In short, yes I think The Stargate Conspiracy is worthwhile reading. It gives a perspective not found in most books dealing with the fringe subjects, which is that much of the New Age movement is the product of government mind control and psyops projects. No doubt there is spiritual disinformation happening, and military/government is involved...so this book looks into some of the shadier areas.

There is much in the book I do not agree with, because I think the authors jumped to conclusions when interpreting circumstantial evidence through a narrow set of assumptions. But they weren't coming from a background already familiar with the subject, and they were "synchronistically" lead to this line of research, so in the overwhelming dash to put it altogether I think they skipped over the finer details and could have been purposely misled at times.

But if you correlate the book with what you yourself know of the characters and material mentioned, then you can tentatively filter out the more questionable conclusions. It should sharpen one's sense of discernment and caution when approaching fringe material, though I think some people go overboard and throw the baby out with the bathwater when reading this.

I get the impression that Sitchin, Laurence Gardner, and the Exopolitics team - among others - are different faces of the Stargate Conspiracy.

Montalk, in your personal opinion is the book The Stargate Conspiracy worthwhile reading?  I'd seen it but never bothered to pick it up.  I'm guessing you may have read it based on your post.

Btw I'm not saying I fully accept what he says, but even in false teachings there is usually some truth.  So, I take what seems right and leave the rest ;-)

Well you might be right, if you require cold, hard, provable facts.  But I'd say Sitchin's works, including Earth Chronicles, are definitely worth a read if you're at all interested in topics such as these.  It may not be quite the kind of scientific research you prefer, but it's certainly far from "worthless" as you said.  It won't hurt to read at least one of his books before thorougly abandoning it.  Exposure to different theories will only make you stronger, even if you don't agree with them.

Wow, quite an old topic!  I had to go back and re-read my post.  I think I could have chosen my words more carefully.  Let me put it this way:  Sitchin presents his work as nonfiction research.  My own personal understanding of things is that it is not research, it is the result of E.T. channelling -- more specifically via automated writing.  That tells me at the outset that Sitchin is being dishonest.    In addition, the books don't seem to be normal scholarly research to me. 

So yes you're right; Sitchin's work may have some value.  But I still say it's probably not in it's historical accuracy.  I think if anything it's more valuable in the sense of it being known (probable-) ET-controlled information which is being delivered to us now for some purpose.  The important question then becomes WHY are they giving us this story -- what end of theirs will it help to make possible?   Whether their ultimate purpose is positive or negative we don't know.

Anyway,  I'll add to my earlier comments the following points:

1) I could be wrong. 

2)  I personally am just not interested in Sitchin's work at this time, because something about the whole thing really rubs me the wrong way.  That much of it is purely subjective on my part, but I follow my feelings on things like this, and I've made quite amazing progress in my own life by doing so.   At the same time many others might be called to read Sitchin's work for some reason.   I don't know ...  If you like it, I say dive in.  Just (as always) be careful about what you accept to be true, especially if it's based solely on someone else's claims.

I read the first hundred and fifty pages or so of Sitchin's first "Earth Chronicles" book and had to put it down.  I could not get past the fact that what I was reading was basically a novel -- a story.  No footnotes, no references of any kind to sources, nothing.  Utterly worthless for any purpose other than entertainment, and, as far as I'm concerned, an obvious and intentional distraction from meaningful research.

Well you might be right, if you require cold, hard, provable facts.  But I'd say Sitchin's works, including Earth Chronicles, are definitely worth a read if you're at all interested in topics such as these.  It may not be quite the kind of scientific research you prefer, but it's certainly far from "worthless" as you said.  It won't hurt to read at least one of his books before thorougly abandoning it.  Exposure to different theories will only make you stronger, even if you don't agree with them.

Who knows.  A lot of his stuff just appears to be based on the translation of Sumerian and other texts, including the bible.  But I still can't understand why you're willing to speculate so much concerning Sitchin without even reading one of his books?

Actually, I do understand it somewhat -- I had pretty much the same reaction after reading some of Icke's material concerning reptilians.  "What a nut", I thought.  Then 2 years later it hit me, just how right he may have been all along.  I now own 3 of his books in print, and certainly plan to buy the next if he doesn't fall off before then. (he appears to be having issues at the moment)

For anyone interested in checking his stuff out:
http://www.geocities.com/elchasqui_2/ZS … itles.html

I've been meaning to archive this site somehow, but I'm not sure how to do it.  If anyone else knows a way or cares to do it for the NR files section, please let me know?  Thanks in advance!

Put salt in your sugar and sugar in your salt...

I think that fits nicely in here and...everywhere else I guess.
(I am not sure if it was coming from Ummo, Orion, the Brotherhood or myself but who freaking cares!)

There are so many researchers out there (Jim Marrs, Tex Marrs, Alex Jones, Jim Keith, Branton, David Icke, Zecharia Sitchin, Timothy Good, George Noory, Art Bell, Jeff Rense, Brad Steiger, Val Valerian, Robert Monroe, Stuart Wilde, William Cooper, Peter Moon, Philip Schneider, --all of the better known contributors, and various other groups-of-anonymous-individuals, and on and on...)

So one must discern from a very diverse field.  Sifting through many misperceptions and misconceptions, theories, ideas, arguments, observations, etc.

Almost everyone has their own slant/view on these matters.

I do not know any of these researchers, which proves the point that I do not know much about pseudo (or non-pseudo) alien agenda. One way or another (since I am not able to vouch for any of them) I feel it is a topic which goes well beneath the surface. Hence the value of critical thinking...The key word seems to be "agenda", here. Channelers and researchers may be genuine in their approach, most of them probably are, however since we are theoretically dealing with either superior or non-human forms of intelligence we must exercise a huge caution. The "intelligences" may have a different one from our own. This may seem obvious but even from my own limited practical experience within these subjects our "I love you" may have a totally different meaning/value or even effect (on) to "Them", just as every other concept, belief system, vision of the Creator, rationale, logic, evolutive mode, etc. etc. etc. The same way people used to say in the Middle Ages that you should not sign parchments with weird symbols on them, I'd say, be careful as to what you decide to include in you own "tunnel vision" or whoever's views you choose to embrace. One more advice would be: Better Safe than Sorry.

I was going through another of David Icke's books (Tales from the Time Loop) where he mentions some of Sitchins theories/ideas, so, yes, Icke adopts some of the same concepts...

I was trying to relay that Sitchin warned Icke about the 'elaboration' on the 'reptilians'... (what this may mean or not is debatable).

Yeah, one can easily list various sensational topics and 'theories' and stories of which many are indeed 'hearsay' and 'non-sense' and 'gossip' for tabloid market profit-making schemes etc.

One could make the point that David Icke (or Zecharia Sitchin, or other various researchers in the controversial often-unverifiable/unprovable/debatable field of ufo/et/paranormal/supernatural/conspiracy) is nothing more than a 'conspiracy-huckster' selling sensational type books for profit (to make a living).  I know that the late Jim Keith had remarked negatively about how Icke 'stole' or 'co-opted' many theories/ideas from already established research...  I did get an 'angry-like' vibe from Keith's comments...

I do think David Icke has done a good job at condensing and coherently co-ordinating many diverse subjects and theories/alt-facts/ideas etc... (though I too question Icke's method of re-hashing 'so-that-new-readers-will-be-informed-without-reading-my-previous-books' numerous points over and over in each book he publishes... though each book does contain some additional material -like the second half-removing of the 'illusion' keys in Tales from the Time Loop-and the opening personal history revelations and the ongoing Iraq War and 9-11 etc and as I mentioned in another thread that Icke would do better to release books with better designed/less sensational-looking/eye-catching covers [not to judge a book by its cover though] and his website design team [of only a reported 4 or so] would better their website pages [as they are currently doing according to the Icke-Media-Site which IS of better quality design]).

There are so many researchers out there (Jim Marrs, Tex Marrs, Alex Jones, Jim Keith, Branton, David Icke, Zecharia Sitchin, Timothy Good, George Noory, Art Bell, Jeff Rense, Brad Steiger, Val Valerian, Robert Monroe, Stuart Wilde, William Cooper, Peter Moon, Philip Schneider, --all of the better known contributors, and various other groups-of-anonymous-individuals, and on and on...)

So one must discern from a very diverse field.  Sifting through many misperceptions and misconceptions, theories, ideas, arguments, observations, etc.

Almost everyone has their own slant/view on these matters.

It is with co-operation that we must push forward (and not get too distracted with the many 'as-you-point-out' dis/mis info and sensational-type non-sense out there floating around...)

We must agree about dis-agreeing in general (as the saying goes).

So, again, I merely wanted to add what I remembered reading about Zecharia Sitchin (who is certainly on to various aspects of phenomena concerning the 'extra-terrestrial' questions).

-Indigo (still observing)

Thank You

--<-@
XOXO

AtHm X ><33
-Right from Orion via the local Bodega-
;-)

One notable thing I remember in regards to Z. Sitchin is that David Icke says he was warned by Z. Sitchin 'not to go there' concerning Icke's investigation of the 'reptilian-dna-aliens' and their possible 'shape-shifting' abilities/natures ...

I read the first hundred and fifty pages or so of Sitchin's first "Earth Chronicles" book and had to put it down.  I could not get past the fact that what I was reading was basically a novel -- a story.  No footnotes, no references of any kind to sources, nothing.  Utterly worthless for any purpose other than entertainment, and, as far as I'm concerned, an obvious and intentional distraction from meaningful research. 

I recently found that an ancient languages scholar has put up an online critique of Sitchin's stories.

I will also mention here, and I don't think I've stated it before, that I have a source which indicates that Sitchin's books are strongly influenced by information Sitchin received by himself channelling extraterrestrials.   I can't verify it, and won't go into further details on this point, but my personal feeling on this is that Sitchin likely is getting his messages from an outside origin, quite possibly one with an agenda.   But I'd be careful of accepting anything he says without careful consideration.   I can't help but wonder: if he is channeling hostile ETs, does that not explain why he would "warn" David Icke to avoid the subject of reptilians and shapeshifting?   Maybe it's the reptilians who are making him say that in the first place.  Hell, it would make sense.  Anyway, again, this is speculation .. but I don't speculate lightly.

Anyone interested in learning more about the lack of historical evidence for an actual Jesus may want to read this article by author Acharya S (homepage).  It's a good starting point.

indigo wrote:

I have heard of Zecharia Sitchin and his numerous books about the 'Annunaki' [...]I also remember David Icke having a bad opinion of British genealogical author/researcher Laurence Gardner.

This dangerously sounds like hear-say if you want my opinion. By the way, I heard that the CIA was monitoring all Hotmail emails, I heard that it is possible to get pregnant only by indulging in oral sex, I also heard that U.S TV news networks are saying nothing but the truth and that I actually am several people preparing an insidious planetary level dis-information campaign to infiltrate the Anti-Free Mason and prepare the venue for the next World teacher (who could well be the Beckham's next child)...words, words, words...

??

I_like_Athm_too......might want to go back and re-read indigo's post.  He clearly stated that he flipped through some of Sitchin's books at the bookstore,

and "remembers" David Icke having a bad opinion of Laurence Gardner.    Which he's right about, btw.   Icke does in fact have a negative opinion about Gardner.  He believes Gardner serves to perpetuate the lie that there was a Jesus.  Icke believes Jesus is a fictional character, and is a combination of many mythological characters, including Horus / Osirus.   

Point being, Indigo wasn't conveying "hearsay."   He saw the books, and remembered something about Icke which was very much correct, and which I can verify.    You mentioned on another thread that you hadn't bothered to even read the entire thread before posting......seems you may have done that again here.    I mean honestly....before tossing off flippant posts, hows about actually reading what you're responding to??.....??   It saves unnecessary debates and bickering I think......

I have heard of Zecharia Sitchin and his numerous books about the 'Annunaki' [...]I also remember David Icke having a bad opinion of British genealogical author/researcher Laurence Gardner.

This dangerously sounds like hear-say if you want my opinion. By the way, I heard that the CIA was monitoring all Hotmail emails, I heard that it is possible to get pregnant only by indulging in oral sex, I also heard that U.S TV news networks are saying nothing but the truth and that I actually am several people preparing an insidious planetary level dis-information campaign to infiltrate the Anti-Free Mason and prepare the venue for the next World teacher (who could well be the Beckham's next child)...words, words, words...