VonDaniken admitting his fraud

An old VHS copy of Nova's "The Case of the Ancient Astronauts" has finally been posted.

For those that don't know, it is in this vid that EVD is caught red-handed actually manufacturing evidence - a piece of pottery he claimed was ancient was found to have been recently created by a potter (yes, they talk to him) specifically in response to EVD's request.

This vid is also the one that caused Graham Hancock to sue (and lose to) the BBC for showing him to be uninformed on the subject he is discussing.

IIRC (I haven't re-watched this yet), it is in this vid that EVD also admits never having been to the cave supposedly containing the "Metal Library" which was the subject of a recent thread.

Many fringe claims are addressed in this 34 year old program. Funny how they still come up today on ATS, as if they are new.

This documentary (which I first saw in 1978 or 1979) was the beginning of the end for my own beliefs concerning "alternative" archaeological claims.

Here's the vid:


Harte.

Thanks for posting this Harte. I'm sure this is the one I've seen, but I'm going to watch it again anyway. It definitely didn't bode well for Daniken, but it doesn't cause me to put any more or less stock in either mainstream or the alternative sciences.

I think both need to be questioned and scrutinized consistently.

Thanks for the vid.

Your reference to G Hancock intrigues me because I once read something about the bbc and the way they unfairly represented him. This was upheld by the complaints commision.
Do you have any links?

Originally posted by Harte
An old VHS copy of Nova's "The Case of the Ancient Astronauts" has finally been posted.

For those that don't know, it is in this vid that EVD is caught red-handed actually manufacturing evidence - a piece of pottery he claimed was ancient was found to have been recently created by a potter (yes, they talk to him) specifically in response to EVD's request.

There are scammers with their sticky fingers in everything. A dose of common sense should be involved in leaping into blind faith for anything.. If there is a way to make money, somebody is going to figure it out, just like he did! Buyer beware, even into beliefs.

reply to post by Sulie


One of the many lessons I've learned (and was surprized at the extent of it) is that fraud and pious fraud is rampant within the alternative and fringe worlds, fakery even occurs in the scientific ranks.

General rule of thumb:

1. Consider fringe evidence is faked unless shown to be real
2. Consider scientific evidence is real unless shown to be fake
3. Consider alternative evidence as neither until shown to go one way or the other!

reply to post by Sulie


Whether he faked stuff does not bother me. I make up my own mind about things by getting info from as many sources as possible, he was just one source. What he did do was introduce MILLIONS of people to ancient sites etc that they would never have known about otherwise.

So he got caught out on one item, miniscule crime compared to what the msm and our governments do...and many people on this website.

Originally posted by VoidHawk
Thanks for the vid.

Your reference to G Hancock intrigues me because I once read something about the bbc and the way they unfairly represented him. This was upheld by the complaints commision.
Do you have any links?

Sorry.

These BBC programs from the long past run together in my mind.

Hancock's problem was with a Horizons program called "Atlantis Reborn."

BBC 2's Horizon TV series broadcast a programme, Atlantis Reborn, on 4 November 1999 that challenged the ideas presented by Hancock. It detailed one of Hancock's claims that the arrangement of an ancient temple complex was designed to mirror astronomical features and attempted to demonstrate that the same thing could be done with perhaps equal justification using famous landmarks in New York. It also alleged that Hancock had selectively moved or ignored the locations of some of the temples to fit his own theories (see below).[13]

Hancock claimed he was misrepresented by the programme, and he and Robert Bauval made complaints to the Broadcasting Standards Commission against the way Horizon had portrayed them and their work. Eight points were raised by Hancock, two by Bauval (one of which duplicated a complaint of Hancock's).

SNIP

The BSC dismissed all but one of the complaints. Overall, the BSC concluded that "the programme makers acted in good faith in their examination of the theories of Mr Hancock and Mr Bauval".[16] The complaint which was upheld was that:

The programme unfairly omitted one of their arguments in rebuttal of a speaker who criticised the theory of a significant correlation between the Giza pyramids and the belt stars of the constellation Orion (the "correlation theory")

Wiki

I suppose I should have watched it before posting it, eh? LOL

It's just that I've been ttalking about this documentary for years. I hadn't looked for it in a while. It was finally posted this last December.

See if you can find the other one - Atlantis Reborn.

My Youtube kungfu is weak. Your's is probably stronger.

Harte

I fondly remember a satire piece in an issue of Starlog magazine from the late 70's in which the ficticious author "Erik Von Donutkin" laid out in a deadpan tongue in cheek manner a description of how the Statue of Liberty was built by aliens. The Satirical logic he employed was side splitting. I wish I could find the issue. I think it was #15 with the "This Island Earth" cover, but don't quote me on that.

Originally posted by VoidHawk
reply to post by Sulie

 

Whether he faked stuff does not bother me. I make up my own mind about things by getting info from as many sources as possible, he was just one source. What he did do was introduce MILLIONS of people to ancient sites etc that they would never have known about otherwise.

So he got caught out on one item, miniscule crime compared to what the msm and our governments do...and many people on this website.

edit on 26-7-2012 by VoidHawk because: (no reason given)

He got caught faking more than one thing, his whole theory was one mass of made up stuff, there was fraud, lying, lack of common sense, misrepresentation, slander, etc. What he produced, was a sham, we see the results today on this board, people actually believed his stuff and reject real science in favour of his stories.

That's bad

reply to post by Harte


What you just posted is what I was refering to. On hancocks site you can view the entire trancsript and all the letters that went between all parties. When you look at what they ommited and the sheer volume of what they ommited even someone who hates hancock would have to say the bbc were more than a little unfair. If I remember correctly THEY selected about 5% of what he said, leaving out the important bits.

Now I'm on a mission. If I can find it I'll post a link

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by VoidHawk
reply to post by Sulie

 

Whether he faked stuff does not bother me. I make up my own mind about things by getting info from as many sources as possible, he was just one source. What he did do was introduce MILLIONS of people to ancient sites etc that they would never have known about otherwise.

So he got caught out on one item, miniscule crime compared to what the msm and our governments do...and many people on this website.

edit on 26-7-2012 by VoidHawk because: (no reason given)

He got caught faking more than one thing, his whole theory was one mass of made up stuff, there was fraud, lying, lack of common sense, misrepresentation, slander, etc. What he produced, was a sham, we see the results today on this board, people actually believed his stuff and reject real science in favour of his stories.

That's bad

About the same as what we see on the television news then

Originally posted by VoidHawk


So he got caught out on one item, miniscule crime compared to what the msm and our governments do...and many people on this website.

edit on 26-7-2012 by VoidHawk because: (no reason given)

Well as you can tell I am new here. I read "Chariots of the Gods," when I was a teenager, so, I have watched the guy with speculation for years.

What's the old saying, "believe half of what you read, and none of what you hear?"

Originally posted by VoidHawk
What you just posted is what I was refering to. On hancocks site you can view the entire trancsript and all the letters that went between all parties. When you look at what they ommited and the sheer volume of what they ommited even someone who hates hancock would have to say the bbc were more than a little unfair. If I remember correctly THEY selected about 5% of what he said, leaving out the important bits.

You mean, somewhat similar to what the show "Ancient Aliens" does to Michael Shermer's comments?

Harte

reply to post by Harte


Nobody knows...Hopefully they show up and give us Earth folk a good spanking. Von Daniken is only proposing a far fetched theory...so what...Nobody knows what sub atomic particles are for...yet they've spent billions.

Originally posted by Harte
See if you can find the other one - Atlantis Reborn.

My Youtube kungfu is weak. Your's is probably stronger.

Harte

google video has it
video.google.com...
here is the Broadcasting Standards Commission - Synopsis of adjudication page
www.bbc.co.uk...
This used to contain all the details, but they cut it down as this happened more than a decade ago
this part though is what is most relevant

The programme had created the impression that he was an intellectual fraudster who had put forward half baked theories and ideas in bad faith, and that he was incompetent to defend his own arguments.

this was investigated and here was the BSC response

Adjudication: [The Commission] finds no unfairness to Mr Hancock in these matters.

or in other words Graham Hancock is an intellectual fraudster who puts forward half baked theories and ideas in bad faith, and is incompetent to defend his own arguments
so the conclusion is clear, Graham Hancock is fully aware that his ideas are rubbish but as a former journo doesn't care for the facts so much as he does the money

Originally posted by VoidHawk
reply to post by Harte

 

What you just posted is what I was refering to. On hancocks site you can view the entire trancsript and all the letters that went between all parties. When you look at what they ommited and the sheer volume of what they ommited even someone who hates hancock would have to say the bbc were more than a little unfair. If I remember correctly THEY selected about 5% of what he said, leaving out the important bits.

Now I'm on a mission.

If I can find it I'll post a link

I hope when you go check Hancocks version of events (link to that page earlier in this post) you notice that the bit about him complaining that he was not an intellectual fraudster is conspicuously missing from his page
i.e. he complained they made him look dishonest, they checked and found that he was dishonest and he responded by not mentioning that adjudication anywhere on his website. What would you call that sort of behaviour, where someone is basically lying by omission ?
its not honesty is it

let me give you an example of the way that he distorts the truth to add weight to his theories so you can judge his honesty for yourselves
on page 158 of Fingerprints of the Gods Hancock states

The Popol Vuh is accepted by scholars as a great reservoir of uncontaminated, pre-Colombian tradition. It is therefore puzzling to find such similarities between these traditions and those recorded in the Genesis story.

he then goes on to list the many similarities between the Popul Vuh and the Bible stating later that the only way that so many similarities could exist is because both texts must have been influenced by the same lost advanced civilisation. In this light he makes a very compelling argument for hyper diffusion
But
The preamble for the Popul Vuh contains this statement by the author

This we shall write now under the Law of God and Christianity;

You see the Popul Vuh is not at all an uncontaminated source like Hancock would have us believe, it was actually written by one Francisco Ximénez a Dominican priest (Catholic)
en.wikipedia.org...
who was recording the myths told to him by natives who had converted to Christianity with a special emphasis on the similarities between the Christian Faith and the mythology of the Maya
so its not surprising that there are many similarities, but Graham Hancock decides not to mention that the book is from a christian source preferring his readers to remain in ignorant wonder at a lost advanced race, that he posits existed.
so you can see why the BBC gave the impression that he was dishonest
because thats what the evidence suggests,

Years ago I saw an image that compared scientific knowledge to EVD's 'knowledge', I've recreated it below:

Of all the people interviewed on History Channel: Ancient Aliens -- he was my least favorite whom I disagreed with the most....and whose analysis I often found the most flawed.....

Yes,I admit he was an alleged fraud ,but it got young minds thinking out of the box.

If it wasn't for people like him,where would ATS be now,non-existent.

Well,I falter on that one cause ATS was founded on area 51,but still don't discredit so much those who think outside the realm of what we presume is true.

Originally posted by kdog1982
Yes,I admit he was an alleged fraud ,but it got young minds thinking out of the box.

If it wasn't for people like him,where would ATS be now,non-existent.

Well,I falter on that one cause ATS was founded on area 51,but still don't discredit so much those who think outside the realm of what we presume is true.

Well no he didn't, Velikovsky, Thor Heyerdahl and others did that. He badly damaged the idea of alternative and fringe ideas and made the whole genre a con man's game. ATS would be here, before the Internet fringe existed in pamphlets, conference, lectures and books, it just grew bigger on the internet when people found the magic formulas - as outlined by EVD

His formula

LIE and make money

Originally posted by kdog1982
Yes,I admit he was an alleged fraud ,but it got young minds thinking out of the box.

If it wasn't for people like him,where would ATS be now,non-existent.

Well,I falter on that one cause ATS was founded on area 51,but still don't discredit so much those who think outside the realm of what we presume is true.

It got young minds believing in things that did not exist. This will have three outcomes.

1. Young minds realize they have been conned and are dissuaded from thinking outside the box again.
2. Young minds do not realize they have been conned and spend their life believing lies.
3. Yound minds have been conned and realize it with no effect.

I think three is very unlikely, so we are left with 1 or 2 for most people. You think either of those are good outcomes?