quote:
Originally posted by truthlover
Personally, I thought the Sitchin books were some of the most interesting books I ever read. Totally cool.
Now, if the science just worked....
I agree 100%, truthlover, it was an appealing theory. I first became interested because, if it could be supported, it would provide some tremendous answers to many of the various artifacts (not physical artifacts) found in our religious rituals. In short, we would basically be a modern day "cargo cult".
Unfortunately,(much as I "wanted to believe"), the support just isn't there. I don't read cuneiform, but I can follow the arguments of those who (really) do. Sitchin has been shown to be wildly speculative (and downright wrong) more often than not. In addition, much of his speculation derives from a highly subjective interpretation of graphic reliefs, which amounts to little more than an ancient version of the Thematic Apperception Test, in which the respondent is asked to look at "still life" drawings of people in various settings and make up a story surrounding it.
Too bad, really, it was fun while it lasted.
Amlodhi
[This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 03-14-2004]
™ Version 4.2