Sitchin on DMR

[trainedobserver]

One thing that occurs to me is that the Sitchin hypothesis and the Alien Abduction hypothesis if I can call them that for convenience sake, present two different and somewhat contradictory 'world views' if I understand them correctly. I don't think there is sufficient evidence to suggest that one is more likely than another to be honest and I don't really have any favorites.

 

[Kieran]

Yes, I agree Kieran a roundtable debate on this type of ancient human history would be a great idea and lets not have personal attacks about the individuals rather focus on the material folks and Mr Stichins works are very well written and very enjoyable to read.

Ja Love,
Bfish

It's the only way to go, it seems to me.. Like Sitchin's should not be worried if he can back up his translations. The other guy must be wrong that being the case? A neutral person who knows neither of the two men would have to control the proceedings from getting out of hand.

 

[cryptomythologist]

Sorry to burst the bubbles of any Sitchin believers, but this particular guy is full of it. I have a master's degree in ancient Near Eastern studies and studied Akkadian for 2 years. My supervisor is one of only a handful of scholars in the world that can actually translate Sumerian. There are over 3000 years of linguistic evolution between the Sumerians and the so-called "Biblical World", so being a biblical scholar and being able to read or translate Hebrew or Aramaic does not qualify you to decipher Sumerian. The reason nobody calls him on his translations is because nobody else can decipher it besides this handful of scholars and they (as you might expect) have better things to do. I'm a huge fan of alternative history too, but I've been disappointed by the two areas in which I feel mildly qualified to evaluate claims - ancient history and archaeology. I know for a fact because of my own education that Sitchin and people like Graham Hancock are making wildly speculative claims that are not logically suggested by their finds or by any existing evidence. The fact that the two areas I know something about have turned out to be nonsense erodes my hopes for other areas I know nothing about. I've listened to some of Mike Heiser's lectures against Sitchin and he is correct in most of what he says. The problem is that the explanation is much drier than the wild and exciting claims that Sitchin offers.