Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,419 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,346,543
Pageviews Today: 1,773,868Threads Today: 452Posts Today: 8,311
02:19 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Question: If Sitchin is wrong...

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 18755479
Australia
10/12/2012 04:46 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Question: If Sitchin is wrong...
hf
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 25371718
Belgium
10/12/2012 04:57 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Question: If Sitchin is wrong...
One of the most basic things Sitchin says is the Anunnaki created man as a slave to mine gold. Man was created as a hybrid of Anunnaki DNA with the homo erectus being that was here on Earth. - TRUE !

One question that Sitchen fails to answer is what are the chances that two separate forms of life from different planets are so compatible enough that they can be successfully mated?
The Anunnaki were in human form in every way enough to be compatible with homo erectus?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1353946


OOO man, we are ''good'' with MANY MANY species..

But there's more, FIRST, they cAme in their ORIGINAL FORM - but due to problems with atmosphere & so on... THEY INHABIT HUMAN BODIES RIGHT ABOUT NOW... that was their solution to the gravity & atmosphere problems..

sick, aint it ?? ..

all because of the souls... same with the greys..

there are humans who in fact are SOULS OF THE GREYS ...

there was even contracts.. for their kidnapping.. CONTRACTS...

they came as humans, just to be taken, so they can do their job.. but in time, the greys started taking and non-grey-humans.. because they fail to understand THE ''FREE WILL'' ... but.. anyway .. I think that clarifies a little..



peace yo
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1353946
United States
10/12/2012 05:05 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Question: If Sitchin is wrong...
One of the most basic things Sitchin says is the Anunnaki created man as a slave to mine gold. Man was created as a hybrid of Anunnaki DNA with the homo erectus being that was here on Earth. - TRUE !

One question that Sitchen fails to answer is what are the chances that two separate forms of life from different planets are so compatible enough that they can be successfully mated?
The Anunnaki were in human form in every way enough to be compatible with homo erectus?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1353946


OOO man, we are ''good'' with MANY MANY species..

But there's more, FIRST, they cAme in their ORIGINAL FORM - but due to problems with atmosphere & so on... THEY INHABIT HUMAN BODIES RIGHT ABOUT NOW... that was their solution to the gravity & atmosphere problems..

sick, aint it ?? ..

all because of the souls... same with the greys..

there are humans who in fact are SOULS OF THE GREYS ...

there was even contracts.. for their kidnapping.. CONTRACTS...

they came as humans, just to be taken, so they can do their job.. but in time, the greys started taking and non-grey-humans.. because they fail to understand THE ''FREE WILL'' ... but.. anyway .. I think that clarifies a little..



peace yo
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 25371718


LOL!
UndercoverAlien

User ID: 25327273
Brazil
10/12/2012 05:13 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Question: If Sitchin is wrong...
If Zecharia Sitchin is wrong, or perhaps simply misinterpreted the "Book of Enki" tablets, can someone point me in the direction of the corrected version?

I see a lot of information on the web that goes to great lengths to debunk his work, arguing about the meaning of this symbol or that symbol and whatnot. However, these same people haven't provided the "alternate/correct/updated" version of this book.

Not looking for a fight or debate, although I'm sure one will break out (this is GLP after all).

What gives?

Can anyone shed light on this? If no updated version exists, what can be made of that? If a correct translation does exist, shouldn't we all be at least open to that possibility?

Dude out.
 Quoting: AwakenedDude


Sitchin debunkers are not is worried whether he misinterpreted things like location of Sumerian cities, dates of kingdoms or dynasties timelines. The concerning of Sitchin debunkers is conveniently to discredit everything he said about giant extraterrestrial aliens colonizing Earth half million years ago. If Sitchin had never mentioned the ANUNNAKI, nobody would be concerned in "debunk" him, therefore it's obviously a biased agenda to stop people reasoning on this subject.

If you Google for archeological excavations in the Middle East and Egypt you will find out that most of them were funded by the Rothschilds, so obviously the mainstream scholars follow the Zionist agenda to dumb-down the masses, and definitely Sitchin books don't fit in this agenda.
 Quoting: UndercoverAlien


Sitchin didn't invent the Anunnaki name. It was from the Sumerian tales.
What Sitchin did was spin a wild tale that has errors all along the way. And when confronted, he would get angry and defensive about it.
No one questions the Anunnaki from the Sumerian legends or even the ones who appear in HP Lovecrafts ' Necronomicon '.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1353946


1. I never said that Sitchin did invent the Anunnaki name. Bad start!!

2. The "ANUNNAKI" are depicted all over the Sumerian Genesis "ENUMA ELISH". It may be considered a "tale" by ignorant people who believe everything unusual depicted by ancient civilizations, didn't happen, because you were not there in Sumer, 6,000 years ago, to verify for yourself.

3. The Christian genesis is entirely cloned from the "ENUMA ELISH", nevertheless I don't see ANY scholars worried about debunking the "misinterpretations" made by the Council of Nicaea and kept by the Roman church for 2,000 years.

4. Sitchin was the first person to bring the ANUNNAKI into the realm of the pop culture, under a scientific scrutiny, not by a fictional approach.

5, You can find EXACTLY the same depictions of giant caucasian-like bearded "star gods" coming from the skies to teach civilization to men, in several ancient cultures that had NO mutual contact whatsoever, such as the Meso-Americans and Mesopotamians. Sitchin just bothered in wrap it all together, and that's what pisses off the haters and skeptics.
"Do or do not. There is no try." (Yoda)
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1087415
United States
10/12/2012 05:14 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Question: If Sitchin is wrong...
is he wrong?


ahahah


Sitchin isnt Wrong,


Sitchin is a Liar,




Planet XX = is Saturn
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 6739256


WINNER!
UndercoverAlien

User ID: 25327273
Brazil
10/12/2012 05:14 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Question: If Sitchin is wrong...
There is much room for play between "right" OR "wrong". What if Sitchin had it Right but mankind translates his expression wrong? What if he was recieving his translation from a spiritual source and thus his right only depends upon the spiritual realm? Sitchin was right and wrong depending upon your perspective of translation of his works.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21656968


Well if he was right then he wouldn't have been defensive and difficult everytime he was questioned about it, right?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1353946


No. There is a knowing you're right but not understanding how. Very much like Prophecy. There have been a number of Prophets, or seers, that knew things, in context within their consciousness limits, and outside their personal perspectives, that delived "visions" or what ever, that were corrrect over time, but couldn't be expressed in modern day understandings between the person the prophet was and the people of his day.

Does that make sense?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21656968


Then please explain to me the chances of two separate species from two different planets which are so close that DNA infusion can be compatible enough to create a hybrid race?
After all, the Anunnaki created man from their DNA infused into the existing homo erectus being on Earth.
How?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1353946


3 words: Directed Cosmic Panspermia
"Do or do not. There is no try." (Yoda)
UndercoverAlien

User ID: 25420655
Brazil
10/12/2012 05:22 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Question: If Sitchin is wrong...
It's a complete and absolute waste of time and energy arguing with shills and Sitchin haters, because they don't give a flying fuck whether he mistranslated the Hammurabi Code or the Gilgamesh epic. They are conveniently only concerned about what Sitchin said about a race of giant extraterrestrial overlords colonizing Earth half million years ago.

It's not about Sitchin, is about the truth about alien civilizations and the origin of men.

Whoever defies the Zionist status quo will be "debunked".

Last Edited by UndercoverAlien on 10/12/2012 05:22 AM
"Do or do not. There is no try." (Yoda)
Mordier L'eft

User ID: 25333446
Canada
10/12/2012 09:28 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Question: If Sitchin is wrong...
he made up his version for profit and like von daniken, bought his own private islands to live on with book revenue.


it's not a matter of debunking, they made book profits also.

if your interested, look at the tablets and do your own research and draw your own conclusions.

thet real story, in my opinion , is harder to sell books aboit as it it dull, depressing and repetitive.

three major cultures spanning nearly eight thousand years have elite groups within them that represent the 'divine' . they live off the slaves they indoctrinate. the method is so successfull even breakaway states of former slaves adopt it. they are of course the sumerians, egyptians and todays roman/western/abraamic

it is called religion or monotheism these days and while only a ever shrinking number of humans participate in the charade, your book will be far more successful if alien gods and weird planets that appear in super long orbits are in it.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 25416621

yeah.

because we can ALL read sumerian

did you know sitchin was one of less than ten people on this planet who could do that?
--"In this era of great big brains anything that can happen will. So hunker down." -- Kurt Vonnegut, JR. -- Galapagos.
LEKKER

User ID: 25358274
South Africa
10/12/2012 09:38 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Question: If Sitchin is wrong...
If Zecharia Sitchin is wrong, or perhaps simply misinterpreted the "Book of Enki" tablets, can someone point me in the direction of the corrected version?

I see a lot of information on the web that goes to great lengths to debunk his work, arguing about the meaning of this symbol or that symbol and whatnot. However, these same people haven't provided the "alternate/correct/updated" version of this book.

Not looking for a fight or debate, although I'm sure one will break out (this is GLP after all).

What gives?

Can anyone shed light on this? If no updated version exists, what can be made of that? If a correct translation does exist, shouldn't we all be at least open to that possibility?

Dude out.
 Quoting: AwakenedDude


Sitchin's books are great. Read them all.

Immanuel Velikovsky's books are GREAT. READ THEM ALL.

After reading these 12 or so books by these brilliant scholars, then read the Bible with "new eyes" and you will be ASTOUNDED at what you have been told and did not have eyes to see.

Luke 21:25
And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24089933


Glad you brought that up...That is what I got from it to.
hf Cheers
33
I LOVE CATS AND SOME PEOPLE.
LEKKER

User ID: 25358274
South Africa
10/12/2012 09:39 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Question: If Sitchin is wrong...
If Zecharia Sitchin is wrong, or perhaps simply misinterpreted the "Book of Enki" tablets, can someone point me in the direction of the corrected version?

I see a lot of information on the web that goes to great lengths to debunk his work, arguing about the meaning of this symbol or that symbol and whatnot. However, these same people haven't provided the "alternate/correct/updated" version of this book.

Not looking for a fight or debate, although I'm sure one will break out (this is GLP after all).

What gives?

Can anyone shed light on this? If no updated version exists, what can be made of that? If a correct translation does exist, shouldn't we all be at least open to that possibility?

Dude out.
 Quoting: AwakenedDude


Sitchin's books are great. Read them all.

Immanuel Velikovsky's books are GREAT. READ THEM ALL.

After reading these 12 or so books by these brilliant scholars, then read the Bible with "new eyes" and you will be ASTOUNDED at what you have been told and did not have eyes to see.

Luke 21:25
And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24089933


Glad you brought that up...That is what I got from it to.
hf Cheers
33
I LOVE CATS AND SOME PEOPLE.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 22089462
Netherlands
10/12/2012 09:43 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Question: If Sitchin is wrong...
If Zecharia Sitchin is wrong, or perhaps simply misinterpreted the "Book of Enki" tablets, can someone point me in the direction of the corrected version?

I see a lot of information on the web that goes to great lengths to debunk his work, arguing about the meaning of this symbol or that symbol and whatnot. However, these same people haven't provided the "alternate/correct/updated" version of this book.

Not looking for a fight or debate, although I'm sure one will break out (this is GLP after all).

What gives?

Can anyone shed light on this? If no updated version exists, what can be made of that? If a correct translation does exist, shouldn't we all be at least open to that possibility?

Dude out.
 Quoting: AwakenedDude


This is a pretty good website that explains and references why Sitchins translations are total hogwash.

[link to www.sitchiniswrong.com]

A pretty interesting rebuttal of the histories channel ancient aliens series which is largely based on Sitchins crap (open the movie in youtube itself and read the description to navigate to the claims you find interesting).

AlcoholicRunner
I abduct humans and drink at the same time.

User ID: 23182389
United States
10/12/2012 09:47 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Question: If Sitchin is wrong...
One of the most basic things Sitchin says is the Anunnaki created man as a slave to mine gold. Man was created as a hybrid of Anunnaki DNA with the homo erectus being that was here on Earth.

One question that Sitchen fails to answer is what are the chances that two separate forms of life from different planets are so compatible enough that they can be successfully mated?
The Anunnaki were in human form in every way enough to be compatible with homo erectus?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1353946


Well, we can at least prove that part somewhat truthful..

[link to www.lloydpye.com]


"Dear Mr. Pye:
I agree with your conclusions [that humans are genetically engineered] and will give you a few hints, if you wish [speaking] as a “DNA Deep Throat.” First, look up the huge discontinuities between humans and the various apes for: (1) Whole mitochondrial DNA; (2) genes for the Rh Factor; (3) and human Y chromosomes, among others.

Regarding #3, I refer you to K.D. Smith’s 1987 study titled “Repeated DNA sequences of the human Y chromosome.” It says “Most human Y chromosome sequences thus far examined do not have homologues [same relative position or structure] on the Y chromosomes of other primates.” Human female X chromosomes do look somewhat apelike, but not the male’s Y.

This means that if humans are a crossbred species, the cross had to be between a female ape-like creature [i.e, “creature of Earth”] and a male being from elsewhere."
AlcoholicRunner
I abduct humans and drink at the same time.

User ID: 23182389
United States
10/12/2012 09:48 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Question: If Sitchin is wrong...
If Zecharia Sitchin is wrong, or perhaps simply misinterpreted the "Book of Enki" tablets, can someone point me in the direction of the corrected version?

I see a lot of information on the web that goes to great lengths to debunk his work, arguing about the meaning of this symbol or that symbol and whatnot. However, these same people haven't provided the "alternate/correct/updated" version of this book.

Not looking for a fight or debate, although I'm sure one will break out (this is GLP after all).

What gives?

Can anyone shed light on this? If no updated version exists, what can be made of that? If a correct translation does exist, shouldn't we all be at least open to that possibility?

Dude out.
 Quoting: AwakenedDude


This is a pretty good website that explains and references why Sitchins translations are total hogwash.

[link to www.sitchiniswrong.com]

A pretty interesting rebuttal of the histories channel ancient aliens series which is largely based on Sitchins crap (open the movie in youtube itself and read the description to navigate to the claims you find interesting).


 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22089462


Bullshit33Alienbitch
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 25428800
United States
10/12/2012 09:59 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Question: If Sitchin is wrong...
The Lost Book was a story built on a scaffold of ancient historical writings.

some of the ancient writings quoted what may have been the lost tablets

no one can provide an alternative to it because no one who claims it to be wrong has any resource to draw upon to provide said alternative. they simply listen to their professors who say "sitchin is wrong because he's wrong"

that's the best argument that they have

"sitchin is wrong because he's wrong".

no one ever claims to have the info "right", so fuck' 'em. fuck 'em in the ear. people like michael heiser are nothing but fucking shills.

the best argument to be made against nibiru are made from a current astronomical stand-point, but those are all based on Nancy Leider's "calculations" (I.E.: "mad ravings"). if sitchin is to be considered, then he claimed that nibiru would likely be hundreds of years away, perhaps over a thousand years away. if it was thousands of years away its influence would still not affect our system in any appreciable way.

any astronomer who claims to know everything in the sky can be counted on to be nothing more than an amateur, since professional astronomers are the first to admit that they have only found a very small amount of what there is to find in our sky, and that there are many many things still left to be discovered, even in our own close system. shills, however, will claim that a backyard scope shows them our entire system and everything it can do (they know who they are, if they're reading this)
 Quoting: Mordier L'eft


so youre saying that stitchin predicted that nibiru wouldnt be around for hundereds of years not in 2012?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 6966621
Netherlands
10/12/2012 10:16 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Question: If Sitchin is wrong...
If Zecharia Sitchin is wrong, or perhaps simply misinterpreted the "Book of Enki" tablets, can someone point me in the direction of the corrected version?

I see a lot of information on the web that goes to great lengths to debunk his work, arguing about the meaning of this symbol or that symbol and whatnot. However, these same people haven't provided the "alternate/correct/updated" version of this book.

Not looking for a fight or debate, although I'm sure one will break out (this is GLP after all).

What gives?

Can anyone shed light on this? If no updated version exists, what can be made of that? If a correct translation does exist, shouldn't we all be at least open to that possibility?

Dude out.
 Quoting: AwakenedDude


This is a pretty good website that explains and references why Sitchins translations are total hogwash.

[link to www.sitchiniswrong.com]

A pretty interesting rebuttal of the histories channel ancient aliens series which is largely based on Sitchins crap (open the movie in youtube itself and read the description to navigate to the claims you find interesting).


 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22089462



Anyone who says Zecharia Sitchin is a fraud or mistaken in his translations of Sumerian texts, or anything in that vein, is busily grinding a heavily worn axe. They base all of their complaints on the fact that in certain key areas of the Sumerian writings, he deviates markedly from the "classical" translations, the vast majority of which were completed before 1947, before the terms "UFO" or "alien" came into common usage.

When the early translators came upon passages that could have been and should have been interpreted the way Sitchin interpreted them, they had no conceivable frame of reference for such terminology. Thus, they shoehorned it to fit into their own restricted world views, and because this nonsense was created by "experts" of that time, modern experts have inevitably been brainwashed by their education process to believe that no other translation is needed, much less preferable.

This intellectual claptrap has become established as the "preferred" and "accepted" translations that critics claim Stichin should have respected and stuck with in the way they are obligated to do. Sitchin rightly jettisoned the nonsense and translated the texts more like they were actually written, calling an alien an alien, so to speak, and this gross offense to modern academic sensibilities is what classic scholars considera sacrilege to their mindset.

I have no doubt that, in the fullness of time, historians will consider Zecharia Sitchin vastly more correct than any mainstream pundit in alive at this moment. Why? Because modern scholars endure years of intense training to consider the work of prior scholars sancrosanct, which turns out a virtual army of close-minded sycophants who, ultimately, will be dismissed as the laughable fools they are

[link to www.lloydpye.com]
NalloArt

User ID: 20700212
United States
10/12/2012 10:22 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Question: If Sitchin is wrong...
He is wrong.
[link to www.sitchiniswrong.com]

His theories are just lies. Let me put it this way. He taught himself Sumerian after getting an economic degree and visiting dig sites. He had no formal training in anything he was doing. The fact that people believe him even after this is ridiculous. Heck, go to the Sumerian Lexicon, which was put together by professionals, and try to match it up with his work.
And it's ironic too
'Cause what we tend to do
Is act on what they say
And then it is that way~Jem.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 25233377
United States
10/12/2012 10:36 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Question: If Sitchin is wrong...
One of the most basic things Sitchin says is the Anunnaki created man as a slave to mine gold. Man was created as a hybrid of Anunnaki DNA with the homo erectus being that was here on Earth.

One question that Sitchen fails to answer is what are the chances that two separate forms of life from different planets are so compatible enough that they can be successfully mated?
The Anunnaki were in human form in every way enough to be compatible with homo erectus?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1353946


When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years." The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them." - Genesis 6:1-7 (NIV)
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 18970863
United States
10/12/2012 10:39 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Question: If Sitchin is wrong...
Most if not all anti-Sitchin info comes from this mike heiser guy.

He seems highly motivated to slam the translations, but doesn't offer any real alternative. His whole premise is based on the belief that there is no extraterrestrial intelligent life, and that we are just that much more advanced than every other creature on earth because a mystical god loves us.


Show me the ancient monolithic site that backs up those theories.

Hey if it helps you get through the day, keep believing Jesus rode a pyramid shitting dinosaur to stomp on abortion clinics in America after the resurrection.
The only thing each side can agree on is that the other group is made up entirely of mindless fools who can not see the truth right in front of them.

If a hippie in a robe walks down from a cloud, I'd have to admit you were right.
If an alien ever lands, I expect the same from you.

And so we wait...
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 6966621
Netherlands
10/12/2012 10:41 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Question: If Sitchin is wrong...
He is wrong.
[link to www.sitchiniswrong.com]

His theories are just lies. Let me put it this way. He taught himself Sumerian after getting an economic degree and visiting dig sites. He had no formal training in anything he was doing. The fact that people believe him even after this is ridiculous. Heck, go to the Sumerian Lexicon, which was put together by professionals, and try to match it up with his work.
 Quoting: NalloArt


circular logic.

I thought myself german, English and webdesign for example, i had no formal training in anything i was learning myself. The fact you still can read what i learned myself, after your statement shows how stupid that train of thought really is. Besides, the previous post explains why you are wrong.

"When the early translators came upon passages that could have been and should have been interpreted the way Sitchin interpreted them, they had no conceivable frame of reference for such terminology. Thus, they shoehorned it to fit into their own restricted world views, and because this nonsense was created by "experts" of that time, modern experts have inevitably been brainwashed by their education process to believe that no other translation is needed, much less preferable. "
Mordier L'eft

User ID: 25333446
Canada
10/12/2012 10:47 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Question: If Sitchin is wrong...
If Zecharia Sitchin is wrong, or perhaps simply misinterpreted the "Book of Enki" tablets, can someone point me in the direction of the corrected version?

I see a lot of information on the web that goes to great lengths to debunk his work, arguing about the meaning of this symbol or that symbol and whatnot. However, these same people haven't provided the "alternate/correct/updated" version of this book.

Not looking for a fight or debate, although I'm sure one will break out (this is GLP after all).

What gives?

Can anyone shed light on this? If no updated version exists, what can be made of that? If a correct translation does exist, shouldn't we all be at least open to that possibility?

Dude out.
 Quoting: AwakenedDude


This is a pretty good website that explains and references why Sitchins translations are total hogwash.

[link to www.sitchiniswrong.com]

A pretty interesting rebuttal of the histories channel ancient aliens series which is largely based on Sitchins crap (open the movie in youtube itself and read the description to navigate to the claims you find interesting).


 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22089462


i believe i already addressed this website, not by name, but its owner i certainly have.

sitchiniswrong.com is nothing more than a blatant shill site, with NO academic arguments whatsoever. heiser's "my teacher said that that was wrong, so it must be wrong. sais me." is one of the most ridiculous things i've ever heard. this is a man who has NEVER ACTUALLY READ sitchin.

heiser is a christian and a wing-nut, whose views won't even fit into accepted christian dogma, and who spends all of his time trying to fit history into a very strict and rigid box -- into which it fits very poorly indeed.
--"In this era of great big brains anything that can happen will. So hunker down." -- Kurt Vonnegut, JR. -- Galapagos.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 25373743
United Kingdom
10/12/2012 10:48 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Question: If Sitchin is wrong...
There isnt one, well ceetainly not from any reputable source other than sitchin anyways.

I think whats important here is to note sitchin spent 20+ years learning and studying this, he was a highly educated dude also, he is the foremost expert. You wont find anyone better, only charletons.

Think about it this way, Sitchin wouldnt spend the majority of his adult life studying this intensly only to throw out crap.
Mordier L'eft

User ID: 25333446
Canada
10/12/2012 10:48 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Question: If Sitchin is wrong...
The Lost Book was a story built on a scaffold of ancient historical writings.

some of the ancient writings quoted what may have been the lost tablets

no one can provide an alternative to it because no one who claims it to be wrong has any resource to draw upon to provide said alternative. they simply listen to their professors who say "sitchin is wrong because he's wrong"

that's the best argument that they have

"sitchin is wrong because he's wrong".

no one ever claims to have the info "right", so fuck' 'em. fuck 'em in the ear. people like michael heiser are nothing but fucking shills.

the best argument to be made against nibiru are made from a current astronomical stand-point, but those are all based on Nancy Leider's "calculations" (I.E.: "mad ravings"). if sitchin is to be considered, then he claimed that nibiru would likely be hundreds of years away, perhaps over a thousand years away. if it was thousands of years away its influence would still not affect our system in any appreciable way.

any astronomer who claims to know everything in the sky can be counted on to be nothing more than an amateur, since professional astronomers are the first to admit that they have only found a very small amount of what there is to find in our sky, and that there are many many things still left to be discovered, even in our own close system. shills, however, will claim that a backyard scope shows them our entire system and everything it can do (they know who they are, if they're reading this)
 Quoting: Mordier L'eft


so youre saying that stitchin predicted that nibiru wouldnt be around for hundereds of years not in 2012?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 25428800

that's right.

sitchin NEVER gave a date.
--"In this era of great big brains anything that can happen will. So hunker down." -- Kurt Vonnegut, JR. -- Galapagos.
Mordier L'eft

User ID: 25333446
Canada
10/12/2012 10:49 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Question: If Sitchin is wrong...
If Zecharia Sitchin is wrong, or perhaps simply misinterpreted the "Book of Enki" tablets, can someone point me in the direction of the corrected version?

I see a lot of information on the web that goes to great lengths to debunk his work, arguing about the meaning of this symbol or that symbol and whatnot. However, these same people haven't provided the "alternate/correct/updated" version of this book.

Not looking for a fight or debate, although I'm sure one will break out (this is GLP after all).

What gives?

Can anyone shed light on this? If no updated version exists, what can be made of that? If a correct translation does exist, shouldn't we all be at least open to that possibility?

Dude out.
 Quoting: AwakenedDude


This is a pretty good website that explains and references why Sitchins translations are total hogwash.

[link to www.sitchiniswrong.com]

A pretty interesting rebuttal of the histories channel ancient aliens series which is largely based on Sitchins crap (open the movie in youtube itself and read the description to navigate to the claims you find interesting).


 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22089462



Anyone who says Zecharia Sitchin is a fraud or mistaken in his translations of Sumerian texts, or anything in that vein, is busily grinding a heavily worn axe. They base all of their complaints on the fact that in certain key areas of the Sumerian writings, he deviates markedly from the "classical" translations, the vast majority of which were completed before 1947, before the terms "UFO" or "alien" came into common usage.

When the early translators came upon passages that could have been and should have been interpreted the way Sitchin interpreted them, they had no conceivable frame of reference for such terminology. Thus, they shoehorned it to fit into their own restricted world views, and because this nonsense was created by "experts" of that time, modern experts have inevitably been brainwashed by their education process to believe that no other translation is needed, much less preferable.

This intellectual claptrap has become established as the "preferred" and "accepted" translations that critics claim Stichin should have respected and stuck with in the way they are obligated to do. Sitchin rightly jettisoned the nonsense and translated the texts more like they were actually written, calling an alien an alien, so to speak, and this gross offense to modern academic sensibilities is what classic scholars considera sacrilege to their mindset.

I have no doubt that, in the fullness of time, historians will consider Zecharia Sitchin vastly more correct than any mainstream pundit in alive at this moment. Why? Because modern scholars endure years of intense training to consider the work of prior scholars sancrosanct, which turns out a virtual army of close-minded sycophants who, ultimately, will be dismissed as the laughable fools they are

[link to www.lloydpye.com]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 6966621

clappa

i was planning on sharing that, myself.
--"In this era of great big brains anything that can happen will. So hunker down." -- Kurt Vonnegut, JR. -- Galapagos.
William_the_Bloody

User ID: 20712268
United States
10/12/2012 11:19 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Question: If Sitchin is wrong...
If Zecharia Sitchin is wrong, or perhaps simply misinterpreted the "Book of Enki" tablets, can someone point me in the direction of the corrected version?

I see a lot of information on the web that goes to great lengths to debunk his work, arguing about the meaning of this symbol or that symbol and whatnot. However, these same people haven't provided the "alternate/correct/updated" version of this book.

Not looking for a fight or debate, although I'm sure one will break out (this is GLP after all).

What gives?

Can anyone shed light on this? If no updated version exists, what can be made of that? If a correct translation does exist, shouldn't we all be at least open to that possibility?

Dude out.
 Quoting: AwakenedDude


The Book of Enki was Sitchin's ficitonalized book loosely based on his non-fiction books.

The Book of Enki is not to be taken too seriously.

Sitchin's actual theories can be found in the other books by him.

We shouldn't assume Sitchin is correct simply because he is alternative, no more than we should assume the mainstream opinions and theories are correct just because they are mainstream.

When there are only two sides to any issue, the truth is almost always somewhere down the middle.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 25225980
United States
10/12/2012 11:22 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Question: If Sitchin is wrong...
is he wrong?


ahahah


Sitchin isnt Wrong,


Sitchin is a Liar,




Planet XX = is Saturn
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 6739256




Or Sirius
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 23712556
United States
10/12/2012 11:37 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Question: If Sitchin is wrong...
The Lost Book was a story built on a scaffold of ancient historical writings.

some of the ancient writings quoted what may have been the lost tablets

no one can provide an alternative to it because no one who claims it to be wrong has any resource to draw upon to provide said alternative. they simply listen to their professors who say "sitchin is wrong because he's wrong"

that's the best argument that they have

"sitchin is wrong because he's wrong".

no one ever claims to have the info "right", so fuck' 'em. fuck 'em in the ear. people like michael heiser are nothing but fucking shills.

the best argument to be made against nibiru are made from a current astronomical stand-point, but those are all based on Nancy Leider's "calculations" (I.E.: "mad ravings"). if sitchin is to be considered, then he claimed that nibiru would likely be hundreds of years away, perhaps over a thousand years away. if it was thousands of years away its influence would still not affect our system in any appreciable way.

any astronomer who claims to know everything in the sky can be counted on to be nothing more than an amateur, since professional astronomers are the first to admit that they have only found a very small amount of what there is to find in our sky, and that there are many many things still left to be discovered, even in our own close system. shills, however, will claim that a backyard scope shows them our entire system and everything it can do (they know who they are, if they're reading this)
 Quoting: Mordier L'eft


so youre saying that stitchin predicted that nibiru wouldnt be around for hundereds of years not in 2012?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 25428800

that's right.

sitchin NEVER gave a date.
 Quoting: Mordier L'eft


Actually, Sitchin gave a time frame of 2030-2090 AD, if I recall correctly, in his book "The End of Days" reference the return. This date also happens to coincide with Isaac Newton's time frame of 2060.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1568805
United States
10/12/2012 11:38 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Question: If Sitchin is wrong...
is he wrong?


ahahah


Sitchin isnt Wrong,


Sitchin is a Liar,




Planet XX = is Saturn
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 6739256




Or Sirius
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 25225980


Some answers you seek my be in the book of Enoch
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 25225980
United States
10/12/2012 11:42 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Question: If Sitchin is wrong...
Doing some research on the subject, I first went to see what Michael Heiser had to say since he's been so vocal and obnoxious about it.

The problem with Heiser, he directs you to a translation portal that specifically tells you that no translations are made based on the language as it was in the era it was written. They use a newer data set for their translations.

In an area that changed ownership multiple times with multiple languages, and upgrades to each of those languages over time, the possibility that Heiser's reference is correct, is ludicrous.

Mauro Biglino, who's work consists of translating for the Vatican and other ancient texts from the middle east and is a published author, has checked Sitchin's translations and he agrees with his work.

The old Sumerian, Aramaic and ancient Hebrew has to be stripped down to it's basic word form in order to get to the true meanings. Not too many of the translators do that and have come up with some convoluted mess to translate with that they think is correct.

Translations that are connected to any government related research such as Universities, and most are, are going to tell you what "they" want you to know. Those organizations will NOT translate anything about extraterrestrials, and that's a fact, until the government tells them they can.

I can't say Sitchin is 100% correct, but if he stripped the words down to their most basic form as Biglino has, who agrees with Sitchin's work, I think Sitchin is pretty close.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 25225980
United States
10/12/2012 11:55 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Question: If Sitchin is wrong...
One of the most basic things Sitchin says is the Anunnaki created man as a slave to mine gold. Man was created as a hybrid of Anunnaki DNA with the homo erectus being that was here on Earth.

One question that Sitchen fails to answer is what are the chances that two separate forms of life from different planets are so compatible enough that they can be successfully mated?
The Anunnaki were in human form in every way enough to be compatible with homo erectus?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1353946


When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years." The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them." - Genesis 6:1-7 (NIV)
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 25233377


Are you trying to make us laugh or puke?

FACT:
The above Genesis verse is straight from the old Sumerian text, but it's not the original. Your Genesis verse is a manipulated and plagiarized PIECE of the original writings.
Written especially for the ignorant and poor. They didn't want you to know what it really said. They said you were too ignorant to understand the true meanings, so it was rewritten to keep the masses in order and under control, and especially in the dark.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 25370710
United States
10/12/2012 11:56 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Question: If Sitchin is wrong...
Thread: Zecharia Sitchin's work proven 100% correct regarding Ancient Aliens - Anunnaki!

News