Baelsfire
28th June 2010, 15:18
With the release of his new book "There were Giants on the Earth" - http://www.sitchin.com/ - i figured it prudent to bring up this facet of the argument.
Lately i have noticed a growing trend talking down about Stitchin and hypothesis of Ancient Astronauts. Whilst i do not discount the possibility of erroneous translations, it seems to be a case of "my PHD is better than yours!". I'm pretty sure i saw someone argue that he was disproved by another translator because that guy was a professor of Hebrew. But wait a minute.. Hebrew isn't Cuneiform... or am i missing something?
It seems the implication is, Stitchins' translations were not as good as some other persons therefore a lot of people have decided the whole thing is hogwash.
Others accept Stitchin made some mistakes translating the Cuneiform, however still firmly believe / acept that there is more than sufficient evidence for the foundation of the hypothesis to be correct. Often they do not allude to what they think a more accurate string of events... which maybe wise because they don't know.
I, myself, firmly stand under the reality that there extra-terrestrials.. to even speculate or suggest other-wise is just simply absurdly stupid. And there is more than enough evidence to prove that, at the bare minimum, there were various forms of highly sophisticated advanced technologies in use here on the Earth over 12,000 years ago, and on nearby planets. (Such as Balbeck on Earth, Cydonia, Gusdev Crater, Ophir Chasm and St. Vincent on Mars).
It also stands to reason that some never left. Anecdotally i can allude to the builder of the Temple housing the Ark of Covenant, but thats another discussion.
Here, i was hoping for some fruitful discussion on why you disagree with Stitchin if that is your position, and what do you think may be the case. If it has evidence as a foundation thats fantastic, but i will try to note where my idea of speculation begins in my ideas please try to do it a little too!
This isn't a debate on whether you believe in the existence of ET or not, if you're still at that place and pushing for a general standing, you need to time-travel back a hundred years and argue with the public there.
Lately i have noticed a growing trend talking down about Stitchin and hypothesis of Ancient Astronauts. Whilst i do not discount the possibility of erroneous translations, it seems to be a case of "my PHD is better than yours!". I'm pretty sure i saw someone argue that he was disproved by another translator because that guy was a professor of Hebrew. But wait a minute.. Hebrew isn't Cuneiform... or am i missing something?
It seems the implication is, Stitchins' translations were not as good as some other persons therefore a lot of people have decided the whole thing is hogwash.
Others accept Stitchin made some mistakes translating the Cuneiform, however still firmly believe / acept that there is more than sufficient evidence for the foundation of the hypothesis to be correct. Often they do not allude to what they think a more accurate string of events... which maybe wise because they don't know.
I, myself, firmly stand under the reality that there extra-terrestrials.. to even speculate or suggest other-wise is just simply absurdly stupid. And there is more than enough evidence to prove that, at the bare minimum, there were various forms of highly sophisticated advanced technologies in use here on the Earth over 12,000 years ago, and on nearby planets. (Such as Balbeck on Earth, Cydonia, Gusdev Crater, Ophir Chasm and St. Vincent on Mars).
It also stands to reason that some never left. Anecdotally i can allude to the builder of the Temple housing the Ark of Covenant, but thats another discussion.
Here, i was hoping for some fruitful discussion on why you disagree with Stitchin if that is your position, and what do you think may be the case. If it has evidence as a foundation thats fantastic, but i will try to note where my idea of speculation begins in my ideas please try to do it a little too!
This isn't a debate on whether you believe in the existence of ET or not, if you're still at that place and pushing for a general standing, you need to time-travel back a hundred years and argue with the public there.