The evil origins of the Anunnaki and their bastardized Nephilim monsters

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by Eaglecall


Show me where I stated that I assume Sitchin correct?

Then why are you deeply upset that I don't like Sitchin? Would it be better if we dismissed Sitchin together?

I know you are trying to change the topic but no.

No just asking a question - can you translate Sumerian?

Show me that first, then explain who the hell you are to criticize Sitchin's translations.

Sorry no, your refusal to answer my questions negates my neccesity to answer yours. You will note that I did answer your question - to show you how it is done. So answer those questions you are avoiding and I'll answer yours....now isn't that fair?

edit on 4/1/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)

I answered your question three posts above. I didnt before, because is self explanatory. No mystery for anybody. Now, for your rational enlightment, I am not "upset" that you don't "like" Stchin. Upset and like, are emotions. Irrelevant. This is not about emotions. Is about reason, logic and common sense. Since you write with so much property and argue with everybody, I just wanted to know if it was based on pure knowledge or just idiocy.

So NO. No dismissal for Sitchin. He can be right, he can be wrong. All the pieces he put together make sense. Could be a fictional explanation, yes could be. SOmebody has to prove that though. "Sicentistszzz" love to prove everything, go ahead. They haven't even been able to prove the stupid theory saying that we are brothers with monkeys.

And to answer your brilliant original question, NO. I cannot translate Sumerian. I know about their alphabet, grammar structure of the language, but cannot read, write or speak. Yet.

Originally posted by Eaglecall


Those facts I refered to, are simple evident things like How the Baalbeck stones were cut and transported.

...and what puzzles you about this?

How the stones at Puma Punku were cut and transported. Those kind of things.

There are proposed solutions to these, under what criteria do you reject them? How do you suggest they did it?

It is evident, but the "scientistszzz" play stupid with a blind eye to that because they have no clue what they're doing.

Evidence of such - remember unlike the fringe they cannot make stuff up. They can however speculate based on the fact they have....what method to you think they should use?

"oh dont worry thats mythology...that's mythology trust me..." Bullcrap again.

Why? With myths you have three main choices, they are all nonsense, some are nonsense & some are real and they are all real - how do you decide which ones are real and which ones are nonsense...please give us the method you use to determine this.

If you tell me that it was done by 1000 slaves with a shizle and a hammer, then pulled by 5000 slaves over a bed of wood, then the conversation is over. We are not kids anymore. That "official scientific" explanation is good for mentally challenged people.

There isn't an 'official scientific' explanation - if you think it is that might be the core of your problem. Science and especially archaeology runs on concensus not 'official scientific' explanations.

So since you are dismissing x and y with the limitless power of your personal incredulity, please tell us how they actually did x and y...

Originally posted by Eaglecall


Since you write with so much property and argue with everybody, I just wanted to know if it was based on pure knowledge or just idiocy.

Just so you realize this isn't the mime forum - discussion is its purpose - why are you here?

So NO. No dismissal for Sitchin. He can be right, he can be wrong. All the pieces he put together make sense.

To you perhaps but then I suspect you know very little about the Ubadians, Sumerians, Akkaids and all the others. However we shall see if you do.

Could be a fictional explanation, yes could be. SOmebody has to prove that though.

Already done some decades ago - but let me guess you won't accept it ...right?

"Sicentistszzz" love to prove everything, go ahead. They haven't even been able to prove the stupid theory saying that we are brothers with monkeys.

I presume you mean evolution and yes that theory stands unchallenged while all others have fallen away.

And to answer your brilliant original question, NO. I cannot translate Sumerian. I know about their alphabet, grammar structure of the language, but cannot read, write or speak. Yet.

Great then you can take on those evil Scientists and show them Sitchin was right....good luck on that.

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by Eaglecall


Since you write with so much property and argue with everybody, I just wanted to know if it was based on pure knowledge or just idiocy.

Just so you realize this isn't the mime forum - discussion is its purpose - why are you here?

So NO. No dismissal for Sitchin. He can be right, he can be wrong. All the pieces he put together make sense.

To you perhaps but then I suspect you know very little about the Ubadians, Sumerians, Akkaids and all the others. However we shall see if you do.

Could be a fictional explanation, yes could be. SOmebody has to prove that though.

Already done some decades ago - but let me guess you won't accept it ...right?

"Sicentistszzz" love to prove everything, go ahead. They haven't even been able to prove the stupid theory saying that we are brothers with monkeys.

I presume you mean evolution and yes that theory stands unchallenged while all others have fallen away.

And to answer your brilliant original question, NO. I cannot translate Sumerian. I know about their alphabet, grammar structure of the language, but cannot read, write or speak. Yet.

Great then you can take on those evil Scientists and show them Sitchin was right....good luck on that.

edit on 4/1/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)

From your last 2 posts, you basically said, nothing. I can only take two parts. One, "there is no official scientific explanation". LMFAO!! Then again, who are you or anybody else to discredit Sitchin? I said before, he could be right or wrong. However, the position of "scientistszz" is "lol no...aliens, no...that is science fiction or mythology...no...lol" They are a bunch of ignorants. With what proof they deny possibilities. They have no proof whatsoever. If you said Sitchin was proven wrong decades ago, who was it and how??

Two, the "theory of evolution". Yeah remains unchallenged. So? is a theory. Not a fact. hasn't been proven. And so far is ridiculous and comic, full of incoherences. How do you explain for example that every primate has 48 chromosomes and humans have 46? so we "evolved" into something "better" and more "adapted", but instead of gaining genetic information we lost? sure...we are monkeys. How "scientistszz" explain all the genetic defects we carry by design, that ARE NOT in the gentic pool of primates? That contradict the evolution process of Darwin who wrote the mythology of evolution.

This really is an excellent post which is becoming bogged down with individual interpretation and speculation on one side against conviction and scientific evidence on the other.
This is very difficult to reply to in a way that will not offend either side, but certain subjects need further discussion.
In the matter of Zecharia Sitchin's interpretation of the Sumerian Tablets; these cannot just be accepted nor refuted just because one either believes or does not believe. I was originally astounded by Sitchin's research until I read other interpretations (Barbara Joy and Christian O'Brien for instance) which more or less told a similar story but without the flamboyance of a 'Stargate' episode. Then I read Micheal Heiser's (a scholar in Hebrew, Aramaic and Sumerian) interpretation of much of Sitchin's work in which he described in layman's terms (thankfully, which enabled me to begin to understand) where Sitchin had gone wrong in some interpretations of the Sumerian grammar.
If I could just digress slightly (please bear with me) by saying that I have lived here in Australia for the past 44 years and have found the Australian language (which bears no resemblance to English whatsoever, and is called "Strine" - Australian) would be just about impossible to translate if it were written down in the manner in which it is spoken. For instance "Noppaird" - anyone studying English would perhaps interpret this to mean people who were not partnered (or paired) when it is actually the reply to a question (in Strine) "Ars-yus-garn" (How are you going?) to which the answer is invariably "Noppaird" (Not bad).
Now, to get back to the subject matter, Michael Heiser was able to convince me that Sithcin's interpretations were lacking in the understanding of Hebrew, Aramaic and Sumerian Grammar, in which a word can mean one thing on it's own but something entirely the opposite when paired with another word (Bone - bone-idle - bone-dry) and I could see where Sitchin (who has no formal education in languages from what I have been led to believe) has gone astray and then gone off at a tangent with interpretations which to say the least are a little far fetched.
Another 'bone of contention' is the Chromosome difference between us Home Sapiens (46) and the Apes (48). I cannot find my source but I seem to remember that this was discovered some time after we discovered DNA last century (I believe) and some young boffin applied this to the Hominid (Hominin) fossilised bones and found that there were 48 but in the next line of species (Homo Sapien) there were only 46. Further investigation revealed the 'fusing' of the second and third chromosomes (shock horro). The search for the "Missing Link" then came to an end as the boffins declared that the fusing WAS the missing link. But who or what caused the fusing?
Since then of course further investigation has resulting in our finding that (I believe - and here I am subject to correction) 9 or so of our chromosomes have been genetically modified (described in terms I can understand as "a section of our chromosome was taken out, turned round, turned upside down and then put back"). This does not sound like natural evolution to me. When this occurred and how and by what and by who is yet to be determined (amidst great speculation) but from what I can understand about 10,000 years ago we were all black Homo Sapien people who were 'hunter-gatherers' but over the following 4,000 years we not only turned into a civilised, agricultural based, monument building people who learned to read, write and communicate with each other, but also, many changed from black to white, yellow or red skinned people as well as changing hair colour and eye colour. Forgive me if I am being a little flippant but something traumatic happened folks and nobody has come within cooee of giving a logical answer.
There will be much more to be discussed on this and other threads regarding this very interesting and soul-searching matter and I believe we can all agree to disagree without being disagreeable on these boards.
Have a nice day everyone.

Originally posted by coredrill
Lonewolf, would you stand up/ stop hiding behind the bushes and reply to Byrd's post/questions?

I think the answer to that is clearly no. He is going to stick his head in the sand and pretend that Bryrd's post never happened.

Originally posted by Eaglecall

From your last 2 posts, you basically said, nothing. I can only take two parts.

So again you try to dismiss that which you don't know - okay it just shows your lack of knowledge I'll consider those points conceded by you to me.

One, "there is no official scientific explanation". LMFAO!! Then again, who are you or anybody else to discredit Sitchin?

Who are you to defend him?

You of course also deliberately misunderstood what I said - there is no centralized scientific 'source' putting out 'official scientific explanation'. In archaeology and many other soft sciences it is done by consensus.

I said before, he could be right or wrong. However, the position of "scientistszz" is "lol no...aliens, no...that is science fiction or mythology...no...lol" They are a bunch of ignorants.

200 years of archaeological research would say you are completely wrong - so how did all these 'ignorants' find out all this stuff? Oh by the way you might want to try and learn how to spell Scientist - your mispelling make your attempts at discussion look like that of a child..lol

With what proof they deny possibilities.

What proof do you have that support these possibilities?

They have no proof whatsoever. If you said Sitchin was proven wrong decades ago, who was it and how??

By examining his books and claims - and demolishing them with facts - however if you think that wasn't done please list the most important three claims of Sitchin, that in your opinion, were never disproved

Two, the "theory of evolution". Yeah remains unchallenged. So? is a theory. Not a fact.

Only ignorant layman expect a theory to be considered a fact, you may wish to learn scientific methodology

And so far is ridiculous and comic, full of incoherences.

One could say that applies more to the main alternative theory, creation

How do you explain for example that every primate has 48 chromosomes and humans have 46? so we "evolved" into something "better" and more "adapted", but instead of gaining genetic information we lost? sure...we are monkeys.

explanation

However this is NOT an evolution and creationist thread or forum

edit on 5/1/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)

reply to post by OzTiger


Good post Oztiger on Sitchin Heiser and the language

but from what I can understand about 10,000 years ago we were all black Homo Sapien people who were 'hunter-gatherers' but over the following 4,000 years we not only turned into a civilised, agricultural based, monument building people who learned to read, write and communicate with each other, but also, many changed from black to white, yellow or red skinned people as well as changing hair colour and eye colour.

A few comments; when skin colour changed is not known, at present it is assumed that Neanderthals were white (they had the gene for red hair) when 'white skin' appeared is not known but probably when we moved north and the fierce sun of Africa no longer pounded vitamin D into us.

Starting around 10k some HSS started to use agriculture - many did not and still don't do agriculture.

Originally posted by Byrd


I'd like to see some ancient (not modern) proof that the Anunnaki were evil and nefarious.

Enki and Ninmah
In those days, in the days when heaven and earth were created; in those nights, in the nights when heaven and earth were created; in those years, in the years when the fates were determined; when the Anuna gods were born; when the goddesses were taken in marriage; when the goddesses were distributed in heaven and earth; when the goddesses …… became pregnant and gave birth; when the gods were obliged …… their food …… dining halls; the senior gods oversaw the work, while the minor gods were bearing the toil. The gods were digging the canals and piling up the silt in Harali. The gods, crushing the clay, began complaining about this life.

At that time, the one of great wisdom, the creator of all the senior gods, Enki lay on his bed, not waking up from his sleep, in the deep engur, in the subterranean water, the place the inside of which no other god knows. The gods said, weeping: "He is the cause of the lamenting!" Namma, the primeval mother who gave birth to the senior gods, took the tears of the gods to the one who lay sleeping, to the one who did not wake up from his bed, to her son: "Are you really lying there asleep, and …… not awake? The gods, your creatures, are smashing their ……. My son, wake up from your bed! Please apply the skill deriving from your wisdom and create a substitute for the gods so that they can be freed from their toil!"

At the word of his mother Namma, Enki rose up from his bed. In Hal-an-kug, his room for pondering, he slapped his thigh in annoyance. The wise and intelligent one, the prudent, …… of skills, the fashioner of the design of everything brought to life birth-goddesses. Enki reached out his arm over them and turned his attention to them. And after Enki, the fashioner of designs by himself, had pondered the matter, he said to his mother Namma: "My mother, the creature you planned will really come into existence. Impose on him the work of carrying baskets. You should knead clay from the top of the abzu; the birth-goddesses will nip off the clay and you shall bring the form into existence. Let Ninmah act as your assistant; and let Ninimma, Šu-zi-ana, Ninmada, Ninbarag, Ninmug, …… and Ninguna stand by as you give birth. My mother, after you have decreed his fate, let Ninmaḫ impose on him the work of carrying baskets."


so the gods were lazy and "created" men from mud to do the work. if you are gods this sounds great but from the mudmens perspective kinda evil and nefarious.

Originally posted by Parta


so the gods were lazy and "created" men from mud to do the work. if you are gods this sounds great but from the mudmens perspective kinda evil and nefarious.

Parta good quote from the Sumerian literature comes in part from here:

Enki and Ninmah

Originally posted by Parta

Originally posted by Byrd


I'd like to see some ancient (not modern) proof that the Anunnaki were evil and nefarious.

Enki and Ninmah
In those days, in the days when heaven and earth were created; in those nights, in the nights when heaven and earth were created... (etc)

so the gods were lazy and "created" men from mud to do the work. if you are gods this sounds great but from the mudmens perspective kinda evil and nefarious.

You didn't post the rest of the text. These were artificial creations with two gods challenging each other as to who was the more superior (implication is that they can take care of the needs of men no matter how deep their problems.)

There's a lot of other hymns and praises from your source that show they felt the gods were good and kind and just.

Originally posted by Parta

Originally posted by Byrd


I'd like to see some ancient (not modern) proof that the Anunnaki were evil and nefarious.

Enki and Ninmah
In those days, in the days when heaven and earth were created; in those nights, in the nights when heaven and earth were created... (etc)

so the gods were lazy and "created" men from mud to do the work. if you are gods this sounds great but from the mudmens perspective kinda evil and nefarious.

You didn't post the rest of the text. These were artificial creations with two gods challenging each other as to who was the more superior (implication is that they can take care of the needs of men no matter how deep their problems.)

There's a lot of other hymns and praises from your source that show they felt the gods were good and kind and just.

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by Parta

Originally posted by Byrd


I'd like to see some ancient (not modern) proof that the Anunnaki were evil and nefarious.

Enki and Ninmah
In those days, in the days when heaven and earth were created; in those nights, in the nights when heaven and earth were created... (etc)

so the gods were lazy and "created" men from mud to do the work. if you are gods this sounds great but from the mudmens perspective kinda evil and nefarious.

You didn't post the rest of the text. These were artificial creations with two gods challenging each other as to who was the more superior (implication is that they can take care of the needs of men no matter how deep their problems.)

There's a lot of other hymns and praises from your source that show they felt the gods were good and kind and just.

actually all the other forms ended up being slaves too.

so you are saying that these men the gods are making are not real? it says that where? you are saying that the gods created real men sometime later? i'm interested in that. where is that text?

Originally posted by Eaglecall
Two, the "theory of evolution". Yeah remains unchallenged. So? is a theory. Not a fact. hasn't been proven. And so far is ridiculous and comic, full of incoherences. How do you explain for example that every primate has 48 chromosomes and humans have 46? so we "evolved" into something "better" and more "adapted", but instead of gaining genetic information we lost?

A partial cure for your too-obvious ignorance:

All great apes apart from man have 24 pairs of chromosomes. There is therefore a hypothesis that the common ancestor of all great apes had 24 pairs of chromosomes and that the fusion of two of the ancestor's chromosomes created chromosome 2 in humans. The evidence for this hypothesis is very strong.

The Evidence

Evidence for fusing of two ancestral chromosomes to create human chromosome 2 and where there has been no fusion in other Great Apes is:

1) The analogous chromosomes (2p and 2q) in the non-human great apes can be shown, when laid end to end, to create an identical banding structure to the human chromosome 2. (1)

2) The remains of the sequence that the chromosome has on its ends (the telomere) is found in the middle of human chromosome 2 where the ancestral chromosomes fused. (2)

3) the detail of this region (pre-telomeric sequence, telomeric sequence, reversed telomeric sequence, pre-telomeric sequence) is exactly what we would expect from a fusion. (3)

4) this telomeric region is exactly where one would expect to find it if a fusion had occurred in the middle of human chromosome 2.

5) the centromere of human chromosome 2 lines up with the chimp chromosome 2p chromosomal centromere.

6) At the place where we would expect it on the human chromosome we find the remnants of the chimp 2q centromere (4).

Not only is this strong evidence for a fusion event, but it is also strong evidence for common ancestry; in fact, it is hard to explain by any other mechanism.

Do you know what a telomere is? If you do, you'll know that the telomere appearing in the center of the human chromosome 2 is hands-down evidence for the fusion of two chromosomes into one.

If you don't, well, there's a little more of your ignorance that will need to be remedied for you to understand the above and to thus enable you to (at least) reduce the number of your posts that reveal the level of your ignorance to the rest of us.

Harte

Originally posted by Parta
so the gods were lazy and "created" men from mud to do the work. if you are gods this sounds great but from the mudmens perspective kinda evil and nefarious.

LOL.

Beat's being mud, doesn't it?

Harte

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by Eaglecall

From your last 2 posts, you basically said, nothing. I can only take two parts.

So again you try to dismiss that which you don't know - okay it just shows your lack of knowledge I'll consider those points conceded by you to me.

One, "there is no official scientific explanation". LMFAO!! Then again, who are you or anybody else to discredit Sitchin?

Who are you to defend him?

You of course also deliberately misunderstood what I said - there is no centralized scientific 'source' putting out 'official scientific explanation'. In archaeology and many other soft sciences it is done by consensus.

I said before, he could be right or wrong. However, the position of "scientistszz" is "lol no...aliens, no...that is science fiction or mythology...no...lol" They are a bunch of ignorants.

200 years of archaeological research would say you are completely wrong - so how did all these 'ignorants' find out all this stuff? Oh by the way you might want to try and learn how to spell Scientist - your mispelling make your attempts at discussion look like that of a child..lol

With what proof they deny possibilities.

What proof do you have that support these possibilities?

They have no proof whatsoever. If you said Sitchin was proven wrong decades ago, who was it and how??

By examining his books and claims - and demolishing them with facts - however if you think that wasn't done please list the most important three claims of Sitchin, that in your opinion, were never disproved

Two, the "theory of evolution". Yeah remains unchallenged. So? is a theory. Not a fact.

Only ignorant layman expect a theory to be considered a fact, you may wish to learn scientific methodology

And so far is ridiculous and comic, full of incoherences.

One could say that applies more to the main alternative theory, creation

How do you explain for example that every primate has 48 chromosomes and humans have 46? so we "evolved" into something "better" and more "adapted", but instead of gaining genetic information we lost? sure...we are monkeys.

explanation

However this is NOT an evolution and creationist thread or forum

edit on 5/1/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)

You don't understand use of logic and common sense do you? You sound like a religious fanatif defending his position based on faith, and portraying the non believer as the enemy.

This is about open mind dude. I am not dismissing what i don't know. I am criticizing what is on the table.

I am not defending Sitchin, I am just exposing your baseless accusations against him that have no proof. We only have different interpretations and "maybes" from the translations. None of them can be completely proven as accurate.

What proof do we have to support these possibilities? Just one: Probabilities. Is the ONLY proof we have to support these theories. Even your theory of evolution. It contains so many contradictions that it cannot be taken as official explanation.

It is a matter of keeping an open mind and putting things on the table. Not because something sounds too fantastic is fake. That is an emotion based assumption. The reality may very well be even more fantastic than any science fiction movie. Do we know? NO. And there is no way to prove it.

Perhaps you don't "like" the idea that humans are in reality, Nothing. They showed up in the picture around 250,000 years ago, from one day to another. In cosmic time, that is nothing. And humans today, are nothing. A primitive species secluded to their own home planet without capabilities of controlling population. The probabilities of having intelligent life in other planets who developed naturally millions of years ago, are proven mathematically as possible.

Oh and about the spelling......the modern mainstream "scientistzzz" is so ridiculous and laughable, that's why the spelling. Is a "Rush Limbaugh style" pronunciation...that in fact should be more like "thighentistszzz" to put in evidence their ridicule nature. Modern "scientistszzz" are no different than religious fanatics. They defend the point they were told to defend and nothing else is possible. They are manipulated by those on top of the line. If they are told that a man cannot survive in zero gravity, they defend the position til they die. Unless proven wrong of course as always. As they did when Alan Sheppard became the first American in zero gravity and survived.

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by Parta
so the gods were lazy and "created" men from mud to do the work. if you are gods this sounds great but from the mudmens perspective kinda evil and nefarious.

LOL.

Beat's being mud, doesn't it?

Harte

i don't think an assumption could be made that all mud wants to be a man. obviously some kind of pole would be necessary to see how deep sediments are.

reply to post by Eaglecall

You don't understand use of logic and common sense do you?

Actually I do but you seem to be having difficulty with the concept

You sound like a religious fanatif defending his position based on faith, and portraying the non believer as the enemy.

Enemy? No just someone who is mistaken – and unlike a religious fanatic if shown evidence that I am wrong I accept it

This is about open mind dude. I am not dismissing what i don't know. I am criticizing what is on the table.

I not dismissing what is not known what I am saying is that we should reject made up stuff and go with what evidence we actually have. If we get new evidence we then re-evaluate

I am not defending Sitchin, I am just exposing your baseless accusations against him that have no proof.

Baseless? Lol I see you know nothing about Sitchin’s claims – again lets see the three top claims by this man you think haven’t been placed in the dumpster of fringe

We only have different interpretations and "maybes" from the translations. None of them can be completely proven as accurate.

Agreed so why do you insist that Sitchin’s ‘translation’ trumps all the real ones?

Just one: Probabilities. Is the ONLY proof we have to support these theories. Even your theory of evolution. It contains so many contradictions that it cannot be taken as official explanation.

Possibilities without evidence is speculation – you can speculate all you want. I speculate also but don’t feel any urge to thrown out fact based evidence and conclusion for un-evidenced speculation. We do have real information on Sumer, Ubaid and others of that time – no evidence of aliens

It is a matter of keeping an open mind and putting things on the table. Not because something sounds too fantastic is fake. That is an emotion based assumption. The reality may very well be even more fantastic than any science fiction movie. Do we know? NO. And there is no way to prove it.

You seem to be confusing possibilities with the conclusions Sitchin’s made from bad interpretations of data

Perhaps you don't "like" the idea that humans are in reality, Nothing. They showed up in the picture around 250,000 years ago, from one day to another. In cosmic time, that is nothing. And humans today, are nothing. A primitive species secluded to their own home planet without capabilities of controlling population. The probabilities of having intelligent life in other planets who developed naturally millions of years ago, are proven mathematically as possible.

You gone off track and into …….possibilities……lol and I long ago accepted that aliens might exist- but I do have a much higher opinion of mankind than you do

Oh and about the spelling......the modern mainstream "scientistzzz" is so ridiculous and laughable, that's why the spelling. Is a "Rush Limbaugh style" pronunciation...that in fact should be more like "thighentistszzz" to put in evidence their ridicule nature. Modern "scientistszzz" are no different than religious fanatics.

Oh my you defend acting like a child, tsk tsk well that’s okay please continue it adds so much to the weight of your argument. You do realize that scientists fight over everything and that there is no one ‘at the top of the line’. If so please tell me who the name of the one individual who is the top of archaeology in the world?

They defend the point they were told to defend and nothing else is possible. They are manipulated by those on top of the line.

So why are things constantly being changed and adapted by facts coming in from other scientists? Was it the ‘top of the line’ who found the Hobbit and Denisovan man? Hmmmm?

If they are told that a man cannot survive in zero gravity, they defend the position til they die. Unless proven wrong of course as always. As they did when Alan Sheppard became the first American in zero gravity and survived.

You mean scientists made a prediction and when it was proved false by observation of an experiment they changed their minds? Oh my god – are you really THAT clueless about the scientific method? Lol – by the way it was Gagarin who got up there first on April 12 1961 and Shepard did a sub-orbital on May 5, 1961

reply to post by Hanslune

Actually I do but you seem to be having difficulty with the concept

Enlighten me.

I not dismissing what is not known what I am saying is that we should reject made up stuff and go with what evidence we actually have. If we get new evidence we then re-evaluate

Not true. In your original post you immediately dismissed Sitchin's transaltions as invalid. Of course we should reject made up stuff but regarding Sitchin, you don't know if he made stuff up other than readin another guy who claims he did.

Baseless? Lol I see you know nothing about Sitchin’s claims – again lets see the three top claims by this man you think haven’t been placed in the dumpster of fringe

Of course they are baseless. You have no way to prove Sitchin is wrong. If you do, I may suggest to look for a very high paid job at the British Museum.

Agreed so why do you insist that Sitchin’s ‘translation’ trumps all the real ones?

Where did I say that? I never said that Sitchin has the supreme truth. I said his pieces together make sense. But he could be wrong if somehow someday proven wrong.

Possibilities without evidence is speculation – you can speculate all you want. I speculate also but don’t feel any urge to thrown out fact based evidence and conclusion for un-evidenced speculation. We do have real information on Sumer, Ubaid and others of that time – no evidence of aliens

If possibilities without evidence is speculation, then the theory of evolution becomes automatically invalid. Because there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever of the transition into homo sapiens. Specially regarding to knowledge and chromosomal evidence.

You seem to be confusing possibilities with the conclusions Sitchin’s made from bad interpretations of data

Again, prove he had bad interpretations. So i guess another guy says..."no...hehe....don't worry...when they talk about their planet, they are refering to the bar they used to go every night looking for prostitutes" That is not enough prooof that Sitchin is wrong. Is just a different interpretation. Why that interpretation can't be bad and Sitchin's can't be correct?? Just because the other one sounds prettier?

Oh my you defend acting like a child, tsk tsk well that’s okay please continue it adds so much to the weight of your argument. You do realize that scientists fight over everything and that there is no one ‘at the top of the line’. If so please tell me who the name of the one individual who is the top of archaeology in the world?

The Department of Education. There is a reason why the theory of evolution is tought as fact and kids are brainwashed into thinking that monkeys are their cousins. That theory has been forced down the throat for decades. And is not taught as a theory but rather as fact.

So why are things constantly being changed and adapted by facts coming in from other scientists? Was it the ‘top of the line’ who found the Hobbit and Denisovan man? Hmmmm?

Depends. Things in science change according to their own convenience. What is not convenient, they discreetly let it out unnoticed. Like the achievements in anti gravity for example. Like Nikola Tesla. he was "too advanced" so it was never included in education programs. Only Edison who copied Tesla's principles. But Edison was more convenient.

You mean scientists made a prediction and when it was proved false by observation of an experiment they changed their minds? Oh my god – are you really THAT clueless about the scientific method? Lol – by the way it was Gagarin who got up there first on April 12 1961 and Shepard did a sub-orbital on May 5, 1961

Thats exactly how they manipulate information according to their own convenience. It was a theory. Note a prediction. They had ALL the medical information about the structure of the boen under the eye that support the aye ball and in zero gravity that support wouldn;t be necessary so the Astronaut would lose vision. That's just one of the "facts" they had. Exactly the same with their theory of evolution. In that case is not theory. Is prediction since there is no evidence for it. Pehaps once the real origins of humans are discovered, they discreetly will change the name to "prediction of Evolution"

And I SPECIFICALLY said that Shepard was the first "American" to reach zero gravity. I didnt mention ornital, sub-orbital, that has nothing to do here. You didnt pay attention but is understandable in a state of anxiety.

reply to post by Eaglecall

In your original post you immediately dismissed Sitchin's transaltions as invalid. Of course we should reject made up stuff but regarding Sitchin, you don't know if he made stuff up other than readin another guy who claims he did.

Incorrect; Sitchin’s translations have been shown to be incorrect – which is why they are rejected. We can compare what he says they say with the geological, archaeological and other scientists to show he was wrong. We did that and guess what he is wrong.

Of course they are baseless. You have no way to prove Sitchin is wrong. If you do, I may suggest to look for a very high paid job at the British Museum.

Sure we can – please present all evidence of ancient gold mining in the manner Sitchin claims, please present the facts that support his claim that man cannot move 200 ton stones even today, please present evidence that a planet can have a 3600 year orbit and not be detected, please present evidence of an atomic war and advance technology on earth, etc. .....again lets see the three top claims by this man you think haven’t been placed in the dumpster of fringe

Where did I say that? I never said that Sitchin has the supreme truth. I said his pieces together make sense. But he could be wrong if somehow someday proven wrong.

Argument from emotion – they don’t make sense in the light of evidence – and what evidence would you accept? Certainly not scientific evidence, which you belittle – please out line the manner of evidence you would accept, lol

If possibilities without evidence is speculation, then the theory of evolution becomes automatically invalid. Because there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever of the transition into homo sapiens. Specially regarding to knowledge and chromosomal evidence.

Lol, sure there is evidence you just refuse to look at it - just like in the case of Sitchin being a guy who made up stuff

Again, prove he had bad interpretations.

That has already been done, now if you want to you can believe them. I don't the scientific community does, but you are free to do as you like. Your refusal to accept that is your own deeply emotional problem. If you think the debunking of his work is in error please show were the errors are. Jumping up and down shouting that this hasn’t been proven isn’t going to work.

The Department of Education. There is a reason why the theory of evolution is tought as fact and kids are brainwashed into thinking that monkeys are their cousins. That theory has been forced down the throat for decades. And is not taught as a theory but rather as fact.

DOE teaches science as does the western world – what you believe is belief. I see you also concede the point on your claim that scientists follow ‘the guy at the top of the line’, yep you were wrong (note: take a look at which countries don’t teach evolution as part of science). It is taught as theory as all good science is.

Depends. Things in science change according to their own convenience. What is not convenient, they discreetly let it out unnoticed.

Ah, so you back down again on another silly claim, okay we are making progress

Like the achievements in anti gravity for example. Like Nikola Tesla. he was "too advanced" so it was never included in education programs. Only Edison who copied Tesla's principles. But Edison was more convenient.

lol

And I SPECIFICALLY said that Shepard was the first "American" to reach zero gravity. I didnt mention ornital, sub-orbital, that has nothing to do here..

Got another one wrong, eh? Yes once Gagarain (who was a human by the way, lol) went up they knew man could survive in space they didn’t need Shepard to go at all….sheesh