It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Richard Dolan - Secret space and breakaway civilizations

page: 2
25
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: TarzanBeta

Just to be clear as to what your point of contention is, do you only dismiss the translations that Sitchin has offered, or do you actually think you can dismiss the extensive body of historical evidence he presented of the enigmas in our history?


I dismiss his theories entirely as beautiful works of fiction.

As far has evidence, he found nothing that had not been seen or mentioned before - that I can recall; and that being based on my less complete knowledge in 2009. But if I had seen anything valid, I would have hung onto it. He makes you want to believe him.

I seem to remember him having a short lived and disappointing audience with Zahi Hawass. That was about the closest thing to knowledge he came.

If he hadn't made very poor attempts at translation and if he didn't make words up by changing their roots to suit his bias, his theories might have been a little more difficult to disprove.

By the way, I am not calling into question his character - just his entire published body of work.




posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
No dolans narrative is different from cory goode(whos a complete fraud)

Truth is we do have a secret space program. And we do have advanced vehicles that are often confised and misidentified as UFOs


Does that include ALIICE?



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

I dismiss his theories entirely as beautiful works of fiction.

As far has evidence, he found nothing that had not been seen or mentioned before - that I can recall; and that being based on my less complete knowledge in 2009. But if I had seen anything valid, I would have hung onto it. He makes you want to believe him.

I seem to remember him having a short lived and disappointing audience with Zahi Hawass. That was about the closest thing to knowledge he came.

If he hadn't made very poor attempts at translation and if he didn't make words up by changing their roots to suit his bias, his theories might have been a little more difficult to disprove.

By the way, I am not calling into question his character - just his entire published body of work.

It sounds to me then like you are willing to dismiss history that is generally considered to be historical fact simply because it was quoted by Sitchin. I can't agree with that. For instance, what about the history of South America that he references? All bunk?

I can accept that some or all of his translations may be wrong. I don't think you can dismiss the body of historical or archaeological evidence as easily. Sure there are probably a few of those that are controversial accounts amongst historical circles, too. A few embellishing historians don't dispel the enigmatic nature of our ancient history though, at least not for me. It is enigmatic. Full of mysteries not easily explained and odd accounts. I won't dismiss Sitchin's highlighting of those odd details as all bunk because he might have mistranslated some obscure writings.

This is all off topic. Sorry.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Like I said, anything he supposedly discovered was already accepted and anything he theorized was completely wrong.

I don't see how that differs from your opinion right there and I don't see how I have said differently. Maybe go read my post again, but with a little less pain in your heart over the man.

He didn't accomplish history. He accomplished an excellent fictional adventure.

It should be made into a movie or series.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 09:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

I don't see how that differs from your opinion right there and I don't see how I have said differently. Maybe go read my post again, but with a little less pain in your heart over the man.

Not at all. I read and understood your posts clearly, with no pain in my heart, including the part where you said:

By the way, I am not calling into question his character - just his entire published body of work.

Then in this last post you said:

He didn't accomplish history. He accomplished an excellent fictional adventure.

It should be made into a movie or series.

which both seemed to me to be dismissing his work entirely, which would include the large body of historical evidence quoted. Although you did say in this last post that:

Like I said, anything he supposedly discovered was already accepted and anything he theorized was completely wrong.

So I suppose that might be interpreted as a concession that there might have been some historical fact contained in his work? Otherwise I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. His work was largely composed of historical fact, though perhaps fanciful in some of its conclusions.
Also, I created a Sitchin thread so that we can stop butchering SirBlackKnight's topic, here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



new topics

top topics
 
25
<< 1   >>

log in

join