Originally posted by Gawdzilla
So? Anybody debunked the Jr. Skeptic articles yet?
So you are expecting us to bother debunking a magazine that is designed for and marketed to young teenagers? Should I be offended or just laugh at the
fact that this is the 'great and startling evidence' that you promised us yesterday?
The whole magazine barely scratches the surface of many of the mysteries. Even when they do they have carefully picked only some of the more
outrageous claims by Daniken and used this as their whole basis without satisfactorily answering the mysteries themselves in many cases.
To focus on just one point in the article, the one I'll look at is Nazca. Now I have already clarified my position on Daniken's interpretations of
these lines and images, but "Junior Sceptic's" version of events is incomplete at best and supposition through and through. For instance take this
example on page 17....
But why make giant art? Everyone agrees that the lines had some religious purpose. Some feel the lines honored water gods in the nearby mountains
since the Nazca Plain is a parched desert.
People have always made special places for religious worship. Is there any specific reason to think this particular religious site was inspired
by the landing of an ancient mining fleet? Is there any concrete evidence to support Erich von Daniken's claim that aliens made the first lines "as
landing orientation" for their ships?
No, there isn't. It's just a story von Daniken made up, based only on his feelings that the lines vaguely resembled an airport.
That whole section is ridiculous. Erich von Daniken never claimed his theory was anything BUT a theory, and yet 'Junior Sceptic' asserts that he was
touting it as fact.
Not to mention the fact that while they seem to have a wonderful time tearing von Daniken's THEORIES
apart, they fail dismally in providing
their own explanation for the Nazca Lines. Their assertion that the Nazca Lines are places of religious worship based on the fact that "People have
always made special places for religious worship" is weak at best and also no better than supposition or theory.
In essence all they do is accuse von Daniken of "making things up" while doing no better than that themselves.
Even given that von Daniken is wrong in his theory, at least he tried which is more than what I can say for a lot of "mainstream science" including
your precious "Junior Sceptic".
While the magazine covers more than just the Nazca Lines, I do not have the time or the brainpower to bore myself into a coma by picking apart the
entire article. Rest assured though that the article basically does more of the same, as I have described above, throughout it's entirety.
In closing this post I want to quote a line that Gawdzilla posted in the thread Required
reading for the alien arguement:
reply to post by Gawdzilla
Your list is biased and pre-loaded toward acceptance of the conclusion without questioning the authenticity of the material or the validity of the
conclusions of the authors.
In other words, why bother reading anything, just make up what you want as you go along.
Your magazine - "Junior Sceptic" - is biased and pre-loaded toward acceptance of the conclusion without questioning the authenticity of the
material or the validity of the conclusions of the authors.
[edit on 14/4/2009 by Kryties]