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: 5
67
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   
You shouldn't speak about what you don't know. Clearly you've never completed the earth Chronicles series. The things you speak of don't represent what Zack speaks to. He has never stated anything about Nibiru in 05' or 08' or 09' 0r 2012...for that matter. Study up before you speak up. The date wouldn't be until far in the future, however, biblical, linear, calendrical and zodiacal times all suggest something of an emmisary return in 2086 roughly. What don't you go ask Zecharia these questions face to face? I have




posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


Hey Essan...

Working my way thru the thread.

>'Oh, and I forgot the bit about the Antarctic ice sheet falling into the sea and causing a flood that buried all the aliens cities under hundreds of feet of silt ...... you know, the ice sheet from which we've extracted 900,000 years worth of ice cores ......'

Do you realize how big the ice sheet is?

Do you understand how little of it would have to fall off to create a very scary tsunami?

Are you saying the ice sheet falling off is all or nothing proposition?

LOTS of evidence exists ALL OVER the planet, of huge scrap offs, with hard to believe amounts of biological matter all intermixed.

Maybe you've heard of some of them?

Back to the thread...




posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   
900,000 years worth of ice core in Antarctica?
Well, how do you explain that some folks drew maps of Antarctica’s land mass?
Did they have ice penetrating radar on their air ships in those days?

It is arrogant of any scientist to make statements such as the 900,000 year thing. They are wrongly assuming that all has been constant for that length of time. Or maybe they just want to impress the ignorant with their outlandish claims.

.As to mining with stone tools…I seem to remember references to mining with “swords of light”.

Sitchin was not hyping 2012. You may have read the dates he suggested in a post above. I tried to figure it from some of his info and came up with a date of about 3400

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that Sitchin’s work is validated by those who were inspired to do research into the matter. It simply means that it got others to thinking.

How would you expect any evidence of Nibiru to show up in archeological records?
As to history; you might also want to ask why nothing is said in history about the massive volcanic eruption of circa 1258. You might also question why, in the many references to Egypt in the Bible, that there is no mention of the pyramids. A little more thinking on history might also cause you to question just exactly how it came down to us. In the real world there is little to nothing known about history prior to the year 900.

As you all are on a conspiracy forum, you may have noticed that the closer one comes to the truth, the more vehemently they are attacked in an attempt to discredit them.

Might these people have been the Annunaki?



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by visible_villain
 


The thing that you have to remember about Gurdjieff is that a lot of what he wrote was in symbols, much like all other esoterics that came before him. This is the reason why there are so many differing ideas of what he meant amongst his disciples. Although, once you're done with that I suggest you check out The Secret History of the World and How to Get Out Alive by Laura Knight-Jadczyk. She attempts to interpret Gurdjieff's work, along with Mouravieff's, Fulcanelli's, the Bible, the Holy Grail stories, and ancient myths and present a theory on the possible true history of the world. One of the more interesting things she mentions is how there seems to be evidence of a global cataclysm taking place in 12,000 BC, which coincides with Plato's record of when Atlantis would have been destroyed.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   
I hope the first big rock that blindsides us leaves a few Sitchin believers as survivors.

Can you imagine the 'change in course' of human theology, history and general understanding?

[edit on 1/21/0909 by spines]



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   
I would advise all the negative finger pointers to first read what Stichin said. It will enlighten you to the fact Stichin has alwas said. Read and go do the research yourself. Spend the 8 hours a day in the Library and make an effort to read the Sumarian tablets. You will learn something and relize Stichin is providing a good insight for you to learn something if you so choose.

I find it quite interesting how a few self serving people go on the attack with thier pompus comments without clarifying or verifying what you state.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


ORIPEIA said:
One of the more interesting things [Laura Knight-Jadczyk] mentions is how there seems to be evidence of a global cataclysm taking place in 12,000 BC, which coincides with Plato's record of when Atlantis would have been destroyed.


In 'Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson,' Gurdjieff mentions Atlantis quite a bit, and also the cataclysm that destroyed Atlantis, as well as a few other cataclysms too.

I know it's not 'scientific' to say so, but I feel very strongly the 'history' that we are taught in schools as kids and young adults is probably greatly 'revised' or 'adulterated for public consumption'.

And I can understand why the average individual would automatically go into denial about such a possibility. After all, who would want to willingly reject everything they've been 'taught' as probably 'false and deliberately misleading?'

Clearly, such a notion is 'terrifying' in a sense.

On the other hand, most people who are able to honestly look at the current state of human affairs on Earth today would have to admit that governments, at least the western ones, as a rule, regard their 'populations' as mere 'herds of cattle,' allowing them to fed food dangerously adulterated with poisonous chemicals, kept essentially in perpetual economic servitude, and otherwise generally 'exploited' for their entire lives. Given this, why wouldn't the 'herd' be 'indoctrinated' with a 'revisionist history' suitable to the purposes of the 'establishment?'

Just kind of rambling here, but one really could argue the point both ways. I guess, ultimately you just have to 'go with your gut' on which view is the 'correct' one.

Also, thanks for the Jadczyk reference. I am not familiar at all with her work, but will probably take a little time to look into it more.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone
900,000 years worth of ice core in Antarctica?
Well, how do you explain that some folks drew maps of Antarctica’s land mass?
Did they have ice penetrating radar on their air ships in those days?

What maps? If you are talking about the Piri Reis map I'm afraid it doesn't not include Antarctica, with or without ice.
Piri Reis
Antarctica with ice
Antarctica without ice



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   




Sitchin alone can look at a Sumerian tablet and see that it depicts a man being subjected to radiation. He alone knows how to correctly translate ancient terms allowing him to discover such things as that the ancients made rockets (ibid., p. 46).* Yet, he doesn't seem to know that the seasons are caused by the earth's tilt, not by its distance from the sun.



I'm all for debunking but when the debunker debunks themselves they lose all credibility and just become another hate monger.

The reason they give for the season's is also incorrect.

The reason is because the distance between the earth and the sun affects the amount of radiation received to that area of the planet. If it is tilted toward the sun then it receives more radiation from the sun because it is closer to the sun and hence what we call summer, away is less exposure and winter occurs.

So in fact the debunker is more wrong than this zach guy he's trying to debunk. According to the way he worded it if the planet never tilted there would be no seasons which is false there would be seasons they would just never change.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 09:38 PM
link   
i had a few comments on this topic a feww pages back, i started out with a pretty good scence of humor ,when i couldnt get my point across to some i became frustrated so i shut up awhile and thought about this for some time and came up with athought. again i have read the earth chronicles and found it to be an awsome read,at times a little hrd to keep up with but then some back and fore then ya awsome read.if you find that its all bull crap now , you will feel the same when you finish the read.its kind of like the bible,or ufos,IN A WAY,all the material in the world cant prove it ,nor can it disprove it so i guess there is really no good reason for me to get all mad and start jumpin up and down like a monkey.could i add however that if your not at least open to the idea then ya kinda defeat the whole reason for being on this site,cause its really about more than always being right, ats points and fancy avatars.is that somthing we can agree on? peace



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   
My inner sceptic is a conspiracy junkie. The more knowledge consumed seems to give me a better center line of truth (in theory).
So I can thank Z S for lighting a fire of research and contemplation in my journey. I think people who believe the bible as anything more than a SANTA version of our creation are scary. At least Zack is trying to deduct truths from what little evidence is available.
One question what did he say they needed the gold for?
www.popsci.com...



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by MacroVisio
 
g the gold was used on their planet as i recall to be put into the atmosphere to shield the planet from the suns harmful rays and to impress ladies.na jus kidden about the ladies thing but its ironic we now use it to tint windows on spaceshuttles for same reason



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by jaman
 

not sayin i believe just reporting what his book sys



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


There are also maps such as the Bauche Map of 1737 and the Franco Rosselli map of 1508 that seemingly show the two separate land masses of Antarctica, which they would have only been able to tell then if it wasn't covered in ice. As I have no background in cartography I can't really attest to the validity of these maps.








posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by visible_villain
 

"The thing that you have to remember about Gurdjieff is that a lot of what he wrote was in symbols, much like all other esoterics that came before him. This is the reason why there are so many differing ideas of what he meant amongst his disciples. Although, once you're done with that I suggest you check out The Secret History of the World and How to Get Out Alive by Laura Knight-Jadczyk. She attempts to interpret Gurdjieff's work, along with Mouravieff's, Fulcanelli's, the Bible, the Holy Grail stories, and ancient myths and present a theory on the possible true history of the world. One of the more interesting things she mentions is how there seems to be evidence of a global cataclysm taking place in 12,000 BC, which coincides with Plato's record of when Atlantis would have been destroyed."


Xcalibur254, very good, as your other substantiated posts. That’s exactly what’s amazing and convincing about Sitchin: The more one probes his writings, the more important dots we can see getting connected, like e.g. the cataclysm of 12,000 BC – Atlantis correlation.

And let me clarify that I’m referring to Sitchin’s main points, not to each and every tiny detail he wrote. Every scholar makes some small mistakes, and of course we can stick at some picked out trifles and then allege Sitchin was “wrong” - which is the tactic of some of this thread’s posters. But that’s inept. The question is, are his main insights correct. And indeed that's what they really seem to be in a high degree. Let’s for instance take the Nibiru issue. As to that Sitchins important testimonies are NOT about Nibiru’s exact dates, coordinates, or like, but the principal message, that human genes were destructively manipulated and influenced by another race originating from a planet in this solar system. This is Sitchin’s gist and not whether Nibiru will visit us on the exact day the cows come home. And, as some posters in this thread already stated and well substantiated, there is A LOT of evidence genetics manipulations DID take place in a harmful manner for us humans - actually a very disturbing issue.


[edit on 21-1-2009 by CoolBlackHole]



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   
OMG - if we just always went by the "staid and educated" - we'd still be in the dark ages.

Some people have knowledge - plus insight. Like Gene Roddenberry - they just seem to know something - like they are "plugged in".

As I always say - its not that I believe anyone - I believe myself. I believe my insight and interpretation of what Sitchen puts forth.

What Sitchen implies - - is far more plausible - then mystical beings as our creators.

Yes! I believe the myths and stories are real events - involving real "people" - meaning advanced beings - ET's.

Yes - I believe the War in Heaven - was a real political war over control of earth. I believe the Universe is teeming with life - - and is very political - - just as we on earth have to deal with politics.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


Psst, it's "legitimate."



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Really....I mean, if Mormons believe John Smith - hell, this guy is just having a shot at doing something similar himself right?



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darthorious




Sitchin alone can look at a Sumerian tablet and see that it depicts a man being subjected to radiation. He alone knows how to correctly translate ancient terms allowing him to discover such things as that the ancients made rockets (ibid., p. 46).* Yet, he doesn't seem to know that the seasons are caused by the earth's tilt, not by its distance from the sun.



I'm all for debunking but when the debunker debunks themselves they lose all credibility and just become another hate monger.

The reason they give for the season's is also incorrect.

The reason is because the distance between the earth and the sun affects the amount of radiation received to that area of the planet. If it is tilted toward the sun then it receives more radiation from the sun because it is closer to the sun and hence what we call summer, away is less exposure and winter occurs.

So in fact the debunker is more wrong than this zach guy he's trying to debunk. According to the way he worded it if the planet never tilted there would be no seasons which is false there would be seasons they would just never change.



You're wrong, bud.
Earth can actually be closest to the sun during midwinter- Anyone whose ever even taken a twelfth grade astronomy course can explain this answer.
The distance between the Earth and the sun has no effect- I don't know why you brought that up.
Seasons are based on the tilt of the Earth on its axis. When it is tilted towards the sun, it's summer for North America.
Twilted away, it's winter.
The seasons are based on the amount of sunlight we receive- Which is directly proprotionate to the tilt of our axis.

A debunker, of a debunker, being debunked.
Oh the sweet smell of justice.


Edit: I noticed you said at the end of your post, that we would have seasons- They would just never change.
Season, by its very definition is limited by time.
deny ignorance
A wonder what a high school education and quick google search can turn up.

[edit on 21-1-2009 by Dewm0nster]



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nick_X
Really....I mean, if Mormons believe John Smith - hell, this guy is just having a shot at doing something similar himself right?


Actually I consider John Smith = to Billy Meier - - - accept Smith followed orders.

Sorry - - probably a subject of discussion of its own.



new topics

top topics



 
67
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join