Debunking Sitchin Debunkers

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!

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!

reply to post by OzTiger


Maybe, depending on the temperature of course.

Harte

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

My research has lead me to find that abzu, is the original gold mining operation in Sth Africa, where they first encountered the early hominids suitable for DNA manipulation.
The great news is, they have found it! Look up Adam's Calender in Mpumalunga Sth Africa. Strange stone circular blgs,roads & terraces that can even be seen on Google Earth.
Is it a coincidence that Puma Punku in Peru is also a mining operation?(Nazca lines)a reply to: WanDash

a reply to: deano44
Thank you!
Will look into it!

originally posted by: deano44
My research has lead me to find that abzu, is the original gold mining operation in Sth Africa, where they first encountered the early hominids suitable for DNA manipulation.
The great news is, they have found it! Look up Adam's Calender in Mpumalunga Sth Africa. Strange stone circular blgs,roads & terraces that can even be seen on Google Earth.
Is it a coincidence that Puma Punku in Peru is also a mining operation?(Nazca lines)a reply to: WanDash

that was sitchin's theory, but that's one area where i think he's wrong. firstly because "ab" means water in that time frame and it is the foundational word, the etymological root word for abyss.

a reply to: undo

that was sitchin's theory, but that's one area where i think he's wrong

Just one?
What about the problem with the orbital mechanics of an object with a 3,600 year period and the effects such an object would have on the regualar and nearly circular orbits of planets in the inner solar system?

originally posted by: undo
First let me say that I agree that Sitchin has made glaring mistakes in his Earth Chronicles. And for all intents and purposes, that seems to be deliberate. What I find compelling is that the truth of the matter is woven through out his mistakes and fabrications. What the inclusion of misinformation has done is throw researchers off the scent, and that's likely to be the real fly in the ointment.

I need more. I keep failing to see how leaking bits of truth at a time or hiding truth in lies and disinformation helps them or us. I need to know.

I understand that broaching subjects in fiction first helps open our eyes, take the Divinci Code and how that opened the floodgates to research into Jesus and made it okay to question the church, but this isn't that.

there's a massive story behind this..

the authenticity is one issue, the content is another
the same could be said of the pike/taxil letters..

..and the beat goes on

for tinfoil-hat wearers only; ..what is the 'X'-factor?

originally posted by: undo
First let me say that I agree that Sitchin has made glaring mistakes in his Earth Chronicles. And for all intents and purposes, that seems to be deliberate. What I find compelling is that the truth of the matter is woven through out his mistakes and fabrications. What the inclusion of misinformation has done is throw researchers off the scent, and that's likely to be the real fly in the ointment.

I see this as nothing more than a clear indicator that Sitchin was a highly trained puppet for the elite.

Good disinfo agents ALWAYS mix good info in with bad info.

This has always been the disinformation modus operandi.

10% truth, 20% probability, 20% possibility and 50% lies...

In order for rat poison to be effective, it must look, taste, and smell just like the real thing.

In order to be effective, any disinformation operation MUST contain elements of truth.

This is why so many refuse to believe that Zecharia Sitchin was a fraud.

The fact that the MSM promotes the same "Ancient Aliens" propaganda is another huge indicator that there is in fact a stealth agenda behind them.

a reply to: Murgatroid

the problem is, he's the one that brought sumerian literature to the forefront. that was important, because as a result, researchers such as myself, are finding all manner of verifications of the veracity of other ancient texts, including the bible.

higher criticism, championed by the vatican, ruled other ancient texts mythological, and they did this supposedly, to qualify the papal interpretation of the bible as the only valid historical reference. but what they ended up doing was erasing ancient history other than their own version, which, without historical support from surrounding ancient texts, inevitably met the same grizzly fate of being reduced to nothing more than myth. sitchin's work helped to fix that misconception but not without quite a few mistakes.

originally posted by: undo
the problem is, he's the one that brought sumerian literature to the forefront. that was important, because as a result, researchers such as myself, are finding all manner of verifications of the veracity of other ancient texts, including the bible.

He is the fringe author that brought Sumer into the colletive fringe claims. Nothing more than that.

originally posted by: undo
higher criticism, championed by the vatican, ruled other ancient texts mythological, and they did this supposedly, to qualify the papal interpretation of the bible as the only valid historical reference. but what they ended up doing was erasing ancient history other than their own version, which, without historical support from surrounding ancient texts, inevitably met the same grizzly fate of being reduced to nothing more than myth. sitchin's work helped to fix that misconception but not without quite a few mistakes.

Who goes to the Vatican for opinions regarding what's myth and what's not?

I assure you, Archaeology treats the Vatican's beliefs as myth as well.

Because it is myth, as are the thousands of other mythologies we know about, including the ones from Mesopotamia.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

the vatican spear headed the enlightenment movement thusly:

1. they founded the german universities. the professors were all catholic priests.

2. they started the higher criticism school. this resulted in claiming the greeks couldn't write when their texts were written, thus, greek records were expunged from history books in german universities. they were wrong but this wouldn't be found out for nearly 40 years.

3. this caused an avalanche of similar problems because greek literature had been a historical lynch pin for other ancient texts. without the corroboration of greek texts, neighboring ancient texts were ruled mythology as well.

4. soon, all that was left to corroborate history was the papal interpretation of the bible. but since anything that could corroborate the bible had been pitched out by the higher critics, eventually one of the higher critics made the obvious point that the bible didn't have any support either, as they had since ruled all the other ancient texts, mythology. and thus the bible was ruled myth as well.

5. queue up the enlightenment period and the arrival of archaeology as a science. archaeology discovers that the ancient greeks could write, but when historians were asked if they were going to return greek texts to historical records, the response was "what you want to go back to believing in fairies"?

6. without a timeline for history, they decide to use their new science of archaeology in conjunction with timeline for the reigns of egyptian pharaohs. however, they were basing it on the work of manetho and berossus, who fudged their numbers to give their own cultures more antiquity.

7. years pass and archaeology reveals other ancient texts actually contain historical content (cities were unearthed that were thought to be mythological but were not, rulers thought to be mythological but were not, etc). however, many are left in the dust of forgetfulness because the timeline the historians are using is messed up, in some cases by as many as 150 years.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Harte

the vatican spear headed the enlightenment movement thusly:

1. they founded the german universities. the professors were all catholic priests.

2. they started the higher criticism school. this resulted in claiming the greeks couldn't write when their texts were written, thus, greek records were expunged from history books in german universities. they were wrong but this wouldn't be found out for nearly 40 years.

3. this caused an avalanche of similar problems because greek literature had been a historical lynch pin for other ancient texts. without the corroboration of greek texts, neighboring ancient texts were ruled mythology as well.

4. soon, all that was left to corroborate history was the papal interpretation of the bible. but since anything that could corroborate the bible had been pitched out by the higher critics, eventually one of the higher critics made the obvious point that the bible didn't have any support either, as they had since ruled all the other ancient texts, mythology. and thus the bible was ruled myth as well.

5. queue up the enlightenment period and the arrival of archaeology as a science. archaeology discovers that the ancient greeks could write, but when historians were asked if they were going to return greek texts to historical records, the response was "what you want to go back to believing in fairies"?

6. without a timeline for history, they decide to use their new science of archaeology in conjunction with timeline for the reigns of egyptian pharaohs. however, they were basing it on the work of manetho and berossus, who fudged their numbers to give their own cultures more antiquity.

7. years pass and archaeology reveals other ancient texts actually contain historical content (cities were unearthed that were thought to be mythological but were not, rulers thought to be mythological but were not, etc). however, many are left in the dust of forgetfulness because the timeline the historians are using is messed up, in some cases by as many as 150 years.

How extraordinarily odd, then, that Archaeology all over the world regularly uncovers and publishes information that goes directly against the Vatican's beliefs.
How on Earth did they ever let Champollion translate the Rosetta stone? After all, it might have been pre-flood.

Harte