It is currently Fri Apr 27, 2018 2:50 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




 Page 1 of 6 [ 88 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 10:34 pm 

Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 2:24 pm
Posts: 10
Is it true that Sitchin claims he is the only one who can read the ancient texts, or is that part of a smear campaigne? If he does make that claim wouldn't that be a major red flag for readers?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 12:46 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 4:30 pm
Posts: 72
Location: Abilene, Texas
I don't think he meant that only he can read the ancient texts. What he's done is found the true meaning of words that scholars have mistaken. For instance they thought that the Sumerians could only have known about the 5 inner most planets but were perplexed by the additional references to other planets. The scholars concluded they the Sumerians were using 2 names for each planet but in fact there are twice as many planets than 5. Being baised when you translate something never helps!

(Edited by Areles at 8:47 pm on June 7, 2005)


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 12:29 pm 

Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 2:24 pm
Posts: 10
Either he claims he is the only one that can read the texts or he doesn't. It means what it means.

I do agree that he may have made connections scholars have missed. But when one man put's together an explaination "flawlessly" with no questions left to ponder (and no professional background), then there is bias suspect to begin with. I suspect he made meaning in somethings to support his Alien theory-confronted by scholoars. Not that I do not believe that is possible or even probable. But a reader needs to be sceptical of everything they read regarding history. His connections with the Roman Catholic Church doesn't help credibility, but lends to suspicion. No argument the Biblical stories align well with ancient Mesopotamian beleifs. But not all of the Bible is historical, and much has been altered at the hands of the Roman Catholic Church itself.

With the technologies claimed to have been available then, and the amount of time the Annunaki were here, why do we not find these technologies? Metal, glass, etc.? We are going on word alone, and questionalbe word at that.

We definately need to pay more and closer attention to what is communicated in the Mesopotamian texts. We need scholars NOT to dismiss everything Sitchin says. Eliminate the obvious statements he makes that are incorrect, but simply consider the rest. Where does that take us? What does point to that theory?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 7:17 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 4:30 pm
Posts: 72
Location: Abilene, Texas
From the scripture there is reason to believe that the Annunki guarded their technology very strictly. They also seemed to have lived fairly simple lives here on Earth, much less elaborate than they do in 'Heaven'. All the buildings were made to stand the test of time and made so that their own recreational/transporation vehicles were inaccessible to Man. There are apparently inscriptions near the base of the Sphinx that show what look like to be vehicles including a helicoptor. If only the Egytion government will allow an excavation so we can see what's inside of it.

There is a perfect crystal skull that is believed to have been made during the Stone Age. Our own technology couldn't have created it so I believe the Annunaki made it.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 9:15 pm 

Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 2:24 pm
Posts: 10
Where are you getting this information? I would like to read into it.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 13, 2005 1:08 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 4:30 pm
Posts: 72
Location: Abilene, Texas
That is what I came up with after rereading The 12th Planet. The descriptions of their 'abodes' and how they use the 'good oil' to silence the doors hinges makes everything seem so humble. When they describe 'Heaven' they make it sound so much more splendid and even more comfortable probably on a technological level. I've always been able to read more into what is written by relating one thing to everything.

I don't think they would have gone through the trouble of bringing down the comforts of home. Because when it was time to leave they would've had to take it with them. I still believe that they also didn't want to go through the hassle of taking their earthly transportation vehicles so they must be hidden somewhere (like under the Sphinx). Most of what they had on Earth was made on Earth and I don't think they went through the trouble of building highly sophisticated factories. This is one of the reasons why they heavily depended on Man to do the 'man'ual labor. From what I gather from the books the only things they brought down with them were the formulas (like the Tablet of Destinies), space suits (called the ME), and earthbound transportation vehicles (called the MU). Well, that's if you don't include the vehicles and capsules used to leave and return to Earth.

The crystal skull is described in Erich Von Daniken's books but I do believe that Mr. Sitchin makes a reference to it in at least one of his books. At the moment I'm still in the midst of rereading all of Mr. Sitchins books and at this time I am on the Stairway to Heaven. I'll point it out when I find it.

The inscriptions on the base of the Sphinx were pointed out by that famous Egyption archeologist (I can't think of his name) during one of his first live broadcasts on the Discovery Channel. Actually I think it could have been on Fox and it was where he had opened some other area near the Sphinx and the Pyramids for the first time. It ended up being a disappointment to most people but it did bring up some new questions. I was astounded when he showed the inscription showing something that looked like a modern day helicoptor.

(Edited by Areles at 9:13 pm on June 12, 2005)


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 11:16 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 11:08 pm
Posts: 47
Location: Portland
Let's suppose the Anunnaki did leave some of their technology behind. What would a bronze age human do with an object made of a tough metal alloy? What would that person do with a piece of glass? They would use it of course. If the metal was something tougher than aluminum, it would soon be a weapon, or a cup or something, but it would surely be taken apart, hammered out and used. The glass would be put to use, broken over several thousand years and splintered into shards and thrown away. Would you leave your rifle behind when your vacation in the jungle was over? I tend to take my more valuable technological items with me when I move. Considering the limited amount of room for freight on a space ship, I think they would only bring those few items most valuable to them, and they would take those items when they left. There are a few items too large to take; I mention Giza and Baalbek as a couple of examples.

The number of Anunnaki on Earth was not very large, so there wouldn't be a large number of artifacts either. If I'm an Anunnaki, would I want to ship my porcelain mug all the way from Nibiru or would I teach the humans how to make pottery? I'd teach them to make my creature comforts of course. I think human cultural and technological jumps are some of the strongest proofs for the Anunnaki's existence.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2005 4:25 pm 

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:34 am
Posts: 39
Quote:
Quote: from <b>Areles</b> on 10:08 pm on June 12, 2005

The inscriptions on the base of the Sphinx were pointed out by that famous Egyption archeologist (I can't think of his name) during one of his first live broadcasts on the Discovery Channel. Actually I think it could have been on Fox and it was where he had opened some other area near the Sphinx and the Pyramids for the first time. It ended up being a disappointment to most people but it did bring up some new questions. I was astounded when he showed the inscription showing something that looked like a modern day helicoptor.


Actually I believe you're incorrect. The depiction you seem to be referencing is not at all at the base of the Sphinx but elsewhere and your reference to the Sphinx is combining a whole other controversial claim with this one. The FOX special was 3 or 4 years ago (maybe more) and it was on the "Tomb of the mummies" (or something similar) with an intro by the infamous Richard C Hoagland.

In this intro Hoagland discussed the hieroglyphics in the Temple of Osiris at Abydos. south of Gizeh, and indicated that these heiroglyphs appeared to depict something akin to an Apache attack helicopter, various flight vehicles (UFOs) and a 'hover craft'. Is this the imagery to which you're referencing, below?

Image

That would be the "helicopter" in the upper left corner.

These glyphs are actually the result of the decay of an overlaying set of heiroglyphs and the combination of these with a lower set of heiroglyphs. This phenomenon of overlaying one heiroglyph upon another is fairly common and referred to as <i>palimpsest</I>. In brief, these representations are not at all technical vehicles as some claim.

Here is a good site demonstrating what is going on.
Pharoah's Helicopter

Quote:
Quote: from <b>Bulls Eye</b> on 9:29 am on June 10, 2005
I do agree that he may have made connections scholars have missed. But when one man put's together an explaination "flawlessly" with no questions left to ponder (and no professional background), then there is bias suspect to begin with. I suspect he made meaning in somethings to support his Alien theory-confronted by scholoars. Not that I do not believe that is possible or even probable. But a reader needs to be sceptical of everything they read regarding history. His connections with the Roman Catholic Church doesn't help credibility, but lends to suspicion. No argument the Biblical stories align well with ancient Mesopotamian beleifs. But not all of the Bible is historical, and much has been altered at the hands of the Roman Catholic Church itself.


I don't know where you got the idea Sitchin is connected with the Roman Catholic Church but it is false. Sitchin is a russian born Jew who later emigrated to Israel and currently lives in Manhattan. Sitchin only references the Bible (a christian work) because it is a profound source for evidences of 'others' as well as historical reference.

And really, questioning Sitchin merely because he is contradicted by authorities in ancient linguistics is sort of a bogus litmus test. Sitchin's theories are so novel and startling because they do challenge all the established paradigms and beliefs held by establishment. If you want to find fault with Sitchin (which can be done) you must do so by specific reference and not mere superficial acceptance of other's claims, but by the same token you can look at other's claims and reject these with concrete evidences. One example would be the Christian belief in "one God" when the Bible itself refuts this in passages like Deuteronomy 32 and Psalm 82 which indicate a group of gods or 'pantheon'.



(Edited by Tripp at 1:32 pm on Aug. 22, 2005)


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2005 8:52 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 12:32 am
Posts: 91
Location: California
>"There is a perfect crystal skull that is believed to have been made during the Stone Age."<

See "The Crystal Skull" by Richard Garvin, Doubleday 1973, Pocket Book 1974.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2005 9:03 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 12:32 am
Posts: 91
Location: California
>"Sitchin only references the Bible (a christian work) because ..."<

Sitchin references parts of what Christians call The Old Testament, but these are/were Jewish books, originally written in Hebrew and existed long before the time of Jesus. They are still the basis of the Jewish religion today. Some of these books, certainly Genesis, are compilations of older works by different authors squeezed together. (Note, for instance, conflicting chapters about how long it rained during Noah's flood and how many animals he took on the ark.)


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2005 12:47 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 4:30 pm
Posts: 72
Location: Abilene, Texas
Tripp, thank you again for showing how clueless I am. I see bits and pieces and accidently put them together wrong. I can clearly spout what is written in Mr. Stichin's work and that's about it. Maybe someday I'll get all the 'facts' strait. Can you explain the pictorial expression for DIN.GAR and the meaning behind Ben-ben? Should I throw my books by Mr. Stichin into a fire or is there something in his books that you agree with?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 1:57 pm 

Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 1:45 pm
Posts: 11
Location: Dubai, UAE
Quote:
Quote: from ArniK on 4:16 pm on Aug. 21, 2005
Let's suppose the Anunnaki did leave some of their technology behind. What would a bronze age human do with an object made of a tough metal alloy? What would that person do with a piece of glass? They would use it of course. If the metal was something tougher than aluminum, it would soon be a weapon, or a cup or something, but it would surely be taken apart, hammered out and used. The glass would be put to use, broken over several thousand years and splintered into shards and thrown away. Would you leave your rifle behind when your vacation in the jungle was over? I tend to take my more valuable technological items with me when I move. Considering the limited amount of room for freight on a space ship, I think they would only bring those few items most valuable to them, and they would take those items when they left. There are a few items too large to take; I mention Giza and Baalbek as a couple of examples.

The number of Anunnaki on Earth was not very large, so there wouldn't be a large number of artifacts either. If I'm an Anunnaki, would I want to ship my porcelain mug all the way from Nibiru or would I teach the humans how to make pottery? I'd teach them to make my creature comforts of course. I think human cultural and technological jumps are some of the strongest proofs for the Anunnaki's existence.


Hello Arnik

Doesn't this just try and explain away the total and complete lack of archaeological evidence? The Norse were in Newfoundland for a generation - yet clear evidence was found, we can even find remains of earlier hominids - but not a trace of an occupation that is alleged to have lasted how many tens of thousands of years? Where are the habitation levels and garbage dumps?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 02, 2005 12:53 am 

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:34 am
Posts: 39
Quote:
Quote: from Areles on 9:47 pm on Aug. 23, 2005
Tripp, thank you again for showing how clueless I am. I see bits and pieces and accidently put them together wrong. I can clearly spout what is written in Mr. Stichin's work and that's about it. Maybe someday I'll get all the 'facts' strait. Can you explain the pictorial expression for DIN.GAR and the meaning behind Ben-ben? Should I throw my books by Mr. Stichin into a fire or is there something in his books that you agree with?


Well, Areles, have you looked into DIN.GAR and Ben-ben as well as you looked into Abydos or the 'proven' fraud of Vyse's find? I dont read Sitchin as Gospel. In fact I don't read the Gospels as Gospel either. Many here and elsewhere are well versed in "things Sitchin" and there are other qualified responses to related issues from outsiders. Don't discount egyptologists without first reading the details of their research and the resolve of numerous persons works. This is true of other arenas as well: it is always good to do outside reasearch. You seem upset that I've challenged your claims. Are you more interested in your beliefs being sacrosanct or do you desire to find out the truth overall? Beyond doubt posting on a forum where others can respond is a hazardous way to cling to false beliefs.

You may note that many of my postings are addressing 'incongruities' in the Bible .. and some strange congruities as well. I am not as dour as "Hans" here about Sitchin's works but I do believe that Sitchin has made many claims without any evidence and extrapolated things well past the reasonable while ignoring some reasonable explanations. That is not to say that there are indications of "alien astronauts"; I believe there are.



(Edited by Tripp at 10:05 pm on Sep. 1, 2005)


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 02, 2005 2:21 am 

Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 1:45 pm
Posts: 11
Location: Dubai, UAE
Hello Tripp

Sorry to be so dour! I seem to remember your name from another board. I find Sitchin and his believers to be of great interest due to their intense loyalty to his ideas, ideas you yourself find unsupportable. I note also that you believe ancient astronauts visited earth. Well I cannot say they didn't but can say I haven't seen anything that would lead me to conclude that. I'd be interested in seeing/reading what you've come across that leads you to believe in their presence.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 02, 2005 3:21 am 

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 3:52 am
Posts: 65
Location: Portugal
Quote:
Quote: from Hans on 11:21 pm on Sep. 1, 2005
Hello Tripp

Sorry to be so dour! I seem to remember your name from another board. I find Sitchin and his believers to be of great interest due to their intense loyalty to his ideas, ideas you yourself find unsupportable. I note also that you believe ancient astronauts visited earth. Well I cannot say they didn't but can say I haven't seen anything that would lead me to conclude that. I'd be interested in seeing/reading what you've come across that leads you to believe in their presence.


do you think that UFO's as extraterrestrial intruments are real? do you think that extraterrestrial visitation has happened and is happening nowadays? ever heard of what happened in Portugal in 1917? can you concede that mankind has been influenced and could be under direct observation of much older, powerfull and advanced beings? can you conceed the possibility that more advanced species could have sent their probes through our solar system sometime in the past? can you conceed that human techonology might be thousands if not millions of years behind the capabilities of such beings and that extrapolating our shortcomings to them is not reasonable? do you understand that ancient civilizations claim contact with "celestials" which according to them were not Earth bound?

if your answer to any of these questions is "no", then i dont think that there is any point for you, "Hans", to even try to discuss these subjects with people who allow any one of those possibilities.

anyway, different board, same attitude. do you really believe you're dealing with baboons?


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 1 of 6 [ 88 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

cron