Sitchin's theories phony?, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 29-2-2004 @ 10:03 AM by amantine
In my opinion it is very probable that he is wrong. There is no other 'evidence' for his theories than his own translations of mythical texts, translations that are nothing like the ones scholars make. The Planet X / Niburu thing has been debunked too much, just go to BadAstronomy and read the convincing argument against their claims. It is almost impossible to be 100% sure that there was no Niburu, but in this case the burden of proof is on Sitchin. Good luck to anyone trying to prove this theory!


reply posted on 29-2-2004 @ 12:28 PM by LeenBekkemaa
Originally posted by amantine
In my opinion it is very probable that he is wrong. There is no other 'evidence' for his theories than his own translations of mythical texts, translations that are nothing like the ones scholars make. The Planet X / Niburu thing has been debunked too much, just go to
BadAstronomy and read the convincing argument against their claims. It is almost impossible to be 100% sure that there was no Niburu, but in this case the burden of proof is on Sitchin. Good luck to anyone trying to prove this theory!


Yes and then search for PlanetX and look for a topic debunking the Badastronomy site. Yes exactly, I started it because that site is about nothing, only when refering to it as being a real planet, while PlanetX could be also a spacecraft. The only reason www.badastronomy.com is still there is because Byrd as scientist didn't like the idea that it could be true. That however has nothing to do with debunking, just with not accepting something which could be true.

The site which debunkes the sites which try to debunk planetX

The only reason ATS is still refering to sites which make it look like PlanetX is debunked, is because a person didn't accept the idea that it also could be a spacecraft.


reply posted on 29-2-2004 @ 01:50 PM by amantine
Even if Planet X is really a spaceship, the theory still has the same problems. The translations are wrong in key segments:
an article by Michael Heiser. I have found another very large article explaining other mistakes in the theory: an article by Rob Hafernik. Explain to me how your spaceship theory solves these problems.

[Edited on 29-2-2004 by amantine]


reply posted on 1-3-2004 @ 08:36 AM by Byrd
Yes, his theories are phony and easily debunked.
Even the Enterprise Mission (
www.enterprisemission.com...) has now announced their skepticism about him.

He's made up his credentials, and as for his being one of the few who can read Sumerian -- it's amazing how someone with this claimed expertise has *never* been asked to show up at universities and be a guest lecturer... unlike (say) Wafler, Cohen ,
Hallo (note that this one is doing a lecture on the flying angels ), etc, etc.

It's very telling that although he proclaims himself an expert Biblical and Orientalist scholar -- that NO journal has ever published him (you can confirm this by searching on the science site, "www.scirus.com -- though Velikovsky and some of the other fringe folk appear in journals.

He never appears at universities to lecture on the Bible though he proclaims himself an expert. He never appears to lecture on Sumerian, though there's a demand for these scholars.

I'm not sure if the real term is "fraud" or "self-deluded," but when even the UFO community starts snickering at him, you can bet that his information has been found lacking by a LOT of people who looked into it.

[Edited on 1-3-2004 by Byrd]


reply posted on 4-3-2004 @ 07:38 AM by soothsayer
Have a couple of his books... Genesis Revisited and Cosmic Code. I do find them interesting reads, and well worth going through; there is some information in his books that are worth looking for.

Sure, there's probably some errors or falacies in his accounts; that's usually the case when dealing with subject matter along these lines. There will always be truths mixed in with 'could bes'. This is no different than, say, an ATS posting on reptilian aliens sending a doomsday comet towards earth because the NWO ordered them to.

If anything, Stichlin is much better prepared than Erik Von Dikasomething... the Chariots of the Gods author; Stichlin gives credit where credit is do, and breaksdown/explains his findings. The thing that Richard Hoagland (Monuments of Mars disagreed with was the Nibiru scenerio, one that is rather hard to swallow... an advanced civilization could not develop on a planet that is at absolute zero for the marjority of its orbit. Nibiru, to Hoagland, means something along the lines of 'a great journey'.

About him never being asked to give lectures... do you honestly think an accredited university would allow a speaker with his area of expertise press time? He goes against conventinal archeology, goes against traditional human development... it also probably doesn't help that his books are looked in the New Age section in bookstores.

Is all of his workings right? No, there were a few things I found which didn't seem right; but there was a great deal more that did, at least, feel right.

I am rather suprized over all this, however. ATS has how many sites dedicated to aliens, alien hybrids, alien DNA in humans... everything Stichlin writes about. Is that to say that ATS has, dare I say it, hypercrits?


reply posted on 4-3-2004 @ 11:15 AM by amantine
Originally posted by spangbr
On the other hand, regardless of sitchins lack of credentials, something to keep in mind is that in terms of archeoligical (did I spell that right? heheh) we have covered probably like what .0000000001 of the possible areas where some sort of ancient advanced civilization could have existed. Just because we havent found it yet doesnt mean its not there.


.0000000001 = 1*10^-8 %

Let's take a look at that:
30% of the earth is land.
source
Even if only 0.01% of this is an urban area, where we certainly would have found an ancient civilization, we know for sure:

0,3*0,0001=0,00003=0,003% of the earth surface does not contain an ancient civilization.

If we count all the areas which have more than 5 people per square kilometer, we know 54% of the land surface (Source):
0,3*0,54=0,162=16,2% does not contain an ancient civilization.

You argument is completely flawed. Most of the oceans can be excluded, because even a million years ago these were already oceans and no civilization would live there. Furthermore, because there is no evidence for an ancient civilisation, the best conclusion we can reach now is that there was never an ancient civilization. That is not necessarely true, but it's the conclusion that follows all current evidence.

We've found the remains of primitive human societies, but we didn't find anything from an advanced civilization, although an anvanced civilization would much more and much large artifacts,


reply posted on 4-3-2004 @ 12:24 PM by soothsayer
Originally posted by amantine

.30% of the earth is land.

0,3*0,0001=0,00003=0,003% of the earth surface does not contain an ancient civilization.

You argument is completely flawed. Most of the oceans can be excluded, because even a million years ago these were already oceans and no civilization would live there. Furthermore, because there is no evidence for an ancient civilisation, the best conclusion we can reach now is that there was never an ancient civilization. That is not necessarely true, but it's the conclusion that follows all current evidence.



The thing that has apparently passed by your vision, which is not entirly your fault (since you claim to be a LEARNED man), is the civilizations that were indeed found ouder the ocean's waves.

We do know that earlier in man's history the water levels wer lower than what they are today. We've found evidence of beach sand a hundred miles out into the ocean, indicating this.

We have legends and oral traditions passed down from generation to generation; for example, the native inhabitants of the Canary Islands in the Atlantic Ocean. They tell of a time when their lands were much greater than a few mountian tops; but one day, a flood came, causing them to flee, and stay, on higher ground.

Now, then, are the underwater artifacts.

Within a lake in South America... don't remember which one, ask Gazrok, he'd know... there is a City Of Gold completly submerged under the waters depths. The natives would navigate out to the site and deposite trinkets and offerings to the gods in that are.

In... what... 1968 (?), off the coast of the Bahamas, walls and road have been discovered, these roads leading for miles, and beyond, deep into the Atlantic.

Off the coast of Japan, there have been found complete ruins of pyramids and temples, all under water.

And currently, look at Venice; right here is a prime example of a city being lost to the waters. The Netherlands, too, will probably be completly underwater. When a great world wide destruction occurs, what will be left? Our skyscrapers, which would fall and crumble with time, or these underwater cities, protected from the wind? Water, we have found, is a great preserver of artifacts, because of less erosion and sediment. Venice and Netherlands will vastly out-last us.

The world is made of 70% water... since the water levels were 300 feet less than they are now... here, take an atlas, and look at the oceans. See how much land is now exposed, land that is close to islands and continents? We have numerous tales of sunken cities and sites... numerous photgraphs and reports.

So when you say "never happened because..." you are also saying you are denying the fact of possibility.

As a claimed LEARNED person, isn't this going against what you do... to try and find new things?


reply posted on 4-3-2004 @ 01:38 PM by Byrd
Originally posted by soothsayer
We have legends and oral traditions passed down from generation to generation; for example, the native inhabitants of the Canary Islands in the Atlantic Ocean. They tell of a time when their lands were much greater than a few mountian tops; but one day, a flood came, causing them to flee, and stay, on higher ground.

Settlers to the Canary islands are fairly recent -- Moroccan Berbers from about 3000 BC
www.1st-4-spanish-property.com...

The island is volcanic:
volcano.und.nodak.edu...

Sea levels did change during the "Little Ice Age" which ended about 1600-1700, so there's a good chance that the legends refer to this.

Within a lake in South America... don't remember which one, ask Gazrok, he'd know... there is a City Of Gold completly submerged under the waters depths.

Don't know about cities, but it was common for Karstian sinkholes in the area and other natural wells to be used as sacrificial sites. No cities under them, though.

In... what... 1968 (?), off the coast of the Bahamas, walls and road have been discovered, these roads leading for miles, and beyond, deep into the Atlantic.

Eventually determined to be a natural structure, not artificial. There's still some debate about that, but the current evidence is that they're natural.

Off the coast of Japan, there have been found complete ruins of pyramids and temples, all under water.

One of those is natural in origin. The other one they found recently is indeed a sunken city from about 1500 AD



When a great world wide destruction occurs, what will be left?

Kinda depends on when, and what kind of event. But even a 100,000 years in the future it would be easy to see where our cities had been (by the effects on the soil) and where our roads had been (ditto). If you had good chemical analysis, you could uncover a lot of things about us.
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



Origin of Ancient Jade Tool Baffles Scientists
  Posted 8 days ago with 96 member flags
12,000 Years Old Unexplained Structure
  Posted 5 days ago with 81 member flags
The Uluburun shipwreck sunk 3,400 years ago
  Posted 16 days ago with 70 member flags
Sigiriya : The 8th Wonder of the World
  Posted 5 days ago with 45 member flags
Tomb of Queen Heterpheres
  Posted 17 days ago with 29 member flags
R.O.V. Photos of Sunken Megaliths off Western Cuba
  Posted 12 days ago with 21 member flags