90 replies to this topic

[booNyzarC]

Babe Ruth, on 24 March 2012 - 05:55 PM, said:

No, I'm a whoredog and will read any old thing.

With one notable exception it would seem.  You'll read any old thing, except for anything at all that disagrees with your conclusions.

Or I suppose you could prove that statement as incorrect by reading this link previously provided to you and sharing with us how the information provided by Mike Heiser is incorrect in any way?

[Babe Ruth]

The Sky Scanner, on 24 March 2012 - 06:11 PM, said:

No I never make absolute statements like "I accept his version of the alignment of the buildings and structures, their dimensions, and all that, as fact". ..on subjects i'm not educated enough to be able to dissect the 'evidence', and reading a couple of books doesn't make you educated in a subject either.

I can understand being 'touchy-feely' when dealing with these type of subjects, nothing wrong with that....I go with personal experience myself when deciding if a subject has substance or not, but it's not good enough for me to believe, hope, trust and base a stance on gut feeling and wishful thinking...I don't want to believe, I want to know.

I understand what you're saying.

Reading a book on any subject makes one more educated to some degree, by definition.  That is, having 1 book's knowledge of any given subject is better than having 0 book's knowledge of that subject.

I've known for decades about the proportion and design of Orion, but I never knew until I read Hancock's book that the proportion and design of the Giza pyramids were so close to it.  Never knew until I read the book that at certain specific times, the gaze of the Sphinx, part lion and part man, is directed precisely at the constellation Leo at sunrise, and that happens every 26,000 years, or whatever the number.

[Babe Ruth]

Boo

I've mentioned it a few times, but it slipped right under your comprehension radar, if I may borrow the term.  

For about 4 years I was just like you--active on the internet at various fora defending the official story, as best I could.  Yes, I certainly had questions, but it was tough NOT to go along with all the news reports and such.  I brought out all the arguments about NORAD being more concerned with threats from without than from within.  Cascading collapses of the towers.  All the same tired stuff you bring up today.

So to answer your criticism, yes, though I am a whoredog, I've read the OCT, and I have defended it online. I am not ignorant of it, I am very familiar with it.  That's why it's so easy to refute it.

Reading is easy.  Interpreting the facts is the part requiring critical thinking skills.  Being able to come to terms with the very brutal fact that elements of the government that I once served have been hijacked, is the hard part.

Pointing out the deception involved in the events of the day is easy compared to defending a lie.

We were all fooled on 11 September.  The sad but predictable part is that so many have not YET figured it out.

[booNyzarC]

Babe Ruth, on 24 March 2012 - 09:45 PM, said:

Boo

I've mentioned it a few times, but it slipped right under your comprehension radar, if I may borrow the term.  

For about 4 years I was just like you--active on the internet at various fora defending the official story, as best I could.  Yes, I certainly had questions, but it was tough NOT to go along with all the news reports and such.  I brought out all the arguments about NORAD being more concerned with threats from without than from within.  Cascading collapses of the towers.  All the same tired stuff you bring up today.

So to answer your criticism, yes, though I am a whoredog, I've read the OCT, and I have defended it online. I am not ignorant of it, I am very familiar with it.  That's why it's so easy to refute it.

Reading is easy.  Interpreting the facts is the part requiring critical thinking skills.  Being able to come to terms with the very brutal fact that elements of the government that I once served have been hijacked, is the hard part.

Pointing out the deception involved in the events of the day is easy compared to defending a lie.

We were all fooled on 11 September.  The sad but predictable part is that so many have not YET figured it out.

I'm not sure if you realize this or not, but we aren't in a 911 conspiracy thread and I wasn't referring to 911 in my post to you.  Who is under the comprehension radar again?

[badeskov]

Babe Ruth, on 24 March 2012 - 06:01 PM, said:

Badeskov

I'm 64 and have been watching Orion and the sky since I was about 10 years old, it's a spiritual thing with me.  You should try it in an airplane on a clear night, from 15000 feet.     And the science is interesting.

I can see with my own eyes that looking at the points, the alignment and ratio of the Giza pyramids is extremely close, with the naked eye.

What exactly is your point?  I suspect you are one of those humans who must attack, discredit, or otherwise take down another human.  This, under the guise of fidelity to truth or something.

I make up my own mind thanks very much, but I do enjoy the conversation.

BR,

I am not trying to judge, merely putting the facts out there.  And your age has no relevance whatsoever.

I am not one of those that need to attack or anything like that. No need for that. But if you feel I did so, please do point it out so I can aoplogize.

In the end, I just want to get to the heart of the matter discussed, and that entails getting all the information available. You should, naturally make up your own mind and I feel I that have shown you both sides. You, on the other hand, seem rather reluctant to look into the documentation the other side offers. I have personally commented and supported on what I felt supported my position, you have not even allowed my data a single glance. Up to you, but in that respect you fail big time.

Cheers,
Badeskov

[Babe Ruth]

Boo, sorry I misinterpreted your smart remark.

Badeskov

You are correct that I did not read all that material you presented.

Might you offer a synopsis, a condensed version of your counterpoint to Sitchin's points?  In general terms, how do you think he is wrong?

[cormac mac airt]

Babe Ruth, on 25 March 2012 - 02:17 PM, said:

Boo, sorry I misinterpreted your smart remark.

Badeskov

You are correct that I did not read all that material you presented.

Might you offer a synopsis, a condensed version of your counterpoint to Sitchin's points?  In general terms, how do you think he is wrong?

The biggest problem with Zechariah Sitchin is the fact that he had no formal training in reading or translating the Sumerian language, nor in understanding its iconography. Every time he was challenged to prove otherwise he made some excuse not to. The biggest hiccup to his "translation" is the word Nibiru, which is Nibru in Sumerian texts, and is the name of a city. We know it now by the name of Nippur in Iraq. One can read many Sumerian stories at the following and NONE will substantiate his "translations":

The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (ETCSL)

cormac

[Babe Ruth]

No formal training??? OMG!  

Is this petulance or arrogance?

I'm not in the business friend, so I don't care about his academic record at all.  I care about his ideas and information--that's why I read a book.

[cormac mac airt]

Babe Ruth, on 25 March 2012 - 06:15 PM, said:

No formal training??? OMG!  

Is this petulance or arrogance?

I'm not in the business friend, so I don't care about his academic record at all.  I care about his ideas and information--that's why I read a book.

Neither, it's a statement of fact. Not once has he shown the ability to read, let along translate, Sumerian. One doesn't just pick up a book and teach themselves a language that's been dead for the last 4000+ years. Now THAT'S arrogance. And yet, many have bought his spiel hook, line and sinker.

cormac

[badeskov]

Babe Ruth, on 25 March 2012 - 02:17 PM, said:

Boo, sorry I misinterpreted your smart remark.

Badeskov

You are correct that I did not read all that material you presented.

Might you offer a synopsis, a condensed version of your counterpoint to Sitchin's points?  In general terms, how do you think he is wrong?

The really, really short version: he is plain out wrong.

The little longer version: all scholars agree that he is wrong.

In that one link I offered there are 10-12 grave examples of how and why he is wrong. And we are not talking a mistranslation here and there - it is whole concepts that he has no grasp of whatsoever. He was, simply put, a quack.

Cheers,
Badeskov

[DONTEATUS]

It dosnt take a brilliant mind to see whats the real problem in this thread ! "The God vs aliens debate"
THere is no proof of Real in either subject. Yet !

[karmakazi]

Babe Ruth, on 24 March 2012 - 09:37 PM, said:

I understand what you're saying.

Reading a book on any subject makes one more educated to some degree, by definition.  That is, having 1 book's knowledge of any given subject is better than having 0 book's knowledge of that subject.

I've known for decades about the proportion and design of Orion, but I never knew until I read Hancock's book that the proportion and design of the Giza pyramids were so close to it.  Never knew until I read the book that at certain specific times, the gaze of the Sphinx, part lion and part man, is directed precisely at the constellation Leo at sunrise, and that happens every 26,000 years, or whatever the number.

This is an excellent example of how phrasing can make something out of nothing.  Over the course of its existence, the sphinx will "gaze precisely" at many constellations, the exact same statement above could be said about Aquarius but no one would find it significant because the two do not obviously relate like leo and a lion do.

This is typical of the books you're talking about.  It is omission of most of the information in order to make the information which is shared seem special.

It's like sensationalism in the news... when they say 100 people died of some disease like it's a big deal and a high percentage, but 99.9% of people recover from the disease.  It's all about ratings, book sales and money, even notoriety, and they will get it any way they can.

Edited by karmakazi, 26 March 2012 - 12:46 PM.

[booNyzarC]

Babe Ruth, on 25 March 2012 - 02:17 PM, said:

Boo, sorry I misinterpreted your smart remark.

It wasn't a "smart remark."  It was an observation, and then an opportunity for you to disprove or remedy the observation.  I'll rephrase it for you though...

Have you read any of the information in this link?

If no, please do; or at least make an effort to read some of it.

If yes, do you disagree or agree with the information provided?

[badeskov]

Babe Ruth, on 25 March 2012 - 06:15 PM, said:

<snip>

I'm not in the business friend, so I don't care about his academic record at all.  I care about his ideas and information--that's why I read a book.

Sorry for the belated response, but other issues took precedence. I am just curious, how can you not consider his academic record when you do not (admittedly on your part) read the rebuttals of his claims? It seems like that you do like the imaginary tale he promotes, but have no interest in actually looking into other aspects (i.e., true scientific data).

Frankly put, he it plain out wrong. And I am baffled why people (you included) even consider him a reliable source of anything. I can (and already have) shown you considerable data as to why he is a quack. If you feel otherwise, show me why.    

Cheers,
Badeskov

[Babe Ruth]

If he's a quack, Badeskov, he is a dead quack.

I see him (reminder I read only 1 of his books) as just another viewer of historical events.  I expect him to have some level of bias, the same as yourself or any other author.

I do not expect any book or viewpoint to be The Essence Of Truth, especially about historical matters.