The Annunaki - Mankind's origins?

[Norsefire]

To be honest, this isn't even a theory; it lacks any solid evidence (it's all circumstancial), however it is interesting enough, I feel. And there's also a number of drawings, paintings, and literature from the ancient times on the subject of the Annunaki (or as they may otherwise be called, the Reptilians, the "men from the heavens", or ancient aliens).

Now to tell you a bit more about the subject: the Sumerians were an ancient civilization in what is now Iraq, most known for being the first civilization to invent writing, among other things, and is one of the earliest civilizations in recorded history. The Sumerians have literature and art depicting "men from the heavens", and this is shared by a number of old civilizations including the Egyptians, and Mayans and Aztecs. There is even Sumerian art depicting a double helix (DNA) and talk of how the Annunaki, these "gods" as they thought of them, led to mankind's creation.

The Annunaki (according to the common story) are a species from a distant planet that originally came to Earth for resources; they then genetically altered the primates on the planet in order to build a "worker species" (humans). Over time we evolved with their guidance, to the point where we are now.

As I said, there isn't much credible evidence but the ancient art and literature is certainly interesting, as well as such amazing constructions like the Pyramids which would have been difficult to build without any sort of aid.

 

[cosmictraveler]

the Pyramids which would have been difficult to build without any sort of aid.

They developed enough math and engineering on their own to build them. Some of the Egyptians were very intelligent and highly skilled, as what they left behind shows us. They themselves built their buildings by themselves, no aliens came down and showed them how to do it. There's absolutely no proof that aliens were involved.

 

[jpappl]

Norse,

Not that i am doubting what you say, just am curious. Is this correct ?

"The Annunaki (according to the common story) are a species from a distant planet that originally came to Earth for resources; they then genetically altered the primates on the planet in order to build a "worker species" (humans). Over time we evolved with their guidance, to the point where we are now. "

Bold is mine.

Is that in their stories. Because that is very interesting indeed. It doesn't seem to me that they could both have conceived the idea of use coming from earlier primates and at the same time thought or believed these aliens made the adjustment.

Weird.

 

[nietzschefan]

I can tell you've got some of your ideas from that David Icke character. He's the profiteer who's made money on the reptilian myth. And woven it into the Stechin myth/account/translation of the Sumerian tablets so far found.

Quite the contrary, the Stechin myth states we are at least 50% primate(of 150000 years ago variety), and 50% Annunaki. A further unknown amount are descended from a line the God Enki created when he lay with a Human woman descended from the original genetic creation of slaves for gold mining. So like 75% or something. These humans were able to be taught the building blocks of civilization (cultivating, writing, etc). This means we would at least look more than half "Reptillian" if Icke really wants to piggy back his bullshit on Stechin's (no doubt for a larger public to buy his books). Stechin maintained the Annunaki "evolved" on Nibieru (12th planet, 11th crashed into earth), normally. That's probably the easiest way to discredit him.

Stechin's theory as you say, lacks any evidence, so most other experts in the field feel no need to discount it. The myth perpetuates because there is hardly any other books about these stories....I can only assume it is because these original texts basically mean the Hebrew/Jewish religion was at least 50% plagiarized directly from Sumerian Myth. It is a common tactic when bringing in the new social power controlling lie(read: Religion) to simply overtake the old beliefs and change them around a bit to suit your newer changed society(as religion changes too slowly has to adhere to it's dogma or be proven false).

So no one writes books about this stuff for the "layman", whom eats up Stechin's account like a school kid loves ghost stories. Experts talk and write for themselves in dry, boring books and avoid pissing off the stupid religious and superstitious public.

Thus Stechin is correct...the laymen is left to assume. The ignorant masses build upon the myth, it's no different than in ancient days.

 

[Ophiolite]

Norsefire, you attempt in your post to be reasonable and to clearly note the lack of substantial evidence for what isn't even a theory. Despite this sincere effort you are guilty of one of the errors that plagues pseudoscience and leads to the gullible believing the outrageous.

There is even Sumerian art depicting a double helix (DNA) .

As written this is very easily read as 'the Sumerian's new of DNA and its double helix'. I quite understand that you did not intend this meaning, but sloppy writing and even sloppier thinking on the part of some readers will lead to exactly that interpretaion being placed on it.

Perhaps you consider re-wording it in future in less ambiguous terms.

 

[EndLightEnd]

Mankinds origins get more interesting every day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yonaguni_Monument

 

[electrafixtion]

Norse,

Not that i am doubting what you say, just am curious. Is this correct ?

"The Annunaki (according to the common story) are a species from a distant planet that originally came to Earth for resources; they then genetically altered the primates on the planet in order to build a "worker species" (humans). Over time we evolved with their guidance, to the point where we are now. "

Bold is mine.

Is that in their stories. Because that is very interesting indeed. It doesn't seem to me that they could both have conceived the idea of use coming from earlier primates and at the same time thought or believed these aliens made the adjustment.

Weird.

This is one of the origins for what is referred to as "guided evolution". Zachariah Sitchin is responsible for much of what the OP refers to.

Much of Sitchin's work is suspect however. As a researcher, fellow Sumerian language experts have more or less condemned him by illuminating very important mistakes he made via his proclaimed theoretical stance. This being respectfully concerned with his interpretations of the Sumerian language. These mistakes which constitute the basis for many of his theories, can't be denied.

There has however been quite a bit of research done by other scholars, that indicates far less specific and colorful historical revelations concerning previous advanced native civilizations from right here on earth. Some theories in which it is postulated that surviving members of these cultures, post apocalypse/natural cataclysm, may have begun, or even merely continued, a guided genetic manipulation of life here on earth. Who knows.

I will state that there is a helluva lot of "connect the dots with faith" with respect to basic random mutation driven evolution. Obviously evolution occurred, the question is, "was it guided or something that naturally occurred in random?"

 

[GeoffP]

Woo, this is a good one.

 

[geistkiesel]

To be honest, this isn't even a theory; it lacks any solid evidence (it's all circumstancial), however it is interesting enough, I feel. And there's also a number of drawings, paintings, and literature from the ancient times on the subject of the Annunaki (or as they may otherwise be called, the Reptilians, the "men from the heavens", or ancient aliens).

Now to tell you a bit more about the subject: the Sumerians were an ancient civilization in what is now Iraq, most known for being the first civilization to invent writing, among other things, and is one of the earliest civilizations in recorded history. The Sumerians have literature and art depicting "men from the heavens", and this is shared by a number of old civilizations including the Egyptians, and Mayans and Aztecs. There is even Sumerian art depicting a double helix (DNA) and talk of how the Annunaki, these "gods" as they thought of them, led to mankind's creation.

The Annunaki (according to the common story) are a species from a distant planet that originally came to Earth for resources; they then genetically altered the primates on the planet in order to build a "worker species" (humans). Over time we evolved with their guidance, to the point where we are now.

As I said, there isn't much credible evidence but the ancient art and literature is certainly interesting, as well as such amazing constructions like the Pyramids which would have been difficult to build without any sort of aid.

I am sure you've read Zacharia Siltchin? "The Twelth Planet" There is good evidence there.

 

[geistkiesel]

Norsefire, you attempt in your post to be reasonable and to clearly note the lack of substantial evidence for what isn't even a theory. Despite this sincere effort you are guilty of one of the errors that plagues pseudoscience and leads to the gullible believing the outrageous.
As written this is very easily read as 'the Sumerian's new of DNA and its double helix'. I quite understand that you did not intend this meaning, but sloppy writing and even sloppier thinking on the part of some readers will lead to exactly that iterpretaion being placed on it.

Perhaps you consider re-wording it in future in less ambiguous terms.

Go away O.There is plenty of evidence if you just look for it. Read the Twelth Planet [Z Siltchin]then return here and respond after you have ascquired something to talk about.

Are you suggesting that only gullible persons can accept the outrageous?
Natural helical structurtes are not retricted to DNA. The solar system orbiting the moving sun describes a helix with all the complexity of DNA. I read Norsefilre not as claiming the Sumerians were knowledgeable re DNA but that the Aliens who supposedly cloned us did know about DNa. There are substantial clay pottery writing describing the solar system as hving all the known planets plus an extra. Modern science didn't complete the solar system until the 1930s.

Do you have evidence that Aliens didn't come to earth and effectively "created us"? Does this extraordinary significance of the truth of the matter operate to justify the 'pseudoscience' of the topic, just because it is outre?

What is more reasonable, Siltchin or Genesis - OK you want Charlie's evolution thrown in there for the Gullible Travelers, don't cha O? Do you know if the Sumerianms knew of the double helix, however they came by the information? I bet you whatever that you will insist on a more modern construction of a qualified panel to discuss the issue, something on the order that the continuing process of acquiring all the modern science as known today [or thought as known] is the end all for a glorius evolutionary ststem of organ ic development on this planet, don't cha?

What are you a frustrated mommy that cannot resist the opportunity to urge Norsefire "rewording it in the future" - why don't you write what you want to read?

 

[Ophiolite]

geistkiesel,
I teach my students that part of the skill of clear communication is to open with an executive summary. Here is the exec. summary for your post.

Crap.

Go away O.

If you wish me to go away why would you direct five questions and an instruction to at me? Ah, yes - you are not very logical, are you? No, I have not miscounted: two further questions are clearly rhetorical.

There is plenty of evidence if you just look for it.

Strawman argument. I did not say there was no evidence; I agreed with Norsefire that there was no substantial evidence.

Are you suggesting that only gullible persons can accept the outrageous? Read the Twelth Planet [Z Siltchin]

No. But to accept the outrageous one reasonably requires something substantive. The works of an exploitative charlatan who preys on the gullible does not count.

There are substantial clay pottery writing describing the solar system as hving all the known planets plus an extra. Modern science didn't complete the solar system until the 1930s.

Since Pluto is not a planet, I guess that means there are two missing planets. Or, do you just select the meanings that match your fantasies.

Do you have evidence that Aliens didn't come to earth and effectively "created us"?

Do you have evidence that five purple canaries were not present in small linen bags at the Battle of Verdun? No? Well they must have been there, then.

Does this extraordinary significance of the truth of the matter operate to justify the 'pseudoscience' of the topic, just because it is outre?

??? :shrug:

What is more reasonable, Siltchin or Genesis

This is the logical fallacy of the False Dichotomy. However, since you ask, Genesis is far more reasonable, since I read it as an insightful metaphor, not a literal truth.

you want Charlie's evolution thrown in there for the Gullible Travelers, don't cha O?

When you have an education, when you have learned to use logic, when you can distinguish between fantasy and reality, then you will still not be entitled to play the familiar with the name of a man who knew how to present the outrageous with a skillfully contrived argument, founded upon exquisitely detailed evidence.

Do you know if the Sumerianms knew of the double helix, however they came by the information?

Since there is no meaningful evidence that they did, then I rather doubt it.

I bet you whatever that you will insist on a more modern construction of a qualified panel to discuss the issue, something on the order that the continuing process of acquiring all the modern science as known today [or thought as known] is the end all for a glorius evolutionary ststem of organ ic development on this planet

I imagine this meant something to you when you wrote it. I'll do my best to guess what that was.
.....
No, that won't work. It is rife with ambiguity and obfuscation. If that represents your distilled thought then it is not surprising that you stand centre stage in the troop of the gullible.

why don't you write what you want to read?

I do.

 

[SkinWalker]

Go away O.There is plenty of evidence if you just look for it. Read the Twelth Planet [Z Siltchin]then return here and respond after you have ascquired something to talk about.

Sitchin was a kook and the "12th planet" is poorly written fiction. But feel free to quote what you consider to be the most convincing passage which contains evidence for discussion purposes. I'm very interested in what you would consider to be the most convincing bit of Sitchin's book.

There are substantial clay pottery writing describing the solar system as hving all the known planets plus an extra. Modern science didn't complete the solar system until the 1930s.

Where are these pots today? What, specifically, is written. If it was cuneiform, would you care to post the glyphs here?

Do you know if the Sumerianms knew of the double helix, however they came by the information?

The Sumerians, most assuredly, did not know of the double helix as it applies to DNA.

What are you a frustrated mommy that cannot resist the opportunity to urge Norsefire "rewording it in the future" - why don't you write what you want to read?

Are you capable of interacting with other members without ad hominem comments like this?