Was Sitchin wrong?

[Forevernyt]

Posted by chiquetet (here)
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]

Posted by Omni connexae! (here)
[...]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...



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!]

Hello Chiquetet,

Posted by chiquetet (here)

Posted by Omni connexae! (here)
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?

Posted by chiquetet (here)

Posted by Omni connexae! (here)
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, 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.

Posted by Omni connexae! (here)
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]

Posted by sshenry (here)
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:

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?"

[Forevernyt]

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]

Posted by Omni connexae! (here)
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:


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!]

Hello Chiquetet,

Posted by chiquetet (here)
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:

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]

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]

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.

Posted by Calz_Avaretard (here)
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.

[Teakai]

Posted by gabbahh (here)
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.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZQrGCOZTvVI

Link: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZQrGCOZTvVI

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

[Erich]

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]

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
Excerpts from J. Gray's "Is this really Sitchin Fiction?"

Posted by Erich (here)
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]

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]

Posted by TraineeHuman (here)
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]

Posted by sshenry (here)
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?



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]

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]

Posted by Omniverse (here)
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.

Posted by Calz_Avaretard (here)
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

[Calz]

Posted by TraineeHuman (here)
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]

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=A9_Dr2wM9zc

[TraineeHuman]

[QUOTE=Calz_Avaretard;257339]

Posted by TraineeHuman (here)
[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).