Various considerations about Sitchin and your threads

Since I have noticed that here many peopole talk about Sitchin's theopry without having an adequate skill in that matter (and what it involves), I'll try to make clear those points that are dealt in an uncorrect way...

Let's begin with the post 'Sitchin atlantis and gold mining'
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here we have two questions asked:

1) anyone know where these might be located or a site that has info on them?

answer: IN the Abzu, the geographical Tanzania, Swatziland and Zimbabwe. Sitchin says that this is the territory where the anunnaki took Gold, lapislazuli, and the stones that shine. Surprisingly geology proves that Tanzania has alot of Gold underneath, and Swatziland is one of the zones where we can find the most pure diamonds (anyone heard the name DeBeers?)

2) how Atlantis/Mu/Hyperboria fit in to all this.

answer: it has nothing to do with sitchin.
And remember that Atlantis and Mu are only tehories of which we have nothing but some descriptions. No iconographics, no seals, no plates, nothing at all. Just myth.

thn let's move to:
'"he's just another one making a living selling books that treat folks to a tale'
www.abovetopsecret.com...

it starts with:

"how on earth can you believe a man that claims he is the only one that can correctly translate ancient Sumerian tablets, with no formal education in ancient history. If his translastions were correct, then that mean all the other ligitimate, ancient biblical scholars in the world are incorrect, or misread the same tablets. Now in my opinion, thats apretty enormous call. "

It must be noticed that Sitchin never made such a claim. It has been attributed to him by semidebunkers in order to be able to debate.
Sitchin simply says that he does his own interpretations and translations. And, surprisingly enough, his translations are not avversed by scholars.
His translations can all be verified with orthodox material as ETCSL and Sumerian Lexicon by Halloran.

Then we read:

"So Sitchins claim to fame, is apparently that "gods" from another planet, Nibiru, came to Earth 450,000 years ago, and created humans through the gentic engineering of female apes. He also claims the planet Nibiru, sits outside Pluto and orbits the sun every 3600 years. Because Nibiru sits so far out from the sun, its only source of heat comes from within, by the decay of radioactive materials. He also claims that human descendants of these "gods" killed themselves off 4000 years ago, with nuclear weapons, despite the fact that there is no evidence to sunstantiate this outrageous theory."

It is not Sitchin who claims about gods from another planet.
It is sumerians and babylonians.

The Akitu festival recites:

"and the enzu shall observe and announce the shining planet of An, the land of the anunna gods"

Now, many scholars say the planet involved is Jupiter, not another 12th planet in the solar system, but the fact is that , whatever planet it may be, it is not the earth, and it is 'the land of the anunna'. So the anunna come from another planet.

As for genetic manipulations, again it is not a Sitchin's claim... it is sumerian and akkadian. Let's read from the Atra Hasis:

Let's read from the Atra Hasis:

Enki responded, “If we use pure clay to make these new creatures, they will be like the animals, without intelligence. To make them capable of bearing the yoke of Enlil, we must slay one of the gods so his flesh and blood can be mixed with the clay to be made into a man. Then what we create will be god and man mixed together.”

The gods seized Geshtu-e, a god of wisdom, and slaughtered him. When his flesh and blood were taken and mixed with the clay, a ghost came into being so that none should ever forget him, or fail to remember that the new creature called man was part mortal and part divine.

Mami took the mixture and pinched off fourteen pieces, to create seven males and seven females. She presented them to the Anunnaki, saying, “I have done all you asked. You have slain a god of intelligence and mixed his flesh and blood with clay so I could engender men. I relieve you of wearisome work by imposing your yoke upon them. I have also bestowed upon them the ability to use the spoken word, so they may call to one another to help fulfill their tasks. Let each man choose a woman to wive so Ishtar can bless them with healthy children, to fill the earth with generations upon generations of servants.”

So we have here the blood and flesh of a god (DNA) used to create a new being. The use of Clay it is done in order to have a proper ambient where the cellular development takes place. If you just take a little time to look for infos about the use of Montmorillonite in genetics (Montmorillonite is a kind of clay) you will discover that it has the ability to catalyze the recompination process of DNA.

We go on and we read:

"these "gods" killed themselves off 4000 years ago, with nuclear weapons, despite the fact that there is no evidence to sunstantiate this outrageous theory."

This is false... there are ambiental studies that show how approx 4000 years ago, southern Iraq and Sirya were suddenly covered with a thin and dark sand of 'volcanic' origin. Except for the fact that no volcanoes are in the area.
Moreover the Dead Sea still has a radioactivity higher than normal.

Going on we find the 'external source quote':

""[Sitchin] demonstrates a consistent lack of appreciation of even some of the most basic fundamentals of Sumerian and Akkadian grammar, even to the extent of regularly failing to distinguish between the two entirely different languages, and mixing words from each in interpreting the syllables of longer compound words." This mixing of languages allows Sitchin to make amazing "discoveries.""

This is one of my favourite, lol...

the original text then continues with an example about Marduk's name... that according to Sitchin means 'lord (or child) of the pure mound' and derives from:

Maru.du.ku

the controversy is that Maru is an akkadian term, while DU(g) and KU are sumerian terms.

That is not exactly that way...
MARU is also a sumerian term derived fro AMARU that means 'Lord, young, young son' ----> child.

DU(g) means 'done, built, something made with ground or in the gournd' As an example: Eridu = house built in a distant place (E = house RI = distand DU = built)

KU means 'pure'

Now let's have a look at the orthodox version of Marduk:

'Amar.Utuk’ = young bull of the sun
'Meri.Dug' = no fixed translation

We have to notice thaT MERI comes from the same root that originated the thalmudic 'MARA' meaning 'pure', and DUG, as we have seen earlier, means 'built, something done with ground' which can be extended to 'mound'.

The original criticism also tries to debate the name 'NINGISHZIDDA' which is translated by Sitchin as 'lord of the artifact of life'. But scholars (or self proclaiming scholars) debate that GISH means PENIS so Ningishzidda would not be the lord of the artifact of life, but a god associated with fertility and cult of the earth.

But if we go see the Sumerian lexicon (orthodox work) we can find:

1) giš, geš: n., tree; wood; wooden implement; scepter; tool; organ; plow; natural phenomenon
(describes a trunk that goes out into many branches and leaves) [GIŠ archaic frequency: 381]. adj., describes an animal assigned to the plow (sometimes ñiš-šè).

2) giš2,3, geš2,3, uš: penis; man (self + to go out + many; cf., nitaþ(2) and šir) [GIŠ3 archaic frequency:
16; concatenation of 2 sign variants; UŠ archaic frequency: 101; concatenates 2 sign variants] .

Notice that the 1st series of meanings tels: TOOL, IMPLEMENT that are synonimes of ARTIFACT.

So another traslation confirmed by orthdox material.


The worst criticism is:

"Another point to consider is the failed appearance of it in 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, and late 2008. If a prophecy fails to come true on more than one occasion, why continue to believe it?"

Sitchin has never made such claims for Nibiru returning at those dates...
this is pure invention.


I think it is enough so far... i will add more later on...
in the meanwhile, i think i have given enough material to allow you to do your own thinking and understand that mostr of the people trying to debunk Sitchin are very ignorant in the matter.

When it comes to Sitchin, there is alot of debunking or prooving or whatever. But it seems that Sitchin is doing the same thing that 'accepted' anthropologists do all the time.

Conjecture and interpretation of unknown symbols/language/customs of ancient civilizations with whom we (apparently) share little in common with. Sitchin and the legitimates alike throw around what they think the evidence shows, and rarely, even among tenured proffesors, does everyone agree.

Sitchin made a bold statement about beings from another planet. He picks and chooses his evidence. He relys on conjecture and linking artifacts/stories/entire cultures on that conjecture; which at times seems to ave been fabricated from the most inane scratchings and lines.

...but take out the term 'beings from another planet', and you have a criteria that could fit many, many 'professionals'...even if they don't want to admit it.

The difference: Those who are considered by their peers and themselves to be legitimate anthropologists are considered to be this because they tend to agree and build off one another. Even if the base of their tower of knowing is as shaky and hard to pin down as Sitchins.

It seems that Sitchin went against the grain with his ideas, so they are mocked and called 'absurd speculation', or he is told he is finding evidence where there is none.

And alot of times, he is cherry-picking his evidence, he is making large leaps of assumption, he is basing his understanding of an entire culture on small sections of the much larger whole...but so are hundreds of tenured proffesors.

In short: Sitchin is just like many others trying to dissect the past and figure out what the original whole may have looked like. His only sin, like Hancock and others religated to the 'New Age' section of Borders is that his interpretations took him in an entirely different direction then most.

If only people who debate all this would realize that, as of this date and bar some amazinly eye-opening discovery, alot of the ancient world is grey.

We may have evidence, but I seem to remember a story about some blind men and an elephant...

PS: Sorry for that ridiculously long-winded reply/rant.

reply to post by ningishzidda74


i do have the complete earth chronicles by Mr. Sitchin. and i couldnt fathom why so much debunking , lot of wasted time trying to disprove this old man from being a dis informer to almost anything thats absurd...he is a wealth of a man in terms of tryin to give us insights we in our closed box of mind has been programmed to think since books where manuscripted , printed and pdf'ed.he was the most prolific in his comparison per se of the bible and all those akkadian text which gives me the most refreshing notion of how our humanity comes into existence...sure lots of scholars would present their ideas just like ZS only that he was ahead of his time for others to catch up .lets give the old man the respect he deserves for coming forward and forwith...in due time his "hypothesis" may be the missing piece of the big puzzle called "life"...maybe...

Yes i fully agree with you both but i would like to go further..
i read this passage:

"Conjecture and interpretation of unknown symbols/language/customs of ancient civilizations with whom we (apparently) share little in common with. Sitchin and the legitimates alike throw around what they think the evidence shows, and rarely, even among tenured proffesors, does everyone agree.

Sitchin made a bold statement about beings from another planet. He picks and chooses his evidence. He relys on conjecture and linking artifacts/stories/entire cultures on that conjecture; which at times seems to ave been fabricated from the most inane scratchings and lines. "

well this is my field of specialization: the implication of Sitchin's theory on other cultures/languages.

One of the main points of the theory is that mesoamerican civilization derives from Mesopotamic civilization 'via anunnaki and slaves from africa taken by Ningishzidda and Ishkur to the americas'.

If this seems a thing to laugh on, to the common people, it must be said that this relaytionship has been proven by:
- genetics
- archeology
- linguistic
- iconography

I would suggest everyone to take a look at the studies by Clyde Winters, the man who definately proved the pre-toltec civilization and the olmec people were of African origin.

And i would suggest top do researches about the Fuente Magna bowl, a bowl found in the late '50s on the shores of Titicaca and which has all the interior carved with cuneiform glyphs. Winters has identified them as 'proto-saharian / sumerian' dating to about 3400 a.C.

Originally posted by ningishzidda74

'"he's just another one making a living selling books that treat folks to a tale'
www.abovetopsecret.com...

it starts with:

"how on earth can you believe a man that claims he is the only one that can correctly translate ancient Sumerian tablets, with no formal education in ancient history. If his translastions were correct, then that mean all the other ligitimate, ancient biblical scholars in the world are incorrect, or misread the same tablets. Now in my opinion, thats apretty enormous call. "

It must be noticed that Sitchin never made such a claim. It has been attributed to him by semidebunkers in order to be able to debate.

However, if we are to believe Sitchin, then he is the only one that has correctly "interpreted" ancient myths told in cuneiform tablets, written in Sumerian, Akkadian and other subsequent languages using that alphabet.

This is tantamount to claiming that he knows what these tablets say while all the experts on Earth do not.

And this despite the fact her has no credentials in any ancient tongue whatsoever.

Originally posted by ningishzidda74Sitchin simply says that he does his own interpretations and translations.

Yet continues to this day to refuse to demonstrate that he can read cuneiform at all. Despite being challenged to do so on more than one occasion.

Originally posted by ningishzidda74 And, surprisingly enough, his translations are not avversed by scholars.

That is simply a lie

Originally posted by ningishzidda74
His translations can all be verified with orthodox material as ETCSL and Sumerian Lexicon by Halloran.

Load of crap. I defy you to find the words "rocket" in any lexicon.

Originally posted by ningishzidda74
"So Sitchins claim to fame, is apparently that "gods" from another planet, Nibiru, came to Earth 450,000 years ago, and created humans through the gentic engineering of female apes. He also claims the planet Nibiru, sits outside Pluto and orbits the sun every 3600 years. Because Nibiru sits so far out from the sun, its only source of heat comes from within, by the decay of radioactive materials. He also claims that human descendants of these "gods" killed themselves off 4000 years ago, with nuclear weapons, despite the fact that there is no evidence to sunstantiate this outrageous theory."

Do the math. It's 2009 now. When's the last time we saw a rogue planet whipping through the solar system?

The orbital mechanics of such an incident would leave effects still detectable thousands of years later in the orbits of the other planets, moons, asteroids, etc.

Never happened.

Originally posted by ningishzidda74
It is not Sitchin who claims about gods from another planet.
It is sumerians and babylonians.

There is no mention of any beings from other planets in any Sumerian or Babylonian myth.

Originally posted by ningishzidda74The Akitu festival recites:

"and the enzu shall observe and announce the shining planet of An, the land of the anunna gods"

An was never referred to as living on any planet. An, the father of all the gods, lived in heaven. The word "An" was itself a common Sumerian word for heaven.

Heaven (or An,) was considered by the Sumerians to be the sky itself, where birds fly. Originally it was a mountaintop. It was never a "planet."

Originally posted by ningishzidda74As for genetic manipulations, again it is not a Sitchin's claim... it is sumerian and akkadian.
SNIP
So we have here the blood and flesh of a god (DNA) used to create a new being. The use of Clay it is done in order to have a proper ambient where the cellular development takes place. If you just take a little time to look for infos about the use of Montmorillonite in genetics (Montmorillonite is a kind of clay) you will discover that it has the ability to catalyze the recompination process of DNA.

Please provide a single reference that states that Montmorillonite "has the ability to catalyze the recombination process of DNA."
See, I took your advice and I'm finding no such information.

In fact, this clay and others have been used a a vector to deliver DNA to specific cellular bodiers, as a means to prevent the DNA from being disintegrated by the environment involved. For excample, digerstive fluids in the intestines and stomach.
Source 1
Source 2
Source 3

No description of any genetic manipulation exists in any Sumerian or Akkadian tablet found thus far.

Originally posted by ningishzidda74We go on and we read:

"these "gods" killed themselves off 4000 years ago, with nuclear weapons, despite the fact that there is no evidence to sunstantiate this outrageous theory."

This is false... there are ambiental studies that show how approx 4000 years ago, southern Iraq and Sirya were suddenly covered with a thin and dark sand of 'volcanic' origin. Except for the fact that no volcanoes are in the area.
Moreover the Dead Sea still has a radioactivity higher than normal.

[/url]
Both claims are total BS.

What are you calling "normal" for radiation regarding the Dead Sea? Every place has its own "normal" in this regard.

Claims of "thin dark sand" covering Southern Iraq and Syria 4,000 years ago are just that - claims.

You spout some crapola that seems to go along with your skewed world view, but where is your supporting evidence that backs up your claim?

My claim is that Aquaman covered Southern Iraq with water 200 years ago. Since we're making wild, unsupported claims here, then mine is as valid as yours.

Harte

[edit on 5/5/2009 by Harte]

reply to post by ningishzidda74


I have read Zecharia Sitchin's early books and do find them entertaining. However, he does make a few errors in the early ones. He seems to think the ancient astronauts used Saturn V rockets at the time (they were very popular in the late 1960s and early 70s). I would think an advanced race would have developed another way to travel around the planets.

Here is a site that counters many of Mr Sitchin's claims:

www.sitchiniswrong.com...

While Mr Sitchin does ask a lot of good questions, I think the answers are quite different than his.

reply to post by Harte


I'll leave out the personal considerations, and I already told that no serious criticism can be based upon Heiser's material... if you want me to show Heiser's errors I will (some i already have).

Let's answer your points:

"However, if we are to believe Sitchin, then he is the only one that has correctly "interpreted" ancient myths told in cuneiform tablets, written in Sumerian, Akkadian and other subsequent languages using that alphabet."

However nothing. You are making your own claim to be able to discuss... I can show you tens of examples of translations made by sitchin which are confirmed by Lexicons... some i have alredy reported.

"And this despite the fact her has no credentials in any ancient tongue whatsoever"

How can you tell?
I add, if he has not, I have... do you want my diploma scanned and posted?

And, as an apprentice sumerologist (my teacher was Pettinato, i hope you know who he is) i can say that most of Sitchins translations are correct.

"That is simply a lie"

"I defy you to find the words "rocket" in any lexicon."

No lie at all... should i provide a proof about the SHEM?

The commonly accepted meaning for Shem is 'name . renown - fame - framed object ' (for sem1 and sem2) but the same glyphs also can be made of SUM + U (it's shum7) that means: 'to give/provide + travel'
The root SHM also is translated by Kramer (orthodox) as the origin of SHuMr (sumer) and we have for Shumu8: SE + EM = to ignite/heat + heaven

This shows just a few of the meanings of the root SHM, and all have the same Glyph. So who are you to say that one trasnlation is correct and the other is not?

"The orbital mechanics of such an incident would leave effects still detectable thousands of years later in the orbits of the other planets, moons, asteroids, etc."

This is your claim, must provide something to confirm.

We don't make anything with 'WOULD'.

"An was never referred to as living on any planet. An, the father of all the gods, lived in heaven. The word "An" was itself a common Sumerian word for heaven.

Heaven (or An,) was considered by the Sumerians to be the sky itself, where birds fly. Originally it was a mountaintop. It was never a "planet.""

Very bad... you have to explain what all speeches between Enlil and Anu mean, then... if An was the heaven, then what does the voyage of Adapa to the court of An mean? What is the interpretation of Anu offering the bread of life to Adapa? And Anu asking Gizidda to go back to KI while Dumuzi remain at An's court... (myth of adapa)

"Please provide a single reference that states that Montmorillonite "has the ability to catalyze the recombination process of DNA."
See, I took your advice and I'm finding no such information.

In fact, this clay and others have been used a a vector to deliver DNA to specific cellular bodiers, as a means to prevent the DNA from being disintegrated by the environment involved. For excample, digerstive fluids in the intestines and stomach."

read here


I have some more...
i quote from the article:

"His students had added a kind of clay known as montmorillonite to their solution of fatty acids. Somehow the clay sped up the rate of vesicle formation 100-fold. “We spent years working on getting the growth and division stuff to work. That was a pain,” says Hanczyc. “But the clay worked the first time.”

Clay had already proved to be potentially important in the origin of life. In the 1990s biochemist James Ferris of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute showed that montmorillonite can help create RNA. When he poured nucleotides onto the surface of the clay, the montmorillonite grabbed the compounds, and neighboring nucleotides fused together. Over time, as many as 50 nucleotides joined together spontaneously into a single RNA molecule."

Is it enough?



[edit on 5-5-2009 by ningishzidda74]

I bet not, so i continue, do you mind?

"Claims of "thin dark sand" covering Southern Iraq and Syria 4,000 years ago are just that - claims. "

Not just a claim, lol, scientific report:

ssdb.ldeo.columbia.edu...

from the article:

"Our results document a very abrupt increase in eolian dust and Mesopotamian aridity which is AMS radiocarbon dated to 4025±125 cal. years BP and which persisted for approximately 300 years. Radiogenic (Nd and Sr) isotope analyses confirm that the observed severalfold increase in mineral dust was derived from Mesopotamian source areas."


"You spout some crapola that seems to go along with your skewed world view, but where is your supporting evidence that backs up your claim?"

As you can see, i have given you the supporting evidence... who's giving crap? Me or you?

Already told: don't deal with things you don't know.

So called experts still debate the correct translation of Ancient Latin or Hebrew texts, with as much known of those languages it would be impossible to claim we can correctly translate, transliterate, or interpret an obscure language like Cuneiform.

reply to post by ningishzidda74

I'm curious as to why you cite the Akkadian creation myth rather than the Sumerian version. The Atra Hasis antedates the Sumerian story of Enki and Ninmah by at least one thousand years (probably more). Surely, if either myth were "true", the Sumerian version (which varies quite a bit from the Akkadian) is closer to the source and should be considered the authority.

[edit on 5/6/2009 by Phage]

Are there any qualified academics that support Sitchin's interpretations of Sumerian cuneiform? I'm not well-versed in the man's work and am curious...

There seems to be unanimous contradiction about his interpretation of the Berlin Seal. As I understand it, the Berlin Seal is a foundation stone of his claims for the 10th Planet and thus it's highly eccentric orbital period of 3600 years. If the interpretation is unsupported by appropriate scholars and accepted translations of the 'star' symbol, his conjecture becomes redundant.

No planet would mean no annunaki, no spaceports, no nefilim etc.

If there are any supporting academics that somebody can link, I'm sure his stories would be worth revisiting. Perhaps there are some references to a planet passing through by Minoan, Egyptian, Babylonian, Shang Dynasty, Mycenaean civilizations? If not, maybe their mythology isn't based in reality?

Playing technical semantics with Sumerian is best left to the experts and in Sitchin's case, kind of pointless. Sitchin's conclusions conflict with so many aspects of history, archaeology, genetics, astronomy and much more that it calls to mind that old Poker saying...

If you're sat at the table for half and hour and haven't worked out who the sucker is yet...it's you.

reply to post by Phage


Yes it is true but... the sumerian version is the first, it is more fragmentary, and cause of the nature of the sumerian language itself is less accurate than the akkadian. With accurate i mean that the akkadian language was some sort of evolution of the sumerian, therefore terms were distinct... more speialistic and detailed...
that's why i refer to the akkadian story, obviously remembering it is not the original one... let's say that who wants to do real research should have a look at both version.

reply to post by Kandinsky


"Sitchin's conclusions conflict with so many aspects of history, archaeology, genetics, astronomy and much more "

can you make examples?
cause so far i have gathered some 20 scientific links conferming Sitchin's claims...

About the famous seal:


The criticism has been made by Thomas Van Flandern, astrnomer, who says 'that may be not our solar system but some other solar system' but he forgets fo say how, not knowing planets beyond Saturn (as orthodox literature says), they could know of 'some other solar system'.

Then the seal was analyzed by Michael Heiser.. and this is a long story...

The main criticism is made of these points:
- the 'rounds' don't show our planets in the correct proportions
- why should sumerian depict the solar system in that way and not with orbits and such?
- why there is no asteroid belts? If really the anunnaki traveled our solar system they should have told the sumerians about the asteroid belt.
- the existence of the 'exceeding planet' has not been proven


Let's handle these points quickly:
- the seal is not a 'planetary' seal... it is a devotional seal on which are depicted, amongst al things, those 'rounds' that sitchin claims to be planets. We could call it 'artistic license'... the proportions are not perfectly shown but remember it is a little seal... if the scribe had to respect the proportions, the seal should have been enoprmous in size...
as a matter of facts, anyway, the concept is clear... it shows small lanets (earth, mars, venus, mercury), extra small bodies (the moon, pluto), and giant planets (neptune uranus jupiter saturn)
- as i said, that is not a planetary or astronomic seal.. it's devotional, so that is a kind of artistic rappresentation, not detailled with orbits and such... everyone of us, having to depict the solar system, would represent it in different ways. At a seminar i attended in Pesaro 2 years ago i made an experiment. I asked the public to depict the solar system... i didn't tell why.... you would be amazed at how many strange forms of rappresentation i got from the audience in the room...
- no asteroid belts? Ok... i have already said that we have to accept that is an artistic rappresentation with only planets and the central star, with no 'surplus'... but i would like you to notice one thing...



this has been sent by NASA.
No asteroid belt, no kuiper belt, no proportions in depicting the planets

If NASA don't depict them , why should the sumerians?

Should we state that the message sent by Pioneer doesn't show our solar system?

reply to post by ningishzidda74

Actually, the story of Enki and Ninmah is very detailed. To say the Akkadian myth is more detailed is not correct. You may actually have other reasons for favoring it over the Sumerian myth.

According to the Sumerian myth, it was actually Namma who, at the suggestion of Enki, and with the help of Ninmah, created the first human out of only clay (no "genetic" manipulation).

During the celebration over the wonderful feat, Ninmah and Enki got a little tipsy (hail Ninkasi!) and got into a bit of a "pissing match". Long story short, none of Ninmah's six creations were "genetic" in nature, they were simply hand formed from clay. Perhaps Enki's creation could be considered so (except there was no mixing of anything, just the insertion of Enki's semen into a rather odd clay figure). And we know the result of his work

this was Umul: its head was afflicted, its place of …… was afflicted, its eyes were afflicted, its neck was afflicted. It could hardly breathe, its ribs were shaky, its lungs were afflicted, its heart was afflicted, its bowels were afflicted. With its hand and its lolling head it could not not put bread into its mouth; its spine and head were dislocated. The weak hips and the shaky feet could not carry (?) it on the field -- Enki fashioned it in this way.

Quite a detailed description but it doesn't seem too useful as a slave.

No sign of successful genetic manipulation that I can see.

Translation: ETCSL transliteration : c.1.1.2 Enki and Ninmaḫ
etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk...

[edit on 5/6/2009 by Phage]

My view on Sitchin is that he raises a lot of good questions that need a lot more attention, and not swept under the rug by most "experts". However...

Sitchin, in his defense, can't possibly get the history of the world right based on the paltry collection of Sumerian cuneiform tiles that survived from antiquity, most of which were written not by the Sumerians themselves but later civilizations that inherited their culture, customs, and language. Most of these tablets came from Assyria or Babylon. So if you attempt to treat these tablets as an actual record of history then how can you not make mistakes? Sitchin followers and Sitchin debunkers should realize it has to be an ongoing project, there will be plenty of mistaken interpretations and assertions, but to disregard a theory outright because a mistake was made (or several) early on would be a gross injustice. It's a process.

Ancient languages were highly contextual. Without an alphabet they only had so many symbols with which to represent a vast array of ideas or meanings. Even modern Japanese is still a highly contextual language. Kanji symbols can take on so many meanings all based on the sentence or context they were used in. Ancient cuneiform is the same. Does the symbol for house mean "house", or "shelter", perhaps it meant "safety" or "protection". Linguists have to rely on a lot of reference material and even then they sometimes have to guess based on the context such a symbol was used in.

That said, Sitchin makes a gross number of mistakes in interpretation. As far as his Sumerian interpretation goes that can only be asserted by true scholars, as I'm pretty sure no one here is a Sumerian cuneiform scholar. However Sitchin seems to have his own interpretation of Hebrew texts as well, especially the Pentateuch. Bible scholars go into apoplexy at the mention of Sitchin. Ancient Sumerian cuneiform may be debatable over its interpretation but not ancient Hebrew.

Sitchin used his interpretation of cuneiform and Sumerian cylinder seals to theorize the origin of planet earth. This raises one of the most difficult issues I had with his theory - How could the earth, formed 4.5 billions years ago by supposedly being torn from an ancient world "Tiamat" by one of the moons of a wayward planet "Nibiru" have spawned lifeforms (including ancient man) that would be so genetically matched to these off-worlders that we could even breed with them? In fact, where were the "Annunaki" during that 4.5 billion gestation period? In fact how could a world whose orbit takes it vastly beyond Pluto support any sort of life at all? The sun would be nothing more than a nearby star at its aphelion, hardly brighter than any other star in the sky. Not exactly a recipe for life.


Sitchiswrong.com asks several questions often raised often by the "Ancient Astronaut" denouncers, which I'd like to address, not in defense of Sitchin but only as a debate that ancient astronauts need not be so technically advanced as we often fantasize.

Michael S. Heiser calls these "logical problems" with Sitchin's theories, but perhaps they are not as problematic as he asserts;

1. How is it that the same gods who conquered deep space travel took several tries to genetically create humans?

We reached the moon and sent robotic probes to the far reaches of our solar system, yet we can't genetically create a new race of humans. Space travel is mechanics, and perhaps not nearly as difficult as genetic engineering. Plus, can we say what any "gods" may or may not have been focused on achieving? Creating a worker race may not have been on their agenda until such a need arose.

2. How is it that these gods, with their fantastic space travel technology, gods who gave mankind the technology to build the pyramids and other fantastic structures, didn't have a better mechanism than MANUAL LABOR for mining the earth's gold?

"Fantastic" space travel technology? The depictions Sitchin based his theories on show rather crude rocket travel, and not particularly safe travel at that. Space travel is all about weight and the thrust to get off the planet. Thrust requires fuel, and lots of it. Can we say just how the "gods" got here? Did they have fuel to spare or were they just barely making it here? Did they have the capacity to haul massive machinery to another world? We got to the moon with little more than a glorified golf cart. Our Mars explorer's can only make scratch marks in the surface. What would it take for us to undertake a major mining operation on another world? It would probably be a bunch of space-suited idiots sweating in hand-dug pits.

3. How is it that the deep space travel capability of the Annunaki CONSISTED OF COMBUSTION ENGINES (the "fiery rockets")?

Why shouldn't it? Why do we suppose that an alien civilization (which is, according to Sitchin, in our own solar system) needs to possess anti-gravity, hyper-dimensional, or any other science fiction style of technology to arrive here? They would have evolved in technology just as we do - from crude rockets, to more advanced rockets, to...? If we ever go to Mars, it will be by rocket.

It may be that these Annunaki we're not at all as advanced as we would suppose when they arrived here. They may have even been desperate in their attempt, and willing to take great risks on the chance of discovery.

4. How is it that these gods who had mastered the forces of physics and biology could not make a synthetic equivalent to gold?

Gold is an element (Au). It can't be created, short of nuclear fusion (AFAIK). Did they posses such a technology? Is such a technology even feasible? We may live for another million years and never discover how to create gold from other elements.


Another question I've seen raised by Ancient Astronaut denouncers is why such beings, with their technology, would need or want to create a race of primitive human workers. Why not robots? Why not anti-gravity? Quite frankly, a biological solution is the most elegant solution. Think about it - say we wanted to "terra-form" another world, change it's atmosphere into something we can breathe. We could, I suppose use vast machines pumping chemicals into the air until we achieve the change we wanted, OR we could create an engineered microbe to do the task. Which is cheaper? Which requires fewer resources, which may be scarce (after all we're on an alien world)? The biological solution is the easier.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


"That said, Sitchin makes a gross number of mistakes in interpretation. As far as his Sumerian interpretation goes that can only be asserted by true scholars, as I'm pretty sure no one here is a Sumerian cuneiform scholar."

Ok wait... if you read all i have written about sumerian linguistic and the terms that sitchin uses and translates you see that there is little controversy...
all the main oppositions in matter of translation are made because the scholars or anti-sitchin only use ONE meaning of those terms...
i.e. for SHUMU or MU they use NAME. But i have shown how SHUMU and MU can mean 'something that provide travel' and 'something that ignites and raises'.

I have grade 2of5 in sumerian language (not cuneiform though), and believe me, it is enough to debunk most anti-sitchin literature... grade 2of5 (when you have a teacher such as Pettinato) gives you enough to be able to look for ALL meanings of the terms...

reply to post by ningishzidda74
I can understand why people favour Sitchin's interpretation of the 'Berlin Seal', the idea of 'alien intervention' is very popular in some quarters. From time to time I enjoy a good sci-fi book. Iain M Banks in particular. Somehow translating the ideas of fiction into reality is even more popular around ATS. No harm really. I'm not interested in 'disproving' Sitchin, his ideas simply don't reflect my perspective.

Disregarding the questions about whether the 'sun' is indeed our Sun, the representation of the 'planets' doesn't conform to my understanding. Pluto is problematic. De Grasse presided over it's demotion from planet status due to it's small size. The Sumerian creator of this Seal includes it. Seven other moons are larger than Pluto and the rings of Saturn are absent. I can't accept that it's a real portrayal of our Solar System that adds a 'planet', includes Pluto and neglects larger bodies.

I'm sure that others can somehow make sense in their own minds and use the Seal to discredit accepted models of history and our Solar System. It's what ATS is here for (although it's taken a while for me to realise it ). Lord knows that scientists are making a lot of it up as they go along. Who's to say that giant aliens couldn't have created us, ruled us, fought wars and left. Naturally they would cover up as many traces as possible. Scientists will be laughing on the other side of their faces in the next couple of years when the first images appear on ATS of the 10th planet.

With destroyed spaceports, radioactive war legacies and the appearance some (possibly) 3600ya of a wandering planet in the sky, where are the representations? It seems somehow neglectful of the Sumerians and their contemporary neighbors and trading partners to fail to record such unusual events. Sure, the 10th planet comes around every 3600 years or so, but that's long enough to be unusual to the generation that sees it. Some people interpret some hazy evidence by choosing the translation of certain words and knitting them into a patchwork quilt. Why not? It's a pastime! Some still ask...where is the hard evidence of several thousand years of mining, spaceports and industry?

Originally posted by ningishzidda74
1) anyone know where these might be located or a site that has info on them?

answer: IN the Abzu, the geographical Tanzania, Swatziland and Zimbabwe. Sitchin says that this is the territory where the anunnaki took Gold, lapislazuli, and the stones that shine. Surprisingly geology proves that Tanzania has alot of Gold underneath, and Swatziland is one of the zones where we can find the most pure diamonds (anyone heard the name DeBeers?)

Just want to point out here that the geography and facts here are totally wrong...

Tanzania is in central africa. Swaziland is landlocked by South Africa, 3000 km away.

Swaziland does not have many diamonds at all. The most pure diamonds are found in the Cullinan region of South Africa.