Dumb Old Lady vs. Ancient Aliens Debunked

Harte

I realize people call Puma Punku part of Tiwanaku, but due to its distance and differences, I don't really think it's a good idea unless the person writing about it stipulates EXACTLY which site it is referring to. They are so different. The only thing Puma Punku seems to have in common with the rest of the buildings of Tiwanaku, is the red sandstone used in the platform. Do you know if they used mortar at the subterranean temple ?

Harte again

Oh I missed commenting on your interpretation of Anunnaki. You said they were here on Earth, from the beginning and are not from the sky or whatever. If you'll notice in the video, Mr. White quotes a passage that says the sons of Anu were created in the heavens. So that's my question: If they were created in the heavens, and yet were on Earth from the beginning, how'd they get on the Earth ? Are you taking the position that the heavens are really not the sky?

Check that
Anuna, whom An conceived in the sky
It says, "The Anuna, whom An conceived in the sky"
Now Dr. Heiser knows enough about grammar rules to know the Anuna are the subject the action is being done to. That conception is the action, and that the sky is the place the action is occuring. In effect, they are being conceived in the sky. .

I don't know what to say except I'm a bit surprised at White's interpretation.

Lol wow.

Originally posted by BeyondTheUnkown
Lol wow.

I waited all day for Harte to respond and instead I get you with that thrill a minute comment. It's too much information! Got a cliff notes version?

Originally posted by undo
Harte again

Oh I missed commenting on your interpretation of Anunnaki. You said they were here on Earth, from the beginning and are not from the sky or whatever. If you'll notice in the video, Mr. White quotes a passage that says the sons of Anu were created in the heavens. So that's my question: If they were created in the heavens, and yet were on Earth from the beginning, how'd they get on the Earth ? Are you taking the position that the heavens are really not the sky?

It is my understanding that originally "heaven" meant mountaintops in Sumer.

As far as your question about mortar, I don't know but if I had to guess I would say no.

Harte

reply to post by Harte


sooo then, what was sky? was sky a mountaintop in sumer? are you saying the sumerians who went on these mountaintops to track the movements of planets and stars, thought they were just tracking some balls of light rolling around on other mountaintops? what about clouds? surely they had depth perception.

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Harte

 

sooo then, what was sky? was sky a mountaintop in sumer?

are you saying the sumerians who went on these mountaintops to track the movements of planets and stars, thought they were just tracking some balls of light rolling around on other mountaintops? what about clouds? surely they had depth perception.

Now you're just being silly.

The sky was a deity. He lived on the mountaintop.

Originally, as I understand it, the sky god was literally the sky. Just like with the Greeks. Eventually, again just like the Greeks, they began to postulate that the sky was represented by An - like Zeus represented lightning. They both lived on mountaintops, or "heaven."

In Sumer (and in Greece,) "heaven" wasn't someplace you went to as some reward for a good life. You were rewarded for piety in this life. While it was true that they had myths about humans eventually becoming immortal (or accidently refusing the gift of immortality,) those were a "favored" few.

The Sumerian gods didn't provide much in the way of moral pronouncements. Not like Yahweh. It was more about how much you prayed to them and sacrificed, etc.

Re the stars, they were representative of the gods. The gods, in stories, sometimes dwelt among men so no, the stars themselves weren't literally the gods. Again, like the Greeks. After all, the Greek constellations weren't thought (by the Greeks) to be the actual people/animals/objects that they named them after.

Sumerian astronomers built their own mountains to observe from, which you already know, of course. They didn't know that the planets weren't the same things as the stars. The important stars were depicted with a different iconography. Some of these were actual stars, some were, as I pointed out with Venus (Inanna/Ishtar,) what we today know to be planets.

I assumed you were aware of all this. From reading your posts over the years, you seem to have done some homework in this area. Though you have arrived at some really batsheet conclusions from doing so, at least you have appeared to have tried to learn about the subject. That's more than I can say for a great many posters here, as (again) you know very well.

Harte

i'm trying to detangle that in my head. there's some niggly little thing there, that's not right. gimme time. come back in a day or so, and if i haven't figured it out by then, this conversation will be tentatively at a draw. if i do figure it out, watch out.

Originally posted by undo
i'm trying to detangle that in my head. there's some niggly little thing there, that's not right. gimme time. come back in a day or so, and if i haven't figured it out by then, this conversation will be tentatively at a draw. if i do figure it out, watch out.

You're gonna tell me they came here from those star/planets through a stargate.

Don't do it, undo. Please!

Harte

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by undo
i'm trying to detangle that in my head. there's some niggly little thing there, that's not right. gimme time. come back in a day or so, and if i haven't figured it out by then, this conversation will be tentatively at a draw. if i do figure it out, watch out.

You're gonna tell me they came here from those star/planets through a stargate.

Don't do it, undo. Please!

Harte

don't worry, that's irrelevant to my point. it's something to do with the logical train of thought that develops when considering the information. particularly in relation to what spawned this conversation in the first place: et.al, ancient aliens debunked and your response regarding the translation of anunnaki. like i said, i'll get back to you on that. give me a day or so. right now the thing is all tangled up in my head cause i'm tired and over stressed from reading all the negative crap on ats.

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by undo
i'm trying to detangle that in my head. there's some niggly little thing there, that's not right. gimme time. come back in a day or so, and if i haven't figured it out by then, this conversation will be tentatively at a draw. if i do figure it out, watch out.

You're gonna tell me they came here from those star/planets through a stargate.

Don't do it, undo. Please!

Harte

don't worry, that's irrelevant to my point. it's something to do with the logical train of thought that develops when considering the information. particularly in relation to what spawned this conversation in the first place: et.al, ancient aliens debunked and your response regarding the translation of anunnaki. like i said, i'll get back to you on that. give me a day or so. right now the thing is all tangled up in my head cause i'm tired and over stressed from reading all the negative crap on ats.

I don't read any of that crap here. You shouldn't either.

This place is nice, if you stay away from the loons.

Harte

Okay, I think I have detangled it now.
The issue isn't how YOU view it, the issue is how the guy who made the video views it. At least, for me. In his estimation, the text is claiming these guys are just princes, however, he believes in the supernatural and has no problem with the idea of extra-terrestrial life (whether sentient or not, i don't know, cause he didn't stipulate from what i recall).

In your estimation, it's all basic mythology 101. So how you view the supernatural (or hypernatural in the case of aliens capable of advanced technology), is in direct conflict with his position, otherwise.

Although I respect your position and opinion, I don't necessarily fully agree with it, and same goes for the Mr. White and Dr. Heiser.

Originally posted by undo
Okay, I think I have detangled it now.
The issue isn't how YOU view it, the issue is how the guy who made the video views it. At least, for me. In his estimation, the text is claiming these guys are just princes, however, he believes in the supernatural and has no problem with the idea of extra-terrestrial life (whether sentient or not, i don't know, cause he didn't stipulate from what i recall).

In your estimation, it's all basic mythology 101. So how you view the supernatural (or hypernatural in the case of aliens capable of advanced technology), is in direct conflict with his position, otherwise.

You're misrepresenting what White says:

The word Annunaki means “princely seed” or “princely blood”. The idea is that the Annunaki were direct creations of Anu, who was regarded as the father and king of the gods. [1][2][3]

As we will see, this is the main idea associated with the Annunaki in the minds of Sumerians, that is that they were directly created by Anu, and so it makes sense that even their name reflects this idea, that is that they were the offspring of the prince.

“The term itself means ‘of royal seed’ or ‘princely seed’ because the annunaki were considered the offspring of Anu or An – the great God of heaven. The annunaki were also the offspring of An and his consort “ki“ of heaven and earth. [There was] this divine coupling [in] the way the Mesopotamians conceived their pantheon.”

Source

Here it is plain to see that White isn't dismissing them as "just princes." He puts them squarely in the realm of Sumerian religious mythology as the offspring of An, the highest god.

Originally posted by undoAlthough I respect your position and opinion, I don't necessarily fully agree with it, and same goes for the Mr. White and Dr. Heiser.

Obviously, that goes both ways. Batsheet, IOW

White certainly has biases, like we all do. He may have had as his motive his faith in his own religion and its traditions. But he's not making anything up at that website, unlike those that claim that the Sumerians stated the Annuna were aliens. Like I said, he has some factual details wrong in some sections- but he's dead on with the Anunnaki section.

Harte

reply to post by Harte


i based my comments on what he said in the video not at the website. i'm not sure if these two things are identical.

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Harte

 

i based my comments on what he said in the video not at the website. i'm not sure if these two things are identical.

Me either.

I'm not one to sit at the computer and stare at videos, so I've never even watched it.

After all, why should I? He makes exactly the same arguments - with the same evidence - that I've been making here (and other forums) for years.

I assumed that the text portions were transcripts. A serious hunt for any errors made by White should probably include watching the entire vid as well, I suppose.

Harte

reply to post by undo


No problem withe non believers but it's so easy to debunk someting. You lift out the weak point and focus on them.
And with ancient aliens there are a lot of weak points simply because a mighty organisation is't really coöperating. They don't want us to know the truth (yet).
www.evawaseerst.be...

Originally posted by undo
Check that
Anuna, whom An conceived in the sky
It says, "The Anuna, whom An conceived in the sky"
Now Dr. Heiser knows enough about grammar rules to know the Anuna are the subject the action is being done to. That conception is the action, and that the sky is the place the action is occuring. In effect, they are being conceived in the sky. .

I don't know what to say except I'm a bit surprised at White's interpretation.

The sky was here before the Earth.

In fact, the Anunna were about the business of actually creating the Earth when they rebelled leading to the creation of humans to do the work.

Sorry for the delay here.

Harte

Sorry hon, this is nonsense. Spending too much time reading the Bible and the works of known frauds like Zachariah Sitchin.

Originally posted by Nicorette
Sorry hon, this is nonsense. Spending too much time reading the Bible and the works of known frauds like Zachariah Sitchin.

this was a response to a video called ANCIENT ALIENS DEBUNKED, created and hosted by a christian man. did you want me to address it using the dictionary instead??