by Steffan Stanford
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
She goes on to say that:
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 theorizes that the Anunnaki are near
neighbors to Earth, being a planet that he refers to as the Twelfth
Planet. (Amitakh calls this planet Nibiru throughout her
article). Sitchin then hypothesizes 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
"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
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.
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.
Return to Contents
Regresar a Los Anunnaki
Return to Amitakh Stanford