Originally posted by moocowman
So Von Daniken made a few mistakes (lies) so what ? Archeologists do it and perpetuate the mistake (lie) I wonder if those that vilify Von Daniken still teach that an imaginary race of Aryan people conquered northern India.

Actually, Von Daniken is an excellent example to use of "fringe science" because he gives only part of the facts and reinterprets them to fit his ideas.

Someone mentioned the Palenque tomb lid, for example, saying that VonD had it right and that the Mayas had no idea what was on the stone. The problem with this is that VonD deliberately left out the writing that's on the lid and on the sarcophagus and all around the site in order that he could interpret it as he wished. It would have been embarrassing for his book if anyone could pick it up, go to a dictionary of the Mayan symbols, and start reading what was written by the Mayans.

Likewise his "ancient Mayan elephant" which shows up occasionally. The image is an "elephant" if you're shown a drawing of only PART of the object and if you're told "look at the elephant."

Teaching young archaeologists about his books and showing them the whole body of evidence and explaining why he's wrong is the right thing to do. For many years, it was assumed that rational people would check all the evidence and see that he was wrong and dismiss him. But in the Internet age, and with YouTube, this isn't happening. Others build on his work without even checking the original material (like the Assyrian seal that Hancock shows around... and conveniently leaves off the inscription part.)

We do need to educate archaeologists and anthropologists about the "fringe theories" and give them the WHOLE bundle of facts on the artifacts and sites and claims. We need to show them the COMPLETE artifacts from all sides (the entire lintel at Abydos with the "helicopter") so they can see the objects in context and see what's around them instead of being shown a part of something that's completely out of context.

And I think they should reshelve VonD's books under "fiction."

Science is an evolving medium, like Mormonism. Researchers and scientists once believed that the smaller of the male genitalia of races meant they were smarter.

Okay, that makes sense... little green men, and all. No wonder they can travel through space.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

Originally posted by Devino
Why is it that theories for ancient advanced technologies are dismissed from the lack of evidence of infrastructures like an electrical grid and roads/highways. Is it so hard to imagine broadcasting electricity without wires and transportation without the automobile?

Nice inflation, btw. "electrical grid and roads/highways"? Where did I mention roads/highways?

That was a general point, not directed at you personally, that I hoped would inspire a closer look at what we consider to be technological advancement. Both the automobile, with all of the needed roads and highways, and the electrical grid are more of an impedance to our progression then a sign of advancement.

Perhaps one day we may become so advanced as to rid ourselves and our environment of these toxic and destructive devices and focus on what is important.

he's not a con man. its very likely there are tunnels under south america. he is not the only person to have seen them. there are accounts of schoolkids going missing down tunnels under malta and in cuzco. he has been silenced with ridicule and accusations that he fabricated evidence. most of the evidence i saw in his books was certainly not ABLE to be fabricated. it was an ancient text, (the BIBLE) which anyoen can check; or a stone like palenque; or a building like macchu picchu; or a rock painting in the tassili mountains which EXISTS. you cant make this stuff up. nor do you need to. why would he NEED to fabricate evidence? All this stuff is real, its there, and it fits into his theory nicely. i can see no motivation for him to 'fabricate' anything. what exactly, is he accused of fabricating (which specific rock painting? cuz all the pictures i've seen i have since found on mainstream archaeological sites).

you can't have a 'bogus' interpretation. you weren't alive then, neither were archaeologists. no one knows why religions developed and if the ancient 'gods' were real beings or not. to know, you would need to be there. you can have someone's interpretation that you either find convincing or not. an interpretation cant be 'bogus' unless you can prove it.

nothing daniken says has been disproven yet.

archaeologists are still trying to figure out why people developed religion and social structures suddenly. ancient astronauts landing and teaching them about civilization sounds like as reasonable a theory to me as any others ive heard. there are many unexplained things about our human past.

but the point im really wanting to make, is legally, these books and lectures could easily amount to defamation of hancock and daniken's character. to have defamation you need accusations that tend to reduce someone's esteem in the eyes of their peers or the public; published and distributed to the public. this has all been done at these lectures. the only defence to a defamation action by him would be for the lecturers to prove that his theories aren't true. and as no one can do this; they would lose and have to pay him out.

and if i was him, i would sue their little arses off. but he probably doesnt know its even happening.

The first Von Daniken book was interesting upon first read. I persisted & read the next 4-5 books. Those books just got more & more outlandish.
Whilst I might consider he actually believed some of what he wrote in the first book, there's no way he could have believed what he was writing in those later books. Those books became so bad, I'm suprised any university refers to them for any reason at all.
I believe he simply kept writing for the $.