After examining the claims made by Zecharia Sitchin and those who follow him (Lloyd Pye and William Bramley, for example), I believe that the claims fall into the category of PSEUDOSCIENCE.

There is no testable, verifiable, physical evidence to support the hypothesis that aliens from the planet Nibiru conquered earth, then genetically engineered homo erectus to create anatomically modern humans.

According to the criteria listed by Dr. Kenneth L. Feder, author of the book Frauds, Myths and Mysteries, Zecharia Sitchin is a PSEUDOSCIENTIST.

WHERE IS THE CLAIM OR DISCOVERY PRESENTED?

Sitchin's bibliographies are a mish-mash of sources in multiple languages, but no publishers or copyright dates are included. Anyone attempting to verify his sources has a difficult time doing so. He often cites himself, as well as individuals whose writings do not contradict his own, but he ignores any evidence that does not support him. Additionally, his translations of Hebrew and Sumerian texts are suspicious because he openly claims (in several of his books) that they are his personal translations, with no supporting data included.

WHO IS MAKING THE CLAIM?

Zecharia Sitchin claims to be "an eminent Orientalist and Biblical scholar" (per the blurbs on the backs of his books), yet he does not have a degree in either of those subjects from any accredited university. He graduated from the University of London with a degree in Economic History and he worked as a journalist and editor in Israel. His claims are based on his own interpretations of cuneiform and archaeological artifacts, many of which he has never examined in person (Pye 2000).

WHAT IS THE EPISTEMOLOGY OF THE DISCOVERY?

Sitchin claims to "know" that Nibiru exists and that the Anunnaki visited Earth in the past because he (more than any one else) has the knowledge needed to understand and interpret the data left in the archaoelogical record. He has presented his work in detail (over the course of 25+ years and dozens of books and radio appearances), yet he rarely answers challengers directly (Sheffield 2000; Heiser 2005). Sitchin fails repeatedly to prove his hypotheses with testable scientific research, and he continually manipulates the data to fit his own theories.

WHAT DO OTHER SCIENTISTS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THIS?

According to one of his most vocal supporters, Lloyd Pye, "(a)all that keeps Zecharia Sitchin from being recognized as the innovative genius he is, is that his area of scholarship-humanity's prehistory-is so painfully sensitive to science and religion" (2000). Indeed. I believe that the reason Sitchin remains firmly in the category of pseudoscience is that countless astronomers, physicists, anthropologists, historians, archaeologists and geologists have already studied the data using scientific method and have come to different conclusions. Sithin's followers believe that the accredited scientists of the world do not want to admit that he is right because they will have to admit THEY are all wrong (Cremo 1993). Interesting how so many others are wrong, but Sitchin is right and can't scientifically PROVE it.

IS THERE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO LEGITIMIZE THE CLAIM?

I believe that there is enough information available for individuals to make an informed decision about the claims made by Sitchin and to conclude that his hypotheses cannot even be theorized, much less "proven as fact" (Sitchin, The Twelfth Planet 1977). For this project, I read five of Sitchin's books, which I found to be repetitive and devoid of evidence for the claims he asserts. He provides copious drawings and charts to "show" how he is understanding the data, but there are few actual photographs, and he seems very reluctant to give credit to his sources for validation purposes. He quotes passages from the Judeo-Christian bible, but admits using his own translations, and then fails to give chapters and verses so that a reader might compare his translations to another version. He shows drawings of cuneiform writing and clay tablets, but does not cite the current location of these tablets so that they can be examined by his readers. That alone is enough for me to be convinced that, even if Sitchin is correct, he has not proven his case conclusively.