Zecharia Sitchin Was Right! - Skeptics Beware!

For those of you who have followed the debate on the internet you may know about the personal attacks I have withstood from Michael S. Heiser, in my attempt to honestly debate him regarding the writings and thesis of Zecharia Sitchin.

I always choose my words carefully and have never used the word "wrong" when applying it to Mr. Heiser and I have never personally insulted him or his position.

The word "wrong" has emotional charge behind it so I try to use "correct/incorrect" to apply to details or facts. I prefer to debate the evidence and the issues and not have a discussion become personal. The purpose, for me, is to increase my understanding of a subject and clarify misunderstandings. My goal is always to add to the body of knowledge and understanding of a complex issue for the readers and myself.

As you will see, Mr. Heiser’s goal is not to add knowledge and understanding to these issues. His goal, from the beginning, when he came on the web page and speaking scene, was to tear down the work of an established author. He had no name recognition to stand on so he used Sitchin’s good name to get attention for himself so he could sell his own book, appear on the radio and get speaking engagements.

Mr. Heiser does not think he is a debunker and I will not declare that he is. My purpose is, for the reader, to point out that his tactics and behavioral patterns fit the mold and style of a debunker which includes using personal attacks and ridicule. You can make the decision on your own once you see both sides of the issue. Hopefully, you will reach your own conclusions about his motives.

Debunker trick #1, when having no reputation of your own, attempt to destroy the work of an established individual, in the process creating a name for yourself. In fact, the method involves using the name of the person you are attempting to destroy as the springboard for yourself.

His first web page that I read was full of insults and uncalled for statements. You would think that a man who claims he has a respected background and career would not want to use someone else’s name for his own gain.

Wouldn’t he want to be recognized for his own individual achievements? This maneuver is a “shifter” strategy made famous in the book, “Atlas Shrugged,” by Ayn Rand. This procedure is used to take away from someone the thing you want the most for yourself, thereby "shifting" it away from them and to you. In this case, Heiser wants to take away Sitchin’s fame and respect as an author, researcher and speaker.

Even at this point, he still wants to debate Sitchin. For what purpose? If it were to add to everyone’s knowledge and understanding there would be no need for personal attacks against Sitchin or me. Sitchin does not have a computer, does not browse the Internet and, therefore, has never seen any of Heiser’s material nor heard him speak. Why would he agree to go on the radio and be attacked? Why would Sitchin help Heiser increase his name recognition?

Sitchin is just too busy writing new books and arranging seminars. You can tell from Heiser’s writing style that he is very confrontational -- he uses debunker tactics. His purpose for wanting to debate Sitchin is to employ the attack and ridicule process.

This is completely inconsistent with a person that wants to raise up all of society by their knowledge.

I don’t think there will be a debate with Sitchin, but I still have a few words to say....

[link to www.bibliotecapleyades.net]

Speaking of LPG-C; when Dr. Bordon became aware of Dr. Heiser's debunking attempts, he emailed him the following response as a comment to Heiser's research. Heiser, of course, never replied:

EMAIL TO MIKE HEISER
16 May 2011

Good afternoon, Mike. Just visited your blog (The Naked Bible/Eschatology
[link to michaelsheiser.com] Took the
time to read everything you have here, on your other site, The Facade, and
borrowed a copy of your dissertation which I also carefully and
thoughtfully read.

After some careful consideration of what Sitchin said and did (and the
“scholarship” with which he treated us through his Earth Chronicles) and
the rebuttals you regaled us all in your websites which you so ably
established sound basis in your dissertation, I came to realize two
things: (1) the Nibiru phenomenon is that, a phenomenon that has become
quite a meme in our culture as your stance and the people sharing their
views and feelings on your sites indicate; indeed, throughout the world,
and (2) the scholarship that supports or denies the reality of the
phenomenon is Biblical and sumero-egyptologic – a fact that makes both
sides (yours and Sitchin’s) open to claims that both are based upon (a) an
interpretation of the historical record, (b) a matter of expertise in
ancient near eastern languages, and (c) conclusions, being what they are
(hypothetical written “pictures” or models of a phenomenon), can be again
highly interpretive of the records treated as data supporting a view
through the prism used by the interpreter: Sitchin says “it is,” and you
say “it isn’t.”

But the story does not end there. There is, as they say, a “door number
3.” This door is the one through which, wittingly or unwittingly,
willingly or forced by circumstances, I am walking into this phenomenon.
This is the door opened by experiencers who have come in contact with
so-called Annunakis. In my case, it occurred when I was ten or eleven in
South America, on the Parana River between Brazil and Paraguay, while
fishing with my father northeast of Encarnacion, Paraguay. He and I were
“picked up” by a triangular six-man craft and, while my father was kept
sedated via interesting nonbiomedical means, I was not.

This was the first of three encounters with the same individual who lead
the first group on the Parana, and have since assisted the small
scientific cooperative that LPG-C has been since the early ’90s with very
advanced scientific information and the technology with which to get our
own by the same, or similar means, they have for apparent eaons. They
called it the “brilliance,” according to Sitchin; we were more mundane in
the naming, referring to it as simply “the tank.” We’ve been at it since
1998, when the first of two prototypes were completed, tested, and much to
our amazement, found it to work exceeding all of our expectations. The
results have been cumuli of information about how nature is and how nature
works, from the infinite to the infinitesimal, and presented in some
detail and with an historical sense of order on our new and improved
website at [link to www.lifephysicsgroup.org.] To wit: we are in process of
miniaturizing the key aspects of this apparatus, such that it could be
used by qualified scientists wishing to explore the same Nature we did.
Oh, the surprises that await them.

And we are not the only experiencers of these who call themselves Sa.a.mi.
and you and Sitchin know as Annunaki and fit the bill in appearance for
the ancient Annunaki and/or Nephilim (the latter seeming human-Annunaki
hybrids). There are others, and there are also others who are quietly
pursuing face-to-face benevolent contact with “giants” in several places
(South America, southern Africa, and the Mideast).

In a larger context, there is also an exopolitical framework which is
impinged upon by the past (and which is the reason we now all need not
scholarship proving one view or another, but rather a model of what we as
humans face today and must literally face within 50 to 70 years from now).
Whether or not Nibiru is a star or a planet or a comet, all of that is
splitting hair. The IRAS pictures did not lie, and the current South Pole
Telescope data is showing the incoming as being quite real, and
incidentally, proving Jim McCanney’s contentions out to be more certain
that any fiction I could write (and have written) about. No, Mike, this is
not fable, and it is not prehistory.

Let me close this unexpectedly longer note than I intended by simply
asking (1) whether or not you’ve ever experienced a face to face presence
with one of these creatures, and (2) what would you do if you could?

Kind regards,
A.R. BORDON