should von daniken sue?

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.

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.

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.

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

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]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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]