Debunking Sitchin Debunkers

page: 9
22
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   

OzTiger
reply to post by Harte
 


ROFLMFAO!

My interest in the Sumerians came from and article in New Dawn Magazine almost 10 years ago, and I quote:

"Most human beings were counting using their fingers, if at all, hunting animals and gathering plants for their meals. Yet, we find the Sumerian's in classrooms learning the principles of the sexigesimal math system. Yes, the very same 60-base system we use today to keep track of hours, minutes and seconds. This advanced system was the first to reveal that a circle has 360 degrees and can be subdivided using 60, 30, 15, 12, etc., all fractions of the root number".

My inquisitiveness beggared the question : "Who the hell were teaching the Sumerians - and where the hell did they come from"?

Trying to sort out the facts from the myth's has been almost a full-time occupation.

From today's "Post a Funny Picture I'm Bored" thread:





edit on 3-2-2014 by OzTiger because: (no reason given)
edit on 3-2-2014 by OzTiger because: (no reason given)


Big Bump!
Good Job!




posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Harte
Base 12 system, actually, and it came from counting knuckles on fingers.

Base 12 is easily converted into base 6.

With 12 digits, you can count more things. Up to 24 without taking off your shoes (assuming, of course, you aren't a chimp.)

Harte


So, if they weren't wearing clothes, the men could count up to 27 then!



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by OzTiger
 


Maybe, depending on the temperature of course.

Harte



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 05:30 PM
link   

draknoir2
His work continues to prove it is a real, human skull.

The special pleading of wishful believers also continues.


Believe or not, that is the question!

LINK


The Pseudo-Skeptic is not a true Skeptic!
Truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:
1. Denying, when only doubt has been established
2. Double standards in the application of criticism
3. The tendency to discredit rather than investigate
4. Presenting insufficient evidence or proof
5. Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof
6. Making unsubstantiated counter-claims
7. Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence
8. Suggesting that unconvincing evidence provides grounds for completely dismissing a claim
He characterized "true" skepticism as:
1. Acceptance of doubt when neither assertion nor denial has been established
2. No burden of proof to take an agnostic position
3. Agreement that the corpus of established knowledge must be based on what is proved, but recognising its incompleteness
4. Even-handedness in requirement for proofs, whatever their implication
5. Accepting that a failure of a proof in itself proves nothing
6. Continuing examination of the results of experiments even when flaws are found


 


Mod Note: Posting work written by others.– Please Review This Link.

edit on 2/4/2014 by Blaine91555 because: T & C of Use violation.
edit on 2/4/2014 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 08:14 AM
link   

draknoir2
His work continues to prove it is a real, human skull.

The special pleading of wishful believers also continues.


i'm not sure what to make of the head binders of south and central america, nor the skulls created by genetic disease, but i'm sure as heck interested in the skulls of egyptian royals. now before you go off on a quoting frenzy of "they were result of inbreeding" or "head binding", i will head you off the pass with data concerning egyptian royal skull oddities:

1. from the beginning of the rise of pharaonic egypt, anthropologists noted a problem with pharaonic and other royal cranial measurements. the consensus was they could not determine what genetic group the early royals mated with to create the distinct difference in cranial measurements between royals and the skulls of the rest of the population. by the time of akhenaten, this difference was not only in stark evidence but was celebrated by drawing attention to it in an art forms. the mummies of several pharaohs and immediate family members showed evidence of elongated craniums.

2. there was no evidence that early egyptian royal cranial measurement was the result of inbreeding.

3. the egyptians didn't head bind.



edit on 5-2-2014 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 08:18 AM
link   

waltwillis

I would like to ask what you think of the book “WORLDS in COLLISION” written by:
Immanuel Velikovsky?
The author was brutally demonized by many others when the book was published in 1950.


i did read up on it, but not the book itself, and even that reading was several years ago. i would have to refresh my memory on it, to comment further, although i'm aware mr. sitchin employed some of velikovsky's data for his enuma elish translation.

watching this now

edit on 5-2-2014 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 09:29 AM
link   
i suppose watching the video does not supply enough evidence of velikovsky's theories. but based on what i just saw in the video i linked in my previous post, it's possible something similar to his theories may have occured.

however, i'm hard pressed to believe it is as he has stated because of my earlier translation of the sumerian "abzu" and its modified usage in enuma elish, which allows a re-telling of the events in a way not originally noted by the sumerian-akkadian authors who's info predated enuma elish.

i had to weed thru enuma elish and verify each and every mention of tiamat, abzu, enki, enlil, anu and various related personages, versus the original and earlier writings. neither sitchin's theories nor velikosky's, regarding enuma elish, could hold water regarding the events because the assumption these were planetary movements was based on babylonian astrology, not the original, earlier writings.

this phenomenon of interpreting the ancient past based on babylonian writings only, was the result of the lack of written evidence to the contrary for nearly 4500 years due to many of the older texts being buried under some 8 ft. of flood silt. as a result, many assyriologists wrote books on the subject in which earlier evidence was not available by which to test their hypotheses, and you are witness to where the corrupted enuma elish version lead researchers and historians of various stripes, religious or otherwise (including Sitchin and Velikovsky).

wresting the incorrect babylonian understanding from the minds of mainstream researchers is a daunting task, as these understandings are based on corrupted enuma elish and resulting interpretations. they have played a role in establishing a world view which comfortably supports the pure atheist perspective -- such as the writings of Acharya S and Velikovsky, who believe all religious writings are merely references to planetary movements and as such could be better categorized as NOTHING more than early astronomy and the subsequent birth of astrology as a religious practice.

edit on 5-2-2014 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 04:00 PM
link   

undo

waltwillis

I would like to ask what you think of the book “WORLDS in COLLISION” written by:
Immanuel Velikovsky?
The author was brutally demonized by many others when the book was published in 1950.


i did read up on it, but not the book itself, and even that reading was several years ago. i would have to refresh my memory on it, to comment further, although i'm aware mr. sitchin employed some of velikovsky's data for his enuma elish translation.

watching this now

edit on 5-2-2014 by undo because: (no reason given)


The guy with the chalkboard got it all wrong.

That is not in the book at all!

How do people read the same book and see different things?



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by waltwillis
 


regardless, the point is that velikovsky himself believed the planetary battle of planets banging into each other is in evidence in ancient texts, like enuma elish. this was an incorrect interpretation of even older texts, that unfortunately, were not available for translation or interpretation for so long that the consensus had to be based on babylonian astrology and the fudged up enuma elish.


edit on 5-2-2014 by undo because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
22
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join