It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


The Anunnaki: in Reality

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 07:34 PM
reply to post by Wandering Scribe

only watched the first video. i enjoyed it because a lot of what they say (not all) on ancient aliens is BS. However, this guy should not have gone so far to prove his own theory. For example, what if different cultures around the world have slightly different stories because they have had slightly different experiences in relation to our "creators"? This guy seems to be arguing one story over another.

posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 08:43 PM
reply to post by Wandering Scribe

Chris White has a lot of video material too. One of his more famous and earliest works is his debunking of Zeitgeist.

posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 09:35 PM
reply to post by Wandering Scribe

Looks like this thread is about the Debunking Ancient Alien video that has been posted many times already. I was actually hoping for good info on the ancient cultures you listed. Where's the beef?

For those interested in some history and are curious about the Sumer then I suggest the author Samuel Noah Kramer. Check out my thread here about one of his fascinating books, History Begins at Sumer: Thirty-nine Firsts in Recorded History

posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 09:45 PM
reply to post by Swills

That's what makes the chronology of the Hebrew Bible especially interesting.

In the Hebrew calendar it is the year 5773 from "creation". The psychoanalyst Erich Neumann in his book 'history and origins of consciousness' postulates the type of changes that occurred around this period in the human species from primitive hunter-gathers to civilization.

Some ground-breaking changes definitely occurred around 5770 years ago, as you show with those 39 "firsts".

I'm not sure what exactly happened for so drastic a change to occur. Some assume 'ancient aliens' transmitted knowledge to humans around 6000 years ago, as the late Kabbalist and physicist Aryeh Kaplan assumed. Others, like John M. Allegro and Terrence Mckenna (amongst others) thought magic mushrooms had an determinant effect in expanding mankinds consciousness beyond the emotional sphere of 'participation mystique' into the more abstract sphere of self consciousness.

Thus, it appears the Hebrew calendar refers to the beginnings of self consciousness in man, and not the type of consciousness that typified the primitive. As Descartes wisely noted, I think, therefore I am. In other words, if you don't know that you are, as animals are unaware of the particularity of their existence, you can't be said to really said to be 'made in God's image'.

Who knows. I just find it incredible that the Hebrew calendar seems to correspond so well with the beginnings of civilization.
edit on 6-11-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 10:39 PM
I don't HATE or really DISLIKE Ancient Aliens for this one reason.

It's a gateway show.

Alot of my friends and coworkers considered the shows ideas ludicrous before the show even came up. While they know me and my sense of humor and how I tend to think, if I told them some of the things I know now with out that show their minds would never even consider believing it. By having a show like Ancient Aliens on actual television atleast telling them "Hey, this stuff is actually possible." Alot of the things I suggest don't seem so...tin foil hat level conspiracy.
All their "facts" may not be the most accurate, buty atleast now I can have a conversation with my coworkers about aliens and the origins of religion without seeming like a nut case.
And no, I don't watch the show. I do my own research. Because after all...

TV's lie to you

posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 12:21 AM
reply to post by Wandering Scribe

Good post. I was on of those that watched the whole series and became fascinated with ancient history and societies because of it. Then I started doing research, and found out that they twist facts to promote their own agenda, and flat out lie about other topics. It's pretty disheartening to see all that disinformation spouted out.

posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 12:30 AM
reply to post by Swills

Read the follow-up posts, and all of the pages of the thread.

I only began with the excerpt, and whole, "Debunking Ancient Aliens" video because it has a wonderfully concise array of the false ideas presented about Sumer and Mesopotamian culture.

As for you wanting more history and the like, I have been doing that. Every so many replies I write a reply-all, covering what has been said and asked, and pushing the thread toward what seems to be the most relevant topics.

If you'd read the whopping two pages, you'd see I have mentioned Kramer, and his associates, as well as the study of Sumeriology. We've even begun delving into comparative mythology, metaphysics, and historical development vis-a-vis the poster DontReally.

Offer what you'd like to see covered, and we'll add it to the mixing pot. I've read the works of Kramer, and his associates, and understand the metaphorical, literal, and spiritual interpretations of the mythology. I'm fairly competent in the history of the culture, and their daily lives, etc.

What would you like to learn more about?

~ Wandering Scribe

posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 12:46 AM
reply to post by TheMindWar

I maintain that aliens, with the expressed interest in shaping our culture, ruling our planet, or leading us spiritually do not exist. At the same time, I maintain that extraterrestrial life is both possible and likely somewhere in the Universe. I would be more inclined to believe that what is commonly witnessed by humans are secret aircraft, advanced general-public devices, or cryptids.

I have not closed my mind to the possibility of aliens though; not at all.

reply to post by Corporate Providence

Please don't get caught up on the flood myth comparison element of the video. My goal in presenting the video was not for that small minute or so to be the only watched part. All of the information presented concerning the definition of Anunnaki and Anunna; the role of Enki/Ea; the Lamassu and Apkallu statues; and the rest is all accurate and helps to lead people away from Zecharia Sitchin, or David Icke styled conspiracy fallacies.

The video is a springboard to further learning. When people come to realize that the Anunnaki were not reptilian aliens who bio-engineered human beings to mine gold for them as slaves... a whole new world opens up.

reply to post by frozenspark

I am eternally on the fence about Zeitgeist. I do not believe the 9/11 inside job chapter; but I do believe that under the Bush regime my country (our country?) suffered some heavy hits to personal freedoms. And, as a student of comparative mythology and religion, I do agree with the opening segment.

If, however, you're someone who believes the opening chapter is attacking Christianity directly, as opposed to attacking population control mechanisms, then I can see why "debunking" Zeitgeist would be considered a victory. I, personally, do not think Zeitgeist needs debunking, nor do I think that it attacks anything other than a population grown stagnant and content in their unknowing.

I'll still be looking into his works.

reply to post by DovahPrettyKeen

The fact that it takes a "gateway show" to even encourage study of the history, origins, and evolution of humans and their social systems... makes me very sad. People should be interested in their origins because we have them. Period. It shouldn't be seen as a tin-foil-hat moment if you suggest an origination element which is neither abiogenesis, or biblical Genesis.

I hope the people around you are more open to understanding their origins then you present them to be; I really do.

reply to post by NativeZero

Remember, the video is just a springboard. Anyone with any historical background can find the holes in the show. What I want here is for us to take those holes, and fill them in correctly, so that everyone can begin to retrace their origins, experience new ideas, or challenge their current beliefs. The show was just my starting point.


Thanks again everyone for the replies. As per Swills, if you have a particular topic you'd like to cover, put it in the mix and we'll see what we can do.

~ Wandering Scribe

posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 12:56 AM
Swillis did bring up the interesting issue of the 39 'firsts' of the Sumerians that seem to have no precedent in an earlier civilization.

This brings to mind, as I mentioned earlier, the Hebrew calendar. Since a large chunk of the Hebrew Bible, Genesis in particular, is a polemic against Babylonian philosophy, it stands to reason that just as they borrowed basic motifs (like the flood and giants) that they may have collated their calendar from Babylonian traditions.

The coincidence between what we know from archeology and their carbon datings to 3600 BCE, and the Hebrew calendar, which is in it's 5773 year, alludes to some intrinsic connection between the Biblical idea of "creation" and the beginnings of civilization.

As numerous scholars have noted, man has only become a creator when he began building cities (Cain, the archetype of the pagan way of seeing things, built the first city, and named it Enoch, heb. "education"). The Sumerians were the first to do this. But what preceded this advancement? How did man go from your average primitive shaman type, to devising a writing system, etc etc??

There's a profound mystery in this. And the Hebrew calendar only adds substance to the mystery, since their calendar refers to the beginnings of civilization. Man became a 'creator', and thus, in "God's image", with the establishment of cities.

I'd be interested to hear what your views of this are wanderingscribe.
edit on 7-11-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 01:08 AM
reply to post by dontreally

I'm very interested in what you have to say (hence why I've been giving you separate replies), I must say though that I already know my grasp and understanding of Hebrew literature and meaning is definitely not up to par with your own. So, forgive me if I cannot quite keep up with the theories, writers, or ideas you present, because I may truly not be familiar with them as we go.

I am, however, very familiar with the idea that the Hebrew religion attempted to split with the pagan and polytheistic religions which came before them. I do know though, that they were not necessarily succesfull. Many of the core rules from the Old Testament have nearly identical clauses in Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Anatolian literature. This only makes sense though, as there are some things which are always a good idea to practice (like the not murdering thing).

That was why I only mentioned the Nephilim at the end of my statement though, because I know they are seen as something entirely different from the Giants and primitive chaos serpents of pagan religions. Taking that into account, I do not think you can necessarily interpret the pagan "giants" through the same lens as the Hebrew "Nephilim."

To the pagans, giants were the former inhabitants of the Earth. They were often crude, uncouth, uncivilized, lacking in culture, and chaotic. Very much how modern man viewed African tribes and other "lost" people upon discovering them in the early 18 and 1900s. Zeus, in overthrowing Cronus, was perceived as having conquered a great primitive evil; a cannibalistic force. This is similar to the Athenians and their war with the peoples of Crete, whom some historians believe were also cannibalistic. The same theme is found throughout all of the pagan cultures. The "giants" are always chaotic, monstrous, and uncivilized; replaced by an orderly, civilized, and more-friendly (but not necessarily benevolent) race of ruling beings.

I would also like to point out too, that the dichotomy between Shepherd and Farmer is not necessarily a Hebrew trait. God and Christ as the shepherd were not the first to do so. As far back as Sumer this dichotomy was known, and practiced. The myth of Inanna and Dumuzi features two variations on Dumuzi (called the shepherd of Bad-Tibira) competing with Enkimdu (the god of farming, one of them at least) for the hand of the goddess Inanna, who represented the fertility and potential growth of the Sumerian people.

Similarly, in Egypt the myth of Set and Osiris' conflict has the same core. Set is an agricultural farming deity with ties to the Anatolian farm-and-weather god Teshub, called Sutekh. Osiris, meanwhile, is a shepherding god. The Pharaoh himself, of which Osiris was the mythological first, was a shepherd of the people; uniting and leading them, while simultaneously acting as the avatar and representation of the Hidden God (Atum during the most profitable age in Egypt) on Earth.

The Hebrews definitely wanted to split from the pagans, as God clearly commanded that He be seen as a sole creator. However, the archetypes present in Sumerian mythology, which permeated to Egypt, the Levant, Anatolia, north into the Minoans, Greeks, and eventually resurfaced in Celtic and Norse lands was just too deeply ingrained in the people; it still is.

Have you ever heard of, or read about, Asherah, the Phoenician mother-goddess and wife of El? While I've read various articles on why she is not a part of Hebrew mythology, reading the bible remnants of her, as Yahweh's possible-wife, are definitely still present. The same way that themes (like the Garden of Eden and the paradise Myth of Dilmun) are also present.

I am, obviously, not the be-all and end-all on this topic, as my knowledge of Hebrew lore is still fledgling. However, my knowledge of the culture spread of pagan archetypes, myths, and the like is very extensive. So, if the Hebrew's intended to escape from all things pagan, I think I feel safe in saying that they did not succeed. Pagan spiritual ideals are alive and well, and have had a powerful influence on the cultures which came later on.

~ Wandering Scribe

posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 01:11 AM
reply to post by dontreally

A double-shot here. I just finished replying to your earlier post, and then saw this one. I definitely have some thoughts on this subject. However, it is late here and I have a long drive ahead of me tomorrow. So, I'm taking a rain check for now, but intend to bring this topic up again.

~ Wandering Scribe

posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 02:33 AM
reply to post by Wandering Scribe

Thank you for for your post and sharing your enthusiasm.
I will attempt to watch the full movie soon. It would be nice to get underneath the hype.
I have never paid any mind to these type of stories because they are too sure of things with no basis.

From the outset I'm inclined to agree with your position. Your views sound rational to me as I also tend to form these views about the nonsense we are given by entertainers getting rich from people who can't tell fact from fiction.

... however

The New Age is the enemy of the two authors you mentioned. Alice bailey coined the term in the 1920's and to these guys, she represents both Satan and the NWO. I don't think anyone who I would consider new age: eg.. unified theories, ancient knowledge, Eastern philosophy, meditation (actually meditation might be the admission - add open minded prayer), sorry I'm rambling ;-)

Not a single person I know believes in the Anukki or any other science fiction. The New Age about love not fear. Now being born as a star child, or adherence to astrology is another thing. That said, there are some who lean a little too much towards forming conclusions based on emotions, however intuition is the key and being humble to accept the answer as it is, rather than as you wish is the only way.

The NWO haters, hate the New Age where NWO is what the twist created by fear mongers, where fear is the driving force to draw non-thinking, easily led, feelings based people (who call people sheep) towards them.

The New Age has nothing in common, as I hope I have shown.

posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 02:57 AM
Just as i sign off ... I've read some more and look forward to learning a little more. I can see that we will be at odds with at least the concept of the Universe being 12 billion years old, rather that it is infinitely old and our small part is nestled inside infinity. Our level of evolution, according to vedic texts is millions of big-bangs old.

Before I go, I wanted to ask your opinions about the channeled texts of Ra. He pops up a lot.

posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 04:36 AM
reply to post by Wandering Scribe




posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 06:25 AM
reply to post by Wandering Scribe

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
reply to post by SystemResistor

...the Universe is 13 billion years old...

Just a little parenthesis: You throw that as if it was something certain but it's only a speculation (as every theory). Some people, through calculations, tell us that the age of the universe is rather between 80 and 250 billion years and as technology develops, other dates will be spouted (probably ad infinitum).

edit on 7-11-2012 by D1ss1dent because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 07:28 AM

The Annunaki as presented by Sitchin may be false, however Giant humanoid figures have been sighted in modern days, one of the best documented mass sightings ever, it even reached mainstream news all over the world and was taken seriously in the ultra skeptic atheist world that was the Sovjet Union. The question is can we really afford to ignore this and pretend it never happened?
edit on 7-11-2012 by doG24maI because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-11-2012 by doG24maI because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 10:30 AM
reply to post by Wandering Scribe

This only makes sense though, as there are some things which are always a good idea to practice (like the not murdering thing).

I want to point out that the documentary hypothesis is a pretty much worthless relic of faulty 18th century research. Current literary analysis of the Hebrew Scriptures is revealing the theological consistency and harmony of the 5 books of Moses. Contrary to what has been taught and promulgated since the beginning of the Christian era, the Hebrew Bible is not strictly a book of 'revelation', as Tertullian popularized with his dictum "what does jerusalem have to do with carthage?". The Hebrew Bible is philosophy. Consciously so. The Hebrew scribes were not some band of ignoramuses that didn't understand the significance of their scriptures, and the core ideas, as found in Genesis, are not mere replications of themes that appeared in Babylonian mythology. Yes, certain themes are reproduced, but with a certain twist. The twist is the difference in theological attitude.

This notion that the early Hebrews were pagans through and through while the Jews at the return from Babylonian exile 'all of a sudden' became monotheists, is ridiculous. And it's based on such flimsy evidence, and frankly, complete artifice, probably with the purpose to discredit the Hebrew Bible. Rather, the Torah was probably compiled in its current form (5 books of Moses, the prophets and the writings) by the prophet Jeremiah. Before that, there was a large corpus of writings which were selected and organized into it's present form.

I would also like to point out the antimony that exists between Jewish metaphysics/theology and Christian metaphysics. Joseph Atwill argues in his 'caesers messiah', pretty convincingly, that Christianity was the creation of the Flavian dynasty of Rome along with it's Jewish cadres the house of Alexander and the House of Herod. These 3 families created a religion amenable to Rome. If this proves true, it goes to show how Christianity distorted the theology of the Hebrew religion. Even the Talmud, particularly the aggadic portions, remains largely unintelligible (in terms of it's theology) due to the persecutions and wanderings of the Jews over the last 2 millenia.

I personally wouldn't be too surprised if the Roman Catholic church retains the memory of it's origins, and is currently involved in a process of 'stripping itself' of it's Jewish accretions, as appears have to been happening for the last 200 years or so.

The same theme is found throughout all of the pagan cultures. The "giants" are always chaotic, monstrous, and uncivilized; replaced by an orderly, civilized, and more-friendly (but not necessarily benevolent) race of ruling beings.

Interesting. I would argue that it was just that which the Israelites sought to replace in the peoples who inhabited ancient Canaan. The pagans looked upon the uncivilized and unorganized primitive as an evil. Likewise, the Hebrews looked upon the pagan, despite his cultural and technological sophistication, as the same 'giant' which the pagans applied to the primitive, due to what the Hebrews felt were their moral insensitivity.

There's an essential difference between Hebrew and pagan morality. The former sees morality as an all encompassing divine command, as every man's responsibility, not just to others, or to God, but to his very self.. The Hebrews saw things dramatically different from the pagan. The pagan looked upon morality as a necessity, and necessity compelled his drawing up of a moral code. But there was nothing particular essential about it. Of course, I don't want to reduce all pagandom to just one formula. The Babylonians were different from the Egyptians, who were different from the Anatolians. But perhaps one underlying feature of their religious feeling was a sense of moral relativism. While the masses certainly had to cultivate good character, their gods were hardly examples for the type of morality that they should have cultivated. Rather, their gods were in constant battle with one another. Dysfunction, Tension, battle, was metaphysical grounding of their religion.

The Hebrews conversely conceived of a very anthropomorphic God with human sensibility. He had pathos. He was intimately concerned with human deeds, whereas the animalistic inhumanity of Babylonian mythology expressed the conflict inherent in human existence, the Hebrews tried to emphasize mans being 'created' in the image of it's Creator. That we possessed within ourselves the hidden traits of God. Not just that, but that our very existence was about knowing this God, not simply as a metaphysical 'it', but as metaphysical "he", what Martin Buber termed the "I-Thou" dialectic. The Hebrews elevated the personhood of man to primary ontological status!

Look at this how you will, but this was a radical change from earlier religious sentiment, and the Hebrew bible from it's very beginning to it's very hand retains this basic attitude.

For instance, the documentary hypothesis talks about 'elohim literature', 'yahwist literature', etc, as if they were different gods, as if the Hebrews were some pissant ignoramuses that gathered literature without knowing how to make heads or tails of it. But current literary analysis, beginning with Umberto Cassuto 80+ years ago, has shown that these different names for God reflected different conceptions of the same deity. The binding of Isaac is a case in point of this difference. Abraham is commanded by Elohim to sacrifice Isaac. Elohim, as you well know, is derived from the Canaanite El, and El means "power". Elohim is therefore the masculine plural meaning 'powers'. The powers of nature. Elohim commands Abraham to commit a ritualistic murder of his most beloved son. In this narrative, something treasured to Abraham is being snatched from him. The 'powers' demand this of him, perhaps for 'necessity'? Necessity was and remains an all enduring concept in pagan philosophical traditions. But before he lowers his knife onto his sons throat, the "melek YHWH" interferes, and tells Abraham to desist.

Genesis 1 only uses the name Elohim in it's creation narrative, whereas in Genesis 2, the name YHWH is used. Scholars falsely assume that this is just a mishmash of two different traditions, neglecting any analysis of literary intent. But when you bother to analyze what the intent could be, you touch on the heart of Hebrew religion. Elohim is the 'creator' of the physical universe. Physical law, physical forces, all the product of Elohim's activity. But in Genesis two, YHWH appears besides the name Elohim. The Hebrews saw YHWH as an addition to Elohim. As the second part of a two stage spiritual evolution. As I mentioned in an earlier post, Cain was rejected because he did not desire to "add" like Abel did. Cain served the land, as Adam was condemned by God to do. Abel conversely departed from the natural way and became a shepherd, and it was he who was accepted by YHWH. YHWH is that notion of the good, the righteous, the responsible. These are two very different concepts each with their own sphere of activity.

Similarly, in Egypt the myth of Set and Osiris' conflict has the same core. Set is an agricultural farming deity with ties to the Anatolian farm-and-weather god Teshub, called Sutekh. Osiris, meanwhile, is a shepherding god. The Pharaoh himself, of which Osiris was the mythological first, was a shepherd of the people; uniting and leading them, while simultaneously acting as the avatar and representation of the Hidden God (Atum during the most profitable age in Egypt) on Earth.

And yet, as the Hebrew Bible notes, shepherds were 'detestable' to the Egyptians. Wasn't Khnum symbolized by sheep? And wasn't it looked upon as sacrilege to kill a sheep, similar to how its sacrilege to kill a cow in India? And didn't Egypt/Babylon essentially base itself upon mass farming? An unusual feature of Israelite religion, which, despite the aspersion cast upon it, is certainly commendable, is the idea of leaving the land 'fallow' every 7th year. Forget about monetary profit. Forget about filling the coffers of the nobility. The land, the people, the animals, everyone was granted respite from activity. That's a definite moral criticism of the avarice of pagan civilization.

Have you ever heard of, or read about, Asherah, the Phoenician mother-goddess and wife of El? While I've read various articles on why she is not a part of Hebrew mythology, reading the bible remnants of her, as Yahweh's possible-wife, are definitely still present

Well the Bible makes ample mention of those Israelites who profaned themselves by combining Israelite religion with pagan religion. Hence, the relics discovered which talk of Ashera, etc. Again, I think this reflects the moral relativism inherent in the pagan viewpoint. The Israelites sought to make God a 'man' because the man, or masculine, is anterior to the manifestation brought about by the feminine, imitating processes like the 'seed' transmitted by the man to the woman, who brings into expression a living being. The Hebrews felt that man is receptive, the feminine, relative to God. That all was involved in an eternal drama between the masculine God and his Beloved, mankind. God issued commands - the ten commandments (which I think have eternal validity) - which mankind had to accept upon themselves. Ironically, the strength of this relationship was predicated on whether man accepted this obligation. Responsiveness underlied this relationship. Man could only come to accept these precepts when he understood that they represented an eternal good. But if he rejected them, as the Israelites often did, woe befell them, as has happened.

However, my knowledge of the culture spread of pagan archetypes, myths, and the like is very extensive.

And I appreciate it very much. Just as your knowledge of Hebrew/Biblical/Talmudic etc is slim, my knowledge of what you're talking about is not nearly as great as what you're providing.

I've always been intensely interested in Sumerian/Babylonian religion.

However, you didn't really address the 39 firsts. What do you think led to that transformation? And in the region of the southern Euphrates, Eridu, in particular?? It's hard to explain. If you accept the psychedelic mushroom hypothesis, than we would expect that area of the southern euphrates to contain specimens. But that area is all desert today.

So, if the Hebrew's intended to escape from all things pagan, I think I feel safe in saying that they did not succeed

No, there are definitely admirable qualities in pagan doctrine. I think what they tried to escape from was the moral laxity they showed, which their theological doctrine supported. The great difference is personality versus impersonality. The human heart is an area of deeper concern to the Hebrews than it was, or is, for pagandom.
edit on 7-11-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 11:22 AM
reply to post by doG24maI

The Soviets CONSTANTLY engaged in publicity stunts like this.

It was the atheist Czars of Russia who promulgated the idea of a hidden "jewish elders of zion".

In the 20th century, UFOs, aliens, etc, have been covered all over Russian TV.

It's feed for the masses. It doesn't imply anything about the merit of the things covered.

And as for 'giant humanoids'. The pictures look fake. And they probably are.

posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 01:05 PM
Without getting into or participating in a philosophical debate about where we really 'came from', I do believe the 3-hr video you provided needs to be seen by the ATS community - as there are many who are head-over-heels for Ancient Aliens.

I just finished the full video and feel better already!

Thanks for providing!

posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 05:44 PM

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
I'm sure that an argument, flame war, and name-throwing contest is going to start due to this thread. I've seen how religiously ATS users hold on to their false theories on the Anunnaki around here. However, being that Sumerian and West Asian spirituality is, and has been for the past decade, the foundation for my modern metaphysical beliefs, I felt it was necessary to try and add some counterweight to the awful Anunnaki beliefs which tend to permeate the ATS boards.

The goal of this thread is simple: offer a place for those with a true interest in Sumeriology, Assyriology, and Mesopotamian mythology, spirituality, religious, and cultural interest to begin their undertaking. To do this, we have to cut through the massive mess of misinformation concerning this amazing culture and their beliefs. I'll consider my efforts a success if I can help even one honestly interested individual do this.

As an opener, I would like to present this wonderful video:

The above video is a twenty-one minute debunking video, centered around the History Channel show, "Ancient Aliens." While I hope that "Ancient Aliens" is not taken seriously on ATS (as it is atrociously biased, and rampant with false information), I find the narrators presentation of evidence to be the best quick summary of the false information circulating about the Anunnaki. The documentary covers a variety of topics including the definition of the terms "Anunna" and "Anunnaki," the erroneous claims of Zecharia Sitchin's fantasy works concerning Nibiru and the gold-mining Anunnaki, the Apkallu and Lamassu statues and carvings commonly, falsely, depicted as the Anunnaki, and more. For those with more viewing time available (3 hours roughly) the entire video, with better audio, is also available here:

Nearly all of the ancient astronaut theory, as covered by "Ancient Aliens" is expounded, explained, and corrected with in-depth analysis. Likewise, the companion website, located here, offers an in-depth explanation of the sources used during the debunking documentary. Finally, there is also this website which features an exhaustive, in-depth, and continuing debunking of the works of Zecharia Sitchin, who is responsible for all of the misinformation, mistranslation, and blatant lies circulating about the Anunnaki which have been picked up by ancient astronauts, David Icke, and other New Age metaphysics and philosophies.

I know that I have just dropped a massive amount of viewing and reading for a simple thread, and I know that many ATSers won't actually pay attention, as they're quite content to believe that the Anunnaki are space aliens from the planet Nibiru who genetically engineered human beings to mine gold for them... but I just wanted a thread with actual, honest, historical information concerning such a deep, rich, and interesting mythological cycle available for reference in future ATS threads.

Good luck in uncovering the reality of the Anunnaki.

~ Wandering Scribe

edit on 5/11/12 by Wandering Scribe because: corrected youtube links

I only have this to say about this subject OP .... Heiser is a fool. He tries to discredit Sitchin and his work soley because Sitchin was not credentialed enough to suit him. Heiser can say all he wants, but at the end of the day, Sitchin is still believed more than Heiser's so called friends, who by the way, are laughing at him behind his back, sorry to say.

This is not a flame, it is a fact. Take it or leave it, I do not care. There are always 2 sides to everything in SCIENCE .... don't you watch Sci-Fi movies and pay attention to details ??? You always have one who says this and one who says that and look at who wins usually. The UnderDog !
edit on 11/7/2012 by Labrynth2012 because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in