I'd like to think this will be the last of my posting to this thread.

If someone cares to actually discuss Sitchin, start a thread, I'll post when I can.

As for now:

OK,
Personally, I consider Troy being factual as common knowledge so there's no real need for such "rigidity." Sitchin only seems to ask what if it is read more literally regarding the "gods" involved; It was, after all, their war.
As far as the Face on Mars: I see it only likely that a space-faring species coming into our system would reasonably colonize Mars along the way. And considering the awesome discoveries there over the last year - namely that water was abundant for an extended period sometime in its past - I'd consider it plausible.

Then, quoting the website, you said:
I'll agree "impossible" is over the top, but why did you not copy the rest of that text?
The next sentence: "It entailed the notion that stars and their planetary systems could explode, ejecting a planet to journey in space – another revolutionary astronomical aspect only recently accepted; and it entailed the even more challenging idea, that life exists elsewhere in the universe and could have and did evolve earlier than on Earth."

Then again, only in the last 10yrs or so has evidence actually existed for extrasolar planets, ejected "rogue" planets, planets where Tiamat was in our system, etc. I think these, and the articles cited are the more pertinent points.

And then quoting the "Evil Wind" page, you said
So instead of addressing the cited studies from Science and Geology regarding the sudden climate changes that seem support Sitchin's theory, you're quibbling over some 50yrs? Why should that matter? The books detailing the events predated '01 anyway. :-? That statement appears to be merely sensationalistic timing of the webmaster.

So Fram, again, "what exactly" about your dismissal of Sitchin via his website? Close review reveals more important, and relevant, info.
And yet you asked me to address your "points"? Yours were, as I said, out of context snippets.

Sorry, I'd like to be finished here.

[quote]This is what you said earlier in this thread:

Yes, and I stand firm.
And as I said, if you'd like, start a thread, I'll post when I can.

Sorry, I'm not clear on what errors you found, other than that "impossible" shouldn't have been used.
And I don't blame you for anything; other than attacking ideas that entail much more than the scant understanding you appear to possess.

You're fundamental mistake is assuming I've tried to "prove" anything.
You'll either discover it yourself or you won't.

But I'll likely be around here to correct you when you err.

Bye Fram.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

So now I have to defend my observations of pseudoskepticsim around here?

Harrumph...

Oh sorry, now I have to prove Sitchin has a degree in Economics vs. Economic History?
And that has a bearing on what?

Is that so?
Well, momentarily I'll show how you seem to ask the same questions repeatedly, ignoring answers by "I'm not convinced," and then feigning ignorance on related subjects in later discussions.
It's no wonder... :-?

Because after it was shown how I've provided up to 6 different sources that assert the "rewrite" aspects of the OT in this thread and linked-to threads, you still weren't "convinced."
I'm convinced I won't "convince" you, and so you must learn it yourself.
The Oriental Institute is a good place to start.

OK, and here it is:

This thread.
And this.

Now, notice how you, as "Informant," were the first to respond in both instances re: my critiques of Heiser's critiques, and here you are feigning ignorance on the matter.

This, as I said, in my mind, constitutes "disinformation."
Either that or....

... it was misinformation in the guise of "Disinfo," then?

Anyone who takes the time to actually research the "rewrite" issue will discover exactly what Outcast and I have said.

OK, but there was no "reply to a question;" it was a disparate "btw."
And I found it funny, that is all.

No, Disinfo, not really complaining about him being called a woowoo, or me, only the methods that were being used to "debunk" his theories and my ideas. Hell, I've even taken some pride in being considered a resident "woowoo."


No, a year ago I told you I thought his ideas were actually pretty cool, "interdimensional beings being the divine council" and all.
Oh, that's right, you must've forgotten that exchange.

I hope I've been direct enough.

I'd like to finished with this thread.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

posted by Disinfo Agent:
my answer was in no way irrelevent because it ANSWERED V-GERs question. in fact, it was very much to the point since i understood V-Ger question and you did not. can you understand that SIMPLE logic? the only reason you went into that little diatribe of yours was do discredit my person. period.

V-Ger's initial question:
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...=408402#408402

My thourough answer:
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...=412690#412690

V-Ger's aknowlledgement:
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...=412929#412929

thats all im gonna say about this issue.

no, just those critiques without references, lack of understanding of the issues involved, and with underlying demeaning tones. much like yours.

i've strived to present references for my claims, i think i've did it more or less reasonably. whether one agrees or not with my conclusions i expect counter arguments to be presented with the same level of dedication, respect and humility i've presented when discussing my personal ideas.

i've been planning to put the ETH into a coherent, scholarly work for years. at least to see if its possible to do such thing. therefore i've been looking for pertinent skeptic comments before engaging in such work. thats the only thing i expect from a place devoted to science like the BABBS not personal offenses and bad mouthing.

here's what i've said before:

the fact that you missed the point regarding this issue just shows that you didnt even read what i've written. you accused me and A.dim of calling Heiser a nut, which is not true.


regarding "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?":

a reference and its subsequent answer to this question has been provided in this thread. the fact that you missed it, again, shows that you do not study the references provided. see my comment above.

regarding "But if you interpret the "gods" as ETs, then you're not making a literal interpretation, are you? ", unfortunetly is a rhetorical question.

it would require taking the red pill. 8-[

I never said your answer was "irrelevant".
What I said was that the fact that Sumerian is an aggutinative language (which you give in your answer to V-GER) has very little to do with how names like Enkidu/EN-KI-DU are spelled. It is irrelevant.

Well, this thread was not about Sitchin to begin with...

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

then please explain why it is spelled EN-KI-DU instead of Enkidu.

Didn't you say it could be written either way?

Anyway, according to AncientScripts.com and other sites I consulted, specialists transliterate Sumerian word in capitals when they are written with logograms. So, if some specialists write EN-KI-DU, that's because the name was written with three cuneiform logograms, 'EN', 'KI', and 'DU'.

In other words, it has to do with how that word was written, not with the grammar of the language.

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

I'm sorry, but I still don’t get it.
Were you or were you not talking about The Façade, when you said I had been “caught redhanded making wild claims”?

I disagree that my criticisms made in this thread are of that sort, but perhaps this is one of those matters where we should let the readers decide for themselves.

Not literally, no. However, I made that remark partly in jest (hence the smilie), which would excuse a little exaggeration, I hope.

By A.DIM? Where is it?

No, it isn't. A.DIM could have disagreed, and explained why he disagreed. He didn't.

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

yes, and because sumerian words can be composed from logograms which in term each one represent a word its said that the language is agglutinative:

agglutinative

adj 1: forming derivative or compound words by putting together constituents each of which expresses a single definite meaning [syn: polysynthetic] 2: united as if by glue [syn: agglutinate]

so i still do not understand whats your beef with this issue, but whatever.

That's not what "agglutinative language" means for linguists. You should have looked up a specialists' definition. Here are a few:

agglutinative languages
agglutinative languages, at the msdn library
example of an agglutinative language: Turkish (look at the bottom of the page)

Let me emphasize again that this has nothing to do with writing. Even a language that has no writing system can be agglutinative.

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

no, i said i've seen it written as EN.KI.DU and EN-KI-DU, though i suspect that both should be written in lower case, and that would be correct, not Enkidu.

from the links you provided:

you really think the msdn library represents a "specialist" in linguists or did this just popup in your google search?

the last link says this: then you said:

well from my understanding of the subject i think it also has to do with writting.

i realized that the -du in en-ki-du might be a possessive modifier (an affix) for "your" and not the "dug" word like i stated before. that could imply that en-ki-du means "something which belongs to EN-KI", but im not sure.

no i was talking about you saying that I and A.dim called Heiser a nut, which is not true.

i agree.

jest is excusable when everyone else is doing it also. thus i believe the intent of your post had a second nature.

since i've read A.dim's posts in this BBS he has allways made certain to explain his motivations. since you've been engaging this issue around here as long as i've had, and if you didnt skip over his posts and actually read them, you certainly know why he makes that interpretation. thats why i consider your question rhetorical.