Ancient Aliens

Descriptions. Egyptian hieroglyphs especially show them as humans wearing winged costumes.

But my real point is - I haven't seen anything in particular that shows them as scaly reptilians. I'm pretty sure that while the ancients may not have known what a space ship was, they'd have at the very least drew them as scaly instead of as people wearing winged suits. They weren't stupid, y'know.
 
CarpeNemo said:
Descriptions. Egyptian hieroglyphs especially show them as humans wearing winged costumes.

But my real point is - I haven't seen anything in particular that shows them as scaly reptilians. I'm pretty sure that while the ancients may not have known what a space ship was, they'd have at the very least drew them as scaly instead of as people wearing winged suits. They weren't stupid, y'know.
Click to expand...
The Anunnaki were the underworld gods of Babylonia. They were not Egyptian gods (nor Sumerian gods, for that matter - in Sumer they were called the Anunna.

I sincerely doubt you have any real knowledge concerning the subject, based on the above.

The winged figures you're remembering are almost certainly not Anunnaki. They are likely the Apkallu. These were the "Seven Sages" sent to Sumer to help Man. Here's a pic of one:

apk3.jpg


Standing on the left is king Ashurnasirpal. He is wearing his royal costume and being protected from evil forces by a guardian spirit. This type of spirit is called an ‘Apkallu'. Apkallu means 'sage' in Akkadian.
Apkallu figures are often shown beside doorways and in corners of rooms since these areas were where evil spirits were thought to lurk.
Click to expand...
Source: http://www.mesopotamia.co.uk/palaces/explore/throapk3.html

The Apkallu were the forerunners of the "Seven Sages" in Greek mythology, as well as the Djinn in Arab/Islamic myths and forerunners of angels in Judeo-Christian mythology.

Most representations you see online of Apkallu are Assyrian in origin, as is the one I posted above. However, there are Babylonian and Sumerian examples.

Harte
 
Odd.

I remember that Enki was Ptah, Marduk Ra, so on and so forth. Do not forget that the Egyptian and Sumerian cultures are intertwined thanks to lineage. They were the same gods, no matter what name they went by in a certain language.

I will stop posting in this topic, hereforth, because you seem to be more interested in proving me/Sitchin wrong than actually discussing the matter. I don't feel the need to be right about it, I just like when people actually discuss something rather than shit upon the whole subject.
 
CarpeNemo said:
Odd.

I remember that Enki was Ptah, Marduk Ra, so on and so forth. Do not forget that the Egyptian and Sumerian cultures are intertwined thanks to lineage. They were the same gods, no matter what name they went by in a certain language.
Click to expand...
You'd have an extremely hard time backing that statement up with any scholarship at all. You can say anything you want (obviously) concerning any supposed equivalence of the gods of Sumer and Egypt. But if you want to make a claim like that above, you really need to back it up with facts.

See, Marduk was a minor god in Sumer. It was much, much later, during the Babylonian period, that Marduk was elevated in the religion to the highest.

Most Egyptian gods were long established before the advent of writing in either region (around 3500 BC.) Please provide evidence of any ties between the two that you are aware of.
CarpeNemo said:
I will stop posting in this topic, hereforth, because you seem to be more interested in proving me/Sitchin wrong than actually discussing the matter.
Click to expand...
Now you're gonna blame me for pointing out the blatant errors in your (and Sitchin's) claims? What exactly would constitute a "discussion" of the matter to you, then? A collection of bobble-heads nodding and winking at everything you (or Sitchin) say?

What did you expect, no critical thinkers at Paranormalis?

CarpeNemo said:
I don't feel the need to be right about it, I just like when people actually discuss something rather than shit upon the whole subject.
Click to expand...

It was you that laid the turd. I'm just trying to keep others from stepping in it until you get around to cleaning it up.

Harte
 
I think CarpeNemo didn't like the way you repeatedly let him know about your views regarding Mr Sitchin's works.

I can't blame you for showing us the down to Earth and logical side on the matter. But, I think one should be able to enjoy discussing topics without considering the logical and "scientifically correct" side of things full time.

I'm aware you're not trying to crash the topic here, but if posters get pissed or scared by "critical thinkers" repeatedly pounding them with "hard truths", no one will ever dare posting in this topic again.

Harte, I think you're doing your job too well. :rolleyes: Go easy on us.
 
Alright. I did some further looking into Sitchin's works. Found some areas where he's definitely wrong, some parts that are more iffy, and overall I still think he did a damned fine job of his research.

I suppose to a large extent I was infatuated with his works, but I still stand by them. At the very least, they're an informative read that offers different perspectives on the subject. In my opinion - he's still got a tidy sum of information right. But even the highly esteemed and adored Einstein has some things wrong, so I'll take that in stride and stand by what he's got right.

I appreciate your input, though, 'cause it did lead me to question some things that were bugging me (and most of the things that were bugging me turned out to be wrong-wrongish, truthfully) and I have a different viewpoint on the man and his works now.

I'd also like to point out that I like to read Sitchin's works for my own amusement, and I'm sure there's parts of his works that could be considered accurate, that I've misunderstood and have retold with more than a hint of inaccuracy. But what concerns me most is this:

How many people considered Einstein to be nutters before research proved him right? Every researcher's got critics, and while it's good to have counterbalancing data, it's also of note to point out that critics do not make research wrong.
 
well I do know that, it is widely reported that... Alberts grade school teacher said he was unteachable and should be put away.. so you got a good point CarpeNemo.... and theres just to much pointing to outside influnce to ignor
 
Sitchin isn't the best writer - I'd say Graham Hancock is much better at the craft.

My problem is that these writers basically completely dismiss theories put forward by the people that have been crouched over the ground with a trowel and a brush every digging season for 30 and 40 years as if they either simply had no idea what they were talking about, or were all involved in some great conspiracy to prevent people from learning about the past (thus limiting their own careers in the process for reasons that can't stand the light of even the slightest scrutiny.)

Well, that and the fact that I found out they were lying to me. I don't appreciate having fallen myself for their misrepresentations of the past.

I will, however, give some credit to these pseudohistorians for engaging people in learning about the past, a step CarpeNemo has apparently just taken with regard to Sitchin's claims and one I took 25 years ago. However, some people simply read these books (or watch the crockumentaries) and take every word as gospel. Those folks never end up actually learning anything about the past. They do continue to provide a readership to these kniow-nothing fringe writers that make a living from claiming everyone else is wrong.

Harte
 

Top