should von daniken sue?

Originally posted by Skyfloating

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.

Really? You exhibit classic "mine is good, everyone else is bad" behavior.

You are proud of the fact that you've read over a dozen books of fringe material. If you had read that many books on the "white" side, you might have a better grasp of the matter. I started reading fringe literature in the mid-1960s. Frank Edwards, I think the guy was called. I figured out rather rapidly how coherent his thinking was when I tried to confirm his theories with other literature.

Again...presupposing that I havent read that many "other side" books (Ive read more in fact...I read 1-2 books a month on any subject).

Hard for you to imagine that University-Folk are interested in fringe subjects?

This BS is not worth my time. Im outta here.

[edit on 25-4-2009 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by Skyfloating
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.

Not really...see, due to my belief system, I went to a local Levantine Archaeologist and spoke to him about what I'd read by Hancock...things about the mysteries of quarrying the stones of the pyramids. He gently set me straight, told me how he had excavated quarry sites and uncovered half completed stones accompanied by the tools used to finish them.

I then took a number of degree courses...practical and theoretical, including a field school. I did quite well. I'm published, working on the next peer review, and have a pretty good record as an avocational.

So my belief system is to go to the fringes...which is where I work...but to call Bravo Sierra when you see it. So I have.

Originally posted by Skyfloating I personally know a few archaeologists who enjoy reading Daniken. Just because you dont does not mean everyone else doesn't.

The only one that I know that reads EVD et al is a government one who is compelled to read this stuff so he has an idea of what the flakes are talking about. You say 'reading'...you don't say they believe it.

Big difference.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Again...presupposing that I havent read that many "other side" books (Ive read more in fact...I read 1-2 books a month on any subject).

Hard for you to imagine that University-Folk are interested in fringe subjects?

This BS is not worth my time. Im outta here.

[edit on 25-4-2009 by Skyfloating]

Pity you have to go. I'd love to exchange University experiences with you.

If you had read the hard science you would have trotted it out earlier.

Since Skyfloating has left this thread, I will try to keep the debate real.

I am one who has been to college and has read all kinds of history books. I am one to think logically, but I also have many questions. I am an outright skeptic on some claims, and all one needs to do is read my responses in the Edgar Cayce threads (I think he was a well practiced charlatan).

I do not necessarily believe everything in the books written by Erich Von Daniken, Graham Hancock and others, but I like to read about their ideas. EVD did make some errors of judgment which would make it very difficult for him to sue.

Graham Hancock's book "Fingerprints of the Gods" has me much more interested in preserving Ancient American sites and Egyptology again. After reading his books, I want to go to Egypt and South America and see the sites for myself, just to revel in what our ancestors built. That does not mean I believe space aliens built them, but the books did rekindle my desire to go to those places before I leave this world.

I have also been to a few Native American archeology digs, and thought they were quite interesting.

The idea of a theory is to gather the evidence and test it in regards to such an idea. I have no problem with Herr Von Daniken or Mr Hancock in what they write and the ideas they espouse. I will make my own conclusions as I learn more and more, especially if I get to the ancient sites.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

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]

Intuitive leaps? yeah, well i guess thats what it is. thats where all new ideas come from. If einstein had never made any intuitive leaps physics would be in a worse state today. The greeks used to call it intuitos i hear. two types of thinking: the slow and laborious proof type - which is essential. you have to verify things of course. but then certain people they believed were just gifted with the ability to 'see' things - see a few steps ahead. In those days, they were respected. These days, people dont even believe the ability of intuitos exists. I think its just an ability people like EVD and Hancock have of seeing unusal connections and seeing ways of INTERPRETING evidence that hasnt been considered before. Sure it will all eventually have to be proven. this is where the scientists can come along and study and test it. and while they're proving it, (im pretty sure it WILL be proven at some time that aliens were here and probably were the ones we referred to as 'gods') the intuitos folk will be off thinking of some other new thoery and seeing other new connections. they'll already be bored by what the mainstream is fiddling around with.

We're just trying to let you know what we can see

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

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.

Hah. you might be more right than you realize. I refer you to my post about blue and green skinned aliens (in ancient times, e.g. osiris, indian gods) and to perhaps their genetic throwbacks in modern times - blue people of the appalachian mountains.

Originally posted by rapunzel222
Intuitive leaps? yeah, well i guess thats what it is. thats where all new ideas come from. If einstein had never made any intuitive leaps physics would be in a worse state today.

True...but he used them to assemble a hypothesis...what if...then set about testing it using scientific principles.

He didn't just built a box and ask what happens if I press this button?

Also, there's a genetic reason for the blue-bloods of Appalachia. But go with the Alien/Smurff theory...fill yer boots.

reply to post by rapunzel222
I suspect the portrayals of various Gods with blue or green skin reflects the limits of human imagination. Early Sci-fi writers struggled to create plausible aliens that differed from humans. It's difficult enough, as a writer, to escape the humanoid template we're familiar with. To emphasize the differences, aliens were given blue or green skin (Star Trek?). The occurrences of ancient blue-skinned Gods could simply be an early demonstration of the same line of thinking.

Sci-fi and fantasy writers (and young school children!) still do so today. I think it's a more likely explanation than actual alien gods.

reply to post by Kandinsky


I loved Star Trek. Pointy Ears and a serious manner makes you a totally different alien person.
And that was one of the times they were trying. Even our legends of mythological creatures are primarily exaggerations of normal beings.

New Thread: Aliens of Ancient China

Originally posted by Kandinsky To emphasize the differences, aliens were given blue or green skin (Star Trek?).

Ah, yes...the infamous "Green B!tch" c/o Eddie Murphy.

Gee...... my University portfolio is bigger than yours; I heard similar debates before.....ad nauseum.

Originally posted by KRISKALI777
Gee...... my University portfolio is bigger than yours; I heard similar debates before.....ad nauseum.

Perhaps, but in certain discussions, a BSc in anthropology trumps a PhD in early English literature. Like they say, don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Fight
This is a mere war of Egos. Anyone that choses to embark upon coarse of study and receives the fruits of such accolades should be applauded (by me anyway..I respect that discipline).
In saying that, there are many disciplines which require much more demanding sacrifice than academia....and are much more respect-worthy.
Dont walk around thinking that you are a prodigy of intellect just because you may have a certificate saying your title is this or that.
Very soon Humanity may need educated individuals WHO DON'T CARE FOR PERSONAL POWER - to lead; and not quibble over Ego rubbish.
We may have half a chance as a race (present world events ;as indicator for needed change), if academics would stop ladder climbing and devote their intellect to building a better humanity- that is if your really that intelligent
You see, respect is a reciprocal entity I.E: if you cant give it, you'll never receive it; It blows me away, the people that I know, that have gained said titles that have not developed social intellect; thats just plain stupid!
If you want to lead- Have genuine compassion, Know how to socially interact without alienating your would-be subjects, use your amazing intellect for the perpetuation of a better world, BLAH BLAH BLAH...you already know the rest??!!
Lastly, great leaders should be able to punch their way out of a paper bag- I've met a few that can ( be nice to see more with intellect though, than just outright thugs).

Originally posted by KRISKALI777
It blows me away, the people that I know, that have gained said titles that have not developed social intellect; thats just plain stupid!

Why? Just because you're smart it doesn't follow that you have any social skills. But that doesn't prevent you from being right, either. I once read that an expert is somebody who has chosen to be ignorant of all subjects but one.

You'll notice though, that before credentials get trotted out around here, there's generally a challenge thrown out by those unencumbered by facts.

Anyway...I still think Von Daniken should sue.

Can I get a witness?

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Hey man!

Just because you're smart it doesn't follow that you have any social skills.

I agree, Its just that I don't meet many "smart" people that have social skills.
Not important you say? wouldn't this be an overall indicator of well-rounded intellect?
Just image this uncommon scenario : A person that had; social/emotional/intellectual intelligence, and was compassionate to those less intellectually endowed. And for the "Coup de grace", was interested in leading the people to a better Humanity rther than the sham governments we have now.
Just getting my point....an yes it is off topic...but the previous topic of banter forced me to spit it out
As for Van Daniken.....c'mon man; he's always been a plagiarist- so therefore a sham. 2 crap books (of was it 3?); no new knowledge, yet presented as his own and why?
Simply because he was the only one to put it all into a T.V. documentary (at that time).
SUE VAN DANIKEN!!!!!

Originally posted by KRISKALI777 Its just that I don't meet many "smart" people that have social skills. Not important you say? wouldn't this be an overall indicator of well-rounded intellect?

We're talking apples and oranges here. I'm not tackling leadership here, I'm speaking to academe in general. And after working for a university for over two decades, I know what I'm saying about smarts and social graces...they don't always go hand in hand.

Leadership? Not looking for flames, here, but it seems to me that most intellectual politicians are centre-left in orientation....but that's quite another thread.

Von Daniken?...don't get me wrong...I wanna see him sue - not win. Just get me a front row seat.




[edit on 8-5-2009 by JohnnyCanuck]

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Ha Ha Ha
Very nasty, and financially crippling; yet, I like it!
Just his early 1990's "opening of the Pyramid door' T.V. program was enough- in this one his audience; vomited into the molds of nine inch long coffin nails: of which, through-out the program matured and set, leaving no-one in the audience but Van Daniken himself, who then completed the hammering
You bring the peanuts, I'll bring the beer