I’ve read thru your site, and I find it really informative, but I must say as a person, you always respond in a very impolite, condescending tone, and since this is all text, when someone reads it, I would say that it comes off worst than maybe when I hear your say it in person. Maybe, you don’t care about other people, but since you spent a lot of time debunking someone else’s theory then maybe you do care what other people think and feel, and what they believe is the truth or not.

I think if you cannot respond to their question, as you want someone to respond to you in a polite manner, then do yourself (and your website) a favour, don’t respond at all, the more people you turn off from your smug behaviour, the less people you will enlighten about your work, which I think is very good. Remember, The message is only as good as the messenger.

1) Please distill what it is you think I’m not answering. It isn’t complicated. I don’t have the time to go back and re-read pieces to try and figure out what it is you’re writing about, so please do that for me.

2) Produce the tablet citations for what Sitchin is saying and teaching. Give us all the benefit of your knowledge. It is inadequate to only do number one, since not liking my response does nothing to produce truth on the issue. You have to be able to support your own position.

If you can’t do these simple things, I’m just not going to bother with you and the others in the form of replies here.

In my humble opinion, this MSH person most certainly isn’t scholared in any way, displaying the most crude level of dialog. If I was to believe anything Mike Heiser has claimed, he should NOT act aloof and write things like “** this is sort of astonishing to me — I’m a PhD in biblical Hebrew, and yet you write like this is news to me — ??” and “I have been writing about this for more than a decade” etc. etc.!

That is why I seriously hope that Mike Heiser and MSH are two different people. If it turns out to be the same person, I would definitely think long and hard about believing anything this person claims on his web sites.

And he has several web sites…

Unfortunately, my alarm also goes off when someone bases all his “work” to prove someone else wrong – this “method” isn’t really a valid way of working for educated people! I mean, creating an allegedly scholared website based on facts and correct historical data – and calling it http://www.sitchiniswrong.com – come on! It’s not to be taken seriously.

I am saying that the key items in Sitchin’s theory are not even IN the tablets. I can’t quibble about a translation of something that isn’t even there. I show people how to check that claim on my site — look up “Anunnaki” and get all the references. You won’t find a single instance where they are associated with nibiru. Look up nibiru in the free Chicago Assyrian Dictionary (it took 90 years to compile – http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/2011/06/after-90-years-the-cad-is-finished-chicago-assyrian-dictionary/ – and read the entries for nibiru. You will find it associated with Jupiter and Mercury (and so it is likely not a planet, but a phenomenon associated with one of those planets). Look up the material on the web, or in the scholarly bibliography I provide for Mesopotamian astronomy. There are *no* Mesopotamian astronomical texts that have any planet beyond Saturn (because they were doing naked eye astronomy).

My beef is not translation; it’s fabrication of ideas.