- Of recent, the article 'Nibiru and the Anunnaki' by my
wife Amitakh Stanford, whose pseudonym is D. M., has been the subject of
a great deal of discussion. I hope that I can shed some light on that discussion
with my interpretation of a few points concerning her article.
Some readers have misread "Nibiru and the Anunnaki" and think
that the piece agrees with Zecharia Sitchin's theories. In fact, Amitakh
states very early in the piece that a great deal of speculative writing
about Nibiru seems to be based upon Sitchin's "Twelfth Planet."
She goes on to say that: "Sitchin, like Velikovsky and Darwin, used
his own theories to support his claims."
In that sentence she shows that she disagrees with Darwin's theory of evolution
and that she believes the premise upon which he based his theory is unfounded.
She also demonstrates her disagreement with Velikovsky's theory that Venus
was a comet that was captured by our solar system and thence became a planet
and that his premise was likewise unfounded. The same is true with her
assessment of Sitchin's theory as to why the Anunnaki came to Earth.
Amitakh explains that she is presenting her account of the Nibiru, which
is quite different from those currently in circulation for the very reason
that most accounts of the planet are in fact based upon Sitchin's writings,
and she disagrees with Sitchin.
Sitchin theorises that the Anunnaki are near neighbours to Earth, being
a planet that he refers to as the Twelfth Planet. (Amitakh calls this planet
Nibiru thoughout her article). Sitchin then hypothesises that the atmosphere
of the Anunnaki's home planet was deteriorating and needed bolstering so
the people of Nibiru travelled to Earth to mine physical gold which they
subsequently used to construct a shield to protect their home planet. He
argues that while the Anunnaki were on Earth they enslaved the inhabitants
of the planet to force them to mine the gold.
"Nibiru and the Anunnaki" disagrees with that premise, and states
that the Anunnaki are a bloodthirsty, conquering race that came to Earth
for conquest of the planet. When they arrived, they discovered physical
gold, a non-native element of the planet; the gold was merely a bonus for
the Anunnaki in their conquest of the Earth.
With Sitichin's theory and his presentation of the story, one can actually
feel sorry for the Anunnaki as he argues that their home planet is dying
and that the Anunnaki are attempting a rescue of their planet. On the contrary,
no possible sympathy for the Anunnaki can be found in Amitakh's writing
about them. She exposes them by stating: "If you imagine the worst
characteristics you can conceive in Satan, you have well concocted the
impression of the Anunnaki."
Finally, Sitchin discusses the theory of the salvation of Nibiru with the
golden shield and presents the story to make the actions of the Anunnaki
palatable by even making their home planet a part of our solar system.
Amitakh avers that Nibiru is not a part of our solar system at all, but
is a foreign planet whose inhabitants invaded the Earth and that they seek
conquest of our entire solar system. She also explains that Nibiru is extinct,
along with its home star (sun) ZA-OS, so there is nothing to salvage, and
she exposes the Anunnaki for what they are dreadful, sneaky, deceptive,
manipulative, vengeful conquerors of the Earth. A fair and insightful reading
of Amitakh's article and Sitchin's writings would lead one to believe that
the two authors are from opposite camps.
Amitakh then closes with the inspiring message that the Light is correcting
this dreadful rule of the evil tyrants.
-
-
- Comment
- From Peter LaBorde
- 4-5-4
-
- Jeff,
-
- I read with amusement the article "Nibiru And The
Anunnaki - An Interpretation" by Steffan Stanford. I consider myself
to have a fairly open mind, otherwise I would not frequent your website
like I do. But this kind of writing makes me queasy. For one thing, I would
like to know from a sane person what it is that those Sumerian cylinders
(or whatever they are) actually represent. I don't trust Zechariah Sitchin's
interpretation at all, and this lady seems even more whacko. Listen to
her description of the supposed "Anunnaki" (quoted from another
article, URL included below):
-
- "They are fierce, evil, lustful, incestuous, bloodthirsty,
deceitful, jealous and domineering. They are also carnivorous and are
often cannibalistic. They also demand human sacrifices of virgins from
those they conquer and from their own kind whom they enslave.
-
- If you imagine the worst characteristics you can conceive
in Satan, you have well concocted an impression of the Anunnaki. They
specialize in mind control."
- http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/kentoartc.html
-
- Boy, these critters are really bad aren't they? And she
knows them so very well, doesn't she? Give me a break!
-
- Anyway, what qualifications does this person have to
be pontificating and "interpreting" the Sumerian records? Is
she a Sumerian scholar? I can't find any information about her on the internet.
On what does she base all her interpretations? Maybe these people should
be writing horror movie scripts for Hollywood instead of pretending to
be scholars.
|
