should von daniken sue?

reply to post by Kandinsky

Hello Kandinsky,

Kandinsky: Does every post require the fisking approach? Point, rebuttal etc. It may reassure the poster, but is'nt always necessary.

SC: Well, happily for you not every post I have made employs such an approach. Where I make a point-by-point response/rebuttal to a particular post it is made only where I feel it is necessary for clarity.

Kandinksy: You still continue to bang the Steen-McIntyre drum in every post. She is and was an active archaeologist.

SC: Not meaning to nit-pick here but it is my understanding that Steen-McIntyre is in fact a Geologist formerly of the U.S. Geological Survey and not an archaeologist as you have stated.

Now, I am sorry that my banging of the drum irks you so but, as I have stated to you before, the reason I cite the case of Steen-McIntyre is simply because it demonstrates quite succinctly the central point that I am making in this thread, namely that our view of our history and origins has been (and still is being) distorted by academia through its hidebound intransigence and refusal to accept hard scientific evidence that proves the prevailing historical narrative is flawed.

I raise this issue because it is a much more serious issue than any book EVD might write or hypothesis he might express. The good professor of the OP might want to take a long, hard look in the mirror before casting stones at those he thinks are distorting history. Also, if you look a little more closely through this thread, you will find that I (and others) have in fact cited other examples of scientific evidence having been dismissed/suppressed by geologists/archaeologists - not only Steen-McIntyre's case.

Kandinsky: She doesn't subscribe to possibilities of lost advanced civilizations. You can check her website or read any papers in the last decade. She hasn't ever suggested that Valesquillo was an outcome of visiting 'Gods from Space.' She doesn't subscribe to ancient atomic warfare, flying machines or alternative theories of pyramid builders.

SC: I know this already and it is completely irrelevant to the point I am making.

Kandinsky: I don't think anyone is disagreeing that the findings were ignored at the time.

SC: Actually, if you look more closely through this thread you will find that there are indeed some who disagree with your view here to the point, in fact, where I have more or less been accused of making it all up.

Kandinsky: Disagreement is about extent and frequency.

SC: Let me get this right - are you seriously suggesting that it is somehow okay for academics to distort evidence so long as it is kept to some minimum extent/frequency? Is that really what you think? Well tell me - if that is how you are trying to gloss over this deplorable practice, what minimum level of distortion of evidence do you think is acceptable?

Kandinksy: ... Von Daniken uses these as evidence to suggest that aliens are responsible for human technology. No archaeologist would write a paper making such claims.

SC: Agreed.

Kandinsky: Maybe that is why the 'hypocritical' Professor from the OP was using his work? He or she was illustrating the difference between accepted forms of in scientific writing and semi-fictional speculation that EVD used.

SC: "Accepted forms of scientific writing"? Does this include cherry-picking scientific evidence to ensure the status quo prevails?

Kandinsky: He does indeed reference a number of hearsay accounts and religious texts. He doesn't cite any archaeological/ scientific analyses of any of these artifacts. He ignores them.

SC: Ignores them? Not that much different from what some academics do then, is it?

Kandinsky: If a student cited EVD's old religious texts as a source and neglected to reference any scientific studies, they'd fail.

SC: Do you think if some other students referenced the scientific study of Steen-McIntyre as a source, they would also fail? Would that be fair?

Kandinsky: EVD should be in University libraries. Sci-Fi, fantasy, fiction and graphic novels were in mine and should remain there. His only purpose in hard science is as an example of bad science.

SC: And all hard scientific evidence that proves the prevailing historical narrative is flawed (such as that presented by Steen-McIntyre and others) should also be in those university libraries.

Kandinsky: The Professor is saving the students the embarrassment and disappointment of failing an assessment on the principle of 'garbage in, garbage out.'

SC: I wonder how disappointed the good professor's students would be when they eventually learn that the historical model he advocates is actually flawed, that what he is teaching them can equally be considered as "garbage in".

Regards,

Scott Creighton

reply to post by Scott Creighton

You've established your concretely held views that (not ALL) academics are dishonest, so-called professionals, hypocrites etc We've established that many (not ALL) points that are made in favor of honest science are referred to your default position of what I've come to regard as 'The Steen-McIntyre Defense.'

The Steen-McIntyre Defense involves a circular point-counterpoint model that is wholly self-sufficient and self-perpetuating. It can be applied to any point that is raised in reply to your posts. It allows the user to disregard, ignore, obfuscate and be slippery. It pretends to undermine the whole of archaeology (although any adjacent disciplines are open to target too) on the simplistic basis that any facts are met with...Yeah, but look at Steen-McIntyre...you can't believe academics.

However, if we get a claim that the GP pre-dates AE and is part of the that 'lost civilization'. Naturally, people point to the evidence of Djhoser step pyramid etc. In it comes with...Yeah, but look at Steen-McIntyre...you can't believe academics.

I'm writing this and I already 'know' what the likely response will be. 2 parts Steen-McIntyre (Can you say that it DIDN'T happen?! Is it NOT still relevant?!), one part obfuscation, one part questioning accuracy/Kandinsky and one part point rebuttal I'm skipping breakfast to write this and smiling ruefully at the futility

The earlier selections of Daniken (remaining OT) are also very amenable to the Steen-McIntyre Defense. Aluminum belts from 3000BC. Unlikely based on the evidence...Yeah, but look at Steen-McIntyre...you can't believe academics! Groan...

EDIT for brevity.

[edit on 22-4-2009 by Kandinsky]

reply to post by Kandinsky

Hello Kandinsky,

Kandinsky: The earlier selections of Daniken (remaining OT) are also very amenable to the Steen-McIntyre Defense. Aluminum belts from 3000BC. Unlikely based on the evidence...Yeah, but look at Steen-McIntyre...you can't believe academics! Groan...

SC: Groan indeed. If academics have lost the trust of those it supposedly aims to serve then they have but themselves and their shoddy practices to blame. And if some feel the need to use this as a stick to beat them with, then it is probably no less than they deserve. I have little sympathy for them. Betrayal of trust always comes at a cost.

Evidence will stand or fall on its merits and its veracity - and that includes all evidence, including that which relates specifically to the pyramids. It is only when academics withhold or distort evidence in a misguided attempt to maintain a particular paradigm that we have a problem.

Let the truth speak and let us not be afraid of what it has to say or what its implications for our history and origins might be.

Now my point here has been made - my work here is done.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 22/4/2009 by Scott Creighton]

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
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.

To label any ancient text that mentions extraterrestrial beings as fiction, religion and myth is is a cop-out.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
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.

To label any ancient text that mentions extraterrestrial beings as fiction, religion and myth is is a cop-out.

To imagine that any ancient text mentions extraterrestrial beings at all is wishful thinking.

reply to post by Gawdzilla


What the hell?

They do nothing other than mention extraterrestrial beings!

Any grade-school teacher can tell you that.

[edit on 22-4-2009 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

What the hell?

They do nothing other than mention extraterrestrial beings!

Any grade-school teacher can tell you that.

[edit on 22-4-2009 by Skyfloating]

Really? They don't mention gods, just extraterrestrials? Got a reference for me? (Link, please?)

reply to post by Gawdzilla


The word "extraterrestrial" was not in usage in ancient times. It is a modern word.

Instead words such as "creatures", "flying chariots", "vimanas", "angels", "Half-Gods", "Superhumans", "Wise People from the Sky", "metallic eggs", "beings from the night sky", "people from the heavens" etc. were used.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

The word "extraterrestrial" was not in usage in ancient times. It is a modern word.

Instead words such as "creatures", "flying chariots", "vimanas", "angels", "Half-Gods", "Superhumans", "Wise People from the Sky", "metallic eggs", "beings from the night sky", "people from the heavens" etc. were used.

Ah, your own personal interpretation of the words in the translations of the ancient texts. If you're happy with that, fine.

reply to post by Gawdzilla


Either you're being deliberately obtuse or you are not interested in facts. Ancient accounts describing people coming from other stars and landing on earth, some of which were worshipped as Gods, some not, is a matter of fact, not interpretation.

Even the scientific community knows and accepts this...except that they say that these things did not really happen, they are fiction.

You not only say they are fiction, you go a step further saying that this fiction does not even exist.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

Either you're being deliberately obtuse or you are not interested in facts. Ancient accounts describing people coming from other stars and landing on earth, some of which were worshipped as Gods, some not, is a matter of fact, not interpretation.

Even the scientific community knows and accepts this...except that they say that these things did not really happen, they are fiction.

You not only say they are fiction, you go a step further saying that this fiction does not even exist.

The fiction that the Vedas describe ancient aliens? Yes, I don't believe that for a second. What proof do you have that they were ancient aliens, other than personal preference?

reply to post by Gawdzilla


The Vedas describe flying vehicles, gods and half-gods getting out of them, gods having sex with humans, advanced weapon systems and much more.

Im OK with you labeling this rich tradition (The Vedas) fiction. Its a bit arrogant, but its your right.

But saying that these accounts do not exist (and accounts from other cultures as well) is not correct.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

The Vedas describe flying vehicles, gods and half-gods getting out of them, gods having sex with humans, advanced weapon systems and much more.

Im OK with you labeling this rich tradition (The Vedas) fiction. Its a bit arrogant, but its your right.

But saying that these accounts do not exist (and accounts from other cultures as well) is not correct.

I'm challenging the interpretation. It you want to force an "ancient alien" interpretation on them, that's okay. And it's also okay for me to say "why?" Or is it?

reply to post by Gawdzilla


Open up any book on...lets say...Chinese Mythology.

Read: "The Dragon came down. And the Gods came out from the Belly of the Dragon".

What this is saying is that the Dragon was a Vehicle for the Gods. That is not a matter of interpretation, thats what it says.

Interpretation comes in when we assign meaning to it, such as "that fiction" (Gawdzilla) or "That describes a real event" (Skyfloating).

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

Open up any book on...lets say...Chinese Mythology.

Read: "The Dragon came down. And the Gods came out from the Belly of the Dragon".

What this is saying is that the Dragon was a Vehicle for the Gods. That is not a matter of interpretation, thats what it says.

Interpretation comes in when we assign meaning to it, such as "that fiction" (Gawdzilla) or "That describes a real event" (Skyfloating).

So we agree on the definition of "interpretation." Now we move on to "why do you believe your interpretation. Or not.

reply to post by Gawdzilla


Because the interpretation of this being fiction comes from agenda-driven Religion. And the modern scientific interpretation comes from an agenda-driven aversion against Religion.

Here's how it went:

"The Dragon landed and the Gods came out of its belly".

Christian Missionary: "Those were Demons"

Religious Chinese Person: "Lets worship the Dragon as a Deity"

Hundreds of years later:

Modern Science: "Demons? Deities? Thats fiction".

So you have two layers of misinformation over what is simply the account

"Gods came out of the Dragons Belly",

which simply states "The fire-spitting Dragon is a vehicle of the Gods". It does not say "The Dragon is a Deity". It does not say "The Dragon is a Demon". It does not say "This is fiction". It says "This is what happened a long time ago".

[edit on 22-4-2009 by Skyfloating]

reply to post by Skyfloating


"It does not say "This is fiction". It says "This is what happened a long time ago". "

It says, "this is our version of what happened a long time ago." And we can believe they are telling the truth for what reason? Just because it was written down? I doubt it.

reply to post by Gawdzilla


No, because a few thousands from many different cultures agree in their basic description of events.

Declaring it all fiction is a convenience for the lazy and agenda-driven.

[edit on 22-4-2009 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

No, because a few thousands from many different cultures agree in their basic description of events.

Declaring it all fiction is a convenience for the lazy and agenda-driven.

[edit on 22-4-2009 by Skyfloating]

Ad homs aside, good stories travel well. And given a few thousand years, why couldn't diverse cultures hear about stories from other cultures? So, I'm asking, which is more possible, people shared stories or aliens were all over the place way back then?

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Fact is, Harte, the Sheguindah site is a pretty good example of what he is talking about. Thomas Lee was the principal investigator, and apparently dated it as deep antiquity, but presented a 'conservative' date of 30kya.

Johnny,

You're aware, right, that the site Steen-McIntyre is noted for (Hueyatlaco) Has been dated twice - first at over a million years and then at a "conservative" 250,0-00 years old?

There exists no other evidence for the existence of H. Sapiens anywhere in the world with these sorts of dates.

Unless we want to suggest that Homo Erectus was capable of making Clovis-like spearpoints,. the dates for Hueyatlaco are probably wrong.

Steen-McIntyre is a geologist, not an anthropologist, and was at the time probably not fully aware of all the anthropological evidence extant all over the world for not only the rise of H. Sapiens but for the capabilities of H.Erectus.

Myserlf, I find it likely that H.Erectus was capable of far more than what we've seen from him. But such a statement is pure speculation, and cannot be theorized on without a sscrap of evidence.

Scott,

I'm aware that Steen-McIntyre makes this claim. I respond with the fact that she has continued to be published on that site and others. She continues to give paid lectures on that site and others. SHe claims people ridiculed her. What I want is evidence that this is so, not a claim made by a person too silly to r4ealize that she would have to explain a date for humans which precedes the known or accepted date by around 50,000 years. - even more if given the time to develop Clovis-type technology.

Harte

[edit on 4/22/2009 by Harte]