-Caveat Lector-
My Goodness guys, talk about spreading the word..Das's comments have been
right around the world..
Peter
A defense of Sitchin. Read the comments and complaints at the bottom, then
go up to the top to read my reply.......
-----Original Message-----
From: lloydpye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, October 15, 1999 2:17 AM
Subject: Re: Question Regarding Sitchin
>Gavin:
>
>Dasgoat sounds like either a wannabe--or possibly even an
>accredited--scholar who is unable to get his/her own ideas (whatever they
>might be) accepted at a popular level (and probably not even at a peer
>level), so (s)he is outraged (as so many of them are) that someone like
>Zecharia should have such enormous popular success without going through
the
>grinding process of accreditation that weeds out all but those scholars
>(like themselves) who are most willing to hew to and zelously support the
>status quo as it exists in their era. Whether men or women, these people
>tend to possess miserably thwarted ambitions and stunningly petty outlooks
>on life, so to assuage their stunted little spirits they glibly perform
>character assassinations without--ironically enough--showing any of the
>evidence they accuse their victims of lacking.
>
>I can assure you that Goatcheese, whoever (s)he might be, is all hat and no
>cattle when it comes to criticizing Zecharia Sitchin. He starts off saying
>Sitchin is "just another Von Daniken." Absurd! Erich Von Daniken did some
>excellent basic research in many areas of establishment dogma, but his good
>work is easily glossed over by opponents because of his unfortunate habit
of
>shooting from the lip in interpretations of evidence and data. Sitchin
NEVER
>does that, and in fact goes well out of his way to avoid doing anything
>approaching it. I have spent weeks with the man, travelling around the
world
>visiting ancient sites, and I quickly noticed that he NEVER shoots from the
>lip. He never speculates AT ALL. If he doesn't KNOW the answer to a
>question, he will shrug it off and refuse to answer, no matter who is
asking
>it or how innocently it is put to him.
>
>At breakfast one morning when it was just the two of us I asked him why the
>tight lips when asked to speculate. He told me that he knew he was building
>a place for himself in history, a place that later scholars would return to
>again and again once his work was recognized for what it is, which he sadly
>accepts is not likely to be in his own lifetime (he's 80 now). That being
>the case, he doesn't want any quotes floating around that he does not know
>for a fact are the truth. He then added that he won't even speculate with
>his wife, Rina, when it is just the two of them and no one else, because he
>does not want her to ever say to any friend of hers, even off-handedly,
that
>"Zack said so-and-so about such-and-such." And then he added this kicker:
"I
>have to be very, very careful that my work is not Von Daniken-ized...."
And,
>needless to say, it is closed-mined status-quo protectors like Giles
Goatboy
>who do the Von Daniken-izing he was referring to in that conversation.
>
>Goatboy has absolutely NO concept of Zecharia's translating ability, no
>concept at all. He is just spouting off, venting his obvious frustration.
>And when he says Zecharia's work is "beneath comment by reputable
scholars,"
>what he really means but can't say is that reputable scholars are scared
>witless of Zecharia. Have you ever noticed that you NEVER see ANY of
>Zecharia's books reviewed in scholarly magazines, or even in pseudo
>scholarly magazines like Discover, Anthropology, Archeology, Smithsonian,
or
>even Scientific American? Why is that? If he's so full of crap, as Goatass
>is saying, why then do reputable scholars not take him on in print and show
>the world precisely where he is "FABRICATING evidence" and "LYING to suit
>his purposes"? Better yet, why do they not challenge him to debates in
>public arenas, like Harvard or Yale or MIT? I mean, Zecharia is in the New
>York phone book. He's not hard to find. He's certainly not hiding from
>anyone. So why don't they challenge him face-to-face rather in these
>cowardly emails that jerks like Goatshit circulate on the net?
>
>The reason is that he would DEMOLISH them, and every scholar that has ever
>actually read his material knows it. And if Goatbreath wants to back up his
>scurrilous garbage with a challenge to debate Zecharia, I'm sure Zecharia
>would show up at any arena in the New York area (he's 80, after all) that
>could be arranged. I'm sure Goatherd will find out in due course that
>Zecharia is in fact a helluva lot smarter than his readers, and will be a
>helluva lot smarter SQUARED relative to the Goathorn.
>
>As for the reference to Samuel Noah Kramer, he's been dead for some time
>now, so I doubt very seriously that Goatman has the direct quote he implied
>from Dr. Kramer's ghost. (So who is "lying to suit his own purposes" now,
>eh?) And that spew about the London School of Economics being some kind of
>prep school for the New World Order tells you right there that Goatgrunt is
>sadly out of touch with reality and might well not be even so much as an
>accredited scholar him/herself. It is the raving of a lunatic.
>
>Zecharia Sitchin possesses one of the great minds of the 20th century. His
>work is going to stand the test of time. He should already have won a Nobel
>Prize for what he has done, and if it wasn't for small, petty, pathetic
>assholes like Dasgoat, that prize of recognition would have been his long
>ago. And you can feel free to post this under whatever rock you found that
>miserable specimen of so-called humanity.
>
>Lloyd Pye
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Thursday, October 14, 1999 11:35 PM
>Subject: Question Regarding Sitchin
>
>
>>Hello Lloyd:
>>
>>Your book is excellent. (my uncle loved it too) I will write to you with a
>>more detailed chat about it, because it overlaps into a lot of areas that
I
>>have investigated in the past/present. I have also written a book which is
>>about the Oklahoma City bombing (The Oklahoma City Bombing: Searching For
>the
>>Truth 44,400 words) in which I document one of the most nefarious
cover-ups
>>and travesty's of justice in quite some time (at least on a par with
Waco).
>I
>>would like to discuss that with you as well. For now though, a subscriber
>to
>>a mailing list that I am on sent in a criticism of Sitchin, saying he
>doesn't
>>have any official qualifications (that doesn't prove anything) and he will
>>lie given half the chance. Dasgoat compares Sitchin to Erich Von Daniken.
>>Obviously the complete opposite of what you have said. I looked in your
>book
>>and from what you have said he taught himself cuneiform. As you are well
>>aware, there are a lot of charlatans and false prophets in the
>conspiracy/UFO
>>fields of investigation, so in the interest of getting to the bottom of
>what
>>Dasgoat says about Sitchin I am forwarding his allegations for your
>comments.
>>If you do not want me to forward them to the mailing list I will not.
>Another
>>question, as you have said, other scholars basically agree with Sitchin's
>>translations, but they write them off as myth, is that a correct
>assessment?
>>Another persons comments are in quotation marks. Dasgoat responds. Thanks
>in
>>advance. Gavin Phillips.
>>
>>
>>
>>But Sitchin is well aware of this devil's advocacy, and vaporizes
>>>the arguments of skeptics with solid scholarship, including
>>>the most rigorous translations of Sumerian text, Vedic tales and excerpts
>>>from the original Greek and Hebrew versions of the Bible.
>>>This ability to translate many languages is no small achievement. Those
of
>>>us who will never possess the ability to decipher 6,000-year-old clay
>>tablets
>>>must TRUST <sic> that Sitchin has done his job accurately.
>>
>>>The work of Zecharia Sitchin is without question the most mind stretching
>>>cosmology available to date. Furthermore, it appears
>>>unchangeable academically.
>>
>>Dasgoat;
>>Oh, bull. Might as well say Art Bell is a more brilliant physicist than
>>Albert Einstein.
>>Sitchin is just another Von Dahniken, with a bigger grab-bag bibliography
>>tacked on.
>>
>>Academically, Sitchin's work is SO POOR --tested, he couldn't even
>"decipher"
>>ordinary Sumerian GRAMMAR correctly!-- it's BENEATH COMMENT by reputable
>>scholars.
>>
>>His CONCEPTS are provocative, sure, but as for PROVING them, he not only
>>grasps at straws, he FABRICATES much "evidence," perfectly willing to LIE
>to
>>suit his purposes.
>>
>>I've met him and I've asked him challenging questions, which he was unable
>to
>>answer, since any conversation outside his (prepared) "script" reveals
that
>>he is less intelligent than many of his readers. The only question is,
>who's
>>his 'ghost writer'? -- Cui bono?
>>
>>He claims to have studied under Samuel Noah Kramer. Dr Kramer never heard
>of
>>him. Do other Sumerologists know of him? No, since he has never studied
at
>>any university with a faculty devoted to ancient languages. Does he have
a
>>degree? Let him try and prove THAT! He states he studied at the London
>>School of Economics -- prep-school for NWO intelligentsia, including
psy-op
>>specialists like (small world) Whitley Strieber-- where he says he majored
>in
>>ECONOMICS. A short-term summer-school program, no doubt. If he's such a
>>brilliant scholar, where do we see his Curriculum Vitae, much less his
>>RESUME? NONE of his own claims about his background can be substantiated
>...
>>
We are about to go on a Journey. All Aboard
http://sites.netscape.net/gsussnzl/homepage
Bargain Books
http://bn.bfast.com/bfast/click/mid1349732?siteid=10734186&bfpage=b
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
