> For clarity, are you stating that you believe
> Sitchin was convinced that his translations were
> accurate, but everyone else knows they are wrong.
> If so, he was simply ignorant, correct?
That would not be a correct statement. Ignorant of what exactly?
> > Or, are you saying that a scholar's translations
> are equally suspect? Because, that sir, is
Obviously you are not familiar with scholars and their translations. Translations are frequently "suspect" amongst the scholars in any given language. Biblical translations are a good example. Your assumption that any scholar's translation would be 100% correct is preposterous. There are soooo many problems involved in translating ancient languages, but you haven't a clue.
> It is clear that you want to defend Sitchin's
> ideas because you like them,
This is not at all clear. You are not understanding his posts.
> Finally, as to whether or not he was deliberately
> deceptive, and pretended to write non-fiction in
> order sell books, we may never know. I believe he
> knew exactly what he was doing. If he genuinely
> believed that the ideas in his books were
> legitimate, and he was innocently speculating
> about things that he took seriously, then he was a
> very stupid man. If you want to defend his
> stupidity, that is fine.
Let's talk about stupidity......
You have not read even one of Sitchin's books, correct?
You decided he was totally full of BS because of ONE statement Hancock made.
You do not know how to read Sumerian.
You know there are not extraterrestrial life forms capable of traveling to earth because you have the most powerful telescope in the world that can see beyond our solar system.
So Sitchin is stupid and you are ???
You haven't formed an educated opinion. Your opinion is based on what ONE man said. And that ONE man could not possibly be wrong. You haven't thought for yourself.