Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:36, 9 May 2007

Biography B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Paranormal B‑class

This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

"Mainstream scientists and historians"

(See WP:AWT)

The article states:

• Sitchin's claims are generally considered pseudoscience by mainstream scientists and historians.

Is this an assertion and not based on actual sources. Who are these scientists and historians? Why isn't pseudohistory also mentioned? Please, provide sources.--AI 02:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above statement Is this an assertion and not based on actual sources, is totally inacurate, and it shows

the author to be completely uneducated in sumerian, Akkadian history, archeology and general studies.

Almost all of Sitchin's works are based on the work of well known main stream scientists such as Samuel Noah Kramer.

This is also weasel terminology.--AI 20:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is a point at which a generalisation becomes weaselling. This is not it. The "generally" here is not being used to avoid revealing that only one or two people oppose the theory: it is being used to avoid stating flat outright that all mainstream scientists oppose the theory, in case there are one or two who may support it. For minority theories proposed by people widely considered cranks, the question is not "which specific scientists oppose these claims" -- it is "who, apart from the person proposing them, supports them". Haeleth June 28, 2005 09:44 (UTC)

Please provide references here with explanation and not just a suggestion that I look at the external links.--AI 29 June 2005 03:24 (UTC)

AI, I already pointed you (on the talk pages of other articles where you tied to push Sitchin's false claims as if they were factual) to Misplaced Pages official policy on Neutral Point of View that very specifically shows that claims of pseudscience have to be labeled as such, so this is neither weaseling. As far as sources, if you'd bother to check the external links, you'd have more than enough evidence to the undeniable facts that Sitchin is considered a raving lunatic by pretty much everyone except the UFO believers crowd. DreamGuy June 29, 2005 02:56 (UTC)

Spare me the ad hominem. You are only partially correct, your claim about the "few" believers is incorrect. Provide references with quotes preferable, here in the discussion page, not just a referral to the external links.--AI 29 June 2005 03:24 (UTC)

In the late 90's I ran into literally hundreds of "believers", a large percentage of whom were American Indians or people interested in American Indian culture. They were not part of a UFO crowd, but rather religious and philosophical crowds of researchers, writers, historians, etc. They were the ones who explained Sumerian cosmology to me with photos of clay tables and reasonable explanation. They demonstrated parallels to various American Indian mythologies, regardless of Sitchin's claims.--AI 29 June 2005 03:24 (UTC)

I have not been able to spell any references or sources because it was years ago and I no longer have access to the references which were hardcopies and not available online as far as I know. I'm sure there are other contributors who may have seen these references also, but since they are not coming forward at this time, I will not make any further claims, and DreamGuy is now free to enforce his limited POV over any theories explaining mythologies.--AI 29 June 2005 03:24 (UTC)

It has been almost a month and no one has has provided attribution of pseudoscience label.--AI 3 July 2005 07:10 (UTC)

"Zecharia Sitchin, along with Erich von Däniken and Immanuel Velikovsky, make up the holy trinity of pseudohistorians. Each begins with the assumption that ancient myths are not myths but historical and scientific texts. Sitchin's claim to fame is announcing that he alone correctly reads ancient Sumerian clay tablets. All other scholars have misread these tablets which, according to Sitchin, reveal that gods from another planet (Niburu, which orbits our Sun every 3,600 years) arrived on Earth some 450,000 years ago and created humans by genetic engineering of female apes. Niburu orbits beyond Pluto and is heated from within by radioactive decay, according to Sitchin. No other scientist has discovered that these descendents of gods blew themselves up with nuclear weapons some 4,000 years ago. Sitchin alone can look at a Sumerian tablet and see that it depicts a man being subjected to radiation. He alone knows how to correctly translate ancient terms allowing him to discover such things as that the ancients made rockets. Yet, he doesn't seem to know that the seasons are caused by the earth's tilt, not by its distance from the sun....

Sitchin, like Velikovsky, presents himself as erudite and scholarly in a number of books, including The Twelfth Planet (1976) and The Cosmic Code (1998). Both Sitchin and Velikovsky write very knowledgeably of ancient myths and both are nearly scientifically illiterate. Like von Däniken and Velikovsky, Sitchin weaves a compelling and entertaining story out of facts, misrepresentations, fictions, speculations, misquotes, and mistranslations. Each begins with their beliefs about ancient visitors from other worlds and then proceeds to fit facts and fictions to their basic hypotheses. Each is a master at ignoring inconvenient facts, making mysteries where there were none before, and offering their alien hypotheses to solve the mysteries. Their works are very attractive to those who love a good mystery and are ignorant of the nature and limits of scientific knowledge.

Sitchin promotes himself as a Biblical scholar and master of ancient languages, but his real mastery was in making up his own translations of Biblical texts to support his readings of Sumerian and Akkadian writings. ....

Most of Sitchin’s sources are obsolete. He has received nothing but ridicule from scientific archaeologists and scholars familiar with ancient languages. His most charming quality seems to be his vivid imagination and complete disregard for established facts and methods of inquiry, traits that are apparently very attractive to some people."

There comes a time in a discussion when one must say "Let the blind lead the blind". Main stream science is as pseudo as the ones they called pseudo. The more main stream history and archeology I read, the more I realize the state of chaos and ignorance main stream scientists are in.

collated crackpottery

I've recently collected material on Sitchin's theories from other articles and moved it here, since I do not believe it was appropriate to place such fringe nonsense in otherwise serious articles (see Talk:Nibiru). The pages in question are:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nibiru_%28myth%29&oldid=22682103
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=12th_Planet&oldid=22644228
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tenth_planet&oldid=22500841
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Anunnaki&oldid=21147920
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Anu&oldid=22660173
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Enki&oldid=22579021

Brickbats and backslapping may be directed to my talk page. —Charles P. (Mirv) 08:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Biographical details

Can someone collect more biographical details about her? e.g. DOB--MacRusgail 04:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Some cleanup

I've edited the criticism section to remove the odd Q&A layout, and modified some of the genetics section to make it better set out. I've also made it clear that the 2001 Nature paper does not claim that 223 genes are unique to humans, as is Sitchin's claim, rather that they do not occur in yeast or invertebrates, but do in higher animals (a point which was somewhat distorted).

Additionally, does anybody have a source for the first criticism (Sitchin's planet being too cold)? I don't believe that anybody has criticised that directly, as Sitchin has always claimed that it was internally heated - so it's a bit of straw man and should be removed.

--JonAyling 22:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Addition of "Confusing" template

This section uses technical terminology far beyond the understanding of the average person, such as "horizontal gene transfer" and even perhaps "genomic evolutionary tree" and an explanation of what bacteria have to do with chimpanzees and humans. (Yes, I do know what it is referring to.) Either there should be a link to an appropriate article or one should be written. Because the concept is fairly complicated and important for reasons having nothing to do with this article, I don't think it should just be a footnote.

RickReinckens 15:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Zechariah Sitchin

Is Zechariah Sitchin and this article the same? Arbusto 04:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. The two need merging.--cjllw | TALK 06:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Major Edit

Hi all, I have made a complete edit of this webpage. First, the article was way too long and repetitive. It would discuss the Nibiru thesis and then have a separate section for the Nibiru thesis and discuss it again. The Anu and Enlil, etc sections were superfulous, they were aliens who became gods. That can mentioned with a sentence or two. The "impact" section was muddled, too long, and disjointed. I stuck it with controversies. Please add to it, but don't go too in-depth; this is an article about Sitchin. If you want to go into mind-numbing detail about Nibiru and Lilith and spaceports in the Sinai, etc, create a specific article about his theories. The introduction was entirely too long (so long, I wonder why some other Wikipedian hasn't caught it yet). I have also added a Sitchin photo from a book jacket. I have cut some silly external links and split them up a bit. Some of the criticism was not NPOV and derisive.

Some problems. The "See also" section is, I think, too long. Some external links seem like they are plugging a book. Should they be removed? Someone should really track down more details about Sitchin's life and education (his birthdate for instance). A source needs to be added for the statement I put in a footnote. And until Sitchin can back up that assertion, I think it should stay a footnote.

As for the people who want this article better cited. I believe that Sitchin's books and the external sites listed should serve as good enough sources. Here is why. Sitchin has huge bibliographies in his works that make it seem like he really did his homework. They are really some solid sources, but he doesn't footnote a damn thing, so you can't check any of his facts or any of his assertions. (As an historian, it is an excurciating pain in the ass.) Sitchin is not accepted by the scientific or historical community, no matter what books he sticks in his reference section. Just because I say that the Universe was created by a guy named Norman and put Stephen Hawking's books in my bibliography doesn't mean that I am an accepted scientist and everyone should believe that a guy named Norman created the Universe. In fact, I would and should be called a fringe scientist.

And yes, I own all Sitchin's books. Do I believe the thesis? No, but it makes for good reading, and if he footnoted the damn books you might be able to pick out some good points.

TuckerResearch 02:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Name

To Zechariah or to Zecharia?

His books definitely say Zecharia Sitchin. Zechariah Sitchin should be redirected to Zecharia Sitchin.

TuckerResearch 17:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Please merge. Badagnani 03:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Controversy section

I don't think it's very encyclopedic to have a section criticizing the subject, followed by one that refutes the criticism, and neither of them having references. Instead, both sections should have quotes or references to scientists arguing against his theories, and him defending them. Makerowner 05:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

'Raised in Israel'?

If a man was born in 1922, he couldn't be raised in Israel, which was created when he was well into his 20'th. Therefore, I shall revert the last edit by the anonymous user 151.191.175.196.--JoergenB 12:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of unabashedly pro-Sitchin material

I have removed some blatantly pro-Sitchin material and wording that is unsourced.

And I removed: "(The 12th Planet now in its record 45th printing in the U.S.)," do we have any citation and proof for this? And what is implied by "record"? The Bible has been through many more printings, and, last I heard, Guns, Germs, and Steel is the best-selling modern non-fiction book in the US. So, as much as I enjoy reading Sitchin, I do like some of his ideas, we have to be corect, fair, and even-handed.

TuckerResearch 20:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The section of arguments against and counter argument is not written according to scientificly adequate manners (Since both mainstream science and Sitchin and its propents claim to follow the scientific principle, their arguments should do as well).

First, the claim that, if alien gene is present in the human genome it would have been found by now is scientifically rude. The phrase, no evidence from DNA has been yet found to confirm the presence of alien influence in our gene, is scientifically more appropriate.

Second, from the fact that no alien DNA has been yet found does not follows that "our DNA does indeed contain genes". Since no evidence is yet found, the claim of the presence of alien gene is an unproven hypothesis. It is thus not a theory. To the point of exaggeration: that no uranium is found in the human genome doesn't mean in any way that a) uranium indeed is present in the DNA but that it has not yet been found and b) the scientist can say that the human genome really doesn't contain uranium merely because of the fact that it is empirically hasn't been encountered. The reasonability and relevancy-for-research of a claim or hypothesis should first be discussed and put in contrast with other estabilished scientific knowledge, e.g. that no radioactive, heavy element is likely to positively participate in a living organisms metabolism. It follows that the scientist does not claim the absence of the alien gene or does not claim merely because there is no empirical evidence. The scientist cannot justify the worth of the research and reasonability of the particular claim.

"Indeed, the gene that predisposes people to heart-disease, for example has also not yet been identified."

And no gene is yet found that predisposes us to like Jazz music rather than Rock or the gene that predisposes us to move to a city where air is highly polluted or many other genes. Do we assume here that for every single pecularity of a human there is a gene at work? I assume I need say no more on this.

"That present-day genetics has not yet discovered evidence that supports Sitchin's theories is simply because no self-respecting geneticist would threaten their reputation by publishing any papers that support such a theory."

If it is "simply because" then it follows that the replier just assumes that the 'theory' of Sitchin is true and that if the geneticist doesn't find the gene, its not the problem of the 'theory' but of the geneticists unscientific attitude. It follows that it is the duty of science to find evidence for Sitchin's theory that is just true and actually does not need evidence. The alternative possibility that it is "simpley because", or, more adequately said, "it could because" the theory could be wrong is not considered. The counter arguments of the proponent of Sitchin here are prototypical of pseudoscientific arguments. 82.170.248.73 17:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)NimaM

There in fact is evidence of 'alien' DNA in the human genome. See http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/01/08/01288.html -Ian

I am new to this and trying to figure out how to edit this article. The above comment and link supporting the discovery of "alien" DNA is an absolute hoax and needs to be removed from this website immediately. Anyone who has taken the time to recognize how riduculous the article is, and has checked the validity of the source, has discovered it is a hoax.I am going to attempt to remove this statement from the piece.67.142.130.29 00:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of "hoax" statement and link

I have removed this statement:

However, Proff. Sam Chang, a coordinator of the Human Genome Project, along with other researchers in the group, have postitively identified alien DNA in the so-called 'non-encoding' sequences ('junk' DNA) of human DNA. This new development supports Sitchin's assertions.link title

This link and the information is provides are a ridiculous hoax. I'm not at all sure that ALL of what Zecharia Sitchin presents isn't a hoax ), but let's at least start with what we know . . . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.142.130.29 (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC). 67.142.130.29 01:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me rephrase this. I DO believe that Sitchin's information is a hoax -- and yes, I have read it, and in fact lived with a man who was one of his mindless followers -- desperate believers. You can call it psuedo-science, but I call it insanity. I would remove the entire webpage and others like them, but of course we must allow for gullible people to fall in the rabbit hole if they so choose. That is their right, though I don't know what it says about the future of humanity . . . 67.142.130.29 01:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you'll need to provide evidence (credible, reliable, 3rd-party sources) as to this being a hoax. Oh and you might want to create a Misplaced Pages account, yourself, for your own credibility's sake...especially considering your IP addresses numerous past vandalisms... -Eep² 04:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I cannot be involved in vandalism of any kind as I am totally new to Misplaced Pages and only got involved in editing this page because it infuriated me that hoax material was put up as fact. I did open a Misplaced Pages account, so I don't know why that isn't evident, but I guess I'm not sure how to use this program yet. Anyway, I do not need to provide evidence that the information was a hoax, someone else -- perhaps you? -- needs to provide evidence that it is real. The article has every earmark of being a hoax. Aside from using your COMMON SENSE (do you have any left?) regarding whether this amazing discovery of alien DNA is in fact real, you might notice that the people this article sites do not exist, the information it sites exists nowhere else. When you search for any corraborating information regarding the sci-fi claims of this "alien DNA" article, you find absolutely nothing, and no corresponding scientific information. The Human Genome Project issued no such claims. Other people on the internet have discovered this hoax page, searched it out, and of course felt ridiculous for even thinking for a moment that this might be true. You can find their comments online. This exemplifies the type of insane activity you are confronted with involved with the dangerously delusional world of Sitchin and his followers, who seem to operate under the flawed thinking that the rest of the world has to prove their wacko theories wrong, instead of the other way around. It is important that Misplaced Pages pay attention to delusions posted as fact. 66.82.9.92 20:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

First off, learn how to login to Misplaced Pages. Second, you're not providing any sources for ANY of your claims that you just made above. Show the evidence. Third, it's "cites", not "sites". Keeping a neutral viewpoint will keep the alleged delusions at bay. As I have it worded now, the claim is stated in a neutral viewpoint. Even if it IS a hoax, I believe it is notable and worth mentioning as such. -Eep² 06:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, further research has led to a few things, but the issue is still left unanswered:

• Linda Moulton Howe conducted research into the identity of "Sam Chang" and featured The Canadian article (which she mistakingly refers to as a blog). Unable to find any Google references to Chang, she interviewed John McPherson, former co-director of the Genome Center at Washington University who, according to Howe's interview, never heard of Chang, has no recollection of ever working with him, and thinks the article is "kind of funny". However, no determination as to The Canadian's article's legitimacy is established. (Earthfiles: Human Genome Project: Junk DNA Is Still A Mystery, Linda Moulton Howe, January 18, 2007)

• A person on a discussion forum claimed (from an "email from a friend at Myspace) that there is no Sam Chang on the Human Genome Project, but there is a Violet Chang who never issued the report, and that the article is a 5-year-old hoax.
• A person on a discussion forum claimed the author was originally "Mary Mageau", not "John Stokes". Unfortunately, the Internet Archive doesn't have this article at all.
• A UFO discussion forum member investigated this recently and found a few things:
  • A "Samuel C. Chang" is mentioned in
  • Another The Canadian article
  • The original article seems to have appeared on a Czech website in 2003, but an email mailing list claims a 2001 date.

Obviously, more research is necessary as to these claims... Regardless, I still think this is notable for inclusion since it seems to have caused quite a stir on the Net. -Eep² 08:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ease on there, Eep. You probably did not intend to be as brusque as your comments sounded, but the anon contributor (who by the way is quite at liberty to edit from an anon ip address if they so choose) is being perfectly reasonable. It is instead the original claim (that someone has 'positively identified' extraterrestrial DNA) that would need to be backed up by at least half-a-dozen ironclad cites. The conscientious research you've subsequently provided only strengthens, if anything, its appearance as a self-evident hoax. If the claim had been left in and described as a hoax in the text itself, then yes we'd probably need a cite or two that explicitly describe it as a hoax to avoid appearance of original research in the characterisation, even if obvious. But, in the absence of any cite saying it was true or even that anybody seriously believed it, User:67.142.130.29 acted quite correctly to remove a statement so outré, as to demand extraordinary levels of validation. Removing the text requires no citation.

The internet abounds with bizarre claims, only a handful of 'em are persistent enough to pass notability muster. I'm not convinced this is one which does. Unless Sitchin himself has tried to use it to support his ideas, I don't think it has a place to be mentioned here.--cjllw ʘ TALK 14:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. Anything that can cause that much of a stir online warrants inclusion and is notable, to me--especially when it just won't seem to go away. -Eep² 16:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, whatever the extent of the 'stir' this particular hoax has caused among the online community, I've seen nothing yet to relate this claim to Sitchin, and consequently do not think it should be mentioned here. Sitchin does not just make any claim about extraterrestrial DNA, he makes quite specific claims about what, who, when, and why. Thus it is not correct for the article to state as it presently does that "his new development would support Sitchin's assertions if it is true." Sitchin says it was the "Annunaki from Nibiru" who 'genetically engineered' the sequence; the supposed identification of alien DNA in the sequence does not in any way support this claim- heck, maybe it was the Phlorophathins from Betelguese IV instead and Sitchin is sorely mistaken...!

So again, unless Sitchin himself has tried to use this 'identification' to shore up his house of cards, it shouldn't appear in the article. Perhaps, if the mysterious and unlocatable Prof. Chang's assertions are deemed noteworthy even if only for their amusement value, then the place for them to be mentioned would be something like ancient astronaut theories. Along with the debunking sources, of course.--cjllw ʘ TALK 01:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see "Eep" has put this utter insanity back on the Sitchin page. Que lastima. Well, I'm afraid this experience is leading me away from Misplaced Pages. I just found it, and have been enjoying it all week, reading this and that page. But now that I know that people with no rational capacity are putting up whatever 'causes a stir' on the Internet and treating painfully obvious hoaxes like meaningful information worthy of an Encyclopedia, I just don't feel I can trust this website. It's a shame because it's a really great idea, but how can you stop folks like Eep from screwing the whole thing up? Then again . . . maybe the problem is the nature of this particular page -- Zechariah Sitchin -- and his type of follower. Perhaps I will not run into this kind of thing on a page not related to conspiracy theory? Anyway, Eep, I'm sure you mean well, but you are muddying the waters for the rest of us. I hope in the future you will develop more of a respect for, and recognition of, the truth supported by evidence. 67.142.130.28 05:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Eep, I owe you an apology. I should not be so rude to you, just because you are an amorphous online entity that I cannot come to blows with. It's tempting to be more rude to someone online than you would ever be in person. Frankly, it's because this hoax information really, really bothered me. I personally am quite dedicated to seeking out the truth of who we are, where we came from, and what it means to be human (or even non-human!). I take this seriously, and it pains me to find that this realm of seeking has become a hall of mirrors, where there is so much mis/disinformation, so many lies. If you truly are interested in discovering the truth, I would suggest becoming more vigilant in protecting and nourishing your own powers of discrimination and critical thinking, so that you don't get lost on the Path.67.142.130.28 05:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, user:67.142.., I hope that you reconsider leaving and stay, it strikes me that you'd have a lot to contribute here. Unfortunately, content disputes and disagreements prove to be frustrating exercises on odd occasions, and it's a pity your early editing encounters have been of this nature. However, by and large this is not the typical experience, and after a bit of work and time these disputes tend to have a way of being worked out; there are comparatively few utterly intractable ones. And yes, the probability of running into such incidents has some rough correlation with the nature of the topic to hand; there are many more harmonious places, and if one proves too troublesome there are 1.7 million+ others that could be worked on.

In any event it seems that friend Eep has gotten themselves blocked for a short period for some other matter, so may not be in a position to respond right now.--cjllw ʘ TALK 09:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

To the anonymous user, it would help if you actually created an account with SOME kind of identity (aside from IP address). Anyway, I am also interested in the truth, so if you can provide evidence that this "hoax" is indeed a hoax, great. I have already provided some references for one person mentioned in the article but, again, I said more research is necessary. I'm quite busy with many things on Misplaced Pages lately (like my ban mentioned above) so I don't have the time to research everything. Fortunately, I'm not the only one interested in these things, so if you have some credible, reliable, 3rd-party sources to add to the article, further debunking this "hoax", by all means add it. However, note that the people I mentioned above (Howe and Salla) have not been able to verify if Chang even exists--they themselves just don't know and imply it is possible he DOES exist. So, take heed of that in your research. -Eep² 09:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Eep, I am new to Misplaced Pages and don't intend to be adding or editing much at all. I don't know what my "identity" should I create one will do for you in this situation. However, I DID create an account, twice now, so I don't know what exactly I'm doing wrong. It says I am now registered, but then nothing is different.

Again, login. It's really not that difficult a concept to understand. Are you new to computers and the Internet, perhaps? "Logging in" is a common concept... Also see Help:Logging_in. -Eep² 15:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, with regard to this hoax. Eep, let me just ask you to logically consider the possibility that the Human Genome Project has actually discovered that portions of human DNA come from aliens. Extra-terrestrials. ET's. Outer space. That would be a discovery of monumental importance not to mention something that would cause panic and chaos in parts of the world. Tremendous upheaval. It would change the nature of life on earth. If it were not immediately covered up, it would certainly be cause for discussion among scientific circles everywhere, and you would find countless articles about it online and would be able to view the corroborating evidence somewhere.

However, I knew this was a hoax immediately because the information was too fantastic to be true based on my common sense, because of the way the article was written which was unprofessional and lacking in credible scientific sources, way too long and filled with other conspiracy theorists listed as sources.

After researching and discovering that no such person as Chang exists at the Genome Project (certainly this person would not be difficult to find), I just shook my head and laughed and moved on. As you should do. Your thinking is backward if you think that I have to "prove" an obvious hoax is a hoax. YOU have to prove it is credible at all, which you cannot. That is the basis of the rule of law -- PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE. Anyone can make up charges, thank god that they are not considered the sole basis of conviction.

The truth of the matter is that, while beings from other planets may indeed have played a part on human evolution, no one knows this with certainty -- yet. Not Sitchin or anyone else. He has created a hypothesis that, intriguing and entertaining, and even cathartic as it may be, should not be confused with a proven reality. 67.142.130.14 15:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The truth of the matter is, you have failed to provide evidence there is no Chang at the Genome Project. Again, refer to the sources I've already referenced that attempt to validate Chang's existence, but cannot--but that ALSO don't say it's possible he DOES exist in other parts of the Project. Research it deeper; don't just dismiss something at quick glance or limited research--research it until you can't go any further--and then research why; it may lead you to even deeper areas than you first saw... -Eep² 15:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

1. The Canadian: Scientists confirm Extraterrestrial genes in Human DNA, Peter Jiang and Jenny Li, January 22, 2007

• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class paranormal articles
• Unknown-importance paranormal articles
• WikiProject Paranormal articles