Sacred Geometry

[Jon Miller]

A guilty pleasure of mine is reading about ancient astronaughts and the like.

Next on my list to read about is Kumari Kandam. Here is the wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumari_Kandam.

JM

[Geronimo]

I want the truth... and I can handle it

I dont know what discoveries arose from his work, the people making discoveries who are familiar with him may not credit him or the Sumerians. Thats kinda why we see Greeks getting credit for knowledge they got from earlier civilizations. But I can make a short list of 'his predictions'.

What does it mean to "want the truth" in the context of Sitchins ideas? Why would Sitchin be expected be better able to identify the truth than any of his detractors? He claims to have translated ancient writings and nearly all of his original ideas relate to translations that nobody else supports. Is that how you'd expect the truth to find its way to us? Is it possible that rather than wanting the truth you want you have to be true? The truth can be boring. Can you honestly say that you want boring truth Berz? I think actually that if there are any people that can't "handle" the truth it's going to be the people who can't accept that boring version of the truth could be all there is.

1) This world was covered by water before land and life - there was no Hadean Eon
2) This world's water did not form here, he identified the Sun and asteroid belt and he was right on both counts
3) Massive collisions about 4 bya created plate tectonics and life and the Moon has scars from the battle
4) Pluto orbited Saturn
5) Uranus suffered a major disruption lol
6) The solar system is tilted and they think planet 9 is the reason
7) Sitchin said it has a retrograde inclined orbit
8) Planet 9 has an inclined orbit according to researchers (~30 degrees?)
9) Sitchin identified a small number of sources for the asteroid belt
so much more... my god

1. Saying there was no Hadean is not a prediction. It's probably not even falsifiable. In any event if there was a collision that created the moon then for certain there was a hadean and for certain there was an ocean-less earth associated with that hadean for at least a geologically short time. There is no way to make that a low energy event.

2. This world's water continues to form here and be released in vulcanism so he was wrong. How did he say he "discovered" that this world's water came from the Sun and the asteroid belt? How is that corroborated and what would have conceivably constituted falsification of that observation?

3. This is incredibly vague. Plate tectonics and life may have preceded the Theia collision or may have greatly lagged it. The evidence is very thin. The Moon is definitely not thought to have scars from the battle because all modern theories require re-accretion of the moon post impact.

4. Pluto orbited Saturn is falsifiable how exactly?

5. When have astronomers not presumed a massive formational event as at least one plausible explanation of its extreme tilt? Such talk definitely predates Sitchin.

6. The solar system ecliptic may have a tilt associated with a planet 9 but what is Sitchin's specific prediction and how would it be falsifiable?

7. What lines of evidence did Sitchin give for predicting it has a retrograde tilted orbit and how would that be falsifiable?

8. Researchers constrained the properties of the orbital characteristics of a possible 9th retrograde tilted planet but where did they leave room for it to have any of the history described by Sitchin? Does anybody at all allow the possibility of several planetary collisions involving such a planet in the solar system's evolution which would be consistent with observations and Sitchins huge narrative text?

9. So what if Sitchin identified a small number of sources for the asteroid belt? How is that falsifiable?

If there are so many more examples of Sitchin successfully predicting observations please do continue to list them. He'll need all the help he can get in the face of the extremely long list of observations required by his ideas which are already determined to be demonstrably false.

[pchang]

Wow. You have Wayyy more patience than I do.

[Berzerker]

MIT rocket scientists with little patience... sounds like a Challenge

[Geronimo]

Why would the ancient Sumerians be told anything about astronomy whatsoever by the alien civilizations let alone natural history from hundreds of millions of years prior? Ancient Sumerian writers were recording the isotopic origins of earth's hydrogen as related to them by one or more ancient alien civilizations and expressing it as from the asteroid belt or the Sun? Why? Somehow setting aside how implausible it all is for a moment, why would the aliens tell the primitive humans any of this and how would the ancient humans understand it and what use would there be in recording any of it except as religious revelation. If it was recorded as religious revelation why would the ancient civilizations see any point in.revealing any of it?

The entire thing makes no sense on any level Berz.

And that's before we look at any of the physical evidence that is totally incompatible with it all

[Berzerker]

What does it mean to "want the truth" in the context of Sitchins ideas? Why would Sitchin be expected be better able to identify the truth than any of his detractors? He claims to have translated ancient writings and nearly all of his original ideas relate to translations that nobody else supports. Is that how you'd expect the truth to find its way to us? Is it possible that rather than wanting the truth you want you have to be true? The truth can be boring. Can you honestly say that you want boring truth Berz? I think actually that if there are any people that can't "handle" the truth it's going to be the people who can't accept that boring version of the truth could be all there is.

You asked me why I wanted to believe Sitchin was partially right, he is. I dont want anything other than the truth. I do want to know what he got right or wrong but so far I haven't seen his critics produce anything relevant to the main theory. Where is his detractors' translation of the Enuma Elish offered as a rebuttal? The translations (including Genesis) he's using were handed down from long ago by the people recording the stories and more recently by 19th century scholars who rediscovered ancient libraries. His translating is limited more to exploring possible translations for terms that have multiple meanings that depend on context.

For example, the Tower of Babel story claims the people were building a 'shem' to reach God's heavenly abode and this shem required a tower. The common translation for shem is name, the people were making a name for themselves to reach heaven. Sitchin thinks the shem was a rocket and it appears on a coin from Byblos inside a walled enclosure. People can disagree about that, but these ancient peoples recording these stories sure as hell believed in beings from the sky. A world of people over eons all believing the same thing and you think they're full of it? I've read the Enuma Elish, he just interprets the story as a cosmological metaphor describing creation and his critics can speak for themselves. So we can test that theory.

1. Saying there was no Hadean is not a prediction. It's probably not even falsifiable. In any event if there was a collision that created the moon then for certain there was a hadean and for certain there was an ocean-less earth associated with that hadean for at least a geologically short time. There is no way to make that a low energy event.

2. This world's water continues to form here and be released in vulcanism so he was wrong. How did he say he "discovered" that this world's water came from the Sun and the asteroid belt? How is that corroborated and what would have conceivably constituted falsification of that observation?

3. This is incredibly vague. Plate tectonics and life may have preceded the Theia collision or may have greatly lagged it. The evidence is very thin. The Moon is definitely not thought to have scars from the battle because all modern theories require re-accretion of the moon post impact.

4. Pluto orbited Saturn is falsifiable how exactly?

5. When have astronomers not presumed a massive formational event as at least one plausible explanation of its extreme tilt? Such talk definitely predates Sitchin.

6. The solar system ecliptic may have a tilt associated with a planet 9 but what is Sitchin's specific prediction and how would it be falsifiable?

7. What lines of evidence did Sitchin give for predicting it has a retrograde tilted orbit and how would that be falsifiable?

8. Researchers constrained the properties of the orbital characteristics of a possible 9th retrograde tilted planet but where did they leave room for it to have any of the history described by Sitchin? Does anybody at all allow the possibility of several planetary collisions involving such a planet in the solar system's evolution which would be consistent with observations and Sitchins huge narrative text?

9. So what if Sitchin identified a small number of sources for the asteroid belt? How is that falsifiable?

If there are so many more examples of Sitchin successfully predicting observations please do continue to list them. He'll need all the help he can get in the face of the extremely long list of observations required by his ideas which are already determined to be demonstrably false.

1 The Hadean is a period from 4.6-4 bya when the surface of the Earth was molten, too hot for a solid crust much less water. This theory explained why rocks predating 4 byo were so rare or non-existent at the time. Thats what we were taught in school when Sitchin was claiming the world was covered by water and the crust was torn off by collisions about 4 bya. He was right, the experts were wrong. We dont know much about the conditions when Theia supposedly hit the proto-Earth to form the Moon. The oldest mineral evidence we have of the Earth's surface shows water at ~4.4 bya, so unless Theia was bringing water to the fight the Earth already had it... Lots of it. You're still buying into the Hadean fiction.

2 Our water didn't form here, the water spouting out of volcanoes formed elsewhere. He discovered where our water came from based on his interpretation of the Enuma Elish, the Sun (Abzu) was the freshwater and it mixed with Tiamat's saltwater. Tiamat had 3 planetary gods between it and the Sun, that places it beyond Mars at the snow line with 2 pairs of planets and Pluto further out. Look at the row of celestial sheep at 9 Mile Canyon



The horned figure is Tiamat and the hunter lower and right is Marduk

A recent study analyzing Earth's water found 2 main sources, the sun and the snow line (asteroid belt). Now ofc Sitchin would give credit to these ancient peoples and their gods for the knowledge

3 We dont have evidence of plate tectonics or life before or soon after the Theia impact, ​The Moon's scars came from the late heavy bombardment about 4 bya, this is when researchers believe the Moon acquired its slightly tilted orbit from interactions with Earth's impactors. Thats another claim Sitchin got right.

4 Who said it was? Sitchin predicted Pluto orbited Saturn, why couldn't that be proven false?

5 Sitchin's claim about Uranus is based on ancient texts and he said the disruption came after the planet formed, it did. Uranus was not tilted on its side as a baby embryo of a planet, something knocked it on its side after it was a gas giant.

6 Why do you keep asking me about what is falsifiable? Sitchin predicted a 9th planet on an inclined orbit would be found responsible for the solar system's tilt. Now the researchers looking for planet 9 think its inclined orbit has tilted the solar system. Sitchin was claiming that 50 years ago.

7 Retrograde comets and related features like Titan (Neptune's moon), the Enuma Elish says Marduk cast his net wide to catch Tiamat's army while dispersing the rest. Retrograde comets are evidence of a retrograde shepherd.

8 Researchers upgrade their parameters, they've already done it at least once with planet 9 - they shrank both its mass and orbit. Whatever it is though will require another upgrade because it has to be big enough and close enough to move Jupiter off the Sun's equatorial plane.

9 The Enuma Elish describes a celestial battle between Tiamat and her forces led by Kingu (Moon) and Marduk armed with 7 'winds', 4 being produced by an interaction with Uranus. We can test that by identifying how many parent bodies produced the asteroid belt.

[Stantroll]

Spoiler:

[BeBMan]

Surely them Mayans have an age-old prophecy predicting that Trump would end up in court

[pchang]

I saw it in the Necronomicon.

[Berzerker]

they were late by a decade, 2012 was the end of their age or something to that effect

[N35t0r]

That was just a scribe with dyslexia, they meant 2021.

[Geronimo]

You asked me why I wanted to believe Sitchin was partially right, he is. I dont want anything other than the truth. I do want to know what he got right or wrong but so far I haven't seen his critics produce anything relevant to the main theory. Where is his detractors' translation of the Enuma Elish offered as a rebuttal? The translations (including Genesis) he's using were handed down from long ago by the people recording the stories and more recently by 19th century scholars who rediscovered ancient libraries. His translating is limited more to exploring possible translations for terms that have multiple meanings that depend on context.

For example, the Tower of Babel story claims the people were building a 'shem' to reach God's heavenly abode and this shem required a tower. The common translation for shem is name, the people were making a name for themselves to reach heaven. Sitchin thinks the shem was a rocket and it appears on a coin from Byblos inside a walled enclosure. People can disagree about that, but these ancient peoples recording these stories sure as hell believed in beings from the sky. A world of people over eons all believing the same thing and you think they're full of it? I've read the Enuma Elish, he just interprets the story as a cosmological metaphor describing creation and his critics can speak for themselves. So we can test that theory.



1 The Hadean is a period from 4.6-4 bya when the surface of the Earth was molten, too hot for a solid crust much less water. This theory explained why rocks predating 4 byo were so rare or non-existent at the time. Thats what we were taught in school when Sitchin was claiming the world was covered by water and the crust was torn off by collisions about 4 bya. He was right, the experts were wrong. We dont know much about the conditions when Theia supposedly hit the proto-Earth to form the Moon. The oldest mineral evidence we have of the Earth's surface shows water at ~4.4 bya, so unless Theia was bringing water to the fight the Earth already had it... Lots of it. You're still buying into the Hadean fiction.

2 Our water didn't form here, the water spouting out of volcanoes formed elsewhere. He discovered where our water came from based on his interpretation of the Enuma Elish, the Sun (Abzu) was the freshwater and it mixed with Tiamat's saltwater. Tiamat had 3 planetary gods between it and the Sun, that places it beyond Mars at the snow line with 2 pairs of planets and Pluto further out. Look at the row of celestial sheep at 9 Mile Canyon



The horned figure is Tiamat and the hunter lower and right is Marduk

A recent study analyzing Earth's water found 2 main sources, the sun and the snow line (asteroid belt). Now ofc Sitchin would give credit to these ancient peoples and their gods for the knowledge

3 We dont have evidence of plate tectonics or life before or soon after the Theia impact, ​The Moon's scars came from the late heavy bombardment about 4 bya, this is when researchers believe the Moon acquired its slightly tilted orbit from interactions with Earth's impactors. Thats another claim Sitchin got right.

4 Who said it was? Sitchin predicted Pluto orbited Saturn, why couldn't that be proven false?

5 Sitchin's claim about Uranus is based on ancient texts and he said the disruption came after the planet formed, it did. Uranus was not tilted on its side as a baby embryo of a planet, something knocked it on its side after it was a gas giant.

6 Why do you keep asking me about what is falsifiable? Sitchin predicted a 9th planet on an inclined orbit would be found responsible for the solar system's tilt. Now the researchers looking for planet 9 think its inclined orbit has tilted the solar system. Sitchin was claiming that 50 years ago.

7 Retrograde comets and related features like Titan (Neptune's moon), the Enuma Elish says Marduk cast his net wide to catch Tiamat's army while dispersing the rest. Retrograde comets are evidence of a retrograde shepherd.

8 Researchers upgrade their parameters, they've already done it at least once with planet 9 - they shrank both its mass and orbit. Whatever it is though will require another upgrade because it has to be big enough and close enough to move Jupiter off the Sun's equatorial plane.

9 The Enuma Elish describes a celestial battle between Tiamat and her forces led by Kingu (Moon) and Marduk armed with 7 'winds', 4 being produced by an interaction with Uranus. We can test that by identifying how many parent bodies produced the asteroid belt.

Unlike your anti-vax posts or your anti-Ukraine posts I don't really see any issue with posting Sitchin's goofy ideas so it's much harder to stay engaged on this topic. My apologies.. Generally ancient people's believed that powerful creatures came from within the earth, from the seas or from the Sky. Where else would they claim they came from? Parallel universes? A few actually claimed that as well. Ancient people claimed they came from everywhere Berz. There is no ancient consensus that Gods came as travelers in rocket ships from the sky. There is no ancient consensus about the gods whatsoever at all. Instead they recorded stuff that was relevant to to their religions, Sitchin cherry picks interpretations that he can relate to what might be allowed by his contemporary state of scientific knowledge and then old Sitchin and later his fans and apologists start cherry picking and reinterpreting those ideas to fit later observations that they rhyme with.. There's nothing remotely impressive to see here.

If ancient people were really telling us about space visitors what is the knowledge that Sitchin is claiming they received from the ancient visitors? if we look and say "wow! this and that modern astronomical observation, could be being referenced in Sitchin's translations of ancient writings!" Why would the aliens pass along such observations to ancient earthlings? Does it make any sense at all that they would tell ancient people about the evolution of the solar system from billions of years in the past, let alone that the ancient human writers would understand it and record the important details in recognizable form? Wouldn't it be easier to pick the ancient writings that you could fit to your ideas and make them fit?

1. we still know so little about the Hadean as to make Sitchin's ideas in this regard meaningless. If Sitchin says the ancients wrote that the Earth's crust was "torn off" after having been covered by water that doesn't help establish credentials for him in any way. Certainly there will be little prospect to falsify an almost infitnite spectrum of Sitchin apologist "interpretations" of Sitchin's ideas to fit whatever evidence is available at any time. You do realize that the vast majority of minerals that are diagnostic for the presence of water do not require more than shallowest superficial contact to form? If there were no evidence of water minerals predating both the moon formation and the requisite (possible relatively brief) neo-Hadean that would follow it Sitchin and friends would just say the evidence was "torn off. You are being fooled into thinking that new evidence being consistent with Sitchin's ideas would be unlikely if they were semi-random BS vaguely tailored to fit available early 20th century astronomy knowledge. On the contrary there would be every reason to expect more details found to support some portions of his ideas. The fact is there is almost nothing that could be found that could directly falsify them. That is by design Berz.

2. the origin of the water is not a settled issue. You claim the water that comes from volcanism on earth didn't come from earth but in fact came from a combination of solar wind and the inner solar system (asteroid belt) as determined by a recent study. Furthermore you offer Sitchin's interpretation of the Enuma Elish which you posted above that claims that the fresh water reached us from the sun and the saltwater came from Tiamat. Nothing about any scientific publication has the tiniest resemblance to the this. The saltwater in the seas could not possibly be from one set of bolides while freshwater came from the solar wind. Freshwater entirely comes from saltwater via precipitation. Why would the ancients be writing about hydrogen isotope variation between salt and freshwater and relating it to alien stories about the evolution of our solar system? it's total nonsense. It would be more believable to suggest that aliens told them about earth's hydrological cycle and they understood them to mean that the sun made freshwater and the earth or some other god made saltwater. Of course it would be most believable of all that writers of Enuma Elish were totally clueless about solar system evolution, let alone hydrogen isotopic variation and were writing religious texts to support their religious revelations. It is totally sad that you can read that and believe a study in 2020 about hydrogen isotopic variation on earth supports let alone proves Sitchin's solar system evolution ideas somehow

3. How could Sitchin get that wrong? Conventional wisdom is that final tilts in an evolving solar system mostly reflect the net contributions of the latest substantial impacts. Physics also requires any impact consistent with bolide impact formation of Earth's moon will totally resurface the entire terrestrial system and require a Hadean of at least short duration to follow it. How does this grant any credibility to Sitchin?

4. Because there are almost an infinite number of states that could involve Pluto having been an escaped satellite of a gas giant that could have an evolutionary path that leads to the current state of the solar system. It is certainly true that modern observations make Pluto having been a satellite of any of the gas giants very unlikely but that will never convince Sitchin fans because they will latch onto those outlandish scenarios as leaving Sitchins ideas as viable. We already know Pluto (and all of the Plutinos) looks like a Kuiper belt object with an orbit that leaves very evolution from any of the gas giant orbits as extremely unlikely. Instead of seeing that as evidence that Sitchin's ideas were wrong you invoke pluto as evidence that Sitchin's description of Pluto as a former satellite of Saturn is viable.

5. total straw man. Nobody is saying Uranus was tilted early in it's evolution. Everybody has always been saying Uranus must've had an interesting history to have its enormous tilt and that like any body in the solar system later impacts would have a disproportionate influence on its current disposition. Sitchin knew all of this and writes an interesting history for Uranus based on ancient writings and you invoke that as having somehow lent more credibility to his writings?

6. Because if something isn't falsifiable it isn't science and it's also not going to be disproven and it becomes especially ridiculous to marvel at how it hasn't been disproven.

7. It looks like if the Enuma Elish intended to accurately describe the evolution of the solar system they spectacularly failed and had now clue what they were talking about because it turns out that it is physically impossible for any of the bodies or collections of bodies to figuratively or literally speaking cast any kind of net wide or narrow that would catch or disperse a large army of bodies. gravitational interactions could capture or disperse other bodies but those interactions will not bear the slightest resemblance to a net and a "net" would be a totally worthless description of those interactions. If there is a massive retrograde body to be discovered in our solar system nothing that you have posted about Marduk casting a wide net to capture or disperse Tiamat's army would predict that. It may explain some retrograde comets but the Oort cloud with it's semi random velocity distributions, a large fraction of ordinary interactions with prograde objects in the solar system and probably about 50% of any interstellar captured bodies could all evolve to the retrograde orbits that are observed. So no Berz, retrograde orbits do not predict a large retrograde planet. If you see a study that you think is saying this they are probably saying that analysis of a particular set of retrograde orbits can be found to be consistent with the presence within the solar system of a particular retrograde planet but that would do nothing to lend credibility to Sitchin's translations or interpretations.

8. The grand tack hypothesis has never required any body other than Saturn to explain current observations. Even if there is an undiscovered retrograde planet it will not be necessary to explain Jupiter's migration.

9. It looks like as with respect to our best ideas about solar system evolution that once again the Enuma Elish if full of BS. In no way would any scenario of solar system evolution resemble any kind of "battle" - not even metaphorically- between the earth's Moon and whomever we decide that Marduk is supposed to be.

Berz it looks to me like you have no intention of using any kind of critical thinking to evaluate any of this.

Ironically of everybody in this forum you may be the most incapable of "handling the truth" in that it's quite obvious that you need whatever the truth is to include some kind of revelation by a marginalized visionary which can only be appreciated by those bold enough to accept its revolutionary findings in face of unimaginative, cowardly or vested powers that control the narrative of the status quo.

Whatever will keep you supporting Sitchin, genuine passion for any philosophy designed to arrive at the truth will be no part of it.

[ZEE]

There are 3 kinds of people in this world:

1)Those who don't know what is happening.
2)Those who KNOW what is happening.
3)People like me, who MAKE things happen.

Until Berz goes from 2 to 3, all his posts about the Anunnaki will grant a chuckle and an eyeroll. You search for the truth, but really do not understand the question.

[Berzerker]

Unlike your anti-vax posts or your anti-Ukraine posts I don't really see any issue with posting Sitchin's goofy ideas so it's much harder to stay engaged on this topic. My apologies..

I got the vaccine twice

But here's a video of a vaccine expert who wont be getting boosters until he sees data on efficacy (he will do his own research) because he feels having gotten Covid in spite of the vaccine is good enough, something about natural immunity yada yada... Thing is though, back in the day this guy was telling us we had no right to say 'no thank you' as millions were facing job loss and homelessness because of the panic he helped create.

Democrats and Republicans have spent a decade destroying Ukraine for profit, thats why they dont want us watching where our taxes are going. Do you want Azov in control of the people they've been fighting for 10 years? That is the result of a "Ukrainian victory"... Nazis ruling their victims. Yes yes, not everyone is a Nazi. Who was the muscle in 2014? Who took Mariupol? Where were these 'moderate Ukrainians' when protesters across the country were attacked after the coup? They kept quiet just like the politicians. I'm not pro-Nazi and I dont see anyway around that label if I'm arming them. How did "pro-Ukraine" come to mean arming a fanatical few to wage a proxy war a large majority of Ukrainians oppose?

It would be different if the people of the Donbas embraced Azov and joined them in defense when the Russians entered in 2014-15. But that didn't happen, Washington sent a Nazi army to attack them cuz of Marcia. The Donbas should govern the Donbas, not Kiev, not Moscow, and not the neocon ghouls in Washington. I dont think its a coincidence these people have been arming Nazis and Islamic terrorists. That takes a pathological detachment from the people suffering as a result. Otoh, using younger radicalized men to wage wars on our 'enemies' kills two birds with one stone, sure cant convince Americans to send their kids to Ukraine... yet.

https://youtu.be/IRyeDeQ6_1g

hmm... from demanding we get vaccinated to vaccine 'skeptic'.

Generally ancient people's believed that powerful creatures came from within the earth, from the seas or from the Sky. Where else would they claim they came from? Parallel universes? A few actually claimed that as well. Ancient people claimed they came from everywhere Berz. There is no ancient consensus that Gods came as travelers in rocket ships from the sky. There is no ancient consensus about the gods whatsoever at all. Instead they recorded stuff that was relevant to to their religions, Sitchin cherry picks interpretations that he can relate to what might be allowed by his contemporary state of scientific knowledge and then old Sitchin and later his fans and apologists start cherry picking and reinterpreting those ideas to fit later observations that they rhyme with.. There's nothing remotely impressive to see here.

If ancient people were really telling us about space visitors what is the knowledge that Sitchin is claiming they received from the ancient visitors? if we look and say "wow! this and that modern astronomical observation, could be being referenced in Sitchin's translations of ancient writings!" Why would the aliens pass along such observations to ancient earthlings? Does it make any sense at all that they would tell ancient people about the evolution of the solar system from billions of years in the past, let alone that the ancient human writers would understand it and record the important details in recognizable form? Wouldn't it be easier to pick the ancient writings that you could fit to your ideas and make them fit?

1. we still know so little about the Hadean as to make Sitchin's ideas in this regard meaningless. If Sitchin says the ancients wrote that the Earth's crust was "torn off" after having been covered by water that doesn't help establish credentials for him in any way. Certainly there will be little prospect to falsify an almost infitnite spectrum of Sitchin apologist "interpretations" of Sitchin's ideas to fit whatever evidence is available at any time. You do realize that the vast majority of minerals that are diagnostic for the presence of water do not require more than shallowest superficial contact to form? If there were no evidence of water minerals predating both the moon formation and the requisite (possible relatively brief) neo-Hadean that would follow it Sitchin and friends would just say the evidence was "torn off. You are being fooled into thinking that new evidence being consistent with Sitchin's ideas would be unlikely if they were semi-random BS vaguely tailored to fit available early 20th century astronomy knowledge. On the contrary there would be every reason to expect more details found to support some portions of his ideas. The fact is there is almost nothing that could be found that could directly falsify them. That is by design Berz.

2. the origin of the water is not a settled issue. You claim the water that comes from volcanism on earth didn't come from earth but in fact came from a combination of solar wind and the inner solar system (asteroid belt) as determined by a recent study. Furthermore you offer Sitchin's interpretation of the Enuma Elish which you posted above that claims that the fresh water reached us from the sun and the saltwater came from Tiamat. Nothing about any scientific publication has the tiniest resemblance to the this. The saltwater in the seas could not possibly be from one set of bolides while freshwater came from the solar wind. Freshwater entirely comes from saltwater via precipitation. Why would the ancients be writing about hydrogen isotope variation between salt and freshwater and relating it to alien stories about the evolution of our solar system? it's total nonsense. It would be more believable to suggest that aliens told them about earth's hydrological cycle and they understood them to mean that the sun made freshwater and the earth or some other god made saltwater. Of course it would be most believable of all that writers of Enuma Elish were totally clueless about solar system evolution, let alone hydrogen isotopic variation and were writing religious texts to support their religious revelations. It is totally sad that you can read that and believe a study in 2020 about hydrogen isotopic variation on earth supports let alone proves Sitchin's solar system evolution ideas somehow

3. How could Sitchin get that wrong? Conventional wisdom is that final tilts in an evolving solar system mostly reflect the net contributions of the latest substantial impacts. Physics also requires any impact consistent with bolide impact formation of Earth's moon will totally resurface the entire terrestrial system and require a Hadean of at least short duration to follow it. How does this grant any credibility to Sitchin?

4. Because there are almost an infinite number of states that could involve Pluto having been an escaped satellite of a gas giant that could have an evolutionary path that leads to the current state of the solar system. It is certainly true that modern observations make Pluto having been a satellite of any of the gas giants very unlikely but that will never convince Sitchin fans because they will latch onto those outlandish scenarios as leaving Sitchins ideas as viable. We already know Pluto (and all of the Plutinos) looks like a Kuiper belt object with an orbit that leaves very evolution from any of the gas giant orbits as extremely unlikely. Instead of seeing that as evidence that Sitchin's ideas were wrong you invoke pluto as evidence that Sitchin's description of Pluto as a former satellite of Saturn is viable.

5. total straw man. Nobody is saying Uranus was tilted early in it's evolution. Everybody has always been saying Uranus must've had an interesting history to have its enormous tilt and that like any body in the solar system later impacts would have a disproportionate influence on its current disposition. Sitchin knew all of this and writes an interesting history for Uranus based on ancient writings and you invoke that as having somehow lent more credibility to his writings?

6. Because if something isn't falsifiable it isn't science and it's also not going to be disproven and it becomes especially ridiculous to marvel at how it hasn't been disproven.

7. It looks like if the Enuma Elish intended to accurately describe the evolution of the solar system they spectacularly failed and had now clue what they were talking about because it turns out that it is physically impossible for any of the bodies or collections of bodies to figuratively or literally speaking cast any kind of net wide or narrow that would catch or disperse a large army of bodies. gravitational interactions could capture or disperse other bodies but those interactions will not bear the slightest resemblance to a net and a "net" would be a totally worthless description of those interactions. If there is a massive retrograde body to be discovered in our solar system nothing that you have posted about Marduk casting a wide net to capture or disperse Tiamat's army would predict that. It may explain some retrograde comets but the Oort cloud with it's semi random velocity distributions, a large fraction of ordinary interactions with prograde objects in the solar system and probably about 50% of any interstellar captured bodies could all evolve to the retrograde orbits that are observed. So no Berz, retrograde orbits do not predict a large retrograde planet. If you see a study that you think is saying this they are probably saying that analysis of a particular set of retrograde orbits can be found to be consistent with the presence within the solar system of a particular retrograde planet but that would do nothing to lend credibility to Sitchin's translations or interpretations.

8. The grand tack hypothesis has never required any body other than Saturn to explain current observations. Even if there is an undiscovered retrograde planet it will not be necessary to explain Jupiter's migration.

9. It looks like as with respect to our best ideas about solar system evolution that once again the Enuma Elish if full of BS. In no way would any scenario of solar system evolution resemble any kind of "battle" - not even metaphorically- between the earth's Moon and whomever we decide that Marduk is supposed to be.

Berz it looks to me like you have no intention of using any kind of critical thinking to evaluate any of this.

Ironically of everybody in this forum you may be the most incapable of "handling the truth" in that it's quite obvious that you need whatever the truth is to include some kind of revelation by a marginalized visionary which can only be appreciated by those bold enough to accept its revolutionary findings in face of unimaginative, cowardly or vested powers that control the narrative of the status quo.

Whatever will keep you supporting Sitchin, genuine passion for any philosophy designed to arrive at the truth will be no part of it.

Every culture has a belief in people from the sky, the particulars of how these beings travel is of interest because it can show more recent dispersion events like the Tower of Babel. Following WWII people living on Pacific islands built replicas of planes and runways hoping the people from the sky would return. Without further interference from the outside these cargo cults will live on for generations as tales are told of the metal birds from the sky. We find related phenomena around the world, from massive platforms and myths of 'gods' ascending and descending the heavens on pillars of fire. Vimanas, Jacob's Ladder, Ezekiel's celestial chariots, Gilgamesh's journey to the land of the Cedars, the Egyptian Duat, Ben Ben and Dante's Inferno, the Nazca lines and the Plains Indians great thunderbird that brought them and their dogs here. The only myths I know about emerging from the underground come from the SW and the Grand Canyon when the ant people saved the Indians from a calamity by taking them into a cave. There are myths of gods emerging from the sea, like Enki, but these beings originally came from the sky. Enki is the Greek Poseidon (?) but he was from the heavens.

The knowledge they gave us appears in our religions, sacred geometry, myths about creation. Why wouldn't they tell us? We wanted to know. But with 'gods' come different details, especially among competing gods. Even with the Enuma Elish scholars believe the Babylonians changed some of the names to honor their national deity Marduk. Earlier versions had older gods in the main roles, like Enlil. But who knows what their names were 250 kya. To the victor goes the spoils and the loser's gods fade into oblivion like the Titans giving way to the Olympians. But the main story remains the same.

1) There was no Hadean and we know it now. Sitchin knew it in the 70s when 'the consensus' disagreed. You're trying to redefine the Hadean from an epoch lasting over a 1/2 billion years to your assumption of a 'brief' period following the moon forming impact. Okay, where is the rock? We should find minerals forming in the absence of water but all we find are minerals forming in water. That means Theia struck a planet covered by water and when the molten rock from the impact cooled it was cooling in water.

2) Multiple publications have identified the asteroid belt and snow line as a source for Earth's water, the recent study on the Sun's contribution estimated half and half. The Earth's saltwater didn't come from bolides, it came from a planet forming at the asteroid belt surrounded by water. The sun produced the freshwater before and after the proto-Earth (Taimat) formed, the planetary accretion process produced the salt water.

3) Sitchin predicted the Moon's orbit was a response to a disruption of the Earth-Moon system about 4 bya. A recent study has tied the Moon's tilted orbit to that disruption. He was right. If this Hadean existed where's the rock?

4) How many gas giants have equatorial planes pointing to Pluto near perihelion? One... Saturn.

5) I didn't say anybody did, the lateness with which Uranus acquired its tilt is evidence of an interaction with something very large. The ancient texts describe the disruption, Anu (Uranus) provided Marduk with 4 whirling "winds" - this is how Genesis describes God's interaction with the primordial tehom, the water covered world from Gen 1:2. The Wind of God hovered over the water and there was light - day and night. What causes day and night? A rotating planet close to a star.

6) and Sitchin's prediction of a retrograde inclined orbit cant be falsified? Why not?

7) Wait a minute, so if a study shows a retrograde planet was 'sheperd'ing comets even that wont give Sitchin any credibility? Would it falsify his claim? Do you have links to these studies showing retrograde comets coming from these other sources? The Oort Cloud doesn't exist, even Jan Oort said he believed comets originated near Jupiter. I've never heard an explanation for how Jupiter was able to disperse comets from the asteroid belt region into a 360 spherical cloud surrounding the solar system, have you? Sitchin predicted it was an interaction with a prograde object that produced them. Not really much of a prediction or revelation since we already knew about retrograde comets, but he did predict a planet with an inclined retrograde orbit was responsible for various features we see in the solar system, so far, so good. I have no doubt analysis of the asteroid belt will reveal more about this 9th planet, the asteroids largely follow inclined orbits too.

8) Yes, the theory says Saturn formed pulling Jupiter back from its inward spiral. So how did Jupiter and Saturn form before planets closer to the Sun? I dont dispute Jupiter preceded Saturn, but how did both form before Mars, Venus, Earth (and Mercury)? According to the Enuma Elish the divine brothers banded together disturbing Tiamat, that describes the grand tack theory and it preceded Marduk's arrival 4 bya causing the late heavy bombardment bringing life to Earth. But Saturn doesn't explain the migration of the planets off the Sun's equatorial plane, Sitchin's 9th planet does.