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.

 

Zecharia Sitchin..."he's just another one making a living selling books that treat folks to a tale

page: 10
67
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by OhZone
 

Some theories make it, some don't. Most theories (if not all) have been challenged when first presented. That's the way science works. Skepticism is the basis of science.

Here are a few scientific theories that didn't make it:

* Lamarckism challenged by Darwinian evolution, but revitalised in Neo-Lamarckism - see also epigenetic inheritance

* Maternal impression - rendered obsolete by genetic theory, but see fetal origins of adult disease

* Miasma theory of disease - rendered obsolete by germ theory of disease

* Spontaneous generation superseded by "biogenesis" and "abiogenesis".

* Telegony (pregnancy) - the theory that an offspring can inherit characteristics from a previous mate of its mother's, as well as its actual parents. A theory often associated with Racism.

* Recapitulation theory - or "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"
en.wikipedia.org...

Sitchin includes far to much invention and personal bias to be taken seriously as an historical anthropologist. He's not alone in that but he is rightfully rejected by those who have made true studies of ancient language.




posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   

I do agree about him and in my humble opinion he is either a fraud or has deluded himself into believing his own fantasy. If it walks like a duck.



Here's the problem, when those quick to attack someone who has an alternative theory; they usually do so in a way that causes them to be perceived as the All-Knowing, All-Mighty God of Everything. And, I guess that arrogance is what convinces them they are right simply because it came from their glorious mouth.

Why are Sitchin's theories so much stranger than any others we've heard? It is not likely he is "delusional," as I would gather from his many years on this planet and his vast knowledge (despite the claims of some here who believe themselves more versed in this area than he), that he is coming from some sort of educated background that warrants the "scholar" inference.

There is no more solid scientific evidence to prove to disprove any one theory completely. Not to mention the fact that one presumably would have to have some measure of respect in the field of this kind to be able to get any access to the Sumerian texts for the length of time it has taken him to translate them. Also, publishing companies, while interested in profit, do not make it a practice to latch on to any old wacko that has a controversial book. They do have a reputation to think about. In my research, I have found there have been a large number of scientific minds who respect Sitchin's work, no less than those who criticize it.

Your "humble" opinion cannot hide your inability to think critically without it requiring you to conclude someone is a"nutcase" despite the fact that "nutcase" is likely to be more of authority than you.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone
For those of you who ridicule Sitchin for whatever reason, some who have not even read his books, you should visit this link:
ridiculed and vindicated mavericks


And all of this means what?

It means nothing; none of this makes Sitchin right (or wrong for that matter).

A theory or belief should be judged on its own merits and not because an unrelated theory or belief may have been proven right or wrong in the past.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex on page 9:

"....Would end up posting this pic to target those he does not agree with..."


Originally posted by CoolBlackHole



Dear Savior of enlightment

1. I will gladly help with the cumbersome interpretation of the ‘3 monkeys’ pic. I doesn’t necessarily mean one doesn’t agree with someone not agreeing, but one doesn’t agree with someone not using his eyes/ears… and BRAIN!!


2. Btw it was noticed you merely accidentally forgot to include the link originally placed right after the “3 monkeys” pic on page 9, it was: ZECHARIA SITCHIN – BIOGRAPHY AND KEY IDEAS. I assume that - following your own guideline “Ex Scientia Vera” (“from knowledge truth”) - you’ll gladly agree herewith, as the link will help readers to convince themselves that Sitchin is bawled out by lobbyists because he’s uncovering quite a bit of hidden truth.


[edit on 24-1-2009 by CoolBlackHole]



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   
The twined snakes is a great example of how someone can take a symbol, build a random theory not based on any logic around that, and then combine that with a whole bunch of other theories obtained in the same slapdash manner, and then call the whole conglomerated mess 'proof' of some new-age idea that will make someone bucks.

There is no proof whatsoever that those represent DNA. It's wild guesswork, nothing more. Comparing Sitchin to scientists who actually gather FACTS, not guesses, is laughable.

Using whatever pieces of art or history suit your methods and opinions, and ignoring the rest is spotty, sloppy research.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 


True that.

Notice also that the caduceus is two, separate, opposed, and intertwined helices. DNA is a double helix with both strands linked and twisted in the same direction. The two cannot be compared.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 01:04 AM
link   
Bloody hell

The guy is atleast 90% correct no one has disproven or debunked any of his claims except that Christian wierdo Hieser who is tryin to make a name for himself by way of slander!!

Face it people you are a tampered with slave who was given the gift of life from the gods of nibiru!!!

Read his books!! I suggest you also read Niel Freer,Alan Alford, and check into Richard Hoagland and Lloyd Pye also then come back in here and tell me he is wrong

Gilgamesh



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 01:14 AM
link   
I'm not saying this will work for everyone, but I've personally found that the truth about any given subject is pretty much 180 degrees from whatever "OzWeatherman" says it is.

The fact that he's one of the biggest chemtrail debunkers on this board should tell you everything you need to know. The same could be said about Zecharia Sitchin.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 03:25 AM
link   
Sitchin took Sumerian tablets, with all of their odd cryptic references to gods and etc, and attempted to make sense of them. Personally, some of his speculations are a little bit hard to believe, while others make more sense than anything else I've ever read. The "aliens", also called Anunnaki, might have been ET's, or perhaps they were survivors of a flooded Atlantis, or refugees from a more advanced Earth civilization that is under the ocean now, or whatever, but according to the Sumerians, they did exist and interacted with the Sumerians. Most experts won't accept the Sumerians statements of thier interactions with the "gods". Sitchin decided to take them at their word. This is where he parts with the mainstream, and presents some quite possible alternatives to what we are currently taught. Is he right? Maybe partly. Is he wrong? Some of what he says is surely wrong. Darwin didn't get it 100% right either, but we still use his main theory. Sitchin is worth studying. There is wheat among the chaff of what he says. No one who is serious and reads him will believe everything he says, but they won't be able to dismiss everything either.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
I'm not saying this will work for everyone, but I've personally found that the truth about any given subject is pretty much 180 degrees from whatever "OzWeatherman" says it is.

The fact that he's one of the biggest chemtrail debunkers on this board should tell you everything you need to know. The same could be said about Zecharia Sitchin.


Hey GoldenFleece!


[edit on 25-1-2009 by CoolBlackHole]



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 06:41 AM
link   
So you two aren't getting your way so you resort to attacking the OP?
Well done, that really improves your credibility!



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
So you two aren't getting your way so you resort to attacking the OP?
Well done, that really improves your credibility!



No, wrong contemplation, but, let's be nice, last post edited.


[edit on 25-1-2009 by CoolBlackHole]



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by CoolBlackHole
Dear Savior of enlightment


Nice...


Originally posted by CoolBlackHole
1. I will gladly help with the cumbersome interpretation of the ‘3 monkeys’ pic. I doesn’t necessarily mean one doesn’t agree with someone not agreeing, but one doesn’t agree with someone not using his eyes/ears… and BRAIN!!


Thank you for proving my point. I appreciate it.


Originally posted by CoolBlackHole
2. Btw it was noticed you merely accidentally forgot to include the link originally placed right after the “3 monkeys” pic...


I do not appreciate the accusation that I was trying to hide something from anyone. The charge is ridiculous; anyone can scroll up and see what you posted. And just as anyone can scroll up and see what you posted, I do not need to include every link you post in my responses.



[edit on 25-1-2009 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by CoolBlackHole
 


Ozweatherman is an educated poster.
I enjoy his posts, his threads, and arguments.
He's one of the "sounder" posters on these boards, which is a great relief when every other thread falls about twenty yards short of the sanity line.

As for this thread- I always like to follow Occam's razor.
So here's how I see it:
Planet X, populated by alien beings who created us for the purpose of mining gold- Because, rather than build machines to do it, they spliced genetics with a species from another planet; comes around every 3,600 years or so? And, its orbit, takes it out past pluto; however the inhabitants of the planet, needed gold for their atmosphere, for what purpose?
How much radiation of UV light do they need to block out, when they're past Pluto's orbit?

And, after this planet strolls into town- It leaves the solar system, without disturbing the orbits of the planets considerably (Or at all, considering a slight alteration of our own orbit, would likely kill off a number of species.)

Correct thus far, yeah?

Having said that, I'd like to compare it to another possible theory:
He's lying.

Hard choice, I know.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   
I haven't read Sitchins work but I have read Tsarions. Their theories are similar from what Tsarion says. The difference between Sitchin and Tsarion, according to Tsarion, is that the 'fallen angels' were benevolent according to Sitchin but Tsarion doesn't think they were too good of heart, soul and mind.

That being said, Tsarion posits that the beings were stranded here on Earth. Therefore, one could say that they needed gold not for their planet, but for ours.

If you think about it, and this comes from Pye's work, our bodies aren't designed to live on this planet. If you leave us out in nature for a long period of time, we'll die from exposure. The sunlight, radiation, etc. would burn us to a crisp without clothes and shelter. It's quite possible that we're spliced with beings who came from another atmosphere altogether. I don't see why it's so hard to comprehend.

I think these types of theories deserve some looking into.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dewm0nster
"... Planet X, populated by alien beings who created us for the purpose of mining gold- Because, rather than build machines to do it, they spliced genetics with a species from another planet; comes around every 3,600 years or so? And, its orbit, takes it out past pluto; however the inhabitants of the planet, needed gold for their atmosphere, for what purpose? How much radiation of UV light do they need to block out, when they're past Pluto's orbit? ... Having said that, I'd like to compare it to another possible theory: He's lying.... Hard choice, I know.


Sitchin is not “lying”. Sitchin's real message isn’t about Nibiru orbiting like exactly this, returning to us at exactly that time under exactly those circumstances, or gold was mined for exactly his purpose. These are unimportant details. As I wrote in my earlier posts, every author makes small mistakes. And what you do, is pick out such small errors, stick to them, and then alleging Sitchin is wholly “wrong”. This way of arguing is a well known rhetorical technique to discredit an author/an issue. Doesn’t impress me.

We have to look at an author’s main insights. And one of Sitchin’s is human genes were gravely manipulated in the past and mingled with extraterrestrial genes in a certain degree. Now, everybody looking into this and doing some research will find out there is quite a nice bit of astonishing evidence for it. I’m not going into further details at this point, as this thread seems almost ‘dead’, sorry (though not because of its contents or posts, but obviously because of it’s title). To everybody interested I’d recommend the link mentioned above (‘ZECHARIA SITCHIN – BIOGRAPHY AND KEY IDEAS.’).


[edit on 25-1-2009 by CoolBlackHole]



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by CoolBlackHole

We have to look at an author’s main insights. And one of Sitchin’s is human genes were gravely manipulated in the past and mingled with extraterrestrial genes in a certain degree. Now, everybody looking into this and doing some research will found out there is quite a nice bit of astonishing evidence for it. I’m not going into further details at this point, as this thread seems almost ‘dead’, sorry (though not because of its contents or posts, but obviously because of it’s title).




Sitchin first started writing about Sumerian translations and genetic splicing at least 35 years ago. In an era when wild claims of alien intervention were top-sellers.

Time has caught up with him. Our knowledge now of these subjects is phenomenal in detail and depth. Nothing Sitchin has said even comes close to the advanced levels of understanding we have today.

If you're interested in any of the subjects above there's a wealth of fascinating literature on them. You'll realize very quickly Sitchin does a weaving of pseudo-science with science fiction that only sounds even plausible to those with no knowledge of the subjects.


Mike F



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   
You people are clearly a bunch of Idiots. You probably just crawled out of your mother's womb. You would know a truth from a lie. You tell so many yourselves, you think everyone else is a liar.
Take the time and spend the money to search out the turth for yourselves, and quit relying on so called "experts" to tell you what to believe. You are nothing but a bunch of ignorant sheeple.

Sheesh, get a life and get off the computer and quit sending Text messages.

M.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by CoolBlackHole
Sitchin is not “lying”.


I would agree. He is not lying, he believes he is telling the truth. He is wrong, but not a liar.


Originally posted by CoolBlackHole
And one of Sitchin’s is human genes were gravely manipulated in the past and mingled with extraterrestrial genes in a certain degree. Now, everybody looking into this and doing some research will find out there is quite a nice bit of astonishing evidence for it...


I previously asked what evidence there was for this and you claimed asking such a question was a distraction. You also claimed that others had posted such evidence, but I demonstrated this was not the case. The link you provided gives no evidence for it either. Here is what it has to say:


The recovered records place the location of the Anunnaki laboratory where the first humans were literally produced in east central Africa just above their gold mines. This falls precisely on the map where the mitochondrial DNA “search for Eve” places the first woman Homo Sapiens and in the same period. (The gold mining engineers of Africa have found 100,000-year-old gold mines in that area.) The evidence for, and description of advanced genetic engineering is all there in the ancient documents. Our rapid progress from inception to going to Mars soon, after only 250,000 years, does not correspond to the million year periodicities of slow evolutionary development of other species such as Homo Erectus before us. As so many thinkers have pointed out, we are radically and anomalously
different, as discussed in part three.


Again, I ask...where is the evidence?



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
SaviorComplex your posts in support of the other side to Stichin's claims are crap like the other sin this thread.

Nothing but "no it's not" or "he said it's not".

No substance at all and terrible/dodging debate tactics....





new topics

top topics



 
67
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join