Lloyd Pye Defends Zacharia Sitchin

This is short piece defending the work of the later Zecharia Sitchin who is no longer here to do so himself.  Through a re interpretation of Sumerian texts, he produced an alternate history of the past two hundred thousand years or so.  This alternative history is a combination of specifics and plausible reconstruction that informs the inquirer.

Without such work, it is impossible to advance knowledge at all.  We only need look at the folly of the Clovis horizon in the Americas.  General acceptance of the 12,500 BC horizon meant digging no deeper.  That is and will turn out to be bone stupid.  Yet funding constraints almost force researchers to follow that accepted guideline.

Sitchen opened the door to possibilities that were unimagined.  From that new evidence is fleshing out his framework and steadily reinforcing it.  Nothing yet has come even close to shutting it down.

South Africa was claimed as the first major site of human gold mining and lo and behold we have established the existence of thousands of primitive gold miners living in a huge distributed community in Africa, unlike anything else.

Proposing the existence of alien human biological interaction has opened our eyes to the possibility and now we have the starchild held by Pye.  We may have never looked.

One basic lesson.  Every usable valley on earth out onto the continental shelf was occupied by humanity before the end of the Ice Age.  We have generally failed to dig deep enough.

In Defense Of Zecharia Sitchin

by Lloyd Pye, Dec 2010

http://www.lloydpye.com/essay_defensesitchin.htm

Zecharia Sitchin was an author famous for "The Earth Chronicles" series of books about the writings of the ancient Sumerians (circa 5,000 years ago) as he interpreted them. He was one of perhaps 200 people in the world, if that many, who could translate cuneiform, the symbolic language of the Sumerians. His work has been very influential on my own.

A Message From Lloyd Pye

Since the death of Zecharia Sitchin on Oct. 9, 2010, his critics have come out in droves on the internet to try to trash his work and his legacy. Because of my well-known regard for his work, which I heavily incorporated in Part IV of my book Everything You Know Is Wrong,several people have asked me to come to Zecharia's defense now that he can no longer do it himself in the vigorous way he was known for. With that said, here is my nutshell defense of his work against any and all criticisms. It is simple and it is true. Please feel free to share it with others on the internet, and/or use it to respond to any critic you care to address: 

Anyone who says Zecharia Sitchin is a fraud or mistaken in his translations of Sumerian texts, or anything in that vein, is busily grinding a heavily worn axe. They base all of their complaints on the fact that in certain key areas of the Sumerian writings, he deviates markedly from the "classical" translations, the vast majority of which were completed before 1947, before the terms "UFO" or "alien" came into common usage. 

When the early translators came upon passages that could have been and should have been interpreted the way Sitchin interpreted them, they had no conceivable frame of reference for such terminology. Thus, they shoehorned it to fit into their own restricted world views, and because this nonsense was created by "experts" of that time, modern experts are inevitably brainwashed by their education process to believe no other translation is needed, much less preferable. 

This intellectual claptrap has become established as the "preferred" and "accepted" translations that critics claim Stichin should have respected and stuck with in the way they are obligated to do. Sitchin rightly jettisoned the nonsense and translated the texts more like they were actually written, calling an alien an alien, so to speak, and this gross offense to modern academic sensibilities is what classic scholars consider a sacrilege to their mindset.

I have no doubt that, in the fullness of time, historians will consider Zecharia Sitchin vastly more correct than any mainstream pundit alive at this moment. Why? Because modern scholars endure years of intense training that forces them to consider the work of prior scholars sacrosanct, which produces a virtual army of close-minded sycophants who, ultimately, will be dismissed as laughably wrong.