🚀 go-pugleaf

Daniel Packman wrote:
> In article <HI6Ad.1644993$SM5.132346@news.easynews.com>,
> Sam Stone  <sirian@mental.org> wrote:
> 
>>Daniel Packman wrote:
>>
>>>In article <Ez2Ad.7574946$6p.1192276@news.easynews.com>,
>>>Sam Stone  <sirian@mental.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Daniel Packman wrote:
> 
> 
> [....Sitchin...]
> 
> 
>>His posit of Niburu's path  may or may not be confirmed by Sedna, yet it 
>>stands apart from the pure examination of genetic engineering and design.
> 
> 
>>His conclusions need not be viewed monolithically.
> 
> 
> Of course not. He is wrong in many specialities.

There's that snarky know-it-all attitude again.

>>>Do you have graduate degrees
>>>in astrophysics that allow *you* to evaluate his theories to
>>>the extent I have?
> 
> 
>>Would a degree in astrophysics render you credible in translating Sumerian?
> 
> 
>>Would it equip you to examine the potential genetic engineering this 
>>species may have been subject to?
> 
> 
>>Would it lend prespective to interpreting ancient cultures?
> 
> 
> No, I have given you several citations that point out his
> errors in these areas. 

You have given me the predictable randi-level dismissals.

> My speciality allows me to accurately
> point out the fact that his astronomical conclusions are at
> odds with observation. He is wrong.

Hmmm...no elliptical orbit bodies out there?

I kinda doubt that...

>>>http://skepdic.com/sitchin.html

...a really weak review and indictment for rael borrowing from his 
work...hardly credible.

>>>http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk/siren.html

...somewhat more in depth but he admits to not reading the 12th 
planet...and misses the obvious notion that perhaps the Sumerians 
weren't just observing with the "naked" eye...

>>>http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/

...the predictable I hate you and heres' my web page net offering...not 
even really worth the time that ken's bob larson page was...

>>Oh what a surpise, a raft of naysayers!
> 
> 
> Then take just one point raised and a visual one at that.
> Justify his unique assertion of the Sumerian symbol for
> the sun. Explain why his interpretation is correct in the
> face of experts in the field holding a different view.
> Explain the fact that his symbol is obviously quite visually
> different from the universally accepted solar symbol.
> Is he blind as well as daft?

Or is he simply accessing another culture's symbology.

Believe what you wish, his conclusions taken as whole cloth are not the 
point. The similarities between other cultural records and gaps they 
fill in point to some rather sensible conclusions regarding our origins 
and why fossil record has not been the most linear measure of man's 
presence on this orb.

When dealing with incomplete evidentiary lines it becomes incumbent upon 
the forensic cultural anthropologist to begin to ask why the physical 
record is so suspect and at the same time examine commonalities between 
creation "myths" of divergent cultures.

Sitchin provides a key to certain breaks in our "evolutionary" 
treadmill. If that isn't obvious or even intuitively clear to you I 
suggest that your own hidebound reliance on strict observational 
minutiae may well have birthed an inability to jig saw puzzle together 
the larger picture.