Sitchin v. Heiser The Divide Between the Theory of Alien Involvement in Our Past

#1 you posted links defending Stichin'

#2 You attacked Dr heiser personally and completely misrepresented his intentions and purpose:

Personally, I don't really like Micheal Heiser, he comes off as an arrogant, self-promoting ass who critiqued another guy's work used his name to get (some) fame and money and then proceeds to make a website named sitchiniswrong and asks the guy to defend his claims through a debate. If this guy really was such a badass he would have sat outside Sitchin's house and tried to get a debate with Sitchin, but he is not a badass he is a douche.

Seriously, sit outside of his house? You sound like a junior high bully.

He is not in it for fame and money as he is not casing in, he's giving his research away as a service to humanity because he cares about truth and honest research. Perhaps YOU should read his site and stop misrepresenting him:

The short answer is that I'm a scholar of biblical and ancient Near Eastern languages, cultures, and religions. Why do I bother with this stuff? Because I don't like ancient texts manipulated to promote false claims. If I were a lawyer I'd feel professionally obligated to tell you if someone was giving you bad legal advice. If I was a medical doctor, I'd owe you the truth if I knew the medicine you were taking was bogus or could kill you. If I was an accountant, I'd let you know if a neighbor's tax advice could put you in jail. I'm none of those things, but I'm trying to provide the same service in my areas of expertise. I can tell you--and show you--that what Sitchin has written about Nibiru, the Anunnaki, the book of Genesis, the Nephilim, and a host of other things has absolutely no basis in the real data of the ancient world. I don't doubt that Zecharia Sitchin is a nice guy; he's just wrong. Nothing personal.

www.sitchiniswrong.com...

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
#1 you posted links defending Stichin'

#2 You attacked Dr heiser personally and completely misrepresented his intentions and purpose:

Personally, I don't really like Micheal Heiser, he comes off as an arrogant, self-promoting ass who critiqued another guy's work used his name to get (some) fame and money and then proceeds to make a website named sitchiniswrong and asks the guy to defend his claims through a debate. If this guy really was such a badass he would have sat outside Sitchin's house and tried to get a debate with Sitchin, but he is not a badass he is a douche.

Seriously, sit outside of his house? You sound like a junior high bully.

He is not in it for fame and money as he is not casing in, he's giving his research away as a service to humanity because he cares about truth and honest research. Perhaps YOU should read his site and stop misrepresenting him:

The short answer is that I'm a scholar of biblical and ancient Near Eastern languages, cultures, and religions. Why do I bother with this stuff? Because I don't like ancient texts manipulated to promote false claims. If I were a lawyer I'd feel professionally obligated to tell you if someone was giving you bad legal advice. If I was a medical doctor, I'd owe you the truth if I knew the medicine you were taking was bogus or could kill you. If I was an accountant, I'd let you know if a neighbor's tax advice could put you in jail. I'm none of those things, but I'm trying to provide the same service in my areas of expertise. I can tell you--and show you--that what Sitchin has written about Nibiru, the Anunnaki, the book of Genesis, the Nephilim, and a host of other things has absolutely no basis in the real data of the ancient world. I don't doubt that Zecharia Sitchin is a nice guy; he's just wrong. Nothing personal.

www.sitchiniswrong.com...

edit on 9/12/2011 by Bigwhammy because: typo

First off I posted Heiser's findings but felt it was only fair to give Sitchin defense. This is Sitchin V. Heiser not protect Heiser and only provide defense for him, or protect Sitchin and claim he was right. I mean seriously you're really saying that posting arguments defending Sitchin was extreme? He deserves some defense this isn't hand Heiser the trophy and walk away even if he is right. Both sides need to be represented. The second point is fair for criticism. I shouldn't have attacked Heiser personally because that was personal opinion not fact, for that I'm sorry, but to state Heiser wasn't in this for fame at least a bit is a lie. Perhaps he is not an arrogant ass but he.is self-promoting(as he should be). LOL he is giving away he's research for truth and honesty and for humanity? Why charge for the book then? Why not just give away his research for free. He IS in it for the money somewhat and we shouldn't praise him as a martyr who gives away his research. I also don't care much for what he says on his website. Actions speak louder than words. If you're going to trash a guy's findings and use his name at least pay your condolences. And sitting outside he's house waiting for a debate isn't being a bully. I'am not suggesting he should have attacked him physically, I'm suggesting he should have done all he could to debate Sitchin if he really thought he was wrong. Don't ask his readers to defend him, go directly to the source and get the debate. If Sitchin doesn't want to come out and take you on then you are probably right and have won, but going on a radio show and asking Sitchin for a debate, or asking Sitchin's people for a debate isn't going to cut it. Attacking someone publicly the way he has is a douche move and I won't back off of that. You want to beat him in a debate do whatever it takes to get the debate, don't attack him on a website, if he doesn't show up then Heiser wins. Don't be a dick and say I completely misrepresented his intentions, he did want money, if he didn't he would have posted his book on the website and wouldn't promote his blog. I didn't completely misrepresent his intentions and purpose. He does want money and fame and no tiny ass excerpt is going to change that. Seriously, he is giving away his research? You sound like an ignorant douche.

reply to post by KingJames1337

Your OP was a bit ill-conceived. Don't worry about it now, but take it into consideration. What are we here to do, anyway? Throw virtual rotten tomatoes at each other?

For me the problem is this: There are more "sides" to this "debate" than there are Republican candidates for President! That you are only familiar with two of them is a little scary.

There are the paleoarchaeologists (or whatever you want to call them). They get their ideas mostly from old stone carvings and skulls and various other odd physical evidence. Von Daniken was one of the early ones in this group.

Then there are the ones who work mostly from ancient texts. These aren't as old as the oldest artifacts and are only stories. But what is most stunning about them is the way similar patterns appear in traditions that supposedly had different sources.

Next there are the native Americans. Their stories are from oral tradition. Except for Robert Morning Sky. His grandfather supposedly met a real ET.

Next we have all the contactees. There is quite a large number of them, and most of them were told somewhat different stories. Most people on ATS think they are all hoaxers or fools. I lean towards fools. But who am I to cast the first stone? Just for reference, I include in this group people as diverse as Billy Meier, Phillip Krapf (the Verdants), Laura Knight (Cassiopaea Project), Michael Elligion, Sheldan Nidle, Alex Collier, the various channels like Ramtha, and all the abduction people.

Hubbard (Scientology) is in a special category because he says he got his data from human memory. But he doesn't have that much to say about ET intervention on earth.

Then there is Sanni Ceto. She's also in a special category.

And I don't think I've named all of them yet. But this is enough to start with.

You want a debate? Well, explore the threads on ATS a bit deeper and you will find most of these mentioned there, or in videos embedded in the posts. This is a BIG subject, man, with lots of players!