should von daniken sue?

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 06:12 AM
link   
his books are being used in archaeology lectures to first year students as an example of a baseless hoax and students are told he only wrote the books to make money and mislead the gullible, and that there is no real evidence or archaeological sources to support his assertions. (this is just wrong - he quotes the bible and the ramayana in support of his theories. these are primary sources - perfectly acceptable sources of information. in fact, most of his sources ARE primary sources: i.e. ancient texts, or paintings, or ancient buildings).

also textbooks like Fagan 2007 have blurbs which ridicule authors like graham hancock and go on to state that people who believe in these alternative theories are 'cultists' and basically, nutjobs.

this is being taught in universities to first year achaeology students. no wonder no archaeologists have the guts to come out and say anything or dare to raise any questions about human origins. It is being taught in a very belligerent manner which leaves students too intimidated to ask questions or argue the point even if they wanted to.




posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 06:13 AM
link   
Everybody who ever bought any of his books should sue for fraud. They're the worst tripe ever published and an insult to people who do actual archeological research.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 06:15 AM
link   
ridiculous statement. have you ever actually read any of his books cover to cover?

... let me guess, you wouldnt happen to be an archaeologist would you?

Personally i think most archaeolgists are living in the dark ages. Times have changed. einstein himself believed in an advanced civilization taht existed in antiquity and wrote the introduction to charles hapgood's path of the pole.

but lately it seems, archaeolgoists are too arrogant to listen to scientists of other discliplines - like astronomers (who say stonehenge was a sophisticated ancient computer for observing the heavens) and geologists (who say the rainfall precipitation on the sphinx indicates its very great age).

archaeologists will be the laughing stock of the millenia when the truth eventually becomes apparant, and it was staring them in the face all along; but unfortunately took a maverick like EVD to see it. (he will no doubt be recognised as a genius in years to come, or at least someone who was a bit switched on...)



[edit on 12-4-2009 by rapunzel222]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by rapunzel222
 


I read Chariot of the Gods when it first came out, thank you. Even at that age I knew it was "stuffed full of blueberry muffins."

BTW, I'm not an archeologist. I do have an MA in History from Purdue.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 06:34 AM
link   
reply to post by rapunzel222
 


I believe I read somewhere that they accept that the mound of rock the Sphinx is made of, is ancient but that it is a natural formation; naturally sphinx shaped if you will. The addition of carving the face came much much later.

I find that a very acceptable explanation.

[edit on 12/4/09 by Lebowski achiever]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lebowski achiever
reply to post by rapunzel222
 


I believe I read somewhere that they accept that the mound of rock the Sphinx is made of, is ancient but that it is a natural formation; naturally sphinx shaped if you will. The addition of carving the face came much much later.

I find that a very acceptable explanation.

[edit on 12/4/09 by Lebowski achiever]


Very likely! The rock was not transported there, so they used what they had. The "engineers" of the day thought in terms of using what was available first, to avoid having to move tons of rock if they didn't have to.

And before anybody gets off on the "erosion" kick, not all layers of the rock are made of the same hardness, so some would erode more easily than others.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 06:43 AM
link   
if it was not for Chariots of the Gods i don't think i would have been interested in our ancient past. this was the first book that opened my eyes to possible out of this world visitations and it taught me not to take everything were are told at face value and question things we don't understand.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 06:44 AM
link   
I've never understood what the problem is with von Daniken's books.

Yes, there's undoubtedly serious issues with Von Daniken's research and interpretations. However, I don't know anyone of my age group that didn't read them (I first read them in the early 1980s) and have them open mental doors to new ideas, perspectives and possibilities. That to me was worth more than reading yet another 'factual' history book.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynedg
if it was not for Chariots of the Gods i don't think i would have been interested in our ancient past. this was the first book that opened my eyes to possible out of this world visitations and it taught me not to take everything were are told at face value and question things we don't understand.


So, a mass market ersatz archeological fantasy is a good start? I wonder if you've ever read the studies of people who actually looked at the objects von D. fantasized about?



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


well, all i can say is, i think that a lot of people who read his book walk away with at least some unanswered questions in their minds. some of the connections he made were just so obvious and difficult to refute. i found his interpretation of the vedic texts and enoch story very convincing. i am very exasperated with archaeologists for the attitude they take to him, as they are denying people, particularly archaeology students, the right to freedom of thought. It may turn out he is right after all. then what?

but perhaps his writing style puts people off. Someone who has a much more careful style and maybe goes about it in a more scholarly manner is graham hancock. did you just stop at von daniken, or have you read graham hancock or zecharia sitchin? perhaps you'd find them more interesting or persuasive.

I will admit that the first time i read EVD i didnt believe him. the first few times i read him actually; but at the same time, i could see he had raised some questions that needed answers. I kept going back to his books and still came away with more questions that needed answering. Over time, and after doing a lot of research on megalithic architecture and other things, i came to believe that he is actually right. But it took me a long time to reach that conclusion. So i guess i can understand if people arent convinced by him the first time. But i would just say, there are other writers since him, who are pretty persuasive. I hope people read them too and at least make their own decisions about the ideas they present.

if you read everything and you still dont agree, well, thats your call. all i think is that people should at least read the books before forming an opinion on any of these authors.

I think altho daniken possibly doesnt write with a scholarly style, and makes 'leaps' in his connections; if he does turn out to be right (which i think he is), it will be evident how insightful some of his 'leaps' are. I dont for a minute say that he's right about every single detail he suggests; or even his whole general theory. But i think that there are many things that he will turn out to be spot on about. i think the enoch story is one, vedic texts another, and palenque carving another. Also the piri reis map (backed up by einstein and hancock now); and the astronaut drawings of beings wearing 'helmets'. possibly even nazca. altho ud think they'd have ufos; but still its hard to see what else it could be when you see the thousands of 'runways' from the air.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


i think you sound pretty patronizing. I cant figure out why, as i dont see anything earth shattering or fantastical in his theories. its just one possible explanation that should at least be evaluated and taken seriously. why not? do you really think theres no alien life out there? or that aliens visiting earth to seed a race of humans is impossible? You may consider it crazy, but many physicists and intelligent people take it very seriously. so i think the ridicule is just uncalled for. Plenty of people who are much smarter i would guess, than most of us on this forum, take these ideas very seriously.
i have read, incidentally, many scholarly papers on the objects daniken 'fantasizes' about. i found a lot of the explanations offered by archaeolgists to be weak, ridiculous or just stupid.
one example is their explanation of the tonga trilithon as a seat for a king to drink kava on . that was pretty funny.
i have read some stupid things suggested by supposedly smart people.

i know the official explanation for the palenque stone. yes, mythology, underworld etc, all that. but i dont think its right. sure, thats the myth it represents, to the indigenous people as they understand their legend. but so what? its clear that what it really represents - which clearly the maya probly didnt understand when they saw it - is some guy in a rocket type ship or space ship. EVD's whole point is that they didnt understand what they were seeing, so they made up explanations like feathered flying serpent or flying jaguar to explain/convey what they were seeing, which they had no word for in their language, and no understanding of the mechanics of how it worked. (altho obviously they knew what they were seeing wasn't 'normal' within their experience and probably understood more or less what it was (ie. this wasnt some ominipotent god; these were 'gods' plural, who flew around in ships. they were fallible, and human - like in the greek legends.) ; and they did their best at trying to interpret it and pass on the knowledge).

when roald dahl was living in africa he had to explain to an african friend of his that he was going to england to fly giant birds; just becuz there was no african word for airplane. obviously the friend understood he didnt mean a literal bird; but a mechanical device. this would have been the same in acneint times: the flying chariot or bird with the god in it was understood to be something special; not a normal bird; after all, the indigenous people weren't stupid. they knew it wasnt a normal bird; or wasnt really a flying snake - this is why they went to all that trouble to carve it in stone...and pass down legends about it.


[edit on 12-4-2009 by rapunzel222]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 07:15 AM
link   
,,,,,

[edit on 12-4-2009 by rapunzel222]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by rapunzel222
 


"well, all i can say is, i think that a lot of people who read his book walk away with at least some unanswered questions in their minds."

Mine was "what did I waste my time reading that."

"Unanswered questions" is ATS-speak for "sounds silly, so it must be true", right?



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
Everybody who ever bought any of his books should sue for fraud. They're the worst tripe ever published and an insult to people who do actual archeological research.

Oh, gosh.

Von Daniken himself never said that his books were proof. He was asking questions of baffling archeological discoveries. That's all. He can sue if he wants but that's what can be expected from those out there with a different perspective.

If some professor out there wants to use his books as hoax, so be it. Then he can bump over to Creationism 101.

Whoops! Did I say that out loud?


[edit on 12-4-2009 by DarkGift]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


did you attend the pseudoarchaeology lecture, did you?

kidding. yeah.

well, entertaining tho this is, i feel its a waste of my time.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by DarkGift
 


"Von Daniken himself never said that his books were proof. "

I seen him say that very thing many times on the babble box. He's a glib liar, to be sure. The carnival barker attitude is quite obvious if you listen to him.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Well there are still some unexplained ancient technical anomalies that defy explanation. Like the baghad battery, The delhi iron pillar or the Antikythera Mechanism. These on their own are mysterious enough to merit some more investigation. What all these things have in common is that they stand on their own. They seem to have come from out of nowhere and disappeared just as fast. Like only the finished product was provided but not the recipe.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lebowski achiever
Well there are still some unexplained ancient technical anomalies that defy explanation. Like the baghad battery, The delhi iron pillar or the Antikythera Mechanism. These on their own are mysterious enough to merit some more investigation. What all these things have in common is that they stand on their own. They seem to have come from out of nowhere and disappeared just as fast. Like only the finished product was provided but not the recipe.


The Baghdad battery is interesting. What's more interesting is that there was no infrastructure in place to use electricity. So why have it? Probably as a "stand-alone" device of some sort. Speculation is fun, but without support any conclusions are just guesses.

The Delhi iron pillar is most probably a metalurgical accident. The founders just happened to produce a slightly different type of iron, one that is resistant to rust. (It has been analyzed, btw, and it's not miraculous. The chemical nature is clearly understood, even if the means by which it got to that state is still under investigation.)



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 

The delhi iron pillar is estimated to be 1600 years old. It odd that it was never repeated again by the original makers. They had the means to make it the first time around so why not make another?



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by rapunzel222
his books are being used in archaeology lectures to first year students as an example of a baseless hoax and students are told he only wrote the books to make money and mislead the gullible, and that there is no real evidence or archaeological sources to support his assertions... This is being taught in universities to first year achaeology students. no wonder no archaeologists have the guts to come out and say anything or dare to raise any questions about human origins.


I'd suggest that you actually attend some of those lectures or arrange a one-on-one with a prof or a teaching assistant and see exactly what they have to say, and why.





new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join