Tuesday, April 14, 2009



The Nommo vs. Anunaki contradiction (or confusion) is problematic working from post-Sumer records. The amphibious Nommo or Monitors of the Dogon are also found in Baybylonian tradition as we shall discuss. Marduk/Nibiru was also called a “monitor” in Mesopotamian texts, according to Sitchen [2007 paperback ed., Sitchen, Zecharia, The 12th Planet,HarperCollins, New York; p. 238].

“These ancient fragments give accounts of the Babylonian tradition that civilization was originally founded by amphibious beings known as Oannes MuSari, or Annedoti (in Greek).

Regarding the Nommo amphibious race discussed in "The Sirius Mystery," Carl Sagan said,

" . . . stories like the Oannes legend . . . deserve much more critical studies than have been performed heretofore." [Sagan, Carl, and Shklovskii, I.S. "Intelligent Life in the Universe," Delta Books, New York, 1966; p.461. See also, in Temple, Robert K.G., "The Sirius Mystery," Destiny Books, Rochester, Vermont; 1987, comments on that work made by W.H. McCrea, Emeritus professor of Astronomy at the University of Sussex and former President of the Royal Astronomical Society on pp.222-223]

This tradition is in striking agreement with the Dogon tradition of the amphibious Nommos, or 'Monitors' who came from the system of Sirius B to found civilization on earth.” [Temple, Appendix II, p.248, op cit]

Thus, the Oannes to which Sagan referred as an example of legendary extraterrestrial beings are the amphibians of the Dogon.

The Babylonian traditions differ from those appealed to by Zecharia Sitchen concerning the Anunaki, as there are no mentions of another race which was not amphibious in the book of Enki, but as Enki landed in and therefore came from the sea, it could be argued that Anunaki are metaphorically amphibious. However, Sitchen suffers from a posited exactly redundant orbital period of Nibiru of 3600 years, called the Shar. The 50 year orbit of Sirius be is said to have been adjusted astronomically since its initial observation to 60 years (50 is the numeric designation of Enlil).

Is it coincidental that 3600/60 is 60, the same as Anu's hierarchical number, and divided by 10 is 360, the same as the number of degrees in a circle? The two, 60 and 360, can thus be related.

[Sitchen asserts that the Anunaki first landed on earth about 450,000 years ago, which places Enki's arrival about 20,000 years prior to the end of the Wisconsin glaciation (600,000-430,000bp), during which about a third of the earth was covered with ice.] Anu's name is the highest in the base 60 cryptographic numeric system. There were twelve Anunaki in the Great Circle of the Dynasty. The other 11 beneath Anu were designated numerically as follows:

60 – Anu
50 - Enlil
40 - Enki
30 - Nanna
20 - Utu
10 – Ishkur/Adad

Their female counterparts were designated by midpoints of 5 as follows:

55 - Anti
45 - Ninlil
35 - Ninki
25 - Ningal
15 - Innana
5 - Ninhursag

A Sarus is given by Berosus as 3600 years. Sarus and Shar refer to the same period, the names phonetically similar. The first king was Alorus, who reigned ten Sari, or 36000 years. In all, ten kings reigned 120 Sari, or (120 x 3600=) 432,000 years. During the 40th Sari, between 130,400 years and 144000 years, the Oannes/Nommo are reported to have first arrived by Berosus. Accoring to Sitchen, it was 445,000bp-see table on p. 410 of TTP. There, 430,000 is when the ice sheets began to recede.

This provides no assistance to the matter at hand that Nibiru is asserted to be orbiting our own Sun, and is therefore likely to be entirely unrelated to the orbit of Sirius B; I have encountered in Temple no mention of the square of Sirius B's orbit; the Nommo did not come from Sirius B, but rather but rather from the system of Sirius B, and are alleged to have come from a planet orbiting that star.

The designation, "Monitors," attributed to the Nommo both by Berosus and the Dogon tribe, requires a MEANS of monitoring, as, for example, the probe Duncan Lunan, former President of ASTRA (Association in Scotland to Research into Astronautics), and Acting Curator of Airdrie Public Observatory, proposed.

In 1928, Van der Pol in Eindhoven, Holland, after transmitting over the radio waves 3 sounds in rapid succession every 30 seconds, examined the return echoes. They were not as neatly spaced as he had sent. In fact they were highly irregular, ranging from 1 to 30 seconds in delay time. At the time, the discrepancies were explained as fluxuations in the ionosphere, or magnetic disturbances. But the pitch or frequency of the sounds did not change - only the spacing of the echoes.

In the 1970’s, this mystery was carefully examined and deciphered by Lunan. He plotted a vertical axis of the transmitted pulse sequence with a horizontal axis of echo delay time. The result was a picture of the constellation Boötis as it would look 15,000 years ago. There was a message hidden in the dots on his graph. Lunan was able to translate the meaning of these echo delay discrepancies, proving perhaps that they were a purposeful manipulation directed by a highly intelligent extraterrestrial species. He interpreted the message as follows:


Lunan concluded an advanced civilization in the vicinity of Arcturus (Hokulea, the guiding star of Hawaiian mythology) sent an unmanned satellite probe to monitor Earth 15,000 years ago, to be activated by radio waves when Humans reached that technological point in their evolution, and later published his findings.

If a probe within the approximate region of the Sun was monitoring activity within our solar system (and perhaps others in nearby systems), detected the electromagnetic transmissions of the Anunaki, notified the planet orbiting Sirius B (130 to 144,000 years/2 is more than enough time for a signal from the probe to reach their home world and for them to come to earth to check it out), is it possible that, following the arrival of the Oannes (Nommo), the Anunaki reconfigured their time periods in terms of Nommo numerology, or the Sarus? If so, the apparent conflict arising from the instability of Nibiru's orbit which makes it impossible that it could have maintained a 3600 year upon year orbit as Sitchen asserts, evaporates.

There are reasons why this cannot be logically argued within the context of Sitchen's interpretation of The Lost Book of Enki as he translated it. Sitchen asserts without reservation that the Shar is the orbital period of the planet, Nibiru, and nowhere within the clay tablets is any contact by any other extraterrestrial civilization referenced, although the Anunaki did believe in a "Creator of All." Sitchen therefore could not escape the dilemma of a literal repeating 3600-year Shar.

The Sarus as I interpret it either stems from a base 10 multiple of earths own orbit prior to 700 B.C., or, less likely in my opinion, some relationship to the base 60 discussed by Berosus for the Sarus. Velikovsky's discovery, reported and exhaustively documented in Worlds in Collision [Doubleday, 1950], that prior to 700 B.C., all calendars on earth were based upon a years of 360 days, including the Maya year, the TUN, which is also 360 days, upon which the Maya Long Count calendar system is based, attributes the calendar change to a cosmic event. Thus, during the time period Berosus and Sitchen address, the year was 360 earth days in length. Again, 360 is the number of degrees in a circle, and thus it seems more likely that the division of the circle into 360 degrees stems from its representation of earth's own orbital period at that time, which greatly simplifies geometry and astrophysics.

Nevertheless the interplay of base 10 and base 60 is obvious. Could it not be likely that the Shar/Sarus of 3600 years is also a result of that same interplay? The event added five days to the year. Afterward, all civilizations with solar calendars added an extra five days (including the quarter day). I believe the Pyramid of the [365] Niches at El Tajin and the Pyramid of Quetzalcoatl at Xochicalco, Mexico commemorate and correct the calendar change resulting from the event Velikovsky postulated. The extensive ruins of El Tajín are the most impressive reminder of Classic Veracruz civilization. The name "Tajín" is Totonac for ‘thunder, ’ ‘lightning’ or ‘hurricane.’

The Pyramid of the Niches in El Tajin is also equipped with a vertical shaft to determine instances of the Sun zenith passes (e.g., Aveni 1980). They occur in these latitudes twice per year. Thus, the astronomical purpose for the structure cannot be logically disputed. The time of the zenith passes could be predicted with an error of 1-2 days (Klokočník and Vítek, 2005). Further confirmation of Angular Chronology is evident from the two principal orientations of the site. The northern part of the locality on the hill is younger (950-1100, GMT) than the “plain” southern part (300-700 AD). We see the same phenomenon at many sites. At Copán, the Gold Age from 426-820 AD (GMT), is typical. But the first stone structures date from the 9th century B.C.. The earliest grave goods are clearly Olmecoid both in content and design. Using conventional dates, Monte Alban in Oaxaca, Mexico was established by the Zapotecs in the 5th-7th centuries B.C., but its florescence belongs to 5th-8th centuries A.D. There are five phases of evolution of this locality; what we can see now is mostly Monte Albán III from 300-750 AD (GMT). The extraordinary Building J, known also as the “Observatory,” comes from 1st century B.C. – 2nd century AD. These examples are only the tip of the iceberg of data which will ultimately confirm Angular Chronology against all objections, however passionate.

The orbital period of the earth has changed before. The Devonian is a geologic period and system of the Paleozoic era spanning from approximately 416 to 359.2 million years ago, named after Devon, England, where rocks from this period were first studied. During the Devonian, the first fish evolved legs and started to walk on land as tetrapods, the first seed-bearing plants spread across dry land, forming huge forests, and in the oceans, primitive sharks became more numerous than in the Silurian and the late Ordovician, and the first lobe-finned and bony fish evolved. The first ammonite mollusks appeared, and trilobites, the mollusk-like brachiopods, as well as great coral reefs were still common. Devonian rugose corals produced tabulae which, when grouped into solar years, reveal that the orbital period of the earth at that time was 400 days, making each day only 22 hours long. The late Devonian extinction severely affected marine life, and probably accounted for the change in earth's rate of rotation as well.

At the archeological site of Xochicalco, Mexico, Mayan and Zapotec dignitaries met to correct the calendar. As I have previously asserted in our book, Angular Chronology [ 1994, Hobby, Michael M., June M. Hobby, and Troy J. Smith, Zarahemla Foundation, Coto Laurel, Puerto Rico], I interpreted the panel on the right front of the Pyramid of Quetzalcoatl to proclaim, “On this date, five and one-quarter days are added to the length of the year.” Both the Maya group numeral 5, the bar, and the Zapotec unit numeral equivalent, five dots, are shown, the bar above the dots. The deity with whom the change seems to have been associated holds the end of a rope in his left hand which is tied on the other end around a date glyph. His right hand rests upon a quadripartite figure, a square with a single one dot inside, which I take to mean, "The fourth part of one," IE, 1/4th. [This fractional representation should be further studied, as it may lead to improved accuracy in the translation of certain numerical passages in the codices where it may be found to occur]

The “Sun orientation” requires azimuth exactly 90 (270 degrees) for the equinoxes. The azimuth of the sunset/sunrise at the solstices can be computed as: cos a = - sin d / cos f, where d is declination of the object (the Sun in our case, d = 23.50 degrees), f is the geocentric latitute of the site of observation. The azimuth of sunset at summer solstice for the north/south Yucatan becomes a = 64.7 / 65.4 degrees (measured from north to east), and analogically for sunrise/sunset at winter solstice; it yields an east deviation of about 25 degrees (rounded) for the cardinal directions of archaeological structures. Note also that the azimuth of sunset/sunrise in solstices has been indirectly changed due to precession of the Earth’s axis, but only about 0.3 degrees, during the last 2000 years.

Angular Chronology was developed by our realization that a Cardinal Shift had occurred during HISTORICAL Precolumbian time, during which the crust of at least North America and Mesoamerica was rotated to the right (east)of True North, generally by about 15 degrees, with expected local geologic variations. ANGULAR CHRONOLOGY will be available on this website in the near future; It can be purchased via Paypal, but will be shipped from Lulu, which now publishes all six of my books. To date the Cardinal Shift in around 700 B.C. strongly conflicts with conventional dating of the site, which is based upon the Mixtec dynastic sequences, which in turn rely on carbon 14 dates. As one might expect, such an assertion raises strong objections:

“The first major concern is the royal genealogies of the Mixtec people of central and southern Mexico. One of the archaeological monuments found at Xochicalco is the Piedra del Palacio. This monument depicts seven actors and has one calendar round date of 3 Rabbit 2 Quake in the Mixtec Yacunudahui calendar, which was used at this site prior to about 1000 A.D. Five of the seven actors are found in a few Mixtec codices or painted books. These five actors represent a grandfather (male Four Rabbit), his son (male Twelve Iguana), and three grandsons of the grandfather (male Four House, Three Monkey, and Ten Eagle). If one examines royal Mixtec genealogies beginning in the late sixteenth century A.D., one discovers that twenty generations takes one back to the grandfather of this scene. Twenty generations cover approximately 286-600 years. In other words, they date to around 1000 A.D. and not to approximately 1000 B.C.” [Warren, Bruce W., FARMS Review: Volume - 8, Issue - 1, Pages: 118-21; A review of "Angular Chronology: The Precolumbian Dating of Ancient America" by Michael M. Hobby, June M. Hobby, and Troy J. Smith; Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, 1996.]

Warren's argument is that, since Mixtec genealogies are dated to around 1000 A.D., to assert that the pyramid commemorates the shift of 700 B.C. must be incorrect. However, within the context of Angular Chronology, such a conclusion is invalid. First, the Pyramid of Quetzalcoatl has no dynastic inscriptions engraved upon it., Other buildings and or monuments on the site, such as the Piedra del Palacio mentioned by Warren, portray Mixtec dynastic sequences.

Secondly, as pointed out in our book, many sites were inhabited both before and after the Cardinal Shift. Therefore, the existence of exteriors which date after the shift have no bearing upon the date of the shift itself. Further, buildings were routinely overlaid or resurfaced, examples of which we give in the book. I also point out, even on the opening leaf, my opinion that Angular Chronology "solves several enigmas in archaeoastronomy and identifies a 500 to 1000 year error in carbon-14 dates in North America and Mesoamerica. It is similar to the discontinuity running across the southern Mediterranean, or known to affect Egyptian dating [by a displacement of 600 years]."

What the shift implies is that the entire block dates encountered at a site, if they date to the time of the shift, must be moved back in time. If they were engraved upon later buildings and monuments, they are irrelevant. The mechanism for the discontinuity in C14 dates is discussed in Angular Chronology[also see, Hobby, Michael M., THE CATASTROPHIC ROLE OF FLUID PRESSURE AND GEOMAGNETIC PHENOMENA IN THE MECHANICS OF OVERTHRUST FAULTING,"; Kronos Vol. IX No. 1 (Fall 1983). It will be uploaded and available on this site within a few weeks.

FARMS is an abbreviation of The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies. A contingent of its members hold the opinion that the lands of the Book of Mormon lie within the constraints of Mesoamerica, a model influenced principally by John Sorenson and David Palmer. This model suffers from the fact that the Maya language is one of three entirely unique mother languages. As I determined, the language is neither a variant nor a derivative of either Egyptian nor Hebrew, the two principal languages of the Book of Mormon. In fact, Angular Chronology offers a way out of the dilemma; the time period of the Nephite people of the Book of Mormon is roughly 600 B.C. to just after 400 A.D., which overlaps the Maya civilization.

However, if the dates are pushed back in time, the overlap becomes less relevant, because another people, identified by the Book of Mormon as the Jaredites, existed far earlier, and later absorbed yet another group of Jewish immigrants identified as Mulekites, led by Mulek,the only surviving son of Zedekiah, the last King of Judah, after the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem, who the Book of Mormon asserts also left Jerusalem subsequent to the time the Nephites fled. The Mulekites adopted the Jaredite language and religion. When the Nephites later stumbled upon them, the two peoples, though both originated in the Hebrew heartland, could not understand each other. The following passage is drawn from the first chapter of the Book of Omni in the Book of Mormon:

12 Behold, I am Amaleki, the son of Abinadom. Behold, I will speak unto you somewhat concerning Mosiah, who was made king over the land of Zarahemla; for behold, he being warned of the Lord that he should flee out of the land of Nephi, and as many as would hearken unto the voice of the Lord should also depart out of the land with him, into the wilderness.
13 And it came to pass that he did according as the Lord had commanded him. And they departed out of the land into the wilderness, as many as would hearken unto the voice of the Lord; and they were led by many preachings and prophesyings. And they were admonished continually by the word of God; and they were led by the power of his arm, through the wilderness until they came down into the land which is called the land of Zarahemla.
14 And they discovered a people, who were called the people of Zarahemla. Now, there was great rejoicing among the people of Zarahemla; and also Zarahemla did rejoice exceedingly, because the Lord had sent the people of Mosiah with the plates of brass which contained the record of the Jews.
15 Behold, it came to pass that Mosiah discovered that the people of Zarahemla came out from Jerusalem at the time that Zedekiah, king of Judah, was carried away captive into Babylon.
16 And they journeyed in the wilderness, and were brought by the hand of the Lord across the great waters, into the land where Mosiah discovered them; and they had dwelt there from that time forth.
17 And at the time that Mosiah discovered them, they had become exceedingly numerous. Nevertheless, they had had many wars and serious contentions, and had fallen by the sword from time to time; and their language had become corrupted; and they had brought no brecords with them; and they denied the being of their Creator; and Mosiah, nor the people of Mosiah, could understand them.
18 But it came to pass that Mosiah caused that they should be taught in his language. And it came to pass that after they were taught in the language of Mosiah, Zarahemla gave a genealogy of his fathers, according to his memory; and they are written, but not in these plates.
19 And it came to pass that the people of Zarahemla, and of Mosiah, did unite together; and Mosiah was appointed to be their king.
20 And it came to pass in the days of Mosiah, there was a large stone [stela] brought unto him with engravings on it; and he did interpret the engravings by the gift and power of God. [As Zarahemla spoke a dialect of the Jaredite language, it is more likely that he directly read the glyphs.]
21 And they gave an account of one Coriantumr, and the slain of his people. And Coriantumr was discovered by the people of Zarahemla; and he dwelt with them for the space of nine moons. [Months; The Hebrew calendar was lunar]
22 It also spake a few words concerning his fathers. And his first parents came out from the tower, at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people; and the severity of the Lord fell upon them according to his judgments, which are just; and their bones lay scattered in the land northward.[Northward means north of the Narrow Neck, the current Isthmus of Panama]

If Mesoamerican dates are pushed back as a block, the Maya are no longer a candidate for the Nephite culture. They do, however, become a candidate for the Jaredite culture. Far more structures were built in the Preclassic than during the Classic and Post Classic periods. The bulk of those structures are oriented to the east of north, an enigma which archaeoastronomers attempted, but were unable to explain, as they were unaware of the Cardinal (crustal) shift. According to the Book of Mormon, the armies of two factions of the Jaredites essentially destroyed each other, which would explain the paucity of the Post Classic. It should be noted, however, that the heartland of the Nephites still could not have been Mesoamerica, but northern South America, as I have addressed elsewhere and will revisit again in another post which confronts the geographic dilemma, which in my opinion, need not exist.

The inclusion of the Fuson hypothesis, which presumes use of a magnetic compass, as a subcategory of Angular Chronology is justified and should be implemented by archaeologists, geologists, and other scholars, although paleomagnetic data is often locally sparse prior to 0 B.C. If, however, it is implemented without an Angular Chronology context, it will achieve only limited results. Angular Chronology divides precolumbian history and sites into two great periods, PRE and POST Cardinal Shift, including resolving clear divisions within individual sites, further resolution within those periods, such as construction phases, reconstruction and overlays, habitation phases, pottery sequence correlation within and between sites, and discontinuities within each can be achieved by applying the Fuson hypothesis where applicable, as recognized by the following statement:

“If the [Fuson] hypothesis is valid, then the alignment of the structures and their age are correlated; knowing the former we could derive the latter and vice versa.” Drawn from: "ON AN UNRESOLVED ORIENTATION OF PYRAMIDS AND CEREMONIAL CENTERS IN MESOAMERICA," (Jaroslav Klokočník, Jan Kostelecký, František Vítek) [ ]

“Fuson (1969) wrote: 'When one considers the obsession the Maya had for mathematical precision, it is difficult to imagine, why he failed to carry it forth in his ultimate creation, the ceremonial center…'

Fuson mentioned more than 100 major ceremonial centers in Yucatan (Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras), erected mostly between AD 200 and 1200 (his Fig. 1) and found (by means of geodetic measurements) prevailing east “deflection” (see Figs 1a-e here, also classical book of Morley 1956).” [ibid]

Astronomers attempted, also unsuccessfully, to determine the reason for the east-of-north orientation, particularly typical of the Preclassic, by far the longest interval of Mayan history, as noted by Krupp:

"One of the most puzzling facts about building orientations in Mesoamerica is the east-of-north arrangement of so many ceremonial centers spread throughout the area over such a long time base. A single astronomical explanation is not possible for all that we can see." [Krupp, E.C., "In Search of Ancient Astronomers," New York, McGraw-Hill; 1978; p. 201]

Summarizing the alignments (the deflections from the cardial direction) of many buildings in Mesoamerica (see, Aveni's calendar explanation, 1980), the prevailing east deviations are evident. But,
(i) for the calendar explanation, one would expect more regular distribution of the directions in the "fan" [“fan” denotes declinations around the cardinal north-south (west-east) directions of structures], both east AND west declinations, during an entire calendar year. Thus,
(ii) if the directions are based on certain datums connected, for example, to the begining of contruction of the buildings, then the distribution of the east and west declinations should also be more or less regular during year, excluding possibly the interval of heavy rains.
(iii) The rains in Yucatan prevail from May to October, but the remaining months without rains correspond to both east and west declinations. Thus, the prevailing east deflections remain unexplained if one relies solely upon the calendar.

"In conclusion to this Section: we see that a significant MINORITY of the buildings has an astronomical orientation or meaning (see also Fig 74 in Aveni, 1980, or Appendix A of that book . . .). There is a small portion of proved astronomical observatories and astronomicaly orientated structures. The other explanations (namely the calendar hypothesis and its various alternatives) are only partially successful and only locally applicable." [Klokočník, ET AL; Section 3, "ASTRONOMICAL AND CALENDAR ORIENTATION;" op cit]

"The change in true north could not have occurred in recent historical time, and certainly not in the A.D. period; yet the sites we are discussing are all dated by conventional dating at or long after the birth of Christ. It is this knowledge which led to the realization that an error in carbon-14 dating of as much as 800-1000 years, similar to the discontinuity which runs across southern Europe, had been inadvertently applied to large segments of the North American continent. Perhaps anomalies such as the carbon-14 date of more than 1000 B.C. for a wooden beam at Teotihuacan should not have been so readily dismissed." [Hobby, Hobby, and Smith, "The Cardinal Shift," Angular Chronology . . . , Chapter Three; p.33, op cit]

A final note of DRASTIC significance is summed up in the following quote [summarization mine]:

"Much work has to be done to provide the scientific community reliable and accurate paleomagnetic declinations for the time interval 4000-1000 BP. The main problem is (Bőhnel 2006, priv. commun.) the precise and absolute age determination of a rock and the precise paleomagnetic determination. Even the best data now available will complicate testing of the Fuson hypothesis. The following obstacle for our research may seem surprising: Mayanists do not know the correct relationship of the Maya calendar (expressed in the Long Count, MD) to our “christian” calendar (which may be expressed in Julian Days, JD). This problem is known as “the correlation problem.” According to the traditional and often used Goodman-Martinez-Thompson [GMT] correlation (e.g., Thompson, 1935), we need to add 584285 days to MD to get JD.

However, there are serious objections against GMT (e.g., Vollemaere 1994, Böhm and Böhm, 1996, or Verbelen, 2000). When astronomical observations (like aspects of the planets and eclipses), which has been decoded from the famous Maya picture book called Dresden Codex (DC), were analyzed, one found that the values of the “correlation” differs dramatically from the GMT value. Vollemaere (Vol) found 774080 days, Böhm and Böhm (B+B) 622261 days and Verbelen (Verb) 739615 days. The difference is huge, e.g. 520 years(!!) between GMT and Vol, and 104 years between GMT and B+B (in both cases the history by Vol, Ver or B+B correlation is shifted in direction to our present time). The uncertain “timing” between Maya and our culture is an additional big obstacle for our testing because the alignment may change significantly during 100 years (see Fig. 3 for the time interval around 1000 AD)." [ibid., Klokočník, ET AL ; Section 4]

Archaeologists and others may establish relative dates within any correlation, including the GMT (Goodman-Martinez-Thompson). But it should never be forgotten that the entire framework of New World dating may have to be adjusted farther back in time. When I first explained Angular Chronology to the Carrasco husband-wife team, with whom I became good friends when visiting their hacienda in Merida, Yucatan, they first became very alarmed, presuming the five years of work the wife had completed on the ceramic sequences at Bonampak would have to be completely reorganized, until they realized that the entire block of dates would merely have to be adjusted backward in time. Bonampak is reachable by vehicle from Palenque. The trip is about 100 kilometers of (I know from experience) sometimes very slow and arduous driving. Bonampak was a very large city from the Classic period and is famous for its brilliant murals depicting 8th century Maya court life, ritual and battle. The murals were preserved for centuries by a coating of calcite washed down from the ceilings.

I have found that, absent very strong personal prejudices for a variety of reasons, other archaeologists are not troubled, but rather relieved by Angular Chronology, and each immediately identifies how it can resolve various anomalous data, some of which I had not yet recognized, especially with regard to those sites and cultures with which they are most familiar and at which they have labored, often for many years (unfortunately, there is a great deal of 'turf' in our profession). For example, once the Carrascos realized I could be trusted, they showed me a drawing they had made from a stela at Bonampak, an eagle with a serpent in its mouth. I was stunned, because I thought it originated in the time of the much later Aztecs. As site research still had not been finalized, they ask that I mention it to no one until they were published. I have kept it to myself for 20 years. Such astonishing corrections to our picture of the history of the Americas have attained proportions which demand a serious reconstruction, and we must swim against the tide to develop it. Conflict is tiring; we would rather gather around a table at our favorite little Cantina and enjoy one another's company over a pitcher of cold beer, discussing the days activities and engaging with the (always interested, congenial, and helpful) locals, even those of us who speak español machete!

The same holds true for geologists. When I first discussed the Cardinal Shift with my Structural Geology professor at Tulane during the period when I myself was still uncertain, I expected an immediate and perhaps strong, but I hoped instructive, correction, I was surprised that he seemed unphased; he realized that it was not a contradiction of plate techtonics, but relied upon an agency not addressed within any context of the Drift model. This reaction, barring bias, has been somewhat uniform. As Julia A. Hendon emphasized in her abstract,

"This paper explores certain methodological issues relevant to the interpretation of archaeological data derived from surface survey. Recognizing the significance of survey to the study of regional settlement patterns, I argue that how we classify these data bears directly on our ability to reconstruct the past. Comparison of site typologies created by the Seibal and Copán projects with their excavation results provides a way to evaluate the accuracy of site classifications based on surface features. I discuss the effectiveness of the typologies in capturing variation pertinent to the study of social organization and site function, and consider the importance of variation within sites, within types, and across types not expressed in the typologies to suggest that such elaborate typologies assume a higher degree of data visibility than is generally possible. The analysis underscores the critical role excavation plays in mesoamerican archaeology as a source of data unavailable through survey." [Hendon, Julia A., "The Interpretation of Survey Data: Two Case Studies from the Maya Area"; Latin American Antiquity 3(1), 1992, pp. 22-42, Copyright, Society for American Archaeology]

This recognition of the importance of proper classification is most fortunate, for so much work remains to be completed in both geology and archaeology, often intertwined, that significant scientific progress can only be attained if the majority of professionals in both fields are open-minded and willing to adjust their "facts." We archaeologists and geologists have certainly taken our lumps. But we possess a redeeming characteristic: we realize that facts do not change. It is our INTERPRETATION of the facts that evolves over time, and it is TIME that acts as the ultimate Umpire.

Returning to our principal subject, and leaving unaddressable for the moment where the planet Nibiru is or was located, the arrival during the 40th Sari may be a reflection of a Nommo time interval, rather than the orbit of Nibiru. Is it possible that the red-haloed Nibiru might not be the planet of the Anunaki, but rather the planet of the Oannes? What would the interpretive consequences of such a supposition be? How would they affect a possible designation of which known planet in our solar system, or one orbiting a very much nearer star than Sirius B, the Anunaki might actually have come? Is it possible that Nibiru is not the name of a particular planet, but of a class or association designatiom, for example, the Federation of planets in Star Trek, which included both the Anunaki and Oannes home worlds? Such federations are inevitable in the future after mankind has sorted out its problems and decided to work together as a species, rather than a hodge-podge of nations devoted to hegemony, exploitation, genocide and war.

Berosus reported that, in addition to the Sarus, two other time intervals existed: the Neros of 600 years, and the Sossus, 60 years. Interestingly, a Sarus is the square of 60, 3600, but the Neros is merely a decimal multiple of the Sosos (60 x 10 = 600), perhaps for convenience. Anu was attributed the number of the Sossus; Therefore, his numeric equivalent was 60. the highest possible for the six men of the Anunaki dynasty.

Was the mysterious Galzu a messenger of the Monitors, the Oannes, IE, the Nommo? If so, as he appeared to the Anunaki as one of their own in the flesh during his first appearance, as recorded in The Lost Book of Enki [2002,(Sitchen), Bear & Company, Rochester, Vermont] such a deception (“By that Anu was greatly puzzled. A secret emissary by that name to earth by me was never sent.” [p. 270] requires extraordinary psychic power. So powerful was the deception that Anu attributed it to the “Creator of All,” the ultimate god of the Anunaki, and as a sign that earth was for the Earthlings who were formed of a hominid evolved on our planet, and therefore, that the role of the Anunaki (from the beginning) was not to create a race of slaves to exploit for their own purposes with the justification, “Hath not the potter power over the clay . . . ?,” but by the will of the Creator of All to dramatically accelerate the evolution of that primate to mankind via genetic engineering, thereafter to introduce civilization to them, and thereafter to depart, not continue to rule over them [p. 271].

The Dogon tribe of Mali have a Segui celebration every sixty years . . . The Egyptians had such a period associated with Osiris . . . The Egyptian henti period consisted of two periods of 60 years, consistent with the Dogon custom of “uniting two Segui.” Temple stated,

“My own predilection when considering the period of 60 years is to think in terms of a synchronization of the orbital periods of the two planets of Jupiter and Saturn, for these come together in nearly sixty years. The orbital period of Jupiter is approximately twelve years, and [the orbital period of] Saturn is approximately thirty years. Five times twelve is sixty and two times thirty is also sixty. . . souls therefore [according to Egyptian mythology] are punished for such like periods.”

With respect to Jupiter and Saturn, he cites Apuleius:

“ . . . there are certain circuits (orbits) of the stars which perpetually observe a legitimate course, but which the sagacity of men can scarcely comprehend. . . . the supreme of all of them is that of the fixed stars (planets) . . . the second is given to Saturn and the third to Jupiter . . .”

“A cycle of sixty years is so long that no single person can live long enough to verify its recurrence a second time. . . . No wonder then that the Dogon maintain that a priest who 'united two Segui' is really rather special. . . . to unite two of the cycles is to achieve a henti . . . which the Egyptians describe as both 120 years and as eternal.” [p.259].

Stonehenge has 60 stones in its outer circle, the cycle of Vrihihaspati. “'The number 60 is the base of the . . . Saros of 3,600 years of the Chaldees, . . . the decimal part of the cycle of the Neros period' . . . “the Indian Brahmans saying that it arose from five revolutions of the planet Jupiter.” [ibid. This cycle is called the Brihaspati in India, the name of Jupiter in Sanskrit, a cycle of 60 years as prepared by Kepler [De Stella Nova and De Vero Anno).]

“We thus see that Santillana and von Dechend tell us in “Hamlets Mill, 'A “mighty conjunction” thus corresponds to the revolution of one angle or corner of a trigon of Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions . . . specifically sixty-year cycles of the West Sudan, where the Dogon live . . . The Dogon associate a 60-year period with the creation of the world by Amma. . . . [and were] aware of the twenty-year subdivision too.” [p. 260] “The Dogon even break 60 down into “5 series of 12” and “twice thirty.” [ibid.]

The Mesoamerican calendar, as discussed by my friend, Jeff Colville in his dissertation, “The Structure of Mesoamerican Numeral Systems With a Comparison to Non-Mesoamerican Systems,” addresses in Yucatecan Maya the occurrence of the group numeral, 5 in the base 20 (the numerical designation of Utu according to Sitchen) Mayan calendar obtained from the Olmecs, and the lower group numeral 10 in their spoken language. The Zapotecs, on the other hand, adjacent to them in the Mexican highlands, had only the group numeral 5 in their spoken language. The number 12 also occurs, but is special in that it is constructed by postfixing 2 to 10, whereas the other teens prefix unit numerals to 10, though Tozzer (1921:99) asserted that the method used to form 12 was used to form all the higher teens. [Coleville: p.186]

According to Sitchen, royal Anunaki women were assigned mid-decimal numbers such as 5 (Ninhursag), 15 (Innana), etc. Thus, the Mesoamerican calendar within that context indicates that Utu, whose numerical designation was 20, and Ninhursag, whose numerical designation was 5, were the original founders of civilization in the New World, the western hemisphere, where the bar (group numeral for 5) and dot (subtrahend "ONE") system occurs in the base 20 Maya Long Count. Temple continues.

"These two, 260 and 365-day calendars, could also be synchronised to generate the Calendar Round, a period of 18980 days or approximately 52 years [a period central to Velikovsky's theses and also related in a Hebrew manuscript known as the "Little Genesis" which also utilizes a linear count of years termed, "Year of the World." This document is in the Special Collections area of the Brigham Young University Library]. The completion and observance of this Calendar Round sequence was of ritual significance to a number of Mesoamerican cultures. A third major calendar form known as the Long Count is found in the inscriptions of several Mesoamerican cultures, most famously those of the Maya civilization who developed it to its fullest extent during the Classic period (ca. 200–900 CE). The Long Count provided the ability to uniquely identify days over a much longer period of time, by combining a sequence of day-counts or cycles of increasing length, calculated or set from a particular date in the mythical past. Most commonly, five such higher-order cycles in a modified vigesimal (base-20) count were used, generating a linear progression of days to span a period of roughly 5125 solar years. . . . The use of Mesoamerican calendrics is one of the cultural traits that Paul Kirchoff used in his original formulation to define Mesoamerica as a culture area. Therefore the use of Mesoamerican calendars is specific to Mesoamerica and is not found outside its boundaries." [ibid]

It should be noted also that the Maya Bar and Dot system is generally believed and taught to be limited to Mesoamerica, as the following example attests:

"Even after the subsequent colonialisation of Mesoamerican territory by Europeans and the consequent adoption of the Julian Calendar, some indigenous communities continue to use aspects of Mesoamerican calendars in parallel with the Western system, such as among K'iche' Maya communities of the Guatemalan highlands and the Mixe of Oaxaca. [Drawn from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerican_calendars]

The restriction of the Bar and Dot system to Mesoamerica may not have been the case. While Troy and I were taking an archaeology course at Tulane taught by a tenure-track professor, that professor included in his lectures the assertion that the Bar and Dot numerical system was restricted to Mesoamerica. However, during research pertinent to a course I was taking in Precolumbian Art, I encountered a piece of fabric unearthed from beneath the Temple of Pachacamac in Peru which had a clearly discernable Bar and Dot depiction. During lunch one day, we were joined by that professor and engaged in a discussion. I questioned his assertion of the restriction of the Bar and Dot system to Mesoamerica and presented a Zerox copy of the Pachacamac fabric, anticipating an engaging commentary. Instead, he became so distraught that he picked up his tray and moved to another table. I still got my "A" for the course, although on the final, I disputed the assertion, as it (still persisted) in one of the essay questions!

I shall probably add additional information and discussion to this post later, as is my practice with all posts on this site.

Saturday, April 11, 2009



NOTE: If the title of this post seems rather odd to you, watch Jody Foster in CONTACT before continuing. You will then grasp the richness and totality of both the message and the discussion surrounding it. Sincerely -Michael M. Hobby

To discuss our subject, let us use the metaphor and allegory of SPORTS. Sports, in our sense and use, are activities in which two or more parties engage in a form of COMPETITION, with the object of either winning or achieving a higher score than others.

Let us resolve COMPETITION further by focusing upon a specific subcategory of Sports, FOOTBALL, establishing a few of its basic elements:


-The Team is the property of the Owner.
-The Coach, Quarterback, Tackle, and Receiver are members of the Team.
-The Team competes with other Teams.
-The Goal is the objective of all Teams.

How do Teams win? They engage in Games.

-Teams meet on the Field to Play the Game.
-How do Teams Play on the Field? They conduct Plays.
-The Coach designs the Plays, or adopts the plays of others, and adds them to the Play Book.
-The Quarterback is expected to learn the Plays. He then selects Plays from the Play Book, subject to the approval of the Coach, and may also design Plays of his own; these Plays are also subject to the approval of the Coach.

How is the Game Played?

All Games begin when a member of one Team Kicks the Ball to the opposing Team. A member of the opposing Team acts as the Receiver and catches the Ball. He then attempts to run (move) the Ball as far as possible toward the Goal line until he is tackled by one or more members of the opposing team. The Umpire then marks how far the Ball was moved toward the Goal line. Where the Umpire places, or allows others to place, the Ball becomes the Starting Line for the next Play. The team in possession of the Football then proceeds with the next play or Hovers to determine which Play they believe will enable them to move the Ball the farthest distance toward the Goal Line. They then return to the Starting Line and the next Play then commences. During the game, the Coach may call a timeout. The Teams then leave the Field and muster with the Coach to receive instructions or commence a discussion. Following the timeout, the Teams return to the Field and the Game resumes. The Umpire may also halt the Game by blowing his whistle and/or throwing a white flag upon the Field. This typically occurs either when a member of a Team violates the Rules of the game or commits a Foul. Rules define what actions can legitimately be conducted during a Game, and which cannot. A Foul occurs when a member or members of one Team inappropriately or unprofessionally either contact a member of the opposing Team, or interfere with the actions of a member of the opposing Team. If a Rule is violated, a Penalty applies. If a Foul occurs, a penalty applies. Generally, Penalties for Fouls are the most severe. Penalties may apply to the member(s) who commit(s) the Foul, or, more often, to the member's entire Team. Until the Team in possession of the Ball completes four Plays (IE, the passage of TIME), it remains in their possession, unless the Ball comes into the possession of a member of the opposing Team, either because the member of the Team in possession of the Ball either Fumbles it, or the Ball is Intercepted by a member of the opposing Team.

A Fumble occurs when the member carrying the BALL either drops it, thereby losing possession, or it is knocked from his grasp. If a member of the opposing Team recovers the Ball, the opposing Team comes into possession, PROVIDED THAT the Fumble did not occur as the result of a Foul being committed against the member in possession, or violate one of the Rues governing recovery of the Ball. The Team now in possession attempts to move the Ball as far as possible in the direction of their Goal line.

An Interception occurs when the Ball thrown by the opposing Team is not caught by the member intended, but instead, by a member of the opposing Team, PROVIDED THAT the member Intercepting the Ball does not commit a Foul against the member intended to catch it, and/or violate one of the Rules governing Interception.

If the Team in possession of the Ball fails to reach their Goal line within four Plays (a passage of Time), the opposing Team comes into possession of the Ball at the farthest point it was moved down the field. That point becomes the Starting Line for the first play of that Team. If the Team in possession of the Ball reaches their Goal line, they achieve a Touchdown (a Goal), and six Points are awarded. Additionally, the Team making the Touchdown gains the opportunity to earn an extra point by kicking the Ball between the Goal posts behind their Goal line. They may attempt to gain two extra points by, instead of kicking the Ball between the Goal posts, electing to attempt to run it across their Goal line a second time without being tackled before they cross it.

This description of the Game of Football is sufficient to establish metaphors and allegories pertinent to the purpose of our discussion.

LIFE in many ways resembles a SPORT in its competitive aspects. The competitive aspect of LIFE our discussion pertains to is the Pursuit of Truth. The Pursuit of Truth in many ways resembles the Sport of FOOTBALL. Individuals and/or Groups of individuals sharing a common Idea or Belief resemble a TEAM.

Examples of Teams are Politcal parties with differing Ideas and Beliefs, Religions or religious groups with differing Ideas or Beliefs, Scientists with differing Ideas or Beliefs, Nations with differing Ideas or Beliefs, Cultures with differing customs, Ideas, or Beliefs, and other opposition groups.

The Idea or Belief possessed by the Team seeking to advance or promote it resembles a BALL. The individuals and/or group in possession of the Ball encounters OPPOSITION from other individuals or groups which do not accept, and therefore, oppose the efforts of those attempting to advance it. That Group is the Opposing Team.

Teams believe that the Ideas or Beliefs of the opposing Team are MOOT. Moot is defined as “Open to question,” with the principal synonyms, “debatable, arguable, disputable, doubtful, problematic, questionable, and uncertain.”

The arguments and debates between the Teams resemble a GAME. DEBATE ( or its equivalent, Argumentation) is defined as “the act, art, or an exercise of one's powers of argument.” DEBATES may be Formal, like Games played by Teams which are members of the NFL (National Football League), debates between political candidates, but also may be Informal, like Football Games between Teams drawn from neighborhoods or communities, such as the Little League, and include the forums, editorial sections of Newspapers or Internet sites, or any other contexts within which the Teams oppose each other. Little League players have the opportunity to advance to members of larger Teams, and even to more Formal Teams, like the NFL. Small forums, such as on Internet sites, have the opportunity to advance to more Formal forums with many more hits, and opportunities to publish in more prestigious Scientific, Political, Religious, Economic, Social, or other published Journals or other broader or more influential contexts.

The GOAL is the audience the opposing Teams are addressing in their Games. The GOAL LINE is convincing the audience the opposing Teams are addressing in their Games that the BALL in their possession is most correct.

A TOUCHDOWN resembles reaching the Goal Line.

The UMPIRE is Sportsmanship (Ethics and Professionalism). A FOUL is a violation of Sportsmanship (unethical or unprofessional behavior). In this respect, in Formal debates, both the Goal and the Government act as the Umpire. If a FOUL occurs, a PENALTY results.

As in Football, the severity of the Penalty depends upon the nature of the Foul, which could be reduced credibility, or a Civil penalty resulting from a lawsuit. In enormous Formal Games, such as between Pharmaceutical companies racing to produce a drug, a Foul (such as when the drug results in the death or disablement of many children in a test group) penalties can reach billions of dollars. In the most Informal Games, such as between two individuals, the penalty may be as severe as the halting of the Game, such as, “Only those who respect the personality of others can be of real use to them”-Albert Schweitzer.

Nicholas Humphrey offers the following assertion in his book, “LEAPS OF FAITH. Science, Miracles, and the Search for Supernatural Consolation.” [ (1996) Basic Books, p.51]:

“For those who would resist the drift towards materialism, there might therefore be an intellectually honorable way forward. Rather than ignoring or deriding science, the better way could be to try to beat science at its own game.
We want a future state. We cannot expect to get it unless we have good reason to posit a special explanation of present facts. As things stand, however, contemporary scientific doctrine tells us this special explanation is not required. Then our strategy, should perhaps, be to go out and uncover new facts that do require it; facts that prove the present doctrine wrong.”

In his chapter, “Uncommon Sense,” is the following:

“ . . . A search uniting the Jesus street people at one end, and laboratory-based parapsychologists at the other, in pursuit of any such facts as might force a revision of the prospects for mankind. [p.52]

“Mark Ridley, the evolutionary theorist, has gone further still in saying . . . 'It is likely therefore that the first human brains evolved to impose symbolic meaning on the external world, and the scientific virus later infected a minority of their descendants, where it now flourishes in nerve circuits that originally evolved to carry other ideas' [Mark Ridley (1993), 'Infected with Science', New Scientist, 25 December 1993]
Such arguments, however, greatly exaggerate the supposedly unscientific and irrational character of the pre-scientific mind. Chambers Dictionary defines science, broadly but quite appropriately, as 'knowledge ascertained by observation and experiment, critically tested, systematized and brought under general principles.” But just such is the typically human way of gaining knowledge. So much so that, by these criteria, all human beings are almost from birth inveterate 'minor natural scientists' – keen observers of the universe, collectors of facts, framers of hypotheses, investigators of the as yet unexplained.' [p.53]

Thus, if hundreds of thousands of “typically human” observers and an overwhelming majority of “street people” believe UFOs exist, while on the other hand, relatively few vehement scientists, minuscule by comparison, assert they do not, who is it most “scientific” to believe is correct? To which must be added that they are not alone, for Sagan himself said, regarding the Nommo amphibious race discussed in "The Sirius Mystery,"

" . . . stories like the Oannes legend . . . deserve much more critical studies than have been performed heretofore." [Sagan, Carl, and Shklovskii, I.S. "Intelligent Life in the Universe," Delta Books, New York, 1966; p.461. See also, in Temple, Robert K.G., "The Sirius Mystery," Destiny Books, Rochester, Vermont; 1987, comments on that work made by W.H. McCrea, Emeritus professor of Astronomy at the University of Sussex and former President of the Royal Astronomical Society on pp.222-223]

The search for extraterrestrial life has grown in both intensity and dimension; a good example is the recent launch of the Kepler telescope not into earth orbit but a solar orbit above our own orbital plane. During the 14 years since 1995, when astronomers Michael Mayor and Didier Queloz discovered the planet 51 Pegasus b orbiting the eponymous star 51 Pegasus, astronomers have counted a total of 342 planets orbiting 289 stars, but not a single one of them is of the so-called terrestrial variety, because they are at a greater distance from the parent star than gas giants like Jupiter. Astronomers detected those not by spotting the planet directly but by measuring the minute gravitational wobbles it causes in its parent star as it orbits. With those data, it is possible to calculate the planet's mass, velocity, orbital altitude and more. Earth-like worlds are to small to cause wobbles and must lie within the Habitable zone, the distance from their sun where conditions are within limits which enable the evolution of life as we know it. [to further understand the limitations of the Habitable zone, see, RARE EARTH, 2000, by Ward, Peter D., and Donald Brownlee;Copernicus-Springer-Verlag, New York]

If a solar magnitude of 1 is assigned to the earth to represent its distance from the sun, Venus would have a solar magnitude of 2, and Mars would have a solar magnitude of 0.5. Venus is far too hot and thus its orbit lies beyond the Habitable Zone due to excessive solar radiation. Mars is too cold, because its orbit is at the extreme edge of the Habitable zone. Life may exist and likely does in the subsurface pore space where water is known to exist, but did not form there. Mars previously had abundant water as meandering River valleys attest, but future evolution of subsurface microbial life will be hampered by its present orbit.

"That's what Kepler is trying to change. The new telescope looks a bit like it could be the Hubble telescope's little brother, measuring 15.3 ft. vs. Hubble's 43.5. Kepler is smaller because it carries just one main piece of scientific hardware: a light imager known as a charged couple device that detects fluctuations in light so tiny they're measured by counting the electrons they produce on a silicon surface. This will allow Kepler to spot planets by the previously invisible change in luminosity they cause as their orbit carries them around the facing side of their parent star. . . . An unblinking look at Cygnus-Lyra is important because even if Kepler were to detect any telltale fluctuations in stellar light, that wouldn't be proof of a planet. The telescope would have to keep looking and see if the flickering is repeated roughly once a year, or about the time it would take an Earth-like planet to circle around its star and pass in front again. Record three or four such passes, and you can be pretty sure you've got a planet — hence the 3½-year mission." [http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=88408435816&h=JTNjs&u=zIBTT&ref=mf]

We like programs like Kepler because they are clean and free from the UFO debate, which is muddied by the lack of generally observable proof, something like a craft hovering over an earth city for an extended period too long to be denied or refuted. Nevertheless, the sheer volume of reports defying explanation or dismissal requires that we work on both fronts simultaneously.

Attempts to follow Humphrey's proposed strategy will expose such individuals, whether scientists or religionists, to vigorous, though often, merely authoritative condemnation at best, and being characterized as “zany” at worst. A thick skin and uncommon sense, which for niggardly detractors may add the designations, “madman” and "Hedonistic" to the list, are required. As I fall within both conventional and zany circles, rigorously defending assertions within the former, and directing attention to the outer limits of unexplained phenomena within the latter, I must thus be adept in the use of both Occam's razor and the Axe.

Further, I prefer to deal with each mentality on its own terms, as each is an energetic detractor (opponent) of the other. In doing so, I thus intentionally strive to be perceived as beating myself in both games, a zero-sum, or unity. An example of this paradox is the dispute involving “real” Christians vs. Mormon Christians. As I believe there is truth in the “core” of the Book of Mormon, yet am not a member of the faith to which the designation has become attached, I may be deemed a victim of uncommon sense to the former, and an “apostate” or more gratuitously, a “fellow traveler,” to the latter.

The “win“ strategy for my line thus becomes to first pose one set of facts to conventional science only in matters of accepted intellectual dispute on the frontiers of science, defending them rigorously to assure my recognition as prescient in the future; secondly, in contrast to this, to pose another set of facts or highly controversial unaccepted or alleged facts, less rigorously defended due to their very nature, to those interested in matters which may or may not be on the frontiers of science. These have a high percentage of popular (“typically human street people”) acceptance or belief, while a low percentage of acceptance or belief among consensus professionals in those same areas, and thus may legitimately-even by myself-be termed, “semi-science” or “popular” science.

Let us now consider the previous paragraph within the context of Fair Play and within the context of Unfair Play:

1) Should “professional” courtesy be extended to the unprofessional?
2) Can a matter or subject clearly popular among the public, IE, the layman, be ethically disparaged as unworthy of the attention of conventional science?
3) Is, or should there be, such a thing as “ethics” or “professionalism” in scientific dispute;? In Popular dispute;? In scientific vs. popular dispute?

The latter is the chicken bone stuck in the throat (scientific vs. popular dispute).

“Zany” is an interesting designation. Its selection may seem warranted, because it does not challenge the irrefutable academic stature of the opposition, but rather introduces the speculation that a matter at hand, the Ball, is “silly,” “foolish,” “cockamamie,” or even “mendacious,” depending upon the ethics and professionalism (Fairness) of the Team asserting as much. It merely serves to reduce the apparent credibility of the specific Ball or the Team having possession, generally. Is this Fair (ethical and professional) or is it Unfair (unethical or unprofessional), merely contemptible.

One cannot claim in a professional journal article-peer reviewers would reject it, “My Daddy can beat up your Daddy.” It is something only a child, physically or intellectually, might say. One can however, if ingenious, effectively say, “My God can beat up your 'god,'” because, however much it may grate upon members of a given Team in any Game, both science and religion at their core are matters of faith, not merely “fact.”

The redeeming hallmark of the Team most likely to ultimately reach the Goal Line [Team A], is a grudging willingness to allow their faith-the interpretation of their “facts”-to evolve. This Team, in my opinion, is likely to complete the most Interceptions of the Ball (Lynne McTaggart, and her book, THE FIELD, is an example of such an interception). Here is a classic example of Team A:

" . . . Hapgood pointed out the 300% to 400% of error in our initial estimates of the last ice age, as discerned through use of the C-14 and Ionium dating methodologies, 'By use of the first method, scientists revised the date of the end of the last ice age, making it only 10,000 years ago, instead of 30,000 years. A still more startling discovery was that the first known phase of this ice age [called the Farmdale Advance] occurred only about 25,000 years ago instead of 100,000 years before the present. . . . in 1955, geologist Leland Horberg showed that, unless the radiocarbon method was entirely fallacious, there was a very marked acceleration of these geological processes during the last part of the ice age. Some factor must, therefore, have been operating that is not operating now. It is clear that volcanic dust, by producing sudden falls in temperature and, at the same time, providing nuclei around which moisture could condense, could increase the rate of rainfall. Therefore, we are sure that a movement of the earth's crust would accelerate all these processes.
[Hapgood also determined, with respect to the Piggot-Urry cores from the North Atlantic, that "Back to 12,300 years ago the material is volcanic glass, indicating volcanic eruption somewhere at no great distance." Path of the Pole, 1958, 1970, 1999, p.176]
The other method of dating which we call the ionium method, has also produced a major upset. Applied to date the sediments obtained in cores from the bottom of the Ross Sea in Antarctica, it has revealed that during the last million years, Antarctica has several times been non-glacial. When the cores were dated, it was found that the most recent 'ice age' in the Ross Sea began only 6,000 years ago! It appears from this that the growth of ice in Antarctica actually occurred SIMULTANEOUSLY with the melting of the North American ice cap." [ibid., p. 66]

"This apparent lack of correlation presents interesting problems. If glaciation is caused by world-wide climatic change, why are the southern oscillations so unlike the North American ones? If, on the other hand, climatic change is not the cause of glaciation, what is?" [MacNeish, Richard, 1971; p. 107]

Scientific progress is often painstakingly slow, but it occurs nonetheless.

The hallmark of the opposing Team is an open unwillingness to allow its interpretation of its "facts" to evolve [Team B], unless social exposure or overwhelming evidence that their faith has been misplaced causes them to Fumble the Ball (forced change by society at large), though it is likely not to be characterized as such (for example, new “discoveries” or “revelations” received from the Owner of that Team are more likely to be presented in a desperate attempt to Recover the Ball). If the Ball is true, it will feel firm in the hands of the interested but dispassionate; if it is made to “appear” true as by an authoritarian pronouncement not subject to dispute except at great personal risk, it may feel soft and under inflated in the same hands. Team B appeals to such irrefutable authority with no obligation to systematically examine scientific credibility:

"St. Augustine in The City of God says, 'As it is not yet six thousand years since the first man . . . are not those to be ridiculed rather than refuted who try to persuade us of anything regarding a space of time so different from, and contrary to, the ascertained truth? . . . We, being sustained by divine authority in the history of our religion, have no doubt that whatever is opposed to it is most false.' He excoriates the ancient Egyptian tradition that the world is as much as a hundred thousand years old as 'abominable lies.' St. Thomas Aquinas, in the Summa Theologica, flatly states that 'the newness of the world cannot be demonstrated from the world itself.' They were so SURE." [Sagan, The Pale Blue Dot, 1994;p. 24]

Veritas [Teams A] vs. fides [Teams B]; requisite periods metaphorically termed “days” [Teams A], vs. six 24-hour days of creation or six days of 1,000 years each [Teams B], for example. Within this context, consider the following:

" . . . Platonism in the general sense is a creed which denies creed, an anti-institutional tradition known to those who adhere to it as the 'Great Tradition.' It resembles the Society of Friends (Quakers) in insisting on nothing in the way of doctrinal dogma. It is truly free, it has no membership, no tithes, no rules which are enforced; it has no Pope, no Caliph. It terrifies those weaker mentalities which crave a structured belief-system; they always try to destroy it, but succeed only in destroying individuals and individual 'movements' within the larger tradition." [Temple, Robert K.G., speaking of Proclus (410-485 A.D.) in "The Sirius Mystery," Appendix I; Destiny Books, Rochester, Vt., p. 229].

By this definition, I am guilty of belonging to the "Great Tradition," IE, Teams A.

A Foul may not always be recognized as such by the Umpire (observers, popular opinion, readership, or the courts). Brawls and skirmishes still occur on the Field, however, if a Team feels the Umpire just missed it. Thus, Fair and Unfair are also matters of opinion and interpretation, because only TIME is the ultimate Umpire. Time is the proximate Owner of both Teams, IE, in Time comes UNITY. It is important that time not be wasted, but that seemingly insignificant issues receive long-enduring attention using a "WHAT IF" model. Within that model, to establish framework within which progress might become possible, the presumption is made that the contested data or evidence are "true," and the resulting implications are then isolated for consideration. The human species needs to consider such questions BEFORE inexorable contact with alien species. Issues which now seem of little or no priority will then leap to the forefront and if never addressed before, will render mankind's position relative to other intelligent species precarious. For example, the question, "what is a sentient being?" arises when considering extraterrestrial life, as discussed somewhat in my post, "Conflicts and Contradiction . . ." Life can arise organically by genetic manipulation, or inorganically, using artifical intelligence and nanno technologies so advanced that we can now scarcely comprehend them. Consider the Star Trek clip at:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN5c79K-Euc&NR=1

Similarly, "what if" the species known as "Greys," together with their "doctors" and anal probe technology actually exist? How then can the anal probe reported to be so uncomfortable be characterized as technology rather than technical sodomy?

Lynn McTaggart recently discussed research indicating that human intelligence and knowledge, though centered in the brain, actually extend throughout the body, and are apparently concentrated in other areas, such as the human gut. If the reported research turns out to be valid, it should come as no surprise that an advanced species need not dissect the brains of abductees, as the same information is available from the gut by use of an anal probe which can "read" it.

These are but two examples of posing "what if" questions, which may then be capable in the very least of forward-thinking science fiction, which as we all know, can eventually lead science to development and understanding of such advanced, if currently incomprehensible, technologies. Thus, the more daring among us must pursue both conventional and unconventional, in the box and out of the box, thinking. The human psyche is capable of achievement not yet dreampt; but we must be willing to exercise it without regard to the dribble of sceptics.

Thursday, April 9, 2009

Zechariah Sitchen vs. Contending Scholars

Accuracy in Genesis Michael Hobby wrote:


Today, I received an email from an organization working on the ruins in the area of Sodom and Gomorrah. I had sent them an email, telling them I had done a side-by-side comparison of The Lost Book of Enki and Genesis, which seemed to indicate Sitchen was correct in his assertions with respect thereto.

As I am not qualified to address all of their comments, which can be condensed into three central areas, I addressed the one I am qualified to address. I would appreciate the courtesy of your addressing their remaining comments, as they raised some questions I would like to see addressed as well. I will in turn (or you may) use your rebuttals and forward them to their website.

Thank you for your assistance,

Michael M. Hobby

These were my initial comments to accuracyingenesis.com:

I was greatly impressed by your article on Sodom and Gommorah, and the link to the November 2001 issue of The American Journal of Human Genetics.

Your Genesis references are “spot on,” as the British would say. They caused me to wonder if you had compared the first ten chapters of Genesis with the 14 clay tablets comprising the Sumerian original, written some two thousand years earlier, and now available on Amazon.com: The Lost Book of Enki.

I have done a side by side comparison of the Genesis creation account with the Sumerian original, and it was far beyond enlightening. Although many passages in Genesis are word for word repetitions of the Sumerian clay tablets, 14 in number, other omissions and insertions completely distort and twist the originals, in that the motivation of the authors of Genesis was to advocate Monotheism, thereby furthering the promotion of their belief system.

However much one might love the Bible and the Semitic peoples who translated it from the originals 2,000 yrs earlier, he must admit that if they were the early farmers and source of agriculture and shepharding, they could not possibly have understood gene-splicing which we ourselves have only recently achieved. Yet, there it is, and it is coming from clay tablets written in ancient Sumerian and therefore cannot be labeled as fraud.

The big question is, where does that leave us?

If you have not yet done this comparison yourself, I would be very interested in your reaction to the same side by side comparison I did. I hope to hear your thoughts.

Your friend,

Michael M. Hobby


My response to their reply:

Thank you for your very enlightening comments. They have compelled me to review the three essentially refutable areas I resolved from your material. I intend to forward these and a copy of your remarks to Sitchen's website, requesting a response, particularly to two which I am not qualified to address. I am qualified to address the first.

The orbital period and eccentricity of "Nibiru" is the principal feature of ALL of Sitchen's fundamental constructs I initially found most troubling, and first considered myself. It is, however, the weakest of your arguments in plausibility (as presented), because you do not appear to take into consideration (at least not within the context of your remarks) the Expanding Earth model, which competes with virtually every aspect of the "Continental Drift" model.

To help you understand why I make this observation, subduction, within Plate Tectonics, if it were actually occurring (and must within the same for Tectonic theory not to be ludicrous), could, and likely would, reduce orbital eccentricity over time, as you argue, perhaps to its present eccentricity of only 0.0167, though Earth's tri-axiality, apart from eccentricity, should be added to (and acknowledged by) your comments in the future. I and many professionals, some competent to teach plate tectonics, including structural geologists (who, within the present consensus, still point out to students inconsistencies, such as over 100 miles of EXTENSION, NOT compression, within the Basin and Range province of the western United States alone-and they are many, including some who taught me) actually believe that the Expanding Earth model is the more correct. I am of the opinion that subduction does and is occurring, but that the earth must also be expanding, and that certain problematic phenomena, such as the Grand Canyon stratigraphic sequences, may be attributable to processes not inherent with either the Drift or Expansion models. I regard the Drift/Expansion debate as over-polarized, which produces inflexibility in advocates of either. This is not the path to greater knowledge and understanding.

One of the principal reasons for this that you will readily recognize is the impossibility of reconciling the known stratigraphic age of (un)subducted land masses, such as the Grand Canyon, which are an order of magnitude greater in age than the 200my since sea floor spreading along mid-oceanic ridges commenced. The reason we do is that the (limiting my remarks to the Grand Canyon for the sake of brevity) stratigraphic sequences contain many evaporite deposits, which by their very nature require long periods of time to develop, Velikovsky and Creationist arguments notwithstanding. Sedimentary unconformities (or discontinuities) with obvious missing periods of unknown duration, as well as other geologic and geomorphological and structural considerations. All are further increased in age yet more by the fact that the whole was once covered by a warm, shallow sea of indeterminate duration. The Great Salt Lake is all that remains of former Lake Bonneville, fed by deglaciation.

If Continental Drift (Plate Tectonics)were actually occurring (only if argued as the sole mechanism accounting for stratigraphy and geomorphology), the Grand Canyon could not exist, yet it does for all to see. Further, the subduction model can account for, yet neither adequately explains nor adequately refutes expansion of the magma sphere, and seems to entirely ignore mass-loading by meteorite dust today, let alone enormous mass-loading during more archaic periods during which much larger volumes were added to both the earth and all other members of the solar system, including the sun itself. Extraterrestrial mass-loading is not fundamental to our subduction model. Today, we are in a relatively quiet period of swept space, you might say, yet even now mass is accreting at a rate which, when extended over the geologic time span of the Grand Canyon, would have increased the diameter of the earth by over 40%, entirely ignoring any expansion of the molten sphere above the ferric core.

If indeed, Niburu exists, or did exist, displacement of both its orbital eccentricity and its own mass increase could still be closely correlated, but not remain constant as Sitchen's primary assertions suggest. Sitchen's own recent publication (which I do not claim to have read, but isn't relevant) maintains that Nibiru is scheduled to return in 2012. However, if you calculate multiples of 3600yrs using his own dates from his earlier works, you will find that 2012 does not fit. [This, however, constitutes orbital contraction, consistent with, and providing evidence for, both your and Sitchen's assertions of orbital period.]

Neither I, nor I think it is fair to say, the majority of scientists, dispute the possible existence of a rogue planet or asteroid with an highly elongated orbital period. In fact, is is debated among scientists that one or more of the rings of Saturn, or even one or more of its moons may share this origin. But that does not lend credence (necessarily) to Sitchen's major hypothesis. Neither does it constitute "evidence," which must be much more rigorously established, if not defended. Not all aspects of the Drift/Expansion debate however, are as complex. Simply cutting out the continents from a model of present-day earth and pasting them on a larger globe reveals the same telltale wedges at the southern and northernmost tips or extensions of the continental masses. They will appear much the same as they do on our own maps, and are, in my opinion, poorly explained by the Drift model. I will address the Drift/Expansion debate rigorously within more conventional contexts; this brief and arguably vague synopsis is merely to give your readers an awareness that some of the claims leveled against Sitchen and others they would like to see disappear are tongue-in-cheek, to say the least.

Generally, academic and social contexts prevent geologists who favor the Expansion model from openly advocating as much for obvious reasons. However, as I am relatively isolated from the consequences, you may use my remarks as you wish, as they further challenge (but also support) Sitchen's assertions. If you DO, it should be indicated that there is also much of Sitchen's work that I do not presume to contradict, because even though I am an archaeologist as well (geoarchaeologist), I am not an expert in Sumerian, transitional(pre-Nubian), or Semitic languages. I have studied Hebrew, but only to enable me to determine if any elements of that language were present in Mayan glyphs. There were none. Had I waited a few years, it would have been unnecessary, because we now know that Mayan is one of the three entirely unique mother languages occurring on our planet, which poses an insurmountable problem capable of producing a fumble for a certain religious group.

Further, using only his "Lost Book of Enki," even asserting that large portions of his text are or may be incorrectly translated, there remain many puzzling elements which suggest accurate translation. Two examples come to mind:

1)Of particular interest, the linear count of the calendar introduced which is in earth years is remarkably consistent with the Maya Long Count of Mesoamerica(p.276). This exceeds the odds of coincidence, as numerous later dates within that calendar are given in exact terms in the Book of Enki, which also agree with the LC. With respect to Velikovsky, it should also be noted that the Tun, the LC year, is not of 365 days, but of 360 day's length. Velikovsky was not a geologist, and during the years when Worlds in Collision and the Ages in Chaos series were written, geologists were still plagued by the old Geosyncline model, which was even less useful than the Drift. I and all geologists know that his geologic premises were incorrect, but remember that in his day, there were still active debates among consensus professionals over whether earth's petroleum had fallen from the sky during passage of some rogue planet or comet!, something that would generate hoots and catcalls today. However, that does not mean that he was not correct about anything, and in the case of the 360-day year prior to 700 B.C., he is, as far as I have been able to determine, correct. The LC itself is based upon a 360 day year, not just calendars from Indo-European and Asiatic civilizations cited by Velikovsky. I suspect that one's inclination can result in completely overlooking data which lend credence both to "The Lost Book of Enki" and modern astronomical discussions of Lunar origin stemming from a glancing collision of the earth with another planetary body, such as Lloyd's translation of Timaeus, where in his discussion of celestial phenomena in the same, he says, "For Orpheus calls the moon "celestial earth" (quotes mine, as in a part of the earth ABOVE the earth). . . And in Book III he says: "The Pythagoreans say . . . the Moon is ethereal earth." [Temple, op. cit., p.233]

2)Linguistic evidence COMBINED with geographic claims also occur which it would be difficult to argue stem from mistranslation. For example, on pp. 274-275, the city built to celebrate Anu's return, in the southern half of the western hemisphere, was by a lake, built of enormous perfectly fitted stones, and was the source of a newly discovered metal, "Anak," which, when combined with plentiful copper, produced a much harder alloy. Anak was obviously tin, and the resulting alloy, bronze. Remarkably, this corresponds with conventional datings of the ensuing Bronze Age.

More remarkably, the city with perfectly fitted stones, named Anak as well, which, according to Sitchens' translation of The The Lost Book of Enki, was built adjacent to a high, intermontane lake, still persists in its name today, Tia(HUANAC)o, Bolivia, which was obviously the city. The lake was Lake Titicaca, and the region, Bolivia. So rich in tin is Bolivia that, since the days of the Eisenhower administration, Bolivia has been the primary source for U.S. tin imports. Within this same context, major structural and geomorphologic disruptions have occurred within historic time. Tiahuanaco has extensive existing harbor works, encrusted with preserved oyster beds, that are 300 feet above lake Titicaca's present elevation. This is due to the uplifting of the lake's northern end in the Andes, which resulted in a 400-foot difference in elevation between the northern end and the southern, which now terminates in the salt flats of Uyuni, northeast of Antofagasta. Uyuni, a town in the Potosí Department in the south of Bolivia, was founded in 1890 as a trading post, with a population even today of less than 11,000.

Given the existence of point sources of chloride in the region and the spatial distribution of the generated plumes in saturated zones, only uplift by subduction can account for the source, not an imagined catastrophic event, as extensive chloride migrations (in both vertical and horizontal cross-sectional planes of the aquifers) cannot be explained by catastrophic events within an historic time interval. These chloride migrations and intra-basin accumulations became evaporite deposits over time as the hydrogeology of the region changed. It is the regional distribution of the deposits and salty lakes which gave rise during the colonial period to the inclusion of salt (salta) in regional names of settlements. The migration of chloride shows patterns which are affected by the lithologic heterogeneities of the aquifer and regional groundwater flow . This geomorphology could not by any strech be attributed to an Expanding earth model. Throughout, for instance, Devonian evaporite series are facies which occur which are clearly marine, but derive from entirely natural geologic processes, such as series which progress, from bottom to top with a predominance of dolomite, then anhydrite, then rock salt. These transitions are not saltatory, but are progressive crystallization intervals derived from available solutes not yet precipitated. Seepage basins, such as Lake Chad Basin at the midpoint of the Yobe River drainage basin approximately 1000 km northeast of the confluence of the Niger and Benoue rivers in Africa act both as preconcentration and load-shedding basins, IE, receivers of chloride migration.

Anciently the entire lake was surrounded by solid deposits formed by calcareous algae. Thus, the tilt of the basin in which Lake Titicaca is located can be accurately determined merely by comparing the elevation of the strand line at the water's edge at the northern end (where at its northernmost point, terraced mountainsides formerly used for agriculture are now above the line of eternal frost), with the elevation of the strand line at the southern end, some 800 miles distant.

The strand line itself has long intrigued me. So much so that, while completing my Masters degree in hydrogeology at Cal State, Stanislaus, I engaged in a special credit project overseen by a prominent oceanographer at Berkeley. The project involved research to determine if the strand line was formed by salt water calcareous algae, and/or fresh water calcareous algae, and if the evaporite deposits in Uyuni were marine in origin, or could just as easily be terrestrial, as in the case of erosion of Triassic beds as point sources for chloride. Evaporites themselves are neither reservoirs nor source rocks.

It has been claimed that seahorses were at one time sold to tourists by the natives. Others have made assertions that Tiahuanaco was once at the elevation of the Pacific. If the strand line could have been made by fresh water algae, or a mixture of both fresh and salt, then whether reports of seahorses being sold to tourists are mythological or correct, asserting that the ruins were once at the elevation of the Pacific is unnecessary, because, as discussed above, chloride migration is a principle process throughout the region, and Lake Titicaca was a seepage basin. The reason I do not advance that the tilt is thus a reflection of subduction along the Pacific littoral, a typical feature observed adjacent to subduction zones, is that uplift due to subduction cannot be reasonably argued as the process by which man made agricultural terraces were lifted above the line of eternal frost. To assert such an agency posits an unrealistic rate of uplift due to subduction within historic time; it more likely occurred either during partial cancellation of gravity when a Newtonian object (spherical shape and planetary mass) passed over the area, or alternatively, because the earth is expanding. However, arguing that expansion is responsible for lifting the terraces suffers from the same failure of logic as arguing plate tectonics. Both are problematic, yet the strand line exists.

There is a puzzling phenomenon, however, which does seem to offer evidence of catastrophic (very rapid)rise, the Grey Gull. The Grey Gull (Leucophaeus modestus) is a gull found along the Pacific coast of South America. Unusual among gulls, it only breeds in the extremely arid Atacama Desert in northern Chile which nests in a line parallel to the Pacific.

Gulls usually nest along the coast above the high tide boundary zone. There, close access to marine prey and moist, landward breezes, establish a suitable ecosystem. The Grey gull of the Atacama is upwards of twenty miles inland, with innumerable nests in a band parallel to the Pacific. There, the aridity is so high, and the heat so intense, that either the male or female must remain in the nest, wings outspread during the day, to protect the eggs and young from certain destruction. The other must endure a twenty-mile flight to the coast, engorge themselves, then complete the rigorous twenty-mile flight back to the nest. Arriving after dark with so many nests present, it can only find its own by recognizing the call of its mate, then must up gorge the contents of its stomach into the mouths of the young. The next day, that gull remains at the nest and the other repeats the vigil.

It is difficult at best to account for such a phenomenon. If the uplift had occurred over geologic or even historic time, the nests would still hug the coast. If it was sudden, however, it would not seem that the gulls left the sea, but that the sea left the gulls. The latter seems to me the more reasonable conclusion. This should NOT be taken to imply that Tiahuanco was once on the Pacific littoral. It merely indicates rapid uplift of the entire crustal block containing Peru, Bolivia, and Chile, including northwestern Argentina in the area of the Chaco province.

A phenomenon like the Grey Gull of the Atacama desert, for me at least, becomes a persistent matter of reflection. When I encounter such, they take on the aura of an Easter egg, with an associated awareness that it might be more, perhaps even a Pearl of Great Price. When I was 18, I abandoned prejudice against the Black man. From that experience, I began to suspect that prejudice was like rock which, when overturned, revealed a truth. I have since striven to find the prize, the truth, underlying all such rocks of prejudice, and have benefited from that attitude. If there is one, their might be more.

So I have sought for additional anomalous phenomena in the same location. Pertaining to the Atacama, I did encounter another:

"The nitrate deposits in the extremely arid Atacama Desert of northern Chile are among the most unusual of all mineral deposits. In fact, they are so extraordinary that, were it not for their existence, geologists could easily conclude that such deposits could not form in nature. The nitrate deposits consist of water-soluble saline minerals that occur as cement in unconsolidated surficial material - alluvial fill in valleys, loose rocky debris on hillsides, and windblown silt and sand - and as impregnations and veins in porous and fractured bedrock. They are found chiefly along the eastern side of the Coastal Range, but also within the Coastal Range, in the Central Valley to the East, and along the lower Andean front. Features of the deposits that appear to defy rational explanation are their restricted distribution in a desert characterized throughout by saline soil and salt-encrusted playas; the wide variety of topography where they occur; the abundance of nitrate minerals, which are scarce in other saline complexes; and the presence of other, less abundant minerals containing the ions of perchlorate, iodate, chromate, and dichromate which do not exist in any other saline complexes. Iodate,, chromate, and dichromate are known to form under such conditions, but no chemical process acting at temperatures and pressures found at the earth's surface is known to produce perchlorate."
(Ericksen, George E.; "The Chilean Nitrate Deposits," American Scientist, 71: 366, 1983.)

Note that both the Grey Gull and the nitrate deposits, ENTIRELY DIFFERENT in their nature, one biological behavior, the other a geochemical phenomenon, are each the SOLE instance known, and additionally, that, "were it not for their existence, geologists could EASILY conclude that such deposits could NOT form in nature." The same applies to the nesting locale of the Grey Gull. If then, I have found two instances of extraordinary phenomena in the same region - the Atacama - , my suspicion increases accordingly, because they suggest an extraordinary agency was involved in their creation. As I concluded that a Newtonian object passing overhead and causing a rapid rise of the crustal block where the phenomenon occurs seemed to be the simplest explanation (Occam's Razor), the nitrates (the mechanism for which is entirely unknown) might also become subject to the same conclusion. As I need not remind you that the tilt of the strand line is a THIRD associated phenomenon of, again, a different nature, for me, this is something to keep in mind, because NEITHER plate tectonics, NOR the Expansion model can account for these three phenomena. Only a THIRD type of agency will accommodate them all simply - again, Occam's Razor. I do not make this observation lightly. [See, Michael M. Hobby, "THE CATASTROPHIC ROLE OF FLUID PRESSURE AND GEOMAGNETIC PHENOMENA IN THE MECHANICS OF OVERTHRUST FAULTING,"; Kronos Vol. IX No. 1 (Fall 1983). It will be uploaded and available to read on this site within a few weeks.

The enormous size and weight of the foundation stones still remaining at Tiahuanaco, some of which which exceed the lift capacity of today's largest cranes, are so uniformly cut that we cannot produce perfectly flat surfaces across such extended horizontal distances. Even with our finest sanding surfaces, minerals lower in hardness than quartz are preferentially removed. Clearly, an unknown hand of superior technological capability produced these works. To maintain otherwise is intellectually dishonest and arrogant.

One additional error in your comments, if I understand them correctly, is your inclusion of quoted material from Sitchen's detractor, Peter James. His assertion that Sitchen claims Marduk overthrew the Nibiru dynasty and created earth as the twelfth planet, if you are correctly quoting him, is incorrect and indicates that Jame's reading of Sitchen was either hurriedly completed or that he misunderstood Sitchen or the text itself. Unless you have misread James, or I have misread Sitchen, Marduk was the son of Enki, and it was Enki, not Marduk, who was the first, not to create, but to land upon earth.

My remarks have been somewhat long, but as you exerted obvious effort in compiling yours, I felt I owed you equal time in return.

One final point:

Just because a scholar accepts certain assertions, or even categories of assertions, from such sources as Sitchen and Velikovsky does not suggest that they accept the whole. There is much to be gleaned from both of benefit to other scholars. Of course, as the great LDS scholar, Hugh Nibley once noted, mentioning such openly doesn't just acknowledge your frontier-extending work; it also generates skeptics who incorrectly presume (or contemptibly imply) you have swallowed the whole.

He made this remark specifically with reference to his belief that Velikovsky was generally correct, at least with reference to the Ages in Chaos series, He, together with prominent physicist, Robert Bass, who, funded by a million-dollar grant, was conducting a project to develop a magnetic bottle that could contain a nuclear fission reaction at the time at BYU (Brigham Young University), felt Velikovsky should receive an Honorary doctorate from BYU. Nibley was a scholar of such eminence that he cannot, in my opinion, with a wave of the hand, any more than Sitchen, be relegated to the "Lunatic fringe" because he accorded value to Velikovsky's work. There are many other scholars of far greater repute than I who would agree with me on this point. A layman might make such statements, but professionals should not, because it evidences lack of intellectual sophistication and emotional restraint; further, it retards the progress of science.

I hope to hear your comments regarding my remarks, as well as additional information you may have or encounter which suggest additional errors Sitchen might have made either in translation or hypothesis. As you quote sources who disparge Sitchen's ability to translate, are you aware of any translations of the same material relying upon the Sumerian Lexicon you cited? Should I receive responses from Sitchen to your other two basic criticisms, I will likewise make them available to you.

Sincerely, Michael M. Hobby

These are the comments to which I was responding

Accuracy in Genesis wrote:


You did not give a URL reference for the translations that you are using. If you were using Sitchin, then the following are some comments concerning the theories of Sitchin on the internet copied from  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zecharia_Sitchin

When Sitchin wrote his books, only specialists could read the Sumerian language, but now anyone can check his translations by utilizing the 2006 book, "Sumerian Lexicon."[4] Sitchin's translations of both individual words and of larger portions of ancient texts are generally found to be incorrect.[5][6]

Sitchin's "planetary collision" view does superficially resemble a theory which is seriously entertained by modern astronomers — the giant impact theory of the Moon's formation about 4.5 billion years ago by a body impacting with the newly-formed Earth. However, Sitchin's proposed series of rogue planetary collisions differ in both details and timing. As with Immanuel Velikovsky's earlier Worlds in Collision thesis, Sitchin claims to have found evidence of ancient human knowledge of rogue celestial motions in a variety of mythological accounts. In Velikovsky's case, these interplanetary collisions were supposed to have taken place within the span of human existence, whereas for Sitchin these occurred during the early stages of planetary formation, but entered the mythological account passed down via the alien race which purportedly evolved on Nibiru after these encounters.

Sitchin's scenario for the creation of the Solar System is hard to reconcile with the Earth's current small orbital eccentricity of only 0.0167. Sitchin's supporters maintain that it would explain Earth's peculiar early geography due to cleaving from the celestial collision, i.e., solid continents on one side and a giant ocean on the other. The scenario outlined by Sitchin, with Nibiru returning to the inner solar system regularly every 3,600 years, implies an orbit with a semi-major axis of 235 Astronomical Units, extending from the asteroid belt to twelve times farther beyond the sun than Pluto. "Elementary perturbation theory indicates that, under the most favorable circumstances of avoiding close encounters with other planets, no body with such an eccentric orbit would keep the same period for two consecutive passages. Within twelve orbits the object would be either ejected or converted to a short period object. Thus, the search for a trans-Plutonian planet by T.C. Van Flandern of the U.S. Naval Observatory, which Sitchin uses to bolster his thesis, is no support at all."[7][8]

Sitchin claims that "from an equal start, the Nefilim evolved on Nibiru 45 million years ahead of comparable development on Earth with its decidedly more favorable environment. Such an outcome is unlikely, to say the least, since Nibiru would spend over 99% of its time beyond Pluto. Sitchin's explanation that heat from radioactive decay and a thick atmosphere keep Nibiru warm is absurd and does not address the problem of darkness in deep space. Also unexplained is how the Nefilim, who evolved long after Nibiru arrived, knew what happened when Nibiru first entered the solar system."[9] Sitchin bases his arguments on his personal interpretations of Pre-Nubian and Sumerian texts, and the seal VA 243. Sitchin claims these ancient civilizations knew of a 12th planet, when in fact they only knew five.[10] Hundreds of Sumerian astronomical seals and calendars have been decoded and recorded, and the total count of planets on each seal has been five. Seal VA 243 has 12 dots that Sitchin identifies as planets. When translated, seal VA 243 reads "You're his Servant" which is now thought to be a message from a nobleman to a servant. According to semitologist Michael S. Heiser, the so-called sun on Seal VA 243 is not the Sumerian symbol for the sun but is a star, and the dots are also stars.[10][11]

The symbol on seal VA 243 has no resemblance to the hundreds of documented Sumerian sun symbols. Peter James has criticised him both for ignoring the world outside of Mesopotamia and more specifically for misunderstanding Babylonian literature: “ He uses the Epic of Creation Enuma Elish as the foundation for his cosmogony, identifying the young god Marduk, who overthrows the older regime of gods and creates the Earth, as the unknown "Twelfth Planet". In order to do as he interprets the Babylonian theogony as a factual account of the birth of the other "eleven" planets. The Babylonian names for the planets are established beyond a shadow of a doubt--Ishtar was the deity of Venus, Nergal of Mars, and Marduk of Jupiter -- and confirmed by hundreds of astronomical/astrological tables and treatises on clay tablets and papyri from the Hellenistic period. Sitchin merrily ignores all this and assigns unwarranted planetary identities to the gods mentioned in the theogony. For example, Apsu, attested as god of the primeval waters becomes, of all things, the Sun! Ea, as it suits Sitchin, is sometimes planet Neptune and sometimes a spaceman. And the identity of Ishtar as the planet Venus, a central feature of Mesopotamian religion, is nowhere mentioned in the book--instead Sitchin arbitrarily assigns to Venus another deity from Enuma Elish, and reserves Ishtar for a role as a female astronaut.[12]

Similar ideas have been advanced by authors such as Immanuel Velikovsky, Erich von Däniken, Alan F. Alford and Laurence Gardner. Alford later recanted his views and became a critic of Sitchin's interpretation of myth. Sitchin in “the case of Adam’s alien genes” [13] claims that 223 unique genes found by the Human Genome Sequencing Consortium are without the required predecessors on the genomic evolutionary tree. Later researchers have argued that the conclusion from the Human Genome Sequencing Consortium can not be drawn due to a lack of a comprehensive gene database for comparison. An analysis by Salzberg identified 40 potential genes laterally transferred into the genome from prokaryotic organisms. Salzberg also argues that gene loss combined with sample size effects and evolutionary rate variation provide an alternative, more biologically plausible explanation. [14] See also  http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/sitchinerrors.htm

Now if we are in error, and you were not using Stichin please correct us!

Now concerning the chicken and egg theories that the Sumerian writings preceded the Semitic texts, it is difficult to know if anyone will ever have "proof" concerning this!  Just because the earliest "writings" we have at this time are some clay tablets, is NOT "proof" that these are indeed the first "writings".  There is a tradition that the patriarch Enoch before the flood did "writings".  Per our understanding of the chronology the time of Enoch before the flood would have been before 11,000 year ago. "Very interestingly "11,600 years ago marked the beginning of the Rule of Mortal Humans on Earth according to Manetho (Egyptian historian ca. 343 BC)" prior to that was "Rule by Demigods and Spirits of the Dead (followers of Horus)". (from http://www.innerx.net/ personal/ tsmith/ iceciv.html) A very close correspondence to the indicated termination of the Younger Dryas (11,550 +-70 B.P. per the GRIP ice core data) and the time we would choose as the most likely time of the flood, and soon afterward the tribes would start multiplying and migrating from the "Ararat" area into lower lands of the most northern part of the fertile crescent where the archaeologists have uncovered the first evidences of large scale farming and community building, around 10,000 to 11,000 B.P.." Also note that the Sumerians in their own writings say they came from Ararat. 

So doesn't it seem possible to assume that these migrating herdsmen and farming tribes had oral traditions and if they had writings most likely they were on skins and possibly not on numerous very heavy to transport clay tablets.  That they started using clay tablet libraries only after they had settled into more permanent locations.  Well there is just no real way to know, and to know what sort of library writings Moses possibly used as he was a student in Pharaoh's house.  And exactly how Moses compiled his writings and which parts were from earlier written sources and which were from the inspiration of the Spirit of God?  Since obviously Moses himself was not a witness to Genesis chapter 1, the Creation story, and all that preceded his coming of age as contained in the book of Genesis.

Thank you for the interesting comments. Accuracy Staff.