should von daniken sue?

reply to post by Gawdzilla

von D. is a criminal and a con man. His books are filled with fantasies and they cater to people with a weak grip on reality.

Obviously this is also true of anyone who reads the bibles then ?

So Von Daniken made a few mistakes (lies) so what ? Archeologists do it and perpetuate the mistake (lie) I wonder if those that vilify Von Daniken still teach that an imaginary race of Aryan people conquered northern India.

Originally posted by moocowman
So Von Daniken made a few mistakes (lies) so what ? Archeologists do it and perpetuate the mistake (lie) I wonder if those that vilify Von Daniken still teach that an imaginary race of Aryan people conquered northern India.

Actually, Von Daniken is an excellent example to use of "fringe science" because he gives only part of the facts and reinterprets them to fit his ideas.

Someone mentioned the Palenque tomb lid, for example, saying that VonD had it right and that the Mayas had no idea what was on the stone. The problem with this is that VonD deliberately left out the writing that's on the lid and on the sarcophagus and all around the site in order that he could interpret it as he wished. It would have been embarrassing for his book if anyone could pick it up, go to a dictionary of the Mayan symbols, and start reading what was written by the Mayans.

Likewise his "ancient Mayan elephant" which shows up occasionally. The image is an "elephant" if you're shown a drawing of only PART of the object and if you're told "look at the elephant."

Teaching young archaeologists about his books and showing them the whole body of evidence and explaining why he's wrong is the right thing to do. For many years, it was assumed that rational people would check all the evidence and see that he was wrong and dismiss him. But in the Internet age, and with YouTube, this isn't happening. Others build on his work without even checking the original material (like the Assyrian seal that Hancock shows around... and conveniently leaves off the inscription part.)

We do need to educate archaeologists and anthropologists about the "fringe theories" and give them the WHOLE bundle of facts on the artifacts and sites and claims. We need to show them the COMPLETE artifacts from all sides (the entire lintel at Abydos with the "helicopter") so they can see the objects in context and see what's around them instead of being shown a part of something that's completely out of context.

And I think they should reshelve VonD's books under "fiction."

Science is an evolving medium, like Mormonism. Researchers and scientists once believed that the smaller of the male genitalia of races meant they were smarter.

Okay, that makes sense... little green men, and all. No wonder they can travel through space.

reply to post by Byrd


"We do need to educate archaeologists and anthropologists about the "fringe theories" and give them the WHOLE bundle of facts on the artifacts and sites and claims. We need to show them the COMPLETE artifacts from all sides (the entire lintel at Abydos with the "helicopter") so they can see the objects in context and see what's around them instead of being shown a part of something that's completely out of context."

You might have some problems presenting facts that they've already examined and eliminated from serious consideration. For example, the "helicopter" is an Egyptian symbol, IIRC, not a code for "Blackhawks over the Nile." I get a lot of questions about Pearl Harbor, as that's my area of specialization (more exactly, US-Japanese diplomatic relations prior to 12-7-41.) People like Mark Willey are constantly coming up with "smoking guns" that they've "just discovered" that I examined in the '60s and found unremarkable when you knew the whole story.

My point is that you need to weed out the "questions" that have already been answered from the ones that are genuinely problematical. Until the community does that, they're not going to be taken seriously. The weeding is the hard part, of course, because everybody has their own pet theory and their own "smoking gun" cases.

"And I think they should reshelve VonD's books under "fiction." "

I would say "children's fiction", but that would be cruel to children.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

Originally posted by Devino
Why is it that theories for ancient advanced technologies are dismissed from the lack of evidence of infrastructures like an electrical grid and roads/highways. Is it so hard to imagine broadcasting electricity without wires and transportation without the automobile?

Nice inflation, btw. "electrical grid and roads/highways"? Where did I mention roads/highways?

That was a general point, not directed at you personally, that I hoped would inspire a closer look at what we consider to be technological advancement. Both the automobile, with all of the needed roads and highways, and the electrical grid are more of an impedance to our progression then a sign of advancement.

Perhaps one day we may become so advanced as to rid ourselves and our environment of these toxic and destructive devices and focus on what is important.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


i have attended the lectures. that's how i know. and i was disgusted and offended with the ridiculing and belittling tone they used and with the way they intimidated students in tutorials so that no one was game to start a proper discussion on any of the matters they raised - like the palenque stone - or to offer their own interpretations.

it is a really nasty atmostphere and most people would not want to risk their future careers or open their mouths given the closed minded attitude their lecturers and tutors are taking.

it is the end of freedom of thought in archaeology. there is an assumption taht if you have an open mind to any of these alternative theories, that you are crazy or a nutjob or have recently been taken on board the mother ship. i have read plenty of peer reviewed papers, i know what the official explanations are; and i think the evidence is capable of other interpretations. however archaeolgoists have completely closed minds and will not even allow discussion of other theories in class. you would be totally ostracised professionally if you even tried.

all von daniken ever did, was take some primary sources: carvings, books, texts and statues and say, hey guys, this is how i INTERPRET this evidence. this is what I think their religions were all about. and it was a plausible theory.

archaeologists dont claim to understand ancient religions either; and yet they will allow no discussion of his INTERPRetATIONS of these religions or artifcats. they are content to label them 'zoomorphical statue a' or whatever; when what it looks like is a bug eyed being in a space suit. but if you mention this observation, i.e. hey, i think that looks like someone in a spacesuit, then you immendiately have to be silenced. odd.

reply to post by rapunzel222


"all von daniken ever did, was take some primary sources: carvings, books, texts and statues and say, hey guys, this is how i INTERPRET this evidence. this is what I think their religions were all about. and it was a plausible theory."

The fact that his interpretations are completely bogus doesn't enter into the matter? He was running a con on the public, not presenting "alternative" opinions.

he's not a con man. its very likely there are tunnels under south america. he is not the only person to have seen them. there are accounts of schoolkids going missing down tunnels under malta and in cuzco. he has been silenced with ridicule and accusations that he fabricated evidence. most of the evidence i saw in his books was certainly not ABLE to be fabricated. it was an ancient text, (the BIBLE) which anyoen can check; or a stone like palenque; or a building like macchu picchu; or a rock painting in the tassili mountains which EXISTS. you cant make this stuff up. nor do you need to. why would he NEED to fabricate evidence? All this stuff is real, its there, and it fits into his theory nicely. i can see no motivation for him to 'fabricate' anything. what exactly, is he accused of fabricating (which specific rock painting? cuz all the pictures i've seen i have since found on mainstream archaeological sites).

you can't have a 'bogus' interpretation. you weren't alive then, neither were archaeologists. no one knows why religions developed and if the ancient 'gods' were real beings or not. to know, you would need to be there. you can have someone's interpretation that you either find convincing or not. an interpretation cant be 'bogus' unless you can prove it.

nothing daniken says has been disproven yet.

archaeologists are still trying to figure out why people developed religion and social structures suddenly. ancient astronauts landing and teaching them about civilization sounds like as reasonable a theory to me as any others ive heard. there are many unexplained things about our human past.

but the point im really wanting to make, is legally, these books and lectures could easily amount to defamation of hancock and daniken's character. to have defamation you need accusations that tend to reduce someone's esteem in the eyes of their peers or the public; published and distributed to the public. this has all been done at these lectures. the only defence to a defamation action by him would be for the lecturers to prove that his theories aren't true. and as no one can do this; they would lose and have to pay him out.

and if i was him, i would sue their little arses off. but he probably doesnt know its even happening.

Von Daniken is a Fraud. Thats plain truth.

Von Däniken has used photographs of pottery depicting UFOs, claiming that the pottery came from an archaeological dig dating back to biblical times. The television series 'Nova' determined that this was a fraud - they even located the potter involved. When confronted with this evidence, von Däniken argued that the deception was justified because some people would only believe his theories if they saw actual proof (Shown on UK television in the Horizon, BBC documentary, "The Case of the Ancient Astronauts," first aired 3/8/78).

Source


What an Archaeoligist do is study a particular artifact or site thoroughly, in depth, collaborate, corroborate the findings with others.

daniken is a person who had the audacity to fabricate evidence to sell his books.

what kind of truth is there in his books, then??

When questioned about the facts stated in his books, he is of the stand "its my view. I have seen the evidence. pediod". What proof does he provide?
Does he collaborate with the real archaeologists??

here are a few more links that show the raw facts abiut how big a fraud daniken is

www.debunker.com...

www.adam.com.au...



Whats wrong if univerisites teach students about how fringe archaeoligists work?? (mind it - Daniken, Sitchin, Hancock, and Childress have never been proper archaeologists....they are laymen...who latched on to interesting and mysterious stuff to make some moolah!)

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by DarkGift

 

I seen him say that very thing many times on the babble box.

The only 'babble box' I am seeing here is you. Daniken, while I do not agree with all of his theories, has certainly presented some very interesting anomalies that deserve a closer examination.

The Nazca lines for example. Or the Baghdad Battery (which you nicely boxed into the 'anomaly' category). These are among many examples that I can think of off the top of my head that I have not yet heard a decent explanation from mainstream archaeologists. They, like you, put it into the 'too hard' basket and sweep it under the rug. The thing is, they are extremely important examples that our history is somewhat different to that which mainstream tells us it is.

Get off your high horse mate and provide some of this 'evidence' to back up your point of view otherwise your words are nothing more than 'babble'.

[edit on 13/4/2009 by Kryties]

The first Von Daniken book was interesting upon first read. I persisted & read the next 4-5 books. Those books just got more & more outlandish.
Whilst I might consider he actually believed some of what he wrote in the first book, there's no way he could have believed what he was writing in those later books. Those books became so bad, I'm suprised any university refers to them for any reason at all.
I believe he simply kept writing for the $.

reply to post by Kryties


"The Nazca lines for example. Or the Baghdad Battery (which you nicely boxed into the 'anomaly' category). These are among many examples that I can think of off the top of my head that I have not yet heard a decent explanation from mainstream archaeologists. They, like you, put it into the 'too hard' basket and sweep it under the rug. The thing is, they are extremely important examples that our history is somewhat different to that which mainstream tells us it is."

"too hard" basket? The fact of the matter is they aren't too hard, unless you refuse to believe any information except that which pleases you. That's a very good buffer against reality.

reply to post by Gawdzilla


I believe I asked you to provide evidence, rather than just yell and scream about it but not actually provide any.

reply to post by Kryties


I haven't seen anyone else provide evidence, and that's all I'm asking for anyway. What evidence do you have that von D. is anything other than a speculative fiction writer?

Oh, and that evidence should be real, not just opinions.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by Kryties

 

I haven't seen anyone else provide evidence,

Don't throw this back on us, you have been asked to provide evidence that Daniken is wrong. By all your huffing and puffing about it I should have thought that would not be too hard to do. Now do you have evidence to support your claim or don't you? Very simple question.

What evidence do you have that von D. is anything other than a speculative fiction writer?

The fact that many of the topics he mentions have not been explained satisfactorily by mainstream science. He presents the evidence and poses THEORIES which he has never touted as fact, and yet mainstream science won't even touch the subjects.

Oh, and that evidence should be real, not just opinions.

Which is exactly what i think about your posts. They are just OPINIONS with no FACTS to back them up.

Show us your evidence, which I do not think you can, or I shall continue thinking you are just full of hot air.

reply to post by Kryties


"Don't throw this back on us, you have been asked to provide evidence that Daniken is wrong. By all your huffing and puffing about it I should have thought that would not be too hard to do. Now do you have evidence to support your claim or don't you? Very simple question."

I will, if you wish, provide you with a URL of a PDF version of "Junior Skeptic", which does a very nice job of debunking von D.

reply to post by Gawdzilla


Please stop talking about it then and do so. I am all for looking at both sides of a story but so far in your case there's only been much huffing and puffing and little proof.

Link away.

reply to post by Kryties


I'll get it done today. Believe it or not, this forum is not very high on my priorities.

The link will be to my site at UNC.

reply to post by Gawdzilla


I'll shall be awaiting this 'startling evidence' with baited breath.

Although I am not sure how much of it to take seriously if it is a link to your own site, that kind of screams BIAS to me in a very loud voice.