Ancient Aliens Debunked?

page: 12
132
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Also,

For the hardcore atheist and arrogant scientists who continually want to give ancient mankind all of this 'credit' where they created everything on their own.....

NO

We did not just sit and guess correctly

the stars
the solar system
pyramid building
advanced mathematics

so and so on

We just really did not.

This is where that arrogance comes in from the scientists and atheists..

They do not want to consider all of the BILLIONS of civilizations throughout the universe that have had thousands and MILLIONS of years of a head start on us.

We were advanced, especially because our very own DNA proves that we are not a species that developed on its own.




posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ButterCookie
 

Try this.
www.sitchiniswrong.com...


That doesn't prove anything other than some people would LOVE for Sitchin to be wrong.

I ask again, list me ONE thing that he has been proven to be wrong about?



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Gee how did I know someone would give us that Heiser's crap? The only one who has apparently debunked him is Heiser? And you take HIS word for it? You haven't done any real research, you went to a source with a CLEAR agenda.

You just take the story you like the best and believe it. You haven't studied ancient Sumer at all. You just don't like the idea Sitchin proposes so you take the biggest detractor. Sitchin is wrong dot com? As if that doesn't serve an agenda.

If I were a true scholar of Sumerian language and culture I would display it, not attack one individual.. Sitchin is wrong. I'm gonna make a site called Heiser is jealous dot com.

He uses crap basis like "Sitchin wouldn't debate him" Heiser is a loud in your face jerk, Sitchin was a very soft spoken, humble and quiet man. He wasn't a "debater" and if you've heard him speak you could imagine why he wouldn't want to debate someone with a clear agenda of debunking Sitchin. Heiser has NO motivation to telling us the true translation, just to debunk Sitchin and make money from the idiots who have to argue with everyone.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ButterCookie
 

Try this.
www.sitchiniswrong.com...


To you dear Phage, the OP and anyone else who wished for the AAT to be wrong,

if ET's did not travel to our planet in our very distant past (AND CREATE US), how then do you suppose that humans were created?

Oh I stress the emphasis on the word CREATED because that is what the very bible ( or any other biblical text) states when describing human origin.

Anxiously awaiting........



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ButterCookie
List ONE example where Sitchin was proven to be wrong.

I await...



In a 1979 review of The Twelfth Planet, Roger W. Wescott,[26] Prof. of Anthropology and Linguistics at Drew University, Madison, New Jersey, noted Sitchin's amateurishness with respect to the primacy of the Sumerian language: Sitchin's linguistics seems at least as amateurish as his anthropology, biology, and astronomy. On p. 370, for example, he maintains that "all the ancient languages . . . including early Chinese . . . stemmed from one primeval source -- Sumerian". Sumerian, of course, is the virtual archetype of what linguistic taxonomists call a language-isolate, meaning a language that does not fall into any of the well-known language-families or exhibit clear cognation with any known language. Even if Sitchin is referring to written rather than to spoken language, it is unlikely that his contention can be persuasively defended, since Sumerian ideograms were preceded by the Azilian and Tartarian signaries of Europe as well as by a variety of script-like notational systems between the Nile and Indus rivers.



Sitchin bases his arguments on his personal interpretations of pre-Nubian and Sumerian texts, and the seal VA 243. Sitchin wrote that these ancient civilizations knew of a twelfth planet, when in fact they only knew five.
Source


This seal is the centerpiece of Sitchin’s theory that the Sumerians had advanced astronomical knowledge of the planetary bodies in our solar system. This knowledge was allegedly given to the Sumerians by extraterrestrials...

1) The inscription on the seal says nothing about astronomy, Nibiru, or planets.

2) The alleged "sun" symbol on the seal is not the sun. We know this for sure because it does not conform to the consistent depiction / symbology of the sun on hundreds of other cylinder seals, monuments, and pieces of Sumero-Mesopotamian art.

3) There is not a single text in any extant Sumero-Mesopotamian text that says the Sumerians or Mesopotamians knew of more than five planets. There are a number of cuneiform tablets that deal with astronomy, all of which have been compiled and published.
Source

Want more?


edit on 5-6-2011 by WingedBull because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by eleventhsun
Gee how did I know someone would give us that Heiser's crap? The only one who has apparently debunked him is Heiser? And you take HIS word for it? You haven't done any real research, you went to a source with a CLEAR agenda.


Agenda is irrelevant. Only facts and evidence matter. There is a reason you are concentrating on agenda and not the substance of Heiser's argument. We do not take his word for it, we look at the evidence he uses to support his conclusion. The only people taking anyone's "word" and word alone, are Sitchin's apologists.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Perhaps we were smarter than the scientists on AA give us credit for, but that does not mean that our technology was such that we could do what they did.

I mean, think about the steps of the Pyramid at Chichen Itza for a second.

The rise and run of the steps correlates to the latitude and longitude of the pyramid itself.

And the pyramid was built before there was such a thing in human culture as latitude and longitude!

Perhaps we did the work, with a little help with the knowledge of 'how' from our sky brothers and sisters.

Once again, this is much more plausible than, 'geez, we were really smart back then.'



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by WingedBull
 


Heiser gives us his word. Where is this Scientific basis? His site has about 20 minutes of reading material. Sitchin was holding Sumerian tablets while Heiser was still nothing. Guy graduated in 98 as an expert in Hebrew and Semitic languages. He studied Sumerian independently. How are his translations fact and Sitchins false?

Because he says so? When it comes to ancient languages, especially that old, it's all about taking someones word for it.

I've been on Heiser for a good 10 years now, know the guy's agenda. He provides no science, just flashes a degree and his loud mouth. People LOVE the loud mouth.

I know his argument. The singular or plural of Elohim, the Genesis argument. It's all just him saying Sitchin is wrong and he is right. How is that Science?
edit on 5-6-2011 by eleventhsun because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ButterCookie
That doesn't prove anything other than some people would LOVE for Sitchin to be wrong.

I ask again, list me ONE thing that he has been proven to be wrong about?


How would you know it doesn't prove anything or that there is nothing there that shows Sitchin to be wrong? You responded within 9 minutes of Phage posting the link, authoring another post in the mean time. You would not have had time to review the contents of it's website. Instead, you dismissed it. You are demonstrating your closed-mindedness, and showing the weakness of the Sitchin apologist argument. In effect, Phage has won as everything you say from this point on is irrelevant and will only further demonstrate your ignorance.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by WingedBull

Originally posted by ButterCookie
List ONE example where Sitchin was proven to be wrong.

I await...



In a 1979 review of The Twelfth Planet, Roger W. Wescott,[26] Prof. of Anthropology and Linguistics at Drew University, Madison, New Jersey, noted Sitchin's amateurishness with respect to the primacy of the Sumerian language: Sitchin's linguistics seems at least as amateurish as his anthropology, biology, and astronomy. On p. 370, for example, he maintains that "all the ancient languages . . . including early Chinese . . . stemmed from one primeval source -- Sumerian". Sumerian, of course, is the virtual archetype of what linguistic taxonomists call a language-isolate, meaning a language that does not fall into any of the well-known language-families or exhibit clear cognation with any known language. Even if Sitchin is referring to written rather than to spoken language, it is unlikely that his contention can be persuasively defended, since Sumerian ideograms were preceded by the Azilian and Tartarian signaries of Europe as well as by a variety of script-like notational systems between the Nile and Indus rivers.



Sitchin bases his arguments on his personal interpretations of pre-Nubian and Sumerian texts, and the seal VA 243. Sitchin wrote that these ancient civilizations knew of a twelfth planet, when in fact they only knew five.
Source


This seal is the centerpiece of Sitchin’s theory that the Sumerians had advanced astronomical knowledge of the planetary bodies in our solar system. This knowledge was allegedly given to the Sumerians by extraterrestrials...

1) The inscription on the seal says nothing about astronomy, Nibiru, or planets.

2) The alleged "sun" symbol on the seal is not the sun. We know this for sure because it does not conform to the consistent depiction / symbology of the sun on hundreds of other cylinder seals, monuments, and pieces of Sumero-Mesopotamian art.

3) There is not a single text in any extant Sumero-Mesopotamian text that says the Sumerians or Mesopotamians knew of more than five planets. There are a number of cuneiform tablets that deal with astronomy, all of which have been compiled and published.
Source

Want more?


edit on 5-6-2011 by WingedBull because: (no reason given)


Wow

Still nothing.

What you have 'come up with' is slight misinterpretations of some of his peers (?) from him.

It also really just sounds like you are looking for his translations to say, "Planets, Aliens, and Advanced Technology", as if those words were in ancient vocabulary.

you have proven NOTHING
edit on 5-6-2011 by ButterCookie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by WingedBull
 


I've read Heisers stuff a long long time ago, if you have seen his site you would know anyone with a brain can read it in 9 minutes.

Guy can't even fill a page on his website with information. What a joke Heiser's attack on Sitchin is. Guy's a baby compared to Zach.

The guy is an evangelical Christian who will believe anything about aliens is bunk. So ya, he has an agenda that doesn't serve knowledge or teaching.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by WingedBull

Originally posted by ButterCookie
That doesn't prove anything other than some people would LOVE for Sitchin to be wrong.

I ask again, list me ONE thing that he has been proven to be wrong about?


How would you know it doesn't prove anything or that there is nothing there that shows Sitchin to be wrong? You responded within 9 minutes of Phage posting the link, authoring another post in the mean time. You would not have had time to review the contents of it's website. Instead, you dismissed it. You are demonstrating your closed-mindedness, and showing the weakness of the Sitchin apologist argument. In effect, Phage has won as everything you say from this point on is irrelevant and will only further demonstrate your ignorance.


uhhh because giving me a link that says SITCHINISWRONG.COM is not going to come close as anything scientific or credible.

Biased-YES

You do not debink anything by listing a biased source as the counterargument.

That's just like me proving that the Yankees is a bad baseball team by listing YANKEESAREHORRIBLE.COM as my source.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by eleventhsun
Heiser gives us his word. Where is this Scientific basis?


His website is full of sources and references he uses to draw his conclusion. To say he has no scientific basis is either a lie or demonstrative of your ignorance.


Originally posted by eleventhsun
His site has about 20 minutes of reading material.


Once again, demonstrating that you are either a liar or demonstratively ignorant, the papers on Nibiru and VA 243 on his site constitute alone constitute 27 pages. This is hardly "20 minutes" of reading material.


Originally posted by eleventhsun
Sitchin was holding Sumerian tablets while Heiser was still nothing. Guy graduated in 98 as an expert in Hebrew and Semitic languages.


How is this relevant?


Originally posted by eleventhsun
He studied Sumerian independently.


What is your point here? So did Sitchin.


Originally posted by eleventhsun
How are his translations fact and Sitchins false?


Because his translations are supported by Assyriology, Sitchin's are not. Please find us a single Assyriologist who supports Sitchin's findings.



Sitchin's linguistics seems at least as amateurish as his anthropology, biology, and astronomy. On p. 370, for example, he maintains that "all the ancient languages . . . including early Chinese . . . stemmed from one primeval source -- Sumerian". Sumerian, of course, is the virtual archetype of what linguistic taxonomists call a language-isolate, meaning a language that does not fall into any of the well-known language-families or exhibit clear cognation with any known language. Even if Sitchin is referring to written rather than to spoken language, it is unlikely that his contention can be persuasively defended, since Sumerian ideograms were preceded by the Azilian and Tartarian signaries of Europe as well as by a variety of script-like notational systems between the Nile and Indus rivers.
Source


Originally posted by eleventhsun
I've been on Heiser for a good 10 years now, know the guy's agenda. He provides no science, just flashes a degree and his loud mouth. People LOVE the loud mouth.

I know his argument. The singular or plural of Elohim, the Genesis argument. It's all just him saying Sitchin is wrong and he is right. How is that Science?


Once again, your mischaracterization of Heiser's argument, in saying he provides no evidence to back up his claim, shows that you are either a liar or demonstratively ignorant. I invite everyone to visit Heiser's site and see for yourself.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by WingedBull
 


If both gentlemen independently studied ancient Sumerian, how does that make one wrong?



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ButterCookie
uhhh because giving me a link that says SITCHINISWRONG.COM is not going to come close as anything scientific or credible.


How do you know? You have not visited it. Bias and agenda are irrelevant; only facts and evidence matter. But you want to focus on "bias and agenda" so that you do not have to discuss facts and evidence, and in truth, so you do not have to think. You are proving your closed-mindedness and ignorance. Everything you say on this topic is irrelevant and born of ignorance.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ButterCookie
If both gentlemen independently studied ancient Sumerian, how does that make one wrong?


Because one can be misinterpreting, purposefully taking things out of context or inventing them whole-cloth, while the other has facts, evidence and the entire body of Assryiological scholarship on his side.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by WingedBull

Originally posted by ButterCookie
uhhh because giving me a link that says SITCHINISWRONG.COM is not going to come close as anything scientific or credible.


How do you know? You have not visited it. Bias and agenda are irrelevant; only facts and evidence matter. But you want to focus on "bias and agenda" so that you do not have to discuss facts and evidence, and in truth, so you do not have to think. You are proving your closed-mindedness and ignorance. Everything you say on this topic is irrelevant and born of ignorance.


uhhhh...why would you call your site 'Sitchin is Wrong'? to voice your biased opinion about a man.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   
So, for those of you keeping score at home, here is who we have supporting Sitchin:

Someone who, being generous, "mischaracterizes" (purposefully) the content of someone's argument (Sitchin would be proud).

And someone who refuses to look at what may be disconfirming evidence, finding every excuse to dismiss it without thought.

Neither of these person wants to discuss facts or evidence. This shows us the paucity of substance to their argument.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 


Heisner is a linguistic and historical scholar with a PhD.
Sitchin graduated from college with a degree in economics history.

Heisner can read cuneiform. Sitchin could not.
Heisner can read the originals. Sitchin could not.


But let's leave Heisner for now, how about Sitchin's astronomy. The twelfth planet. There's a problem with that.

When Sitchin wrote his book there were nine known planets (Pluto had not been demoted yet). So, counting the Sun and the Moon (I wonder why Ganymede didn't count as a planet if the Moon did), there were 11. Sitchin said Nibiru was planet 12.

Since it was the aliens from Nibiru who told us lowly human slaves about those planets (the ones we couldn't see). Why didn't they tell us about Eris, Sedna and Quaoar. They are comparable to Pluto, why leave them out? Shouldn't Nibiru be the 15th "planet"?


edit on 6/5/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by WingedBull
 


Michael Heiser is not FACTS.

It is another opinion or theory. He is a pure debunker and has no merit of his own. He uses textbook Atlas Shrugged tactics.

Has nothing to provide of his own so uses someone else to gain his fame. Wants to take what he wants from Sitchin. When you are an expert in a field wouldn't you want to provide something for that?

Your reading material is biased. It is given as "take my word for it" and I am yet to find actual science. All I find is alternative opinion to some of Sitchins translations. Funny how he's only wrong about the alien parts, and only to Christian evangelical researchers.





top topics
 
132
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join