Chewbacca,

This fellow....

MIGUEL CIVIL
Professor of Sumerology, Emeritus
Ph.D., University of Paris, 1965.
Taught at Chicago 1963-2000.
SPECIAL INTERESTS: Sumerian Literature, Sumerian Language. Foremost scholar in linguistics and lexicography.
Editor for the series Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon
The Oriental Institute
1155 East 58th Street, 314
Chicago, IL 60637
773-702-9542
m-civil@uchicago.edu


....seriously discredits Sitchins abilities to event accurately interpret the Sumerian material. He claims Sitchin mixes languages and ideas with each other, and often has a hard time telling the difference between Hebrew, Akkadian and Sumerian.

I read a passage that Sitchen "claims" details assigning some aliens the role of orbitting the earth, and the other 600 stayinmg on earth, and it does nothing of the sort. It's a very broad interpretation of a pretty generic story.

Put simply Sitchin is reading between the lines waaaaay to much.

Additionally, astronomers have no evidence of Sitchins Twelfth planet ever existing, and preclude the idea that it's escaped detection.


I found this website from another layman useful:

<font color=white>As we will see, this is a telling statement. Instead of quoting standard translations for Biblical verses, Sitchin makes up his own translations, based on his interpretation of "the parallel Sumerian and Akkadian texts/tales".</font> Unfortunately, he is using those verses to support his interpretation of those texts.

Right away, we're in deep academic doo-doo. <font color=yellow>He's let us know he's going to twist the translations around to support his thesis</font></font>[/QUOTE]

Is the quote clear?

Sitchin himself admits that he takes sentence A and B.

Sentence A he then changes based on his reading of sentence B

He then uses sentence A to prove his interpretation of sentence B.

It's craziness! Creating his own proof! It's terrible science.

Ah stuff! MODERATORS! I put this in the wrong forum... can someone move it to Currev? Cheers. Y

Sorry, but the logic of your assertions here has evaded me. I do not see how your above analogy applies to what is written in the Author's note of the book or what is written inside the book(s) as well.

So have YOU read the books yet? Or are you going to go by second-hand critism? Also, You have brought nothing new to me, I have read alot of critics of Sitchen's work and alot of critics of critics of Sitchen's work. Calling him names and making claims of his skills as a scientist is not only childish, but unprofessional and UN-scholarly as well.

It is fine to conclude different interpretations, but to twist Sitchen's words around and to call him a terrible scientist is ludicris.