Originally posted by Telos
Stitchin's interpretations are considered partialy incorrect and not totally inacurate. Actually I would say scholars don't agree with few of his
interpretations.
Anyhow I don't think this is enough to mark somebody as fraudulent.

Sitchin, although asked on numerous occcasions, has yet to even let us know of his own qualifications for even reading cuneiform.
There is no scholar of Sumerian culture anywhere on this planet that would go as far as to say even that Sitchen is "partially correct."
The fact is, Sitchen takes
other people's translations of these tablets and twists them into fantasy stories that he can sell to the
uninitiated. Sitchen himself has
never demonstrated that he can read cuneiform, and he refuses to so demonstrate the ability even to this day.
Hence, Sitchen cannot possibly be "correct" in translating anything, and in his fabrications of Sumerian mythology he adds pieces that other
actual experts say are not there. For example, according to Sitchen, the Sumerians had a word that translates as "rocket." How could a
person that cannot translate cuneiform (or, at least, won't show us why we should
believe he can translate cuneiform) possibly say such a
thing with a straight face?
Originally posted by Telos
Where is writen that when somebody (scholar) comes up with a new theory or interpretation is a fraud and a hoaxer? What qualification have you as a
person to call a scholar as fraudulent? Are you a excpert in ancient writings and languages? (I'm refering to Harte)

No, but I've made myself an expert on Sitchen and his ilk. You know, the fraudulent hoaxers like Sitchen, vonDaniken, Hancock, Cremo, Icke etc.
BTW, this person you keep referring to as a "scholar." Surely you don't mean Sitchen? He holds one degree -and that is in economics history.
Originally posted by Telos I can't believe how easy is for some people to nickname a scholar as fraudulent only because he doesn't
think the same as the crowd. Doesn't thing within the boundaries of the orthodox science , which apparently makes him a heretic, a lunatic, hoaxer
and a fraud :p
PATHETIC !!!

No, what's "PATHETIC" are the scads of mouthbreathers following Sitchen
et al. around all starry-eyed, fooling themselves into a world of
fantasy while simultaneously completely dismissing the very important, and extremely difficult, work of the
real scholars in this field, people
upon whose work Sitchen's fairy tales are based.
Originally posted by Telosp.s. Sometimes with some users here is like their only goal for being in this board is to destroy every thread
and to discredit everybody (even when they don't have the minimum qualification to do that)

If you believe in Sitchen, then you don't have the minimum qualifications to shine my shoes, IMO.
In fact, it is you and others that are trying to "destroy" this thread. Sitchen's fiction has nothing at all to do with Atlantis, nor does it
involve Antarctica.
Originally posted by gmallI did not mention Sitchin as a reference in my theory, these tablets were discovered over a century ago. The
Enuma Elish for example was translated by LW King in 1907, the Epic of Gilgamesh by George Smith in 1870, if Sitchin is your prime source for this
discussion you obviously have alot of spadework still to do buddy.

You didn't have to mention Sitchen's name, you enunciated his pseudohistory.

Sumerian tablets document Annunaki (Thoth & Co) activity on this planet going back 400 000 years, this is a fact. These records go into great
detail as to how regions were allocated & controlled by these individuals and do not mention an advanced island civilization which would have been a
by product of their activities.

Above you say "...this is a fact." In fact "this" is
not "a fact." Far from it. It is a fantasy concocted by Sitchen and is not
supported by
any Sumerian or Akkadian or Babylonian text ever found to date.
You can find these translations you mention at Sacred texts.com. Check them out for yourself if you don't believe me. I already have.
Some info on Sitchen from my "favorites" file:
www.sitchiniswrong.com...
www.lauralee.com...
jcolavito.tripod.com...
skepdic.com...
www.ramtops.co.uk...
www.ianlawton.com...
www.ianlawton.com...
www.ianlawton.com...
The first link above takes you to a website set up by a person that actually
is a scholar of ancient languages. It's an extremely large site
and gives a multitude of examples of Sitchen mischaracterizing facts, and in some cases outright lying.
Many of these links came from
Doug's Archaeology Site, an excellent addition to
anyone's
favorites folder.
Also, some links came from
Ian Lawton's Mesopotamian website.
Both of those sites might have more on Sitchen and his fraudulent pseudoscience.
As long as I'm linking, I want to provide a couple more pointers to where one might find the truth about Sitchen, if one were so inclined, that
is:
The Hall of Ma'at
Pseudocience link page at the Antiquity of Man website
Those two pages together amass several decades worth of information and scholarly papers regarding the current batch of pseudoscientists. Sitchen is
among them.
Harte
[edit on 7/31/2006 by Harte]