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?

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.

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.

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.