should von daniken sue?, page 6

reply to post by Kryties

---

"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."

You want me to say things in a manner that you find acceptable? Why?

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by ElectroMagnetic Multivers

---

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

Sweeping generalisations? You have ridiculed nearly everyone who believes Von Daniken and the like, correct me if I'm wrong?

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.)

I didn't ignore it, it wasn't prudent to the discussion, I accept that it is the countless researchers the world over that mainly progress us, BUT I was pointing out the many times that it was a fringe idea that revolutionized the way we think and the way we act and how these are always met with conflict.

EMM

I'd like to just add, that the only difference between truth and fiction, is that fiction has to make sense, the truth don't. I have no idea what the truth is, I look for it, I percieve it, but I accept that it is no more than my opinion.

You on the other hand, seem to think that you have all the answers and that people who don't agree with you are poor souls lost in the wilderness.

How about you accept that people believe different things than you, once more, how ahout you believe that they could be right? No matter how improbable it is always possible.

[edit on 14-4-2009 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by Kryties

---

You want me to say things in a manner that you find acceptable? Why?

Because, on ATS, Courtesy Is Mandatory.




reply to post by Skyfloating

---

I have read and agree with your post on von Daniken and the smear campaign levelled against him. While the man has many flaws (don't we all) he has raised many questions about the origins of many well-known OOPARTS (Out of Place Artifacts) and at least he has the guts to stand up in front of a group of dissenters and speak his mind.

[edit on 14/4/2009 by Kryties]

Originally posted by Kryties

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by Kryties

---

You want me to say things in a manner that you find acceptable? Why?

Because, on ATS, Courtesy Is Mandatory.

Perhaps if you were less defensive you wouldn't be so willing to misconstrue my intent?

Originally posted by Harte

There is no such thing as an "OOPArt."

OOPArt - Out-Of-Place Artifact

An out-of-place artifact (OOPArt) is a term coined by American zoologist and cryptozoologist Ivan T. Sanderson for an object of historical, archaeological or paleontological interest found in a very unusual or seemingly impossible context.

The term "out-of-place artifact" is rarely used by mainstream historians or scientists; rather, its use is largely confined to cryptozoologists, proponents of ancient astronaut theories, and paranormal enthusiasts. The term is used to describe a wide variety of objects, from anomalies studied by mainstream science to pseudoarchaeology that is far outside the mainstream.

Objects alleged to come from recognized cultures, recovered in unexpected places

* The Fuente Magna, discovered in Bolivia. Ceramic bowl with writing in alleged Sumerian cuneiform.
* The Kensington Runestone, purported to be a 14th century Norse artifact found in Minnesota.
* The Maine Penny, found in Blue Hill, Maine. An 11th century Norse coin found in an American Indian shell midden. Over 20,000 objects were found over a 15-year period at the Goddard site in Blue Hill. The sole non-Native artifact was the coin.[3] One hypothesis is that it may have been brought to the site from a Viking settlement in Newfoundland by seagoing Native Americans.
* The Spirit Pond runestones, claimed, like the Kensington runestone, to be from the 11th or 14th century, found in Maine.
* The Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca head, a terracotta head found in Mexico that some say is of Roman origin.

Objects allegedly produced by unknown cultures

* The Baghdad Battery, the name given to three terracotta jars, thought by some to be galvanic cells dating from the Sassanid dynasty (224-640 AD).
* The Baigong Pipes, pipelike features found in a cave in China.
* The Coso artifact, a lump of rock or clay containing a spark plug from the 1920s, though it allegedly took thousands of years to form.
* The Crystal skulls, claimed to have been found at Lubaantun, in Yucatan and in Belize.
* The Dorchester Pot, a Victorian-era candlestick found in Massachusetts, apparently alleged to pre-date European settlement in the Americas.
* The Dendra Lamps, representations of lotus flowers engraved into a relief in a temple dedicated to Hathor, Egyptian Goddess of the Milky Way, and alleged by some to actually represent electrical lamps.
* The Iron Man (Eiserne Mann), dating to the 13th century.
* The Lake Winnipesaukee mystery stone.
* The Wolfsegg Iron, a cubical block of metal in coal found in Austria.

Objects alleged to challenge the chronology of human evolution

* The Acámbaro figures, from Acámbaro, Mexico, some of which are in the apparent form of dinosaurs.
* The Ica stones, from Peru, allegedly depicting anachronistic images such as dinosaurs and modern medical procedures.
* The Kingoodie hammer, from Scotland, purportedly an iron nail dated from 460 to 360 million years ago.
* The Klerksdorp Spheres, from South Africa, dated 2.8 billion years ago – their regular shapes lead to claims that they were artificially created.

That's just the examples that a very critical Wikipedia article points out. There are many more you can find by a simple Google search of the term "OOPArts" or "Out-of-place Artifacts"

WHile some OOPArts have been adequately explained, many have yet not and seem to be swept 'under the rug' or put in the 'too hard' basket by mainstream science.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

Originally posted by Kryties

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by Kryties

---

You want me to say things in a manner that you find acceptable? Why?

Because, on ATS, Courtesy Is Mandatory.

Perhaps if you were less defensive you wouldn't be so willing to misconstrue my intent?

I'm curious, what is your intent? Your right, we're wrong? I ask this as you have made no attempt to even discuss this genially, just all out attack on parties concerned.

EMM

reply to post by ElectroMagnetic Multivers

---

"My intent" is to discuss these matters. If, in the process, you become stressed because I don't agree with the interpretations that would fit into your paradigm, I have to ask you why? Is it forbidden to challenge assumptions here? Do people panic if they're wildest speculations are questioned? Is this a forum for "true believers" only? If so, which "true believers"?

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by ElectroMagnetic Multivers

---

"My intent" is to discuss these matters. If, in the process, you become stressed because I don't agree with the interpretations that would fit into your paradigm, I have to ask you why? Is it forbidden to challenge assumptions here? Do people panic if they're wildest speculations are questioned? Is this a forum for "true believers" only? If so, which "true believers"?

No my friend, my intent is to discuss these matters, I have many fruitful conversations with friends, who believe similar things you do, one of them is majoring in archaeology actually and we seem to do quite well. He has somewhat conservative views to mine, but we can discuss and generally enjoy it.

You on the other hand won't discuss any specifics, you discuss his character and his flaws, you are looking for the take down, where as I'm just looking to discuss. I don't mind your opinion, I'd say I'd learn from it, but I see it twenty times a day around here and you can only 'learn' so much, know what I mean?

I don't care if you think your right about everything and you know everythign there is to know, thats your problem, not mine, but what i do care about, is people who genrally come on here, like I did once, looking for a different explanation to the one they are force fed, because thins just don't seem to add up, only to be scared away by people like you ridiculing 'fringe' ideas, I couldn't care less, I've put up with worse than that, but others haven't and you are damaging, not only this website, but the credibility of the entrie field.

I know you believe it has no credibility anyway, but that is your opinion, something that people like you and Harte seem to think should apply to everyone else.

Now, Challenge away, shall I start?

How do you think that this will help Main stream archaeology, speciifically the freshman who are getting told, other peoples beliefs dressed up as fact?

(And dress it up all you want, there is no proof to suggest that Von Daniken is currently lying)

If your unsure how to answer in a productive way, use Byrd's reply as a template.

EMM

reply to post by ElectroMagnetic Multivers

---

"You on the other hand won't discuss any specifics, you discuss his character and his flaws, you are looking for the take down, where as I'm just looking to discuss."

Again with the defensiveness. You people are afraid to discuss the flaws in your theories, you only want to hear what pleases you. In that case you should have the response limit reduced to allow "Okay", "Cool", "Fine" replies to anything that is posted.

reply to post by rapunzel222

---

I think the thread has reached 'escape velocity' and is flying away from the OP

his books are being used in archaeology lectures to first year students as an example of a baseless hoax...that there is no real evidence or archaeological sources to support his assertions.

His books do represent 'bad practice' in the eyes of the scientific community. If one our archeologist members or mods wrote a paper about Stonehenge and followed the Daniken method they'd lose a lot of credibility.

For example, background research...the centuries of documents and recent peer-reviewed papers would be ignored completely. Instead, they would cite references to 'ancient texts' like the Bible, Qua ran, Mahabaratta and the Venerable Bede. They would also include 'word of mouth' folklore to use the famous phrases, "It is sometimes said..." and "Many say..."

As they have already ignored the peer-reviewed evidence that would indicate a date, they can choose any date they like.

Fieldwork isn't necessary under the Daniken method. Traveling to Stonehenge and conducting an excavation or obtaining measurements and insights into the geography/geology is labor-intensive. Mapping, tools, potsherds and recovered artifacts simply interfere with the theories.

By using existing photographs and illustrations one can proceed to our hypothesis. E.g. Stonehenge is 10 000 years old and was built with the help of a spacefaring race to act as a beacon and spaceport...Ta dah

It's also forgivable to ask an artist friend to create some beakers with flying saucers and aliens on them to support the hypothesis...

When writing the report in preparation for submission, you can use the terms 'me, I, they, we,' and phrases like 'How can it be anything else?' and 'Some would say such an incredible feat is far beyond that of a small illiterate group of men and women...'

I know I've exaggerated slightly to make a point

When that poor First Year Archaeology submits that paper (no citations, no technical data, no supporting references etc) they will fail. They will fail their course. If an experienced archaeologist submitted a paper for peer-review it's only natural that they would be laughed at. How could they not be laughed at?

For good reasons I quit a Psychology Degree in the second year of university. I remember clearly how rigorous the scientific method is and how clearly defined the standards of a paper must be. A friend lectures in psychology and expresses amazement each year that students are unable to write in the third person. They lack the basic knowledge in report writing.

The university that uses V Daniken as an example of bad practice is therefore totally right. They are applying standards that have been designed over hundreds of years. Although it's Daniken, it could be one of many writers. Berlitz got me started in my interests, but I don't take a word he says seriously.

Ancient Walled City, Older than Egypt\'s Pyramids, Unearthed off US Georgia Coast
  Posted 11 days ago with 101 member flags

Origin of Ancient Jade Tool Baffles Scientists
  Posted 6 days ago with 96 member flags

12,000 Years Old Unexplained Structure
  Posted 3 days ago with 80 member flags

The Uluburun shipwreck sunk 3,400 years ago
  Posted 14 days ago with 70 member flags

Sigiriya : The 8th Wonder of the World
  Posted 3 days ago with 45 member flags

Tomb of Queen Heterpheres
  Posted 15 days ago with 29 member flags

42,000-year-old paintings : \'The oldest work of art ever\' discovered
  Posted 2 days ago with 26 member flags

R.O.V. Photos of Sunken Megaliths off Western Cuba
  Posted 10 days ago with 21 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: