continued from opening post
The Smear-Campaign against the Ancient Astronaut Theory
The theory started gaining ground in the late 50s and early 60s with the French Author Robert Charroux being one of the first to publish. It was first
popularized on a mass-market scale by swiss author Erich von Daniken. Later popular authors were Zecharia Sitchin and Graham Hancock.
Daniken
Hancock
Daniken being the first who mass-popularized it was also the first to be hit hard by a smear-campaign so intense that one could easily suspect a
conspiracy behind it.
The smear-campaign consisted of finding inconsistencies in his early books and branding them hoax and fraud, looking for missteps in his private life
in an attempt at character assasination and publishing false and deceptive information on Danikens theories and intentions.
This campaign resulted in more than half of Danikens books
not even being published in English. This is significant, because they are
a) His later books, in which inconsistencies of his early works were removed and his theory improved
b) Books in which he offered rebuttals and counter-documentation to claims made in the press and by enemies.
One such infamous case was the "Debunkers" book published by Ronald Story in the late 70s. Many dont know that Daniken published an entire book
refuting Ronald Story (German Title, translated: "Evidence")
Skeptics, for example, keep citing Danikens "hoax" of the "
Metal Library" in Ecuador. In
fact, they repeat this case again and again, in the hope of branding him a "fraud" who's other works should not be read.
Counter-Evidence, including legal documentation and government-documents by Daniken were included in the Book with the title "Disinformed" (my
translation from German)...which was not published in English, thus perpetuating the myth of Daniken having deliberately staged a hoax. More on this
later.
___________________________________________
The smear-campaign against Daniken, Sitchin and others continues to this day with false statements and manipulative speech patterns being used by
self-proclaimed "Debunkers" and "Skeptics".
In taking a very close look at the objections against AAT I opened the
Skeptics Dictionary, one of the major resources
of these "Debunkers".
What follows are examples of the non-objective, unverifiable and plain stupid attacks on AAT - reflective of those that keep being repeated in the
press. Quoted from the Skeptics Dictionary.
"(AAT)...is a sweeping attack on the abilities and memories of ancient peoples"
This is ironic because we feel that the "official version of history" is a sweeping attack on the memories of ancient peoples, who's mythological
accounts are dismissed as "fiction".
"Danikens reply was that his deception was justified because some people would only believe if they saw proof"
"
This instance of Daniken joking was taken at face-value and used in several press-releases.
"The likelihood that these drawings are related to the natives religion or science is not considered"
A baseless and emotionally charged statement as I and many other researchers
have considered other explanations.
“But it seems more likely that prehistoric peoples themselves were responsible for their own art, technology and culture.”
What often follows by "Debunkers" are statements such as:
"You think they were too stupid to build this stuff themselves?"
"You think Aliens built the Pyramids?"
"You are a racist"
These hysterically unobjective statements have nothing to do with what AAT is proposing. We acknowledge the possibility of advanced
humans
living alongside less advanced ones. We do not label less advanced humans as "stupid savages" just because they did not possess the technology of
the "Gods". We are hinting that humans may have gotten some "help" in building objects such as the Pyramids...or maybe not. In any case, the
"stupid savages" argument is a misrepresentation of what we are proposing.
“And why restrict one's examples to Egypt, Mexico, and other non-European countries? What about the builders of Newgrange or Stonehenge?“
Another blatant lie. Daniken and other researchers have published countless books about European sites. In fact Newgrange and Stonehenge are featured
in a Daniken book called (translated from German) "The Stone Age was different".
“The ancient astronaut hypothesis is unnecessary”
One of many broad and general statements that try to suppress asking further questions.
Quoted from the same source on Zecharia Sitchin:
“(AAT is) especially attractive to those who are ignorant of biblical and historical scholarship”
Having read the Bible, the Koran and the Talmud, among many other things, I am not going to let a Debunker tell me I am ignorant of the bible or
history. And Im sure Sitchin himself is not ignorant of ancient scripture.
“He has received nothing but ridicule from scientific archaeologists”
“Sitchin's ideas have been appropriated by Raël, another wise man, who has started his own religion”
Many statements made by debunkers do not address the evidence brought forward, but are made to make attack the person, to make the researcher look
like a lunatic. No serious AAT researcher considers the Rael cult a serious source of information.
Taken from other Debunkers sources on the Internet:
“(Daniken) was by no means the first to propose it (AAT)”. “He was not the first fringe writer to adopt this stance”
Yes, and so what? I wonder why so many debunkers ramble on about him not being the first to propose AAT.
“Chariots of the Gods?, published in 1967 after no fewer than twenty-two rejections, became a worldwide bestseller”
And the rejections are supposed to prove what?
“made him wealthy through the sale of over sixty million copies of his books.”
The AAT authors most attacked are those who actually make some money with their research. As they often make more money than "respectable scholars",
it is understandable that jealousy would arise.
“The most convincing piece of evidence he has ever produced is the cover slab of the tomb of the Lord Pacal in the Pyramid of the Inscriptions at
Palenque, weak stuff though it is.”
Unfortunately, Skeptics keep referring to Danikens oldest books from the early 70s and late 60s with hardly any mention of his works from the 80s, 90s
and 2000s.
To be continued in the next posts
