Mysteries :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board). 
Welcome! Log InRegister
Brian Patterson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Thanos,
>
> You wrote:
>
> "Your source does not and for what it is worth is
> actually quite fair to Sitchin."
>
> I know. I read the piece.

You did? Then what prompted you to quote that and say this:
Quote

I will give him great credit for
creating enough bs to sell a lot of
books, which was always his number one priority.

Your source says nothing of the kind. You are imposing your own bias, derived from others, on this source.

> Who the f**k made you the hall monitor? Mind your
> own damn habits.

Oh, Brian. Not so much fun when you are on the receiving end, huh? Yet the truth sucks all the same. But by all means-anyone is free to call me out on my own "damn habits" any time they wish. So I should take it the answer is a "no" to these questions asked of you:
Quote

can you provide any quote within your link that states, implies or gives any evidence in support of your claims that Sitchin "created a lot of BS" specifically to "sell a lot of books" and that this was his "number one priority"?

> Zecharia Sitchin is not considered
> a reliable source when it comes to cuneiform
> translations. If you think he is, you are
> sincerely delusional.

Can you quote me where I said he was?
Quote

Sitchin has purportedly made several errors or taken undue poetic license with his translations in support of his overall claims. This may well be true...

Regardless of the validity of Sitchin's translations or his ideas...

I am not defending Sitchin's ideas...

Does this sound like an endorsement of his ability to translate cuneiform accurately or not? And where have I said this is even the point? People are free to bash Sitchin's ideas all they like, but it is BS to say he is a "liar" and a "fraud" and has set out to "trick people" just to "sell books". This is BS. I asked you for evidence of this-do you have any? No? Defending Sitchin in this regard is not defending his ideas or his ability to read cuneiform or lack thereof, but just because he is "wrong" does not make him a willful charlatan.

But regardless, please explain to me how it is you know Sitchin is not a reliable source of cuneiform translation? Is this because you read cuneiform yourself? Of course not. Neither do I. Or are you relying on others to explain to you why Sitchin's translations are "wrong" which boils down to Heiser and...who else? I believe there was another scholarly fellow on Usenet some years back who took a crack at it which I doubt few are even aware of, meaning nearly all, if not all, of this Sitchin translation bashing comes from just one person, an Evangelical Christian scholar whose mission in life is to bring believers seeking alternative explanations back to Christianity. Who doesn't even translate the cuneiform himself, but rather relies on the very scholars Sitchin took exception to in the first place. And before you go quoting Wikipedia again, Fritze is just quoting Heiser and offers zero original scholarship and Westcott at the time was a Velikovsky disciple and in his own words "more Velikovskian than Velikovsky." The undue weight given to these sources where in any other context would be disallowed is why Wikipedia is often such a joke.

Regardless, Sitchin may well be completely wrong with every single one of his unique translations, but understand nearly all of this vitriol and debunkery of Sitchin's translations flows from one ueber religious person, blindly repeated often, who despite his degrees some might say his beliefs are even kookier than some find Sitchin's, which by default-how could Sitchin be anything else but "wrong"?

> My source also plainly stated:
>
> "In other words, he is not led to his
> conclusions by the weight of evidence from the
> texts, but starts from his conclusions and then
> searches
> to texts for evidence to back up his assertions,
> generally by modifying
> the translations of key words."

> Which can be translated as selling books.

Being it was "plainly stated" then there is no need for you to "translate" it. It speaks for itself and nowhere does it state or imply Sitchin had any sinister or ulterior motive in doing so just to "sell books". And to read Sitchin, he makes it repeatedly clear, without exception, the translations that stray from accepted norms are clearly his own. Pretty "honest" for someone who is supposedly "lying" to sell more books.

> You have to remember the era, in the
> 70's there were many people who capitalized on the
>
> popularity of Erich Von Daniken's book Chariots Of
> The Gods from 68.
>
> [en.wikipedia.org]

I wrote and/or edited much of this page, but thank you for the irony of quoting it to me.

[snip]

> And a load of
> hogwash.

Please tell me in your own words why it was a "load of hogwash"? Why does a conversation about Sitchin immediately begin, and end, with unfounded character assassination instead of vetting the merits of his ideas or lack thereof? This is the point, and the only point I am making.

> He was a journalist. His job was to write.

So by default we can assume all writers "make stuff up" on purpose just to sell more books?

> Jumping backwards a bit, you posted:
>
> "Do you think the same thing of Graham and if not
> why not?"
>
> I do.

So you think Graham just makes stuff up to sell more books? I see.

> Graham is an author, and it
> is his responsibility to the publisher to
> sell as many books as possible.

By making stuff up?

> But Graham is a
> far wiser man. He does not believe that our
> ancient
> civilization was built by creatures from outer
> space who
> came to Earth and genetically modified apes to
> become slaves that
> mine gold for a superior class of rulers.

I thought you read the 12th planet? Where does he say they genetically modified apes? Do you think Home Erectus was an "ape"? Sitchin does not think so and specifically states the Gods did not create apes or hominids, but rather merely Homo Sapiens. Regardless; how does this make Graham "wiser"? Compared to what- Graham's belief that humans are able to engage with beings from other dimensions by taking drugs? Yeah, by your standards, pretty "wise".

> Obviously you do.

I do? Please quote and explain to me what I have said here that has made this "obvious" to you? Is it because I do not dogpile on with unwarranted character assassination therefore by default this is what I must believe? Or was it these statements, again, that made this conclusion so "obvious" to you:

Quote

Sitchin has purportedly made several errors or taken undue poetic license with his translations in support of his overall claims. This may well be true...

Regardless of the validity of Sitchin's translations or his ideas...

I am not defending Sitchin's ideas...

More "translating" of yours I presume.

> But nonetheless, I am still a
> fan of Graham. He is smart enough to ask
> a lot of questions without changing evidence to
> back up a preconceived premise. Something I
> respect.

So Sitchin is stupid?

> Call me skeptical if you like,
> but Sitchin should not be considered
> a reliable source for anything that has to
> do with the origins of the civilizations of
> mankind.

40 years after the fact, no, for the most part I would say not. But regardless, Sitchin offers a wealth of secondary information, to be vetted accordingly like any alternative author, and is an inexhaustible supply of speculatory narrative.

Again, let me be as clear as I have been so there can be no further misrepresentation or assumptions: I am not defending Sitchin's ideas nor his translations, but rather am defending his right to be judged on the merit of his ideas or lack thereof instead of the mindless parroted ad hominem assassination of his character and/or misinformation in lieu of such. Funny how so many people say Sitchin sucks yet few can articulate why and when the try to 99% of the time it is parroted from another source, in the case of his translations, Heiser, himself a rather questionable source. "Skepticism" at its finest.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 23-Dec-15 16:57 by Thanos5150.

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 2721 Alchemist222 21-Dec-15 13:58
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 1016 WhoWeird 21-Dec-15 21:17
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 1026 Thanos5150 21-Dec-15 23:26
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 796 WhoWeird 22-Dec-15 01:39
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 815 WhoWeird 22-Dec-15 01:49
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 565 Alchemist222 31-Dec-15 10:47
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 679 gulsbo 11-Mar-16 20:46
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 767 Brian Patterson 22-Dec-15 21:18
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 695 Thanos5150 23-Dec-15 00:21
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 880 WhoWeird 23-Dec-15 01:05
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 866 WhoWeird 23-Dec-15 01:20
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 638 WhoWeird 23-Dec-15 01:22
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 692 Hanslune 24-Dec-15 19:28
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 733 Audrey 25-Dec-15 02:15
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 673 Hanslune 26-Dec-15 06:14
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 683 Audrey 26-Dec-15 06:29
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 715 Harte 26-Dec-15 21:30
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 601 Thanos5150 27-Dec-15 07:01
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 655 gulsbo 11-Mar-16 21:37
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 586 Alchemist222 31-Dec-15 10:48
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 589 WhoWeird 31-Dec-15 11:33
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 770 Brian Patterson 23-Dec-15 01:11
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 728 Thanos5150 23-Dec-15 06:43
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 760 WhoWeird 23-Dec-15 20:14
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 714 Audrey 24-Dec-15 02:23
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 711 WhoWeird 24-Dec-15 13:35
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 649 WhoWeird 24-Dec-15 13:40
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 765 Harte 24-Dec-15 00:39
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 729 Audrey 24-Dec-15 02:30
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 687 Merrell 24-Dec-15 09:26
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 692 Harte 24-Dec-15 17:26
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 625 Hanslune 24-Dec-15 19:20
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 650 Harte 24-Dec-15 22:45
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 605 Audrey 25-Dec-15 01:59
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 634 Harte 25-Dec-15 20:23
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 631 Audrey 26-Dec-15 02:00
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 581 Harte 26-Dec-15 21:38
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 490 Audrey 27-Dec-15 02:41
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 637 Merrell 27-Dec-15 11:42
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 494 Thanos5150 27-Dec-15 17:23
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 539 Audrey 27-Dec-15 21:49
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 532 Thanos5150 27-Dec-15 22:37
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 480 Audrey 28-Dec-15 01:14
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 502 Thanos5150 28-Dec-15 02:10
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 686 Audrey 28-Dec-15 03:38
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 529 Thanos5150 28-Dec-15 05:04
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 566 Harte 27-Dec-15 21:00
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 481 Audrey 27-Dec-15 22:33
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 469 Harte 29-Dec-15 13:56
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 546 Jon Ellison 29-Dec-15 14:33
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 574 Harte 31-Dec-15 15:34
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 659 Audrey 30-Dec-15 02:56
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 492 Harte 31-Dec-15 15:30
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 579 Audrey 31-Dec-15 17:06
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 543 Harte 01-Jan-16 19:58
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 602 Audrey 03-Jan-16 02:08
Hibben and Alaska 814 Merrell 03-Jan-16 09:51
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 968 Harte 09-Jan-16 20:48
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 524 Alchemist222 31-Dec-15 10:17
Re: Sumerians genetically engineered by the Annunaki? 662 Harte 01-Jan-16 21:34
Re: intervention theory....critters and good food : ) 688 Thunderbird 28-Dec-15 20:57
Anunnaki 1153 Cain 18-Mar-16 05:07


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.