🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

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

>> http://skepdic.com/sitchin.html
>> http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk/siren.html
>> http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/

>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?

-- 
Daniel Packman
NCAR/ACD
pack@ucar.edu