Various considerations about Sitchin and your threads, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 13 times


reply posted on 13-5-2009 @ 06:45 AM by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
Originally posted by Phage
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]


I may be reading this wrong phage, but you have essentially just agreed that they did genetically manipulate (or create) 'humans' they just weren't very good at it?

Personally, with Sitchin I think its his interpretations which are flawed, not his translation, the best example I could come up with is SHEM. Sitchin translated it as a 'Fiery rocket ship' because, at the time, the space race was just beginning and Sitchin couldn't concieve anything else that could travel in space. Then again, this could be argued that the form of propulsion was different, but its function was just the same.

I think his 'BEN BEN' was a more accurate 'alien' ship than his SHEM.

This being said, I like Sitchin, something about his ideas just seem to ask the right questions and explain some of the ancient 'mythology'. It is always assumed that the 'Gods' they refer to are their imagination running wild, yet they interact with them on such a human level, describe them even fornicate with them and have family.

This could be so that they could handle the idea of 'Gods', it was the only way they could envision them, as being human and like them. I just think that conventional theory is just as shaky as Sitchin's ideas and others like him, only that they are not as hard to believe, they are more grounded in our perception of reality, therefore they must be the right.

EMM

Good thread, your shining a light on all the good information of Sitchin (IMO). What are your personal beliefs about him, do you think he is completely right (or almost), or that he has made some flaws, but he is 'closer' than to our original history.

edit to add:

reply to Kandinsky

De Grasse presided over it's demotion from planet status due to it's small size.


The reason Pluto was demoted, was becaue they found other planetoids within our Kuipiter belt (3 I think?) one of them being bigger than Pluto, they either had to add at least one other planet to our solar system, or demote one.

IMO, if they added one, it would imply that science doesn't have all the answers, if they demote one, it would imply that they know more.

This raises more problems with the thery of course, why didn't the Annunaki include these outer planetoids? Did they not know about them? Did they not class them as a part of our solar system?

[edit on 13-5-2009 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]


reply posted on 13-5-2009 @ 11:14 AM by Byrd
Originally posted by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
I may be reading this wrong phage, but you have essentially just agreed that they did genetically manipulate (or create) 'humans' they just weren't very good at it?


No, he didn't agree with that. He was pointing out that the original text says nothing about genetic manipulation and very specifically says "clay" and not "flesh." If they were doing genetic manipulation, the legend would have mentioned flesh.

It is always assumed that the 'Gods' they refer to are their imagination running wild...

(sigh) No matter how hard historians and scholars try to convince the general public that the ancients saw their gods in very real and very complex ways, that attitude prevails in the public mind.

There are very interesting and very complex gods, and the evidence from literate civilizations (Hindu, Chinese, Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Mayan, Babylonian, Sumerian, etc, etc) shows a fascinating picture of how they related to their deities and how deities could be both concept and actual divine being as well as morality example (Coyote.)


This could be so that they could handle the idea of 'Gods', it was the only way they could envision them, as being human and like them.


That may be what Sitchin states, but that just points out how little he knows of the subject. The older Egyptian deities have animal forms, including Ra (the head god) who is known as "The Great Tomcat." Many other examples occur. There are also deities-who-are-objects -- one example is the Egyptian god, "Shai" (you can interpret him as "Kismet/Fate). He appears as a birthing brick with a human head... and so does his wife.

What are your personal beliefs about him, do you think he is completely right (or almost), or that he has made some flaws, but he is 'closer' than to our original history.


I think he's an appalling, self-serving writer who creates more elaborate fictions as time goes on in order to keep selling his books. I think he would be more honest if he labeled them fiction.

The reason Pluto was demoted, was becaue they found other planetoids within our Kuipiter belt (3 I think?) one of them being bigger than Pluto, they either had to add at least one other planet to our solar system, or demote one.

Three... as well as one of the asteroids (Ceres) in our asteroid belt. Pluto is several times smaller than our moon. And no, we actually don't know how many objects that are round and planet like (small or large) in the outer edges of our solar system.

This raises more problems with the thery of course, why didn't the Annunaki include these outer planetoids? Did they not know about them? Did they not class them as a part of our solar system?


The gods of the people know only as much as the people of that time know. The Annunaki (a subset of the Sumerian gods) were the deities of a people who knew about the visible planets but had no idea that other points of light in the skies were galaxies and clusters and had no way of seeing the outer planets.

They weren't aware of the moons around the solar system planets (other than Earth's moons), and they didn't note asteroids with Near Earth Orbits. Or Haley's comet.

(edit...spelling. ARRGH!)

[edit on 13-5-2009 by Byrd]


reply posted on 13-5-2009 @ 08:53 PM by Hanslune
Howdy Daz



yet another expert on the celestial mechanics of our solar system over the last few thousand years..


Hans: The orbital mechanics of the inner planets are well known. You might want to look at the threads or ask questions to the people at Bad Astronomy they can give you maddeningly indepth information on this. A rogue planet of the type Sitchin made up would be easily detectable due to its influence on the existing orbits (consider our moon for one thing)



I just want to point out that a lot of modern researchers believe the planet venus was once a screaming mad comet raveging the solar system approx 4000 years ago.. the myan culture kept a close eye on venus and said when it first appeared in the sky it came out of jupiter but more likely it was captured by jupiter..


Hans: Ah no, you are talking about Velikovskies ideas which were disproved many decades ago. The Mayan said no such thing. You might want to look at/up the Dresden Codex for a sample of what the Maya knew about Venus. Few to none "modern researchers" consider V to be valid.



sorry to be harping on at you but please remember that when you cant shovel crap these days without a diploma so where is yours..


Hans: An appeal to authority? How odd as 'authority' fully rejects both Sitchin's made up stuff and the ideas of Velikovsky. You want Ph.d in astronomy to tell you that? Okay go to Bad Astronomy, they have a few of those floating around.

Or you can read the same information yourself on the non-fringe site or book of your choice.


reply posted on 14-5-2009 @ 06:12 AM by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
Originally posted by Byrd

No, he didn't agree with that. He was pointing out that the original text says nothing about genetic manipulation and very specifically says "clay" and not "flesh." If they were doing genetic manipulation, the legend would have mentioned flesh.


This has been discussed on the thread, from Phage's wording, it sounds like he agreed with the concept or idea, but fair enough if he didn't, just thought it was odd.

IMO, anything could've happened thousands of years ago that we wouldn't know about it, just because it sounds far fetched doesn't mean it is. As for 'proof' and 'facts' they are very subjective, IMO.


(sigh) No matter how hard historians and scholars try to convince the general public that the ancients saw their gods in very real and very complex ways, that attitude prevails in the public mind.

There are very interesting and very complex gods, and the evidence from literate civilizations (Hindu, Chinese, Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Mayan, Babylonian, Sumerian, etc, etc) shows a fascinating picture of how they related to their deities and how deities could be both concept and actual divine being as well as morality example (Coyote.)


This is not proven, it is just a popular idea, please understand this. I accept you believe this idea but please accept that it is not 'Truth' it is only a popular interpretaion of our ancient history. I understand the very real possibility that it was all imagination, but I also accept the very real possibility that they conveyed there Gods as 'Humanesque' because they were, they portrayed them as a physical part of their life, because they were, it is always a possibility, even if you don't think it is a probability.




Three... as well as one of the asteroids (Ceres) in our asteroid belt. Pluto is several times smaller than our moon. And no, we actually don't know how many objects that are round and planet like (small or large) in the outer edges of our solar system.


I thought it was three and I agree, we have no idea what is beyond our Kuipiter belt, I myself don't agree with Nibiru being a 'Red Dwarf', I think if it is beyond our Kuipiter belt, it wouldn't be much bigger than Earth and would be a normal planet. Plus there are still unknown pertrubations in the orbits and wobble of our Planets in our solar system that are still unnaccounted for, which is the reason the Kuipiter belt was being searched in the first place.


The gods of the people know only as much as the people of that time know. The Annunaki (a subset of the Sumerian gods) were the deities of a people who knew about the visible planets but had no idea that other points of light in the skies were galaxies and clusters and had no way of seeing the outer planets.

They weren't aware of the moons around the solar system planets (other than Earth's moons), and they didn't note asteroids with Near Earth Orbits. Or Haley's comet.


I can accept that as a possibility, but it still leaves many quesions unanswered for me, at least.


[edit on 13-5-2009 by Byrd]


reply posted on 14-5-2009 @ 07:28 AM by ningishzidda74
reply to post by Byrd


"No, he didn't agree with that. He was pointing out that the original text says nothing about genetic manipulation and very specifically says "clay" and not "flesh." If they were doing genetic manipulation, the legend would have mentioned flesh."

That ins ONE of the texts, no one can do a reasoning only about one text... the creation of man is narrated in 3 or 4 different myths, and we have different versions of each one of those myths...

take the Atra Hasis:


The gods agreed and asked Mami to produce such creatures. But the Goddess of Midwifery demurred. “It is not prudent for me to attempt all this. Choose Enki instead, because he is wise and makes things right. If he will prepare clay suitable to the task, I will birth it.”

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.


Here we have the use of blood and flash, the declaration that the newborn is part god and part man, the use of clay to clone the product, and gender differentiation.



reply posted on 14-5-2009 @ 07:43 AM by Phage
reply to post by ningishzidda74



as a matter of factm, instead, the KAKKAB.KAKKABU, the solar system, is described as made up of 12 elements including the moon and sun.

You have very old cognitions of sumerology, dated to about 50 years ago...



And you have even older "cognitions". You complain about using old translations yet you (and Sitchin) use Virolleaud's translation from 100 years ago in your attempts to show that the Sumerians knew 10 planets.


[edit on 5/14/2009 by Phage]


reply posted on 14-5-2009 @ 07:49 AM by Harte
Originally posted by daz__
Originally posted by Harte
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.


yet another expert on the celestial mechanics of our solar system over the last few thousand years..

Yep. You nailed me.

I know enough about orbital mechanics to recognize crap when I read it.

Hope you remember to flush.

Originally posted by daz__I just want to point out that a lot of modern researchers believe the planet venus was once a screaming mad comet raveging the solar system approx 4000 years ago..

I have no doubt you "want to point this out."

However, your "wants" in no way validate that which you "want to point out."
What you are saying is ridiculously ignorant in a day and age when actual information is available and at your fingertips.

No "modern researchers" that know anything at all about the subject believe what you say above.

Originally posted by daz__the myan culture kept a close eye on venus and said when it first appeared in the sky it came out of jupiter but more likely it was captured by jupiter..


The Maya thing, as Hans pointed out, is simply a falsehood. Try the truth. It will set you free, I hear.

Originally posted by daz__sorry to be harping on at you but please remember that when you cant shovel crap these days without a diploma so where is yours..

Another expert on shoveling crap. Of course, I already noticed your expertise in this area.

My diploma is in my top drawer in my bedroom. BS Mechanical Engineering, Minor in Mathematics. Graduated Magna Cum Laude.

You want to know about celestial mechanics, ask some questions, I'll help you out.

Same with quantum physics and archaeology. Oh, and mathematics.

Harte



[edit on 13/5/2009 by daz__]

[edit on 13/5/2009 by daz__]


reply posted on 14-5-2009 @ 07:54 AM by Phage
reply to post by ningishzidda74


There is no need to quote the Atra Hasis again. We saw it the first time.

We know you prefer the Akkadian myth which is at least 1,000 years more recent than the Sumerian myth only because it "fits" Sitchin's theory better. We know you reject the Sumerian myth only because it does not "fit". That is not science. That is not scholarship.

These are myths. Created by ancient people to explain things they did not understand. They do not represent reality.

[edit on 5/14/2009 by Phage]


reply posted on 14-5-2009 @ 08:12 AM by ningishzidda74
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ningishzidda74



as a matter of factm, instead, the KAKKAB.KAKKABU, the solar system, is described as made up of 12 elements including the moon and sun.


You complain about using old translations yet you (and Sitchin) use Virolleaud's translation from 100 years ago in your attempts to show that the Sumerians knew 12 planets.


[edit on 5/14/2009 by Phage]


That's because no one so far has invalidated that...


reply posted on 14-5-2009 @ 08:17 AM by ningishzidda74
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ningishzidda74


There is no need to quote the Atra Hasis again. We saw it the first time.

We know you prefer the Akkadian myth which is at least 1,000 years more recent than the Sumerian myth only because it "fits" Sitchin's theory better. We know you reject the Sumerian myth only because it does not "fit". That is not science. That is not scholarship.

These are myths. Created by ancient people to explain things they did not understand. They do not represent reality.

[edit on 5/14/2009 by Phage]


I don't reject sumerian myths, i read and evaluate all of them..
seen how you think about myth i don't undesrtand why you lose your time in this thread...
you have already decided that myth cannot be reality... whatever evidence or indications won't change your mind...

Strange how their try "to explain things they didn't undesrtand" describe cloning, use of blood and flesh, and such.. very strange..


reply posted on 14-5-2009 @ 09:10 AM by daz__
reply to post by Hanslune


hello hans,

I wasn't talking about Velikovsky in paticular but now you mention it I do remember his name coming up a few time in relation to the subject of Venus.. He was of coarse an expert in calendars and during the course of his studies of the histories of several aincient cultures led him to this knowledge of Venus so they are not exactly his theories. It was information which was left to mankind in the form of writings and the like which he translated..

I don't want to get into this Venus thing in a big was as it is way off topic I was mearly pointing out to a previous poster that we know very little about our real history and we should be careful saying things never happend when in fact we do not know for sure as there are very few records..

I am surprised you cited the Dresden Codex as a source since it is incomplete.. Most of it has been destroyed in the fire bomings of world war 2 and the Spanish also played a part in destroying even more of it while they were on tour in south america.. As for Bad Astronamy well I'll say no more..

none the less thanks for your input.. It made me re-access some of what I said..

peace

daz


reply posted on 14-5-2009 @ 06:07 PM by Hanslune
reply to post by ningishzidda74


Why did these high tech 'naki's need to KILL one of their own to do some genetic engineering?

Please explain?

Here is a mind experiment for you. Consider that you are person who lived in past and knows nothing of science. Come up with an explanation of where people came within the confines of that persons knowledge that CANNOT be later interpreted as being done by aliens.

Good luck



That's because no one so far has invalidated that...


Well and under what criteria would you ACCEPT an invalidation? I would suspect none. The fact that you personally like something doesn't mean its valid.

You seem to by under the odd impression that your personal opinion on things makes them real. If you say that the Italian Folgore Division captured Malta in WWII - does that make it true?

So you are stating that in over 100 years there has been zero improvement in understanding of this language? Really? You do realize that more parts of the tablet have been found sent then, what about that - do you just dismiss them?? LOL

Perhaps you'd like to list those scholars who think it is still valid?


Howdy again Daz



I am surprised you cited the Dresden Codex as a source since it is incomplete.. Most of it has been destroyed in the fire bomings of world war 2 and the Spanish also played a part in destroying even more of it while they were on tour in south america


Hans: If you want to talk Mayan astronomy you refer to the Dresden codex as it is representive of their knowledge. I'm unsure why you think damage to it is important. It was restored and wonders of wonders copies exist too.

You might want to take a look at: A Commentary on the Dresden Codex: A Maya Hieroglyphic Book, Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1972 by Thompson. It'll be in most University libraries.





[edit on 14/5/09 by Hanslune]



reply posted on 15-5-2009 @ 11:17 AM by ningishzidda74
Originally posted by Hanslune

Well and under what criteria would you ACCEPT an invalidation? I would suspect none. The fact that you personally like something doesn't mean its valid.

You seem to by under the odd impression that your personal opinion on things makes them real. If you say that the Italian Folgore Division captured Malta in WWII - does that make it true?

So you are stating that in over 100 years there has been zero improvement in understanding of this language? Really? You do realize that more parts of the tablet have been found sent then, what about that - do you just dismiss them?? LOL

Perhaps you'd like to list those scholars who think it is still valid?



Under what criteria?
For example someone who demonstrates without any doubts that the mul.mul is pleyades...
they are conected to Taurus... ok if you find some writings or seal that link those 2 objects in a unique way, i may accept it...

Look... you did the wrong pick saying that i repute things true because i like them LOL... because that's exactly what i fight against...
We have perfect examples of people reasoning that way here.. but on the other side...
take Harte for example... he doesn't like the things sitchin says about sumerian, and he states that all those writings are simply 'myths'.
He doesnt' like that sumerians talk about clay used with flesh and blood to create man, and he stays there playing with word... until he doesn't read the words 'recombinant DNA' he is not convincted... but the evidence is there in the sumerian tablets... gods that use clay and human cells to produce a man.. and an article saying that clay has a part in genetic processes...

And where did you readme saying that in 100 years of study there has been no further knowledge of sumerian?
I wrote 3 times that i use the latest material for my studies... along with Pettinatos' books, i use a Lexicon and a catalogue made from year 2000 on...

What i said is that NO ONE (if you don't agree, give me names please) on the new studies ever invalidated the translation of the mul.mul / kakkab.kakkabu made some 100 years ago...

I myself have written here the 'new' (meaning 'not classical') translations of words like MU and SHUMU...


reply posted on 15-5-2009 @ 03:06 PM by Kandinsky
reply to post by ningishzidda74
You're comfortable focusing on interpretations of Sumerian myths. You refer to your education to validate your interpretations.

Let's imagine that you and Sitchin have the correct translations. Can you support them with plausible evidence that the Annunaki landed on Earth, dominated and set up gold mines and space ports? Can you succeed where Sitchin failed and offer convincing evidence that the events described in the Earth Chronicles happened? The 3600 year elliptical orbit of Planet X isn't recognized by any other source than Sitchin and people that agree with his ideas. Can you offer an explanation?

If you can do that, this thread will be concluded and you will win the debate. If you can't, perhaps the translations simply reflect early human attempts to make sense of the world they lived in


reply posted on 15-5-2009 @ 05:03 PM by Hanslune
reply to post by ningishzidda74


Howdy N

You left out your explanation of why the 'naki needed to kill someone to do genetic engineering - did you forget? Please explain?

Oh and you forgot to do the following experiment - however 'myth twisters' usually won't try and answer it, its far, far to hard. The follow on questions get harder too.

>>Here is a mind experiment for you. Consider that you are person who lived in past and knows nothing of science. Come up with an explanation of where people came within the confines of that persons knowledge that CANNOT be later interpreted as being done by aliens.<<



For example someone who demonstrates without any doubts that the mul.mul is pleyades...
they are conected to Taurus... ok if you find some writings or seal that link those 2 objects in a unique way, i may accept it...


Doubts, so your interpretation is known without any doubts? I have doubts so that sends that idea down in flames. You don't actually know how science works do you?

"I may accept it", I don't think so you have shown a very non-scholarly ability. Example you stated that Sitchin was the first to state that Neptune would be blue, I corrected you. Now a scholar would have have acknowledged that or shown why I was wrong, a crackpot would have just ignored it......

Ora, le cattive notizie

Please explain the following puzzling happenstance

Egypt, ten thousand sites and ten millions of artifacts

Sumer, a thousand sites and millions of artifacts

Hans, a thousand sits and millions of artifacts

Harrapa, hundreds of sites and hundreds of thousands of artifacts

Neanderthals, 400 skeletons found, nearly a hundred sites thousands of artifacts

Norse in North America, one site hundreds of artifacts

Columbus in the Americas, first trip, one site hundreds of artifacts.


now alleged 'naki for 450,000 years and ZERO sites and ZERO artifacts

Please explain in detail





[edit on 15/5/09 by Hanslune]
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^



Origin of Ancient Jade Tool Baffles Scientists
  Posted 7 days ago with 96 member flags
12,000 Years Old Unexplained Structure
  Posted 4 days ago with 81 member flags
The Uluburun shipwreck sunk 3,400 years ago
  Posted 15 days ago with 70 member flags
Sigiriya : The 8th Wonder of the World
  Posted 4 days ago with 45 member flags
Tomb of Queen Heterpheres
  Posted 16 days ago with 29 member flags
R.O.V. Photos of Sunken Megaliths off Western Cuba
  Posted 11 days ago with 21 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Anonymous show your face!
  Rant, Posted 15 hours ago, 68 replies