E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Zecharia Sitchin says he's willing to stake everything he's written about alien astronauts on DNA tests that could be performed on the 4,500-year-old remains of a high-ranking Sumerian woman. It's the latest - and possibly the last - cause celebre for a fringe celebrity.
The way Sitchin sees it, the long-dead woman's genome could contain the signature of the gods and demigods he's been talking about since 1976.
The 90-year-old Sitchin was born in the Soviet Union, grew up in Palestine and now lives in a New York apartment. He has written 14 books about way-out subjects, starting out with claims that a "12th planet" named Nibiru swung past Earth thousands of years ago and dropped off alien visitors who were looked upon as gods by Middle Eastern cultures. Sitchin says these aliens were the Annunaki mentioned in Sumerian scriptures, and the Nephilim mentioned in the Bible.
Needless to say, Sitchin's ideas - like those of another ancient-astronaut author, Erich von Däniken - have been roundly scorned by the scientific community. But now Sitchin is asking that very community to help him with the mystery of Queen Puabi.
Puabi's remains were unearthed from a tomb in present-day Iraq during the 1920s and 1930s, roughly the same time frame as the discovery and study of Tutankhamun's tomb in Egypt. Forensic experts at London's Natural History Museum determined that Puabi was about 40 years old when she died, and probably reigned as queen in her own right during the First Dynasty of Ur. Sitchin contends she was something more than a queen - specifically, that she was a "nin," a Sumerian term which he takes to mean "goddess."
He suggests that Puabi was an ancient demigod, genetically related to the visitors from Nibiru. What if these aliens tinkered with our DNA to enhance our intelligence - the biblical tree of knowledge of good and evil - but held back the genetic fruit from the tree of eternal life? Does the story of Adam and Eve actually refer to the aliens' tinkering? The way Sitchin sees it, the ancient myths suggest that "whoever created us deliberately held back from us a certain thing - fruit, genes, DNA, whatever - not to give us health, longevity, and the immortality that they had. So what was it?"
Sitchin wants scientists to test the DNA from Puabi's remains, just in case it holds the answer. "Maybe by comparing her genome with ours, we would find out what are those missing genes that they deliberately did not give us," he told me. "Maybe. I cannot guarantee that, but maybe."
Inner Traditions / Bear & Co.
Zecharia Sitchin says "There Were Giants Upon the Earth" will be his last book.
That kind of talk has led Sitchin's critics to label him a pseudo-historian, a fraud or just plain wrong. But that kind of talk has also sold millions of books since the '70s. Sitchin's latest, "There Were Giants Upon the Earth," recaps all the theories he's built up over the years - the unorthodox interpretations of ancient scriptures, the planet Nibiru's eccentric travels and the existence of a superhuman space society that hopped over to our planet and sparked the ancient myths.
Sitchin claims that the ultimate fate of all those theories would be decided by the DNA tests he wants done on Queen Puabi's remains. "I'm really risking my life's work on this outcome," he said.
Michael Heiser, for one, isn't buying it. He's a scholar in biblical languages who maintains the "Sitchin Is Wrong" website, and he thinks Sitchin's DNA challenge to genetic researchers is just a lot of bluster.
"He wants them to search for something when they don't know what it looks like," Heiser told me. "It's not as if we have a known sample of alien DNA. How do you know when you sequence something, because junk DNA doesn't qualify. What's a hit? If they find anything where they say, 'Hey, we don't know what this does,' he would latch onto that. ... He would zero in on the gaps and the ambiguities."
On his website, Heiser provides in-depth discussions of the objections that have long been raised about Sitchin's writings: that the one-time journalist misreads the ancient texts, that he takes ancient myths as honest-to-goodness history and builds an outlandish cosmology around them, that he indulges in pop-culture paleo-babble.
Inner Traditions / Bear & Co.
Zecharia Sitchin.
Sitchin has a different perspective, of course. The way he sees it, modern science is proving him right. "In field after field, all my conclusions - including some that seemed out of place - are being corroborated," he told me. "If you go to my website you'll see entry after entry about how a new discovery has corroborated my claims."
For example, astronomers have found that distant worlds can trace orbits far more eccentric and skewed than they expected. There's even talk that an unseen giant planet may be lurking on the edge of our own solar system. All this has made Sitchin feel more confident in claiming that the planet Nibiru, home of the Annunaki, really does exist.
You won't find any top-drawer scientists willing to pick up on Sitchin's suggestions, but that's exactly the kind of person he's looking for right now. The Natural History Museum says that any request to conduct DNA tests on Puabi's remains would have to come from "a researcher with recognized experience and skills in this field, or with access to the necessary facilities required to undertake ancient DNA analysis."
Sitchin told me he's checking with various research groups, including some of the researchers behind last month's Neanderthal DNA findings and the DNA analysis conducted on 4,000-year-old human hair from Greenland. "I'm offering from my minuscule family foundation to fund this, by the way, so I'm not asking them for money," Sitchin told me. "And I'm not asking them to say Sitchin is right or wrong. I'm asking them to tell the museum in London this is too important not to do it. And that's where it stands."
It probably wouldn't be right for researchers to take Sitchin's money - but a TV documentary about the glittering riches of ancient Ur, climaxing with experts doing forensic tests on the remains of ancient royalty? Hey, if it worked for the Discovery Channel with "Secrets of Egypt's Lost Queen," ... for the History Channel with "Coroners Report: King Tut" ... and for the National Geographic Channel with "The Real Cleopatra" ... well, it should work with Queen Puabi as well.
Here are edited excerpts from my interview with Sitchin, followed by the statement I received via e-mail from the Natural History Museum:
Cosmic Log: Studying Puabi's remains would be important whether or not something extremely peculiar is found. But if something extremely peculiar is not found? If they find that the DNA sequence for these remains is pretty ordinary?
Zecharia Sitchin: Then I will look foolish. I’m really risking my life’s work on this outcome.
Q: So you feel as if this is something that would definitely disprove your view of who these Sumerians were?
A: Well you can't really "disprove." If somebody says "I did not see so-and-so," it doesn't disprove. But probably many will say it disproves my whole life's thesis. I'm so convinced that when you find the skeletal remains of this female with three cylinder seals, one of which specifically names her as "Nin" … there’s no doubt in my mind. I’m willing to risk everything from 40 years of writing and publishing on this. Now whether I could be proven right, I don’t know.
Inner Traditions / Bear & Co.
Gold jewelry that was found next to the head of Queen Puabi was apparently assembled into an ornate headdress, as shown on this mannequin.
The results may say, we don’t find anything interesting. Maybe a difference here and there, but it looks like our DNA. I’m sure people will then say, 'OK, Sitchin’s stature has collapsed.' Whether this means so or not, I don’t know. But listen, I’m 90 years old, so what the heck. This is my final book.
This is really my challenge to the scientific community. ... I’m really challenging science to corroborate the bibles. If you want it stated in one sentence, that’s what I’m doing. Science, with its ability to do whole-genome comparisons, now has the unique opportunity to test those ancient bones. Maybe Sitchin is right. I’m not asking them to undertake it to prove me right. But I think maybe if I am right, it opens such vistas of understanding in religion, in history, in genetics, in every field, that it ought to be done.
Q: A lot of people have talked about how you’re a pseudo-historian, or you have an incorrect understanding of how the Sumerian language, how the cuneiform inscriptions should be interpreted. Does this sort of criticism make you rethink some of the things you’ve said?
A: Absolutely not. First of all, I think anybody has the right to disagree with me. If I say that this sentence means this and that, you may say, ‘No, it does not say this and that.'
There is one classic instance where I was going to the meeting of the American Oriental Society. ... I was shocked, because there was an assertion about this and that, I don't know, Sumeria and Mesopotamia. The speaker had 10 minutes, and then there are five or 10 minutes with questions and answers. Well, the speaker gets up and asserts that a certain Sumerian word may have another meaning in addition to the accepted usual meaning. The guy is afraid to overstep boundaries, so he qualifies what he says. "Well, maybe I'm suggesting..." He qualifies in 10 different ways.
He has his 10 minutes, and then there are questions and answers. Somebody gets up and calls the speaker by his first name, so they must know each other. "Jim, I'm amazed at your stupidity. How could you even come up with this notion that this word has this second meaning that you're talking about?" And he runs down the poor fellow, insulting him, and that's it. The guy doesn't have a chance to answer because there's one more question and his time is up.
So what's the point? One guy thinks the word may have a second meaning, and the other guy calls him names for it. So what's one to do?
Q: Are there areas where you see that new evidence has come out and the view that you’ve had has changed through the years?
A: No, on the contrary, because of the evidence that is coming mostly from other fields. Let me give you an example. ... The planet Nibiru is listed in countless astronomical texts from Mesopotamia. The question was debated by scholars already in the 19th century, what planet is it? One school said, it’s another name for Mars. And another school said, it’s another name for Jupiter. Each group had their reasons to say it wasn’t Jupiter, or it wasn’t Mars. And I basically agreed with both of them: those who said it could not be Mars and those who said it could not be Jupiter.
So finally I came up with my solution, that it’s one more planet with a great elliptical orbit, etc., etc. So one of the criticisms that came out when “The 12th Planet,” my first book, was published in 1976 was that such an elliptical orbit is not possible, because in time, either the orbit would become more rounded and the planet would orbit closer to the sun, or it would be thrown out of the solar system. But to continue in an elliptical orbit, orbit after orbit after orbit, is not possible.
Now, I subscribe to all the magazines – Nature, Science, Archaeology – I’m keeping myself up to date on scientific discoveries. So now that we know about so-called extrasolar planets, the verdict is that an elliptical orbit is the norm. So a few months ago, there was a program [on TV] titled "Curse of the Yo-Yo Planet." I’m watching it, and the guy is talking about my planet! No doubt about it. He describes it, and calls it the "yo-yo planet" because it goes farther out and comes back. And when the program is over, there’s not one word mentioned about Sitchin!
Q: Yes, people have renewed the search for planets that may be out in the Oort cloud. For example, Sedna is a world that is between the Kuiper Belt and the Oort cloud. People wonder how it got there. There is a sense that the sun may have been born in a cluster with other stars, and that gravitational attraction may have disrupted a lot of orbits. There was a study just a couple of days ago suggesting that as many as 90 percent of the comets in our solar system were actually stolen from neighboring star systems during the early stage of solar system development.
A: This is the whole reason for orbiting in the opposite direction … it comes from those very findings you’re talking about. How does one explain why not only Nibiru but some of the comets have retrograde orbits? If the solar system was just by itself created because of this swirling cloud, then how come not everything orbits in the same direction? All these findings keep corroborating what I have said.
Q: But I think some people have interpreted those remarks to suggest that a companion star or a dark planet may once again disrupt the solar system as early as 2012.
A: Don’t link me to 2012. Nothing will happen in 2012. The last time that Nibiru was in our vicinity was in the 6th century B.C. I provide information about this and sky maps and anything you want in my book “The End of Days.” But don’t link me to 2012.
Another aspect, by the way, is that if you do a search on “Annunaki” you get a million and a half websites. People use my writings and make up their own stories … I’m responsible for what I say, but not for what others say and their interpretations.
In general I think there’s a whole industry that has grown up in the media, mostly in the movies, for creating panic and fear. Who knows? “Something will happen, it’s coming.” I don’t think so.
Nothing will return. But I think ["gods" visited Earth] because of all the biblical prophecies. They created us, they gave us knowledge, but what they kept from us … I’m trying to find out through the DNA tests. Maybe it has to do with health, immortality, maybe cancer and such. We are their children, many of us are the result of their intermarriage. If Noah was like the Sumerian hero, a demigod, then we are all demigods. So they are not coming back to destroy us. They are not coming back to use us as food. I’m really shocked, shocked by this fearmongering, which is unjustified.
I do what I do and say what I say, and now I’m throwing down the gauntlet to the scientific community. You don’t have to do my genome, you have to do the genome of Nin Puabi.
Q: Another thing that people say is that you’re trying to read too much literal, actual history into something that was intended more as a myth, a story about the spiritual world. It would be as if someone was looking back from the future at our different cultures, and saying, “Well, God had to be like this because all these different cultures are telling the same story.” Whereas actually it’s the case that a common theme – for example, the Gilgamesh story or the story of a great flood – made its way into different cultures and doesn’t necessarily reflect historical reality.
A: Well, if that is the criticism, then it’s true. My answer to that is, so what? I take it literally, and others say I shouldn’t, so … I plead guilty.
Now, let me tell you, I think it was November or December of last year, a documentary filmmaker came by with a camera crew, and for three days he really pestered me to the extent that he camped outside my home. I told him, listen, leave me alone. What did he want? He was making a film about the 10 most important people alive today in the world. And I’m one of them, according to him. So I said to him, "Why do you think I’m one of them? Why give me the honor?" He said, "Because you have demythologized mythology. You have done a tremendous thing, You took the mythologies of all the peoples, you showed where they stem from. And you show step by step that this is based on a series of actual events."
So I plead guilty. That’s why mythology is so similar all over the world. Not necessarily detail by detail, name by name, event by event, but basically it reflects human recollection of past events.
Now, here's the e-mail I received from Sam Roberts, media relations manager at London's Natural History Museum:
"First, as background to the collections, The Natural History Museum holds a collection of approximately 20,000 human remains dating back to prehistoric times. Over half is from the UK and has been collected by the museum from when we were founded in 1881. They range from a single tooth, hair sample, single bones to complete skeletons and come from a variety of sources - for example, by transfer from other institutions such as Royal College of Surgeons or archaeological digs.
"The human remains in the collection are used by both NHM researchers and visiting researchers in studies to form comparative samples in a wide variety of studies including human evolution, human variation, forensic and medical studies among many more.
"I have been in touch with the relevant team and they confirmed that Zecharia Sitchin has contacted the Museum to request that it collect comparative samples from the remains of Nin Puabi (Queen Shubad). The Museum has a responsibility to safeguard and maintain its collections for scientific research. It does not routinely conduct ad hoc analysis of its collections, and requests for DNA analysis would need to be part of recognised research project. To date the Museum has not received a request from a researcher with recognised experience and skills in this field or with access to the necessary facilities required to undertake ancient DNA analysis. All research and loan requests involving human remains in the collection are subject to the relevant Museum policy and procedures, which are based on guidance set out by the UK Government’s Department of Culture, Media and Sport."
In the days leading up to my interview, I heard from some Cosmic Log correspondents who thought Sitchin was totally bogus, and others who thought he just might be on to something. (The latter category probably overlaps with the estimated 32 percent of Americans who believe in UFOs.) Myself, I don't believe any of Sitchin's tales about alien astronauts or ancient demigods from the planet Nibiru. But I am intrigued by tales of Ur and its riches. In the right hands, I think the story of Queen Puabi could be as gripping as the stories of Queen Hatshepsut or even King Tut. What do you think? Feel free to hold forth with your comments below.
More about aliens, on Earth and beyond:
- Scientist: Alien life could already be on Earth
- The best places on Earth for spotting UFOs
- Search for alien life may take giant leap forward
- Eight of the usual suspects for extraterrestrial life
Join the Cosmic Log corps by signing up as my Facebook friend or hooking up on Twitter. And if you really want to be friendly, ask me about "The Case for Pluto."
Leave a Comment:
He should check out Berkeley.
Be afraid, be very afraid....
If a truth that the existence of Alien DNA were to come out to the masses, would not that unravel the way man has thought about the Universe and create complete chaos, and fear......
The truth is: Man and Darrah alike would completely come apart at the seams with the knowledge that other "beings" were amongst us in ancient times....
and perhaps in present time as well.
It is said that, "Knowledge is Power"; however in this instance that is exactly what the Science Community is fearful of....losing their paychecks and stature because of the "what if" clause in nature.....
If individuals are so narrow minded and cynical about such topics they well deserve to be kept in the "Stone Age" of reality.
Be afraid of the "truth"; that keeps you in the dark.
I think we have some alien beings on this blog.
Dear People,
Should we not, at every opportunity, explore truth? What is truth? Every century, and decade, has shed new light on "truth" from our human experience. Was not the Earth once flat? Was not the Earth once the center of our solar system...with the sun orbiting us? Is it not, then, short sighted to exclude ANY possibility of "truth"? Shall we stop exploring because our egos step in the way of our exploration? What are we afraid of? That our way of thinking would be challenged? Should we not challenge ourselves everyday? What is our worth if we do not release our vanity and stimulate the very essence of our life? We must continue to challenge our spiritual development, our intellectual development and our physical development and understanding at every turn...I say. We must proceed with one truth.....we DO NOT KNOW IT ALL. So how can any human disqualify a theory based on what is known now and stop there? Only if an absolute is discovered can a scientist hang up his hat for the history of mankind....and it seems to me that more questions have been raised by discovering truths than answers provided by any one discovery.
I say to anyone reading this that it is our right, nay, our obligation, to leave no stone unturned, to let go of fear of the unknown, to proceed with the virtues of humility and compassion that as humans we must demonstrate at every opportunity provided to us. A DNA sample? How simple...and yet how involved it could be? What are we waiting for? Do we think the Queen will be dishonored by this? How are we able to dishonor others then? Under what rules of inquiry must we proceed to discover something new? Alas...the rules do change with the centuries as they pass by. Somehow....those with the means find a way to get it done. In reality, what humans do, or don't do, has very little to do with the ethics of any one particular situation...this much history has taught us.
One day, perhaps...humans will look back on our present day "mythologies" and giggle a little...I sure hope so.
I say good for Zecharia, and why not let it happen? If he's right, awesome! If he's wrong, awesome! Either way scientific methodology was followed.
Just because portions of science won't accept something doesn't make it not true. Wasn't it just this week that there was an article that blew off dark matter/energy, but portions of science didn't accept that work because it would mean re-tinkering with their egos? Also what we "knew" then and what we "know" now often are different things; I mean what I "learned" @ Eberly College of Sience (Penn State) about Black Holes is now "wrong".
The History Channel should take up Sitchins' challenge and find a way to test the DNA. They've been running a series on "ancient aliens" that ties in perfectly with this. What could it hurt? I know I'd watch it.
Obviously you've never heard of a "space elevator" or "tethered space station". Just because we don't have the material to do it now doesn't mean no one else can't (or couldn't).
^^^ Sorry, that's a reply to Leona's comment about "building a tower up to the heavens" and how it can't be done. Not sure why my post didn't link to hers.
Once again I am astounded by the responses to this otherwise innocent and interesting piece posted by Alan Boyle. You people.....all y'all...as we say in the south, have got way too much time on your hands.
While I don't know what we would find if we checked the DNA of the Sumerian and I don't have a clue how we would recognize "alien DNA", I do think it would interesting to do so. You could look at it in poker terms and "call his bluff".
Personally, I like to think the scientists WOULD find something they couldn't explain. Maybe her royal highness does not possess the mitochondrial DNA from those African woman that's supposed to show up in the majority of humans on this planet. Wouldn't that be interesting? It wouldn't prove she was an alien but it might make for an interesting conundrum.
I apologize for my mispelled words and poor grammar. I'm afraid I'm a victim of a public school education, but it was an education that makes me want to know MORE not less.
Now, can we talk about something serious? Like the Loch Ness monster or Big Foot or the US Government cover up of the Roswell incident?
Arthur C. Clarke once said that he would not be too quick to discount the possibility of ever finding archaeological remnants from alien visits upon the earth because earth is so old. That is all that needs to be said on such matters really.
This man does not really have a theory. None of his evidence can pass scientific and philosophical sniff tests and he doesn't seem make claims that can be falsified by testing (only a claim that could add to the pile of pseudo-evidence he has accumulated). Hm mm this sounds familiar?
I won't believe this woman is an alien unless she rises from the dead and provides a fresh DNA sample. That would in my opinion be sufficiently advanced so as to appear as magic to us all!
I see it this way. Religion is just another way of man trying to explain why. Same as what Stichin is doing.
I have read to many versions of the bible, koran, etc. to believe them for anything other than ancient man trying to control the masses, some history, some allegorical stories, some "I heard from..." stories and attempts to enforce habits which back then might have been needed in certain areas of the world (don't eat pork, cow, circumcision, etc.).
At least Stichin has made an attempt to collate evidence and use science to interpret it. Do I believe everything he wrote as true? No. But I do believe that many things he's pointed out are more likely to have occurred the way he explains than what relgions propose.
At least he's not expecting us all to follow his theory and send him money or die / be damned.
There's a petition to sign to show your support for the Puabi DNA testing: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/aliendna/
It's already got more than 1000 signatures!
well, my personal theory is that when Mars was losing its' atmosphere, they came here to live. Only a few survived, interbred, and voila, a giant leap in intelligence and DNA. Until we test species here on Earth pre-life Mars and post life Mars, we'll just have a theory, which is what we have now on the mystical planet.
What could testing hurt? People who oppose often are afraid of the outcome.
What is wrong with a little scientific adventure? I am always surprised at the amount of bickering that surrounds things like this. The guy has devoted his life to this and obviously people find it interesting. I find it interesting. More power too him.
i've actually been following this and related topics for over 15 years now since i first read an article on it while in college, and i am very interested to see what the results could be. whether you agree with him or not, just support him doing it, then you can argue and agree or not with the findings. it's a vicious cycle.
The Bible is just a story and yet the media constantly interviews, ministers, priests, authors, scholars, who all make a cornucopia of assertions about the "real" world, the future, the past "miracles" and its all completely conjecture without a shred of "evidence". Atheists and agnostics are ignored, ridiculed or contrasted with religious scholars but generally rejected. Even Christopher Hitchins and Richard Dawkins are treated like charlatans, or crack pots by the media and religious community. It is absurd.
Religion doesn't "work" if you have to take it literally. It's all about having faith. Nothing more, nothing less. There really isn't any reason for believers and atheists or agnostics to argue with one another, they're all working from different books but the results are supposed to be happy people that get along with each other!
Yes, for God's sake, let this idiot have another try at mocking science.
Sign me up, beam me up! You've beaten me down like old-fashioned witch hunters, sort of. I'll believe or say anything at this point to get you off my back! Where do I sign? Do you want it written in blood? I'll see what I can do about that ;-)
Relax Darrah.
Just sign the petition and have a nice day.
:)
There are obviously so many people on this sci-fi blog (that once was a science blog), to sign up, you go right ahead. Don't forget to pick out a romantic alien name.
What makes Stitchin's theory about Queen Puabi any less believable than the story of Jesus?
Nothing!
I just read about the head ornament they found with her body. It seems the curators believe that hardware symbolizes fertility and reproduction.
Ain't that a kick in the head?
The DNA Diva. Oh, Darrah - I think she'd love a DNA test!
Wow! Anything that has to do with fertility, well no...sex, I'm all for jumping on the band wagon!
Make mine purple glitter. And for those who know a little about sex, you know what I mean. Wouldn't that be pretty when some of you discover that they're here..or there...everywhere? Whoa! where's my lava lamp! ;-)
Well, I hate to admit it, but I do kind of like the theory that we're all descended from Martians who fled their dying planet. (I saw it in a movie once) It makes as much sense as any other creation myth. Including my favorite, that a giant ice ball smacked into the molten earth creating all the water on the planet and over countless millenia life spontaneously arose and gosh, before you know it, here we are. PUH-LEEEEZE!
Next you'll try to sell me some swamp land in Florida or the intelligent design theory. All y'all need to get a life.
I read all of Sitchin's work (except for this last book), and quite thoroughly.
Many of his ideas are very compelling.
I know that there are a number of people out there that cannot, for a vast number of reasons, swallow these ideas.
I don't see anything wrong with people disagreeing with ideas that others present, provided that it is not prejudiced by the mainstream "groupthink" attitudes.
I believe that there is a need for just a little more open-mindedness, here, as well as an acceptance that science has changed over the centuries. Gallileo was considered the Renaissance version of a "quack", otherwise known as "heretic". These ideas are now in textbooks.
So far, the interpretations of Sumerian words and texts are up for grabs with all. Perhaps we will never know what ancient peoples meant with the words and phrases that they used.
A glaring example of this is the ancient Egyptian writings and their hyroglyphics. The more I study this, the more I believe that their language was used quite differently than many of the modern languages, today. This is, perhaps, because we "evolved" out of pictograms and into phonetic symbols. I even tried to study the Egyptian grammar using E. Wallis Budge's work. It is very difficult.
If any of you tried to read the works of Rene Schwaller de Lubicz and his intense studies of the ancient Egyptian culture and language, you may begin to fathom the depth and extent of the difference between ancient and modern thinking. It seems to have been very different.
And, continuing with the differences in thinking...
Imagine what people of a vastly different technological level would think, and even describe, if and when they were to observe phenomena from another culture that may be more advanced. Our ancient, more primitive generations could have looked at an extraterrestrial phenomenon, whether it be natural, or made by an intelligent species, and describe it within the limits of their own experiences and knowledge.
Even natural events, like an impact or fly-by of a large planetoid or asteroid, could be beyond their understanding and they would interpret it to be "a god" or the "work of a god".
If there was an actual visit by an advanced civilization in the distant past, using some kind of interplanetary vehicle, do you think that people with spears and chariots would really be able to know what it was, other than to describe it as a "god" or an "angel" or a "demon"?
People in Europe during that strange phenomenon that happened, I believe, during the Dark Ages or the Renaisssance in Germany (?), when things appeared en masse in the air, created pictures (engravings?)depicting what they saw as strange shapes with faces over their cityscape - that had nothing to do with a scientific explanation for it.
I heard that something actually caught onto a church steeple - it was described as an anchor that descended from one of these "shapes" at the end of a cable. A humanoid figure descended the cable from the "shape" to try to dislodge it, only to be attacked by the people below, who were throwing stones at it, thinking that it was some kind of a demon or devil, steeped in the deep, orthodox religious beliefs of the time. None of the explanations or interpretations of these events were based upon "science" as we know it today, but it doesn't make the occurrance any less real or factual.
And yet, many of these disparate cultures and civilizations in ancient times describe similar things or interpret phenomena in very similar ways. A simple example is a common interpretation of where the "gods" come from. They descend from "UP", somewhere in the sky - unless they were "cast down" by another "god" and became the subterranian or sub-deluvian, "evil" anitithesis.
But, the question remains, why from above?
Recalling the "Cargo Cult" during World War II, these people in some Melanesian or Micronesian island who never saw a military supply plane or people from our "modern" world, interpreted them as "gods" who descended from the skies, bearing gifts, yet. After these men departed, saying that they would return, the natives constructed their wooden interpretation of what they saw. It looked very much like that airplane. They designed elaborate ceremonies and events, and even made sacrifices, to bring back their "gods" to them, fabricating an entire "religion" out of it.
Sound familiar?
Another ancient cross-cultural phenomenon was "giants". Very large human-like creatures have been described in the bible, as giants among the Pre-deluvian people, giants (in Canaan?) that were slaughtered by the Israelites when the came to conquer the region, and the famous Goliath. They were in Sumerian writings, which appear to be what our bible copied from, that were the ones who "came down from above". Even the remains of giants were actually unearthed in parts of the British Isles, and legend has it that early Christian monks unearthed a grave at a site where they were building a church, that contained a nine foot tall male skeleton laying next to a normal sized female skelton. They immediataly reburied it, but it was believed to be the remains of King Arthur and Gwenevere. And what about the seven foot tall woman holding an infant in her arms that was found at Bridlevale Falls, in Western North America in the late 1800s? That conveniently disappeared after the photograph was taken. But, our Native Americans can confirm their knowledge of giants in their "legends", too. Were they one-in-the-same?
As far as the extraterrestrial link, and prehistoric genetic manipulation is concerned, has the established scientific community ever adequately explained how the modern homo-sapiens-sapiens so suddenly appeared, out of the standard evolutionary "slow timing" of everything else around it?
What about the sudden appearance of a number of species of flora and fauna that we know of, and use today, whose origins have been genetically found to have begun, roughly, around a similar time period between 180 - 250,000 years ago? I can't imagine people with stone axes even knowing anything about DNA, yet the modern version of our domesticated cattle appeared in southern Asia around 180,000 years ago. Others like the domesticated dog, cat, and other farm animals appeared around the same time. Pulse that we now use for most foods like modern forms of wheat, barley and etc., suddenly appeared, too, in the same manner.
It is understood that the modern human is about 200 - 250,000 years old? Perhaps even older - in the nature of 300 - 350, 000? However, the archaeological establishment continues to lead us to believe that human civilization is about 5,000 years old. Has anyone ever asked the simple question of why all of this sudden appearance of technology and monumental building just appeared in the last 5,000 years of our existence, then? What was this prehistoric version of humanity, with approximately the same cranial capacity that we have today, doing for the previous 195,000 years - sitting on their fists? More than just, bored, I would be absolutely stir-crazy.
Yes, I know that there is no evidence of previous advanced ancient civilizations that have been found.
I also heard that the "absence of evidence" may not necessarily mean "evidence of absence".
Many very hard substances - materials - have been observed to disintegrate into nothing in a much shorter time, especially when subject to the amazing substance known as water, even SALT water. The Titanic is disappearing very quickly, even after just over a century, when it sank. A deluge of monumental proportions could have eradicated whole cities. Did these deluges exist? I know of at least two in the history of this modern human species. I also have a book that was written by scientists that I highly recommend:
"NOAH'S FLOOD - NEW SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES ABOUT THE EVENT THAT CHANGED HISTORY"
RYAN, W. & PITMAN, W.
TOUCHSTONE
0-684-85920-3
2000
And, continuing about genetics, what was that something that scientists just recently found - a non-aging gene - somewhere in our genome construction? Where may that have come from? Was it part of this thing that they are wanting to find in Nin Puabi? the Sumerianc kings list indicate rulers that lived for thousands of years. Another repeat of this story is the biblical Methusela.
Although I must admit that I find the idea of analyzing this ancient lady's DNA very exciting, especially when it concerns the theory that some of these "royalty" may have been the Annunaki, I may have some respectful reservations about it.
1. Being that this "queen" was Akkadian, does this advance her down the generations far enough where the genetic material may have become diluted to the extent that any anomalous, "alien" characteristics have disappeared? Wasn't the Akkadian civilization the one that immediately followed the Sumerian? The genetic manipulation that was theorized to have occurred in order to make the "lulu" was quite a few thousand years previous. Or, did the aristocracy continue to inbread, thus preserving the original genetic construct? How could this be done for so long without creating another ancient version of the European aristocracy's Toulouse-Lautrec?
2. Could the human genetic material be identical to that of the "extraterrestrial"? I understand that there are certain parameters within which conditions must be in order for life to form, exist and evolve, no matter where it may be in the universe. And, these forms may even develop in similar, if not identical, ways to create the same. Does this mean that there could be a form of human on onther planets, too? If so, that visitor could be like you and me. The genetic manipulation, as Mr. Sitchin puts forward, was paired up with a Homo Erectus and Annunaki. Only very close, if not identical, species can successfully reproduce. thus, the tiglon or various new breeds of dog. However, you cannot even mate a Chimp with a human because the number and coding of the genes don't match up as the are supposed to. At best, you may just get an aborted lump of something with a few hairs growing out of it before it dies.
3. How could we identify such genetic material as "extraterrestrial" until we have seen and know what extraterrestrial genetic material is on the basis of No. 2, above?
There are many questions to ask that nobody, not even the scientists have answers for.
But, how can scientists, on that basis, come forward and just say that these theories, that none can prove, yet, are automatically wrong, and the theorist is already a "quack"?
Or is the hidden agenda protecting the status quo that is threatened by a new paradigm?
How do we know that this is not another case of Gallileo all over again?
I guess all the people posting against the possibility of alien visits should let Stephen Hawking (often call the world's smartest man) know he doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. According to his interviews and Discovery series he is reasonably certain alien life does exist and we should actually try to avoid them as they would most likely be interested in conquering us. Mr. Hawking states ""To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational," he said. "The real challenge is to work out what aliens might actually be like."
View the Sunday Times Apr. 25 2010 article at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/space/article7107207.ece
I think Mr. Sitchin could possibly have a point, albeit not necessarily arrived in the most analytically correct fashion, but a point none the less. I also think others may want to revisit their narrow view of our tiny little speck in the cosmos planet.
I guess all the people posting against the possibility of alien visits should let Stephen Hawking (often call the world's smartest man) know he doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. According to his interviews and Discovery series he is reasonably certain alien life does exist and we should actually try to avoid them as they would most likely be interested in conquering us. Mr. Hawking states ""To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational," he said. "The real challenge is to work out what aliens might actually be like."
View the Sunday Times Apr. 25 2010 article at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/space/article7107207.ece
I think Mr. Sitchin could possibly have a point, albeit not necessarily arrived in the most analytically correct fashion, but a point none the less. I also think others may want to revisit their narrow view of our tiny little speck in the cosmos planet.
I would find it highly unlikely for an alien species that would have the technology to be able to visit us by traveling the vast distances of space to have negative intentions for us or our planet.
If they did have an interest in our Primitive species (compared to their level of technology and brain smarts) it would most likely be from a study standpoint (much like a specialist studying wildlife or a particular species)
By my reasoning there are only three things on the earth that could potentially be a reason for a vasy superior alien species to act aggressively to take over our planet.
As for resources or water on the planet, please lets face it there is so much water and resources in our own solar system that invading the earth would be pointless.
There is a fourth reason they might take over our planet, and that is if they are evil and for entertainment would snuff us out just for fun.
You go girl! See you on the other side! We'll let these people catch they're spaceship, while you and I take a magic carpet ride! ;-)
I have seen several posts saying Sitchin's work isn't a valid theory....
For the uneducated from the dictionary:
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another 2 : abstract thought : speculation
By definition a theory is a unproved hypothosys in need of further analysis... or, in simpler terms.. If it isn't a TOTAL FACT, it's a theory.
*Mr. Sitchin has a theory, like it not, it's 100% that he has one.
*He is looking at legitimate methods to add to a set of facts in their relation to one another (facts in this case are speculative since no one was actually there that we are aware of that can prove it absolute now) *It will ALWAYS be a theory because we can't gain COMPLETE fact EXCEPT something accepted as proof (ie- DNA testing), and even that is flexible.
As an example, Charles Darwin's Evolution, many sciences and population accept it as a fact now... BUT, it's a theory as well. (same with Creationism). When Darwin came out with his theoru he was scorned by many and threatened, didn't stop him from getting it widely accepted. Mr. Sitchin has a serious uphill battle to be sure, but it's in the same heart as Mr. Darwin, trying to prove it.
Beautifully said. Absolutely elegant. Thank you.
I'm glad you mentioned Darwin's theory there. Darwin suggested that if life were unable to evolve by creating mutations that survive environmental change, life would eventually come to a halt. Every living thing on the planet is living proof the theory has held up since before the dinosaur.
It's interesting that Darwin's theory qualifies by the modern standard of a theory even though he lived before the modern philosophy of science due to Karl Popper existed!
Mr Sitchin has an idea or hypothesis that would have to be shown to pass similar levels of scrutiny and even a DNA test on a thousands of years old mummy won't do that. As such his ideas need more work before they are worth spending time and any money on.
well, it's certainly a more erudite and civilized set of responses than the typical Yahoo posts...
How many cells can it take to do this? They do DNA tests on a single hair follicle. I suspect the results would be far more pedestrian than Mr. Sitchin would like , but what the heck - let 'em be tested.
One caveat - one suspects the gene for immortality won't be there. After all... she died at a fairly typical age for the time, and has stayed dead as a boot ever since.
True...but how long was she alive before she booted?
When the general population bites the dust at 75 or so, 300 or 400 years can certainly be perceived as a kind of immortality. Was her 60, perhaps 600?
I'd be interested to know if the Sumerian cylinders give an indication of the length of her reign.
Darrah,
You were beaten down because your view is limitted and angry and attacking. You got attacked back and you cant handle it. Others did to you (with better articulation and more class), exactly what you did to Sitchen, AND IT HAS CERTAINLY RUFFLED YOUR FEATHERS, AND YOU OBVIOUSLY DIDNT LIKE IT. Your initial response was one completely born out of ignorance (lack of knowledge, not a lack of smarts)......and it is easy to see why you wrote it: You are. Your continued quotes show you have learned nothing, opened up to nothing. You are simply propitiating to get people to stop doing to you, what you started in doing to Sitchen.
Well thank you very much for caring, but I'm fine as a fiddle now.
How about we all get a life?
Or do we need to ask Dr. Sitchin? Oh, he's not a dr. you say? Just a saint?
I suppose I just feel "jaded", considering this is a science blog. I'm really tired of these types of articles showing up on a real science blog.
And many of you don't realize that I might just be open to life on other planets. But in this way, no. He's been round for ages and he has an axe to grind with the real scientific community. Why wouldn't they take him seriously ? Because he's out to make money. That's all.
It's a sad day for real science...