Beanny, that wasn't directed specifically to you.
I am just saying that his scholarship is incredibly sloppy, and that it was a turn-off. Of all the Sumerian scholars (and there is plenty of them at universities like Chicago and all over the Middle East), why is he the only one to translate all of the material he uses? I used to study classical Arabic and found a lot of his explanation of Semitic roots dubious, if not completely contradictory to what I was getting from my peers in the Hebrew department. Now, interpretations of things (like what anthropologists study) can swing in any direction and I understand his questioning of the conventional understanding of Sumerian culture and archaeology- there is plenty of "conspiracy" material in that alone- but languages just aren't as fuzzy as that. This is almost like the one man in China who claims to have "translated" the Dropa stones... C'mon! Based on what?
The only think that DOES give Sitchin any credibility is that the government is so interested in him, and that there are some things in astronomy that are explained if you use the "Planet X" model. But that doesn't make the model itself correct. What if he is completely wrong about Planet X, but the government wants him to do research because they are interested in something else? Maybe he is being used to interpret other things, and by picking him instead of another scholar it keeps the "fringe conspiracy nut-jobs" busy running in circles are Nibiru and not looking at what they really are studying.
Another thing bothers me, and that is his logic. Too much is based on "ifs"... If this is true then that is true... and if it is true then this... than this... All you have to do is prove one "if" wrong early on, and the entire structure collapses.