home esoterica Feature Articles by binnallFeature Articles by binnall Original binnallofamerica.com Audio the United States of Esoterica merchandise contact

pix/twlogo2.jpg pix/ojlogo2.jpg


Sitchen on C2C

Ladies and gentlemen! This Wednesday night! A once-in-a-life-time appearance!

Put your hands together for……Zak and the Anunnaki !!!!

[cue some Moody Blues or other appropriate classic rock]


Yes, in someone’s delusional world-not mine-the countdown to tonight’s episode of Coast ticks a bit like that. Shame, really.

Or, should I say in the case of Zechariah Sitchin, sham, really!

Originally, I wanted to spare my readers from any negative critique of Sitchin. There’s some pretty interesting stuff outside of my views on Sitchin and his work. Has it not crossed anyone else’s mind that this is, in fact and by default, the BIGGEST interview on Coast to Coast for the year and the main stalwart, our friend Noory, isn’t here poke and prod the man? True, the event may be pre-taped, as I believe Noory announced was the intention, however, from all clues on the website, Hilly “don’t call me Silly” Rose will be our Master of Ceremonies throughout the night and including the interview with Sitchin. The refrain for the past year and a half the audience has harassed Noory about getting Sitchin on has been his poor health prevents such an appearance as is the norm for Coast and a pre-taped segment would be necessary. This considered, whether we hear Rose or Noory asking the questions, if the segment is pre-taped, which all of our expectations have been that it would indeed be, I fully expect the interview to be disappointing, simply for the fact we’ll be delivered a fluff job.

Coast’s producers know Sitchin is big. In the esoteric field, you scarcely get a name more common place, and, frankly, no-one alive in modern esoterica has written anything as “mandatory reading”-whether you agree with it or not-as the Twelfth Planet, save for maybe Von Danniken’s Chariots of the Gods. This interview is, plainly, a big hit for Coast; it doesn’t even have to turn out good or even mildly entertaining; there is an immeasurable value in the broadcast world for just having him on. This said, why chalk it over to Hilly Rose? Were I Noory, vacation or not, I would be the one at the helm to navigate these waters, even if only for one night and I retire to my cabin for the rest of the week.

BUT….this isn’t why I’m writing. I am writing because I privately hope this is Sitchin’s swan song and after tonight UFOlogy can begin wiping away the mud accrued on its investigative lenses after 30 or so years of Sitchin work finding its way into every mainline bookstore and influencing everything from abduction accounts to allegations of government knowledge pertaining to why “they” are coming here.

In the first place, Sitchin’s work is slapshod scholarship at best, trite at worst. The mythology as constructed by Sitchin’s interpretation of the cuneiform texts ignores, or Sitchin is simply ignorant of, every criteria an ancient or biblical scholar (both of whom concentrate in the area of translating and interpretation ancient texts) must submit to before his or her thesis is considered palpable, let alone, attainable, provable, defendable, and, finally, viable. We’re not saying providing a new interpretation of an ancient text is verboten, we are however saying Sitchin followed none of the methodology or criteria that leads one to a viable, or at least defendable thesis, hence, Sitchin’s thesis is neither viable nor defendable by any respecting scholar or individual familiar with the techniques and criteria of defendable scholarship. Basic rules of logic, epistemology, cross cultural comparison and renouncement were utterly ignored by Sitchin and in the process he falls into the most dreaded of traps set in the jungle of historical, cultural and linguistic research, that of avoiding anachronism, that is applying or assuming a later development (be it an idea, assumption, event, etc.) into a period explicitly before the origination of said development.

In our own age, we have a clear and concise, if not lacking, concept of space travel and the surrounding universe; we don’t, as it were, look up towards the night sky and in the face of innumerable stars, for those of us lucky enough to live away from an east coast city, of which I have been a few times numerated, though I am sadly not at the present time, and see a giant dome sitting upon the earth as was the cosmology of the ancients, nor do we see a god “sleeping” upon the terrestrial goddess, as was the concept of the Greeks and the Romans. No, we see the beginning of an expanse of reality so vast we can only, with our eyes or best instruments, catch a limited glimpse; we see an abyss so deep, we cannot fathom what the final depths may indeed look like or who or what may lie in wait for us when we get there. Yes, we have a concept of space travel because in our own age humanity finally developed the concept of space, not the heavens, but space; only Plato, Aristotle and Judaism (and by inheritance, Christianity) pose as ancient witnesses who expounded upon the concept of Heaven to such a degree so as to have affinity and continuity with our concept of space; the Old Testament, to provide one example, may have began with a dome over the earth, but by its conclusion, the heavens, beginning as the night sky, become the tabernacle of eternity itself.

We cannot, then, take this concept which properly exists in our own time but has a gradual development in Western culture, and apply it to another time and to a culture (the Sumerians) entirely immune to the intellectual, cultural and spiritual tradition and development that gradually formulated, and hence has continuity and affinity with, our present concept of space and space travel. The Sumerians’ own tradition expired, and the Sumerian region never produced any intellectual fruits until Islam became the chief cultural force in the region in 600AD. And, it must be noted, the reinvigoration of the region only occurred geographically; as pertains the Sumerian mythology, Islam wanted nor needed none of it. The Sumerians, as opposed to the development of the Greeks, Romans and the Jews, never developed their concept of heaven so as to have affinity and continuity with our own concept of space today. So, first, as displayed above, we have a contextual problem with Sitchin’s research. Sitchin applies our modern Western concept of space and space travel, developed in context of Western culture and history, to the context of the Sumerian culture which hadn’t produced a concept of heaven anything near our own, let alone comparable to our own concept of space. The next problem is textual. Sitchin, to his shame, is reading into the text items and phenomenon only proper to our age.

Let’s use a hypothetical example, but before we do this, let us also make a most important note to ourselves before proceeding with this exercise and, for that matter, ever reading Sitchin’s work again. Sitchin’s method of translating is quite suspect, so, where the text literally says, as an example, “a snake on fire,” which might be commonly translated into “a fiery serpent,” Sitchin might see that in, for example, some examples of ancient art, the snake could fly, so, obviously, the text is referring to a long round narrow vessel, slightly pointed at the ends, out of which fire comes as a propulsion source. Only Will Henry provides larger, more astounding logic and linguistic gaps. These texts are literal. A fiery serpent would mean….a “fiery serpent” and more often than not the puzzling creature or reference in the text refers to some cultic practice or theology, which will often be explained in the whole context from which the word or phrase is lifted. The minute we begin reading beyond the text, reading into descriptions more than the author provides, we create fiction, if we’re not already reading it.

That Sitchin’s work affected and infected Ufology at all is by and large accidental and, unquestionably, an accident of quite messy proportions. Most any new ufologist, that is, one of the last 15 or 20 years and present, invariably takes off on the “UFOs seeded humanity” theory. Whether it be Linda Moulton Howe citing an alleged government source who informed her that periodically aliens have interfered with our genetic process, as was cited in the book Case MJ 12, or whether it be new books such as The Genesis Race (with a big bust of a “grey” next to a spiraling strand of human DNA) or The Gods of Eden, which copiously references Sitchin throughout, the currently propagated theory in Ufology stating aliens have seeded and manipulated the primal human species and the continuous homo sapien DNA begins with Sitchin. It has no precedence before Sitchin’s books and after Sitchin’s books it becomes the preeminent theory as to who “they” are and why “they’re” here. Most incredulous of Ufology, and most damaging to it if there is any truth to the Ufo phenomenon at all, is the almost uniform acceptance and adoption of Sitchin’s theory in absence of an authentic document backing up alleged claims made by Linda Moulton Howe or any other personality on the investigative side of Ufology charging the government with knowing and withholding knowledge of the “alien origin of the human race” and in the face of the complete manifestation of evidence showing Sitchin to be the originator of this theory, and doing it with dubious standards and little if any evidence. This is, again, the most incredulous aspect to modern day Ufology and I am pressed to ask: how could this have started?

The most banal explanation is that Ufology, for better or worse, cannot claim some of the world’s most brilliant following. For every intelligent and critical man or woman investigating and qualifying the evidence, attempting to puzzle this often opaque picture into something more crystalline, you have seemingly a hundred others who qualify nothing, for whom only the most outlandish theory will suffice. The reason as to why is most complicated and will largely be addressed in another writing. I will say however, there are profound sociological and psychological factors for this overwhelming majority to prefer the extremist theory of Ufology, mostly pertaining to the state of society and the state of themselves as well (or not so well) existentially accomplished humans. In second thought, perhaps this explanation is not so banal after all, but it was the main drive behind Sitchin’s work because they invested so much money into his books; again, for those who don’t know, Sitchin is BIG, so far as concerns sales numbers. Furthermore, they’ve created a market. The most successful authors are the ones proposing the most outlandish theories; if you want to make a career in Ufology as defined by book royalties, then you’ve got to hop on Sitchin’s theory and keep going with it, take it to even further conclusions, leaving us with a precious few crop of researchers who are focusing on the fact that a phenomenon is occurring here and now, and focusing on the here and now, whether it be contemporary encounters or in the name of disclosure.

However Marxist that may sound, I don’t believe das Kapital was and is the deciding factor as to how and why Sitchin attained such a foothold in Ufology (I personally do not think Sitchin was intending for that to happen). Sitchin was the first “researcher” to provide, however loosely, a theological and philosophical dimension to Ufology and UFOs. This is intimately related to the first reason in that the apparent failure of the world’s religions in the lives of men and women, the apparent failure of God, makes the prospect that we are not God’s but someone else’s lucrative, not to mention a bit of solace. Primarily, however, it is because Sitchin opened a theological and philosophical door for UFOs and Ufology, the sociological dimension of that in the minds of many of his own readers is a moot point. Our concern is how it affected the phenomenon of UFOs and the discipline (however un-disciplined it is executed) of Ufology. The basic reality and reason is that something is going on. I personally would not be involved in the discipline I am (theology) and carry out the additional research I do (Ufology) were I not convinced something is going on. The evidence, in my estimation, makes this conclusion unavoidable. Notice, I do not say the evidence leads to the conclusion that they’re here, they’re doing this, this, and this, etc. I only say that the evidence is so broad, so expansive, and so recurring that despite the often cloudy and ambiguous parts of it, which are just as expansive and just a recurring as the more solid aspects, we can reach no other conclusion other than that a certain phenomenon is occurring and occurring unabatedly. Fair enough, it may be all circumstantial evidence, yet, when circumstantial evidence keeps occurring and recurred un-relenting, we can safely say, while not saying explicitly the what, who, how, or why of the matter, that a phenomenon is happening and the phenomenon, based upon a continuous supply of this evidence, is not readily explainable or dismissible in natural terms and, indeed, the hint, however vague, is that this phenomenon is intelligent. Hence the reason for a theological or philosophical dimension. Ufology at the time was in dire need of something along theological or philosophical lines, and by and large theology and philosophy wanted nothing to do with it. Something was and is decidedly going on. Investigation, good as it maybe, can only get you so far.

You might be able to report on the facts of an incident, whether a contemporary abduction case or a crash of an unknown object in the New Mexico desert, however, you can only report so much. Profound questions, questions the investigator may have brooded over in his own brain a few times, linger, and ominously so. We may know from investigative evidence “they” are not from here and “they” don’t look like us, who or what, then, are “they”? Why are “they” here? Is it merely for research? And, if “they” are actually abducting humans, why? What do “they” want? Where are “they” from? Should we be afraid? And, after thousands of years when our only contact with non-human life of a higher design has been angels, demons, and spirits, not to mention God, what do we make of this? What does the existence of “them” mean for us? Sitchin provided some answers, however embryonic and incorrect they are.

Humanity has always asked these questions in some form or type. The most dynamic trait of the human mind is its ability to conceive of itself in an existential sense and then further ask how it as an individual mind relates to other people, society at large, the universe it dwells in and, if it believes, the God who created it. Thus, when the human mind is confronted with evidence that something intelligent and living is out there, in essence, something quite mirroring humanity is out there, it will leave the contemplation of the abstract to contemplating something much more concrete, though still cloaked in shadow.