should von daniken sue?

reply to post by Gawdzilla


I did not say I will debunk any theories, but look into them and find evidence to support them if possible. That does not mean I believe all the theories I read, but think they do deserve the right to be heard.
Stanton Friedman has some good articles on debunkers at his site:

www.stantonfriedman.com...

Here is a copy of part of his response to a debunker's article:

Of course he refused my challenge to a public debate. As might be expected, he followed the four basic rules for UFO debunking: 1. Don't bother me with the facts, my mind is made up. 2. What the public doesn't know, I will not tell them. 3. If I can't attack the data, I will attack the people; it is easier. And 4. I will do my research by proclamation, since investigation is too difficult.

Just replace UFO with any other alternative or fringe topic.

reply to post by kidflash2008


"1. Don't bother me with the facts, my mind is made up. 2. What the public doesn't know, I will not tell them. 3. If I can't attack the data, I will attack the people; it is easier. And 4. I will do my research by proclamation, since investigation is too difficult."

Stanton borrowed that from a discussion about ID proponents. It's nothing new, just excuses. If you look carefully, you'll see that it fits most of the believers you've ever met as well.

reply to post by Gawdzilla


I am using his argument about the tactics most debunkers use. I am also trying to state I am not a debunker, but not a blind believer either. I am one to read what is being said and take everything into consideration. I am also bothered that Erich Von Daniken did lie in his early books. Especially the part where he had a few artifacts made up. It was not necessary, as he has found many mysterious things to support his hypothesis.

I am also one to think the ancient astronaut theory has many holes in it. I am one to go along with Graham Hancock's view that a much earlier civilization existed. I also would like to see physical proof of such a civilization, but will not rule it out because it is lacking any proof. A hypothesis is just that until it can be proven, just like any other theory.

I appreciate skeptics as they do keep many researchers on their toes and ask the tough questions. I can't say the same for debunkers.

reply to post by kidflash2008


"I am using his argument about the tactics most debunkers use."

Debunkers point out the bunk in a position. Why would anyone want to keep "bunk", it's just junk in the trunk.

So? Anybody debunked the Jr. Skeptic articles yet? It should have been easy for VD lovers. (Um, I may need to work on that.)

reply to post by kidflash2008


I think you got it! I admire your approach in this manner, there is a lot to be learned from this perspective.

A theory is a presentation of ideas and a theorist is the one who presents them thus contributing something that's open for debate.
A skeptic is one who questions with impartiality (that means "skeptical inquirer" is redundant), to question only contradictions and accept without question compliments to your theory is to follow blindly.
Debunking adds nothing to a debate and by using destructive tactics such as ridicule, threats and insults it becomes a negative or an obstacle that needs to be overcome in order to advance technologically, socially and psychologically.

This debate here reminds me of divide and conquer tactics similar to America's bipartisan government. When focus is diverted to the extreme sides then we lose sight of the original subject, in this case, Archaeology; Scientific study of material remains of past human life and activities. I don't see where theorizing, debunking or ridicule has anything to do with any 'ology'.

My comments are on the subject matter and not intended to be taken personally.

reply to post by rapunzel222


Our universities have long ceased to be places for open thought and free discussion.

Tenure has given professors the right to dictate what students will think without repercussion.

We are falling behind the rest of the world and do not see it happening. Or, maybe we've endorsed it!

Deny ignorance.

jw

(did you see the History Channel show on his work? It's been on twice recently.)

Originally posted by rapunzel222

Personally i think most archaeolgists are living in the dark ages. Times have changed. Einstein himself believed in an advanced civilization taht existed in antiquity and wrote the introduction to charles hapgood's path of the pole.

Sagan believed in early advanced civilizations and ancient astronauts, and he was not one to jump at UFO/ET stories.

If it's good enough for him, it's good enough for me.

jw

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]

Exactly the response I expected.

von D. has been exposed as a fraud and a con man by endless sources. You'll have to live with that.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by ElectroMagnetic Multivers

 

I know there is a maximum number of characters allowed in any post here. That's why I don't feel constrained to explain every tiny thing that is capable of being misunderstood, EMM. But, since you seem sincerely befuddled I'll expand just a bit.

The Baghdad Battery is interesting. However, without an infrastructure to take advantage of electricity, it's just an anomaly, not an Earth-shaking moment.

For me it's not even the possibility that they could've had electricity, which I personally doubt, it's that they were playing around with these concepts two thousand or so years ago, and we 're-discovered' this a little over a century ago!

To me, thats incredible and should be taught in every school around the world, to show children, our future species, that the world isn't so cut and dry, this and many other OOPARTS are ignored because they don't fit, when IMO they should be embraced because they don't fit, it reminds us that we are not right, all the time, that we have alot of discovering still to do.

If we continue down this road, we will be forever lost in the inaccuracies and inconsistencies of our current arrogance.

I'd like to add that I'm a believer that at some point in our past, there could have been a large civilization, maybe more advanced than us, maybe not, but a large civilization that pretty much roamed the Earth and made it their own. This could be from anywhere between 12,000 years ago to even further back to 100,000 years ago (Some of the things I've read suggest millions of years ago, although for me, this is a little hard to believe, although I accept that this is because it is so strange to me and not because it is 'impossible' as many people claim).

Yet it just makes me think if they were playing around with this stuff 2,000 years ago, who the hell knows what they could have been playing around with before then, I think we can all agree that if, IF Atlantis or a similar civilization did live before them, they could well have been more advanced that the Sumerians, Persians, Egyptians etc.

EMM

reply to post by ElectroMagnetic Multivers


"For me it's not even the possibility that they could've had electricity, which I personally doubt, it's that they were playing around with these concepts two thousand or so years ago, and we 're-discovered' this a little over a century ago!"

Ever heard of Benjamin Franklin and the kite experiment? Late 1700s, IIRC.

Anyway, the existence of "static electricity" was known for a long time before that. (Lightning is a type of static electricity.) The fact that some genius figured out a means of making DC just shows that he/she/it had time on their hands. Remember, you can make a "battery" out of a lemon.

Originally posted by Byrd

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."

I'm going to have to disagree here Byrd, please explain to me how shouting around that 'fringe' researchers are all frauds is going to help progress Archaeology?

Last time I checked, it was the 'fringe' idea's that have been progressing us since we left the caves, remember when the Earth flat, it was a 'fringe' idea back then that it was sphercial. This is the same thing that happened to Gallileo accept (not comparing Von Daniken to Gallileo by any stretch) they haven't been imprisoned, just publicly trashed.

I can agree with you on the out of context and 'seeing the whole picture' as it where, but sometimes, we haven't got the whole picture, so we improvise, mainstream archaeology and science in general are just as guilty as the fringers on that one.

They should not be villifying ANYONE, I wouldn't mind if they said;

"This is Von Daniken, personally, I think he's a crock, but he does ask some interesting questions and offers some interesting insights."

Or even

"Von Danicken is personally not for me, but some of you may like him, don't take everything he says on face value and research before you pen anyhting down."

There are SO many ways to go about this, yet they chose full on attack, to me it's suspicious, hell, I'm only 22 and I feel I could teach these people something about manners.

EMM

reply to post by ElectroMagnetic Multivers


"Last time I checked, it was the 'fringe' idea's that have been progressing us since we left the caves, remember when the Earth flat, it was a 'fringe' idea back then that it was sphercial. This is the same thing that happened to Gallileo accept (not comparing Von Daniken to Gallileo by any stretch) they haven't been imprisoned, just publicly trashed."

You should check more often, then. The hard working, unsung researchers in the labs do most of the work, but you don't hear about them because they're not "flashy". The fact that you can name some scientist(s) is irrelevant. The guys who invented the microchips, what were they're names again?

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by ElectroMagnetic Multivers

 

"Last time I checked, it was the 'fringe' idea's that have been progressing us since we left the caves, remember when the Earth flat, it was a 'fringe' idea back then that it was sphercial. This is the same thing that happened to Gallileo accept (not comparing Von Daniken to Gallileo by any stretch) they haven't been imprisoned, just publicly trashed."

You should check more often, then. The hard working, unsung researchers in the labs do most of the work, but you don't hear about them because they're not "flashy". The fact that you can name some scientist(s) is irrelevant. The guys who invented the microchips, what were they're names again?

I'm gonna be honest, I have google, so I could just look it up, but with all honesty, I won't and I don't know.

Point is, ideas which we consider now to be 'accepted' and 'normal' where once trashed and laughed at, by people like you and I would bet that if any of this turned out to be truth, you would be one of the first to deny it to the end, the sweet irony of this is, you would be considered the fringe then, lol.

Thw Wright brothers met this same oppostion, as did Gallileo. As for static electricity, you damn right I know about it, Tesla is an absolute genius and another example of 'fringe' ideas being pushed aside. What I find hilarious is people accept him as a genius for his advancement of AC, his tesla coils and the hundred of others of his inventions that have essentially made the world we live in, yet laugh when we discuss his other theories, such as wireless electricity, resonance and his belief of an electric universe, so to speak.

Whats more, these ideas are being backed by more and more discoveries from within mainstream science and they are still ridiculed, it really makes me despair at the direction we are taking. Oh and I share Tesla's belief that our weather is an electro-static effect.

So too close, I can accept that you don't believe these things, one of the things that I think makes this world so beautiful, indivudal thought and belief systems, but the fact that you laugh at others about their beliefs, makes me think that you are terrified of yours being wrong, or being made to look like a fool.

EMM

reply to post by ElectroMagnetic Multivers


"So too close, I can accept that you don't believe these things, one of the things that I think makes this world so beautiful, indivudal thought and belief systems, but the fact that you laugh at others about their beliefs, makes me think that you are terrified of yours being wrong, or being made to look like a fool."

First, you don't know what I laugh at and what I don't. Sweeping generalizations are absurd at best.

Second, I see that you ignore the fact that it's good hard work at the daily grind that produced most of what you see around you, not the occasional flash of genius. The geniuses get the great ideas, but they seldom put them into action. (Insert yeah-buts here.)

reply to post by Gawdzilla


The reason that several people now have questioned your motivations is the fact that all of your posts come across as being abrasive, know-it-all and belittling of other people's beliefs.

ATS is, by it's very nature, a site where people from all different belief systems come to DISCUSS their beliefs, not to have upstart know-it-all's belittle them for whatever ridiculous reason they may have.

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

The reason that several people now have questioned your motivations is the fact that all of your posts come across as being abrasive, know-it-all and belittling of other people's beliefs.

ATS is, by it's very nature, a site where people from all different belief systems come to DISCUSS their beliefs, not to have upstart know-it-all's belittle them for whatever ridiculous reason they may have.

I simply point out that some of the ideas put forward here are poorly researched, badly thought out and more than a little fanciful.

"all different belief systems"? Except my belief system, evidently. "All beliefs are equal, but some are more equal than others." Is that the paradigm here? "A place to hide from reality!"?

reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

I simply point out that some of the ideas put forward here are poorly researched, badly thought out and more than a little fanciful.

Yeah, you point them out in an abrasive and belittling fashion. If you want more people to take you seriously, jump down off that high horse and join the crowd at our level.

"all different belief systems"? Except my belief system, evidently. "All beliefs are equal, but some are more equal than others." Is that the paradigm here? "A place to hide from reality!"?

Now who's making things up? When did I say, or even imply, that your opinion is unwelcome here? It's not the content of what you are saying, it's the WAY in which you are saying it that many are finding to be inappropriate.

If you want serious discussion, which I have attempted with you to no avail, then rethink your approach to how you talk to people on this website.

[edit on 14/4/2009 by Kryties]

Again, I've exposed the smear-campaign against Daniken several times on ATS. This thread is a good place to start.

The smear-campaign against Daniken is waged by groups with certain interests...especially religious interests. Imagine the chaos that would erupt in the world if Billions of Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus would suddenly realize they are worshipping Extraterrestrials?

Other groups opposed to Daniken are those who have studied Archaeology, History, Anthropology, Biology...they would not want their entire lifes work to be much ado about nothing, they'd prefer attacking those who present alternatives.

Thats why Daniken is hated.

Dont feed the troll folks.