should von daniken sue?

Many people here forget that a trial is like a popularity contest. The jury has to like the defendant or the plaintiff. That does not seem fair, but that is human nature. If Mr Von Daniken sued for defamation in court, many of the more arrogant personalities would appear and seem to mock him. The jury would not like academia, and Mr Von Daniken could easily win the case.

Many of the debunkers/skeptics here have a mean streak, and that does not play well with juries. For some of you wanting to see a lawsuit trial, I think the results may surprise you.

Originally posted by kidflash2008Many of the debunkers/skeptics here have a mean streak, and that does not play well with juries. For some of you wanting to see a lawsuit trial, I think the results may surprise you.

Good thing it's only the debunkers/skeptics. I would hate to think what would happen if any of the upright, honest members got rude or frustrated with obdurate refusals to believe the WWN is a good source.

reply to post by kidflash2008

Many of the debunkers/skeptics here have a mean streak, and that does not play well with juries. For some of you wanting to see a lawsuit trial, I think the results may surprise you.

Fair point. I imagined an adversarial courtroom contest where the evidence and critical thinking would place EVD firmly in the 'entertainment/ fiction' bracket. Given his book sales, popularity and the Prosecution not being allowed to refer to 'past crimes,' a Jury would likely find in his favor. The defense could use Charlton Heston and his Mysterious Origins of Man to create 'reasonable doubt.'

Who can resist the magic as Heston relates Tiahuanaco having blocks so skillfully constructed that 'a needle can't penetrate the gaps...' Bertolt Brecht's contention that 'life imitates Art' is so often true...sigh...

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by kidflash2008

 

Many of the debunkers/skeptics here have a mean streak, and that does not play well with juries. For some of you wanting to see a lawsuit trial, I think the results may surprise you.

Fair point. I imagined an adversarial courtroom contest where the evidence and critical thinking would place EVD firmly in the 'entertainment/ fiction' bracket.

Dare I draw a connection to the Scopes Trial? Naw...that's still being debated on this site. Let's face it, the original post gave Von Daniken too much credit, and any suit he could present would be laughed out of court. There's a lot of unexplained stuff out there, and that adds a real edge to the study of human history...but EVD is not the guy that you'd want on the stand.

And debunking is not in and of itself mean spirited...at least it shouldn't be. That is not how one educates another. But jeez...where were some of these true believers when I was selling my Air Canada stock?

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

Let's face it, the original post gave Von Daniken too much credit,

There's a sharp irony at work throughout this thread...I suspect Von Daniken has contempt (or doesn't care) for whatever anyone thinks about him or his books. So called believers and skeptics alike. He explained in a 1970s interview that the 'rustless iron pole' was indeed rusty and still it remains in the book. Liars need people to believe them, but also hold them in contempt for that same belief.

He's probably laughing into his Hennessey and choking on his Cuban cigars

Originally posted by KandinskyThere's a sharp irony at work throughout this thread...I suspect Von Daniken has contempt (or doesn't care) for whatever anyone thinks about him or his books. So called believers and skeptics alike. He explained in a 1970s interview that the 'rustless iron pole' was indeed rusty and still it remains in the book. Liars need people to believe them, but also hold them in contempt for that same belief.

He's probably laughing into his Hennessey and choking on his Cuban cigars

Con-men have contempt toward their marks. It's a characteristic of the breed. If von D. had done any research he would have known that the iron pillar was rusty before he put in his book in the first place. He would also have known that it was one of several, and all the others had long ago returned to the Earth. That one was "lucky". Some slight difference in the smelting and/or pouring resulted in a highly durable alloy. Nothing more. All his stories are like that. Inadequate research, required if you want to keep the "woo" up.

The suit may not have any real merit, but if it went to civil trial (there would not be a prosecutor), both sides would sit a jury. Many of the more intellectual individuals would find a way out of jury duty, so the plaintiff (Von Daniken) would be heavily favored.

Even the late Carl Sagan had an arrogance to him, and that is why he did not do well to testify for evolution or against creationism. All the witnesses against Mr Von Daniken would be laughing at his theories and poking fun of him. That is a natural reaction to some, but it would not go down well with the jury.

A jury of 12 people would not like the side against EVD. Whether or not that is fair is moot. That is how it works in the legal system. EVD comes across as very likable, but the others do not.

reply to post by kidflash2008


"All the witnesses against Mr Von Daniken would be laughing at his theories and poking fun of him. "

Assumption on your part. When scientists testified against the loonies at Dover, Delaware there was no laughter. (Except for one really poor joke by a creationist witness.)

reply to post by Gawdzilla


I would think it would be hard for them to keep a straight face on the subject.

I am just trying to make a point that it is people who make up juries, and they form opinions about plaintiffs and defendants. It is not right, but that is human behavior.

I would think a judge would tell both sides to reach a settlement before this goes to court.

Remember, the Menendes Brothers had a hung jury after their first trial, and they admitted they killed their parents.

reply to post by kidflash2008


I would simply look for the people who work in fields affected by von D.'s fairy tales. They wouldn't be laughing.

A judge could recommend a settlement be done out of court, but I thnk if one side insists on a trial, they're entitled to it.

reply to post by Gawdzilla


Civil court is different than a court of law. One can demand a jury trial of accused of a crime. I don't know if that is such a case when it comes to lawsuits. Many get thrown out of court every day without benefit of a trial or hearing.

I don't see why Mr Von Daniken would sue, as he is getting more fame from the professors who detract what he has written. That will get some of the students to go out and buy the books.

In his case, there is no such thing as bad publicity.

Originally posted by kidflash2008In his case, there is no such thing as bad publicity.

Which fits perfectly with his moral paradigm. That's the really slimy thing, IMHO, that he would cash in such.

theres so many ignorant ass people on this site.


civilizations grew. were very advanved. had wars, probably nuclear. they all died out.

the people livin in caves after that

grew into anoter civilzation . which eventuallyb ecamed advanced. wiped themsevles out.

the people livin in caves hidin from the fallout of the nuclear wars eventually got together and built civilizations..they grew...and now ya got us..

you can throw aliens in there if you want i dont care.

its not an unrealistic theory AT ALL that human civilzations have risen and fallen numerous times on this planet. it only took us 200 years to go from blacksmith/tailor idiots to flyin in space and computers

reply to post by whateverponcho

it only took us 200 years to go from blacksmith/tailor idiots to flyin in space and computers

Most of our technology is based on principals expanded on by the Ancient World, like Greece, Egypt, Arabia, China.
It took us several thousand or more years to go from tribes to agriculture, from agriculture to cities.
And the evidence for these wars is usually based off of "I read or heard somewhere..."

Originally posted by kidflash2008
Even the late Carl Sagan had an arrogance to him, and that is why he did not do well to testify for evolution or against creationism.

I'm all for supporting science and academia, but I will not try to advance the argument that academics cannot be arrogant.

Mind you, 'true believers' are not above that particular weakness, either. One can be awful damn aggressive if unencumbered by the burden of proof.

This thread has been a very interesting read for me. Most likey (if all goes well) next year I will be studying Archaeology as my BA Major. The issue of Daniken, as well as other Ancient Astronaut thoeries will be something I would certainly want to look into once im established in the field. I think what the field of Archaeology needs at the moment, is an injection of fresh (if not younger) thinkers. As well as more objective opinions.

Originally posted by ozvulcan Most likey (if all goes well) next year I will be studying Archaeology as my BA Major. The issue of Daniken, as well as other Ancient Astronaut thoeries will be something I would certainly want to look into once im established in the field. I think what the field of Archaeology needs at the moment, is an injection of fresh (if not younger) thinkers.

Good plan. Archaeology is fabulous fun (I spent last weekend on a dig as a shovel monkey with troweling privileges) and it makes sense...anomalies and all. Advice? No matter what your temporal/regional passion, make yourself familiar with your own locality as well, so you can always haul out the ol' Marshalltown and lend an educated hand.

He should sue indeed he should, it is even stated by honorable carl sagan that it should be taken in to note that there is possibilty that man was visited by intelligent extra-terrestrials.
I hate these people, don vankien actually did his research and examined ancient achitecture, art and beliefs and came to the conclusion that if he were to abandon his beliefs in actual deities intervening, the logical assumption was ETs.

Time and time again I read stories and articles that state that many human built structures could not have been completed without the intervention of 'alien gods' or some such.
I say that we humans arent always being given enough credt. Our human brain has been the same for some 20,000 years. We are capable of leaps of logic and amazing insights just like we always have been. Why is it neccesary to have so much help? Humans could have built almost anything just by utilizing massive variations of very simple tools like blocks and tackles,levers and pulleys. All but about 2% of the known "mysterious structures" .
So lets remember to give ourselves some credit from time to time.
Oh yeah, he should definitely sue because its the 2% that lends credibility to his claims. Besides no one has proven him wrong yet!

[edit on 30-6-2009 by johnnyflip]

reply to post by whateverponcho


Ok if there were said nuclear type 0 civillizations, where are there evidence, unless youve been reading too much HALO, remember, the forerunner were a fictional human civillization, well back to the point, where is the archaeological evidence of these super advanced civillizations, unless they wiped themselves out completely, also leading to the destruction of several other species. the human race, as in modern man, Homo Sapien Sapien, is only around 20,000 yrs old, however our family were about 800,000 yrs ago, and they managed to develop fire then. But they had small brains, and relied on near primal instincts to survive, that is why for 760,000 yrs they never got any where, except for developng the first tools, etc. 40,000 years ago cro magnon still too stupid, but at least had the intelligence to start basic civillizations, then 20,000 yrs later, they had become us. 20,000 yrs, about 10,000 yrs of simple civillization, then a basic understanding of science, accelerated by unknown means, possibly by aliens or likely by a mutation (change in genes) that allowed further intelligence, either one to build things such as cities etc. Unknown influence developed religions, possibly by assumptions and observations, they were really intelligent back then, and could develop great things, by the 4th century, they had already understood that of the Sun being the center of the solar system with planets revolving around it, the worlds were round, how to develop things such as elictricity (clay battery)even though we dont know why, politics etc. then they got dumbed down in the medieval ages. then in the renaissance they regained this knowledge. This accelerated their understand of natural philosophy and they soon redeveloped science, eventually understanding how to look at atoms, etc. electricity you know. WHERE DOES A NUCLEAR CIVILLIZATION FIT BESIDES THAT OF THE 20TH-21ST CENTURY?