Was Jesus an Annunaki?

[Harsh86_Patel]

I know about that, but that is not what Everdred was talking about.

This Christian sect believes they are protected by God when handling snakes. They are not 'snake charmers'.

I understand what Evedred was referring to,thanks for putting that into perspective. But i was also trying to put forward how i interpreted it.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Ancient gold mines in Africa.Please check the dating links as well.

http://www.viewzone.com/adamscalendarx.html

Extract:

Something amazing has been discovered in an area of South Africa, about 150 miles inland, west of the port of Maputo. It is the remains of a huge metropolis that measures, in conservative estimates, about 1500 square miles. It's part of an even larger community that is about 10,000 square miles and appears to have been constructed -- are you ready -- from 160,000 to 200,000 BCE!

The area is significant for one striking thing -- gold. "The thousands of ancient gold mines discovered over the past 500 years, points to a vanished civilization that lived and dug for gold in this part of the world for thousands of years," says Tellinger. "And if this is in fact the cradle of humankind, we may be looking at the activities of the oldest civilization on Earth."

http://www.viewzone2.com/adamscalendar22.html

Extract:

The first rough calculation was at least 25,000 years ago. But new and more precise measurements kept increasing the age. The next calculation was presented by a master archaeoastronomer who wishes to remain anonymous for fear of ridicule by the academic fraternity. His calculation was also based on the rise of Orion and suggested an age of at least 75,000 years. The most recent and most acurate calculation, done in June 2009, suggests an age of at least 160,000 years, based on the rise of Orion -- flat on the horizon -- but also on the erosion of dolerite stones found at the site.

Sitchin anyone??

[Abramelin]

Yes, Sitchin. Why? Because the one claiming that age based it on Sitchin's books.

Here you can read all about it:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=229611&st=0&p=4351504entry4351504

.

Edited March 25, 2013 by Abramelin

[Harsh86_Patel]

Yes, Sitchin. Why? Because the one claiming that age based it on Sitchin's books.

Here you can read all about it:

http://www.unexplain...4

.

What would you base the age claim on? a general consensus on when civilization began by the mainstream?

Went through the link but what is your interpretations of the site? which civilization you would attribute it to? Why located so near a good supply of gold?

Would you even consider the ruins to be belonging to a civilization?

[Abramelin]

What would you base the age claim on? a general consensus on when civilization began by the mainstream?

Went through the link but what is your interpretations of the site? which civilization you would attribute it to? Why located so near a good supply of gold?

Would you even consider the ruins to be belonging to a civilization?

Then I advise you to read that thread I linked to, and you'll know.

As quoted by Peter Cox (a South African):

At present (2011), the site has not undergone any official dating procedures.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=229611&st=15#entry4351863

.

Edited March 25, 2013 by Abramelin

[Harte]

even if Crick the person who discovered the structure of DNA suggested the theory of Pan-spermia or an outside space alien entity that not only influenced but spawned life on earth,and many other serious scientist acknowledge the possibility you can continue calling it a comic book concept.It seems you are trying to intimidate any potential believers with the threat of ridicule.

Yet Crick fails to tell us where or how these bacteria responsible for panspermia arose.

Do you think the Anunnaki created them?

Harte

[Harsh86_Patel]

Yet Crick fails to tell us where or how these bacteria responsible for panspermia arose.

Do you think the Anunnaki created them?

Harte

Maybe.But that again will lead to the question...who created the Annunaki?

Abiogenesis like macro-evolution does not have any empirical proof of success. Though i broached the subject in the evolution debate,that i myself stand in the dark regarding how did life originate question and have not been able to decide as per the information available to me currently.

I do not accept any form of darwinistic evolution theories even the one with the neo in the front,as as per my thought process none of them explain currently how we evolved (if we did actually evolve) by themselves.

[jaylemurph]

Maybe.But that again will lead to the question...who created the Annunaki?

Oh, that. You should have just asked that a long time ago and saved everyone the effort. They were created by our Past Basset Masters, glorious, droolsome deities who first came to Earth before mankind existed, searching for tasty ham. The Annunaki were created as their servants to do fiddly little things that involve thumbs.

And don't ask where the Past Basset Masters came from. They predate the universe. Some say they blinked into existence so that the universe might be created by something awesome.

--Jaylemurph

[Abramelin]

Maybe.But that again will lead to the question...who created the Annunaki?

Abiogenesis like macro-evolution does not have any empirical proof of success. Though i broached the subject in the evolution debate,that i myself stand in the dark regarding how did life originate question and have not been able to decide as per the information available to me currently.

I do not accept any form of darwinistic evolution theories even the one with the neo in the front,as as per my thought process none of them explain currently how we evolved (if we did actually evolve) by themselves.

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.

Abiogenesis and evolution are related as mostly people who are die hard supporters of naturalistic mechanism to explain life on Earth and deny any sort of creation have precious little alternatives to explain how life first came into being.

An other way to put it in perspective is that mainstream evolutionary scientists do not acknowledge the possibility of a creator to explain life or how so many species are present on Earth.This problem gave rise to the concept of Theistic evolution where certain segment of scientists acknowledge that life was created by God and then evolution took it's course.The problem with this is that if you acknowledge a creator then you have to acknowledge the possibility of the creators participation in all processes of life. And a hardcore mainstream evolutionist does not entertain and fights against the concept of a Sky Daddy or God to explain anything,so it is but natural for people to ask that if you believe that all observable things have a naturalistic explaination then how do you explain the origin of life.

So the reasoning would go on the basis that if you assert that there is no God or evolution explains the different species we see today and is the process that led to us Humans without any involvement or existence of God then how do you explain how life began? there are no naturalistic explanations backed by proof available.And irrespective of Abiogenesis evolution itself is a theory based on shaky grounds without any empirical proof in it's current form

[Harsh86_Patel]

Oh, that. You should have just asked that a long time ago and saved everyone the effort. They were created by our Past Basset Masters, glorious, droolsome deities who first came to Earth before mankind existed, searching for tasty ham. The Annunaki were created as their servants to do fiddly little things that involve thumbs.

And don't ask where the Past Basset Masters came from. They predate the universe. Some say they blinked into existence so that the universe might be created by something awesome.

--Jaylemurph

Or a very strong alternative to your theory is another theory which puts the onus of creation on President Bush who was actually a transdimensional God existing in different times and universes simultaneously and the one who spawned all life.

[goodconversations]

Jealous Gods and Chosen People by David Leeman.

[Everdred]

Ancient gold mines in Africa.Please check the dating links as well.

http://www.viewzone....scalendarx.html

Extract:

Something amazing has been discovered in an area of South Africa, about 150 miles inland, west of the port of Maputo. It is the remains of a huge metropolis that measures, in conservative estimates, about 1500 square miles. It's part of an even larger community that is about 10,000 square miles and appears to have been constructed -- are you ready -- from 160,000 to 200,000 BCE!

The area is significant for one striking thing -- gold. "The thousands of ancient gold mines discovered over the past 500 years, points to a vanished civilization that lived and dug for gold in this part of the world for thousands of years," says Tellinger. "And if this is in fact the cradle of humankind, we may be looking at the activities of the oldest civilization on Earth."

http://www.viewzone2...calendar22.html

Extract:

The first rough calculation was at least 25,000 years ago. But new and more precise measurements kept increasing the age. The next calculation was presented by a master archaeoastronomer who wishes to remain anonymous for fear of ridicule by the academic fraternity. His calculation was also based on the rise of Orion and suggested an age of at least 75,000 years. The most recent and most acurate calculation, done in June 2009, suggests an age of at least 160,000 years, based on the rise of Orion -- flat on the horizon -- but also on the erosion of dolerite stones found at the site.

Sitchin anyone??

Three stones in a row? Must be Orion's belt!

[Baz Dane]

Ancient gold mines in Africa.Please check the dating links as well.

http://www.viewzone....scalendarx.html

Got to the page when they started talking about Nibiru.lol

While I may not believe in the mainstream presentation of our history, I just can't stomach Nibiru, Sitchen, Annunaki etc

One guy came up with these translations? Like the Dropa Stones?

I don't buy it.

I can believe life is out there in space... and I can even believe that, that life(some of it) may be able to travel the cosmos.. But I don't really believe that some aliens came down here in our past and had us primatives mining gold for them like some bad version of Battlefield Earth lol

Edit: Spelling

Edited March 27, 2013 by Lemieux

[Harsh86_Patel]

Got to the page when they started talking about Nibiru.lol

While I may not believe in the mainstream presentation of our history, I just can't stomach Nibiru, Sitchen, Annunaki etc

One guy came up with these translations? Like the Dropa Stones?

I don't buy it.

I can believe life is out there in space... and I can even believe that, that life(some of it) may be able to travel the cosmos.. But I don't really believe that some aliens came down here in our past and had us primatives mining gold for them like some bad version of Battlefield Earth lol

Edit: Spelling

You don't need to stomach anything that is not true.

Maybe the aliens did not come down to Earth but are you equally averse to all the other suggestions as well. Maybe Annunaki were not aliens but people from Earth who travelled in Air planes.There are many possibilities and dismissing a whole bunch of probabilities because you can't stomach a few may not be wise.

[Baz Dane]

You don't need to stomach anything that is not true.

Maybe the aliens did not come down to Earth but are you equally averse to all the other suggestions as well. Maybe Annunaki were not aliens but people from Earth who travelled in Air planes.There are many possibilities and dismissing a whole bunch of probabilities because you can't stomach a few may not be wise.

I'm not dismissing a whole bunch... just a couple of kooks who are claiming aliens came down and interacted with our ancestors... and this information based soley on what they say they translated, on thier own... in their opwn asylums I presume

But on the other hand, like you mention, I'm not adverse to the possible idea of our ancestors not being quite so primitive as we are led to believe.

You say travelling in "Air planes" perhaps... While the mainstream scoffs at this idea, ancient texts, pictures, and trinkets suggest otherwise.

Writings of vimanas or flying chariots etc, or pictures/carvings of "spaceship" looking flying machines(some with "people" inside) are not conclusive proof.

Nor are the little gold "airplanes" found in S. America... which people have tested for aerodynamics and they passed and confirmed are aerodynamic.

Intriguing and interesting indeed, but not proof enough that ancient man could fly.

Basically, I do find the theory of some long lost civilization, with superior technology(comparable to ours, just different), that got wiped out by a cataclysm, very interesting and even appealing.

It provides some answers to a lot of questions and speculations

And I have seen a LOT of "evidence"? to suggest such a thing, BUT I have also seen a LOT of... again "evidence"?... to suggest otherwise... I'm sure everyone here knows the pro's and con's of both arguments.

I quote "evidence"? with a question mark, because while I read books/internet and see things on TV etc, I don't really know all these arguments first-hand... For instance, take the quote below...

"At a press conference the Bolivian author stated "we can now say that the existence of pre-Columbian constructions under the waters of Lake Titicaca is no longer a mere supposition or science-fiction, but a real fact.

Further," he added, 'the remnants found show the existence of old civilizations that greatly antecede the Spanish colonization. We have found temples built of huge blocks of stone, with stone roads leading to unknown places and flights of steps whose bases were lost in the depths of the lake amid a thick vegetation of algae." Boero Rojo described these monumental ruins as being "of probable Tiahuanaco origin.'

http://www.thule.org/tiahuanaco.html

Fantastic read! And paints quite the picture doesn't it... with some things explained, such as:

- An advanced civilization who created all the ancient stonework, to Easter Island too perhaps? and world-wide including Egypt?

- And how their civilization was wiped out.

- How Tiahuanaco can be buried 6 feet or more deep, while at an altitude of 13,000 feet, and not enough vegitation can grow to bury it so deep.

- How those ruins, like the "pre-fabricated" H-blocks could be tossed around like a salad and lying around scattered like they are.(rapid upheaval of the Adeas)

- How Lake Titicaca was formed.

I've read that there are sea-horses in Lake Titicaca, and that the only places there are sea-horses are in the oceans.

I've also read that pretty much after say, 10,000 years(if our civilization were to cease today) that everything, our steel and concrete cities, our computers and cars etc, would be all be ground down to their original elements and blown away in the dust, leaving only tell-tale signs of our existence such as Mt Rushmore, or ironically enough, the Great Pyramids etc... STONE... If this is true for us, would it not be true for such a civilazation of say 17,000 years ago?

All back to "evidence"? ... I see and read all this stuff, but I have to take things for face value as I cannot physically verify all these things as I don't/won't have the chance to experiment it all for myself.

While all of this is fantastic and maybe should be considered and studied more, I'm not just yet willing to beieve that it's all 100% true.

Just as much as I don't believe our maintream history is 100% accurate.

At any rate, I doubt I'll be around to see this ever proven to be true anyways. It's either find the proof and announce it and thus disrupt our present civilization... mostly the hard-core religeous fanatics... they would freak lol

Or we keep living and teaching the status quo on things with small increments of discoveries that strengthen that view.

I guess I'm somewhere in the middle lol

But Sitchen is a kook IMHO

[Harte]

I'm not dismissing a whole bunch... just a couple of kooks who are claiming aliens came down and interacted with our ancestors... and this information based soley on what they say they translated, on thier own... in their opwn asylums I presume

But on the other hand, like you mention, I'm not adverse to the possible idea of our ancestors not being quite so primitive as we are led to believe.

You say travelling in "Air planes" perhaps... While the mainstream scoffs at this idea, ancient texts, pictures, and trinkets suggest otherwise.

Writings of vimanas or flying chariots etc, or pictures/carvings of "spaceship" looking flying machines(some with "people" inside) are not conclusive proof.

Nor are the little gold "airplanes" found in S. America... which people have tested for aerodynamics and they passed and confirmed are aerodynamic.

Intriguing and interesting indeed, but not proof enough that ancient man could fly.

True, and they are flying fish, not aircraft.

Peruvian legends clearly relate a story of world-wide flood in the

distant past...."

There is no question whatsoever that Tiwanaku and Pumapunku date to the common era.

Radiocarbon dating has been performed on materials retrieved from under the stone structures themselves confirming this fact.

Fantastic read! And paints quite the picture doesn't it... with some things explained, such as:

- An advanced civilization who created all the ancient stonework, to Easter Island too perhaps? and world-wide including Egypt?

Not possible, considering the thousands of years in separation between these various cultures.

- And how their civilization was wiped out.

No civilization has ever been completely wiped out.

- How Tiahuanaco can be buried 6 feet or more deep, while at an altitude of 13,000 feet, and not enough vegitation can grow to bury it so deep.

The only mystery about the site is why do people believe the idiotic claims made about it.

- How those ruins, like the "pre-fabricated" H-blocks could be tossed around like a salad and lying around scattered like they are.(rapid upheaval of the Adeas)

The site was mined for stone by locals and the Spaniards, and later for use by the railroad. That's what happened there.

- How Lake Titicaca was formed.

It's clear how titicaca was formed - through rainfall.

I've read that there are sea-horses in Lake Titicaca, and that the only places there are sea-horses are in the oceans.

No seahorse has ever been found in lake Titicaca.

I've also read that pretty much after say, 10,000 years(if our civilization were to cease today) that everything, our steel and concrete cities, our computers and cars etc, would be all be ground down to their original elements and blown away in the dust, leaving only tell-tale signs of our existence such as Mt Rushmore, or ironically enough, the Great Pyramids etc... STONE... If this is true for us, would it not be true for such a civilazation of say 17,000 years ago?

It's just not true. Most skyscrapers, for example, have concrete foundations extending hundreds of feet under the surface. Even roads from 4,000 years ago are stil discernable today, and they were never paved. We have found the remains of grass and wood huts that date back 10,000 years or more, and that's grass and wood, not concrete and steel.

You are correct to remain skeptical. You are also correct about Sitchin.

Harte

[Baz Dane]

True, and they are flying fish, not aircraft.

[/color][/size][/b][/i]

There is no question whatsoever that Tiwanaku and Pumapunku date to the common era.

Radiocarbon dating has been performed on materials retrieved from under the stone structures themselves confirming this fact.

Not possible, considering the thousands of years in separation between these various cultures.

No civilization has ever been completely wiped out.

The only mystery about the site is why do people believe the idiotic claims made about it.

The site was mined for stone by locals and the Spaniards, and later for use by the railroad. That's what happened there.

It's clear how titicaca was formed - through rainfall.

No seahorse has ever been found in lake Titicaca.

It's just not true. Most skyscrapers, for example, have concrete foundations extending hundreds of feet under the surface. Even roads from 4,000 years ago are stil discernable today, and they were never paved. We have found the remains of grass and wood huts that date back 10,000 years or more, and that's grass and wood, not concrete and steel.

You are correct to remain skeptical. You are also correct about Sitchin.

Harte

Exactly my point. And well done. You, obviously, are well versed in a lot of these things and are of the opinion that everything has an explanation about how ancient man, somehow, accomplished things that baffle us today... such as transporting the Baalbeck stones, or some other gigantic stones(just an example... people have theories, but know one truely knows)

You've stated your opinion on the things I take for mystery... based on what I've read etc.

But that leaves me a choice of having to believe what I read elsewhere, or what you are saying, based on research etc of other people as well.

Which still leaves me with the end result of not having/seeing definitive proof really.

Such as this... You say Lake Titicaca was formed from rainfall... and then I read this:

"There is evidence that Titicaca was once a saltwater sea. Its shoreline is littered with millions of fossilized seashells. The marine fishes and seahorses in the lake are all oceanic types found only in salt water."

http://viewzone2.com/tiwanx.html

Probably where I got the seahorse memory from... but again... is this a lie? If not, I don't think rainfall is the answer... and what of the structures supposedly built under the water... and it's stated(in the previous link I put up) that everyone agrees the lake is slowly evaporating, which would take up to thousands of years... so if there are structures under the lake, they would have been built before the lake was formed... makes sense... and that would be a real long time ago.

But again, is all that true??? I have not seen pictures or video of these underwater structures... nor the fossilized seashells and seahorses(though I haven't actually searched for the seashell/seahorse evidence ie: pics or vids of those to be honest)

Ideally, I'd love to be able to just go there for myself and see... or NOT see... all this stuff on my own.(My age and finances would likely make this something un-doable for me... I'd have to give up my bi-annual trips to the Caribbean lol)

So anyways, not really arguing with ya, and your points are very valid based on the different and numerous sources I am sure you are very familiar with.

I'm more on the fence about our history in certain things I suppose, and until I see definitive proof on some things, I'll always be skeptical... on both ends I guess.

Not on the fence about Sitchen though lol

Cheers

[Harte]

Exactly my point. And well done. You, obviously, are well versed in a lot of these things and are of the opinion that everything has an explanation about how ancient man, somehow, accomplished things that baffle us today... such as transporting the Baalbeck stones, or some other gigantic stones(just an example... people have theories, but know one truely knows)

Baalbek was erected by the Romans. There is very little doubt about this.

You've stated your opinion on the things I take for mystery... based on what I've read etc.

But that leaves me a choice of having to believe what I read elsewhere, or what you are saying, based on research etc of other people as well.

Which still leaves me with the end result of not having/seeing definitive proof really.

Such as this... You say Lake Titicaca was formed from rainfall... and then I read this:

"There is evidence that Titicaca was once a saltwater sea. Its shoreline is littered with millions of fossilized seashells. The marine fishes and seahorses in the lake are all oceanic types found only in salt water."

http://viewzone2.com/tiwanx.html

Probably where I got the seahorse memory from... but again... is this a lie?

One fringe author claims to have found a dried-up seahorse on the shore, suddenly the lake is brimming with seahorses.

Regarding fossils, there are fossil marine animals on top of Mount Everest too. Does that mean that water reached that height, or does that mean the land was once lower, millions of years ago? (Hint - it's not the first one.)

If not, I don't think rainfall is the answer... and what of the structures supposedly built under the water... and it's stated(in the previous link I put up) that everyone agrees the lake is slowly evaporating, which would take up to thousands of years... so if there are structures under the lake, they would have been built before the lake was formed... makes sense... and that would be a real long time ago.

These structures are intriguing. However, every pic I've seen shows only carved stone strewn across the lake bed. Since we know that the stones at Tiahuanaco (most of them) came from a quarry on the other side of the lake, what conclusion would you draw?

So anyways, not really arguing with ya, and your points are very valid based on the different and numerous sources I am sure you are very familiar with.

Yes, I've put a lot of time into this and a great many other claims. More than I should have, probably. But you can do this yourself. I have some links saved at home (I'm at work.) If you need help, PM me.

Harte

[jaylemurph]

Or a very strong alternative to your theory is another theory which puts the onus of creation on President Bush who was actually a transdimensional God existing in different times and universes simultaneously and the one who spawned all life.

Well, yes, but my theory doesn't make people want to cry. That does.

--Jaylemurph

[Harsh86_Patel]

But Sitchen is a kook IMHO

To each his own.

[Harsh86_Patel]

http://maxwellinstit...19&num=1&id=644

Excerpts:

Since the nineteenth century, Joseph Smith's views regarding a divine council of celestial deities have provided the focus of considerable criticism for many Bible-believing Christians. Yet biblical scholars, however unwittingly, have in recent years followed the Prophet's lead in devoting substantial consideration to the role of the divine council in the Hebrew Bible.

Recent textual and archaeological discoveries have convinced scholars of the fundamental position held by the heavenly council of deities within Israelite theology. "The council of God in the Hebrew Bible is no novelty," writes biblical scholar Martti Nissinen. "The occurrences are well known."² As prominent Near Eastern archaeologist William Dever has explained, this view has affected the scholarly perception concerning the development of Israelite monotheism:

A generation ago, when I was a graduate student, biblical scholars were nearly unanimous in thinking that monotheism had been predominant in ancient Israelite religion from the beginning—not just as an "ideal," but as the reality. Today all that has changed. Virtually all mainstream scholars (and even a few conservatives) acknowledge that true monotheism emerged only in the period of the exile in Babylon in the 6th century B.C.E., as the canon of the Hebrew Bible was taking shape. . . .

I have suggested, along with most scholars, that the emergence of monotheism—of exclusive Yahwism—was largely a response to the tragic experience of the exile.

³

To date, the most exhaustive study of the biblical view of the divine council by a Latter-day Saint is Daniel C. Peterson's "'Ye Are Gods': Psalm 82 and John 10 as Witnesses to the Divine Nature of Humankind."⁴Peterson provides an impressive analysis of LDS theology and Jesus's use of Psalm 82 in the Gospel of John. For Peterson, the Latter-day Saint doctrine regarding the divine nature of humanity provides a strong interpretive crux for understanding Jesus's use of the council text: "God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment" (Psalm 82:1 New Revised Standard Version, NRSV). Recently, however, Peterson's essay has drawn the attention of Michael Heiser, an evangelical Bible scholar who specializes in the Israelite view concerning the divine council. In his critique of Peterson, Heiser took exception to his analysis of Psalm 82. As a specialist in biblical council imagery, Heiser attempted to correct what he perceived as "certain flaws in the LDS understanding and use of Psalm 82" (p. 2). Heiser raises several important issues worthy of careful consideration. The following essay is not an exhaustive treatment of or response to the issues raised in Heiser's critique. Instead, it will provide a general response to Heiser's claims, particularly those claims that apply both to LDS thought and to Psalm 82.

The notion of God assigning members of his council to assume important positions of administrative responsibility appears in its earliest form in Deuteronomy 32:8: "When the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods" (Deuteronomy 32:8 NRSV). For Latter-day Saints who at least in part associate the council with humanity, a seemingly parallel notion appears in the council story featured in the Book of Abraham:

And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born. (Abraham 3:23)

Divine council of Gods in the Bible,also mentioning how the kin of Gods were appointed as priests,prophets and kings on Earth..............Sitchin anyone?

Edited April 2, 2013 by Harsh86_Patel

[Harsh86_Patel]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/46651984/William-Henry-SHOW-HIM-THE-DOOR-A-Brief-Commentary-on-Michael-Heiser%E2%80%99s-Shortsighted-Slight-of-Sitchin

A good dissection of the meaning of the word Nibiru, and a good perspective different from Sitchin or Heiser............Jump to the 5th page as that is when the debate starts and lot of good pictures are also included.

[Harsh86_Patel]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/76011056/Reply-to-the-Open-Letter-from-Michael-S-Heiser-to-Zecharia-Sitchin-or-his-fans

Reply to Heiser's Asinine arguments in his open letter challenge to Sitchin (though not by sitchin)

[Harte]

Riddled with errors.

For example, Oannes was not Enki. Oannes was a Greek rendition of the name Uan, also know as Adapa, who was the first Apkallu, or "sage" - the first of seven.

Adapa began life as a mortal man, according to the myth.

A pic on the fourth or fifth page depicts Uan, not Enki. The pic is Assyrian, btw.

Harte