should von daniken sue?

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

Gawdilla: Proving two parties wrong doesn't make either one of them right.

SC: Well that much I would have thought was obvious. But the point is - EVD is pilloried in this thread (and in others) for his apparent "massaging" of evidence some 30+ years ago. But hey - it's okay when the "establishment" does it, isn't it? We're quite happy to accept and turn a blind eye to that, aren't we?

The hypocrisy.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

"We" as in whom, please? The scientific field is harder on itself than the general public realizes. It takes honest work to make a theory become part of the lexicon. That's one reason von D. will never be accepted.

Also, why do you think he's stopped lying in his books? They make him money. He's being rewarded for past, present and future fabrications. Not much of an incentive to turn over a new leaf.

reply to post by Gawdzilla

Hello Gawdzilla,

Gawdzilla: "We" as in whom, please? The scientific field is harder on itself than the general public realizes. It takes honest work to make a theory become part of the lexicon. That's one reason von D. will never be accepted.

Also, why do you think he's stopped lying in his books? They make him money. He's being rewarded for past, present and future fabrications. Not much of an incentive to turn over a new leaf.

SC: I am certainly not arguing that the views expressed by EVD will ever become accepted or that I personaly support his views. What I will say, however, is that I will fight anyone to the bitter end to uphold and protect EVD's absolute right to express his opinions.

You seem happy that EVD has now "stopped lying" in his books. But can you say, with absolute certainty, that the books that you regard as an "authority" in certain historical matters that have been discussed in this thread, have not, in fact, been misrepresenting the truth to you?

Regards,

Scott Creighton

Originally posted by Scott CreightonSC: I am certainly not arguing that the views expressed by EVD will ever become accepted or that I personaly support his views. What I will say, however, is that I will fight anyone to the bitter end to uphold and protect EVD's absolute right to express his opinions.

No problem with that. What I wonder is if that same right extends to me?

You seem happy that EVD has now "stopped lying" in his books. But can you say, with absolute certainty, that the books that you regard as an "authority" in certain historical matters that have been discussed in this thread, have not, in fact, been misrepresenting the truth to you?

Regards,

Scott Creighton

Sorry, but you misread my question. I didn't mean to imply that he has stopped lying, far from it. He's getting money to lie. When that stops, MAYBE he'll stop lying. Until then, no.

As for other sources, you present a silly situation. I'm not "absolutely certain" that anything exists, I could be dreaming all this. But if you want me to be held to higher standards than von D. you're going to have to show that will be implemented.

reply to post by Gawdzilla

Hello Gawdzilla,

SC: I am certainly not arguing that the views expressed by EVD will ever become accepted or that I personaly support his views. What I will say, however, is that I will fight anyone to the bitter end to uphold and protect EVD's absolute right to express his opinions.

Gawdzilla: No problem with that. What I wonder is if that same right extends to me?

SC: Absolutely!

SC: ...But can you say, with absolute certainty, that the books that you regard as an "authority" in certain historical matters that have been discussed in this thread, have not, in fact, been misrepresenting the truth to you?

Gawdzilla: As for other sources, you present a silly situation. I'm not "absolutely certain" that anything exists, I could be dreaming all this. But if you want me to be held to higher standards than von D. you're going to have to show that will be implemented.

SC: It's a simple enough question. Given what has been discussed in this thread concerning certain researchers and their discoveries, do you consider that academia can - on occasion - misrepresent the truth of a particular theory (i.e. disregard hard scientific evidence) and that it can also - on occasion - hold undue influence over researchers to hold back in making announcements that would be considered too controversial?

Regards,

Scott Creighton

Originally posted by Scott CreightonSC: It's a simple enough question. Given what has been discussed in this thread concerning certain researchers and their discoveries, do you consider that academia can - on occasion - misrepresent the truth of a particular theory (i.e. disregard hard scientific evidence) and that it can also - on occasion - hold undue influence over researchers to hold back in making announcements that would be considered too controversial?

Regards,

Scott Creighton

I would say that addressing other academic dishonesty would deserve its own thread.

I will say that "too controversial" would have be covered on a case-by-case basis. I've seen Professors advise their post-docs to hold off on publishing a paper because it was on the very edge of the discipline (would you believe it involved stink bugs, of all things.) However, a conspiracy to hide "certain knowledge" from the public needs some really strong legs to walk the walk.

reply to post by Scott Creighton
Scott,
Your brevity is appreciated as ever...You and others continue to use the person (Steen-McIntyre) or the evidence to further an argument that evidence is institutionally suppressed. Several posts have demonstrated that it hasn't been the case for a long time. Despite this, you continue to use her evidence to bang the drum of institutionalized suppression to hide 'forbidden archaeology.'

I use the term 'forbidden archaeology' as you are a slippery fellow that likes to shift terms and focuses around. It seems as good a term as any. Trying to get a fix on a specific aspect of your argument is like trying to put an eel in a bottle. You hold the same position in so many threads. Same evidence, same sermonizing tones and language.

I haven't noticed you acknowledge any interest in the links posted. Your interest in history doesn't seem to extend past the crimes of the establishment. The possibility of Man using tools has recently been extended by 130ka. Valsequillo is being vindicated. If we throw in a million year old sphinx, out comes the Steen-McIntyre argument again.

I don't and haven't ever disputed that incidents like Hueyatlaco can and do occur. They occur in all aspects of society as an outcome of human nature. Other posters have said as much too. In archaeology they ultimately will come out e.g Hueyatlaco. The contention that ('so-called professionals', criminal, conmen, hypocrites, mafia...all your pejoratives academics and the field of science are dishonest is inaccurate at best.

Take it easy

reply to post by Kandinsky

Hello Kandinsky,

Kandinsky: Your brevity is appreciated as ever...You and others continue to use the person (Steen-McIntyre) or the evidence to further an argument that evidence is institutionally suppressed.

SC: I prefer really to consider that evidence is “cherry-picked” by both sides of this debate and somewhere in between the truth exists.

Kandinsky: Several posts have demonstrated that it hasn't been the case for a long time.

SC: You cannot possibly even know that. Cherry-picking of evidence with regards to C14 dating is endemic with the field of archaeology. If the C14 date matches the archaeologist’s preconceived idea then the date is quoted. If the C14 date does not match the archaeologist’s preconceived notion, it is simply dismissed and not quoted. This practice continues TO THIS DAY.

Kandinsky: Despite this, you continue to use her evidence to bang the drum of institutionalized suppression to hide 'forbidden archaeology.'

SC: Would you rather we all just turned a blind eye to such practice?

Kandinsky: Your interest in history doesn't seem to extend past the crimes of the establishment.

SC: This is not so as a quick glance through the threads on my Forum will demonstrate to you. My interest in this debate concerning EVD is not so much to offer him support but to demonstrate the blatant hypocrisy of the good professor. Glass houses and all that.

Kandinsky: The possibility of Man using tools has recently been extended by 130ka.

SC: Not in the Americas.

Kandinsky: Valsequillo is being vindicated.

SC: And not before time. In the long road to this vindication, everyone who believed in Steen-McIntyre’s research are branded as loons, nutjobs, numpties etc. by those who thought they knew better i.e. the academic mafia. So ask yourself the question – who were the real nutjobs in all of this?

Kandinsky: If we throw in a million year old sphinx, out comes the Steen-McIntyre argument again.

SC: Off topic but if you wish to discuss the merits of polyphylogenetic evolution in a new thread I’d be happy to discuss it with you.

Kandinsky: I don't and haven't ever disputed that incidents like Hueyatlaco can and do occur. They occur in all aspects of society as an outcome of human nature..

SC: Well, it’s good to know that you accept this shoddy practice has occurred. And since human nature very rarely changes, I do not see how you can expect such dodgy practices to change? We can but hope.

Kandinsky: Other posters have said as much too. In archaeology they ultimately will come out e.g Hueyatlaco.

SC: Only because Steen-McIntyre stood steadfast with her evidence and did not back down in the face of the scorn poured upon her from her superiors. She stuck to her guns because she had done the science. Science is science. If it offers a date that is considered controversial and that date is checked and checked and always gives the same date then why should that date not then be accepted? If that date is not accepted only because it upsets the prevailing paradigm then every date ever obtained using the same scientific methods must also be thrown out. Academics shouldn’t be picking and choosing what dates they wish to accept – if they accept a date using a particular dating method (or methods) then they cannot then reject another date that uses the same methods simply because it does not fit with their preconceived ideas about our history and origins. And, as I have repeatedly said, such a practice is far more dangerous than anything EVD can ever be accused of since we are dealing with people in a position of trust who are abusing and betraying that trust.

Kandinsky: The contention that ('so-called professionals', criminal, conmen, hypocrites, mafia...all your pejoratives academics and the field of science are dishonest is inaccurate at best.

SC: Show me anywhere where I have labeled ALL academics as such? Indeed, I believe I have gone out of my way in this thread to state categorically that I did not believe this was the case for ALL academics.

Kandinsky: Take it easy

SC: Likewise.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

Originally posted by Kandinsky
I don't and haven't ever disputed that incidents like Hueyatlaco can and do occur.

Kandinski,

If you don't dispute this, then allow me to.

Scott has repeatedly insisted that Steen-McKintyre's career was "ruined," that she was "lambasted" and "ridiculed" by peers.

I'd like to see an iota of evidence for this claim. It is, after all, the very basis of this portion of his argument, is it not?

So, I dispute the "fact" that her peers ridiculed her, and I have evidence that her career was not "ruined."

Harte

reply to post by Harte


"Scott has repeatedly insisted that Steen-McKintyre's career was "ruined," that she was "lambasted" and "ridiculed" by peers.

I'd like to see an iota of evidence for this claim. It is, after all, the very basis of this portion of his argument, is it not?"

Sounds a lot like the plot of "Expelled". The "academic community" is assaulting people for daring to teach the goat-herders' dogma, according to Ben Stein. And, of course, there is no evidence to back that up.

i think the problem people are having, is they are expecting daniken to have provided them with a peer reviewed paper written in scientific terminology and to be telling them that this is what they have to believe.

all he did was write a few books, setting forth at THEORY. and IDEA about the possible origins of humankind. he was trying to make people THINK about the anomalies and things that he found that didn't make sense to HIM. he provided as much evidence to back up his claim as he felt to be necessary. he put in quotes of ancient texts and plenty of photos of monuments and sites, which in my opinion, many of them were quite interesting. i think some of his evidence didnt seem to fit the picture for many people, or was less obvious in its connection, and this put many people off him. but i also think that some of his evidence was pretty strong, and his interpretation was pretty interesting possibility.

he's a writer, he's not an archaeologist. the responsibility for PROVING his theories and IDEAS doesnt lie with him, but with scientists. There's no law against putting an idea out there, giving your reasons (evidence) for it, and saying - guys i think you really should look into this properly - AS SCIENTISTS - and see what you think. this is what daniken SAYS he is trying to do in his books. its ALL he was ever trying to do. get some scientists to look into this stuff and take his IDEA seriously based on some of the interesting sources/finds he provided to back it up. i think he provided enough interesting evidence to warrant further SERIOUS investigation, at the very least. sure, some of his connections or evidence may not fit the picture and may be WRONG, but this doesn't mean that the whole lot is tainted. if just ONE of his pieces of evidence turns out to mean what he says it does, then we have to re evaluate everything in archaeology.

and to those who say, oh this particular piece of evidence clearly didnt fit, or was a load of crap; or that he fabricated one piece of evidence (which i dont believe, but even if he did): i just ask you: can't you separate the different pieces of evidence in your head? Even if only SOME of them may support his theory, or appear anomalous, then further study would be a good idea, wouldn't it? test is all scientifically? at least consider the possiblity. because some of his evidence wasn't fabricated - most of it. its impossible to fabricate a biblical text - anyone can check it. or the ramayana. likewise a giant pyramid. that's there. no need for any fabrication. he wasnt really short on evidence as far as i could see. there are plenty of rock art paintings with beings in what looks like helmets - why would he need to invent them if they'r ethere?

re: palenque, i think i said before. people get mad at him for not explaining the mythological interpretation of the art: i.e. falling back down into the underworld, all that cosmos connection etc. They say, this if he knew anything, is clearly what the picture means. im sure he knows that. the reason he didnt mention it, is because its not inconsistant with his theory at all. He's saying, yes, the people living there saw these aliens, took them for gods from the stars, and created a religion AROUND them. so when they're talking about underworlds, and gods, and world tree axis's and sacred mountains, all this stuff is ABOUT those gods/aliens, and the events that were witnessed at the time. So while the people living htere might have interpreted someone in a spaceship as heading for heaving or falling into the underworld, or relate it in some way to their theory of cosmos and religion, what they were actually witnessing (and what they drew a pretty good picture of ) was a guy in a spaceship. And i think that the palenque carving, (in my opinion, others may disagree) does look remarkably like some guy fiddling with the controls of a rocket or something. but i think he has more convincing evidence than this to back his theory, its just one piece that seems to correlate with others.

Re: supposedly answered questions in archaeology. lets talk archaeological theories: the origins of agriculture, and sedentary settlement. well the current thinking is it was likely the result of a response to severe climatic conditions at the time. i.e. drought. so they started planting seeds that would survive the drought. i dont dispute this. its not inconsistent with his theory. because: why did people all over the world, suddenly, at around the same time in history (after surviving similar droughts and climatic problems for millions of years and never taking up farming), seem to find the brainpower to think of domesticating wild crops? where did this brainpower suddenly come from, world wide, at the same time? (in my opinion this hasnt yet been answered satisfactorily. genetic manipulation of humans by aliens WOULD explain why suddenly humans had the brainpower to realize they should start domesticating wild seeds to survive a drought).

another interesting finding in archaeology: that in america, the first art depicting gods/etc/religious themes conincided with the development of hierarchical societies where nobles justified their position and authority by a connection to these divine gods. well, yes, thats nice. it does also nicely fit the theory that aliens came down and we worshiped them causing the start of religion, and that this caused the social stratification in communities. ... its as good as theory as any in my opnion. who can prove its impossible or not true?

and in science, anything that hasn't been DISPROVEN, any theory that hasn't been disproven is still a potential explanation. (particularly if evidence tends to accumulate around it and support it, rather than damage the theory).

just like any currently accepted theory (such as a purely climactic reason for agricultural development) is never set in stone, if later evidence arrives to DISPROVE it. any theory in archaeology may be disproved in teh future. so all possibilities should always be explored.

the problem i have with archaeology, is that if i were to say, give me a grant, and i will try to prove to you, using scientific method, and hypothesis testing, etc, that the alien/god theory is a decent explanation for many conundrums in archaeology, or for a particular problem; - or if i were to even start discussing this theory as a possible interpretation for artifacts found at a particular site, and say i actually had some good evidence for it, that was at least susceptible to such an interpretation, (also in the eyes of other scientists from other disciplines like geologists, physicists, astronomers etc), do you think i would be allowed to speak, or be given a grant? do you think anyone would stop and listen to my theory or evidence or interpretation? why not?

isnt that directly in violation of freedom of thought? shouldnt i be able to talk about an idea or research a problem so long as i use scientific method properly, without being ridiculed or ostracised? isnt at least sensible engagement and debate the scientific way to go?

if you say, all the problems in archaeology have already been explained - one, you would be wrong. and two, you would be unscientific - because a theory only stands in science so long as no ones disproven it yet. it is never set in stone, becuz scientists acknowledge that one day a better understanding or evidence may come along to change the theory. so how can discussion about a certain topic be totally blocked? how does this fit in with science?

reply to post by rapunzel222


"isnt that directly in violation of freedom of thought? shouldnt i be able to talk about an idea or research a problem so long as i use scientific method properly, without being ridiculed or ostracised? isnt at least sensible engagement and debate the scientific way to go?"

To get a grant you have to demonstrate that you can do the work properly. People aren't going to give you money without a reason. So you work up a proposal, and present it along with your "creds". Then, if it fits the grant parameters, you may get your money. I spent a year in San Bruno going over the 14th Naval District Archives, I'm familiar with the process.

thats nice, but come on, seriously? do you seriously think in the archaeology profession today that they would give anyone a grant who expressed an idea like that? i dont. i dont think they would even look at it, no matter what evidence was presented to back it up or whether it looked like a reasonable proposal. in addition to that, i think that, even if that person had had a succesful and distinguished career in archaeology, that the minute they opened their mouth about an idea like that, they would lose all credibility and would never get a job again.

and i think that does amount to censorship and no freedom of thought. if people who control grant money and research are unable or unwilling to even give reasonable consideration to a proposal; and if the individual isnt protected from professional repurcussions and prejudice - particularly say if theyve proven themself to be an intelligent researcher in the past.

reply to post by Harte

Kandinsky: I don't and haven't ever disputed that incidents like Hueyatlaco can and do occur.

Harte: Kandinski, if you don't dispute this, then allow me to.

Scott has repeatedly insisted that Steen-McKintyre's career was "ruined," that she was "lambasted" and "ridiculed" by peers.

SC: What I see here, Harte,. is nothing more than a neat side-step on your part to deflect from the central issue of this discussion i.e. that academia threatens to misrepresent the truth of our history and origins by withholding key EVIDENCE. This is the issue – EVIDENCE and how academia manipulates the picture of our past by withholding or dismissing sound scientific EVIDENCE.

That by so doing the academic mafia treated Steen-McIntyre despicably is entirely immaterial to the central question and not an issue that I am interested in discussing. That she has subsequently been “rehabilitated” into the body of the kirk, so to speak, is perhaps the establishment trying to make amends – as it should.

Harte: I'd like to see an iota of evidence for this claim. It is, after all, the very basis of this portion of his argument, is it not?

SC: No, it’s not. The central question, as stated above, relates to how academia presents a distorted view of our history and origins by withholding important EVIDENCE of which Steen-McIntyre’s iresearch s but one example.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 21/4/2009 by Scott Creighton]

reply to post by rapunzel222


"do you seriously think in the archaeology profession today that they would give anyone a grant who expressed an idea like that? i dont."

The money isn't plentiful. The people who distribute it have to make decisions based on criteria that requires a realistic objective. "I want to search for the golden plates Joseph Smith found" will not get you money from 99.99% of the grantors. Looking for Ogopogo, Nessie, or the Yowie? You need to find someone willing to give you money for that. Good luck.

Originally posted by rapunzel222
if you say, all the problems in archaeology have already been explained - one, you would be wrong.

You are welcome to this opinion, but it is not correct to use such absolutes.

The fact is, I'm absolutely certain that many of the things that you believe are "anomalies" or "conundrums" are thimgs about which you've been lied to by fringe writers.

Most such hoohaw can be easily dismissed with a few minutes of research. I suggest you try it on a few of the "anomalies" that have you scratching your head.

Originally posted by rapunzel222and two, you would be unscientific - because a theory only stands in science so long as no ones disproven it yet. it is never set in stone, becuz scientists acknowledge that one day a better understanding or evidence may come along to change the theory. so how can discussion about a certain topic be totally blocked? how does this fit in with science?

Nobody is "blocking" any discussion. What is happening is people with some knowledge on the subject are pointing out the fallacies of these fringe ideas.

Perhaps you should look into this further, as I suggested.

Many fringe writers (most, in fact,) delibnerately misstate and deliberately leave out research that would tend to show how full of it they are. Hancock, for example, furthered the absolute falsehood that thousands of Mammoths were frozen in an instant in Siberia with tropical flowers in their stomachs. he got this from VonDaniken and cites him as his source. Of course, Von Daniken gives no source for the info.

The actuial truth is that the Mammoths that are frozen in Siberia were frozen over a period of thousands of years - not all at once in an instant, and the few surviving stomachs have contain flowers alright. Blossoms of plants known to grow in the Arctic tuindra - not any tropical plant.

These facts are well established, yet left out of VonDaniken's book and out of Fingerprints of the Gods - the book where Hancock continues this lie.

Almost every "anomaly" you think you know about has been "anomalized" by liars and con-men like these two grifters. It's realively easy to find this out. If you don't make some attempt to do so, then you are telling everyone that you are purposefully ignoring readily available information in order to further your own agenda (or wish) to live in fantasyland, as I've stated before.

A former fantasyland resident,

Harte

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
SC: What I see here, Harte,. is nothing more than a neat side-step on your part to deflect from the central issue of this discussion i.e. that academia threatens to misrepresent the truth of our history and origins by withholding key EVIDENCE. This is the issue – EVIDENCE and how academia manipulates the picture of our past by withholding or dismissing sound scientific EVIDENCE.

I agree, eviudence is the issue. Where is your eveidence that anyone's findings have been suppressed? Do you have any?
What I see here is an empty, unsupported claim. Such claims should properly be ignored if their authors continue to make them without "EVIDENCE."

At any rate, the actual "central issue" here is whether or not VonDaniken should sue, is it not? It wasn't me that took the thread off into conspiracy land by making unsupported claims about the vast cabal of the dark and evil members of academia.

Originally posted by Scott CreightonThat by so doing the academic mafia treated Steen-McIntyre despicably is entirely immaterial to the central question and not an issue that I am interested in discussing.

Perhaps you actually believe this, but I don't.
You claim that Steen-McIntyre has been mistreated. I say I don't believe it. Why is it you can make this claim without showing it's true and base the rest of your argum,ent against academia on this unsupoported claim tyou have made.?

Originally posted by Scott Creighton

Harte: I'd like to see an iota of evidence for this claim. It is, after all, the very basis of this portion of his argument, is it not?

SC: No, it’s not. The central question, as stated above, relates to how academia presents a distorted view of our history and origins by withholding important EVIDENCE of which Steen-McIntyre’s iresearch s but one example.

So, please provide evidence that you (or someone else) didn't simply make up this example.

Or, provide some evidence, any evidence, that academia has witheld "key EVIDENCE" in their plot to misinform us about the ancient history of humanity and the Earth.

Harte

reply to post by Harte

Hello Harte,

Forward this youtube video on to 7mins 20 secs. You will find that Virginia-Steen-McIntyre tells us, in her own words, that as a result of making these discoveries which were entirely controversial at the time and because she stood by her findings, her career was destroyed:

www.youtube.com...

Regards,

Scott Creighton


[edit on 21/4/2009 by Scott Creighton]

Originally posted by Harte Where is your eveidence that anyone's findings have been suppressed? Do you have any?
What I see here is an empty, unsupported claim. Such claims should properly be ignored if their authors continue to make them without "EVIDENCE."

Fact is, Harte, the Sheguindah site is a pretty good example of what he is talking about. Thomas Lee was the principal investigator, and apparently dated it as deep antiquity, but presented a 'conservative' date of 30kya.

He is cited by Cremo:

“Sheguiandah would have forced embarrassing admissions that the Brahmins did not know everything. It would have forced the re-writing of almost every book in the business. It had to be killed. It was killed” (Lee, T.E. (1966) Untitled editorial note on the Sheguiandah site. Anthropological Journal of Canada, 4(4): 18-19. )

(I haven't confirmed this citation)

Further, from a hearing by the Conservation Review Board of the Ontario Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, on November 4th, 1993:

“Witness: Dr. Peter Storck is the Curator of New World Archaeology at the Royal Ontario Museum and a Paleo-Indian and lithic technology expert who has worked on the site.”
“…Concerning the significance of the site, he stated that recent research makes Lee’s interpretation that the site is 30,000 years old less likely but more work needs to be done on this. “
“…Dr. Storck responded to a question raised earlier during cross-examination as to why little was done on the site from the 1950s to the late 1980s. The controversy surrounding Lee’s 30,000 year interpretation destroyed his career and for years inhibited young scholars from studying the site.” www.crb.gov.on.ca...

But, as we now know, 30kya is possible...they're thinking 40kya at Monte Verde, but they're not saying it very loud. I have Storck's 1991 study on order, and I haven't found anything newer, but I'll report back.

But...it's a first-class example of the supression of nonconforming data. I bring this forward not to bolster EVD, but to say we need to know what's what or we feed the trolls. And these too, may be your OOP artifacts.

Louis Leakey believed he found manuformed cobbles in the high Arctic.
Norman Emerson believed in the 'intuitive' powers of George McMullen.

Ya can't say never, unless you're sure.

[edit on 21-4-2009 by JohnnyCanuck]

reply to post by Scott Creighton

Scott,
Does every post require the fisking approach? Point, rebuttal etc. It may reassure the poster, but is'nt always necessary

The contention that ('so-called professionals', criminal, conmen, hypocrites, mafia...all your pejoratives) academics and the field of science are dishonest is inaccurate at best.

I'd missed the closed bracket. You have never said that ALL academics are the pejoratives you use. You would never be so careless

You still continue to bang the Steen-McIntyre drum in every post. She is and was an active archaeologist. She doesn't subscribe to possibilities of lost advanced civilizations. You can check her website or read any papers in the last decade. She hasn't ever suggested that Valesquillo was an outcome of visiting 'Gods from Space.' She doesn't subscribe to ancient atomic warfare, flying machines or alternative theories of pyramid builders.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing that the findings were ignored at the time. Disagreement is about extent and frequency.

Visitors from the universe in remote antiquity?
In the Lebanon there are glass-like bits of rock, so-called tektites, in which the American Dr Stair discovered radioactive aluminium isotopes.

In Egypt and Iraq there were finds of cut crystal lenses which today can only be made using caesium oxide, in other words an oxide that has to be won by electrochemical processes.

In Helwan there is a piece of cloth, a fabric so fine that it could only be woven today in a special factory with great technical know-how and experience.

Electric dry batteries, which work on the galvanic principle, are on display in Baghdad Museum. In the same place the visitor can see electric elements with copper electrodes and an unknown electrolyte.

In the mountainous Asian region of Kohistan a cave drawing reproduces the exact position of the constellations as they actually were 10,000 years ago. Venus and the earth are joined by lines.

Ornaments of platinum were found on the Peruvian plateau.

Parts of a belt made of aluminium lay in a grave at Chu-Chu (China).

Chariots of the Gods

Von Daniken uses these as evidence to suggest that aliens are responsible for human technology. No archaeologist would write a paper making such claims. Maybe that is why the 'hypocritical' Professor from the OP was using his work? He or she was illustrating the difference between accepted forms of in scientific writing and semi-fictional speculation that EVD used. He does indeed reference a number of hearsay accounts and religious texts. He doesn't cite any archaeological/ scientific analyses of any of these artifacts. He ignores them.

If a student cited EVD's old religious texts as a source and neglected to reference any scientific studies, they'd fail. If they didn't fail, they might explain Giant's Causeway as the remains of the disembarking section of an ancient spaceport based on part of the Mabinogian.

EVD should be in University libraries. Sci-Fi, fantasy, fiction and graphic novels were in mine and should remain there. His only purpose in hard science is as an example of bad science. The Professor is saving the students the embarrassment and disappointment of failing an assessment on the principle of 'garbage in, garbage out.'