It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

should von daniken sue?

page: 10
8
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidflash2008I'd put my money on Herr Von Daniken, and I have seen Dr Shostak lose debates with Stanton Friedman.

Say what you will about Herr Von Daniken as he is a survivor. He is still quite popular even now, and that must make most of his detractors quite upset.


Stanton talks a lot, Seth probably couldn't get a word in edgewise. And losing a debate is pretty much a subjective call. If you tell pretty lies you might "win" over someone who just tells the facts.

Surviving is not a great achievement, and it certainly doesn't say anything about the veracity of the survivor.




posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Herr Von Daniken may be visiting the sites now, but he did make the error of not going to the sites in some of his earlier books and admitting it.

He is on record as saying such in the Nova program about his theories. The person who wrote the statement did not break any T&C rules on their part.

I am one to think he has learned from his past mistakes. I would like to read some of his latest books to see if his theories have changed any and what other evidence he has gathered.

Graham Hancock sees the same type of evidence, but has another theory on why. Instead of ancient astronauts, Mr Hancock has put forth the idea that an ancient civilization existed in our distant past. The theories of Mr Hancock has been given the same scorn as Herr Von Daniken's, and arguing amongst ourselves will not help with the freedom of ideas that should be protected here.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by kidflash2008
 


Implying that Daniken does not go to the places he visits is false information. He's been travelling for research regularly since 3 decades, many times a year.

[edit on 19-4-2009 by Skyfloating]



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   
The reason I point this stuff out is because the cases against daniken keep getting dragged up from the 70s at disregard of what happened in the 80s, 90s, 2000s.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Stanton Friedman has never lied about anything in regards to flying saucers. I would like to also see them debate Major Kevin Randle on the subject. I do recall a witness handed Bill Nye his @ss in a show when he got angry at being called a liar.

If Erich Von Daniken decides to debate his ideas, he would probably do himself a favor and apologize for his past indiscretions.

I do agree that debates are not the best way to go. I like it better when the facts of the cases are presented.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by kidflash2008
 


Stanton needs a thread of his own. As one of the gurus of ufology his imagine is allowed to run wild.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
The reason I point this stuff out is because the cases against daniken keep getting dragged up from the 70s at disregard of what happened in the 80s, 90s, 2000s.


I wholeheartedly agree with you on that one. That is why I support the idea that Herr Von Daniken must apologize for the mistake that was made in the early 1970s. It has been over thirty years, and I know he has learned a lot since then. There are many here who will not even listen to what he has to say because of the mistakes that were committed such a long time ago.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidflash2008
reply to

If Erich Von Daniken decides to debate his ideas, he would probably do himself a favor and apologize for his past indiscretions.



Daniken cant defend himself that well in the English Language. He's debated and defended himself well at various Institutions, Universities and on TV...albeit in German.

Daily, Weekly, Monthly publication of articles of his and his colleagues continue to this day, but most of it is not even published in English because of the 70s events.

[edit on 19-4-2009 by Skyfloating]



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Herr Von Daniken was interviewed in a recent History Channel program and he speaks English very well. He is much more mature now, and that is why I would like for him to have his latest books translated into English.

While I think that Graham Hancock's theory on our origins is the better of the two, I would like to read the newer stuff from Herr Von Daniken.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by kidflash2008
 


I like Hancocks stuff too. But I certainly wish that some of Danikens stuff were translated into English, because some of it is really great. And not only his stuff but all the german-language stuff published by the swiss Ancient-Astronaut-Society in the last 10 years.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by kidflash2008
 


Stanton needs a thread of his own. As one of the gurus of ufology his imagine is allowed to run wild.


Stanton Friedman is one of the few tireless researchers in ufology. He has great respect among his peers and foes alike. There are many others where the word imagination would apply, but Stanton Friedman is not one of them.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 
Hiya Scott, there's really no need to link an article that's 20 years old. The quotes from the article reinforce your opinion that the Establishment are suppressing 'forbidden archaeology', but are misleading...



Dr. Guidon is frustrated by the lack of acceptance of her results from the Brazilian rock shelter, known as Pedra Furada. In an interview, she said: ''Why is American archeology so conservative and rigid? Nobody questions dates since 12,000. Why are only the earlier dates considered suspect and bad? It's emotional.''


The modern reality is that the site and others like it are being investigated and discussed. Here are one or two more links to add more breadth to the ones I posted earlier...

Pre-Clovis stone tools?

Corroboration of Sangamonian age of artifacts from the Valsequillo region, Puebla, Mexico by means of diatom biostratigraphy

2008 Joint Annual Meeting

Discussion: 2008 Joint Annual Meeting

Oldest Stone Blades Discovered

Perhaps you are caught in your own 'paradigm' whereby your belief in deceitful academia has become an oopart? Wouldn't that be ironic?

Another irony has just struck me! We're discussing genuine archaeologists in a thread about Mr Von Daniken. Imagine the reception his 'aliens did it' theory would have received
Then again, perhaps he wouldn't care...


It took courage to write this book, and it will take courage to read it. Because its theories and proofs do not fit into the mosaic of traditional archaeology, constructed so laboriously and firmly cemented down, scholars will call it nonsense and put it on the Index of those books which are better left unmentioned.
Chariots of the Gods; Erich Von Danicken; Introduction pp3

I agree with his second statement, but 'nonsense' is a little harsh for a book that many young teenagers enjoy greatly



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


Hello Kandinsky,


Kandinsky: The modern reality is that the site and others like it are being investigated and discussed. Here are one or two more links to add more breadth to the ones I posted earlier...


SC: That is well and good and as it should be. Lamentable, however, that it has taken the "establishment" over 30 years to re-examine Steen-McIntyre's evidence - and that of others.

The fact of the matter, however, remains - evidence; hard scientific evidence was suppressed by Steen-McIntyre's "superiors" and the facts of the case are very well documented. There is nothing you or anyone else can say or do that can alter that travesty of truth. The establishment sought "faith" over science and understanding of our history and origins suffered as a result. This is not about science but about ego and is wholly unforgivable. You may attempt to gloss over this scandal in any way you wish but those are the facts and they cannot be denied.

Academia needs to look itself square in the eye before ever attemtping to poke out the eye of those it considers to be blind for, in the country of the blind....

Kind regards,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 19/4/2009 by Scott Creighton]



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidflash2008Stanton Friedman is one of the few tireless researchers in ufology. He has great respect among his peers and foes alike. There are many others where the word imagination would apply, but Stanton Friedman is not one of them.


I think it's a shame that he's wasting a good mind like he does. He could have done something of value if he'd wanted to do so.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 
If that comment about Friedman is to suggest you think the whole UFO thing is a total waste of time, why are you on here at all?



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sam60
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 
If that comment about Friedman is to suggest you think the whole UFO thing is a total waste of time, why are you on here at all?


You read more into my statement that I put there. As stated numerous times before, I would love to meet an ET. AND, as stated numerous times before, I think ufology needs to get its house in order and get some discipline. Right now its not respected because it doesn't take itself seriously. No structure, no coherence, no testability, no repeatability, no self-criticism. Until ufology stops taking every squiggle of light in a picture, every unsupported claim of a sighting, and every flying hubcap as "100% proof", its not going to have any credibility.

If you want to move from alchemy status to chemistry status, you need to put your house in order.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 
Fair enough - that's about how I see all of this. I guess I'm just a little more reserved in my posts. I'm not purporting to be an expert on Friedman, but I do think Friedman has done some good work.
Von Daniken might have written his first book because he felt some level of conviction regarding the subject matter, but his subsequent books became ridiculous & repetitive & I believe he only wrote those books for the money. I'm suprised he gets any sort of mention in academic circles.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sam60
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 
Fair enough - that's about how I see all of this. I guess I'm just a little more reserved in my posts. I'm not purporting to be an expert on Friedman, but I do think Friedman has done some good work.

"good" is relative, so I won't argue that with you. But, as I said, to be credible a lot more "good" work is needed. It's possible to be TOO willing to accept "evidence" of a less than accurate nature when starting a new discipline, but that stage has to be passed before it even starts to mature.


Von Daniken might have written his first book because he felt some level of conviction regarding the subject matter, but his subsequent books became ridiculous & repetitive & I believe he only wrote those books for the money. I'm suprised he gets any sort of mention in academic circles.


He get's the same mention other hucksters get, "this is how to do it wrong." The blatant fabrication, misrepresentation and outright deceit in his works is going make him an icon of fraud for a long, long time. I expect him to eventually gain "Ponzi" status.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
SC: No one is using Steen-McIntyre's research as a buttress for anything other than to demonstrate how information that has been known for many decades is effectively suppressed and the proponents of such controversial findings are marginalised, vilified and discredited by the academic mafia in order to maintain the status quo.

In fact, her work is often used to buttress the claims of Michael Cremo, the Hindu Creationist author.

The fact that she is still doing research related to the site and still presenting findings in peer-reviewed publications pretty much contradicts these beliefs of yours (which you have here stated as if they were facts.)

You'll find links to recent lectures she's given on the subject and recent papers she's published right here at ATS, IIRC, posted by me.

Unlwess, that is, I posted them at some other forum and not this one.

Might do you well to at least attempt to discover the truth before you go around making foot-in-mouth sorts of claims.

Harte



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


The fact that she [Virginia Steen-McIntyre] is still doing research related to the site and still presenting findings in peer-reviewed publications pretty much contradicts these beliefs of yours (which you have here stated as if they were facts.)

You'll find links to recent lectures she's given on the subject and recent papers she's published right here at ATS, IIRC, posted by me.

Unless, that is, I posted them at some other forum and not this one.

Might do you well to at least attempt to discover the truth before you go around making foot-in-mouth sorts of claims.


SC: You seem to be suggesting here that Steen-McIntyre’s original research and findings at Hueyatlaco were not suppressed or rejected by her superiors or that her career suffered as a consequence of the robust stance she made in favour of her findings at Hueyatlaco. Is this a fair summation of your position on this question?

Regards,

Scott Creighton



[edit on 20/4/2009 by Scott Creighton]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join