Mogwa
Skilled Investigator
Since discovering the Paracast site I've been downloading and listening to all the broadcasts I've mised. From what I have heard so far, I believe the Paracast is probably the best current radio show covering the subject of ufo's. However, I was shocked by some of the statements made by Don Ecker during the course of his interview discussing his study of the so called "ancient astronaut" theory. There were so many blatant errors offered that I will only concentrate on those relating to his endorsement of Zechariah Sitchin since they were the most egrigious examples.
1. Zechariah Sitchin is not a scholar of ancient mideastern languages. He has no academic training in those disciplines at all. Born in Baku, Azerbaijan, and later relocated to Palestine as a child, he evidently had some training in Hebrew at a beth midrash, but even that seems not to have taken hold given his irrefutably demonstrated inability to grasp even the most fundamental principles of archaic Hebrew grammar. He later moved to England and graduated with a degree in economic history from the University of London.
2. Mr. Ecker claimed that while many true linguistic scholars disagree with Sitchin's conclusions, not one has successfully refuted the "scholarship" of his translations. That is an absurd allegation easily disproved by anyone with access to an internet search engine. Dr. Michael Heiser is probably the most vocal critic of Sitchin's nonsense, but there are many others. Look them up for yourself.
3. There is not a single reference in any surviving Sumerian text linking "Nibiru" (sic) to the Annunaki, the Annunagi or any variation of the spelling of their name.
4. Mr Ecker seems confused when dealing with the the proper usages of the terms "Annunaki" and "Nephilim." They are not precisely interchangable.
5. The Annunaki did not stage a revolt. That was allegedly an act of the Igiggi, who were lower caste servants. A small difference, but an important one.
5. Nephilim is a Hebrew word, not Sumerain. It's proper English translation means "the fallen," not "those who from the heavens descended" or anything remotely similar.
6. The Annunaki were immortal deities of the underworld, not traditional sky gods flitting between the planets.
These are only a few examples. There are many more. How and why a man of such influence as Don Ecker could fail to properly research his conclusions on this subjest astonishes me. Beyond the damage it does to the credibility of ufo research itself, it also detracts from a serious dialogue regarding the possibility of pre-modern extraterestrial contact. And there is some tantalizing evidence warranting further study. In my opinion, the myth of Oannes (Uan) described by Berossus in his Babyloniaka is among the best:
"At Babylon there was (in these times) a great resort of people of various nations, who inhabited Chaldaea, and lived in a lawless manner like the beasts of the field. In the first year there appeared, from that part of the Erythraean sea which borders upon Babylonia, an animal destitute of reason by name Oannes, whose whole body (according to the account of Apollodorus) was that of a fish, that under the fish's head he had another head, with feet also below, similar to those of a man, subjoined to the fish's tail. His voice too, and language, was articulated and human, and a representation of him is preserved even to this day.
"This Being was accustomed to pass the day among men; but took no food at that season; and he gave them an insight into letters and sciences, and arts of every kind. He taught them to construct cities, to found temples, to compile laws, and explained to them the principles of geometrical knowledge. He made them distinguish the seeds of the earth, and showed them how to collect the fruits; in short, he instructed them in everything which could tend to soften manners and humanize their lives. From that time, nothing material has been added by way of improvement to his instructions. And when the sun had set, this Being Oannes, retired again into the sea, and passed the night in the deep; for he was amphibious. After this there appeared other animals like Oannes."
Berossus wrote those words in the era of Alexander the Great, thousands of years after the Sumerian city state kingdoms had fallen to Semitic invaders from the west. That is why he describes the appearance of Oannes as occuring near Babylon rather than using proper Sumerian place names.
Over the span of centuries, the flesh and blood Oannes woull evolve into the mythic god EA (EnKi), one of Sitchin's Annunaki protagonists, whose true identity he has failed to investigate. That is almost tragic. I'm sure may of you are familiar with Robert Temple's Sirius Mystery, an excellent work that describes the Dogon tribes religion, a belief system based upon the interactions between ancient humanity and the Nommo, intelligent creatures who came to earth from a planet orbiting Sirius. The Dogon's description clearly states that the Nommo were physically identical to Oannes, as was their behavior. The possible implications of a stone age tribe living thousands of miles from Meopotamia accidentally inventing a complex religious system so remarkably similar to those of a foreign culture dead for thirty centuries certainly deserves further exhaustive study.
I trust no one who reads this believes I am making an ad hominen attack on Don Ecker, or in any way casting aspersions on his character. He deserves much credit for the work he has done, but this subject is far too important for anything less than our best efforts. I sincerely hope he objectively re-evalutes his positon.
1. Zechariah Sitchin is not a scholar of ancient mideastern languages. He has no academic training in those disciplines at all. Born in Baku, Azerbaijan, and later relocated to Palestine as a child, he evidently had some training in Hebrew at a beth midrash, but even that seems not to have taken hold given his irrefutably demonstrated inability to grasp even the most fundamental principles of archaic Hebrew grammar. He later moved to England and graduated with a degree in economic history from the University of London.
2. Mr. Ecker claimed that while many true linguistic scholars disagree with Sitchin's conclusions, not one has successfully refuted the "scholarship" of his translations. That is an absurd allegation easily disproved by anyone with access to an internet search engine. Dr. Michael Heiser is probably the most vocal critic of Sitchin's nonsense, but there are many others. Look them up for yourself.
3. There is not a single reference in any surviving Sumerian text linking "Nibiru" (sic) to the Annunaki, the Annunagi or any variation of the spelling of their name.
4. Mr Ecker seems confused when dealing with the the proper usages of the terms "Annunaki" and "Nephilim." They are not precisely interchangable.
5. The Annunaki did not stage a revolt. That was allegedly an act of the Igiggi, who were lower caste servants. A small difference, but an important one.
5. Nephilim is a Hebrew word, not Sumerain. It's proper English translation means "the fallen," not "those who from the heavens descended" or anything remotely similar.
6. The Annunaki were immortal deities of the underworld, not traditional sky gods flitting between the planets.
These are only a few examples. There are many more. How and why a man of such influence as Don Ecker could fail to properly research his conclusions on this subjest astonishes me. Beyond the damage it does to the credibility of ufo research itself, it also detracts from a serious dialogue regarding the possibility of pre-modern extraterestrial contact. And there is some tantalizing evidence warranting further study. In my opinion, the myth of Oannes (Uan) described by Berossus in his Babyloniaka is among the best:
"At Babylon there was (in these times) a great resort of people of various nations, who inhabited Chaldaea, and lived in a lawless manner like the beasts of the field. In the first year there appeared, from that part of the Erythraean sea which borders upon Babylonia, an animal destitute of reason by name Oannes, whose whole body (according to the account of Apollodorus) was that of a fish, that under the fish's head he had another head, with feet also below, similar to those of a man, subjoined to the fish's tail. His voice too, and language, was articulated and human, and a representation of him is preserved even to this day.
"This Being was accustomed to pass the day among men; but took no food at that season; and he gave them an insight into letters and sciences, and arts of every kind. He taught them to construct cities, to found temples, to compile laws, and explained to them the principles of geometrical knowledge. He made them distinguish the seeds of the earth, and showed them how to collect the fruits; in short, he instructed them in everything which could tend to soften manners and humanize their lives. From that time, nothing material has been added by way of improvement to his instructions. And when the sun had set, this Being Oannes, retired again into the sea, and passed the night in the deep; for he was amphibious. After this there appeared other animals like Oannes."
Berossus wrote those words in the era of Alexander the Great, thousands of years after the Sumerian city state kingdoms had fallen to Semitic invaders from the west. That is why he describes the appearance of Oannes as occuring near Babylon rather than using proper Sumerian place names.
Over the span of centuries, the flesh and blood Oannes woull evolve into the mythic god EA (EnKi), one of Sitchin's Annunaki protagonists, whose true identity he has failed to investigate. That is almost tragic. I'm sure may of you are familiar with Robert Temple's Sirius Mystery, an excellent work that describes the Dogon tribes religion, a belief system based upon the interactions between ancient humanity and the Nommo, intelligent creatures who came to earth from a planet orbiting Sirius. The Dogon's description clearly states that the Nommo were physically identical to Oannes, as was their behavior. The possible implications of a stone age tribe living thousands of miles from Meopotamia accidentally inventing a complex religious system so remarkably similar to those of a foreign culture dead for thirty centuries certainly deserves further exhaustive study.
I trust no one who reads this believes I am making an ad hominen attack on Don Ecker, or in any way casting aspersions on his character. He deserves much credit for the work he has done, but this subject is far too important for anything less than our best efforts. I sincerely hope he objectively re-evalutes his positon.