should von daniken sue?

Originally posted by Scott Creighton 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.

It can't be denied that sites that do not fit the mould have been dimissed by the academic mainstream. To do so is to feed the trolls. Sheguiandah is a good example...Lee presented what he felt was a seriously conservative date of 30k BCE, and he was run out of the business.

The acceptance of Monte Verde proved what Lee called 'the Brahmins', wrong.

I'll look up the latest word on Sheguiandah...but it's pretty clear that you won't get anywhere by arguing that the Establishment has not been wrong in its rigidity.

reply to post by Scott Creighton
Scott,
Your opinion about Steen-McIntyre is evident in several threads. Until Harte pointed it out, I was unaware that Cremo et al also use her as a straw man for all the wrongs of 'academics.' It would therefore appear, at times, she's (or her findings) been sorely used by both parties.

Now things have moved on, her career has continued, Vasequillo is scheduled for further study in the next couple of years etc. Your indignation appears somewhat out of step with the times?

I posted several links that appear to contradict the assertion that archaeology covers up 'uncomfortable evidence.' Science is putting tools in the hands of Man ever earlier. I see evidence of change in science, but where is the change in the believers of 'forbidden archaeology?'

Originally posted by Harte

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

I find this comment most interesting. Are you holding an author's spiritual beliefs against them? Would you state the same thing if an author was Christian?

I have read Michael Cremo's book on archeology and find it to be fascinating. Many questions are asked in the book, and nowhere does he use his religious beliefs to answer any of them.

I wonder if the same criticism would apply to Erich Von Daniken.



[edit on 4/20/2009 by kidflash2008]

Harte has mentioned Cremos Hinduist background quite often when talking against "Forbidden Archaeology". The truth is that Cremo does not rely on his Hindu beliefs in his books.

Its an ad hominem attack, the same thing that is done to Daniken.
Whenever someones arguments are weak they resort to it.

Daniken is called a criminal, a con-man, a fraud in this thread, while discussion of his latest finds is...at zero.

If it werent for Daniken I would have never looked at any of the boring conventional Archaeology in the first place. But thanks to his inspiration Im even looking at the conventional stuff. They should be grateful for him and others having inspired millions.

_______________________________________

As for the thread-topic: Should he sue? He's already sued and won a few times...but is probably tired of defending against the same things over and over again.

reply to post by Skyfloating


"Daniken is called a criminal, a con-man, a fraud in this thread, while discussion of his latest finds is...at zero. "

Are you saying he isn't? After all, his convictions on fraud are a matter of public record.

reply to post by Gawdzilla


The media keep repeating this in order to deflect from his finds and discoveries of the last years. These have nothing whatsoever to do with being a fraud.

Using a mistake that happened 30 years ago in order to discredit a persons new work without even considering it is an invalid approach.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

The media keep repeating this in order to deflect from his finds and discoveries of the last years. These have nothing whatsoever to do with being a fraud.

Using a mistake that happened 30 years ago in order to discredit a persons new work without even considering it is an invalid approach.

More than one conviction, a pattern of behavior. One he hasn't grown out of by all indications.

Originally posted by kidflash2008

Originally posted by Harte

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

I find this comment most interesting. Are you holding an author's spiritual beliefs against them? Would you state the same thing if an author was Christian?

Of course I would, and I have, right here at ATS and elsewhere.

Originally posted by kidflash2008I have read Michael Cremo's book on archeology and find it to be fascinating. Many questions are asked in the book, and nowhere does he use his religious beliefs to answer any of them.

His book is predicated on the Hindu belief that humans have been around for billions of years.

Re Cremo and his creationism, here's the part you probably didn't know. The following might be a little disjointed - I'm copying a post I made elsewhere:


Science, BTW, certainly doesn't say that Man hasn't been here for millions of years. Man has been here for millions of years. Just not Homo Sapiens.

Also, if science were to say something like what you attribute to it, it would be "There's no evidence to indicate that Man has been here for 250 million years" (or whatever time period you wish to use here.) Science does not deal in absolute truths. Only in facts. Facts are not truths.

There is no evidence for any species of our genus going that far back, regardless of what Cremo might say.

And anyway, check out his bibliography. You won't find any scientific paper that dates to any time period past about 1920 - 1930. Yet he wrote the book in the 1980s, right?

There's not one single shred of credibile evidence presented anywhere at all in the entire book.

Cremo is a college dropout that didn't even have the balls to travel to India (at that time), which was why he dropped out in the first place.

He laid around soaking up drugs until he was forced to beg, joining the Hare Krishnas because they are very efficient at begging.

His book was published by a Hindu fundamentalist group - ISKON.

ISKON is also known as the Hare Krishna Movement.

From their site:

Chronological History of the Hare Krishna Movement
The International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) commonly known in the West as the Hare Krishna Movement comes in a tradition that traces all the way back to Lord Krishna Himself. ISKCON was founded in New York in 1966 by His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (1896-1977), referred to as Srila Prabhupada. His spiritual teacher, Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura, asked him to teach Bhakti to the English-speaking world.

At 69 years old, Srila Prabhupada arrived in Boston in 1965. By 1966 he was living in New York City and had developed a following.
From 1966 to 1968, temples were established in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Montreal, and Santa Fe, New Mexico. The first Ratha-yatra outside of India was held in San Francisco and began an annual ISKCON tradition in more than 20 major cities around the world.
From 1971 to 1973, temples opened in Europe, Canada, South America, Mexico, London, Africa, and India.
In 1970, the Governing Body Commission, ISKCON’s international managerial body, was established to oversee the Society, which had grown to close to one hundred temples, schools, restaurants, and farm communities.
From 1970 to 1977, ISKCON built major centers at the pilgrimage sites of Mayapur and Vrindavana, India, and a large temple in Bombay.
In 1972, Srila Prabhupada founded the publishing house Bhaktivedanta Book Trust (BBT), now the world’s largest publisher of books on Bhakti yoga. Krishna.com is sponsored and maintained by the BBT.
In 1973, the Bhaktivedanta Institute was formed to write books and magazines and to hold conferences to present the teachings of the Vedas in scientific terms.

SOURCE
Note the part at the end that I bolded.
The Bhaktivedanta Institute is the actual arm of ISKOM that published the book. If you still own it, you will find this info on the frontispiece.

Might as well read Pat Robertson's book about the origins of humans.

He doesn't have one? Hmmm. That makes him a better, more reliable person than Michael Cremo.

Originally posted by kidflash2008
I wonder if the same criticism would apply to Erich Von Daniken.

If you mean the "Creationist" label, I think not.

Cremo is at least guided by a religious faith (I have to assume, though I have my doubts) regardless of how flawed and ridiculously outdated the faith itself is.

Von Daniken does it purely for the money (again, I have to assume based on his deliberate lies and deliberately deceiving misrepresentations of known facts.)

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Harte has mentioned Cremos Hinduist background quite often when talking against "Forbidden Archaeology". The truth is that Cremo does not rely on his Hindu beliefs in his books.

Its an ad hominem attack, the same thing that is done to Daniken.
Whenever someones arguments are weak they resort to it.

In fact, Cremo bases the entire book on the Hindu Creationist timeline.

If you would bother yourself to learn about it, you'd see this is so.

What Cremo absolutely doesn't rely on is documented, evidence-backed findings in his ridiculous and purposefull misrepresentations of what has been found concerning the past regarding humanity.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
As for the thread-topic: Should he sue? He's already sued and won a few times...but is probably tired of defending against the same things over and over again.

Please provide a short history of the civil actions brought by VonDaniken. What were they and who did he file them against and did he win.

Include links, that is, assuming you don't intend to simply make them up.

Harte

reply to post by Harte


I`ve been through documenting and referencing this all this stuff several times on ATS. Im not going to keep doing it again and again, much less for someone who spends much of his time trying to disprove everything and anything on the topic and engage in character attacks rather than discuss the ancient astronaut theory

[edit on 20-4-2009 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by Harte

 

I`ve been through documenting and referencing this all this stuff several times on ATS and you know it. Im not going to keep doing it again and again, much less for someone who spends much of his time trying to disprove everything and anything on the topic and engage in character attacks rather than discuss the ancient astronaut theory

[edit on 20-4-2009 by Skyfloating]

As I've been here less that two week, IIRC, I'm not all that familiar with your prior threads on this topic. However, I haven't seen anything that he's done recently that would be credible at all unless you are willing to suspend all logic and just take it on his say-so. And that would require that you trust the man. And THAT is a problem as he has demonstrated a character that can't be trusted.

You guys keep on assassinating his character for stuff that happened more than 30 years ago. I´ll enjoy studying current topics.

Gawdzilla: How would you see any of his recent work? You spend most of your energy trying to "debunk" the extraterrestrial topic.


[edit on 20-4-2009 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by Skyfloating
You guys keep on assassinating his character for stuff that happened more than 30 years ago. I´ll enjoy studying current topics.

Why do you think his character has changed? Has he returned the money from his books? Given refunds for people who visited his bogus theme parks? No, he hasn't. So he's still profiting off fraud. If that isn't a big clue I don't know what would qualify.

reply to post by Gawdzilla


I visited that Theme Park. It was pretty neat.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

I visited that Theme Park. It was pretty neat.

Did you see the "light bulb"? Do you buy the theory that it's really a light bulb and not a flower with a snake in it as serious scholars state?

reply to post by Gawdzilla


No, I did not see any light-bulb there. What I liked most was the show on Ancient India and their scholars describing the Wars of Gods and Men as laid out in ancient text.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

No, I did not see any light-bulb there. What I liked most was the show on Ancient India and their scholars describing the Wars of Gods and Men as laid out in ancient text.

He had a "light bulb", about eight feet long, a "recreation" that he claimed was a discovery by looking at hieroglyphs. One "re-interpretation" and he's claiming that ancient Egyptians had electricity.

The Vedas are very fun, but interpreting the big wagons in the sky as space ships is just a little odd. They are religious texts, after all, which means they're 98.6% fiction.

reply to post by Kandinsky

Hello Kandinsky,

Kandinsky: Your opinion about Steen-McIntyre is evident in several threads.

SC: I do not accept that I have expressed any opinion of Steen-McIntyre (herself) in any thread. If I have expressed anything it will relate only to the RESEARCH and the EVIDENCE that Steen-McIntyre uncovered and presented to her peers some 30+ years ago.

Kandinsky: Until Harte pointed it out, I was unaware that Cremo et al also use her as a straw man for all the wrongs of 'academics.'

SC: I simply do not accept this line of argument at all. Cremo & Thompson do not "use" Steen-McIntyre. Cremo & Thompson in their book, 'Forbidden Archaeology', use only the EVIDENCE that Steen-McIntyre uncovered as well as, I may add, a plethora of other evidence that categorically and unequivocally demonstrates how the accepted paradigm of our history and origins, IMO, is fundamentally flawed. Steen-McIntyre's evidence is but ONE example of this. But there's the rub - it takes but ONE clear example of how academia has been proven wrong to show us that the accepted paradigm is wrong. If you consider the EVIDENCE Steen-McIntyre presents is but a strawman argument, then I have to tell you, there's a whole field of strawmen that academia will have to deal with - sooner or later.

Kandinsky: It would therefore appear, at times, she's (or her findings) been sorely used by both parties.

SC: Steen-McIntyre's research is all that I am discussing here or prepared to discuss here. And let there be no mistake - these research findings are an example, par excellence, of how academia gets things wrong and of how their hidebound intransigence simply refuses to allow them to accept such incontrovertible evidence for no other reason than - well, because it goes against everything they thought they knew. Of course, when the old guard is swept from office, finally the science has a chance to prevail. And rightly so.

Kandinsky: Now things have moved on, her career has continued,

SC: Like I said - when the old guard is swept from office, the hard science finally has a chance to prevail.

Kandinsky: Vasequillo is scheduled for further study in the next couple of years etc. Your indignation appears somewhat out of step with the times?

SC:Well the "times" they are a-changing indeed. And rightly so. The original research of Steen-McIntyre and her colleagues some 30+ years ago was suppressed by her superiors, it was rejected by her superiors and Steen-McIntyre herself was lambasted and ridiculed by her superiors - and this is the point that I am making. This was done to Steen-McIntyre despite the hard science that proved her case. Are you seriously trying to convince me that because 21st century archaeology has now seen the "light" that what happened to Steen-McIntyre and her research some 30+ years ago was somehow perfectly acceptable behaviour by superiors back then? Surely not?

Kandinsky: I posted several links that appear to contradict the assertion that archaeology covers up 'uncomfortable evidence.'

SC: And I have posted quotes from archaeologists that tell us that they are afraid to present evidence that shows pre-clovis dates in the Americas because it will have adverse affects in them obtaining funding for their further research. Where does it end?

Kandinsky: Science is putting tools in the hands of Man ever earlier. I see evidence of change in science, but where is the change in the believers of 'forbidden archaeology?'

SC: Alas, however, the tools of science have always been available for scientists to prove their theories. But that is not the issue here, is it? The tools are available, the findings are made but by God if your findings do not concord with the prevailing historical narrative, then you'll have hell to pay.

And, for the record, you seem to use the term 'forbidden archaeology' like the medieval church would have used the term 'witchcraft'. Such archaeology is not forbidden by those with a mind to look at it objectively but is 'forbidden' only by those who wish to maintain the satus quo - regardless of however many inconvenient truths are dismissed along the way.

Which brings us conveniently back to the central point of this thread. EVD has allegedly falsified or misrepresented some of the evidence he uses in support of his theories. Are you STILL seriously trying to convince me that the "establishment" has not - on occasion - ALSO resorted to such underhand means in order to portray/maintain a particular historical narrative? If you cannot accept that there is evidence that clearly shows that this has indeed occurred (and may still be occurring) then there is little else we can discuss here.

Regards,

Scott Creighton


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

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
SC: And I have posted quotes from geologists that tell us that they are afraid to present evidence that shows pre-clovis dates in the Americas because it will have adverse affects in them obtaining funding for their further research. Where does it end?

Actually, it ends with the paradigm shift that occured when Monte Verde was accepted at ...what? 14kya? Meadowcroft, Cactus Hill, pre-Clovis flows from there.
But there has to be a Bravo Sierra filter somewhere. Better it is too demanding than sloppy.

reply to post by Scott Creighton


"Which brings us conveniently back to the central point of this thread. EVD has allegedly falsified or misrepresented some of the evidence he uses in support of his theories. Are you STILL seriously trying to convince me that the "establishment" has not - on occasion - ALSO resorted to such underhand means in order to portray/maintain a particular historical narrative? If you cannot accept that there is evidence that clearly shows that this has indeed occurred (and may still be occurring) then there is little else we can discuss here."

Proving two parties wrong doesn't make either one of them right.

reply to post by Gawdzilla

Gawdilla: Proving two parties wrong doesn't make either one of them right.

SC: Well that much I would have thought was obvious. But the point is - EVD is pilloried in this thread (and in others) for his apparent "massaging" of evidence some 30+ years ago. But hey - it's okay when the "establishment" does it, isn't it? We're quite happy to accept and turn a blind eye to that, aren't we?

The hypocrisy.

Regards,

Scott Creighton