It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ancient Aliens Debunked?

page: 13
132
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by WingedBull

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.


But Sitchin never accused anyone of being 'wrong'. He stated his findings and interpretations, plain and simple, knowing that with research a person will get their conclusion based on critical thought.




posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Do some more research pal. Heiser has a degree in Hebrew and Semitic languages. Has just as much physical qualifications on Sumerian language as Sitchin on paper.

He can read cuneform because he told you he can. Everything he says is based on Sitchin being wrong, he entered the scene with one goal.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   

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


If he is wrong, he is wrong. Bias and agenda have nothing to do with it. Only facts and evidence matter. If those facts and evidence show Sitchin to be wrong, then he is wrong. If he is wrong, then it is not biased to say so, it is the truth.

Because you continue to focus on bias and agenda, an irrelevant subject, instead of the only things that matter, facts and evidence, you continue to show how anything you say is irrelevant to this subject.

I hope everyone reading this thread understand that and ignores anything you have to say on the subject accordingly.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


OMG.....

Anyways


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 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by eleventhsun
He can read cuneform because he told you he can. Everything he says is based on Sitchin being wrong, he entered the scene with one goal.


Once again, you show that you are a liar. Heiser never on his site or his papers says his translations are accurate because his says so. He provides sources to back up his translation. Everyone is invited to go to Heiser's website to confirm this for themselves and to confirm that Eleventhsun is a liar.

And being a liar, everything he says on this topic is irrelevant; I hope everyone in this thread ignores him accordingly.

On the subject of lying, maybe you can answer me a question. Why is it UFO believers such as yourself feel the need to lie in order to support your beliefs?
edit on 5-6-2011 by WingedBull because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 

I don't think humans were created.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ButterCookie
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?


Millions of years of evolution.


Originally posted by ButterCookie
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....


I don't believe the Bible. So what if the Bible says it or any other book. It doesn't make it so.

By the way, I noticed you are trying to change the subject away from facts and evidence showing Sitchin is wrong. You have once again show anything you say about this topic is completely irrelevant.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by WingedBull
 


I'm not just using his bias, I'm saying that nothing provided has given me anything to suggest this guy has any more credibility on Sumerian language than anyone else.

Being an expert on French language doesn't mean you know more about speaking Mandarin than someone who independently studied it.

Heiser uses very small sections to debunk while other parts he ignores completely. He has even admitted that Sitchin may have been right about the Elohim translation, but probably not.. Give me a break, the guy is crazy. He got cut to pieces by Sitchin's webmaster for God's sake. Sitchin hadn't even heard that Heiser was cutting him up until he was told by a friend who heard Heiser go off on Art Bell's show.

I'm not sure how long you guys have followed the Heiser/Sitchin debate, but I remember the days on the radio, I remember the interviews with both sides. This isn't a new debate.

Edit* I think you'd better back off with the "Eleventhsun" is a liar. I know you like to follow Heiser's silly tactics of trying to discredit a person, but this is the first time we've talked so don't go there, very rude and uncalled for on a site like ATS.
edit on 5-6-2011 by eleventhsun because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by eleventhsun
I'm not just using his bias, I'm saying that nothing provided has given me anything to suggest this guy has any more credibility on Sumerian language than anyone else.

Being an expert on French language doesn't mean you know more about speaking Mandarin than someone who independently studied it.


Once again, in mischaracterizing Heiser's argument, you are demonstrating yourself to be a liar. Never on his website or papers does give a translation based on his word, he backs it up with sources and references. Being a liar, everything you say on this subject is irrelevant.

Why do you feel the need to continuously lie?
edit on 5-6-2011 by WingedBull because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by eleventhsun
 

What do you think of the 12th planet?
What happened there? Is the tablet missing something? Why?



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
It seems Sitchin's apologists are made up of the closed-minded and liars. That does not speak well for his "theories".



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   
I'd like them to find one Assyriologist that supports Sitchin's "theories" or even a single one of his translations.

Anxiously awaiting...



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by WingedBull
 


His sources are people who are on his side of the argument. Christian researchers who don't at all believe in aliens and especially dislike the similarities drawn between them and angels and gods.

You are really an unsavory person to discuss stuff with, you must be a lonely person with very little human contact. Pointing and yelling LIAR. My proof is better than yours. Of course he cites sources, I'm saying they are of the same agenda and provide little proof and mostly just alternative translations to SOME of Sitchins work.

Like I said, how come Sitchin is right about the non alien stuff in Heiser's eyes, but as soon as Nibiru, the Annunaki or the creation of humans comes up he's wrong? You don't address any of this, because you have NO original thoughts or are you capable of doing anything but post other people's arguments against others. Give me a non bias source? Is there one?

I asked at the beginning of this topic WHO is the most credible translator of Sumerian?



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I'm sorry are you asking what I think of the book "the 12th planet" ?

I think I misunderstood that question.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by eleventhsun
 

I meant that there are more than 12 "planets".
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by eleventhsun
His sources are people who are on his side of the argument. Christian researchers who don't at all believe in aliens and especially dislike the similarities drawn between them and angels and gods.


So? You are resorting to Bulverism now. Instead of telling us why they are wrong based on facts and evidence, you are telling us they are wrong because of who they are.


Originally posted by eleventhsunPointing and yelling LIAR.


Because you are lying. You've purposefully misrepresented Heiser's argument several times, says he has no evidence to back up his claims.


Originally posted by eleventhsun
My proof is better than yours.


No, it's not. Your "proof" consists of lying about Heiser not having evidence to back up his claims, then when you do acknowledge he does, telling us this evidence is wrong because of who the evidence comes from, not because of what the evidence says. That is not proof, it is logical fallacies.



Originally posted by eleventhsun
Like I said, how come Sitchin is right about the non alien stuff in Heiser's eyes, but as soon as Nibiru, the Annunaki or the creation of humans comes up he's wrong?


Translation please?


Originally posted by eleventhsun
You don't address any of this, because you have NO original thoughts or are you capable of doing anything but post other people's arguments against others.


That's hilarious. You ask for evidence to back up claims, but when such is done, you say those giving sources have no original thought.


Originally posted by eleventhsun
Give me a non bias source? Is there one?


There is no such thing. But bias is irrelevant. You and Sitchin's apologists want to focus on bias because the facts are not on your side.


Originally posted by eleventhsun
I asked at the beginning of this topic WHO is the most credible translator of Sumerian?


The entire body of Assyriology and those who reference it.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by eleventhsun
 

I meant that there are more than 12 "planets".
www.abovetopsecret.com...



Originally posted by Phage
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"?


Why not Ceres? Why did they lead the Sumerians to believe that the Moon and Sun were planets? Why weren't they told about the rings of Saturn?



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by eleventhsun
 

I meant that there are more than 12 "planets".
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Sure, possibly.

Sitchin stated that the Anunnaki came from the 12th one...

How does this make the AAT false?



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by eleventhsun
 

I meant that there are more than 12 "planets".
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Sure, possibly.

Sitchin stated that the Anunnaki came from the 12th one...

How does this make the AAT false?



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by WingedBull

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by eleventhsun
 

I meant that there are more than 12 "planets".
www.abovetopsecret.com...



Originally posted by Phage
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"?


Why not Ceres? Why did they lead the Sumerians to believe that the Moon and Sun were planets? Why weren't they told about the rings of Saturn?


They were told about them.

They were drawn in the Egyptian heiroglyphics.



new topics

top topics



 
132
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join