What ever happened to Eric Von Danekin - Page 14

Fram · #**391** (**permalink**) 09-February-2005, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

What's interesting is that the study of Economics takes one all the way back to Sumer, and the many thousands of texts dealing with Trade and such. Some university level Economics studies certainly entail examining, reading, cuneiform. Combine this with actually speaking Hebrew, rather than being taught in american univerisities, and understanding other semitic tongues.... well, I understand why you "pick" Heiser.
:wink:

Can you give an example of an University which actually requires reading cuneiform for their Economics studies? I've never heard of such a thing...

soupdragon2 · #**392** (**permalink**) 09-February-2005, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fram

And your examples are all interrelated

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fram

...Christianity is well-known for taking over aspects of other religions, like dates, rituals, and sacred places...

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fram

Whatever, the conclusion remains: were the gods cosmonauts?

Sorry. You've lost me now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fram

They were celestial bodies at first (with the Sun first and foremost)...

Again, agreed.

The tone of your posts suggests that you disagree with me, and yet the content concurs with what I have said!

V-GER · #**393** (**permalink**) 10-February-2005, 02:05 AM

A.DIM wrote:

Quote:

But I wouldn't presuppose a remark like "why not other moons and rings?" is enough of an examination of the material to dismiss the "aliens." The Enuma Elish describes the primordial celestial "gods" present for the "celestial battle" between Nibiru & Tiamat that brought about "heaven and earth," the main "players" so to speak.

But once again the question is not what the material says but rather how
literally it should be taken. For me there's just not enough evidence to assume gods were aliens. Also, would only the Sumerian gods have been aliens or others as well like Greek or Norse gods?

What I also wonder is that we've managed to get this far without any mention of Stargate.

Kesh · #**394** (**permalink**) 10-February-2005, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by V-GER

What I also wonder is that we've managed to get this far without any mention of Stargate.

Look back at my post on page one.

Fram · #**395** (**permalink**) 10-February-2005, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soupdragon2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fram

And your examples are all interrelated

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fram

...Christianity is well-known for taking over aspects of other religions, like dates, rituals, and sacred places...

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fram

Whatever, the conclusion remains: were the gods cosmonauts?

Sorry. You've lost me now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fram

They were celestial bodies at first (with the Sun first and foremost)...

Again, agreed.

The tone of your posts suggests that you disagree with me, and yet the content concurs with what I have said!

You have changed the premisse, like I said in the first line of my response (which you leave out in your response, coincidentally, like the last line about making up gods). A few religions, which have borrowed it from one another (Christianity certainly has), use the same date, the 25th of december in our reckoning, as a special date. It has some primitive astronomical significance, but nothing that any astronomer nowadays finds amazing. It adds nothing to the discussion at hand, although you present it as a significant fact and make it a lot bigger than it is.
And I'm sorry if I lost you, but that line was a direct reference to Von Däniken and his theories. I thought that was what this was all about

Outcast · #**396** (**permalink**) 11-February-2005, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disinfo Agent

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disinfo Agent

Your attack on Heiser is ad hominem, and you severely understate the differences between his interpretations and Sitchin's.

I didn't attack Heiser, DisInfo.

You are trying to suggest that Heiser's opinion on Sitchin's translations is worth nothing, because Heiser has some weird ideas about other issues, aren't you?
That's an ad hominem. He may be completely wrong about other issues, and still be right about this one.
Now, I won't deny that I would prefer a... erm... more orthodox source. But since these two are the only ones we have, I'll pick Heiser over Sitchin, since he at least actually has some expertise on ancient Mesopotamian languages.

yes he may be right or then again he might be wrong. and the only fact clear to me is that you cannot know for sure. the only reason you defend Heiser's position is because you disagree, for emotional reasons, with Sitchin. even though Heiser and Sitchin propose very similar scenarios.

Quote:

He states with regards to "Elohim," there are hundreds of uses in singular and hundreds of uses in plural and many sentences that mix it up in the same sentence. I want to thank Mr. Heiser here for showing these inconsistencies. This gives weight to my argument and Sitchin's thesis that the word "Elohim" is a loan word from a previous culture, which is why they had so much trouble incorporating it into their language with proper rules of grammar. We don't dispute that "Elohim" is used both as a plural and a singular. What we see is that the word Elohim is a clue to the antiquity of the Bible, showing a much older influence.

1. He has a fallacy of incorrect analogy. He compares the word Elohim to Sheep, Fish and Deer showing how the grammar can change the meaning to either singular or plural. The reason this is a fallacy of incorrect analogy is that we use the same word in English for the singular and the plural. Sheep, Fish and Deer do not have singular roots in them. Heiser does agree with me that the word "Elohim" contains the root singular form of god that is pronounced "Eloah." If you wanted to say god says (singular), you could say it as "Eloah" says and it would be correct. The reason the Hebrews use the word "Elohim" is that it is a holy word to them and they must not change that word that to a believer in one god must and can only mean "God." But was the word "Elohim" meant to be singular to represent a single deity by the original culture that created the usage, or was it borrowed and used later on by scribes with monotheistic philosophies? Wasn't the purpose of using so many different god names in the Bible to show differences in those characters?

2. Mr. Heiser's, use of translations from the Dead Sea Scrolls is irrelevant, because they are younger than the canonized Bible and therefore can't be used for this debate. Many Dead Sea Scroll translations are in dispute anyway, and the group that controlled the scrolls for so many years has gotten into trouble, they have even mistranslated Nephilim as watchers. It was the Igigi who could be called watchers.

Mr. Heiser's use of translations from the Book of Enoch for any translation is irrelevant because, first it is not part of the canonized Bible, and second it is younger than the canonized Bible. I still have not seen one original Hebrew version of this document that can be dated back to BCE era. The book is supposed to be very old, but there is no verification as to the modern version that is currently available. There is no chain of evidence to make the case that the version we have is actually older than the canonized Bible.

I must tell the public that Heiser's use of translations from text that are younger than the Bible show that he does not understand what this debate is about. It is not about contemporary mistranslations that have been made by modern translators. This debate is about what older influences were placed into the original Bible. By the way we just saw debunker trick #4, which is to reverse the process so that you can use proof of translations from younger documents to prove translating mistakes in older documents. This can't be done because of the arrow of time moving forward. Only older documents than the Bible are relevant to be an influence, and younger mistranslations that continue the mistakes are not evidence.

http://erikparker.com/articles/august02.htm

its laughable that you take estance with the puns at your nickname when every little incursion you have made into this thread has been to derail the normal flow of the discussion with off-topic invectives and veiled ad-hominens.

Outcast · #**397** (**permalink**) 11-February-2005, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fram

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

What's interesting is that the study of Economics takes one all the way back to Sumer, and the many thousands of texts dealing with Trade and such. Some university level Economics studies certainly entail examining, reading, cuneiform. Combine this with actually speaking Hebrew, rather than being taught in american univerisities, and understanding other semitic tongues.... well, I understand why you "pick" Heiser.
:wink:

Can you give an example of an University which actually requires reading cuneiform for their Economics studies? I've never heard of such a thing...

me neither, but maybe Sitchin took interest in ancient Sumeria through the historical study of commerce and economics. one thing should be clear, when Sitchin begun studying ancient Semitic languages (ex: Akkadian) and Sumerian itself, 30+ years ago, the study of these languages was at its very begginings.

Samuel Noah Kramer (Sumerian Mythology, 1944, 1961) gives us an idea of this monumentous work:

Quote:

In the history of American archaeology, the Nippur expedition, organized by the University of Pennsylvania more than 50 yean ago, will always be remembered with special interest and regard. For it was the Nippur excavations, supported over a number of years by a relatively small group of Philadelphians of unusual vision and understanding, which were responsible to no small extent for making America "archaeology-conscious." Moreover, it was largely the interest and enthusiasm aroused by the Nippur discoveries that led to the founding and organizing of the University Museum, an institution which for almost half a century has proved to be a leading pioneer in all branches of archaeological activity.

The ruins of Nippur, among the largest in southern Mesopotamia, cover approximately 180 acres. They are divided into two well-nigh equal parts by the now dry bed of the Shatt-en-Nil, a canal which at one time branched off from the Euphrates and watered and fructified the otherwise barren territory through which it flowed. The eastern half contains the temple structures, including the ziggurat and the group of buildings which must have formed the scribal school and library; it is in this part of the mound that the "tablet house" was excavated. The western half seems to mark the remains of the city proper. 7

Iraq under the auspices of the University of Pennsylvania. Nippur, one of the largest and most important mounds in Iraq, was chosen, and four long and extremely difficult excavating campaigns were conducted during the years 188990, 1890-91, 1893-96, and 1896-1900.

The hardships and handicaps were severe and discouraging. One young archaeologist died in the field, and there was hardly a year in which one or the other of the members of the expedition did not suffer from serious illness. Difficulties with the Arab tribes were not infrequent and at times assumed a most threatening character. In spite of the obstacles, however, the excavating continued, and in the course of the four campaigns which lasted more than a decade, the expedition achieved magnificent and in some respects unparalleled results, at least in the inscriptional field. The Nippur expedition succeeded in excavating approximately thirty thousand tablets and fragments in the course of its four campaigns, the larger part of which are inscribed in the Sumerian language and date from the second half of the third millennium to the first half of the second millennium B. C.

The contents of these tablets are rich and varied. The greater part is economic in character; it consists of contracts and bills of sale, promissory notes and receipts, lists and accounts, wills, adoptions, court decisions, and other legal and administrative documents. Many of the tablets are letters; some are historical inscriptions; still others are lexical in character, that is, they contain Sumerian dictionary and grammatical material of priceless value for our study of the language, since they were actually compiled by the ancient scribes themselves. But especially noteworthy is the large group of tablets dated about 1750 B. C. a which are inscribed with the Sumerian literary compositions consisting of epics and myths, hymns and laments, proverbs and "wisdom."

Quote:

The contents of these tablets are rich and varied. The greater part is economic in character; it consists of contracts and bills of sale, promissory notes and receipts, lists and accounts, wills, adoptions, court decisions, and other legal and administrative documents.

i wonder if this wasnt the reason that lead Sitchin to engage in the study of the Sumerian culture. either way, and as Kramer says, historically, the decipherment of Sumerian resulted from that of Akkadian. being Akkadian a semitic language, Sitchin did have a natural advantage.

Outcast · #**398** (**permalink**) 11-February-2005, 09:45 AM

besides, there are indeed University courses with indepth studies of the History of Economics.

http://www.wiu.edu/grad/0203catalog/econ.shtml

Outcast · #**399** (**permalink**) 11-February-2005, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soupdragon2

Sun worship is often touted as the origin of many religions. For example:

Horus of Egypt
Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave/manger, with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men, blah, blah

Mithra, Sungod of Persia
Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th.

Jesus, Christianity, etc, etc.

also:

Quote:

By the beginning of December, writes Columella, the farmer should have finished his autumn planting. Now, at the time of the winter solstice (December 25 in the Julian calendar), Saturnus, the god of seed and sowing, was honored with a festival. The Saturnalia officially was celebrated on December 17 (a.d. XVI Kal. Ian.) and, in Cicero's time, lasted seven days, from December 17-23.

At the end of the first century AD, Statius still could proclaim: "For how many years shall this festival abide! Never shall age destroy so holy a day! While the hills of Latium remain and father Tiber, while thy Rome stands and the Capitol thou hast restored to the world, it shall continue." And the Saturnalia did continue to be celebrated as Brumalia (from bruma, winter solstice) down to the Christian era, when, by the middle of the fourth century AD, its rituals had become absorbed in the celebration of Christmas.

ps: from a reference website which has gone offline

Fram · #**400** (**permalink**) 11-February-2005, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outcast

besides, there are indeed University courses with indepth studies of the History of Economics.

http://www.wiu.edu/grad/0203catalog/econ.shtml

I don't doubt that, every self respecting science has courses on its history, but that is still a far cry from A.DIM's claim.

Fram · #**401** (**permalink**) 11-February-2005, 10:47 AM

From a website on seasonal celebrations:

Quote:

However, out of habit, the Julian Calendar's inaccurate assignment of Dec. 25th as the Mid-Winter Solstice continued to be the date kept for Christmas. It was a case of the structure of an old habit prevailing over the content of an actual natural event. That numeric system shifted the natural event of the Solstice and its assigned date off of their earlier correspondence in time.

So 25th december was an important astronomical miscalculation, propagated through history by Christian tradition. Apparently it was not a 'birthdate' in Rome, and whatever, there still is no example of the 25th of the 12th month being important in any other culture's reckoning. That was the original claim. And I still don't see what it has to do with Von Däniken or Nibiru.

Disinfo Agent · #**402** (**permalink**) 11-February-2005, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outcast

the only reason you defend Heiser's position is because you disagree, for emotional reasons, with Sitchin.

Not true.
You underestimate me, Outcast, and that's a shame, because I get the impression that you tend to do that with people in general.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outcast

even though Heiser and Sitchin propose very similar scenarios.

Are you talking about Heiser's The Façade, here? I confess that I've never bothered to read about it...
It doesn't seem to be revelant to Sitchin's theories, in any case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outcast

[...] you take estance with the puns at your nickname when every little incursion you have made into this thread has been to derail the normal flow of the discussion with off-topic invectives [...]

It's possible that my contributions to this thread have on occasion driven it off-topic. I do have a tendency to go off on tangents. It's not something I do malliciously, though, it's just the way I look at these things.

Whenever you feel that I'm diverting the conversation from something more important, feel free to tell me so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outcast

[...] and veiled ad-hominens.

This is not true.

Rich · #**403** (**permalink**) 11-February-2005, 01:08 PM

Hey all,

Just wanted to drop a note that I haven't forgotten about our debate here. I haven't been able to get in and read, let alone take the time to post, for a number of reasons, and probably won't for a while.

Anyway, I look forward to getting the chance to sit and read through everything posted since I was last here... whenever I get a chance. Keep it interesting!

Rich

A.DIM · #**404** (**permalink**) 11-February-2005, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fram

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fram

But A.DIM, no matter what you say, you don't read the Enuma Elish literally, you make an interpretation, leaving out all the humanlike / godlike behaviour described in the text, unless it fits your idea of how the Solar Sytem has developed.

You not only seem to have totally ignored my "helpful snippets" above, but the rest of the babylonian astronomy page as a whole.
I'll try again: As I've said, some texts are astronomical texts and to read them "literally" as such is to remove the human attributes. Some texts are those describing the activities of the physically present beings on earth and to read them "literally"... well, that part should be clear.

Quote:

Your planets are speaking, and you have no explanation for that as a literal astronomical text.

I think you know what I mean now?

Quote:

And remember: all planets are gods doesn't mean that all gods are planets.

No kidding? :-?

I'll repeat: While doable, understanding the intricacies of myth/religion and astronomy, separating the "earthly gods" from the "celestial gods," is most challenging, but certainly takes more than superficial understanding of the materials.

I had read your post and the link you provided, but we stay with the fact that your definition of literal is hugely different from mine. We perhaps better let that rest for now...

My emphasis should suffice for now...

Quote:

What about my remarks about Sitchin's website? Why would I read (let alone believe) the books from someone who makes that many scientific mistakes in a few pages?

Uh... I recall a couple of out of context snippets, not "that many scientific mistakes" pointed out. What exactly?
Besides, I'm not here to defend Sitchin's website; I've drawn on mostly mainstream sources to make my points.

A.DIM · #**405** (**permalink**) 11-February-2005, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disinfo Agent

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

I'm not "trying to suggest" anything. I'm only making sure the less informed (or "disnformed") understand who Heiser is, and that his ideas aren't really that removed from Sitchin's.

Fine, then. And I'm just trying to make sure the disinformed understand who Heiser and Sitchin are, and why Heiser is more credible than Sitchin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

Quote:

That's an ad hominem. He may be completely wrong about other issues, and still be right about this one.

THAT's laughable, Disinfo! =D>

If you say so...

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

Were I to make such a statement, I'd be pounced on in the spirit of debunkery.

What makes you say that?

I do.... and because I've witnessed such behavior in these very forums.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

Quote:

Now, I won't deny that I would prefer a... erm... more orthodox source. But since these two are the only ones we have, I'll pick Heiser over Sitchin, since he at least actually has some expertise on ancient Mesopotamian languages.

What's interesting is that the study of Economics takes one all the way back to Sumer, and the many thousands of texts dealing with Trade and such. Some university level Economics studies certainly entail examining, reading, cuneiform. Combine this with actually speaking Hebrew, rather than being taught in american univerisities, and understanding other semitic tongues....

Can you say "slippery slope"?

Sure, "slippery slope."
Albeit, all I said is that it was "interesting;" not that such a background makes him any more credible than a "Hebrew scholar." The point, though, was to show that studying economics and speaking semitic languages isn't so far removed from understanding cuneiform as some would like to think, and that I understand why you "pick" Heiser.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

Quote:

I was not convinced by the arguments that you and Outcast put forth. I made that quite clear in that other thread.

Yes, and I think I've shown how you're not really interested in being "convinced."

No, you haven't.

OK, but I'll let our readers decide for themselves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

Try this: Contact Univerisity of Chicago's Oriental Institute, an authority on the matter, and find out for yourself.

Sorry, A.DIM, but the burden of proof, in what regards this Sitchin business, rests on you and Outcast.

"Burden of proof" for what, though, Disinfo? I never set out to prove anything here, other than that the idea of "those from heaven to earth came," or, if you will, ancient astronauts, was not "invented" by VonDaniken as put forth at the beginning of this thread. And again, I believe I've done as much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

Otherwise, I'm convinced that you too are only here to "debunk" something.

You say that like it's a bad thing!

Heh, considering how dangerous pseudoscience can be, pseudoskepticism in the spirit of debunkery appears as treacherous. :wink:

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

I laid out very clearly [...] How little their interpretations actually differ [...]

I must have missed it, then. Where was it that you did that?

I'm rather sure it was either the "Sitchin Continued..." thread or the "If Sitchin's right..." thread, but I've no time to sift through and specifically locate it. However, upon investigation you'll find that I took each of those "few certain terms," as stated by Heiser, and showed how Sitchin's translations don't really differ at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

Now, it appears that either you'll continue to ignore any points made and seemingly spread "disinfo," or ..... ?

Can we drop that silly little pun with my username? :-?
I mean, it isn't even funny, and I think you're a bit old for that kind of retort.

Again, sorry, but all I have to go on is what I read here.

An ad hominem is an ad hominem is an ad hominem.

How can you complain about people saying that Sitchin is a woo-woo, and then turn around and make childish attacks on my username?

First: In no way did I demean Heiser's credentials or person.
I did NOT attack him, and so no ad hominem.

As for you: Not only have I shown how you've derailed discussions with semantics, but Outcast has as well. In my mind, this is equivalent with "disinformation," and so your "name," and whatever puns may arise, seems appropriate.
Besides, I've not really complained about Sitchin being called a "woowoo." Be my guest.
All I've done is object to the countless inaccurate statements made about his work; knowing otherwise, of course.

A.DIM · #**406** (**permalink**) 11-February-2005, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fram

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

What's interesting is that the study of Economics takes one all the way back to Sumer, and the many thousands of texts dealing with Trade and such. Some university level Economics studies certainly entail examining, reading, cuneiform. Combine this with actually speaking Hebrew, rather than being taught in american univerisities, and understanding other semitic tongues.... well, I understand why you "pick" Heiser.
:wink:

Can you give an example of an University which actually requires reading cuneiform for their Economics studies? I've never heard of such a thing...

If you read closely, you'll note that I never said it was "required," only that "some... entail examining, reading, cuneiform."

This is another good example of how you've either misinterpreted what I've posted, or simply ignored it.

A.DIM · #**407** (**permalink**) 11-February-2005, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by V-GER

A.DIM wrote:

Quote:

But I wouldn't presuppose a remark like "why not other moons and rings?" is enough of an examination of the material to dismiss the "aliens." The Enuma Elish describes the primordial celestial "gods" present for the "celestial battle" between Nibiru & Tiamat that brought about "heaven and earth," the main "players" so to speak.

But once again the question is not what the material says but rather how
literally it should be taken. For me there's just not enough evidence to assume gods were aliens. Also, would only the Sumerian gods have been aliens or others as well like Greek or Norse gods?

This was covered earlier in this thread.
I suggest Campbell's The Masks of God.
Even Karen Armstong's A History of God will help.

Quote:

What I also wonder is that we've managed to get this far without any mention of Stargate.

Personally, I don't watch much tv.

But could it be "life reflecting art" or is it "art reflecting life?"

A.DIM · #**408** (**permalink**) 11-February-2005, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fram

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outcast

besides, there are indeed University courses with indepth studies of the History of Economics.

http://www.wiu.edu/grad/0203catalog/econ.shtml

I don't doubt that, every self respecting science has courses on its history, but that is still a far cry from A.DIM's claim.

Re read "A.DIM's claim" and tell us again?

A.DIM · #**409** (**permalink**) 11-February-2005, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disinfo Agent

... Are you talking about Heiser's The Façade, here? I confess that I've never bothered to read about it...
It doesn't seem to be revelant to Sitchin's theories, in any case.

"It doesn't seem..." because you don't know.
I'd suggest arming yourself with such info then.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outcast

[...] you take estance with the puns at your nickname when every little incursion you have made into this thread has been to derail the normal flow of the discussion with off-topic invectives [...]

It's possible that my contributions to this thread have on occasion driven it off-topic. I do have a tendency to go off on tangents. It's not something I do malliciously, though, it's just the way I look at these things.

Whenever you feel that I'm diverting the conversation from something more important, feel free to tell me so.

Even if it entails a few "childish" puns here & there? :wink:

A.DIM · #**410** (**permalink**) 11-February-2005, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich

Hey all,

Just wanted to drop a note that I haven't forgotten about our debate here. I haven't been able to get in and read, let alone take the time to post, for a number of reasons, and probably won't for a while.

Anyway, I look forward to getting the chance to sit and read through everything posted since I was last here... whenever I get a chance. Keep it interesting!

Rich

Hey Rich!
Hope all is well!

Fram · #**411** (**permalink**) 11-February-2005, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fram

What about my remarks about Sitchin's website? Why would I read (let alone believe) the books from someone who makes that many scientific mistakes in a few pages?

Uh... I recall a couple of out of context snippets, not "that many scientific mistakes" pointed out. What exactly?
Besides, I'm not here to defend Sitchin's website; I've drawn on mostly mainstream sources to make my points.

What exactly? Reread the post (you can search on 'Sitchin' with author 'Fram', there are luckily not too many of those).
This is what you said earlier in this thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

I'll say that Sitchin's detailed and lengthy Earth Chronicles is the fundamental basis for my ideas, though the breadth of knowledge and acumen stems from years of study and research across numerous disciplines. I'm no expert, mind you, and certainly don't think Sitchin is 100% correct. However, should you be inclined, I'd suggest the first book as well as the two companion volumes for more insight.
But I'm not interested in fielding questions about alleged "wild claims" from someone who appears to know little and misinterpret what is posted in the first place.

You have repeatedly blamed me for not knowing enough, not looking up your sources, not being interested, ...
You have given Sitchin as the fundamental basis for your ideas, but when I do look him up on his website, you brush it away (like everything you don't want to or can't answer). For all my quotes was the context given (you know, those links I include are there for a reason), and I explained what was the problem. The number of errors compared to the number of pages justified the use of the word 'many'.
If you use the books of a man who clearly misrepresents things, doesn't know enough of the sciences involved, and grasps at straws to 'prove' his theories, as the basis for your own theories, then you shouldn't be surprised if I and other people have no inclination whatsoever to read his books or even take your theories serious.
Bye, A.DIM.

Fram · #**412** (**permalink**) 11-February-2005, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fram

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

What's interesting is that the study of Economics takes one all the way back to Sumer, and the many thousands of texts dealing with Trade and such. Some university level Economics studies certainly entail examining, reading, cuneiform. Combine this with actually speaking Hebrew, rather than being taught in american univerisities, and understanding other semitic tongues.... well, I understand why you "pick" Heiser.
:wink:

Can you give an example of an University which actually requires reading cuneiform for their Economics studies? I've never heard of such a thing...

If you read closely, you'll note that I never said it was "required," only that "some... entail examining, reading, cuneiform."

This is another good example of how you've either misinterpreted what I've posted, or simply ignored it.

The explanation dictionary.com gives for 'entail':

Quote:

To have, impose, or require as a necessary accompaniment or consequence

Again, A.DIM, why should I take you serious any longer? The only thing you're good at is insulting me. The rest you spout is self righteous rubbish.

Bye, A.DIM.

Disinfo Agent · #**413** (**permalink**) 11-February-2005, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

Were I to make such a statement, I'd be pounced on in the spirit of debunkery. [...] because I've witnessed such behavior in these very forums.

Where and when, A.DIM?

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

What's interesting is that the study of Economics takes one all the way back to Sumer, and the many thousands of texts dealing with Trade and such. Some university level Economics studies certainly entail examining, reading, cuneiform. Combine this with actually speaking Hebrew, rather than being taught in american univerisities, and understanding other semitic tongues....

Can you say "slippery slope"?

[...] all I said is that it was "interesting;" not that such a background makes him any more credible than a "Hebrew scholar."

You haven't even shown that he has the kind of background that you talk about above!

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

The point, though, was to show that studying economics and speaking semitic languages isn't so far removed from understanding cuneiform as some would like to think [...]

I see no similarities between the two.
BTW, Sitchin studied economic history, not economics. They're different things, too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

[...] I think I've shown how you're not really interested in being "convinced."

No, you haven't.

OK, but I'll let our readers decide for themselves.

Be my guest. That's what I usually do when you and Outcast run away from my questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

Try this: Contact Univerisity of Chicago's Oriental Institute, an authority on the matter, and find out for yourself.

Sorry, A.DIM, but the burden of proof, in what regards this Sitchin business, rests on you and Outcast.

"Burden of proof" for what, though, Disinfo? I never set out to prove anything here, other than that the idea of "those from heaven to earth came," or, if you will, ancient astronauts, was not "invented" by VonDaniken as put forth at the beginning of this thread.And again, I believe I've done as much.

Then why did you tell me to contact the Univerisity of Chicago's Oriental Institute?

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

I laid out very clearly [...] How little their interpretations actually differ [...]

I must have missed it, then. Where was it that you did that?

I'm rather sure it was either the "Sitchin Continued..." thread or the "If Sitchin's right..." thread, but I've no time to sift through and specifically locate it.

A.DIM, either you have the time to find the evidence that backs up that claim, or you shouldn't have made it in the first place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

Not only have I shown how you've derailed discussions with semantics, but Outcast has as well.

When and where, A.DIM? :roll:

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

In my mind, this is equivalent with "disinformation," and so your "name," [...]

Only in your mind, I think:

Quote:

dis·in·for·ma·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ds-nfr-mshn)
n.

1. Deliberately misleading information announced publicly or leaked by a government or especially by an intelligence agency in order to influence public opinion or the government in another nation: “He would be the unconscious channel for a piece of disinformation aimed at another country's intelligence service” (Ken Follett).

2. Dissemination of such misleading information.

disinformation

n : misinformation that is deliberately disseminated in order to influence or confuse rivals (foreign enemies or business competitors etc.)

misinformation

n : information that is incorrect

dictionary.com

Assuming that I did derail the conversation -- which is arguable -- , I do not believe I did so with incorrect or misleading information, so it was not "disinformation".
(As a matter of fact, that would be a better description of what you and Outcast do when you go on about how "the Bible is, without doubt, a rewrite of older texts". And, in fact, plenty of other things you two write.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

In no way did I demean Heiser's credentials or person. I did NOT attack him, and so no ad hominem.

You need to read up on the meaning of ad hominem. It doesn't have to be an insult. Rejecting someone's reply to a question because of flaws of that person that are not related to the said question, as you did, is also an ad hominem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

Besides, I've not really complained about Sitchin being called a "woowoo." Be my guest.
All I've done is object to the countless inaccurate statements made about his work; knowing otherwise, of course.

But you have complained about the ad hominem use of the phrase "woowoo" in these forums:

Quote:

Originally Posted by [url=http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=283544&highlight=woowoo#283544

A.DIM[/url]]Hmmm... so instead of actually addressing the article I pointed to regarding Klass' bias and flaws in "debunking" the woowoos, you're instead trying to establish that the site containing the article is "woowoo" and how linking to it affects my "credibility?"

Why not instead address the article and admit Klass' own shortcomings as a "skeptic?" Why not acknowledge that a scientist effectively refuted and negated a journalist's "debunking?" I mean, you're obviously all about "how science works," right? So why not wave that flag now?

Quote:

Originally Posted by [url=http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=413371#413371

A.DIM[/url]]Are saying that it is ok for "skeptics" around here to make similar remarks about the various "woowoos" out there, and yet I can't make a most pertinent point likewise?

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disinfo Agent

... Are you talking about Heiser's The Façade, here? I confess that I've never bothered to read about it...
It doesn't seem to be revelant to Sitchin's theories, in any case.

"It doesn't seem..." because you don't know.
I'd suggest arming yourself with such info then.

But, according to you and Outcast, Heiser is a nut, and no credence should be given to his writings, right? :P

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

Quote:

Whenever you feel that I'm diverting the conversation from something more important, feel free to tell me so.

Even if it entails a few "childish" puns here & there? :wink:

I would rather that you were more direct, because it isn't easy to interpret the intent of your puns.

V-GER · #**414** (**permalink**) 12-February-2005, 06:34 PM

A.DIM wrote:

Quote:

Personally, I don't watch much tv.

But could it be "life reflecting art" or is it "art reflecting life?"

No it's art reflecting deranged delusions of our past.

Outcast · #**415** (**permalink**) 12-February-2005, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disinfo Agent

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outcast

[...] and veiled ad-hominens.

This is not true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disinfo Agent

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

[...] I think I've shown how you're not really interested in being "convinced."

No, you haven't.

OK, but I'll let our readers decide for themselves.

Be my guest. That's what I usually do when you and Outcast run away from my questions.

Posted: 11 Feb 2005 21:47

if that isnt a veiled ad-hominen...

but using your own words: Where and when, D.A.?

bringing to case the last pseudoskeptical attack you've done at my person, where you've done to me what you yourself accuse me of doing to you, case in point:

Quote:

You underestimate me, Outcast, and that's a shame, because I get the impression that you tend to do that with people in general.

using V-GERs question and my following answer, without knowlledge from your part of the issue involved just to derail the conversation into another flame war is evidenced in these pages.

so again, you've succeded in starting a chain of ad-hominens. i think it wont be long untill this thread gets locked. congratulations.

Outcast · #**416** (**permalink**) 12-February-2005, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disinfo Agent

But, according to you and Outcast, Heiser is a nut, and no credence should be given to his writings, right?

i dont know about A.DIM, but according to me, all i ever said is that Heiser has an agenda. that he is (or isnt) a "nut" is YOUR own assumption. also, according to me, both Sitchins and Heisers theories involve the intervention of advanced beings in humanitys past. since Heiser is a confessed christian, these beings (the Watchers or the I.GI.GI of the Sumerian) take a different interpretation. nevertheless its the same premise. but, of course you have no idea of what im talking about because, per your own words:

Quote:

I confess that I've never bothered to read about it

so again, you've been caught red handed making wild claims. why should anyone trust anything you have to say, D.A.?

Disinfo Agent · #**417** (**permalink**) 12-February-2005, 08:21 PM

Ah, I'd missed this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outcast

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disinfo Agent

It's got little to do with the fact that Sumerian was agglutinative.

V-GER asked the following: "Why EN.KI.DU instead of Enkidu?"

i answered the following: "sumerian is an agglutinative language and a word is sometimes formed by other compound words to derive a meaning. it could also be spelled EN-KI-DU, either way it would be correct."

The issue was not with you saying that "either way would be correct", but your mention of the fact that Sumerian is agglutinative, which is totally irrelevant to the answer to V-GER's question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outcast

DA, you never loose an opportunity to belittle someone you dont agree with. isnt that right?

[...] you should really temper your mood when addressing my person because such belittling attitudes are neither deserved by me nor very flattering for you.

You see "belittling atittudes" where there are none.
Unless by "belittling atittudes" you mean those of any and every person who happens to criticise what you write.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outcast

if that isnt a veiled ad-hominen...

It isn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outcast

but using your own words: Where and when, D.A.?

You mean, where are when have you and A.DIM run away from my questions?
Let's see... here are two questions I asked to A.DIM in this very thread, but he never replied: "Can we see a source for this?" and "But if you interpret the "gods" as ETs, then you're not making a literal interpretation, are you?". There are others.
As for you, there are examples in other threads. I am tired right now, but I can search for them later, if you wish.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outcast

bringing to case the last pseudoskeptical attack you've done at my person, where you've done to me what you yourself accuse me of doing to you, case in point:

Quote:

You underestimate me, Outcast, and that's a shame, because I get the impression that you tend to do that with people in general.

using V-GERs question and my following answer, without knowlledge from your part of the issue involved just to derail the conversation into another flame war is evidenced in these pages.

See above.