should von daniken sue?

reply to post by Kryties


Sorry, but that's just a convenient place to upload it. If you'd like a 10 meg PDF file by email, that's fine.

Von Daniken's explanation for the Nazca Lines can't be disproven for obvious reasons. The lines are 2500 years old and their are no survivors or photos from the period. The Nazca Lines are a series of huge glyphs in the Nazca desert of Peru. Some are spirals, some are geometric lines and some are native animals like monkeys. The lines are largely invisible from the ground and can be as large as 350 feet. They can be seen clearly from the air and their purpose has been lost to time.

Von Daniken's theory is that they are a 'spaceport' and the glyphs are in fact 'runways' for spaceships and ET visitors...'the Gods.'

The idea that they are meant to be seen by their 'gods' is reasonable and reflected amongst many cultures across the world at that time. North Europeans, Egyptians, Sumerians etc where all creating signs of worship in different formats. All of them at one point or other have portrayed abstract figures and local wildlife. It's painted on cave walls and carved into rock faces worldwide.

The Nazcans showed their gods by leaving the lines in the ground. It was done simply. They uncovered the shallow surface of rusty colored pebbles to reveal the lighter ground beneath. They were able to plot straight lines using the same technique used since prehistory. They used posts in the ground to draw sightlines. At least one of these posts has been found and dated to 200BC iirc. The reason they have survived for all these centuries is the location rather than ET intervention.

That they looked to the sky for at least some of their gods can be supported by the discovery of Peruvian mummies. Many well-preserved bodies have been found on the peaks of the Andes in Peru. They are considered tributes to the gods.

We don't know much more than that about the lines. The Nazcans are unusual in their location. The environment wasn't as rich in resources as maybe Egypt, North Europe and other large cultures. Their means of expression was found in the huge tapestry of the desert floor.

The point I'm trying to make here is that there was no reason for Von Daniken to make the spectacular leap in concluding it was an alien space port. Archaeologists continue to try and understand what the lines represent and why the Nazcans made them. Given that other structures from the period were religious or astronomical in purpose it seems reasonable to focus on those avenues. Is there any reason to think spaceport?

reply to post by Kandinsky


von D.'s speculations can't be proved either, so we shouldn't take them as gospel. However, we can look at them with a skeptical eye and try to weed out the fluff from his theories. Unfortunately, that doesn't leave anything to examine.

"Von Daniken's theory is that they are a 'spaceport' and the glyphs are in fact 'runways' for spaceships and ET visitors...'the Gods.'"

Question: Why would spaceships need "runways"?

I think I need to restate my position on Daniken's theories. While I believe that much of the actual 'subject matter' definitely raises questions about our true history, I am not a big fan of many of Daniken's interpretations of them.

For instance, while I believe that the Nazca Lines present many questions about the people who made them and their purpose, I do not believe mainstream science has presented a satisfactory answer nor do I believe Daniken's assertions that they are a runway of some description, which are just a shot in the dark at best.

reply to post by Kryties


"For instance, while I believe that the Nazca Lines present many questions about the people who made them and their purpose, I do not believe mainstream science has presented a satisfactory answer nor do I believe Daniken's assertions that they are a runway of some description, which are just a shot in the dark at best."

Sounds reasonable, to a point. Why are you dissatisfied with the archeologists' studies? And what would you put forward as an explanation?

reply to post by Kryties

And
reply to post by Gawdzilla

Have you both been knocking heads for the last ten posts and you borderline agree with each other?

Question: Why would spaceships need "runways"?

For instance, while I believe that the Nazca Lines present many questions about the people who made them and their purpose, I do not believe mainstream science has presented a satisfactory answer nor do I believe Daniken's assertions that they are a runway of some description, which are just a shot in the dark at best.

It seems you both agree that Von Daniken has stretched his material beyond what was necessary. It seems that Kryties is saying that 'some' of the mysteries are worthy of more investigation. Whereas Gawdzilla is saying that Von Daniken is making ridiculous claims. Is that a fair assessment? If it is, you're 'debating' two different subjects and neither can triumph This isn't me trying to jump in on your disagreement or even take a side. I'm just pointing out in a VERY friendly way that you're sort of shadow boxing and I don't require flaming for it

reply to post by Kandinsky


My beef is the huffing and puffing and putting people down for believing something different, and then without presenting evidence of their own. This is NOT the way to conduct one's self in the pursuit of knowledge.

reply to post by Kandinsky


I'm not interested in "triumphs", I just want to get a point across. I'll have that PDF up today. Wally World takes priority right now, however. "Fancy Feast, now, or we do terrible things to your speakers."

reply to post by Gawdzilla

This is no longer a vacation. It's a quest, a quest for fun. I'm gonna have fun and your gonna have fun. We're gonna have so much SNIPing fun they're gonna need plastic surgeons to remove the smiles from our SNIPing faces. We'll be whistling zippity-doo-dah out of our SNIP holes

National Lampoons Vacation

I just checked V Daniken's wiki page and was surprised to find he has quite a criminal background for fraud. He's been embezzling and served three years inside.

In 1967, soon after Chariots of the Gods was published he was arrested and charged by Interpol with fraud and tax evasion for non-payment of $14,000.00. On behalf of the prosecution, he was ordered by the Court to undergo psychological examinations. During the investigation, authorities uncovered a large personal debt totaling about $700,000. Von Däniken was found guilty of embezzlement, and he served more than three years in Swiss prisons.[5] Von Däniken stated in the preface of his book Return to the Stars that it was written while he was "in prison on remand"

Wiki

reply to post by Kandinsky


reply to post by Kandinsky


That's not von D.'s only conviction for fraud. He stole, IIRC, from a Boy Scout troop as well. Detail when I get the PDF ready for your download.

Ancient Aliens?

9.25 meg.

There you go. Any comments?

Originally posted by rapunzel222
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.

Hancock tried this legal tactic already, when he sued the BBC for it's "Horizons" program that caught him basically in a lie.

The same program caught VonDaniken in a far more serious lie - he admitted to paying a potter to creat the "Lolladoff Plate," an ersatz "ancient artifact" that showed an alien "Grey" and a modern interpretation of a UFO.

V.D. justified it by saying that no one would believe him "without any evidence," hence he was justified in forging it!

BTW, Hancock lost the case against BBC and was lucky they didn't countersue.

Harte

Originally posted by Kryties
The only 'babble box' I am seeing here is you. Daniken, while I do not agree with all of his theories, has certainly presented some very interesting anomalies that deserve a closer examination.

He hasn't though has he? What "anomalies" has he actually discovered himself?

The Nazca lines for example.

The Nazca lines, while very interesting, are essentially flattened strips of earth. VD turns up and, without doing any proper research, declares then landing strips for galaxy faring aliens. A laughable suggestion if you think about for a couple of minutes - why would a species capable of crossing the vast hard vacuum of space need to have some slightly flattened earth to land their ships on? Or that some of their landing strips need to be arranged to look like monkeys? Either way, VD has never carried out any proper research - he just makes it up as he goes along.

Or the Baghdad Battery (which you nicely boxed into the 'anomaly' category). These are among many examples that I can think of off the top of my head that I have not yet heard a decent explanation from mainstream archaeologists.

The reason they haven't come to a conclusion on the 'battery' (which, despite it's nickname, could never have worked as a practical battery) is because their isn't enough data. To pretend otherwise would be lying. Speculation is good, but only if clearly stated as such.

They, like you, put it into the 'too hard' basket and sweep it under the rug.

The Nazca lines and the 'battery' have been swept 'under the rug'?? You must be kidding. There have been tons of papers and books written by scholars and researchers over the years - they have been very well publicised.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
Ancient Aliens?

9.25 meg.

There you go. Any comments?

I'm really surprised that Skeptics in the US will print 'Junior Skeptic' manuals. I guess there's a need?! I skimmed through it quite quickly and have only two problems with it.

Firstly, it's quite a character assassination. He has a character open to assassination, but I'd prefer a look into the flaws of his interpretations. Let adults worry about his honesty and integrity. The second problem, is where it brings up the 'hot air balloon' idea relating to Nazca Lines. Just seems unnecessary. No evidence that they used hot air balloons beyond the words of one guy IIRC.

Other than that, all the points raised seem quite accurate. I've saved a copy, thanks.

reply to post by Kandinsky


First, somebody need to kit out the children with some sensible counters to the awful tripe published in this field and shown on the babble box.

Second, von D.'s character begs for assassination.

Third, they actually built the hot air balloon and flew it. Kind of a "clincher" for the possibility, if not the actual use.

reply to post by Gawdzilla


That, of course, makes you all knowing in the fields of history from all over the world. Hmmm...

One all knowing should know then that history, or our interpretation of it, is constantly changing as new facts come to light through...wait for it...wait...research both in the library and in the field. But then you knew that.

As far as sueing goes? Not gonna happen, he has no case, even were he to bother. Many of his suppositions are just that, suppositions that are at this time unverified, to say the least...

I'm skeptical, to say the least, of most of Mr. Von Daniken's claims, yet I'm not so dogmattically hidebound as to dismiss as catagorically false his suppositions. Open mind, means open brain...yet not so open as to let the brains spill out.

Who knows what evidence may come 'round the pike at us, over the next few years?

reply to post by seagull


"That, of course, makes you all knowing in the fields of history from all over the world. Hmmm... "

You're welcome to do better.

reply to post by seagull


You weren't disproving anything, or proving for that matter, you made a blanket statement that I, obviously, disagreed with. My apologies if I offended, that certainly wasn't my intent.

Sarcasm aside (mine), Von Daniken did provide sources for his theories...it's up to peers, or readers, to disprove his theories. That is where you, as a person who quite obviously disagrees with him, come in.

Some of the oddities that he mentions in his books are still mysteries. Are they artifacts from ancient astronauts? Unlikely. We're agreed on that. Are they explained? Not so much.

I'll try to come up with some links to some of those oddities for a later post. It's time for this night owl to go to sleep.

Again, if I offended with my sarcasm, I do most humbly apologize, it was not my intent.

I think Graham Hancock has a better theory with his ancient civilization theory, the "Ancient Sea Kings" one that has been around for a while. The ancient astronaut theory wants to answer all the questions, but leads me to ask why would aliens from other worlds spend their time building old fashioned monuments?

I believe we were visited, but they enforced a "Prime Directive" type rule regarding leaving us to our own devices.

The fringe authors do ask a lot of questions that have not been answered. I am open to all ideas, but would like more evidence to support any ancient astronaut theory. The math questions and measurements do mean the knowledge has been around for tens of thousands of years. Does it mean they had Ipods or flying machines back then? Not necessarily, as they could have developed more on the spiritual side than the materialistic side. I will keep an open mind, and will read all the theories out there. I will make up my own mind, and not let some fringe element or debunkers do it for me.

reply to post by kidflash2008


"I will make up my own mind, and not let some fringe element or debunkers do it for me. "

You prefer to debunk the theories yourself?