The gods vs aliens debate

[badeskov]

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

True, that he is. Let me rephrase: he was a quack.

I see him (reminder I read only 1 of his books) as just another viewer of historical events.

He was viewing and, more importantly, writing about something he simply did not understand. There is no question about that - it is well documented.

I expect him to have some level of bias, the same as yourself or any other author.

We all have our own biases, the question is how we approach a problem with said biases in mind. Most people try to look beyond their biases and let the facts guide them (and in the end maybe refining their biases). Mr. Sitchen, on the other hand, decided to follow his biases and refine the facts instead. Again, the examples are numerous and well documented. It is not a question of opinion, but one of fact.

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

No, none are and I don't think anybody expect otherwise. At least I haven't seen anybody stating such.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[Babe Ruth]

And cheers to you sir!

[badeskov]

And cheers to you sir!

So I take it that you have no further objections to the stated assessment of the works of Mr. Sitchin and we can put this one to rest.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[Babe Ruth]

Every person is entitled to his own opinion sir.

[badeskov]

Every person is entitled to his own opinion sir.

Indeed so, but one is not entitled to one's own facts. And the stated about Mr. Sitchen are matters of fact, not opinion.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[Babe Ruth]

Say what you wish about the dead or the living.

That is is a fact that Sitchin had no 'formal training', and that seems to be the source of his posthumous unpopularity, is an illustration of just how petty humans can be, especially those in academia.

As for me, I found his book to be very thought provoking.

[cormac mac airt]

and that seems to be the source of his posthumous unpopularity

Not hardly, since his "translations" weren't accepted well before he passed away. And while he didn't have any formal training, he also never showed himself to have any meaningful informal training either. Not once did he ever show an ability to read or translate Sumerian, although challenged to do so on many occasions. But people were just supposed to believe him because he claimed he could.

cormac

[Babe Ruth]

It's so nice to be in the presence of a Deity...

[cormac mac airt]

It's so nice to be in the presence of a Deity...

It's sad to be in the presence of someone whose inspiration comes from a charlatan.

cormac

[badeskov]

Say what you wish about the dead or the living.

It is not a question about the person, alive or dead - it's all about the work by said person.

That is is a fact that Sitchin had no 'formal training',

Yes, that is one of the facts. And unfortunately the source of all the other facts about his work. Lets list a few:

• He came up with the idea about the Anunnaki, i.e. the helpful ET beings the Sumerians described. The fact is that nowhere in the Sumerian Cuneiforms will you find anything like that - the word doesn't even exist (link)!
• He describes how the Sumerians knew about the 12^th planet. Unfortunately he is plain out wrong and elegantly describes an image while avoiding the associated description in Sumerian (telling the real story) (link).
• Parts of his ancient astronaut story comes from his translation of Hebrew texts - he thought. In fact they were ancient Aramaic and obviously translated completely wrong (link) .

Just the above 3 facts completely undermine his complete imaginary tale. And those are facts, no matter how you view the man, those you cannot get around.

and that seems to be the source of his posthumous unpopularity, is an illustration of just how petty humans can be, especially those in academia.

What do you mean, posthumously? He was critiqued as soon as he started publishing his work. Quite openly and quite directly. That he never even acknowledged any of it pretty much shows his level of professionalism - or lack of same. And that academia critiqued his work should not come as a surprise, anything is open to critique - and especially when it is wrong and blatantly so. There is nothing petty about it whatsoever. If you publish something you claim is scientific, you can expect the scientific rigor to be applied to your work.

As for me, I found his book to be very thought provoking.

That I completely respect and have no problem with whatsoever. But when Sitchin's name is mentioned, the points of critique will be brought up. It's not that I take pleasure in doing character assassination or the like, because it is not. He was just, simply and unequivocally, wrong - provably so.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Edited March 28, 2012 by badeskov

[badeskov]

It's so nice to be in the presence of a Deity...

What? Cormac is completely correct. He never demonstrated any ability to understand, let alone, translate Sumerian (or whatever he dabbled around in). He got plenty of opportunity, though. Never once took the challenge.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Edited to add: He means Sitchin.

Edited March 28, 2012 by badeskov

[Babe Ruth]

I will take your word for that Badeskov. He was an incomplete author.

Nonetheless, I enjoyed the ideas he discussed.

[badeskov]

I will take your word for that Badeskov. He was an incomplete author.

No need to take my word for it, all the information was in those links supplied, That said, he was not a bad author as such - he just had no clue what he was talking about.

Nonetheless, I enjoyed the ideas he discussed.

And I enjoyed Dan Brown and a whole host of other authors - but what they all had in common was that they wrote fiction. Just like Mr. Sitchin.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[psyche101]

Psyche

Regarding the 12th planet theory, if that is what you're talking about, it does seem far-fetched to me, and I am but a layman in astronomy. I am not attempting to defend that.

Hi BR

I am an amateur astronomer, if you have questions, please ask, if I can answer them I will, if not I also belong to an astronomy forum, if I cannot give the answers you require, I will take it to the professionals.

Glad to know we are on the same page with Nibiru. That nonsense has done much damage, some have teken their lives over it I believe, and many are contemplating this based on this nonsense. If you have a look at NASA's ask an astrobiologist, you will see many posts showing how these nutty theories have misled a great many people.

Regarding the quantum leap in technology that Sitchin mentions in his book (the only 1 I have read), I find that plausible and curious. It is that point that I am talking about here.

Really, how did hunter-gatherers learn about electrons and chemistry and physics? And considering the progress of those hunters over the millenia, how and why did this progress come so rapidly?

Those are the questions Sitchin raised, and I think they are valid and compelling. In a related area, how did the Mayans become so familiar and precise with astronomy and time counting? How were those buildings constructed in alignment the way they are?

THAT, in my opinion, is what the thread is about.

Could I ask yo to be more specific with your example please. The chemistry and physics is something I am not up to speed on. I find it hard to believe to be honest. And I do not see any progress as rapid. Everything in existence that humans use, from farming techniques to plasma televisions all have an extensive historical record.

I do not think that our planet is the only 1 occupied.

I would agree with you there, but I have not seen any evidence to date that anyone has visited here to date.

[Babe Ruth]

Thanks for all that, Psyche.

I'm going through one of those Great Courses about astronomy, learning the finer points of my planisphere.

As to the leap in mankind's skills, perhaps one day you will overcome your aversion to him, and read the book yourself. I'm pretty sure that part was in the beginning.

[Requal]

he gods could experience death, pain, and human passion, but death could not hold them. Not all gods were good or caring to mankind. A universal premise of the ancient gods was a “generational shift” or handing down of sovereignty from parent to child. In some cases, humans could receive the reward of immortality and become gods or mate with them.

I am wondering what if the Aliens mated with primitive humans (Neanderthalers or whatever) and that became us.

They never trained us to use all possibilities of the brain, hence the reason why we only use a small portion of our brain.

Because we do not now how to use the rest and what we could be capable of...

It's like a baby, if a baby has no example and no knowledge that it can stand, run, jump, walk, calculate, read, etc ,etc he will be just underdeveloped.

Exactly like we are now.

That we have more possibilities but we just don't know how.

Or think about it in the wrong way of trying to control it.

Like for raw example telekenesis or even sixth sense.

Might be a weird theory but hey, if you think about it....

Edited July 27, 2012 by Requal