Zecharia Sitchin, NASA consultor?

[R.A.F.]

The point was that there is a reason Sitchin used the 70's pics in his argument...

So there is a reason why Sitchin used the 70's pics...so, what is that reason???

But I'll have to agree with Sitchin when he says that "now distorted or not ... the unusual rock is still there."

It's only unusual because of outlandish interpretations. Can you honestly view the HIRES images and state that they look unusual? It's obviously an ordinary hill!!

I want to know WHY you would say that.

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

A small concession, but the question still remains...just how is the "face hill" unusual...it's obviously just a hill.

...I've not compared Sitchin & Heiser here, Archer.

HUH???? Before You brought Heiser into the conversation, this discussion was about Sitchin's "face page". Why would you do that?

...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

Nonsequitur...the 70's images are simply NOT AS CLEAR as the 2001 images. Do you deny that?

I'll close by saying...

I hope you're not "going anywhere" before you answer the question I posted above...

What is the reasoning behind Sitchin using only the 70's images?

[R.A.F.]

I compared Sitchin with Heiser.

Did I miss a post somewhere? Was that before A.DIM brought him up?

[Archer17]

I compared Sitchin with Heiser.

Did I miss a post somewhere? Was that before A.DIM brought him up?

No. I was referring to the last paragraph in this post I made.

[A.DIM]

Well dang, I can't even agree and concede and get out of these discussions!

[A.DIM]

My only reason for posting is I believe using Heiser's own beliefs to discredit him was a bad analogy on your part.

But I've not tried to discredit Heiser, have I?
You see, I actually think the guy is onto something... :wink:

[A.DIM]

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.

NO.

Mere months ago we went through this very thing where you "honestly forgot" our Sitchin / Heiser discussions. I provided them to you at that time.
So, you can either back-up your claims that Heiser's arguments are so "sound" against Sitchin's through your own efforts, or not.

[A.DIM]

The point was that there is a reason Sitchin used the 70's pics in his argument...

So there is a reason why Sitchin used the 70's pics...so, what is that reason???

But I'll have to agree with Sitchin when he says that "now distorted or not ... the unusual rock is still there."

It's only unusual because of outlandish interpretations. Can you honestly view the HIRES images and state that they look unusual? It's obviously an ordinary hill!!

I want to know WHY you would say that.

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

A small concession, but the question still remains...just how is the "face hill" unusual...it's obviously just a hill.

...I've not compared Sitchin & Heiser here, Archer.

HUH???? Before You brought Heiser into the conversation, this discussion was about Sitchin's "face page". Why would you do that?

...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

Nonsequitur...the 70's images are simply NOT AS CLEAR as the 2001 images. Do you deny that?

I'll close by saying...

I hope you're not "going anywhere" before you answer the question I posted above...

What is the reasoning behind Sitchin using only the 70's images?

This is silly. Have you considered contacting his webmaster for such an answer? If you can't understand the few paragraphs from Sitchin regarding his opinions on Mars, and my attempt at explaining, then sorry.


And as far as the "face" issue:

The MGS Face Image In A Different Light makes some interesting points about the images.

Likewise, I think The Politics of Science and JPL's "Catbox" Enhancement of the Face on Mars raises some relevant issues.

As I said, I remain skeptical about the "face" being "just a hill" until humans have explored it with something other than photography.

[Archer17]

My only reason for posting is I believe using Heiser's own beliefs to discredit him was a bad analogy on your part.

But I've not tried to discredit Heiser, have I?
You see, I actually think the guy is onto something... :wink:

Your mention of Heiser's woo woo interpretations of Hebrew text was used to discredit his debunking of Sitchin. That's pretty obvious and I wasn't the only one that came to that conclusion.

[R.A.F.]

Lets try this again...you posted this...

...there is a reason Sitchin used the 70's pics in his argument...

So...WHAT is that reason???

[A.DIM]

My only reason for posting is I believe using Heiser's own beliefs to discredit him was a bad analogy on your part.

But I've not tried to discredit Heiser, have I?
You see, I actually think the guy is onto something... :wink:

Your mention of Heiser's woo woo interpretations of Hebrew text was used to discredit his debunking of Sitchin. That's pretty obvious and I wasn't the only one that came to that conclusion.

Wrong, my mention of Heiser was only to show how someone, be they Phil Plait or Zecharia Sitchin, could overlook a glaring error within an argument, whether it is "cherry picking" info in support of, or wrongfully applying a specific term to something.

[A.DIM]

Lets try this again...you posted this...

...there is a reason Sitchin used the 70's pics in his argument...

So...WHAT is that reason???

#-o

From the page in question:

"In Genesis Revisited (1990) I reproduced a series of NASA’s own photographs, including photo 035-A-72 (Plate “E” in the book) that captured a panoramic view of Cydonia (see below)."


CONTEXT, RAF!

[R.A.F.]

Lets try this again...you posted this...

...there is a reason Sitchin used the 70's pics in his argument...

So...WHAT is that reason???

#-o

From the page in question:

"In Genesis Revisited (1990) I reproduced a series of NASA’s own photographs, including photo 035-A-72 (Plate “E” in the book) that captured a panoramic view of Cydonia (see below)."


CONTEXT, RAF!

No, A.DIM...I don't want a "parroting" of Sitchin's answer...I want your reasoned answer as to why he would ignore the HIRES images.

[Archer17]

My only reason for posting is I believe using Heiser's own beliefs to discredit him was a bad analogy on your part.

But I've not tried to discredit Heiser, have I?
You see, I actually think the guy is onto something... :wink:

Your mention of Heiser's woo woo interpretations of Hebrew text was used to discredit his debunking of Sitchin. That's pretty obvious and I wasn't the only one that came to that conclusion.

Wrong, my mention of Heiser was only to show how someone, be they Phil Plait or Zecharia Sitchin, could overlook a glaring error within an argument, whether it is "cherry picking" info in support of, or wrongfully applying a specific term to something.

How can you imply the BA has a "glaring error within an argument" without discrediting Heiser as a source? :-k I stand by my previous post.

[R.A.F.]

Let me see if I can clarify my question a bit...

On the webpage in question, Sitchin makes his "face" argument. On that page he uses 70's images to bolster his claim. The copyright of that page is 2004. The HIRES images have been available since 2001. You said there was a reason he used the 70's images.

Are we to assume that the reason was Sitchin simply wanted to promote his 1990 book?...And just disregard the HIRES images because they didn't "fit" his ideas??

[A.DIM]

My only reason for posting is I believe using Heiser's own beliefs to discredit him was a bad analogy on your part.

But I've not tried to discredit Heiser, have I?
You see, I actually think the guy is onto something... :wink:

Your mention of Heiser's woo woo interpretations of Hebrew text was used to discredit his debunking of Sitchin. That's pretty obvious and I wasn't the only one that came to that conclusion.

Wrong, my mention of Heiser was only to show how someone, be they Phil Plait or Zecharia Sitchin, could overlook a glaring error within an argument, whether it is "cherry picking" info in support of, or wrongfully applying a specific term to something.

How can you imply the BA has a "glaring error within an argument" without discrediting Heiser as a source? :-k I stand by my previous post.

The "error" I speak of is the fact that the BA seems to be "picking and choosing" (something I've been accused of) which of Heiser's arguments support his views while ignoring the fact that Heiser himself believes in something that surely Phil, as a scientist, considers "woowoo."

So don't misunderstand this time: The point was that either Phil is unaware or hasn't noticed it, is ignoring it, or feels it is insignificant enough to allow it to remain on his site, perhaps just as Sitchin has with his "pathfinder" orbiter.
And yet, I'm attacking Heiser while "skeptics" here, through the same method, are only "debunking" Sitchin?

Will you agree, then, that those bringing up Sitchin's "pathfinder" orbiter is likewise an attempt to discredit Sitchin on a similar basis?

If so, then I'll agree with your opinion that I've in some way discredited Heiser. :wink:

[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.

NO.

Mere months ago we went through this very thing where you "honestly forgot" our Sitchin / Heiser discussions. I provided them to you at that time.

Sigh!
That would have been this, but you're grossly misrepresenting what happened. Not only did that conversation only involve one of your arguments, but you were shown to be wrong after a while--you even conceded that your counterargument had been in error.
That was indeed the claim about which I had admitted I might have forgotten some earlier conversation of ours, but, as it turned out, I hadn't.
Finally, you provided no discussions to me containing your 'term by term arguments' against Heiser, at the time.
And you accuse me of being forgetful... :roll:

So, you can either back-up your claims that Heiser's arguments are so "sound" against Sitchin's through your own efforts, or not.

If Heiser made some invalid argument, tell us what it was. Otherwise, we can all conclude--for the upteenth time--that you have no such error to expose in his refutation.

[Archer17]

..The "error" I speak of is the fact that the BA seems to be "picking and choosing" (something I've been accused of) which of Heiser's arguments support his views while ignoring the fact that Heiser himself believes in something that surely Phil, as a scientist, considers "woowoo."

You are implying that Heiser's woo claims regarding Hebrew texts (A), discredits Heiser's debunking of Sitchin (B). In other words you are saying A=B, which is what I (and others) have said all along. It's an erroneous correlation and with it you fashion a strawman. The BA "picking and choosing?" That's your strawman A.DIM. That's like me saying the BA would be "in error" to accept the works of Einstein because Einstein believed in a mythological being. You make an erroneous argument that Heiser's woo beliefs discredit his Sitchin debunk (two different things) and then attempt to apply that flawed reasoning to the BA. It won't work with me A.DIM.

So don't misunderstand this time: The point was that either Phil is unaware or hasn't noticed it, is ignoring it, or feels it is insignificant enough to allow it to remain on his site, perhaps just as Sitchin has with his "pathfinder" orbiter.

I understand what you're trying to do A.DIM but your argument is based on your own strawman.

And yet, I'm attacking Heiser while "skeptics" here, through the same method, are only "debunking" Sitchin?

Did I say you were "attacking" Heiser? I just said you were using "A" to discredit "B" and then taking the discredited Heiser and hitting the BA over the head with him, all in an effort to put the BA on the same level as Sitchin. Nice try but you would have been better served to either address Sitchin's web site errors and omissions or remain silent instead of pulling Heiser and the BA into this.

Will you agree, then, that those bringing up Sitchin's "pathfinder" orbiter is likewise an attempt to discredit Sitchin on a similar basis?

I think I've shown why such a correlation doesn't actually exist outside of your flawed strawman.

If so, then I'll agree with your opinion that I've in some way discredited Heiser. :wink:

Nah, that's OK A.DIM. The price is too steep .. or should I say deep? :wink:

[R.A.F.]

You make an erroneous argument that Heiser's woo beliefs discredit his Sitchin debunk (two different things) and then attempt to apply that flawed reasoning to the BA.

Darn it! I go away for a couple of hours and come back to find Archer stealing my ideas, because that is exactly what I was going to say.

It won't work with me A.DIM.

It's not "working" for anyone.

[Disinfo Agent]

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?

I want to make an additional remark about this.

Not long ago, in this thread, I admitted it was plausible that the word elohim, which in modern Hebrew can be singular or plural, according to context, had originated in an exclusively plural term. This is tied to the (respectable, AFAIK) idea that Jewish monotheism may have originated in polytheistic religions.

Now, it's true that one of the arguments that Heiser presents against Sitchin is that elohim is not always plural where Sitchin says it is. Maybe Heiser was a little narrowminded, there. He was, after all, still a PhD. student when he wrote his rubuttal of Sitchin, and maybe he stuck too dogmatically to the modern interpretations of the word. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why A.DIM feels that there are errors in Heiser's refutation.

However, Heiser still has other, more important objections to Sitchin's hypotheses, which I see no reason to doubt.

[sylvanis13]

Hiya Guys

How's it going?

Seems to be a lot of discussions here. Does anyone know of a good Sitchin Forum to speak primarily of Zecharia Sitchins works?

-angela