◆ PARALLAX

That possibility explains everything and predicts nothing. Any text can be machine language in disguise if contradiction becomes "they lacked vocabulary." A theory that can survive every possible text is not strong. It is invulnerable because it is empty.

Also, ancient people had excellent vocabularies for craft. Boats, kilns, ploughs, bricks, beer, weaving, metal, stars, floods, debt. They were not toddlers pointing at aircraft. If they described divine radiance, ritual fear or cosmic order, maybe they meant those categories because those were the categories doing the work.

The "they lacked words" argument is often disguised contempt. Ancient texts are densely technical about the worlds that mattered to them. The fact that their technicality is ritual, legal or agricultural rather than aerodynamic is our limitation, not theirs.

A friend says academia suppresses Sitchin because accepting him would destroy careers. True?

Academia is capable of cowardice, fashion, gatekeeping and inertia. That does not make every rejected claim brave. Sitchin is rejected mainly because the philology fails. If a young scholar produced a tablet that made the field rewrite Anunnaki tomorrow, every rival department would race to publish first. Careers are made by overturning things with evidence.

Suppression narratives work because institutions really do protect themselves. The con is smuggling a weak claim into that true general suspicion. "Institutions suppress" does not answer "does this sign mean what you say it means."

Can someone ask an actual Assyriologist to look at this thread?

Lurker, grad student, not speaking for the field. Adrian is being careful. The specific correction I can confirm: Nibiru is not a hidden planet in the standard readings, and "Anunnaki" is not a phrase meaning visitors from heaven to earth. There are hard passages here, but those are not hard in the way Sitchin needs them to be. Vanishing again because I have a seminar paper trying to kill me.