Well, as far as the next chapter, this material just goes on and on and on and as much organization as I've put into my notes, there is still an avalanche of them. One of these days I'll be able to make a more coherent case about any of it.

As far as Heiser, though, I wanted to relate the narrative of the minuscule amount of contact I've had with his work. It was very early on and I heard that he was the most prominent "debunker" of Sitchin. I mean, his website is sitchiniswrong.com, so that pretty much puts his thesis right out front.

Attempting to be a careful researcher, I thought I should consult it, if it was all that obvious. A note of preface: I have never actually studied Sitchin's work, read no more than a couple of paragraphs and watched a couple of short videos. I heard his main thesis, set out to debunk it myself, and... here we are.

Anyway, at that time, years ago, there was a short video presentation right on Heiser's home page. I never saved the link so I'll have to describe it from memory. He basically said, "The Sumerians never mentioned the Anunnaki. Sitchin made it all up and I can prove it. Go to the Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature, run by Oxford, and type 'anunnaki' into the search box. There will be no results."

That's absolutely true. Works just like he says. The Sumerians never once mentioned the Anunnaki in any of the numerous texts that have so far been translated. Debunked. EXCEPT....

The Sumerians did not refer to them as the "Anunnaki", they referred to them as the "Anuna" or the "Anuna gods". As I understand it, the term "Anunnaki" did not come along until the Akkadians, who were the successor civilization of the Sumerians, but they were clearly referring to the same group. The Anuna are all over the writings of the Sumerians, of paramount cultural importance.

Well, Heiser should know this. It's basic. I just picked it up along the way. The question which you can answer for yourself is then: is he that ignorant, or is he deliberately lying to prove his thesis, or is he perhaps--so to speak--deliberately ignorant?

That's as far as I ever felt I needed to look into the work of Michael Heiser.