|
|
Project Camelot General Discussion Reactions, feedback and suggestions on interviews, current events and experiences. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
10-24-2008, 03:34 PM | #26 |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 17
|
Re: Zacharia sitchin is not legitimate
influnces of a planetary body on other known solar sys bodies would allow to pinpoint the location of planetx. where are its pics? we're able to get photos of other solar sys planets, why can't we get the one from planetx?
|
10-24-2008, 03:38 PM | #27 |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 71
|
Re: Zacharia sitchin is not legitimate
fair enough shelly, (meaning mine?)
i cant say i "know" if he genuine or not.... but to say there is no proof. is never enough to negate information, just cant prove itself.. life HAS proved that much to all of us on somel evel or other some of you whom experience life,largely through intuition will probably get my drift. as we all know.....truth will eventually emerge to the forefront, which ever it is as the veil of .... lies slip away.... i guess we can keep seeking and seeking and listening inward.... Last edited by beanny; 10-24-2008 at 04:19 PM. |
10-24-2008, 07:41 PM | #28 |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: CENTRAL MEXICO
Posts: 60
|
Re: Zacharia sitchin is not legitimate
Greetings :
Before anything, I honor the freedom of thought that every human being posseses. I will share with you all some data: 1) Sitchin is a scholar...Nevertheless that the whole system attacks him AND his theories,he belongs to the few that knows dead languages such as old summerian. 2) the u.s. Government has indeed sewed sitchin...they want to confiscate all his knowledge and thus preventing his words to be propagated. Does that fact tell you anything? 3) I have done my homework and investigated the data for years(15). What is of my knowledge is that he is 90% correct. He misses the fact that the lulu were created not only to serve as a working slave, but that this is part of a galactic plan to provide flesh in which divine sparks can incarnate in this planetary school of total free will. 4) Nibiru is a brown dwarf,hollowed and used as a galactic federation starship to seed worlds. Its orbit is not necessarily of a 3,600 years cycle. 5)sitchin, according to a top general in the mexican intelligence path, assured to me that the data provided was acurate,according to israeli,french canadian and chinese intelligence services surveys of the data. 6)the new southpole telescope observatory was built indeed,to track nibiru´s passage through our solar system.... And there is more.... Last edited by nibiru; 10-24-2008 at 07:50 PM. Reason: SPELLING |
10-24-2008, 08:03 PM | #29 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 267
|
Re: Zacharia sitchin is not legitimate
Beanny, that wasn't directed specifically to you.
I am just saying that his scholarship is incredibly sloppy, and that it was a turn-off. Of all the Sumerian scholars (and there is plenty of them at universities like Chicago and all over the Middle East), why is he the only one to translate all of the material he uses? I used to study classical Arabic and found a lot of his explanation of Semitic roots dubious, if not completely contradictory to what I was getting from my peers in the Hebrew department. Now, interpretations of things (like what anthropologists study) can swing in any direction and I understand his questioning of the conventional understanding of Sumerian culture and archaeology- there is plenty of "conspiracy" material in that alone- but languages just aren't as fuzzy as that. This is almost like the one man in China who claims to have "translated" the Dropa stones... C'mon! Based on what? The only think that DOES give Sitchin any credibility is that the government is so interested in him, and that there are some things in astronomy that are explained if you use the "Planet X" model. But that doesn't make the model itself correct. What if he is completely wrong about Planet X, but the government wants him to do research because they are interested in something else? Maybe he is being used to interpret other things, and by picking him instead of another scholar it keeps the "fringe conspiracy nut-jobs" busy running in circles are Nibiru and not looking at what they really are studying. Another thing bothers me, and that is his logic. Too much is based on "ifs"... If this is true then that is true... and if it is true then this... than this... All you have to do is prove one "if" wrong early on, and the entire structure collapses. |
10-24-2008, 09:01 PM | #30 |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 146
|
Re: Zacharia sitchin is not legitimate
I have to agree with shellie. I have not personally studied the language myself for the same reason that there are so many flaws in his logic based on what I have read of his resaerch compared to what I have read from other scholars. though I would still like to learn it for myself eventually when the time grants itself. There's just too many ifs though based on what I have researched, too much possibility think that ignores reality. Many other legit genuine scholars who researched the same sumarian language and tablets all come to the same real tranlsations which don't match Sitchin's at all (Alan Watt has done this himself as well). Sitchin already had his conclusion before researching the information, and tried to spin everything to fit his pre-decided conclusion. There are obvious translations that all other researchers reach, while sitchin literally pulls meanings out of hats to make up his own that works for him and fit. Sitchin's translations not only have been basically completely disproven, but his entire education and scholary career is subject to suspicion as well - Please check out the links I have given through this thread.
|
10-24-2008, 09:28 PM | #31 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Zacharia sitchin is not legitimate
When people donot understand something, they will critize and discredit you!. Case and example with ZSitchin. With all information, you have to research and check it for yourself. I believe in what Sitchin is saying. Now i have a question for you!. Is there any other researchers prior to Sitchin with the same research, insight and info?
|
10-24-2008, 09:53 PM | #32 | |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Blackbutt, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 1,004
|
Re: Zacharia sitchin is not legitimate
Quote:
The first book is based on mythological tales and when it was published, he was of course ridiculed by the scientific community. This community forced his publishers to cease publication of Velikovski's book by threatening to take their (the scientist's) books and pamphlets, to another publisher. As his first book had been criticised by science because it was based on "fairy tales", he chose to write his second book, "Earth in Upheaval", using irrefutable geological evidence of disasters having swept the earth. He brings in the concept of pole shift that also explains some of the "impossible" events reported in the Bible. All in all, I think these two books of Velikovski's would be a worthwhile addition to any "truth seeker's" library. |
|
10-24-2008, 10:40 PM | #33 |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: switzerland
Posts: 455
|
Re: Zacharia sitchin is not legitimate
sitchin`s ideas are great. but the books don`t "resonate" for me just as the "new testament" won`t.
to me this always means, that it is not what the author wanted to publish - it couldn`t be published without "changes". .censorship is everywhere. Last edited by capreycorn; 10-25-2008 at 04:45 AM. |
10-24-2008, 10:40 PM | #34 |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 146
|
Re: Zacharia sitchin is not legitimate
I'll second Worlds in Collision by Immanuel Velikovsky.
But Sitchin is still a phony and his information is still false, and as fictional as it gets. Lots of us have researched it for ourself, and we don't all come to the same conclusions. We must respect other's opinions, not poo-poo them because we don't agree. I understand and respect the position that Sitchin's data is true, I once studied it and believed it. But I also learnt to understand that part of the solution to the mess we are in, is to seperate fact from fiction. Seperate Information from Dis-information. When one seeks the truth, they subejct themselves to all forms of psyhcological warefare and counter-intelligece that are set up to project the real truth, and very few make it through mentally intact. And through my continued research I have identified Sitchin as a psyops. Last edited by Doom; 10-24-2008 at 11:07 PM. |
10-25-2008, 10:42 AM | #35 | |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Istanbul, Turkey
Posts: 100
|
Re: Zacharia sitchin is not legitimate
Quote:
|
|
10-25-2008, 12:41 PM | #36 | |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: SE Coast, US
Posts: 195
|
Re: Zacharia sitchin is not legitimate
This is "wisdom". (imho)
Quote:
Written words will never "prove" anything... Outside a court of law, anyway...and, we're all very aware of the truths spewed and digested in courts every day. (again, my humble opinion) All writing is merely opinion...waiting for approval. |
|
10-25-2008, 01:51 PM | #37 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Zacharia sitchin is not legitimate
[QUOTE=beanny;60553]elka....y dont you each spend 30 years studying the hebrew language and text as did sitchin, of whom it was already his native tongue...b4 you are eligilble to critisize his interpretation?
what was the hebrew background of this other guys that discredit sitchin,? could you have read 2 words from hebrew text and write an entire page on its meaning?...well in hebrew you can... i very true,but even when hebrew is your first language, it does not make you an expert on its meaning. while Nassim has touched something what both miss is knowledge of the first language ,if the first language is known then the structure upon which the letters are placed and spell out the text would be known , and it reveals the laws both of the uni-verse and of man. one more thing that blocks them to find it, is that they all seek conditionally,they are not open enough, the ecept and reject according their own theories. what they should do is to look at other reseach and see what connects instead of seeing what does not. |
10-25-2008, 05:24 PM | #38 |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 30
|
Re: Zacharia sitchin is not legitimate
when watchin david ickes Revelations Of A Mother Goddess, sitchins name came up a few times as an illuminati member quite high up. this was before i had heard of him thru the nibiru thing. i wouldn't pee on him if he was on fire....
he could be telling the truth or telling lies.... whose to know. i personally think nibiru is real and they are probably the blue coloured beings as depicted in indian tales as 'biru' means 'blue' in some s.e.asian languages. just try to find other sources of info rather than that iffy molester of kids! peace KE |
10-25-2008, 10:44 PM | #39 | |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Istanbul, Turkey
Posts: 100
|
Re: Zacharia sitchin is not legitimate
Quote:
Have a look at this: http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=54 |
|
10-27-2008, 07:17 PM | #40 |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 23
|
Re: Zacharia sitchin is not legitimate
You know, I can't say whether Sitchin is disinfo or legit. But I find him and his work very interesting and therefore, I'll read it sometimes. No one should blindly follow anyone. But its important to have info of all kinds out there available to let everyone decide what is for them and not. Since I believe in the ancient astronaut theory, I find his intriguing.
|
10-27-2008, 08:24 PM | #41 | |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Blackbutt, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 1,004
|
Re: Zacharia sitchin is not legitimate
Quote:
Like the scientists many years ago who ridiculed people who claimed that stones had fallen from the sky. "Stones? Falling from the sky? Come on now, what's holding these stones up in the sky? Don't talk such nonsense!" Imagine their shock when a shower of meteorites occured during one of their conferences. I reckon an awful lot of frantic face cleaning went on after that. |
|
10-27-2008, 08:57 PM | #42 | |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 146
|
Re: Zacharia sitchin is not legitimate
Quote:
With comments like this I fear some of us are missing the point of the thread. Sitchin's work hasn't been dismissed or ignored by most of it. It has been thoroughly disporven. (And I don't mean by mainstream debunkers, I mean by truthseekers). Of course we have to keep an "open mind" to things even if they don't fit our concept of reality. (but not too open, because we need to keep our minds guarded, and not open to psyops programming). But keeping that "open mind" doesn't make fantasy real. That doesn't make counter-intelligence that is designed to disable the victim, truth. Idenifying counter-intelligence and seperating fact from fiction is a must in the process of waking up. Step 1 is awareness, but Step 2 is understanding. The understand stage takes the longest, and is often where most people get caught up, and end up chasing their imagination around in circles, because that's where the most counter-intelligence pysops operations are working. Just becoming aware of this "new world order" is not enough, it's very easy to become confused and buy into falsified information when trying to understand and lead off into the wrong direction. We must understand it first to fix it, which leads us Step 3, which is once we understand, then action can be taken, in whatever form it needs to be taken - and it will be self evident at that point what that is - whether it be waking others up, or whatever. Last edited by Doom; 10-27-2008 at 09:45 PM. |
|
10-28-2008, 12:22 AM | #43 |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 23
|
Re: Zacharia sitchin is not legitimate
There are truthseekers of all kinds and they often disagree with each other. Who's to say one is right or the other wrong? People can have a different interpretation of the same data.
Red flags go up when one person is saying they have the answers. What I respect is people like David Icke who say, ok here is some information I have to share with you, now it is up to you to decide if it's for you or not. Project Camelot is like that. They don't claim to have the answers, they're just trying to share the enormous wealth of ideas with the masses. Is all of their info correct? I would be suspicious if anyone claimed it was. It is up to each individual to take what works for them and discard the rest. We can even learn from "disinfo." |
10-28-2008, 04:34 AM | #44 | |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 146
|
Re: Zacharia sitchin is not legitimate
Quote:
Many things can be proven - just because things can be interpreted differently, doesn't make all those interpretations correct. People can agree to disagree, but that still doesn't make fantasy truth. And when you look to the origins of a lot of this information(such as sitchins), it is not factual and was purposely designed, put out, and pushed, to mislead the public. It also makes truth associated with fiction, so that when you try and communicate to others about truth, right away they think of all the fictional lies attatched to the term "conspiracy" like reptilians. You see, it discredits the truth when it is assoiciated with fiction. We as truthseekers, must work together, to expose the counter-intelligence, because we are losing many minds to it, that think they are waking up. We still have a good chance to save those minds since they were at least willing to have the courage to not to go along with the normals. also, I must comment that you must be very careful with David Icke ( http://www.projectavalon.net/forum/s...9&postcount=19 ), he puts out a lot of truth to suck you in, but then spins it into outerspace with fiction and new age philosophy. Whether he does it on purpose or is just mislead himself is another question(i would suggest a little of both), but please, all I am asking really is for people to at least look into the some of the information and links I have provided on the new age and counter-intelligence. AS well, I'm not saying to not look into David Icke's information, but at least get all sides of the story. I feel the same about project camelot. I don't doubt that Kerry and Bill might be genuine, but that doesn't validate their information, or their sources' information. Most people in this "truth movement" are eating everything up that's put out there without relizing that some of the information out there that is supposedly freeing them is just trapping them into a another cage. In fact there is an entire conspiracy culture, put out there by the establishment, created from the top down, for the prupose of discrediting the real truth. Be aware. Last edited by Doom; 10-28-2008 at 05:05 AM. |
|
10-28-2008, 08:01 AM | #45 | |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Istanbul, Turkey
Posts: 100
|
Re: Zacharia sitchin is not legitimate
Quote:
Project Camelot are just two people who interview whistle-blowers or am I getting something wrong here. I mean I have heard tons of bs. from some whistle-blowers (mostly regarding Planet X and Sitchin) but I didn't judge Project Camelot for these testimonials as I have not judged David Icke for Arizona Wilder and Credo Mutwa (not that I am claiming they are bs. but they can't put proof on the table like Cathy O'Brien which would be a good candidate to interview by the way). --Rant-- The main thing here that creates problems is, people like to "give their back to someone with full power of their trust" and "people tend to like to get hung up upon those people and the belief associated with them even if they are proven wrong in some aspect". These aspects make it impossible for finding truth especially if you are debating with guys that say "o.k. that is your truth and this is mine". I mean I read such sentences over and over and it still makes me very sad. It just reeks of programming. Even though we don't know much and we can only perceive 0.05% or something of the universe through our eyes there still is much fact to prove something to go around. There are definite truths people which are embedded in many things from ancient religion to modern disinfo agents. We have to filter it from these sources and at least pick up a damn book to try to prove the claims made by any one of them. Well enough ranting. You've got my point. --Rant Over-- The conspiracy culture is definitely an important subject since we are getting to become a new society almost with all this ground crew and project venus going (not that I want to be in any one of those societies besides for debating). I think that most people who think they are "awakened" will just jump at the idea of "a solution" which is of the "problem-reaction-solution" cycle that David Icke likes to talk about very much. These in effect will create a new post-industrialization mass who this time are not for nationalization but globalization disguised under the new age and projects like the venus project who both boil down to the Georgia Guide Stones and of course the mystery religions. |
|
10-28-2008, 06:23 PM | #46 | |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 146
|
Re: Zacharia sitchin is not legitimate
Quote:
I don't want to argue back and forth about them, since I have already provided information that opens doors to show how these projects/researchers are counter-intellgence. But I'll just leave it with that as to not argue about specifics. We'll have to agree to disagree for the time being. My point is to just make sure we research both sides of the story, just because the people leading these projects, etc, may be genuine, but that does not validate the information. I'm not saying it isn't possible that some of the information is true, but when you look deeper into the origins of the information, and conspiracy culture creation from the establishment, questions have to be raised. They mix truth with fiction and push it so that people discredit the truth - and some of these projects/researchers, genuine or not, have bought into a lot of it - and have effectively become tools for the establishment, by disabling the minds of the victim by spinning the truth into outterspace. If you research some of the links I have provided throughout the thread, it should at least open some doors to the reptilian, and alien dis-info. I never said Icke started the reptilian information or was the only one. He is just a superstar who champions it. It is an establishment created culture, well funded. Even in the middle ages they used the same techniques to do with making the public believe in reptilian/demon creatures. You can read about all of this and more if you take the time to do research on the new age religions and culture creations involving cia,mi5,mi6, crowley, blavatsky, etc. Like I said before I have provided links that will at least get one started on some of this info. Last edited by Doom; 10-28-2008 at 07:13 PM. |
|
10-28-2008, 07:00 PM | #47 |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 15
|
Re: Zacharia sitchin is not legitimate
ZS is a pioneer. He was one of the first to get this ball rolling 30 years ago. He is not disinfo - if anything he may be off on a few points but he himself believes and stands behind his work. Read through the guy's credentials.
At the very least he has done so much to open the minds of humanity greatly. I believe his basic premise: earth history is riddled with ET (if you can call them that) involvement. Is EVERY detail correct?... probably not but give the guy a break... |
10-29-2008, 01:01 AM | #48 | |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: New Castle, Delaware
Posts: 80
|
Re: Zacharia sitchin is not legitimate
Quote:
I want to hear more! |
|
10-29-2008, 09:44 AM | #49 | |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Istanbul, Turkey
Posts: 100
|
Re: Zacharia sitchin is not legitimate
Quote:
Take Care |
|
10-29-2008, 05:42 PM | #50 |
Avalon Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Now
Posts: 371
|
Re: Zacharia sitchin is not legitimate
you know
we, most of us know jack **** at BEST we have fragments of information here and there gathered over years of toil and a constant change in what we see as right or wrong we weave them in to black and white realities that we can accept and be comfortable with now I dont know about you, but when a deep insider comes out with earth shattering info like this (yes I too discounted Sitchin as "the enemy" and you will see this in my previous posts) I tend to start questioning everything I know and begin research again to try and discern the information for myself this is new information someone is telling you, I suggest digesting it because ignoring it or just turning it off will do nothing to increase your knowledge base as it will only breed info stagnation IMHO it would not be prudent to discount something outright based on assumption and conjecture, especially someone else's work from a website, who could be just as corrupt as you suspect Sitchin to be I am aware of Arizona Wilder and have taken it into account and there are many possibilities to why she saw what she saw (IF she saw...corruption could be anywhere) let your knowledge evolve and don't shut out new info to only preserve the old where would you be now if you had been constantly rejecting new info? BTW I have no idea if he is right or wrong so I am not selling anything Yet I do realize I am an armchair researcher with no ties to any black world or privy to insider info, and when someone with clout and a background to know such things comes out and informs me of something I had once discounted... I will not accept it because they told me so but I also will not discount it because someone else told me so think for yourself in any case, a wise person in this site mentioned on another thread: what may be garbage or disinfo for you could be a catalyst for an awakening for another none of you have proof either way are you here to learn information or just to blindly judge it? |
|
|