evidence supporting Darwinian evolution and the modern evolutionary synthesis as a mainstream conspiracy to keep God out of science laboratories and classrooms.

Are you basing your understanding on this video?

If so, you may be intrested in this site: http://www.expelledexposed.com/

Welcome to Expelled Exposed, a detailed look at the Ben Stein movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. We'll show you why this movie is not a documentary at all, but anti-science propaganda aimed at creating the appearance of controversy where there is none.

To learn why the claims made in Expelled are false, find out The Truth behind the Fiction. (http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth) For information on the producers and their actions, go Behind the Scenes. (http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/background) To learn more about evolution and intelligent design, or to see what other people thought of Expelled, view our links to other online Resources. (http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/resources) For the results of the contest to refute claims by the film's spokesperson, see how visitors to Expelled Exposed Set Ben Straight (http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/contest).

"No Intelligance Allowed"... an intresting word play they used.

Evolution works well with the history of species and their changes over the years. Evolution does not do so well, when the question of how or why life started. Where did the information from DNA come from? This most important issue, evolutionary scientists have no answer. People believe what they believe. Some so strongly as to close themselves off to any other possibilities.

Begs the question: how many scientific papers regarding the origins of coded DNA have you read? Are you aware of any theorys that may account for it? Have you researched any scientific theorys regarding the origins of life?

Would you like to discuss those? :)

-OmniC

christian

7th July 2011, 18:07

dogma

n. pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-m-t)

1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.

[Latin, from Greek, opinion, belief, from dokein, to seem, think; see dek- in Indo-European roots.]

Evolution is nothing like a dogma. Your disparaged use of the word will not change that.

I'm sure you know, what cognitive dissonance is.

It's a very reasonable thing to look up the definition of dogma, I agree. To make it even more clear I offer yet one more!

This is from Webster's:
1
a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma> c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2
: a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

Obviously point one applies here, because we can leave the church out of the equation.

Now you say Darwinian Evolution is not hold as an established opinion?
But is has adequate grounds, right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVB3nz1GSkg

Evolution has been supported by archaeology, anthropology, paleontology, paleoanthropology and biology. You could say that no discipline, discovery, theory or philosophy of science provides any challenge to evolution. In fact, evolution has been argued to be the most solidly and widely supported theory in science. That has absolutely nothing to do with it being pushed like a dogma.

Saying that the highest supported scientific theory is a biased dogma for the likes of "blind men", without making any suitable claim in it's place is another.

That, is the definition of pure ignorance.

Amazing how you know all these scientific disciplines by name! I assume you also know about the so called "forbidden archeology" and how it supports Darwinian Evolution. I wonder why it is called forbidden..

And it's of course known, that all the widely supported views argued to be the most solid are really the most reliable. That's has nothing to do with being pushed of course, especially not like a dogma, how could I not see that?

If anyone honestly believes they hold the information that suggests evolution is all wrong and we were clearly genetically manipulated, I suggest they get off their backside, build a strong case and let the scientific community know about it.

What a superb idea! Let's say I am the scientist who discovered the impossible. I have a wife, 3 kids and a mortgage, but I don't care if will no longer be employed or get no more funding because I will speak out for what I found out to be true, I'm an idealist! Just like the brave men and women from Architects & Engineers for 9-11 Truth. By now it is officially known, that 9-11 was an inside job, I guess my case will be just as successful. Or all the other cases in history, telling something that contradicts the mainstream view is always highly appreciated by everyone. Darwin did so! Well he was connected to many sinister folks among the "New World Order". But that is only a crackpot conspiracy theory, obviously!

These nutcases even write books (http://www.scribd.com/doc/25007842/In-the-Minds-of-Men-Darwin-and-the-New-World-Order-Taylor)!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xwCGk5Qdrc&feature=player_embedded#at=115
(starting at 1:55)

Something of this nature would be the most historic discovery ever. If you can't be bothered, or are unable to do that, please stop spouting unfounded non-sense that jeopardizes the whole alternative community..

I speak for myself and no one else speaks for me, not a single person and not 'the alternative community', so I might merely jeopardize myself.

It's very impressive how you defend Darwinian Evolution, but for the sake of the debate, read Sitchin's Genesis Revisited or Dr. Horn's Humanity's Extraterrestrial origins. You really want plausible points for the case of genetic engeneering? Read the books. Don't ask me to spell them out for you, just get the books, and read them from the beginning to the the end.

If you are short on money, you maybe find some information (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_darwinism.htm) as well as Genesis Revisited (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sitchin/genesisrevisto/genrevisit.htm) (I don't know if it's the entire book, though) in the Biblioteca Pleyades.

Tony

7th July 2011, 18:08

Isn't evolving meaning a new realisation?
I have evolved from a really, really, really, angry, fuming, spiky thing, to the lovely thing I am now. I have evolved!

christian

7th July 2011, 18:31

They say there are missing links, well they say there are no missing links though...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWDRz5cSziQ

Yet another scientist speaking out. I guess he could just be labeled a conspiracy nut, so he's not among respected scientists anymore, so Darwinism is still the real deal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Wr-lXLGCxQ

Forevernyt

7th July 2011, 18:57

Omni,

I hear what you are saying. I'm not claiming to be a scientist. I do not have formal training in biology, geneology or any other "ology" that pertains to evolution and or the origins of life. "They how can I comment on such things?" one might ask. Well, I'm a fairly intelligent person. I've seen enough documentaries, read enough articles, and heard plenty of stories in my lifetime to question, ask and discuss things.

To answer your question, no I have not studied research papers or read up on "theories" of the origin of DNA. That was until just now. I found an article relating to the origins of life and how things may have come together in the primordial soup that was the early Earth. They explained about how the components of the atmosphere at the time, coupled with pressure and electrical discharge, could have paved the way for the molecules to cling together forming chains of amino acids and other building blocks. Then they postulate how RNA may have been the "jack-of-all-trades" in helping the protein catalysis along with the DNA strand. From the article:

Instead, it is assumed that RNA acted as a precursor of both protein and DNA, in the sense that it can serve both as catalyst (like protein enzymes) and as carrier of genetic information.

I got the gist of it, but if you ask me, there are a whole lot of maybe, assumptions and guesses about what actually happened still.

Again, I'll say I'm not an enemy of evolution. I believe evolution can be used to explain all of the mutations, genetic trends, and family trees of all living things on Earth. But, I also believe that evolution still cannot, without a shadow of a doubt, explain how life started.

There are many theories and ideas by modern scientists. As our technology and understanding of these things improve, so will our ideas about what started life. I look forward to the day that they know for sure.

But, I also do not want you to think that I'm only a proponent of Intelligent Design and by that, I think that God had a hand in starting life. I'm not looking at it in a religious stand point at all.

Here's another idea (which will probably get me laughed at, but I don't really care). If you've followed any of the Dan Burisch stories, he talks about his Lotus project. I don't claim to know all of the details, and I'm expounding from memory right now, but according to what Dan claims, the project consisted of a liquid medium and some sort of silicate crystal, being activated either electronically or harmonically, in such a way, that organic material began to spontaneously appear within the liquid medium. At one point, they produced what he believed to be neuronal material. The project was created organic material coming from somewhere else. Who's to say, assuming that his experiments were true as he explained them, that the conditions were not the same in the early stages of the earth, to produce this material spontaneously?

It's just a thought, and idea..a theory if you will. ;)

gabbahh

7th July 2011, 19:13

In fact, evolution has been argued to be the most solidly and widely supported theory in science.That would be math.

But yeah, we can all see the dinos are long gone.

For your ENTERTAINMENT and some food for thought I present to you some guy from the Church who tries to shoot holes in the evolution of the Universe and of Species. I find a number of his arguments shaky, but others are compelling.

If you are allergic to Religion/Christianity, do not watch. Many will prolly zap away, others might have a laugh.

I present to you:
100 reasons why evolution theory is stupid.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6814048597272982882#

Omni connexae!

7th July 2011, 20:20

Hey Forevernyt,

Omni,

I hear what you are saying. I'm not claiming to be a scientist. I do not have formal training in biology, geneology or any other "ology" that pertains to evolution and or the origins of life. "They how can I comment on such things?" one might ask. Well, I'm a fairly intelligent person. I've seen enough documentaries, read enough articles, and heard plenty of stories in my lifetime to question, ask and discuss things.

I have no problem with people commenting on things like this, in fact I encourage it! It's only when people start talking about stuff they don't know about, yet talk as if they know it all, that I can't stand... and for the record, your not one of them =)

When I see that happening, I atleast try to offer a chance for people to understand these things. It's the least I could do.

To answer your question, no I have not studied research papers or read up on "theories" of the origin of DNA. That was until just now. I found an article relating to the origins of life and how things may have come together in the primordial soup that was the early Earth[...] I got the gist of it, but if you ask me, there are a whole lot of maybe, assumptions and guesses about what actually happened still.

Yeah, but that's where a scientific theory always starts.

Crazy ideas, assumptions and guesses about what could have happened.

But the thing is, that's only the start of a very long process, it has to be tested and verified in so many ways before it should ever be taken seriously.

Again, I'll say I'm not an enemy of evolution. I believe evolution can be used to explain all of the mutations, genetic trends, and family trees of all living things on Earth. But, I also believe that evolution still cannot, without a shadow of a doubt, explain how life started.

Well, this is actually a common mistake. What your saying is true, but is irrelevant because...

Evolution as it is accepted today, only claims to explain how life changes once it already exists.

Abiogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis) is the study of the "origins of life". =)

Here's a short video that points this out, and a few other common misconceptions when dealing with this topic. It also describes briefly one of the leading abiogenesis models.

U6QYDdgP9eg

But, I also do not want you to think that I'm only a proponent of Intelligent Design and by that, I think that God had a hand in starting life. I'm not looking at it in a religious stand point at all.

Understood. ;-)

Here's another idea (which will probably get me laughed at, but I don't really care). If you've followed any of the Dan Burisch stories, he talks about his Lotus project. I don't claim to know all of the details, and I'm expounding from memory right now, but according to what Dan claims, the project consisted of a liquid medium and some sort of silicate crystal, being activated either electronically or harmonically, in such a way, that organic material began to spontaneously appear within the liquid medium. At one point, they produced what he believed to be neuronal material. The project was created organic material coming from somewhere else. Who's to say, assuming that his experiments were true as he explained them, that the conditions were not the same in the early stages of the earth, to produce this material spontaneously? It's just a thought, and idea..a theory if you will. ;)

I havn't looked into it before, I'll check it out. However, the experiment you described did remind me of the Miller Urey experiment. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment) It proves how amino acids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acids)can spontaneously appear. I guess it's not exactly the same thing you described, but it tends to lead to the same conclusion you have.

Heres a short video about that experiment:

j9ZRHoawyOg

-OmniC

Forevernyt

7th July 2011, 20:28

You know, (tongue in cheek) all of this discussion reminds me of one of my favorite passages from H.P. Lovecraft...

The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but someday the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age. - H.P. Lovecraft "The Call of Cthulhu"

gabbahh

7th July 2011, 21:08

So what you are saying Oc, is that Life is a (mathematical) certainty, governed by the Laws of the Universe. This implies that alien life is a certainty. When looking at fractals and nature, its quite easy to see how basic patterns and laws can lead to pretty complex manifestations in 3d reality.

So we got this Universe and these laws/maths. Simple yet efficient, creating something so complex and vast, too vast for our simple minds to fully appreciate and understand. That all this happened by chance.... Maybe there are infinite of these realities, all with slightly different laws. So when there are infinite Universes, chance turns into certainty. Who knows?

Greetings, Johny Stardust

Omni connexae!

7th July 2011, 21:54

Hey Gabbahh,

So what you are saying Oc, is that Life is a (mathematical) certainty, governed by the Laws of the Universe. This implies that alien life is a certainty. When looking at fractals and nature, its quite easy to see how basic patterns and laws can lead to pretty complex manifestations in 3d reality.

Well saying it's a "mathematical certainty" is hard to define, that's a crazy tangent in itself. You could say Mathematics and Geometry are ways to model the way everything in the known universe "works".

Although, I made a short post in this thread (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?23784-Reptillian-Theory/page3)regarding alien life probabilities:

I personally expect there to be other life in the universe. But I've been looking into it on a more technical level recently. The odds are actually a lot lower than most people think. Let alone intellegent life.

The book "Rare Earth (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0387952896)" is worth a read.

I expect that life is fairly common in the universe (fairly is ofcourse fuzzily defined.) But intellegent life is another matter... if we take our current understanding and do the maths, it's improbable. Not impossible, but highly rare if at all. Then when you start factoring in not just distance but time aswell, the likelyhood of ever meeting a real ET becomes highly improbable to say the least.

So we got this Universe and these laws/maths. Simple yet efficient, creating something so complex and vast, too vast for our simple minds to fully appreciate and understand. That all this happened by chance.... Maybe there are infinite of these realities, all with slightly different laws. So when there are infinite Universes, chance turns into certainty. Who knows?

What your saying reminds me of one of the quantum mechanics interpretations, the "Many-worlds interpretation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation)". Infact that also reminds me of the "Timeline" theory that is discussed here. But I know next to nothing about quantum mechanics. That's a whole new can of worms.

There is the whole "Multiverse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse)" thing aswell, might be worth checking out.

-OmniC

alsiani

7th July 2011, 22:15

Hi everyone!

Let's get things even more confusing to you. I took this from bibliotecapleyades. Here is the direct link:
[URL="http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sumer_anunnaki/anunnaki/anu_14.htm"]

Aloha Dr. Salla,

> Thank you for sharing your insights and reflections on the Anunnaki
> and Jehovah in your paper examining the exopolitical history of
> humanity

Thank you for the compliment!

> I also agree with you that a key historical event was the
> disappearance of the Anunnaki around 2000 BC. Now your insight here
> that this signified a take over by another group of ETs led by
> Jehovah is very insightful.

I have also been able to scavenge enough data from the ancient clues to construct a mathematical model of the orbit of Nibiru / Planet X, and guess what, in that fateful year 2024 BCE it was precisely in its aphelion, the farthest out point. Think about it, if you are an outsider seeking to attack the Anunnaki bases on Earth, when would be the best time for attack?
I will present my model of the orbit of Planet X in my book, along with the full chain of reasoning that led to it.

> This would explain why Yahweh could not be seen [...]

I have also pondered the possibility that Yahweh did not want anyone to see his physical form because he was so extremely ugly and gross. Which brings us to the following thought... does anyone remember the highly negative “disclosure briefing” John Lear gave to Art Bell last year? When he was “showing” the 18 alien species known to the shadow government, he made a comment about one of them:

“These are five-second slides of the 18 different alien species we are looking at. That one there is the most gruesome-looking. The guards at one facility are carefully indoctrinated over a period of several months being shown pictures similar to but not exactly like the alien. Only when they’d been acclimatized, so to speak, to the horrible-looking beings are they allowed to stand in security positions. Before these acclimatization were done, we had two guards die of a heart attack as the aliens came down the hallway unexpectedly.” [Alex Collier spoke about this, too]
(...)
Hmm, Yahwist reptilian-insectoids helping Nazis... But then we know that Hitler was in fact a Jew, an illegitimate grandson of one of the Rothschilds.

(And for those wondering, my answer to the Lear Test is an emphatic Yes.)

> It was another ET race, the Reptilians, who basically came and took
> over the Earth by gaining the allegiance of various tribes such as
> the Hebrews.

. and I believe their methods involved mental takeover, neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) and Controlled Remote Influencing (CRI). I will write more about this in my book.

> Now there
> are a couple of areas where it would be useful getting some
> clarification and a disagreement over who are the best allies of
> humanity in the present exopolitical situation on Earth.

OK...

> First, the role of the Illuminati in what has been described so far
> is critical.

Yes.

> Who exactly are they? Are they remnants of the Anunnaki
> control that previously existed (my initial idea) or extensions of
> the Reptilian takeover (Icke’s idea) or a combination of both?

I believe the former. Of course considering that the Yahwists’ primary modus operandi seems to be mental takeover and reprogramming, it is entirely possible and plausible that many of the Illuminati have fallen to their side.

> My guess is that the Illuminati are more closely aligned with the
> Anunnaki which is why there has been historic conflict between the
> Illuminati and Religious institutions such as the Catholic Church
> which presumably are bastions of Reptilian control.

Very sharp, that’s exactly my reasoning.

> E.g, the Knight
> Templars and their destruction by the Catholic Church, here the
> Anunnaki elite are destroyed by the Jehoavah/Yahweh based elite.

Yes, and think about what got the Templars in trouble in the first place: they undug something in the ruins of Jerusalem, which we know from Sitchin is the site of Anunnaki’s Command Centre. Now think about these two questions:

1. What is the most restricted and most secure place on Earth today?
It is not the White House. It is not the Pentagon. It is not Kremlin. It is the Dome on the Rock in Jerusalem. Or Area 51. One of those two.

Or rather they are probably about equal. Now what does it tell you, the mere fact that those two can be listed side by side like this? They are fundamentally of the same nature, major ET sites on Earth.

2. What is the never-ending conflict between Israel and Palestine all about?

It’s about Jerusalem. Even more specifically, about who ought to own that Sacred Spot. It is the apple of the dispute.

Now why is it so special? Why is it worth risking World War III over? We know why it was so important in the past - it was the Anunnaki Command Centre. But why is it so important now? Merely because of its ancient history? I doubt that. What if there is some interplanetary communication equipment still operating there TODAY?

And one more point. We’ve all heard of government mind control and programming. They are putting programs in us. But think about it: where are the programs coming from? I’m a computer programmer by profession and know very well that programs need to be written by programmers, distributed, etc. What if the programs being beamed into our minds by the shadow government are being DOWNLOADED to Earth (from Alpha Draconis?) through the interplanetary radio link at Mt. Moriah in Jerusalem and then distributed further?

I have a lot more to say about that Sacred Spot on Mt. Moriah, but I will save the rest for my book. Stay tuned.

> In your analysis, if the Illuminati are associated with the
> Anunnaki, they are the good guys.

Yes. I know this will be a great shocker to this whole community which generally sees the Illuminati as the root of all evil. This is one of the hardest to swallow bits of my research. That’s why I don’t like just dropping this on people, I want to ease it on through point-by-point reasoning and evidence in my book. But you sort of prodded it out of me.

> The conflict in Iraq has
> echoes of this ancient conflict between the Anunnaki and the Jehovah
> based religionists who are secretly a front for the Reptilians. I’d
> be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.

I fully agree with you that the war in Iraq is an exopolitical conflict.

We independently reached the same conclusions. When the whole saber-rattling about Iraq was just starting, I realized from the get-go what was going on: “oh great, invasion of Sumer”.

I(...)
OK, it’s time for me to drop another bombshell. Brace yourself. I believe Saddam Hussein was/is a good guy. All the bad things they say about him are reptilian propaganda. He undug some ancient Anunnaki equipment and was able to reactivate it. He reestablished contact with Anunnaki and was trying to bring them back. That’s why they wanted him out.

And just recently I heard on Coast to Coast that Saddam’s lawyer argues for his client having a right to run in the Iraqi elections, and some poll showing that 42% of Iraqis want him back. Wouldn’t it be great if the Iraqis elect him democratically? That would be a powerful message to the reptoids, we don’t want Yahwists, Yankees and their lies here, we want our true gods and goddesses, the Anunnaki, and our legitimate President Saddam Hussein!

> The problem
> then shifts from Reptilians per se, to hybrid human-Reptilians that
> comprises the Enki faction of the Anunnaki.

“Problem”? Enki is not a “problem”, he was a hero and a saint in my book! This is probably the area where I disagree with you and a number of other people who think of Anunnaki as controlling and manipulative.
It is true that Anu was very authoritarian, and his son Enlil (whose mother was Anu’s wife and half-sister Antu, i.e., pure Anu race) was the same way. Enki was very different. His mother was one of Anu’s concubines, who I believe was a Sirian queen or princess.

So Enki was only half Anu race, the other half Sirian. His exopolitics was also totally different from Anu’s. While the Enlilites indeed established an aristocratic social order in the civilizations under their control, and I have to agree that they were too controlling and undemocratic, I do not see a single shred of evidence of any such controlling behavior on Enki’s part. Enki managed the ancient Egypt, and note that all of celestial alignments in the pyramids point to Sirius and the belt stars of Orion, NOT to Rigel which is where I believe the planet of Anu came from (I’ll explain this in my book).

Enki was NEVER interested in any manipulation and control of humans, and he was always interested in giving humans as much as possible in the way of civilization, wisdom and spirituality. And his son Marduk even wanted to teach humans how to build rockets and go to space in 3500 BCE! (I’m talking about the Bab-Ili rocket launch tower of course.) After the nuclear holocaust of 2024 BCE Enki, risking his own life, went around in the radioactive fields of Shumer trying to use his scientific/magical tricks to clean up the place as much as possible and to make plants grow again.

> Now the final point I wish to make and where I feel we disagree is
> with the idea that the Anunnaki are our allies in freeing the earth
> from the Reptilians who use Jehovah/Yahweh/Allah as covers for their
> secret domination of Earth. As I see it, there are two ET factions
> who have historically competed for control of Earth. By choosing one
> faction over the other, presumably because it is genetically more
> human and has shown evidence or being more compassionate than the
> other, doesn’t appear to be very transformative to me.

Yes, we disagree a little here. I don’t believe that the Enki faction ever had any intent of domination and control, and therefore they ought to perfectly qualify as our true allies. As for the rest of the Anu clan, i.e., the Enlilites, they indeed had a few undesirable qualities, and I agree with you that we need to be careful with them. But I’m not saying that we should revert totally to the old ways and just bow down to them. We should welcome them as friends, but on new terms: as friends and not as overlords.

But I don’t think that the present-day descendants of Anunnaki, if they come into contact with us, would try to control us like they did before.

The exopolitical situation now is totally different. We now have a common enemy, and defeating them is far more important than our petty differences. That is basically my main argument: we can’t compare Anunnaki and reptiles side by side and say that they are just vying for control and one is no better than the other, because they are incomparable.

Anunnaki weren’t just “a little more compassionate to us”, we ARE them basically, and although yes, they did screwed up majorly a few times, those wounds can be healed and we can move forward together, but the dark forces of Yahweh are the enemy of Life itself. To use a Tolkien analogy (Lord of the Rings), the differences between us and Anunnaki are the little differences between humans, hobbits, elves and dwarves/gnomes, but Yahweh is Sauron and USA is Mordor.

(...)
> I think we can look beyond these two factions for a solution and
> find the answer in other ET races that are not associated with
> either faction that are used to running the Earth. A number of
> contactees have spoken of ET races from Andromeda, Arcturus, Sirius
> A., Pleiades, etc., who are also here trying to assist humanity in
> its evolution.

Which brings us to my favorite slogan: Proletarians of all planets, unite!

(It is of course derived from Karl Marx’ famous “Proletarians of all counties, unite!”, and yes, I am a Communist and I’ll reveal some startling Soviet-Anunnaki connections in my book.)

> However, I believe
> that even the Anunnaki cannot be fully trusted due to ingrained
> habits of control and elitism that would soon result in new
> institutions of power and control that would enslave/limit portions
> of humanity.

Yes, and I certainly don’t suggest that we blindly entrust them with everything, but again I believe in giving them a second chance as friends rather than controllers, and I really believe that they have learned a lesson and will now know that it’s much better to cooperate rather than control, and that in open cooperation we will be much stronger together and much more effective in fighting the forces of darkness.

Love & light and Blessed Be,
Michael Sokolov
Engineer / Researcher / Truth seeker / Freedom fighter
-----------------------

Still in shock?
I'm not saying that I believe with this all, but it actually makes sense. At least, we should think about this.

Michael Sokolov and Robert Morning Sky (who wrote Terra Papers) agree in one thing: the annunaki were betrayed by the yawhists, the reptilian race remants. Since 4000 years ago the reptilian seem to be ruling the things out here.

It makes some sense to think that the good annunaki guys that were really interested in helping humankind and that is why they are taking so long to implement their agenda.
A bunch of logical questions could be answered then.

If the controlling elite are in charge for so long why would they wait for us to come to this point (we're almost 7 million!) to implement their ultimate control.

I think that Sitchin either lied or was forced to lie. He should know that the Annunaki are not the ones in charge now.

I'll be back to this subject soon.

Calz

8th July 2011, 09:45

Isn't evolving meaning a new realisation?
I have evolved from a really, really, really, angry, fuming, spiky thing, to the lovely thing I am now. I have evolved!

Love what you've done with your avatar! :haha:

Clearly your creativity and sense of humor have "evolved". :hail:

Forevernyt

8th July 2011, 13:41

You know, I was thinking more about this while driving in to work this morning. About evolution and the advent of intelligence in the human species. Then I wondered to myself, why has nothing else on earth evolved into such an intelligent species? (I've done no research on this, just discussing a thought)

Why haven't say canines, felines, bears or anything else evolved further? How cool would it be to share the planet with another indigenous species that is intelligent? Unless of course they were hostile, then it wouldn't be so cool. :)

Operator

8th July 2011, 13:52

Why haven't say canines, felines, bears or anything else evolved further? How cool would it be to share the planet with another indigenous species that is intelligent? Unless of course they were hostile, then it wouldn't be so cool. :)

Well you're getting out of the box now ... :thumb:
Maybe you need another drive to work tomorrow and get another step further, then you may realize what you just have said ... :twitch:

Forevernyt

8th July 2011, 14:55

Is it because we haven't let them? Oh I forgot dolphins and whales. ;)

Operator

8th July 2011, 15:01

Is it because we haven't let them? Oh I forgot dolphins and whales. ;)

Yes, good example (and there could be more we didn't find yet).

Unless of course they were hostile, then it wouldn't be so cool.

Could it be that 'they' think that of us people/human beings ? ;)

Forevernyt

8th July 2011, 15:25

Tony

8th July 2011, 17:05

That's the crux of it isn't? We are such a bi-polar race. On the one hand, we have philosophers, artists, and truly caring and good people, the best of humanity if you will. On the other hand, we have those who would shoot you for the change in your pocket, not raise a finger to help someone in pain and generally evil people. And even in the average person there is a mixture of both good and bad and we never take enough time to actually think about what we say or do and how it will affect others. We need to start learning to be better.

Hello Forevernyt,
You make some interesting points. Maybe part of evolving and reincarnating means we at some time have been a wolf or a bug. It is interesting some of us are born with human tendencies and others are, well, a bit violent!

Some animal are very intuitive with humans, some are just wild. You never know what your next leap might be!

All the best
Tony

Cidersomerset

8th July 2011, 17:44

Hi Forevernyt...........I always thought it a flaw of Darwinism , that only we evolved and not other apes , thats why alien intervention always seemed likely to me , before I'd heard of Sitchins work....
and after being exposed to it . It made perfect sence for the missing link solved................As I 've become aquainted with Ion thru James Martinez and Bob Nevritt over the past two years.....
What was a wierd field has just got wonderfully wierder for me........Ions take is we descended from eternal/immortal Godship for a mortal experiance...Basically saying as there is no time,
we have always been either in physical or non-physical form....So that takes care of evolution..LOL.....
All animals and fourna are non -physical so do not evolve.......Heres his explanation of physical...

only 3 mins long but precise and to the point...

http://informationfarm.blogspot.com/2011/01/ion-what-is-physical.html

christian

8th July 2011, 19:42

How cool would it be to share the planet with another indigenous species that is intelligent? Unless of course they were hostile

Many claim that we have never been alone, that there are hostile as well as friendly ones. The good ones want us to evolve and therefore follow the guideline of non-interference, the bad ones don't want to be identified.

We are such a bi-polar race. On the one hand, we have philosophers, artists, and truly caring and good people, the best of humanity if you will. On the other hand, we have those who would shoot you for the change in your pocket, not raise a finger to help someone in pain and generally evil people.

This is what Juan Matus allegedly told Carlos Castaneda about the reason for that:

"We have a predator that came from the depths of the cosmos and took over the rule of our lives. Human beings are its prisoners. The Predator is our lord and master. It has rendered us docile, helpless. If we want to protest, it suppresses our protest. If we want to act independently, it demands that we don't do so... I have been beating around the bush all this time, insinuating to you that something is holding us prisoner. Indeed we are held prisoner!

"This was an energetic fact for the sorcerers of ancient Mexico ... They took us over because we are food for them, and they squeeze us mercilessly because we are their sustenance. just as we rear chickens in chicken coops, the predators rear us in human coops, humaneros. Therefore, their food is always available to them."

"No, no, no, no," [Carlos replies] "This is absurd don Juan. What you're saying is something monstrous. It simply can't be true, for sorcerers or for average men, or for anyone."

"Why not?" don Juan asked calmly. "Why not? Because it infuriates you? ... You haven't heard all the claims yet. I want to appeal to your analytical mind. Think for a moment, and tell me how you would explain the contradictions between the intelligence of man the engineer and the stupidity of his systems of beliefs, or the stupidity of his contradictory behaviour. Sorcerers believe that the predators have given us our systems of belief, our ideas of good and evil, our social mores. They are the ones who set up our hopes and expectations and dreams of success or failure. They have given us covetousness, greed, and cowardice. It is the predators who make us complacent, routinary, and egomaniacal."

"'But how can they do this, don Juan? [Carlos] asked, somehow angered further by what [don Juan] was saying. "'Do they whisper all that in our ears while we are asleep?"

"'No, they don't do it that way. That's idiotic!" don Juan said, smiling. "They are infinitely more efficient and organized than that. In order to keep us obedient and meek and weak, the predators engaged themselves in a stupendous manoeuvre

stupendous, of course, from the point of view of a fighting strategist. A horrendous manoeuvre from the point of view of those who suffer it. They gave us their mind! Do you hear me? The predators give us their mind, which becomes our mind. The predators' mind is baroque, contradictory, morose, filled with the fear of being discovered any minute now."

"I know that even though you have never suffered hunger... you have food anxiety, which is none other than the anxiety of the predator who fears that any moment now its manoeuvre is going to be uncovered and food is going to be denied. Through the mind, which, after all, is their mind, the predators inject into the lives of human beings whatever is convenient for them. And they ensure, in this manner, a degree of security to act as a buffer against their fear."

"The sorcerers of ancient Mexico were quite ill at ease with the idea of when [the predator] made its appearance on Earth. They reasoned that man must have been a complete being at one point, with stupendous insights, feats of awareness that are mythological legends nowadays. And then, everything seems to disappear, and we have now a sedated man. What I'm saying is that what we have against us is not a simple predator. It is very smart, and organized. It follows a methodical system to render us useless. Man, the magical being that he is destined to be, is no longer magical. He's an average piece of meat."

"There are no more dreams for man but the dreams of an animal who is being raised to become a piece of meat: trite, conventional, imbecilic."

THIRDEYE

8th July 2011, 20:34

bob dean speaks clearly of sitchins theory on planet x or nibiru...just thought that might add a little food for thought.... the dean inter view is at camelots archives love light and abundance....thirdeye....

Fred Steeves

8th July 2011, 20:47

"There are no more dreams for man but the dreams of an animal who is being raised to become a piece of meat: trite, conventional, imbecilic."

Great quote find from good old Don Juan there chiquetet. Boy he had it nailed didn't he? That was then though. If he were telling me about this now, I would have to respectfully reply "yes Don Juan, but the lion sleeps no more."

Cheers,
Fred

sshenry

8th July 2011, 23:48

1. Millions of well-meaning people had taken his theory on board. Whole lots of people were staking their lives – and even basing their whole world view - on Mr. S’s integrity.

Which is exactly my point.

Any time that ANY individual takes on anyone's theories, beliefs, ideas or world views as their own, they create a potential psychological catastrophe for themselves.

Far better to go with what the heart and higher self feels to be right about any given situation than to rely on anyone else's "expertise."
Perhaps the very fact that "millions of well-meaning people have taken