VonDaniken admitting his fraud

wow...

I'm a bit disappointed. I red some of Danikens books...and I must admit...I was seduced by the info. I was for the most part a defender of the work of Daniken. Having watched this documentary...I will say that it made me wary...the man lied in his book about being in some cave and admitted it. He admitted saying he embellished a story a bit to fuel the readers imagination. This makes me think how many of them use this to promote sales of their books.

I still remain a believer in ancient astronaut theories...'cos I think there are many unexplained findings that don't jibe well with today's dogma. And having in mind that ancient history we know today is mostly from third hand sources and hearsay...I must remain open to the idea. It would explain a lot.

However....I will give Daniken couple of thumbs down for lying, and thus losing credibility with me. I will from now on always be skeptical of his claims...as I can not know now if he is only "embellishing"...

although...I must point out that some of the counter arguments for his claims are equally deceptive. Like that woman that talks about the Nazca lines...and how she met some guy that told her how to make those lines without any trouble...and also without any further proof or demonstration, after they tried so hard to demonstrate most of the things mentioned.

That was as ridiculous argument as I've seen or heard in a while, and is telling of an agenda. It's like debunking unsubstantiated claims with even more unsubstantiated claims.

Than the guy decending in to the "Mayan" temple, and in the process stating that it's very untypical for Maya to build such decending stairs in to the "shrine", and than proceeds explaining typical Mayan symbology...simply brilliant. I just love experts.

But parts of the Daniken admitting to lying are irrefutable. Shame on him...and shame on me for not doubting.


Thank you OP for this educational lesson...you made me rethink.

First time I clicked Flag since I joined.

thanks for the share. Interesting to say the least. I always had doubts about this guy. Too many instances of him being shady in interviews and comments.

Nice avatar by the way OP.

Originally posted by Harte

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

So, ipso facto...your argument Von Daniken is a schill and shyster due to misrepresentation concerning a piece of evidence should now be ignored because of your blatant misrep?

While it's true that von Daniken basically started the ancient astronaut theory, it doesn't mean he's THE one and only embodiment of the overalll research, with or even without the ONE (known) example of his falsification. There are plenty of facts that stand on their own, completely independent of any individuals - enough to show that there is a genuine MYSTERY concerning the ancient world. No way Puma Punku (in Bolivia), as probably the best example, was built using Bronze Age tools. There's exceedingly clear evidence, for those who are able to REGISTER it mentally-emotionally, that some kind of precision machining was used in its construction. No mere hand carving by those who were barely a step or 2 out of the caves. Period. No ifs, ands or buts, regardless of what cultists of the militantly mundane need to believe to salve their fragile egos and psyches.

reply to post by Lightworth


Not to mention the megaliths that are buried under the water!

Yea, our past is definitely hidden. All of our answers lie in the Americas, especially South America. The South American are the most recently contacted people.

But the crazy part is that modern man shared this planet with several different versions of hominid. Whose to say they didn't build all of that, but the same question still lies unanswered... why?

Why are so damn many ancient monuments based on astrological computations. These computations that are centuries ahead of their time. The mayan calender is still just as accurate as the atomic clock (modern creation of time keeping) and yet they state that their civilization started when it was visited by an outsider.

But of course mainstream science and archeology overlooks this, it doesn't fit the European time frame of events.

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.

I see this logic used so often (see any Alex Jones thread . . . ever) and I am at a loss to understand it. How can people whine and moan about the lies and obfuscation of the MSM and then turn around to say 'lying is fine so long as you're getting people to agree with me."

Do alternative news proponents not see how this hurts their own position?

Help me out here? How is lying okay at all?

To be honest, this 35 year something "debunking documentary" doesn't phase me a bit.
I've seen a lot of documentaries made my EvD, saw him in person and read his books - they are REFRESHING, a step out of the dust and mold of "established" science. Most of it all, his lectures (when you see him live), his books AND the movies are very exciting and ALSO entertaining to read.

He has a way to really be able to take people on an adventure in his books - reading those it always made me eager to visit those places myself, made me realize how many mysteries and exciting places there still are on this planet. AND...showing that there is other things than blindly believing what mainstream science says.

There is nothing wrong with this.

Overall, i think his theories have merit.

By the way, the poor make of this new "Ancient and Aliens" show is something which deserves FAR MORE criticism, while at occasion pretty good, it can be very awful, full with hype and nonsense for the purpose to get viewers....IMHO, the show Ancient Aliens partly does the entire AA theory a disservice and is often not better than some random, badly made UFO documentary.

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by Sly1one
reply to post by Harte

 

EVD may be bunk, Hancock may be bunk, all of them may be bunk...but the archaeological evidence that sits there today for all to see says the mainstream version of history is bunk as well...

Yes you can believe that but you come up with a problem. What evidence would you accept? The large structures are 'mysterious' because people want them to be mysterious, the pyramids were not mysterious to the AE or the ancient, they knew what they were and how they got there. This mystery is a modern confusion.

Here's a question for you how many 500+ ton stones were moved in the ancient world?

How do you know the pyramids were not mysterious to the AE ?? Have you used the time machine yourself that you mentioned a few posts back? Presumptions,presumptions...from all sides presumptions.Sorry but the..my presumption is bigger than your presumption seems so schoolyard & elitist.
fotsy

Originally posted by AntiNWO
reply to post by Harte

 

They took a few of Von Daniken's weakest arguments and made counter-claims, most of which were every bit as much speculation as Von Daniken's. They proved nothing. I read all of Von Daniken's books in the late 70's and the shear volume of evidence that he presents in his books is overwhelming, and should make one wonder if only 1/10th of it is true.

This is the biggest problem with alternate archeology ...

A real archeologist or theologist etc will write pages upon pages with references about a single site or instance. Von Daniken writes some basic information not including all the details then puts a lot of speculation in and moves onto the next subject.

Some random engineer I don't know stating he doesn't know how a pyramid was built (no big surprise) in a documentary doesn't convince me of Daniken's theories. A large and well written document citing his critics might. I haven't seen a lot of referenced critics in Daniken's work at all, or an effort on his part to push the debate. Daniken may have believed this stuff to begin with, but it's all about money now.

Originally posted by Lightworth
While it's true that von Daniken basically started the ancient astronaut theory, it doesn't mean he's THE one and only embodiment of the overalll research, with or even without the ONE (known) example of his falsification. There are plenty of facts that stand on their own, completely independent of any individuals - enough to show that there is a genuine MYSTERY concerning the ancient world. No way Puma Punku (in Bolivia), as probably the best example, was built using Bronze Age tools. There's exceedingly clear evidence, for those who are able to REGISTER it mentally-emotionally, that some kind of precision machining was used in its construction. No mere hand carving by those who were barely a step or 2 out of the caves. Period. No ifs, ands or buts, regardless of what cultists of the militantly mundane need to believe to salve their fragile egos and psyches.

Actually the only emotion I see is above. The folks who built PP were very skilled stone masons and no, despite your attempt to slander them, they didn't live in caves nor were they 2 steps out of a cave.

We have evidence for them being there - and no one else - so where are these other fine people?

reply to post by Pinke


I understand what you're saying and you have a valid point, however the style in which Von Daniken writes, he's not saying that his interpretation of everything is true, but rather asking if it is possible in your mind. He gives you a possibility outside the norm and makes you question and think about it from a different perspective.

You say that he probably believed it once, but it's about the money now. I say that once he convinced himself that his theory was correct, he started looking at everything from that perspective, and as a result, is sometimes wrong.

He also covers more than physical archeology. He talks about tribal and religious mythology (which is why "christians" hate him so much), and questions the interpretations that have been presented to us for hundreds of years.

I grew up thinking that the mythology in ancient Greece, Native American tribes, African tribes, etc. were silly superstitions of primitive people. Now I am convinced that those people knew much more than we ever gave them credit for, and I'm facinated by what they have to say.

The value of EVD lies not in his too-far-out theories, but in the sheer volume of material he brings together for us to mull over. Even if you discount ancient astronaut [astro-not?] theories, he prods you to think. I would say the same for Hancock, even acknowledging his "Graham-World" critics. Hancock does a bit of real research, too, even if you question his conclusions.

Originally posted by fotsyfots

How do you know the pyramids were not mysterious to the AE ??

I know how to read

Have you used the time machine yourself that you mentioned a few posts back? Presumptions,presumptions...from all sides presumptions.Sorry but the..my presumption is bigger than your presumption seems so schoolyard & elitist.
fotsy

No I used the science and the answers from 200 years of investigation into the AE culture and relgion. They wrote about them, use the symbol for pyramid for tombs, built them within their existing cemeteries and near their cities, the dating of them associates them with the AE, as does all other methods of dating, pottery, etc

Not to mention absolutely no sign of any other culture there but the AE

Here is a question for you - what is the evidence that the AE built the pyramids? I mean you are denying said evidence so just for chuckles why don't you list it.......

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
The value of EVD lies not in his too-far-out theories, but in the sheer volume of material he brings together for us to mull over. Even if you discount ancient astronaut [astro-not?] theories, he prods you to think. I would say the same for Hancock, even acknowledging his "Graham-World" critics. Hancock does a bit of real research, too, even if you question his conclusions.

'Research'? No he does biased cherry picking. Look at his claims about the Piri Reis map. It takes about 2 minutes to determine what the map shows and how that relates to the real world. Instead he didn't look and took fringe claims about it as 'gospel'.

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
The value of EVD lies not in his too-far-out theories, but in the sheer volume of material he brings together for us to mull over. Even if you discount ancient astronaut [astro-not?] theories, he prods you to think. I would say the same for Hancock, even acknowledging his "Graham-World" critics. Hancock does a bit of real research, too, even if you question his conclusions.

In archaeology and other sciences quantity doesn't over ride quality. It took one finger bone to fined the Denisovians, and despite volumes of nonsense, not one piece of evidence has come up for AA concept.

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
The value of EVD lies not in his too-far-out theories, but in the sheer volume of material he brings together for us to mull over. Even if you discount ancient astronaut [astro-not?] theories, he prods you to think. I would say the same for Hancock, even acknowledging his "Graham-World" critics. Hancock does a bit of real research, too, even if you question his conclusions.

'Research'? No he does biased cherry picking. Look at his claims about the Piri Reis map. It takes about 2 minutes to determine what the map shows and how that relates to the real world. Instead he didn't look and took fringe claims about it as 'gospel'.

Don't have a cow, man. I did admit, did I not, that Hancock's conclusions may be questionable? Please read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by fotsyfots

How do you know the pyramids were not mysterious to the AE ??

I know how to read

Have you used the time machine yourself that you mentioned a few posts back? Presumptions,presumptions...from all sides presumptions.Sorry but the..my presumption is bigger than your presumption seems so schoolyard & elitist.
fotsy

No I used the science and the answers from 200 years of investigation into the AE culture and relgion. They wrote about them, use the symbol for pyramid for tombs, built them within their existing cemeteries and near their cities, the dating of them associates them with the AE, as does all other methods of dating, pottery, etc

Not to mention absolutely no sign of any other culture there but the AE

Here is a question for you - what is the evidence that the AE built the pyramids? I mean you are denying said evidence so just for chuckles why don't you list it.......

I was replying to Harte there champ & was questioning how he knew the pyramids werent mysterious to the AE.

reply to post by Lazarus Short


These guys are pseudo-intellectuals and regularly engage in hypocritical blowhard musings designed to placate themselves into a sense of superiority...in other words, they mostly know BUPKUS and are trolls...

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
The value of EVD lies not in his too-far-out theories, but in the sheer volume of material he brings together for us to mull over. Even if you discount ancient astronaut [astro-not?] theories, he prods you to think. I would say the same for Hancock, even acknowledging his "Graham-World" critics. Hancock does a bit of real research, too, even if you question his conclusions.

'Research'? No he does biased cherry picking. Look at his claims about the Piri Reis map. It takes about 2 minutes to determine what the map shows and how that relates to the real world. Instead he didn't look and took fringe claims about it as 'gospel'.

Even knowing his theories in and out, yesterday i read the wikipedia entry about him, YES they list a lot of errors and mistakes in his theories - but is mainstream SCIENCE free of making mistakes? Pleaaassseeeee...

You cannot apply a double standard here and say HIS theories are flawed since some points are errorneous- but forgive mainstream science and grant mainstream science the right to revise and correct errors (which is a normal M.O. in any science). NO THEORY is free of errors and wrong conslusions, mistakes etc. should be expected. What does this prove/disprove? Nothing.