Say something about yourself!
This is an alternative explanation of the garden of eden and the origins of people and religions. This explanation makes just as much (non)sense as the old testament and this book is just as (un)provable. The only this explanation is that this explanation is more fun.
I am in line with a lot of the theories within the book, but I an uncomfortable with subscribing to Sitchin's overly simplistic approach. Also, simple fact checks put many of the most fundamental points on shaky ground. I went in thinking that Sitchin had more credentials and experience than he actually does (did). I'll leave the review short. It was a great listen and very thought provoking, but take it as a starting point toward this kind of research. Fact check.
I liked it. The narration was good. I think that planet X is real. If the moon effects our oceans tides, then a planet three times the size of earth can cause higher tides. Or reverse our planets magnetic poles.
This explains everything so well!
So many pieces fall together.
This is a work of genius.
It is time to reevaluate everything.
nothing like it
This is the most plausible thing I have heard about the human race.
I was hoping for more. I find the Ancient Alien Theory fascinating, and there were moments of interest in this work, but no real narrative. This felt incomplete, more like a primer for more in depth works. I have not explored any other works by Sitchin, but perhaps The 12th Planet should be considered more of a companion work?
The relationships outlined (and that's all they were: outlines) piqued my interest, and I wished to explore them further, but that was not to be. As everything else in this book, narratives were left hanging, and massive expanses of time were jumped to and fro, in the most jarring of ways.
The 12th Planet cannot stand on its own.
While this book poses some interesting ideas based on ancient texts, it's very hard for me to believe these aren't just nice coincidences. Hey, anything's possible, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and simple hypotheses do not equal "evidence." That's all fine, and everyone's BS detector is set to different points, but what really bugged me about the book wasn't so much the hypotheses, because really any hypothesis is a valid one from my standpoint. It's going from there to "proof" that is really the key, and Sitchen seems to decide at some point that just piling up multiple hypotheses equals proof. He decides for us, he doesn't let us decide. He jumps into statement that either he proclaims blatantly as "fact" or at least implies it by his language. If he simply argued this as his opinion based on the sources he's used, that would have been great, but he jumps way beyond that. To me that becomes completely unscientific and thus completely invalid. Some will say that science is to constraining for things like this, and to you I say, fine, but wild, fantastic guesses don't usually prove true, and besides, in science you ARE allowed to make such guesses, but you also have to make guesses that can either be SOMEHOW proven right or wrong...