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.
National Lampoons Vacation
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
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. Von Däniken stated in the preface of his book Return to the Stars that it was written while he was "in prison on remand"
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.
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.
The Nazca lines for example.
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.
They, like you, put it into the 'too hard' basket and sweep it under the rug.
Originally posted by Gawdzilla
There you go. Any comments?