VonDaniken admitting his fraud

reply to post by flexy123


Exactly. No matter which tribe, no matter where in the world, they all seem to have similar "myths". It's too big a coincidence to ignore, yet people with an agenda do anyway.

reply to post by Harte


Admittedly, I know nothing about the "Church of Critical Thinking", but that was the first source I came upon and I posted the link. There are many, many more sources. Just google it.

You're obviously looking at this issue from a religious perspective, so nothing I say will influence you in any way. I've dealt with "christians" all my life, as I was raised as one. Open-mindedness did not exist in their vocabulary, and they literally told us that the mere questioning of their interpretation of The Bible would condemn one to unspeakable torture for all of eternity, so you have to excuse my scepticism of the whole religion thing.

Your interpretation of the Bible is what you believe, and that's fine. My interpretation is different than yours. To you, Von Daniken and Zecharia Sitchin are hooey. To me, religion is hooey, so there really isn't anything either one of us can say that will change the other's mind, however that too, is fine. That's what this forum is all about.

Originally posted by AntiNWO
reply to post by Pinke

 

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.

Hi AntiNWO,

I would have agreed with this sometime ago, except I think these days that perspective is due to money.

It's been decades since the first release of Chariots of the Gods. Money certainly isn't an issue for Van Daniken who could have delved himself into more serious academic causes by now, taking closer individual looks at sites he claims have been visited by aliens. Von Daniken is smart enough to know that his random musings and ADHD authorship isn't going to win over any skeptics, but it isn't going to alienate any believers either.

It's a bit like the magician that says 'I'm not saying I'm magical, but you know I might be'. He has his cake and eats it too by saying he just points out flaws in the historical record and gives alternate ideas / what ifs but may be wrong. I do hope someone in the ancient aliens area takes up a flag and actually starts promoting the content more seriously.

reply to post by Pinke


I can't read Von Daniken's mind, so I can only make a judgement based on his work. Whether or not I believe that he's sincere at this point has no relevance to the fact that I believe that his overall theory is correct.

I've done research of my own by reading the Bible and there is just an overwhelming amount of evidence in my mind that the "Gods" and "demons" spoken of are physical, mortal entities, however that's off topic here. Maybe I'll create a thread concerning that another time and we can take this discussion to another level.

You're obviously very intelligent, and although I disagree, you make me think, so thank you for that. I may not have changed my mind about Von Daniken's sincerity, but I will be watching him with more scrutiny from now on.

Originally posted by totallackey

Originally posted by Harte
Dude, as I said, whatever floats your boat.

If you want, completely ignore any words I've posted.

I didn't make the documentary, and it speaks for itself.

Caught red handed.

Harte

Well, I could imagine you want others to ignore any words you have posted, especially since your behavior in your own thread pretty much invalidates the substance of the thread according to the standards you desire to impose on others.

How about this...why not tell everyone here why a fabricated dinosaur bone is not a material misrepresentation or is not viewed as suspicious as the behavior you are trying to pin on Von Daniken?

Obviously, a fabricated dinosaur bone would be a misrepresentation.

Why? Did you fabricate one?

So I got mixed up. I came back and recognized and corrected my mistake. In fact, it was me that pointed out the mistake I made.

If you think that my mistake was deliberate, think what you want. If you want to assume that my mistake was due to the onset of dementia, feel free to think that as well.

All I did was confuse two seperate BBC Horizons documentaries. I had the content right for both, I simply said they were parts of the same documentary when they weren't.

The fact is, my mistake involved Graham Hancock, not Eric VonDaniken.

The thread, and the documentary is about the latter.

Please quote any claims I've made in this thread that you feel are thereby invalidated. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think I've made a single claim here. I know I didn't make any claims in the OP.


Harte

Originally posted by AntiNWO
reply to post by Harte

 

Admittedly, I know nothing about the "Church of Critical Thinking", but that was the first source I came upon and I posted the link. There are many, many more sources. Just google it.

You can find better sources for this story, certainly. However, the story itself turns out to be completely wrong.

Originally posted by AntiNWOYou're obviously looking at this issue from a religious perspective, so nothing I say will influence you in any way. I've dealt with "christians" all my life, as I was raised as one. Open-mindedness did not exist in their vocabulary, and they literally told us that the mere questioning of their interpretation of The Bible would condemn one to unspeakable torture for all of eternity, so you have to excuse my scepticism of the whole religion thing.

I was raised as a Christian just like you. But my perspective certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. It has to do with the facts as they are known to exist and nothing more. The last time I was inside a church was when I got married. My first wife. 1982.

Originally posted by AntiNWOYour interpretation of the Bible is what you believe, and that's fine. My interpretation is different than yours. To you, Von Daniken and Zecharia Sitchin are hooey. To me, religion is hooey, so there really isn't anything either one of us can say that will change the other's mind, however that too, is fine. That's what this forum is all about.

They are hooey regardless of anyone's "opinion." So is religion, btw, though I don't mock anyone's faith.

In the linked documentary, EVD actually admits to making a false claim about an "artifact" he clearly stated was ancient and found at some archaeological dig. Turns out he paid a guy to make the thing.

If that ain't hooey, then allow me to make an assumption about your religion (exactly as you did for me.)

Rastafarian?

Harte

reply to post by Harte


Sorry, but as I stated, I've been dealing with so-called "christians" my whole life and since you started a discussion and choose to be arrogant and completely closed minded, and reply to opposing opinions as though the poster raped your sister, naturally I thought you were one of them.

Anyway, I had my say and this thread is dead for me, so I'll not be back.

Originally posted by AntiNWO
reply to post by Harte

 

Sorry, but as I stated, I've been dealing with so-called "christians" my whole life and since you started a discussion and choose to be arrogant and completely closed minded, and reply to opposing opinions as though the poster raped your sister, naturally I thought you were one of them.

Anyway, I had my say and this thread is dead for me, so I'll not be back.

Care to make a contribution, any contribution, prior to leaving?

Harte

Originally posted by Harte


Care to make a contribution, any contribution, prior to leaving?

Harte

He already said enough

Originally posted by AntiNWO

I've done research of my own by reading the Bible

so he
Probably couldn't tell you why the Flood story isn't original, or what influences YHWH was cobbled together from, or why Angels didn't exist until after the diaspora, or what Ezekiels wheel actually was, or what the book of Job was supposed to be about, or why Jesus had to be born in Bethlehem after the fact, or why there's only one giant in the original version etc etc etc

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by totallackey

Originally posted by Harte
Dude, as I said, whatever floats your boat.

If you want, completely ignore any words I've posted.

I didn't make the documentary, and it speaks for itself.

Caught red handed.

Harte

Well, I could imagine you want others to ignore any words you have posted, especially since your behavior in your own thread pretty much invalidates the substance of the thread according to the standards you desire to impose on others.

How about this...why not tell everyone here why a fabricated dinosaur bone is not a material misrepresentation or is not viewed as suspicious as the behavior you are trying to pin on Von Daniken?

Obviously, a fabricated dinosaur bone would be a misrepresentation.

Why? Did you fabricate one?

Harte

No, I did not; however, many people assembling skeletons for display in museums across the world are paying to fabricate bones for skeletons. Why do you view this behavior as different from Von Daniken?

Originally posted by totallackey
No, I did not; however, many people assembling skeletons for display in museums across the world are paying to fabricate bones for skeletons. Why do you view this behavior as different from Von Daniken?

If a person fabricates a previously unknown bone from what they claim is a previously unknown fossil animal, it is fraud.

The typical fabrication of the sort you mention here is merely a copy of an existing bone/skeleton.

AFAIK, it is unusual for any museum to display the actual fossil in articulated form, for four main reasons:

1) fossils are damn heavy and if you put together a fossil skeleton of a large animal, say Apatosaurus, you're likely to need a support structure that is even larger and heavier than the skeleton itself;

2) fossils are usually incomplete, so replacement parts, modeled on actual parts found with other, similar fossils, are used to fill gaps in displays;

3) fossils are valuable, and having them on display could subject them to damage or theft or whatever;

4) Rare fossils are copied (fabricated) so that they can be studied and/or displayed by more than one institution simultaneously.

In the case of EVD, he fabricated a piece of pottery out of his own imagination and claimed it was a legitimate relic. He never claimed it was a copy of any relic.

Please state that you can see the difference here.

Harte

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)

This is the best quotes in the entire thread!
Many of these types of authors have a lot to contribute to society, I get really turned off by itemizing facts.

I always try to respect where people are coming from, I like Von Daniken and his show Ancient Aliens is a fresh look on alternative history, they may come up with some seemingly absurd connections that "reach" out there sometimes, but we can't possibly be the only sign of intelligence in this VAST galaxy, not to mention alternate universies, and different dimensions.

If you believe we are the only planet that has the capabalities for life in the WHOLE UNIVERSE you clearly can not do basic math.

The Roman Catholic Church has long since narrowed/stunted our views on spirituality & the cosmos.

I would not believe a word those pedaphelic snakes say/claim to believe.

Originally posted by Mythology
I always try to respect where people are coming from, I like Von Daniken and his show Ancient Aliens is a fresh look on alternative history, they may come up with some seemingly absurd connections that "reach" out there sometimes, but we can't possibly be the only sign of intelligence in this VAST galaxy, not to mention alternate universies, and different dimensions.

If you believe we are the only planet that has the capabalities for life in the WHOLE UNIVERSE you clearly can not do basic math.

The Roman Catholic Church has long since narrowed/stunted our views on spirituality & the cosmos.

I would not believe a word those pedaphelic snakes say/claim to believe.

Spot on, there at the end but...

The Vatican years ago stated that there was almost certainly life out there, and quite possibly intelligent life.
You know, the God-fearing kind! LOL

You are certainly correct that there are other intelligent life forms out there, if you consider the entire universe.

However, travel throughout the entire universe is somewhat difficult to accomplish!
Better to speculate about life in our galaxy. It makes infinitely more sense.

I believe there are intelligent species in our galaxy, and even more than one right here. But, statistically speaking, unless you're willing to postulate a very large number of alien species that are capable of interstellar travel, it's practically a certainty that no two intelligent species from different solar systems have ever met.
Yet.

Harte

This thread deserves a bump. There are lots of folks here that sorely need to view the documentary in the OP.

Update link:



Harte

Even if EVD is a fake it does not rule out ancient alien contact. I believe if the stories our ancestors wrote about contact with angels, gods and other super natural beings are remotely true then it is much more likely what they witnessed were Aliens or Humans from the far, far, future and not supernatural beings of any sort.

Just because EVD is a charlatan does not rule out everything he proposes. I believe either all the supernatural beings our ancestors wrote about, all ancient religions are pure fiction or they met and wrote about Aliens or time traveling Humans.

a reply to: Xeven

Whether something is natural or supernatural is a matter of perspective and relies on given definition of 'nature'.
en.wikipedia.org...

The metaphysical considerations of the existence of the supernatural can be difficult to approach as an exercise in philosophy or theology because any dependencies on its antithesis, the natural, will ultimately have to be inverted or rejected. One complicating factor is that there is no universal agreement about the definition of "natural" or the limits of naturalism. Concepts in the supernatural domain are closely related to concepts in religious spirituality and occultism or spiritualism. Additionally, by definition anything that exists naturally is not supernatural.

what they witnessed were Aliens or Humans from the far, far, future and not supernatural beings of any sort.

With that in mind... aliens/humans could be supernatural beings! humans/supernatural beings could be aliens etc etc!!!!

terminology has become a messy game!

Although, I spent a lot of time debunking aa myself, I still believe in the possibility.

a reply to: Harte

That's all fine and dandy, but it doesn't make the theory wrong. There is too much other evidence that isn't fake.

a reply to: th3dudeabides
In fact, there exists no such evidence at all.

Perhaps you'd like to state, say, three pieces of evidence that indicate that EVD is right?

Harte