Yes they have, and I can't quite believe that this argument is still going on.

1. It has been PROVEN by experts in ancient languages, who have both the qualifications, and credentials (ie that they're asscociated with a scientific body and can be used as a trusted source) that he has mistranslated his work.

2. Scientists have PROVEN that it is impossible for a planet to exist with such an orbit - it simply is not physically possible.

(I'm not going to provide sources, simply because we've had this discussion before, and I provided them then - use the search function and find them yourselves.)

Given that these are the 2 main foundations of Sitchen's theory, I think we can call that a closed case.



Er, no they don't. It is preciselt because of the gravitation pull that it isn't possible - it simply would not be able to do a swing orbit near earth without dramatic (and deadly) gravitation effects on this planet.

And sweetheart, sorry, but that website is not proof. If you google "hobbits", you get page upon page of credible, empirical, objective reports, many of them from scientific bodies. That is proof, not an "Enigmatic Earth" or "Ancient Histories" website - they are hardly going to provide empirical proof are they? Talk about biased.

And even if the almost century-old stories about giant skeletons ([sarcasm] yeah, because thats really reliable [/sarcasm]) are true, its a tiny, insignificant piece of "proof" that does nothing to vindicate the massive gaping holes in the rest of Sitchen's theories.

Haha I forgot to put the link lol but I jsut edited it now!

Again, the website is called "Xfacts" - they are looking for facts to support the planet x theory, it is NOT A SCIENTIFIC, EMPIRICAL WEBSITE. Can't you see how unbelievably biased a site like that is going to be? Its like asking a Nazi about racial purity - "well, of course white people are more civilised, I read it on naziforums.com so it must be true".

And why can't you find a scientific, empirical website about planet x? Because it has absolutely NO scientific grounding.

*bangs head on desk*

[quote name='Emma_Acid_88' date='Mar 15 2007, 10:10 PM' post='1583574']
Yes they have, and I can't quite believe that this argument is still going on.

1. It has been PROVEN by experts in ancient languages, who have both the qualifications, and credentials (ie that they're asscociated with a scientific body and can be used as a trusted source) that he has mistranslated his work.

With respect Emma,...not ALL of his work.
If that was the case, they would have had him planting & picking vegetables in the funny farm by now.
A lot of ppl out the still follow his work...go figure.

There's no evidence for a inhabitable planet 4 times the size of the earth on a 3,600 year elpitical orbit around the sun whatsoever on that site.

And it starts off with a Sumerian cylinder seal depicting the Pleiades! Sitchin would have been better off suggesting it was an alien solar system since it bears no resemblance whatsoever to ours - the relative size and the number of planets being totally wrong!

Of course he didn't mistranslate EVERYTHING, that would be ridiculous, but it is proven that the key terms, meanings and words that his theory relies on are simply translated wrong, purposefully or otherwise.

Stephen Baxter and Iain M Banks write science fiction stories - they've not been committed to the funny farm either

You don;t get committed for selling a sci-fi story as being fact.

Thinking about it, a better analogy for Sitchen would be L Ron Hubbard ....... another sci fi writer who pretended his stories were real. Mind you, he duped even more people that Sitchen!

OK, I have a few questions for the Sitchen believers here.

1. How big is planet x supposed to be?

and

2. In its highly elipical orbit, how long before it passes earth again?

(according to Sitchen, obviously).....

And I will do my best to prove to you that planet x does not exist.

Up for the challenge?

Cool!....then i'd like to check the difference between his 'theories' and the scientists/researchers who oppose Stichen's with their own.

All I have to say to you is that for as many scientists and sites that you claim disprove all of this there are just as many that do prove it so its up to you to think what you want

*sigh*

I've posted it before and I'll post it again. Michael Heiser is a scholar in Summarian texts. He is currently working on his Phd. Where's Sitchen's phd? Ain't got one.

http://www.michaelsheiser.com/

Actually, no there isn't. I can't find ONE empirical, scientific website, journal or body that support his theories. You know different? Then post a link.

Well said Essan, that L Ron Hubbard was a psychotic freak, who wanted to practically transform the world into Sciencetology....
*must give up million$ to join... do the Dianetics test & enter my master race into the future*

Is no-one going to take up my Sitchen Challenge??

You can keep asking for empirical sites, however I can also argue back to you that your 'Sitchin's Wrong' website isn't exactly empirical either. We are dealing with a belief here and your 'PHD' holder may be completely biased against Sitchin and may be looking for any little thing to attack his theories. You want an empirical site from me? Present a real empirical site that clearly explains what the Sumarian's really say as remember, the Sumarian's aren't writing in ancient Hebrew.

It IS empirical. The guy is a assistant professor, lecturer, author, phd holder in ancient texts, and very simply points out where Sitchen went wrong, and goes into great detail about the problems with Sitchen's use of language.

How on earth can you say its to do with belief??? Is everything that guys teaches just his "belief"??? Good grief. Read it properly.

And by the way, just saying that what i present is not empirical does not get you out of providing empirical evidence - search "burden of proof" on this website. But we won't discuss that here.

(edited for extra annoyance and general miffed-ness)

After looking at what your site says, and yeah, his PhD is impressive, however at the end of the day, isn't it his translation vs Sitchin's? We are discussing ancient artifacts which are very much open to interpretation (how can we be completely sure we are translating them correctly?). From my point of view though, I support Sitchin's theory as in my belief, it makes more sense.

There are professors and lecturers that also teach at universities that do teach about the possibility of a twelth planet, does that mean they are just as right as this guy? Would that make them empirical too? And what about NASA, who state that they can see a dark, solid, large object out there? Or are they lying and not empirical enough?

No, it is absolutely not "his translation vs Sitchens". Two people can read a section of the bible and garner different meanings from it in terms of its relevance to their lives, but translation is an empirical, exact science; the original text had to mean something exact, and I'm not talking about the allegorical or metaphorical meaning of the story, I'm talking about the actual meaning of the words themselves.

The sentence "I own a black cat", when translated into French, could not become the topic of a heated debate by two Frenchmen, one insisting that I own a black cat, the other convinced that I was saying my name is Norman. The phrase "I own a black cat" can, in English, mean only that.

So how, in 2000 years time, can a translater be able to form his own belief as to what I was saying? If you know a language fluently, then you know that lanuage. There's no question of what people "believe" it to mean.

[/rant over]

I'm neither nah or yah on Sitchen, my mind remains open.

The site/link you provide looked all pretty and colorful and all, but looking at it at first glance, it seemed totally biased and one sided to say the least.eg...
and this is just the opening line...

Welcome to the website ''devoted'' to addressing the flaws of the ancient astronaut hypothesis popularized in the writings of Zecharia Sitchin.

devoted!!!...wot is that cr@p???

Talk about trying to conjure or brainwash peoples beliefs from others to your own.

This guy sounds a little like he has a personal rift going on with Sitchen....next!

Also, different people can translate the same thing and come up with different but equal logical translations and here is an example but in Japanese(a language that isnt ancient and yet its sentences like every language can be interpreted different)

Watashi wa enpitsu o kau

There are two possible translations for this:

1. I buy/will buy a pencil
2. I keep/will keep a pencil

While it is a romaji sentence (if the sentence was also in hiragana you'd be presented with the same problem) and not a kanji (which would give us a clear distinction), it does show that we can look at a language script and can come up with two different, yet equally correct translations.

He does. And if I'd spent the last 20 years of my life learning about a subject and some pseudo-scientific, nonsense-talking wasteman wades on the scene with his very own money-making version of what I knew to be correct and true, damn right I'd be devoted to shooting him down and shutting him up.



How many times???? ITS NOT ABOUT BELIEF. This is SCIENCE, something Sitchen knows nothing about.

clap clap someone understands

Absolutely, a word can mean several different things, but:

1. Are you really trying to tell me that Sitchen, and Sitchen alone, has discovered completely new meanings for words that countless other scholars have known to have meant something else entirely??

and

2. Its not just the meanings of the words, its the fact that he makes genuine mistakes in his translations - things just aren't what they should be, its not just a case of "well it could mean that" - he blatantly doesn't know the workings of the language.

Again - read the website, it explains EXACTLY why Sitchen is wrong.

Damn, I've turned into one of those people who use capitals. I hate people who use capitals.

I thought the essence of all scientific fact was based on belief ?!

So Stichen has no science degree to back up his theories...so what!...does it make him lesser of a researcher?

Sitchen has being doing whatever ever he's doing for 35 yrs.

Shutting him up?!...hmmm so much for free thinking and freedom of speech.

edit: It's been fun ppl, must go catch ya all again soon...take care.

Rebel

Of course there is the possibility of another planet, we found one (albeit a small one) very recently, but you're avoiding the subject: the orbit that Sitchen claims that this planet has is plain and simple impossible. Physically impossible. Not to mention the fact that it would be far too cold to support life.

I mean, its the most ridiculous argument ever -

"I believe beings came here and this and this happened"

Oh really? When?

"So long ago there is no evidence left of it ever happening"

Oh, right. And where did they come from?

"From a planet so far away you can't even see it"

Right.

Well exactly what you said it could mean several different things which means your PHD guy isnt completely right either he could have some ground however he may not at the end of the day they both interpret it different but you decide to completely reject Sitchin which is your choice of course. On the other hand, I will not completely reject what this other guy is saying, I am merely just saying that I feel that Sitchin's translations should be taken seriously. And remember, there is a big key difference between the two, Sitchin is just explaining what his translation and what his research has lead him to believe whereas this PhD holder is clearly out to discredit and when you are out to discredit, there is always bias which means he is no more empirical as Stalin was with his beliefs and teachings on Socialism's strength over capitalism.

Thats a silly thing to say. "I believe the sun is fuelled by nuclear fussion" is completely different to "I believe God has a white beard".

Belief is not the same as A Belief.



Again, this makes no sense - when someone is claiming that the specifics of a language mean something, yes, you should definately have science to back it up. Sitchen doesn't. I don't know how you can actually argue in defence of him, it astounds me.

You're missing the point. Massively.

Haha exactly because it happened so long ago no one believes in it and not only that but you were the one who wanted to argue over it coming up with a stupid challenge,like who does that anyway? all that this thread asked was who supports the theory not who wants to argue someone elses opinion and have a compition and by the way to answer your question on how could they survive a planet so cold? well who said all life out there has to survive the same way we do with warmer weather? who said they couldnt survive in cold weather but anyway the sumerians say they mined for gold to help keep the warmth in their atmosphere so there you go. Anyway i've made my case and really all this is about is that Zecharia Sitchen believes he translated things right and this other guy believes he is wrong but think about this, the guy that you claim is totally right is out there making sites to force people to believe Sitchen is wrong and all the rest of it where as Sitchen isn't. That Micheal guy seems like he has a major problem well im off to read something else now im not going to spend my whole night arguing with someone who seems as though they are following some sort of colt against Sitchen.

Science has been wrong before...and i'm sure it will be wrong again. Try not to make science out to be ''the one and only''.

Later Emma.

Haha exactly because it happened so long ago no one believes in it and not only that but you were the one who wanted to argue over it coming up with a stupid challenge,like who does that anyway? all that this thread asked was who supports the theory not who wants to argue someone elses opinion and have a compition and by the way to answer your question on how could they survive a planet so cold? well who said all life out there has to survive the same way we do with warmer weather? who said they couldnt survive in cold weather but anyway the sumerians say they mined for gold to help keep the warmth in their atmosphere so there you go. Anyway i've made my case and really all this is about is that Zecharia Sitchen believes he translated things right and this other guy believes he is wrong but think about this, the guy that you claim is totally right is out there making sites to force people to believe Sitchen is wrong and all the rest of it where as Sitchen isn't. That Micheal guy seems like he has a major problem well im off to read something else now im not going to spend my whole night arguing with someone who seems as though they are following some sort of colt against Sitchen.

Except that one guy is a certified expert in the field, and the other isn't.

Thats not down to interpretation, he just isn't. Sitchen is not an expert in ancient languages, and if he was he'd have the certified credentials behind it. Or do you think he thought he just wouldn't need them? Or couldn't be bothered?

I'm getting a little bored of this. Throwing in the towel. I tried to get someone to challenge me so I could prove them wrong about planet x (and I do actually know how to), and I tried to show that the idea of science is not down to how much cannot be proven to be wrong, but rather down to learned knowledge and empirical testing - how much we know to be right - something Sitchen's theories would never stand up to.

But people here just steadfastly believe whatever they want to, no matter how unfeasable and ridiculous and unscientific.

I think I'm calling it a day at UM.com - the words "new lows" and "hitting" spring to mind.

Oops sorry for the double post

exactly what I said before this thread is for peoples opinions but no you came on here looking for a challenege no wonder no one is listening to you so I do think it is a good idead you call it a day. And thats right we do believe what we want to and why? because we have that freedom to so its not up to you to say we are wrong dont forget you are believing in something you feel is right too.

Zecharia Sitchin is part of a subculture just like everyone else, I mean everybody.

In the middle of the pack of of goodies is the truth. As the pack grew from one thing to just a few things, everybody believed it. They had proof, they wrote it down; scribbled it on rocks, whatever. The evidence mounted as to the content of existence. More records were scribbled. As the number of records grew, some people noticed that the things they had written at first were happening again. It is hard to imagine what Mr. Sitchin is saying, but he is right; there is no society that needs to back him up. I do not know that he has a gigantic interferometory telescoping micro planetary viewfinder or something like that, but I'm pretty sure he knows what he is talking about.

As I say, he is part of a subculture. There are other parts to this subculture; this and all of the blogsites having to do with the planets and stars and galaxies are part of the subculture. A more distant part, like the 2nd cousin 5 times removed, is UFOs.

And that is about where Mr. Sitchin sits, it is as yet an unexplained phenomenon in the grab-bag of mysteries.

But still, there are honest down-to-earth matter-of-fact writings that have been preserved throughout the eons and ages that speak of these things. I mean, writings so old. The planetary movements, the appearance of a great planet called 'The Destroyer,' and there is an interesting pull to the whole thing. It is wonderful when you realize that everything that is written in all cultures has already happened. Will it happen again? Probably not from the planet that Mr. Sitchin has gotten us to pay attention to.

You have to realize that the circumference, the circle of orbit, that the earth and moon are in around the sun is occupied by at least 500 more rocks the size of the earth and the moon. And there are 3 more like that in our solar system, but in those there are thousands of rocks bigger than earth. The sun, that little ball that you cannot look at for more than a glance, is hundreds of thousands of times larger than this earth.

That is the truth.

Does the sun have the power to attract a planet as large as the one that is causing so much concern when everbody thinks about the Mayan calendars ending in the year 2012? Is there going to be a big collision? Like Wormwood in the bible, the 'Destroyer' of the Kolbrin? Maybe. Maybe in 2012. That is only 5 years away. Do we all get scared and start hoarding supplies and funding the building of superstructure-steel reinforced buildings that will withstand something else besides a planet and think that faith will save us? Well, no. That is not really the result of a fear, but a sign that the human psyche has been conditioned in a way to expect that to occur. The media unknowingly promoted and provoked that fear when it reported on the Shoemaker-Levy comet that crashed into Jupiter whatever year that was.

It is obvious that some sort of movement of the psyche of people has been toward the preservation of what belongs to them and the obvious scarcity that has suddenly reached us. When you look at the overall picture, I mean the rise and fall of civilizations over the course of history, at least what we are taught in schools and colleges, there is no record of any such catstrophes such as a plantary demise. What are we taught concerning the dinosaur? Not really anything but the size and shape. I don't know of any child that is taught that 'a comet crashed into the earth 65 to 85 Million years ago and wiped out all life;' maybe they are. But, that is not the whole truth. Sure, asteroids hit and probably thosands of them; little rocks that that just peppered the area.

Why? Did something blow up? I really don't know, maybe. But taking into consideration that this solar system has been moving through a universe all of your existence and probably long before that, there is the possibility that this solar system moved through an area in the universe that already had planets and we know that planets are soft and easily crumble when put into a particle accelerator. But that is the copy of existence.

What is the sun mostly made of? Just a slight step between the smallest atom of Hydrogen and the next larger, Helium.
And just what is your brain made from, how do you think, how do you get pictures in your brain? It's like the sun cooled down enough to fit into a TV, the same process. But the cooling caused the Hydrogen atom to slow down to a Calcium atom with the same properties of instability.

What do you get from the sun? There's heat and light and something else.
What do you get from thinking? There's heat in the body, the ability to manifest things, and something else.

What is that something else? It is movement. Inertia. Discombobulation. Anxiety.

See, we are sons and daughters of the sun.

...If this thread has devolved into nigh-pointless sniping, perhaps it should just be ended.

I think Mareikura /believes/ in Sitchin (even if she won't spell it properly) and will continue to do so regardless of the facts.
I think Emma, moved by a firm grounding in scientific fact, thinks Sitchin (even if she won't spell it properly) is a bare-faced fraud.

In fact, that seems to be the split in this thread, with a few people ready to give Sitchin the doubt.

That said, perhaps we can move on to another angle of discussion? I posted some third-party links about Sitchin's translation that nobody's said beans about. Go read those and tell me if they're hopeless biases. I don't think so, but if they are, I'd like to know why.

--Jaylemurph

sitchen has a refreshing take on this ancient literature, i feel he is much more beleiveable than the scholars who have a vested religious position to maintain. all organized religion is all about money, power and greed and the religious establishment has too much to loose if alternate theories are supported and recognized by the masses. as in politics just follow the $$$$! who has the most to loose is sitchen is beleived or actually right.

I'd like to point something out to Emma:

"Some people exhibit such a need to be right that they can't stand evidence to the contrary. These are the folks who work overtime to prove others wrong and disparage anyone who espouses a different point of view. Their stance makes meetings difficult because it sends discussions rapidly into debating fact versus theory. The downside of such debate is that it is designed to create winners and losers. We debate by taking a stand on a position and refusing to budge. We criticize the other point of view. Often, to strengthen our chances of winning, we criticize the person holding the other point of view! Now, seriously consider whether any listening is going on in such circumstances. Instead, consider that what we call listening is actually what we appear to be doing while re-loading! (Do you know that the word "discussion" has the same root as "percussion" and "concussion?" Bang! Bang!) Many others, however, listen deeply and respectfully to speakers who represent different views. Why? Because they know that "truth" is always relative. What's "true" in your _________ (fill in the blank: department, culture, market, organization, nation, household, etc.) may well be "wrong" in another's. Judgements of right and wrong always emanate from a particular point of view and are rooted in values, beliefs and attitudes, which are always relative. Great listeners don't fear different points of view thus they don't feel a need to shoot them down immediately. They know different points of view offer new opportunities to build and expand, rather than to threaten each other with extinction."

No one is going to challenge you, Emma. It's a stupid challenge because we all know you dont believe any of this so what's the point? All it will do is make your ego bigger and you more narcissistic. If you don't like a discussion, don't be a part of it. What's so hard to understand about that?

And to Harte:

I don't think I explained myself enough. I don't believe Sitchin. Somehow you think I do. The things I was saying had nothing to do with what I believe. All I wanted to point out is that scientists expect everything to fit into what they have created as of right now. They are making it harder and harder to theorize on something they don't yet agree with. How do you prove any of this? You can't. These are all theories, just like a lot of what we know about planets is theorized. Now the point that is making is you cannot say that sitchins ideas are completely wrong when you are looking at them against something that is already a theory itself. I don't understand how a theory debunks another theory. It's already a theory, it's not fact. I just like to leave the possibilities open and not say, "SOmething doesnt exist, and will never exist because Science tells me so" I'd rather look at it like, "Science has proven a lot of things, and there are still other things that haven't been proven so I'll keep an open mind."

Does that mean I believe Sitchin?? NO!!!! Gah, makes me so mad when I can't express myself exactly how I want to.

Thank you, Jaylemurph for those websites. They were exactly what I was looking for. I wanted to see exactly what others have translated. Now with this translation stuff, this is retarded. These supposed experts are creating translations and no one but the Sumerians know if it's right or not. How can anyone say that they know better than anyone else? Yes, they have studied it thoroughly but they are guessing, too. I agree with what MareikuraOAroha is trying to say about the translation process. It will never be exactly correct. BUT, IMHO I do believe a scholar who has worked they entire education in ancient languages, etc is going to be a LOT more correct than Sitchin is. Of course Sitchin is bending and twisting the translation for his own idea. He has every right to do that. Its your own fault if you buy his book, though. No one said you had to. I just say let people believe what they want to, its not going to harm anyone so who cares.

Well stated/good points

Religion*cough cringe time cough* would have the most to loose if/when Sitchen or any other 'outsider' for that matter are proved correct.

I understand the position regarding the uncertainty of the translations, albeit I would tend to agree with the accredited authority on the matter. However, even if Sitchin's translation was correct does this mean the events written actually happened?

We have no evidence of the existence of these Anunnaki, the nature of Planet X described in the theory I find rather unlikely. I do not know a great deal of orbital mechanics but it would be very difficult imo for such a large body as the one postulated to have such a stable, eccentric orbit. Not to mention the extreme unlikelihood of life evolving in such an environment.

There is a lot of symbolism and elements of story-telling in ancient mythology and I would tend towards this being a mythological story (with some moral/religious lesson or teaching) rather than a description of actual events, assuming Sitchin's translation to be correct.

I do a bit of translation in my job as a dramaturg -- not ancient Semitic languages, but Romance ones. I think, having done the work, that the truth lies in the middle. Words can be quite literal, with an obvious denotation, like "stopgap" or "buzz" and translate easily. Most words, though, are much more vague, like the Latin word "nefas". Fortunately, we have generations of trained linguists and classicists who do nothing but bicker and debate about shades of meaning. We even know a decent amount about languages like Tocharian or Linear A where we have precious few samples of the language. While we can never know with exact precision what the ancients meant, we can come pretty close, especially if there is consensus on the matter*. A lot of Sitchin's translations are so far from standard as to per se warrant investigation (like "Rocketship" for "name").

All the more so when you consider Sitchin is by training an economic historian, not an expert on Semitic languages.

--Jaylemurph

*And to say we can never know what these people meant in their writing is the beginning of a pointlessly solipsistic slope that ends with "Why talk when no-one can ever undersand what I mean?"

First off I'd like to say that I just read through seven pages of this conversation and the topic, while interesting, was so drenched in opinion that there were no facts. It was simply everyone saying, "You prove it!" "No, you prove it!" with no actual proof ever shown, with the exception of a few links. Perhaps it is because I come from a debate oriented life, but when I see threads like this, I expect people to use the facts to back themselves up instead of simply pulling from their own opinions. Ex: "Sitchin's theory on the giant planet is wrong because we know that gravity has these effects [text with hyperlink to source], and a planet that large would have destroyed all life, not created it." Also, I want to know why gold was mentioned. That seems rather human of these extraterrestial people. It seems that Sitchin may have the same issue as the scribes of the bible: they only write about what they know. (That, I will admit, is a very biased opinion on my part. I say it because a lot of events are left out, like dinosaurs. The authors did not know about dinosaurs, so they do not make an appearance, and it starts with modern life as Adam and Eve.) The same thing may hold true in this situation: Sitchin mentions gold because humans would mine for gold. I have a hard time believing that they would need it to maintain their plantets temperature, unless someone can show me how gold can be turned into heat.

I have a very simple question that may be easy to address.


This may have been covered in the links, I have not viewed all of them. Regarding these translations, are there any language experts that agree with Sitchen? Any at all?

As far as the subject as a whole, kudos to Mabon. I agree. Though the book may not be very accurate, it is healthy to explore different possibilities. Blindly believing them is another story, however exploring other possibilities is healthy and could lead to new and creative ideas which could lead to new discoveries. Or maybe all we'll get out of it is inspiration for a really good science fiction novel.

The whole thing reminds me of that movie Stargate with Kurt Russell.

I don't know if anyone has posted this yet but here's a youtube on it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RJPK2r7wY8

Hey!...That was a cool clip...

Well, that settles it. I'm going back home to Idaho.

Hows the weather up there Lily?

Beautiful. Granted, I've been in Las Vegas for a while, and it's HOT here. Really, really hot. . But according to the video, that's because Planet X is getting closer. *dramatic music plays*

12th Planet? Last I heard there were 8 planets in the solar system and at least a couple of dozen 'dwarf planets' - most of which are beyond Neptune. So I suppose you could argue that there is a 12th planet. And a 13th, 14th and 28th planet ....

Yes, but the gist in both translation is similar, regarding the ownership of a pencil. If someone came along and said that actually it means I fly the vessel-that-flies then one would have to question their translation. And that is what Sitchen has done.