should von daniken sue?

page: 15
8
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
BTW - have you seen the cost of Dr Mark Lehner's "The Complete Pyramids" these days? I guess we can now say that Dr Lehner is dining out on promoting Ancient Egyptian history then?


According to Amazon, for a used copy I can get away with $6.19 plus shipping. And I think it's great if a scholar publishes for the enlightenment of the average reader...absolutely, dine out on it.


About the Author
Mark Lehner, a leading Egyptologist, directed the Sphinx and Isis Temple Project from 1979 to 1983; since 1984 he has been director of the Giza Plateau Mapping Project. He is visiting Assistant Professor at the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago, and a Research Associate at the Harvard Semitic Museum. www.amazon.com...


I don't want to take away from your efforts, Scott, and I apologise for sounding like I was dismissing them. The precis I read on Hancock's site sounded intriguing. I have wondered about the Orion connection to Giza, but I'm not sure I'd follow it as far as Rosslyn Chapel.




posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


"Like I said - suppression of the facts through distorting of evidence. "

So, her publications were altered? No? Then those who read them just didn't care about them. Yawn are cheap in journals. I know.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 

Hello Gawdzilla,


Gawdzilla: So, her publications were altered?


SC: The head Mexican archaeologist of the site changed the dates and published their own paper with those changed dates. Steen-McIntyre, however, stiuck to her guns and published her own research with the true dates of the site and explains the discrepency between her date and that of the head Archaeologist of the site as having been forcibly made by the head Mexican Archaeologist in charge of the site by means of simply dropping a zero from the dates obtained by the scientific tests.

So, Steen McIntyre's RESEARCH was indeed altered by the head archaeologist of the site (by dropping a zero from the dates). Steen-McIntyre, however, published her own paper with the true facts of her research of the site. Which is precisely why we are having this discussion.... Steen-McIntyre's dates (i.e. the true, unchanged scientifc dates) demonstrate that the historical narrative is plain wrong.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

Regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 



BTW - have you seen the cost of Dr Mark Lehner's "The Complete Pyramids" these days? I guess we can now say that Dr Lehner is dining out on promoting Ancient Egyptian history then?


Bringing Dr Lehner to this thread is long overdue and clearly relevant. He relates to fringe, EVD, Cayce and the fans of 'lost civilizations.' His beginnings as a Cayce believer lend weight to assertions that EVD has no place in academia. As Lehner increased his subject knowledge of the Giza Plateau he was left with little room for fringe ideas and ultimately abandoned them altogether.

His subsequent importance in Egyptology isn't the result of book sales. It's an outcome of peer review, funding, methodology and the support of several academic organizations. He's a very different individual to EVD.

Lehner has been immersed in Egyptology for years and doesn't lend himself to wild theories. His work is referenced to many sources and he is also cited by many in the field. Lehner 'dines out' on the fact that he is a reputable, verified, supported source of qualified information relating to AE.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
So, Steen McIntyre's RESEARCH was indeed altered by the head archaeologist of the site (by dropping a zero from the dates).

Please.

The site was not hers, nor was the research. She was part of a team of geologists paid by the actual researchers conducting the dig, Cynthia Irwin-Williams and Juan Armenta Camacho, and she was brought in as a doctroal candidate (perhaps it was right after she matriculated, I can't recall right now) at the request of the project's staff geologist, Hal Malde, in order to try to get a better date from the site than the one they were working with at the time - the ridiculous 1,000,000 YBP one I mentioned earlier - which everyone involved knew was wrong.

That was the extent of her involvement.

Anyone else here notice how the fringers rely solely on radiometric dating in this one, single instance but continue to claim that all other radiometric dating is "unreliable" when the dates so arrived at tend to contradict thier over-the-top, unevidenced claims??


Harte

[edit on 4/23/2009 by Harte]



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


i just think that any profession that is so obviously threatened by an IDEA ii.e. the fact that aliens might exist or might have been involved in the human past, has a problem. it cant remain aloof and scientific and unbiased, because science by its nature has to be open to ALL possibilities - particularly one as mundane and obvious as the existance of ET life - which our own science has pretty much decided must exist - is the current MAINSTREAM thinking, i think you might find.

and why am i saying that the profession won't consider this idea? well i base that only on what i've OBSERVED after at a university i went to. the very IDEA of aliens was ridiculed on OHT slides purporting to "debunk" these 'fringe theories'. (they had pictures of little aliens all around the sides of the OHT - even on slides that weren't about EVD's alien theory, but just about controversial discoveries in australia of pyramids/or shipwrecks from spanish sailors who allegedly discovered the coast before cook (and whats so crazy about that? they probly did. the dutch and pretty much half of europe went round australia before cook did).)

you were made to feel like you were dumb or crazy if you believed in these 'fringe theories' , just like you would be dumb or crazy if you believed in ETs. half the scientific community takes the likely existance of ET life int eh universe seriously. some mainstream scientists - physicists, astrophysicists, biologists looking at the start of life on earth have expressed the serious opinion that the building blocks of life must have been BROUGHT here by some intelligence - based on things that didnt add up to them scientifically. none of these guys were sacked or ridiculed. their theories are known.

re: funding. well, if ets did have a part in our early civilization, they really should find some money to fund the research cuz everyone's going to look pretty silly if it turns out thats what happened, and we didnt pick up on it after sifting thru every potsherd in egypt. (but missed the pyramid sitting there).
point is: there couldnt be a more important (or urgent) question in archaeology to study - if theres any evidence at all of this.

re: debunking information. yes i have read some of it. i heard all the arguments against the gympie pyramid, the spanish shipwrecks, the fossilized giant found in ireland, etc etc, EVD - palenque stone - we covered a lot in that tute. was i particularly impressed with any of it? not really. I certainly dont accept what they were saying uncritically. and i would not rule out the possibility that lies are being told. i was unimpressed totally with the supposed 'debunking' of the palenque stone. i found evd's explanation more plausible. (they apparantly werent even game to show a photo of the real stone - just showed us a pretty bad drawing of it - i wondered - to make it look LESS like a spaceman?

re: the gympie pyramid, something smells fishy to me. why all the tenseness? if theres no pyramid there, why dont they all relax? they're very tense about it. why all the rumours of a pyramid if no pyramid? why also wouldnt there be megalithic ruins or pyramids in australia? i expect that there SHOULD be some, cuz they're EVERYWhERE else in teh world pretty much. (even borneo has dolmen lying around in teh jungle.) there's megalithic platforms across the pacific and pyramid type structures on islands. i would be more surprised if there WASNT any megaliths or pyramids in australia than if there was. i also think it very likely that civilizations such as egypt, phonecians, etc probably made it down this far on some of their voyages. (let alone the spanish, who in my opnion would certainly have made it here - werent they in tahiti before cook too?).

yes, so i dont know about gympie either way; but i was NOT satisfied by the attempt to 'debunk' it - having read articiles and stories from both points of view, i am still undecided. it may or may not be apyramid. maybe ill go and look one day. but the fact that the govt wants to put a road right thru it makes me wonder a bit. it doesnt help me believe their case.

seems like everything they dont like or have an explanation for is a hoax. all i can say is there must be a frigging ARMY of people out there frantically making hoax artifacts to keep us crazy fringers interested. like the poor farmer or whatever he was in sth america who 'hoaxed' the inca stones - poor guy must have spent his entire life carving thousands of andesite stones (toughest rock around), put in some anatomical detail (on one of the dinosaurs) that we didnt know was correct until recently, and managed to get a filmy layer on top of the stones which suggests a great age. but wait, even if he had carved every day for his whole life, he probly still couldnt have carved them all. busy guy.

the photo of the fossilized giant they showed us from ireland, was not even the correct photo. they just showed us a carving that was made of it later. what am i supposed to conclude about that? nothing as far as i can tell.

i have been to the abydos website for seti's temple and ive read the 'recarving' explanation for the helicopter etc. on the temple. all i can say is, you non fringers are easily satisfied. someone says, oh' that was just re carved, obviously. and you guys go - yeah - obviously. we believe you - anyhing you say. what do you think they'd tell you if it WAS real? probably that dont worry - someone recarved it - its not really a helicopter.
each to their own of course.

to me - too much stuff adds up. i quite frankly do not believe there are that many hoaxers working around the clock to keep me interested. stones like baalbeck and tiwanaku and ollantaytambo fortress and sacsayhuaman make me pretty sure of that. however u are entitled to ur opinion... however there's no need to patronize me for mine. im not weak in the head. i have looked at a lot of stuff - and my current position is, i am not satisifed with the explanations in archaeology, and i find evd plausible - perhaps he is right - i am tending more in that direction. as you may find me ridiculous, it is just as likely that i may find your opinion ridiculous too. live and let live, i guess.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by rapunzel222
 


"i just think that any profession that is so obviously threatened by an IDEA ii.e. the fact that aliens might exist or might have been involved in the human past, has a problem."

The profession of archeology is not threatened by the idea of aliens existing. Only true believers think they are. To most archeologist, such an idea would be absurd, non-germane and irrelevant. True believers like to think they have a lock on the "truth", but until they prove such they're just a minor irritant.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Von Daniken simply makes too many SWAGs to be taken seriously, but in his defense, at least he is making guesses. Archeology today is just as ridiculous as Daniken. Everything 'ancient' has already been dug up, stolen, or under the control of various government agencies. Other than digging up, and studying things from a mere 100 years ago, there's not much else to do other than teach. The rest is mired in 'accepted' dogma where any 'new' find that doesn't fit a known hole is pounded in to fit, and there's little theory going on.

Honestly, with it's current state, other than as a way of drumming up tourism, archeology is virtually worthless.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by SpacePunk
 


"Everything 'ancient' has already been dug up, stolen, or under the control of various government agencies."

I'll notify all the current digs that you have decided that they're waiting their time. Time to evacuate Copan.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

I'll notify all the current digs that you have decided that they're waiting their time. Time to evacuate Copan.


No need. Tell them to hurry up so the tourism brochures can be printed.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpacePunk
Archeology today is just as ridiculous as Daniken. Everything 'ancient' has already been dug up, stolen, or under the control of various government agencies.


I'm guessing that you have not actually spoken to anybody in the field, because you could not be more wrong...and I'm not even going to qualify that statement because it's all self-eveident.

And Rapunzel? You can push the Alien agenda all you like, but I'm sticking with the Smurff theorum...Smurffs done it, and you can't prove otherwise.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by rapunzel222
 


"i just think that any profession that is so obviously threatened by an IDEA ii.e. the fact that aliens might exist or might have been involved in the human past, has a problem."

The profession of archeology is not threatened by the idea of aliens existing. Only true believers think they are. To most archeologist, such an idea would be absurd, non-germane and irrelevant. True believers like to think they have a lock on the "truth", but until they prove such they're just a minor irritant.


Good point. The 'alien intervention' ideas relating to AE are a good example. Primary/secondary sources, cross referenced with contemporary records etc etc. Burial goods...stele...tomb paintings all provide an understanding of the development of the Giza Plateau.

Maybe aliens where buzzing around and creating stone monuments using stone and copper tools? It really doesn't matter because the facts of AE demonstrate a solely human creation. Furthermore, a solely human creation built using the tools and materials available at that time
Aliens aren't even a twinkle in the eye.

The handful of archaeologists on ATS are less 'threatened' than 'frustrated, tired and frequently bored' by challenging the same ideas every month. I can't recall seeing a 'lost civilization/ forbidden archaeology' fan concede a point on any similar forum. They cheerfully use science when it supports an idea and then dismiss it as a farce when it opposes their ideas. If not for the Hancocks, fringe history would likely be stagnant.



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by rapunzel222
 


"i just think that any profession that is so obviously threatened by an IDEA ii.e. the fact that aliens might exist or might have been involved in the human past, has a problem."

The profession of archeology is not threatened by the idea of aliens existing. Only true believers think they are. To most archeologist, such an idea would be absurd, non-germane and irrelevant. True believers like to think they have a lock on the "truth", but until they prove such they're just a minor irritant.


True believers? what a bizarre terminology. the words just sound dumb to me. they imply that people who consider the possibilty that aliens might exist dont exercise scepticism like 'normal' people (i.e. people who dont believe in aliens) do. Many scientists believe in aliens. they base it on forumulae and theories about planet and universe formation. are they 'true believers' ?

thats exactly the problem. that they consider the idea to be absurd. too absurd to even be considered. hence they wont be likely to notice any evidence that backs teh idea up becuz they cant even entertain the idea, due to their preconceived biases. probably why archaeologists arent really succeeding in convincing the rest of the population that they know the reasons for human development etc. becuz people as a group can be smart - and they have intuitively seen some truth in von daniken; or he wouldnt have sold so many books. they intuitively realize that archaeologists arent getting anywhere and dont have the answers.

'minor irritant' - i think they're a pretty major irritant, actually. considering the trouble they all seem driven to go to to debunk these theories all the time. if they're no threat, why even bother to debunk. just ignore.?



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by rapunzel222
 


"True believers? what a bizarre terminology. the words just sound dumb to me. they imply that people who consider the possibilty that aliens might exist dont exercise scepticism like 'normal' people (i.e. people who dont believe in aliens) do."

Check the number of hoax vids that are taken as "absolutely real" by true believers. Then tell me they exercise skepticism.

But, for the fun of it, have you ever tried to prove a piece of information was real? If so, how did you go about it?

BTW, I hope aliens exist, I believe they have a good chance of existing. I have seen no evidence that they have visited Earth. In 4,000,000,000 years, they MIGHT have visited Earth, but for most of that time all they would have seen is a dead planet or cyanobacteria.



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by rapunzel222 they intuitively realize that archaeologists arent getting anywhere and dont have the answers.


EVD, Barry Fell, Graham Hancock et al...all propel their various fairy tales using 'intutive leaps'. They fill in a gap with a suggestion, and create a world around the results. Seems to me that the financial community did the same of late. Go nuts, but I wouldn't bet the farm.

And those of you who are so earnest...please, please, talk to an archaeologist. Phone a university...make an appointment...chat!

Frankly, that resource is available to everybody. To not put in that minimal an effort when professing an opinion on the subject, is to aggressively promote stupidity.

Seek real enlightenment...then talk to me about what some guy on the Net told you.

[edit on 25-4-2009 by JohnnyCanuck]



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   
I´ve read 15+ Daniken books and another few dozen by similar authors.

As best I could I tried following up on various stuff, going to libraries (pre-internet times), browsing the internet, etc. Some of what he wrote could be verified. Some could not. Some of what he wrote made sense and added up. Some of it did not.

Whats with all the black and white thinking here? Nothing is either black or white.

[edit on 25-4-2009 by Skyfloating]



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
I´ve read 15+ Daniken books and another few dozen by similar authors.

As best I could I tried following up on various stuff, going to libraries (pre-internet times), browsing the internet, etc. Some of what he wrote could be verified. Some could not. Some of what he wrote made sense and added up. Some of it did not.

Whats with all the black and white thinking here? Nothing is either black or white.

[edit on 25-4-2009 by Skyfloating]


Do you think von D. or Hancock are more credible than 99.999% of archeological research?



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating The black and white thinking displayed here is far from intelligent.


Talk to a professional...don't just suck up what people selling books tell you that professionals say. Go to the website of your local University. Scope out who is doing what in Anthropology/Archaeology. Call them and make an appointment. Tell them why, and bring a list of questions.

Then tell me if everything they say is suspect.

Frankly, anything less is...if you'll excuse the nomanclature...simply j3rking off. And there is far, far too much of that going on around here disguised as 'science'.



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
Do you think von D. or Hancock are more credible than 99.999% of archeological research?


You`re one who goes around here all day serving black/white thinking. I personally know a few archaeologists who enjoy reading Daniken. Just because you dont does not mean everyone else doesn't.



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


So in your belief-system it is taken for granted that I dont know any archaeologists and anthropologists and do not set foot in Universities?

Odd.




[edit on 25-4-2009 by Skyfloating]





new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join