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: 7
67
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by jaman
 


First and foremost, the Sumerians state categorically in their mythology that the Anunnaki were "seven gods of the underworld" not outer-space, not a twelfth planet, but the 'UNDERWORLD' which is central to the beliefs of all cultures from the Celts to the Maya.

Utnapishtim sailed in a BOAT (not a spaceship) to reach this mystical 'Home of the Gods' where Anu was the ruler, (the equivalent of Zeus) to attain immortality. So, either the Sumerians did not know their own beliefs or Sitchin is telling porky-pies...

Also, 'flying saucers' do not need a 'landing platform' like the monolithic structure at Baalbeck, they can land on your front lawn!




posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by CoolBlackHole
 


I've not read any of his 12 books on this one subject in nearly a decade so I can't provide exact examples, but for a person who claims to possess prodigious knowledge of Sumeria and the ways and beliefs of Sumerians he must also realize that he is describing the first examples of a State apparatus perfecting genocide and crimes against humanity and covering it all up with a discussion of "Ancient Astronauts" and a 12th planet. Furthermore to that they keep running the same script whenever the find a new house to rob.

It would be easy to dismiss Sitchin as a crackpot and his books as solely entertainment...this fact was probably considered when he and his handlers first discussed writing these books. You will also notice that when terror attacks fail the perpetrators claim that it was a marketing or political stunt to increase the worlds awareness of the suffering of the people of XYZ and they never intended to blow anything up.

My assertion is that Sitchin's books are related to the current War on Terror. His first book coming in 1976 just 3 years after his team almost successfully collapsed the American state grid. It was 1973, when Nixon resigned right?

Honestly though torture and war crimes and terror have not disappeared since Sumeria. Sitchin's books are a Gateway and mass produced operating scripts for war criminals. It is intended for those who enjoy those books to go deeper and deeper into Sumeria. Go deep enough and you'll find yourself giving a hairy man a massage in a Cave in Waziristan, like Adam Gadahn.

However, if it was his intent to uncover something dark and reveal it to the world, then his testimony will be welcome at the upcoming trials. People love to say where is your proof; Sitchins books are the proof.

One may say that his books don't prove anything. My response is that the Turner Diaries were used against Tim McVeigh and we all know how it ended up for him; keep thinking Sitchins books won't get people the gas.

Sumeria, the first "Civilization" was born as a result of a betrayal, a home invasion and murder and armed robbery and a cover-up. That's the Legacy of Sumeria and Sitchin knows this and tries to teach this to his disciples.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex on page 6:

Originally posted by CoolBlackHole
Of course, by all means. What I actually meant was, there's a certain 'technique' of asking questions that only serves to dodge around a real discussion...

Before you accuse others of wanting to avoid discussion, notice that you have still not answered my question. Why ever could this be?

Nice. Sorry about explaining myself one more time: I don't think it's an utterly thrilling experience to answer questions that were only meant to skew a discussion. And my stance is this might be the case with some of your questions. But of course I'm terribly wrong about that and I seriously apologize therefore. But my mind is weak, I just can't constrain myself to answer the question. You know, the manipulated faulty human genes...



Originally posted by CoolBlackHole
there is A LOT of evidence genetics manipulations DID take place in a harmful manner for us humans - actually a very disturbing issue.

This evidence being?


An excruciatingly wild suggestion: What about working through this very thread (as I already suggested twice)? Btw that's exactly what I admire with devout posters like you: the mind boggling ability to ask questions without having to read the thread beforehand. That actually IS challenging! Takes years of hard physical and mental training, congrats.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 09:07 AM
link   


Another point to consider is the failed appearance of it in 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, and late 2008.


I noticed something interesting- and no, I am not subscribing to this loon's theories... But look how the prophecies are staggered... 2 years, 3 years, 2 years, 3 years.

Very interesting, no? Is he planning it this way, or is it just a coincidence? Just for giggles, I'd love to see the actual dates- and then I'd wonder how they coincide with his financial records....



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by CoolBlackHole
I don't think it's an utterly thrilling experience to answer questions that were only meant to skew a discussion...


What you are telling us is that you do not believe you should answer questions regarding the claims you have made. Thus far, you have avoided answering my questions to establish how Sitchin is the only accurate scholar, and you have avoided answering Oz's questions regarding your claims of having talked to presidents and governors. Instead, you attack us for asking questions.


Originally posted by CoolBlackHole
An excruciatingly wild suggestion: What about working through this very thread (as I already suggested twice. That actually IS challenging! Takes years of hard physical and mental training, congrats.


Forgetting the personal insults, I have read through the 120+ posts in this thread, and nowhere has anyone produced the evidence you claim they have. A few have made the claim but this has not been backed up by evidence. Again I ask, what would the evidence for your claim be?

[edit on 22-1-2009 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   
The big issue I have with Sitchin and with many other ancient civilization claimers, Atlantis et al, is very simple: Economics.
In recorded history, technological advance and rate of research is directly linked to the size of the available population base. The premise is simple, and has been used to debunk some of the more extravagant claims regarding prehistoric monoliths such as the Pyramids:
Until you have a large enough population base to be able to support your scientists / mystics, i.e feed, house and clothe them, there will not be the opportunity for them to act as scientists or mystics.
It's pretty simple really, if you spend all your time trying to get food to eat, you don't have a lot of time to contemplate the greater mysteries of the universe.
Analysis of mitochondrial DNA variations within existing populations can give a rough estimation of populations sizes in prehistoric contexts, added to which analysis of farming techniques and available amounts of arable land around known social points allows us to make some pretty good estimates as to how many people were alive at any one time. These estimates indicate that there just wasn't the population base to be able to support large numbers persons who were not directly contributing to the welfare of their communities.
It wasn't until large communities developed that we did see major technological advances, e.g The Roman Empire, the rennaisance, the industrial revolution, in many of these cases, the population base to support these persons had to be given time to recover after decimation either by natural or man made disasters.
I am not categorically stating that ALL invention or research needs to be directly tied to a large population base, however, a farmer may indeed develop an understanding of stellar mechanics for instance, as it directly relates to his own productivity, but it is FAR less likely for that same farmer to suddenly develop an understanding of nuclear physics, as it is very far removed form his immediate needs. - For anyone who wonders HOW farming can be tied to celestial mechanics, they need to read an old style almanac which does directly relate farming mechanics to celestial events, with good reason.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Just thought that those who disagree with Sitchin would like to know what the illustrious moderator Skyfloating has been saying about us in another thread...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Skyfloating
So other than using sock-puppets to post and faulty reasoning borrowed from other sources (rather than their own thinking), the "skeptics" here have nothing to offer.

Thats reassuring.

This thread on Zecharia Sitchin is an example of taking the very WEAKEST links and arguments of the ancient astronaut theory and attacking them.

Same tactic as usual.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
As far as attacking Sitchin's education i think its a dumb move. There was a patent clerk who had an idea about the speed of light, did he turn out to be just a patent clerk?



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
A number of people have been questioning Sitchin's credibility as a scholar, but these people often forget that breakthroughs in knowledge do not necessarily need to be discovered by people who have academic degrees.

Again, as history has shown, it does not necessarily take a person with an academic degree to progress human knowledge.





No one has said that there isn't serious research and even breakthroughs by non-academics. This discussion isn't about that.

Sitchin is a self-professed scholar, but no one in or out of the field has been able to corroborate his findings or translations. And they conflict wildly with things are pretty much established.

Again, it seems he was something of a lone gun nut but serious scholar of Sumerian translations who found an audience. This has had the effect of encouraging him to make even more outrageous claims to keep the interest level and revenues flowing. This happens a lot in this type of fringe anthropology publishing.

The value of peer review among profesional scholars is thet you can publish something in a journal and get feedback from those familiar with the subject matter. Productive corrections and redirections can result.

I'm all open for new revelations from any source. But agree with those who have spent their lives researching Middle East archeology, that Sitchin's work is, to be polite, fanciful.


Mike F



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   
What I find amazing is that people accepting other interpretations of these events as long as it is associated with a religion. Sitchin, one day will be recognised as one of our greatest scholars!



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   
again i say, the stuff Sitchin translates the Sumerian tablets to say make more sense to me as to where we come from, than the fables that the bible and all of those other religious books say.

when you couple a lot of what the Sumerians apparently depicted and wrote with a lot of other writings from people like David Icke, William Cooper, James Redfield, Daniken, etc.,...things that take place today all seem to make more sense. symbolism, esoteric knowledge, technology we have, missing link, etc.,

just have to use your 3rd eye sometimes.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by YoungStalin
 


This a completely off-base comparison. Einstein had a degree in Physics from ETH Zurich and displayed immense proficiency in mathematics at an early age. Whereas Sitchin does not have a degree in Sumerian or any kind of ancient language, nor did he display an aptitude at understanding ancient languages at an early age.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Actually there are plenty of biblical scholars that also make claims and interpretations that aren't correct. I haven't read his books, but you probably haven't either. Why then do you have an opinion?



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by enir nabu
again i say, the stuff Sitchin translates the Sumerian tablets to say make more sense to me as to where we come from, than the fables that the bible and all of those other religious books say.

when you couple a lot of what the Sumerians apparently depicted and wrote with a lot of other writings from people like David Icke, William Cooper, James Redfield, Daniken, etc.,...things that take place today all seem to make more sense. symbolism, esoteric knowledge, technology we have, missing link, etc.,

just have to use your 3rd eye sometimes.


Can I just steal this and make it my own?


Exactly! Some people just have a "knowing" a 3rd eye connection - that sees beyond black and white.

Can I explain it? NO - but having had "experiences" myself - I know they are also not black and white - and must be interpreted. That is why I say "I believe ME and my own insight" - - not fully anyone else's interpretation. To accept as gospel any person's interpretation word for word is a mistake.

When I read Sitchin or anyone else - I know what I am reading is their "interpretation".



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
What I find amazing is that people accepting other interpretations of these events as long as it is associated with a religion.


In the context of this discussion, who has brought up religion as a counterpoint to Sitchin?

The answer: no one.


Originally posted by spacemanjupiter
Actually there are plenty of biblical scholars that also make claims and interpretations that aren't correct.


Again, so what? This discussion is not using the Bible as a counterpoint to Sitchin, not is any skeptic here dismissing Sitchin because it runs contrary to one religion or another.

The only people who have brought up religion in this discussion are the Sitchin supporters.

[edit on 22-1-2009 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
What I find amazing is that people accepting other interpretations of these events as long as it is associated with a religion.


In the context of this discussion, who has brought up religion as a counterpoint to Sitchin?

The answer: no one.


It is the same thing.

Where religious people interpret from a some what mystical viewpoint - - I see much of the same things from a reality viewpoint - - of real events and real "people" (of/from more evolved worlds).



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


First and foremost, the Sumerians state categorically in their mythology that the Anunnaki were "seven gods of the underworld" not outer-space, not a twelfth planet, but the 'UNDERWORLD' which is central to the beliefs of all cultures from the Celts to the Maya.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quod est inferius est sicut quod est superius, et quod est superius est sicut quod est inferius - "As below, so above and as above, so below."

Many cultures shared a dualistic world view, the Mayans for example spoke of Xi'baba (the underworld) as a location in the stars/heavens (small cluster of stars hanging right below the bottom star in the belt of orion) as well on earth (see cave system on Yucatan Peninsula).

I have never read any of Stitchens books but am very familiar with his work, I always suggest that people watch "Pharmacratic Inquisition" to get a better idea of the "as above, so below" world view that has resonated across our globe through time, from culture to culture.

Peace

Don Pedros



[edit on 22-1-2009 by TheRealDonPedros]

[edit on 22-1-2009 by TheRealDonPedros]

[edit on 22-1-2009 by TheRealDonPedros]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


This reeks like the work of the Vatican. Right now the struggle continues to decay. The world continues to spin and we continue to evolve from it's core. "The meek shall inherit the earth", some of the last words before leaving here. They can be kept sacred and recited at will before the end.

These claims to Sitchin are only cries of denial. It is in stark comparison as each nail is driven in to hold its own conviction. Be thankful that this man has taken the journey to bring this knowledge forth in his own words and wisdom.

Races have lived here far longer than was previously discovered back in the 1800's. Think of the time it has taken to make the dig and bring it out of this world. It has only been roughly over 100 years of interest into what was being found. It is also ongoing today in those same key locations. Ironically Iran and Iraq are on top of these sites. You are free to look into any of the ancient artifacts and discoveries thus far unless they hold significat importance. Ask the Vatican. I'm sure you will have to kneel and beg for salvation to reveal any sort of "insight".

Language translation can now be rewarded from years of technology development. There are literally thousands of clay tablets and scrolls being safe housed in museums. I don't think that was unjust to say at the time that there were roughly 200 translators. Sitchin was one of interest because he made discoveries that upset the common theme. Has anyone ventured into learning Sumerian or what has been translated? Has anyone read the Sumerian translations? Anyone is free to do so. Just remember there won't be any translated meanings on the bottom of each page unlike the countless versions of "the book".

And face it . . . everything is there except the corpses. How can these primitive people know anything about the planets, space, medicine, anatomy, science? . . . when over the course of time we are now technologically advanced and are now making these discoveries that prove the ancient texts are accurate.

And how come everything reads in directive of superiority?

It is not one. It is of many.


Go read Sitchins books and keep learning. You only leave here with what you take with you.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by WISHADOW
 


People won't find any truths to his books.
I don't need to send money to Nigerian scammers to know I won't be seeing the money I send them ever again.

A previous poster had said, Sitchin claimed planet x would return sometime around 2064.
2064.
Why would he change his claim to a date so far into the future?
Because he'll be dead.

When 2012 comes and goes, and nothing happens- The date will simply change.
There's always an excuse, there's always a reason.
It never ends- But more importantly; it never happens.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Dewm0nster
 


So what if Sitchin claims the return of Nibiru? 2012 was not based around him. He is not selling you return dates for missing planets. It is based on research from ancient documents. He points out far greater things than the return of Nibiru. So this planet that is from ancient accounts may never return. You may never be able to decode ancient astrology. It could of been destroyed or taken out of orbit. Just think how these primitve people even knew about astrology. That is more fascinating then expiration dates.



new topics

top topics



 
67
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join