Zecharia Sitchin was the only one who got it right and so called scholars are so jealous ...

Originally posted by Pimander
You even saved me the trouble of finding them myself and post the quotes you have misrepresented.

He was not misrepresented in the least nor did I make a baseless accusation. You are playing semantic games.

Whatever semantic arguments you wish to make, the effect was the same. He is not defending Sitchin based on evidence or facts but turned to accusing, regardless if it is one or all, academics of being corrupt. Unable to foster a cogent defense, he had to rely on red-herring special pleading arguments.

Then when he was called on it, because his accusations of corruption were without merit, he (and you) had to then resort to semantic arguments. You could not defend your claims so instead again tried to distract with semantic arguments.

Distraction has been the chief tactic of Sitchin supporters in this thread. They demand that "facts and evidence" be debated, though they have done anything but. Whenever their claims are challenged, they shift to a red-herring argument after red-herring argument, then accuse those of challenging them of "derailing the thread".

Funny, I've never thought of myself as a "Sitchen supporter", as if he was were some sort of political activist or politician. I just took the clues he all gave us and looked into myself, just like millions of people have I hope. Remember, he's not the only one who can decipher the Sumerian texts, he was just the first to take them at face value, and to ask the question "if the Sumerian texts tell a story of mythology, that so many "intelligent" people assume, then where did the first civilization get their myths"... and "why would their only historical record (set in stone) be of mythology and not factual history"?

It doesnt take much of a leap to conclude that maybe these texts, that so many people take for granted, are in fact recorded history.

Originally posted by Sectumsempra
reply to post by Skywatcher2011

 

What do you think of this website? Does it change your opinion on his works?
Sitchin is wrong!

Just wondering because I've not read Sitchin : if you go to this page and watch the video at the bottom where he's talking about how Sitchin translated Annunaki, is he wrong, or does he have a point? And if so, how?

www.sitchiniswrong.com...

Just wondering if there's people who've checked his work and really found flaws, or if they're not translating the right stuff and just trying to discredit him.

Originally posted by WingedBull
He was not misrepresented in the least nor did I make a baseless accusation. You are playing semantic games.

See above if you give any credence to that bs. I would respect you more if you held up your hands and admitted it

Originally posted by WingedBull
Distraction has been the chief tactic of Sitchin supporters in this thread.

I am not a "Sitchin supporter." Please could you kindly refrain from making baseless accusations.

Originally posted by Pimander
There may be mileage in the idea that some of the ancient civilisations had contact with otherworldly beings giving rise to many myths. However, Sitchin overstretched himself and strayed into topics he hadn't a clue about.

Another mistake Sitchin clearly made is trying to present the idea that he had pieced together the whole human story from the Sumerian 'myths'. He may possibly have been on to something with the idea of taking the ancient writers literal word for it. But not every religious myth should be taken this way. Not every ancient structure was a launch pad for space ships or built by aliens.

I have learned a lot from some of Sitchins books. But please, don't go down the dead end of seeing him as some infallible guide to ancient history and mythology. He is far from it...

As any fair minded, unbiased person can see, I am critical of a lot of Sitchin's claims. I would have been happy to elaborate or debate but somebody seemed intent on derailing the thread

i love his work too, but i havent seen nibiru yet. so til then im dissappointed at the theory.. the story is great, but whatever. maybe an alien race visited when there was a comet or super nova in the sky. i'm just tired of reading the same old "new" threads on the subject.

Proper debate is not accusing everyone (in this case, mainstream Assyriology, historians and archaeologists)...

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment Just as we see with political whoring, academic allegiance can be bought and sold - with cash, securities, power and influence available as bartering chips. Not all academics need be bought off; a critical mass, correctly positioned, will engender a 'sheep response'.

Scientists can be bought and sold. Not all of them,

Clearly in the yellow sections emphasised by me you attack FlyInTheOintment for "accusing everyone ." Pardon me

You even saved me the trouble of finding them myself and post the quotes you have misrepresented. Fly clearly posted "Not all academics need be bought off" and then "Not all of them,".

So FlyInTheOintment DID NOT "accuse everyone" at all.

Like Winged Bull said, this is a semantics argument.

You demanded from me evidence that Sitchin couldn't translate ancient languages after I made a single comment to that effect. Why didn't you demand FlyintheOintment supply evidence that scientist (even if not every single scientist) can be bought and sold" or that there is a "sheep response" as he claimed?

Semantics pure and simple. Winged Bull was doing to Fly exactly what you asked of me.

Harte

Originally posted by Hitoshura

Originally posted by Sectumsempra
reply to post by Skywatcher2011

 

What do you think of this website? Does it change your opinion on his works?
Sitchin is wrong!

Just wondering because I've not read Sitchin : if you go to this page and watch the video at the bottom where he's talking about how Sitchin translated Annunaki, is he wrong, or does he have a point? And if so, how?

www.sitchiniswrong.com...

Just wondering if there's people who've checked his work and really found flaws, or if they're not translating the right stuff and just trying to discredit him.

Translated versions of every text sitcin used are available free at Sacred-Texts.com.

Check them yourself.

You won't find "anunnaki" in any Sumerian text.

Harte

Originally posted by Harte
Like Winged Bull said, this is a semantics argument.

No it isn't just semantics. WingedBull said FlyInTheOintment "accused everyone". As I have shown he DID NOT ACCUSE EVERYONE.

He did it again here in this post:-

Originally posted by WingedBull
It sounds like you are trying to weasel out of your claims that every scholar and researcher, aside from Sitchin (using the terms loosely in his case) are corrupt and engaged in a cover-up.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Absolutely nowhere does Fly' accuse every scholar of being corrupt. That is a lie.

Originally posted by Harte
(snip)
You demanded from me evidence that Sitchin couldn't translate ancient languages after I made a single comment to that effect. Why didn't you demand FlyintheOintment supply evidence that scientist (even if not every single scientist) can be bought and sold" or that there is a "sheep response" as he claimed?

Semantics pure and simple. Winged Bull was doing to Fly exactly what you asked of me.

Harte

I think you are a little bit confused. I didn't demand any evidence from you. I could say you are making another baseless accusation but perhaps you were dreaming?

Have you and WingedBull considered founding 'Fantasists Anonymous'?

As for what goes on in academia, I would not ask for proof as I happen to know.

If you can present me with proof that FlyInTheOintment really did do what WingedBull said or that I asked you for proof then go ahead. Make my day. Otherwise shut up and avoid being humiliated further!

Originally posted by Pimander

Originally posted by Harte
Like Winged Bull said, this is a semantics argument.

No it isn't just semantics. WingedBull said FlyInTheOintment "accused everyone". As I have shown he DID NOT ACCUSE EVERYONE.

He did it again here in this post:-

Originally posted by WingedBull
It sounds like you are trying to weasel out of your claims that every scholar and researcher, aside from Sitchin (using the terms loosely in his case) are corrupt and engaged in a cover-up.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Absolutely nowhere does Fly' accuse every scholar of being corrupt. That is a lie.

Again, semantics.

Clearly, Flyintheointment accuses a large portion of scientists of such corruption. Wingedbull merely exaggerates, and only a little.

Originally posted by Pimander

Originally posted by Harte
(snip)
You demanded from me evidence that Sitchin couldn't translate ancient languages after I made a single comment to that effect. Why didn't you demand FlyintheOintment supply evidence that scientist (even if not every single scientist) can be bought and sold" or that there is a "sheep response" as he claimed?

Semantics pure and simple. Winged Bull was doing to Fly exactly what you asked of me.

Harte

I think you are a little bit confused. I didn't demand any evidence from you. I could say you are making another baseless accusation but perhaps you were dreaming?

I use the term "demand" loosely here.

Is English your first language? If so, why are you nitpicking with the language and not addressing the subject?

Harte

reply to post by Harte

Ah, so now you admit that WingedBull misrepresents FlyInTheOintment by exaggerating. That is what I accused him of doing in the first place.

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by Pimander
I think you are a little bit confused. I didn't demand any evidence from you. I could say you are making another baseless accusation but perhaps you were dreaming?

I use the term "demand" loosely here.

I am not claiming that I didn't demand evidence from you. I didn't ask you for evidence at all. In fact I didn't query anything you said. So did you dream it?

Originally posted by Harte
Is English your first language? If so, why are you nitpicking with the language and not addressing the subject?

I am not nitpicking. You insisted on arguing with me before admitting I was actually right in the first place. I have addressed the subject earlier in the thread. I then accused WingedBull of misrepresenting Fly. It appears that you decided you would rather lose an argument with me than debate the topic so I obliged.

reply to post by VtaUFO


Sumer wasn't much of a civilization,really.They were constantly duking it outwith themselves and anyone around them, and until they had a writing system, they didn't have a way to keep track of their leaders for along time.

Much like the Egyptians, their foundations lie in pre-history, the Sumerians were preceded by another culture,which was itself preceded by another culture.
Their myths and legends came from the same places myths and legends come from in aboriginal tribes.
Sumer didn't appear suddenly fully formed, it developed over roughly 2000 years.

Sumer

Originally posted by Pimander
I am not claiming that I didn't demand evidence from you. I didn't ask you for evidence at all. In fact I didn't query anything you said. So did you dream it?

Sorry, it was Flyintheointment himself that "asked" for sources, not you.

So, let me rephrase what I said to you earlier:

Flyintheointment demanded from me evidence that Sitchin couldn't translate ancient languages after I made a single comment to that effect. What's wrong with WingedBull asking for evidence from Flyintheointment that scientists (even if not every single scientist) can be bought and sold" or that there is a "sheep response" as he claimed?

Semantics pure and simple. Winged Bull was asking of Fly exactly what Fly asked of me.

Good enough? Same argument, after all.

Originally posted by Pimander

Originally posted by Harte
Is English your first language? If so, why are you nitpicking with the language and not addressing the subject?

I am not nitpicking. You insisted on arguing with me before admitting I was actually right in the first place. I have addressed the subject earlier in the thread. I then accused WingedBull of misrepresenting Fly. It appears that you decided you would rather lose an argument with me than debate the topic so I obliged.

An argument? This?

The evidence is above for all to see. My claim that you misrepresented FlyInTheOintment is not baseless - it is the truth. Actually it is you who has misrepresented Fly. You have pretended claims were made that were not. In other words you have made a baseless accusation.

Semantics is not an argument.

You're so concerned with wingedbull's horrifyingly inexact "baseless accusations" regarding whether Flyintheointment said "all" or merely "much" of science is on the take that Flyintheointment's claim slandering hundreds of thousands of dedicated low paid individuals slides past you completely unscathed.

Talk about "wasting our time."

Harte

reply to post by Harte

I was dealing with facts not semantics. If you are unable to grasp that, I think it best this discussion ends here. Shall we get back to Sitchin or another thread?

Originally posted by Pimander
Ah, so now you admit that WingedBull misrepresents FlyInTheOintment by exaggerating.

I was not misrepresenting at all.

FlyIntheOintment accused academics of being corrupt; whether or not it is one or all of them is irrelevant. You are making a semantic argument so that neither you nor he have to back up this claim.

Do you deny that FlyIntheOintment accused academics of being corrupt?

If you do not deny this, then present evidence to support the claim that academia has been corrupted.

Originally posted by Pimander
I was dealing with facts not semantics. If you are unable to grasp that, I think it best this discussion ends here. Shall we get back to Sitchin or another thread?

Yes please, let us get back to Sitchin and claims made to support him.

What evidence do you have to support the claim that academia has been corrupted in order to discredit Sitchin?

Originally posted by WingedBull
Do you deny that FlyIntheOintment accused academics of being corrupt?

I don't deny that he said some academics were corrupt. You misrepresented him by pretending he claimed they all were. It's so simple and I have made myself absolutely clear

I was just telling it how I saw it. I apologise if I have offended you. I hope we can move on and put this behind us.

Originally posted by Pimander
There may be mileage in the idea that some of the ancient civilisations had contact with otherworldly beings giving rise to many myths. However, Sitchin overstretched himself and strayed into topics he hadn't a clue about.

Another mistake Sitchin clearly made is trying to present the idea that he had pieced together the whole human story from the Sumerian 'myths'. He may possibly have been on to something with the idea of taking the ancient writers literal word for it. But not every religious myth should be taken this way. Not every ancient structure was a launch pad for space ships or built by aliens.

I have learned a lot from some of Sitchins books. But please, don't go down the dead end of seeing him as some infallible guide to ancient history and mythology. He is far from it...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I will give you some idea of where I stand on academia, regardless of the fact that I do not need to do so to support my point of view (quoted above as a reminder) on Sitchin

I don't believe that academia has been corrupted specifically to discredit anybody. I do think that there is a self regulating mechanism, in that most academics interpret data in terms of the current paradigm. There are corrupt academics but no more than in any other profession. I know that from experience.

It has always been that way. Researchers who collect which protects the status quo may have the easier careers. That is true and contributes to stagnation in some fields. The ones who act like guardians of the paradigm, attacking radical ideas, often get opportunities to work in academia, because the people who dish out the jobs are the ones who created the paradigm - the older top academics.

The ones who make revolutionary breakthroughs are the ones who challenge this situation. But they also have a tough time climbing the ladder... They frequently seem out of touch with current thinking. Often they turn out to be wrong. But we need these seeming mavericks, as they bring fresh ideas and occasionally revolutionary discoveries. Without free thinkers we'd still be believing in a flat Earth.

Without free thinkers we'd still be believing in a flat Earth.

I wonder why you think this.

I mean, the western world was aware the Earth was spherical since the sixth century BC, and the circumference was first calculated around 240 BC.

This was almost 2,000 years before what we call "science" (the scientific method) was even invented.

The idea that "everybody" thought the Earth was flat comes from a book by Washington Irving, and not from any factual finding or historical context.

According to Russell,[99] the common misconception that people before the age of exploration believed that Earth was flat entered the popular imagination after Washington Irving's publication of A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus in 1828.[100] Although some of the arguments attributed by Irving to Columbus's opponents had been recorded not long after the latter's death,[101] there is no record of their having argued that the Earth was flat, and none before Irving is known to have accused them of doing so. Modern historians have dismissed the claim that they did so as a fabrication of Irving's.[102][103][104][105]

Source

Scientists who move beyond the current paradigm still operate under the scientific method. People like Sitchin do not.

Harte

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by Pimander
Without free thinkers we'd still be believing in a flat Earth.

I wonder why you think this.

Because I imagine that the person or people who discovered the Earth was spherical were free thinkers, of course. Do you think that they were not free thinkers?

Originally posted by Harte
The idea that "everybody" thought the Earth was flat comes from a book by Washington Irving, and not from any factual finding or historical context.

I think somewhere along the line a free thinker may have worked it out, whenever it happened. If you think that radical free thinking is bad for science then you are welcome to your opinion.

Freedom of thought (also called freedom of conscience) is the freedom of an individual to hold a viewpoint, or thought, regardless of anyone else's view.

Freedom of thought is very important for progress and is a basic human right.

Freedom of thought can also be stifled without institutional interference when the views of the majority become so widely accepted that other ways of thinking are repressed.

Is it even possible that this may be the case with the 'science' of archeology. Have the views of the majority become so widely accepted that other ways of thinking are repressed? On the evidence of this thread it is tempting to say yes!

Originally posted by Harte
Scientists who move beyond the current paradigm still operate under the scientific method. People like Sitchin do not.

While I think Sitchin was a free thinker who had some interesting ideas, I don't think he was a scientist. As you can see from my post above, I am quite obviously aware that he was wrong about many things.

To be honest, you seem to be attacking me for having a point of view I clearly don't have. Will you read what I actually posted about Sitchin before you try to present me as some kind of 'Sitchin supporter' again?

Originally posted by Pimander
It has always been that way. Researchers who collect which protects the status quo may have the easier careers. That is true and contributes to stagnation in some fields.

Such as?

Originally posted by Pimander
Without free thinkers we'd still be believing in a flat Earth.

Heresy does not equal truth. For every person vindicated by history, there are hundreds more proven wrong by history.

Originally posted by WingedBull

Originally posted by Pimander
It has always been that way. Researchers who collect which protects the status quo may have the easier careers. That is true and contributes to stagnation in some fields.

Such as?

Not sure we should be this off topic but I guess we have no readers by now? Egyptian archaeology is an obvious example of stagnation. Despite the sphinx being scientifically dated as much older than most of the Giza monuments, archaeologists just cannot accept the new dating.

In 1990 I first travelled to Egypt, with the sole purpose of examining the Great Sphinx from a geological perspective. I assumed that the Egyptologists were correct in their dating, but soon I discovered that the geological evidence was not compatible with what the Egyptologists were saying. On the body of the Sphinx, and on the walls of the Sphinx Enclosure (the pit or hollow remaining after the Sphinx’s body was carved from the bedrock), I found heavy erosional features (seen in the accompanying photographs) that I concluded could only have been caused by rainfall and water run off. The thing is, the Sphinx sits on the edge of the Sahara Desert and the region has been quite arid for the last 5000 years. Furthermore, various structures securely dated to the Old Kingdom show only erosion that was caused by wind and sand (very distinct from the water erosion). To make a long story short, I came to the conclusion that the oldest portions of the Great Sphinx, what I refer to as the core-body, must date back to an earlier period (at least 5000 B.C., and maybe as early as 7000 or 9000 B.C.), a time when the climate was very different and included more rain.
www.robertschoch.com...

I do not see a raft of new Egyptologists who are willing to look for evidence to back up this theory getting grants. Despite the fact that a scientist who understands Geology better than they do demonstrating that the core body of the Sphinx was carved more than 5000 years ago, there is an institutional reluctance to try to incorporate the new data.

In true science, theory always surrenders to the primacy of evidence. If observations are made that, after careful verification and theoretical analysis, are found to be inconsistent with a theory, than that theory has to go - no matter how aesthetically pleasing it is, how much mathematical elegance it contains, how prestigious its supporters are, or how many billions of dollars a certain industry has bet on it.
www.suppressedscience.net...

Scientists guard their patch jealously and regard any truly new idea as a threat to the established order. Discovery has given way to territoriality and there is little cross-fertilization between disciplines.
www.scienceheresy.com...

Originally posted by WingedBull
Heresy does not equal truth. For every person vindicated by history, there are hundreds more proven wrong by history.

Your very use of the term heresy is revealing. If there are no heretics, there is basically a suppression of new ideas. A new theory can only be scientifically dispensed with if it is given a fair hearing.

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. ~ Quoted in Arago, Eulogy of Galileo (1874)

I will give you some evidence.

An IPMS survey earlier this year found that a third of scientists working in government or in recently privatised laboratories had been asked to change their research findings. Some 17 per cent said that they had had to alter findings to suit the customer's preferred outcome, while 10 per cent said there was pressure on them to bend their results to help secure contracts.
www.timeshighereducation.co.uk...

Interested readers should consider taking a good luck the above/below websites for further information.

Finally an explanation for the behaviour of many ATS members.

In school, you are taught that "critical thinking" means to refute and ridicule anything that opposes the establishment or status quo, but never the status quo itself. A true skeptic can rise above that and apply skepticism and critical thought toward established orthodoxy, but a pseudo-skeptic cannot. Instead, the pseudo-skeptic follows the school system's form of "critical thinking", applying it only to those who oppose orthodoxy in defense of the status quo.
www.debunkingskeptics.com...