Flame Free Zone for Kingman
DrPostman
with The Prophecy and "For Entertainment Purposes Only" availed us of their
wisdom with:
>DrPostman <Loo...@mysig.formail> wrote in message news:<
>>> <snip>
>> >Sitchin's hypothese's is generally believed(existence of a 10th
>> >planet). I let this settle in for sometime (2-3yrs.).
>>
>> It isn't believed by any other Sumerian scholar. Here is what one of
>> them had to say about Sitchen:
>> "[Sitchin] demonstrates a consistent lack of appreciation of even some of the
>> most basic fundamentals of Sumerian and Akkadian grammar, even to the extent of
>> regularly failing to distinguish between the two entirely different languages,
>> and mixing words from each in interpreting the syllables of longer compound
>> words." This mixing of languages allows Sitchin to make amazing "discoveries."
>> source: http://makeashorterlink.com/?M11A527C3
>
>I read that link written by Jason Colavito owner of the site 'Lost
>Civilizations Uncovered'.
>This article and others on his site all take a hardline view in strict
>order of contemporary
>text book history. The other writers he references are these
>characters: Robert Hafernik
>aerospace engineer, worked for NASA . He's not credited with any
>related fields of
>archeology and yet his first statement is that the unreferenced
>tablets Z.S. speaks of are unavailable and therefore not believeable.
>This cat is not an expert in this area yet he is the most quoted
>source. In his summarization at the end he completely discreditts Z.S.
>12th Planet. Z.S. isn't all right, but he isn't all wrong either. Next
>writer quoted is Ian Lawton. He states also Z.S. translations aren't
>referenced and are wrong. Yet he sites an
>anonynous source for the proper translation. Huh? What the hell is
>that about.
Can you name a Sumerian linguist who agrees with Sitchen? I just
saw a program the other day where a PhD made the same assertion
that Sitchen mixes languages to come up with results he wants.
And I have plenty of others that are critical of Sitchen:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/8148/zclaims.html
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/8148/hafernik.html
>Now lets talk about Robert Todd Carroll of ' Skeptics Dicktionary' His
>method is first to
>lump something you want to discredit in with the true freaks and
>create a characterized
>ensemble of untruths. His highly sarcastic deflations of Z.S. work is
>a complete bashing
>without reason. Him, together with Colavito, relentlessly assault and
>tear down Z.S. from any angle they will. There isn't a single word
>from any of Z.S. peers in that article. They are quotes of two pro
>debunkers and one NASA guy. Where's the beef? Point to a real
>site.
How about an actual Sumerian scholar
http://www.facadenovel.com/sitchinerrors.htm
>> > Our North American continent shows obvious signs of crustal shifts.
>>
>> Which is known as plate tectonics, a very slow and gradual change of
>> the Earth's surface taking place over many millions of years.
>
>OK, if this "slow gradual change" is happening, why do we have such
>high fresh jagged
>mountains. Shouldn't erosion, which is a constant wear, equally reduce
>that 'oh so fresh'
>edge found way high at most every area of the world. Millions of years
>would have the uppermost parts be the most worn. The're not. Not even
>by a long shot. Those babies were made in a moment, and one crustal
>plate subducts while the other is violently
>forced up. Even Einstein wrote of the very probable reality of this
>action.
It is called upthrust. And Einstein only said that Hapgood's theories made
sense, 10 years before plate tectonics were developed. Had Einstein been
able to see the data about plate tectonics he would have changed his mind.
>>
>>
>> >Looking at a topographical map of this shows build up on the West
>> >Coast and the stretched weathered East Coast. And as ice ages go, for
>> >an animal to go from eating
>> >flowers to being a frozen Woolly Pop in mid chew, something had
>> >suddenly, massively and violently altered its reality. A pole shift
>>
>> Those claims about mammoths are wrong. Read this:
>> "Numerous studies of the pollen and vegetable remains found
>> in the stomachs clearly prove these claims to be false. Uraintseva
>> (1993) summarizes the results of studies by several Russian
>> geologists and palynologists from the guts or sediments surrounding
>> these carcasses, e.g. Dima (Belya and Kisterova 1978), Berezoka
>> Mammoth (Tikhomirov and Kupriyanova 1954), the Selerikahn
>> Horse (Tikhomirov and Kultina 1973), and many more studies. (See
>> Uraintseva for the references.) In none of these cases were any
>> evidence of _warm weather vegetation_ found. On this point, an
>> abundance of evidence clearly proves MOM and Mr. Hancock to
>> be greatly mistaken and unaware of significant data and research
>> concerning the subject about which they are talking. "
>> source: http://www.skepticfiles.org/mom/mom1.htm
>
>You also know that the animals that were found had thier outer skin
>blood vessels show
>acute aphixiation from the sudden loss of oxygen. And it is true that
>the flesh of the
>beast was so that the sled dogs were able to safely feed on the
>remains. This from an animal frozen dead for several thousand years.
>Also these mammoths were humongous
>requireing massive amounts of food. Not exactly a good form for a cold
>year round winter
>habitat.
>>
>>
>> >speaks volumes here. And a Zacharia dating of 3600 year PX orbit
>> >matched to a historical record of the 'Flood'.and Mose's ordeal all
>> >slot right in order. What you can try and refute do to your education
>>
>> Not from what I can tell. Even if there was a world wide flood if this 3600
>> year orbit was responsible it would have taken place in 1600 BC. Do
>> you know what was happening in civilization around that time? The
>> Hurrians were too busy expanding their empire to be bothered with
>> a global flood, as were the Egyptians who were busy with their Fifteenth
>> Dynasty. Do the math yourself, it doesn't work. Christian scholars
>> place the date at 2304 BC (some place it later, but none that I could
>> find place it earlier than 4,300 years ago).
>> one source http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3563.asp
>> I personally do not believe in a world wide flood.
>
>Your last sentence says it all. Your opinion is as good as mine.
Yet you say nothing about the discrepancy in dates. Why is that?
Opinion has nothing to do with the fact that 3,600 years ago there
was no historical record of a flood.
>> >is irrelevant. I'm not saying anything in this last paragraph that is
>> >supported by only the uneducated.
>>
>> I'm afraid that you are, you are using support from the pseudo educated.
>
>No, from the highly researched educated. You just are set on believing
>the old information and flatly denigh anything other than that.
I don't see you providing any evidence while I am referencing all sorts
of scholarly work.
>> > I can say volumes more of the emerging reality if this quick
>> >version isn't enough.
>> >Oh, one more thing. My belief was cemented, when after reading this
>> >groups postings for a long time with all the relentless bashings,
>> >venomous name smearing, swarming manic personal attacks, misdirecting
>> >confrontations on levels I have never before experienced. A simple
>> >explanation of trying to straighten out
>> >delusional posters or the rantings of cult members who are mere
>> >'drones' doesn't
>> >hold water. Ignore them. With no response coming there would be hardly
>> >any long term posting going on. Let go of your need to crap on anyone
>> >you see as misinformed and soon they'll be gone. I answer questions
>> >the best I can.
>>
>> So it is hate and/or angst which drives you to avoid the evidence against Nancy?
>
>What was said about Nancy's evidence? Her words aren't rebutted by
>you. Your
>wrong, it's evidence that the cronies have tried sweeping under the
>rug and the obvious
>attacks that follow any statement that says different. Why the
>personel attacks and the
>childish name calling, I thought this group was full of
>'professionals'.
I'm not a professional, and I have used no name calling in this post. You have
continued to evade the points I have made though, and I can only conclude that
your stance is backed by feelings, rather than facts.
There are people who are well versed in astronomy who have brought up very
reasoned and sensible arguments against the claims that Nancy has made
and yet she resorts to calling them conspirators and refuses to confront the
issues brought up.
--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: jamie_eckles(at)hotmail.com
"The services provided by Sylvia Browne Corporation are highly
speculative in nature and we do not guarantee that the results
of our work will be satisfactory to a client."
-Sylvia's Refund Policy