Quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
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.
|
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.