Zecharia Sitchin, NASA consultor?

[Jairo]

I have read that Zecharia Sitchin was a NASA consultor. To what extent is this information true?

[Disinfo Agent]

Sitchin's credentials have been discussed a few times in this forum. See here and here. Basically, the information is not true at all.

[A.DIM]

I'm interested in knowing where you've read such a thing.
I've read The Earth Chronicles and countless "critiques" of Sitchin as well as some of what those who've piggy-backed on his work write, but never have I seen such a claim.
Just curious.

[Disinfo Agent]

I wonded about that, too. Could you have mistaken Sitchin for one of the Moon Hoax theorists, like Sibrel or Kaysing, Jairo?

[Archer17]

I'm thinking that Jairo might be confusing Sitchen with Hoagland whose bio states he was a former NASA consultant.

[A.DIM]

I'm guessing it stems from the correspondences Sitchin had with Harrington?

[Wolverine]

After all this time, he still lists Mars Pathfinder as an orbiter, and states that it imaged the Cydonia region (and of course, there's a cover-up involved in his yarn). Apparently he's not even inclined to consult a NASA website.

[R.A.F.]

Apparently he's not even inclined to consult a NASA website.

I noticed this on that page...

© Z. Sitchin 2004

So why is "Sitchy" (my new "nick" for him ) using old images in this argument?? There are readily available HIRES images from 2001 that evidence the fact that the "face" is nothing more than a trick of light and shadow...

You're right,Wolverine it seems that he can't be bothered to actually look at the evidence...yet he claims that NASA is...

Ignoring the evidence.

Can anyone show me why I should believe anything that Mr. Sitchin says? By his own words he has shown that he is not to be trusted in matters pertaining to science.

Or...

Perhaps there is some explanation as to why he would post such OBVIOUS NONSENSE.

edited once to make less "confrontational".

[R.A.F.]

Perhaps there is some explanation as to why he would post such OBVIOUS NONSENSE.

You know, the answer was stareing me in the face the entire time...right there at the end...

Could the Sumerians have known of the Face on Mars 4,500 years ago?

The Yes answer is detailed in my latest book, The Lost Book of Enki.

The answer is he is trying to sell his book...appearently in Sitchin's mind, money is more important than truth.

[A.DIM]

After all this time, he still lists Mars Pathfinder as an orbiter, and states that it imaged the Cydonia region (and of course, there's a cover-up involved in his yarn). Apparently he's not even inclined to consult a NASA website.

I find that funny too. Of course, it could also mean that his webmaster wrongly transcribed what Sitchin wrote; Thereto, I suppose that would suggest Sitchin is not even inclined to review his own webpage!


But along these same lines, I've wondered why the BA continues to link to Heiser, as Hebrew scholar, in addressing Sitchin's work while Heiser himself is out on the UFO circuit promoting his interdimensional "divine council" of beings which he gleaned through ancient texts. :-k

[publiusr]

As long as he pushes for bigger NASA budgets--more power to him--woo-woo notwithstanding.

[R.A.F.]

After all this time, he still lists Mars Pathfinder as an orbiter, and states that it imaged the Cydonia region (and of course, there's a cover-up involved in his yarn). Apparently he's not even inclined to consult a NASA website.

I find that funny too. Of course, it could also mean that his webmaster wrongly transcribed what Sitchin wrote; Thereto, I suppose that would suggest Sitchin is not even inclined to review his own webpage!

Sure, that's certainly possible, but it makes his "NASA is ignoring the evidence" argument look pretty silly.

For the sake of argument lets suppose that Sitchin knows perfectly well what's on his website, and (for whatever reasons) has not changed it even though he knows it to be factually wrong.

What would your answer be then?

But along these same lines, I've wondered why the BA continues to link to Heiser, as Hebrew scholar, in addressing Sitchin's work while Heiser himself is out on the UFO circuit promoting his interdimensional "divine council" of beings which he gleaned through ancient texts. :-k

I don't see what that has to do with the what is being discussed. Sitchin has made a factually wrong statement. Heiser being wrong about his "divine council" doesn't change that.

[Disinfo Agent]

But along these same lines, I've wondered why the BA continues to link to Heiser, as Hebrew scholar, in addressing Sitchin's work while Heiser himself is out on the UFO circuit promoting his interdimensional "divine council" of beings which he gleaned through ancient texts. :-k

Because Heiser is a Hebrew scholar.

[A.DIM]

After all this time, he still lists Mars Pathfinder as an orbiter, and states that it imaged the Cydonia region (and of course, there's a cover-up involved in his yarn). Apparently he's not even inclined to consult a NASA website.

I find that funny too. Of course, it could also mean that his webmaster wrongly transcribed what Sitchin wrote; Thereto, I suppose that would suggest Sitchin is not even inclined to review his own webpage!

Sure, that's certainly possible, but it makes his "NASA is ignoring the evidence" argument look pretty silly.

Sure enough.
Likewise, I tend to think that no matter the "evidence" presented, anyone claiming conspiracy or cover-up within NASA which regards the ETH will "look pretty silly" in the minds of skeptics. Thereto, oft times any possible evidence is overlooked by scrutinizing miststatements or wrong wording.
IMHO, of course.

For the sake of argument lets suppose that Sitchin knows perfectly well what's on his website, and (for whatever reasons) has not changed it even though he knows it to be factually wrong.

What would your answer be then?

I'm not interested in "the sake of argument," but by "factually wrong" are you meaning the Mars Pathfinder issue? If so, then I'd have to call it misinformation.

But along these same lines, I've wondered why the BA continues to link to Heiser, as Hebrew scholar, in addressing Sitchin's work while Heiser himself is out on the UFO circuit promoting his interdimensional "divine council" of beings which he gleaned through ancient texts. :-k

I don't see what that has to do with the what is being discussed. Sitchin has made a factually wrong statement. Heiser being wrong about his "divine council" doesn't change that.

OK, then let me ask: Do you think Sitchin is trying to misinform his readers and make them believe the orbiter was actually called "pathfinder?" If so, to what end?

It appears that by applying "factually wrong statement" to this issue, you're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
And I can't agree that this would in any way, as some might say, "seriously call into question his credibility."

But as far as the BA linking to Heiser relevance, you're right, it doesn't change the fact Sitchin's website is "factually wrong" in stating "pathfinder."

[A.DIM]

But along these same lines, I've wondered why the BA continues to link to Heiser, as Hebrew scholar, in addressing Sitchin's work while Heiser himself is out on the UFO circuit promoting his interdimensional "divine council" of beings which he gleaned through ancient texts. :-k

Because Heiser is a Hebrew scholar.

Indeed, and he's out there alongside some adversarial "woos" of the BA's. I believe Phil is aware of this as I've brought it up numerous times over the last few years (once, IIRC, via PM). So let's turn it around momentarily: Why wouldn't he, if he's aware of this, make the appropriate changes?

Are you, or anyone else, telling me then, that you'll accept such citations where a "credible" source references a "woo" source, with perhaps some relevant credentials, to disprove another "woo?"

If so, you just helped make my future arguments that much easier.

[Disinfo Agent]

Because Heiser is a Hebrew scholar.

Indeed, and he's out there alongside some adversarial "woos" of the BA's.

Not when he talks about Sitchin. His critique of Sitchin is pretty logical and down to Earth.

I believe Phil is aware of this as I've brought it up numerous times over the last few years (once, IIRC, via PM). So let's turn it around momentarily: Why wouldn't he, if he's aware of this, make the appropriate changes?

No changes are necessary. Heiser's critiques are valid.

Are you, or anyone else, telling me then, that you'll accept such citations where a "credible" source references a "woo" source, with perhaps some relevant credentials, to disprove another "woo?"

You're throwing away the baby along with the bath water. People can be wrong about some things, and right about others. Heiser may be wrong about other issues, but he makes a good case against Sitchin.

A.DIM, what you're doing here, and you've done countless times before, can't be described as anything else but an ad hominem. You pick one character flaw in Heiser, in an area completely unrelated to Sitchin's theories, and you want to use that to dismiss everything the man has to say about Sitchin. Imagine that I used the fact that Sitchin says Pathfinder was an orbiter, when it wasn't, to claim that he can't possibly know the first thing about the ancient Sumerians--would that make any sense?

[R.A.F.]

Imagine that I used the fact that Sitchin says Pathfinder was an orbiter, when it wasn't, to claim that he can't possibly know the first thing about the ancient Sumerians--would that make any sense?

No it wouldn't. I read my last post here, and though it wasn't my intention, that does seem to be where my argument was going...and that is wrong.

I want to apologize to the board and I'd like to thank Disinfo Agent for "keeping me honest".

Having said that, it would be nice (if Sitchin is going to talk about the "face") if he could at least use recent images.

[A.DIM]

Because Heiser is a Hebrew scholar.

Indeed, and he's out there alongside some adversarial "woos" of the BA's.

Not when he talks about Sitchin. His critique of Sitchin is pretty logical and down to Earth.

I believe Phil is aware of this as I've brought it up numerous times over the last few years (once, IIRC, via PM). So let's turn it around momentarily: Why wouldn't he, if he's aware of this, make the appropriate changes?

No changes are necessary. Heiser's critiques are valid.

Are you, or anyone else, telling me then, that you'll accept such citations where a "credible" source references a "woo" source, with perhaps some relevant credentials, to disprove another "woo?"

You're throwing away the baby along with the bath water. People can be wrong about some things, and right about others. Heiser may be wrong about other issues, but he makes a good case against Sitchin.

I've shown several times how each of those "few certain words," as Heiser states, that supposedly differentiate him from Sitchin, don't actually do so.
Let me guess, DA, you've "honestly forgotten" those discussions again?

No matter, I'm disinterested in this disussion.

A.DIM, what you're doing here, and you've done countless times before, can't be described as anything else but an ad hominem. You pick one character flaw in Heiser, in an area completely unrelated to Sitchin's theories, and you want to use that to dismiss everything the man has to say about Sitchin.

I emphatically disagree.
In what way have I attacked someone's character? "Countless times" no less?
My only point in bringing up the BA / Heiser issue, which you seem to have missed, was that even someone as esteemed and respected as Phil can either overlook or ignore such a thing as erroneous wording or citations within an argument.

And yet, against Sitchin it appears allowable as fodder for "debunking."

Imagine that I used the fact that Sitchin says Pathfinder was an orbiter, when it wasn't, to claim that he can't possibly know the first thing about the ancient Sumerians--would that make any sense?

Not at all.

Then again, your use of "completely unrelated to Sitchin's theories" above clearly conveys what you don't know.
Make sense? :wink:

[A.DIM]

Having said that, it would be nice (if Sitchin is going to talk about the "face") if he could at least use recent images.

I'd agree if it weren't for the fact that the "Ignoring the Evidence" paragraph ends with "Yet, now distorted or not, the fact remains that the unusual rock is still there, and that it clearly showed a human-like face in the 1970’s photographs."

Context, RAF. Context, buddy.

[Archer17]

Having said that, it would be nice (if Sitchin is going to talk about the "face") if he could at least use recent images.

I'd agree if it weren't for the fact that the "Ignoring the Evidence" paragraph ends with "Yet, now distorted or not, the fact remains that the unusual rock is still there, and that it clearly showed a human-like face in the 1970’s photographs."

Context, RAF. Context, buddy.

I don't believe an innocent question by Jairo has spiraled into this re-hash but .. A.DIM, I'd advise you to think before you type. This last thing I quoted looks like a pretty pathetic rebuttal regarding Sitchin's spiel. What are you trying to say here? I (along with most here) know that it looked like a face prior to the second pass years later ..so, what's your point? Sitchin doesn't believe the followup pics or what? If so, are you prepared to support this? Do you think NASA is doctoring images? If so, come out and say it. If you do, be prepared to provide a reason why I should believe you .. real evidence would be an unexpected bonus.

Regarding the Heiser-Sitchin comparison..

An objective examination of these two individuals based on what was brought up in this thread show both shoveling dubious interpretations of ancient texts with one misrepresenting, or not representing at all, common knowledge released by our space agency. Guess who? :wink: A.DIM, you can't realistically make the argument that Heiser is any less wrong in his textual interpretations than your protégé. Both have their disciples and sympathetic links regarding their interpretations and both lack the same thing necessary to qualify it. In this respect your attack on Heiser's credibility vis-à-vis Sitchin is a non sequitur.

[PhantomWolf]

It would seem that, like with many fringe supporters, A.DIM seems to be missing that a person can be right on one thing and just as wrong on something else.

An example may be this:

Say Richard Hoagland posted on essay correctly debunking Bart Sibrel's A funny thing happened on the way to the moon. Now it doesn't matter if he thinks that the astronauts found alien artifacts or that he claims that there are large glass tunnels and cities on Mars, if hiswork on showing that Sibrel's work is bunk is correct then it is an acceptible link as a site that debunks that particular topic. The fact that the rest of his work is out on the limb the blurs reality and phycedellia is totally irrelevant to the situation.

[R.A.F.]

Having said that, it would be nice (if Sitchin is going to talk about the "face") if he could at least use recent images.

I'd agree if it weren't for the fact that the "Ignoring the Evidence" paragraph ends with "Yet, now distorted or not, the fact remains that the unusual rock is still there, and that it clearly showed a human-like face in the 1970’s photographs."

I don't see how that helps Sitchin's argument...it just makes it look like he's quite willing to ignore evidence if that evidence disproves his "face" theory...which is exactly what the 2001 images "do".

[A.DIM]

Having said that, it would be nice (if Sitchin is going to talk about the "face") if he could at least use recent images.

I'd agree if it weren't for the fact that the "Ignoring the Evidence" paragraph ends with "Yet, now distorted or not, the fact remains that the unusual rock is still there, and that it clearly showed a human-like face in the 1970’s photographs."

Context, RAF. Context, buddy.

I don't believe an innocent question by Jairo has spiraled into this re-hash but .. A.DIM, I'd advise you to think before you type. This last thing I quoted looks like a pretty pathetic rebuttal regarding Sitchin's spiel. What are you trying to say here? I (along with most here) know that it looked like a face prior to the second pass years later ..so, what's your point? Sitchin doesn't believe the followup pics or what? If so, are you prepared to support this? Do you think NASA is doctoring images? If so, come out and say it. If you do, be prepared to provide a reason why I should believe you .. real evidence would be an unexpected bonus.

Hi Archer.
The point was that there is a reason Sitchin used the 70's pics in his argument and RAF's remark was out of context.
But I'll have to agree with Sitchin when he says that "now distorted or not ... the unusual rock is still there."
And just as "skeptics" aren't convinced of pictorial evidence on some issues, I will be convinced it is merely a rock mesa only when we've actually explored what appears to me to be one of the most attractive sites for investigation on Mars: Cydonia.

Additionally, I must concede that the most recent photos do indeed make it appear as a natural formation, unusual, but natural.

Regarding the Heiser-Sitchin comparison..

An objective examination of these two individuals based on what was brought up in this thread show both shoveling dubious interpretations of ancient texts with one misrepresenting, or not representing at all, common knowledge released by our space agency. Guess who? :wink: A.DIM, you can't realistically make the argument that Heiser is any less wrong in his textual interpretations than your protégé. Both have their disciples and sympathetic links regarding their interpretations and both lack the same thing necessary to qualify it. In this respect your attack on Heiser's credibility vis-à-vis Sitchin is a non sequitur.

But I've not compared Sitchin & Heiser here, Archer.
Oddly enough, the only real difference between the two is that Heiser's "gods" are interdimensional beings and Sitchin's "gods" are physical flesh & blood beings. Albeit, Heiser is sticking close to the Hebrew "god" being THE "god" above all others. After all, he's still a PhD candidate.

And who do you mean by my "protoge?" RAF?
If so, then no, you're right, I can't argue Heiser is any less wrong in his "interpretations."
:wink:

[A.DIM]

It would seem that, like with many fringe supporters, A.DIM seems to be missing that a person can be right on one thing and just as wrong on something else.

No, I understand.
What gets me is that there appears to be a double standard wherein if a "woo" has been shown to be wrong on something, then anything else he or she has to say is also wrong by default.
Is that "skepticism" or is that bias?

[Disinfo Agent]

Imagine that I used the fact that Sitchin says Pathfinder was an orbiter, when it wasn't, to claim that he can't possibly know the first thing about the ancient Sumerians--would that make any sense?

No it wouldn't. I read my last post here, and though it wasn't my intention, that does seem to be where my argument was going...

I knew it wasn't. I only used the example of the Pathfinder because it was fresh in everyone's memories. :wink:

I've shown several times how each of those "few certain words," as Heiser states, that supposedly differentiate him from Sitchin, don't actually do so.

No, you haven't. You think you have, but you haven't managed to convince anyone but yourself.

Let me guess, DA, you've "honestly forgotten" those discussions again?

I have not forgotten our past conversations about Heiser, I just wasn't persuaded by the arguments you made in them.

A.DIM, what you're doing here, and you've done countless times before, can't be described as anything else but an ad hominem. You pick one character flaw in Heiser, in an area completely unrelated to Sitchin's theories, and you want to use that to dismiss everything the man has to say about Sitchin.

I emphatically disagree.
In what way have I attacked someone's character?

By 'character flaw' I simply meant Heiser's talk about divine councils, that you mentioned above.

"Countless times" no less?

O.K., we could count them, if we were so inclined.

My only point in bringing up the BA / Heiser issue, which you seem to have missed, was that even someone as esteemed and respected as Phil can either overlook or ignore such a thing as erroneous wording or citations within an argument.

Just because I don't agree with you, it doesn't mean I missed your point. I did understand your point, but I happen to think it's wrong: I don't think the BA overlooked or ignored anything of significance in Heiser's refutation of Sitchin, and I don't think there are any erroneous wordings or citations in that refutation.

And yet, against Sitchin it appears allowable as fodder for "debunking."

Not because it's "against Sitchin", but because Heiser's counterarguments are sound when he addresses Sitchin.

Imagine that I used the fact that Sitchin says Pathfinder was an orbiter, when it wasn't, to claim that he can't possibly know the first thing about the ancient Sumerians--would that make any sense?

Not at all.

Well, but that's exactly the kind of thing you do when you tell us the BA should remove the link to Heiser because Heiser says strange things on the UFO circuit.

Then again, your use of "completely unrelated to Sitchin's theories" above clearly conveys what you don't know.

Don't hide behind obscurity. If you have a substantive objection to what I'm saying, explain it. If you can't explain it, I'll just conclude that you have no such substantive objection.

[A.DIM]

Having said that, it would be nice (if Sitchin is going to talk about the "face") if he could at least use recent images.

I'd agree if it weren't for the fact that the "Ignoring the Evidence" paragraph ends with "Yet, now distorted or not, the fact remains that the unusual rock is still there, and that it clearly showed a human-like face in the 1970’s photographs."

I don't see how that helps Sitchin's argument...it just makes it look like he's quite willing to ignore evidence if that evidence disproves his "face" theory...which is exactly what the 2001 images "do".

If you say so, RAF.

Funny thing: an image is enough for you to matter of factly make such an assertion and yet other images are dismissed through "processing effects" and "tricks of light and shadow" arguments. #-o

[A.DIM]

Very well.

For the purposes of this thread, I'll close by saying Sitchin is not a NASA consultant, and I'll agree again that Sitchin is wrong in leaving "pathfinder" as Mars orbiter in his argument.

If anyone would like to actually discuss The Earth Chronicles, terrific, I'll be there.
But I suppose that considering Sitchin is "factually wrong" in stating "pathfinder," skeptics will readily dismiss the rest of his work although he might be wrong about "pathfinder" or Nibiru and exactly right on the Anunnaki being "those from heaven to earth came," no? :wink:

ps. Oh, by the way, DisinfoAgent, if you think you can show how Heiser's arguments are so "sound" against Sitchin by addressing my term by term arguments, I'm interested.

[Archer17]

It would seem that, like with many fringe supporters, A.DIM seems to be missing that a person can be right on one thing and just as wrong on something else.

An example may be this:

Say Richard Hoagland posted on essay correctly debunking Bart Sibrel's A funny thing happened on the way to the moon. Now it doesn't matter if he thinks that the astronauts found alien artifacts or that he claims that there are large glass tunnels and cities on Mars, if hiswork on showing that Sibrel's work is bunk is correct then it is an acceptible link as a site that debunks that particular topic. The fact that the rest of his work is out on the limb the blurs reality and phycedellia is totally irrelevant to the situation.

Yep. Another example, and one recently talked about in another forum, is Stanton Friedman debunking Bob Lazar.

..Hi Archer.
The point was that there is a reason Sitchin used the 70's pics in his argument and RAF's remark was out of context.
But I'll have to agree with Sitchin when he says that "now distorted or not ... the unusual rock is still there."
And just as "skeptics" aren't convinced of pictorial evidence on some issues, I will be convinced it is merely a rock mesa only when we've actually explored what appears to me to be one of the most attractive sites for investigation on Mars: Cydonia.

No comparison here A.DIM. Us "skeptics" aren't convinced of the '76 pics for a darn good reason - the subsequent fly-by. As you even concede:

Additionally, I must concede that the most recent photos do indeed make it appear as a natural formation, unusual, but natural.

That works for me.

But I've not compared Sitchin & Heiser here, Archer.
Oddly enough, the only real difference between the two is that Heiser's "gods" are interdimensional beings and Sitchin's "gods" are physical flesh & blood beings. Albeit, Heiser is sticking close to the Hebrew "god" being THE "god" above all others. After all, he's still a PhD candidate.

I compared Sitchin with Heiser. My point was that both spout dubious interpretations. You can't use one (Heiser) doing that to discredit another that does the same thing!

And who do you mean by my "protoge?" RAF?

No. Who's that guy that does Sumerian interpretations again? :-k :wink:

If so, then no, you're right, I can't argue Heiser is any less wrong in his "interpretations."
:wink:

I know.

A.DIM I'm aware of your beliefs and, to be honest, this "rehash" wasn't really your doing FWIW. I really don't expect you to go slink into a corner if someone else brings up Sitchin. As far as Sitchin goes, I've already posted my thoughts & read yours so I don't feel any compunction to rehash ground already covered. If you or others want to discuss his claims .. it's no skin off my nose. My only reason for posting is I believe using Heiser's own beliefs to discredit him was a bad analogy on your part.

[Disinfo Agent]

ps. Oh, by the way, DisinfoAgent, if you think you can show how Heiser's arguments are so "sound" against Sitchin by addressing my term by term arguments, I'm interested.

Post you arguments, and I'll address them as soon as I can. (It may take me a few days.) The conversation has indeed moved away from the topic, so perhaps you'd rather start a new thread.

[Archer17]

Note - edited prior post to remove a word in last paragraph (didn't feel like editing it again to explain it)