should von daniken sue?

page: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 07:17 AM
link   
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?




posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 07:19 AM
link   

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]



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 07:23 AM
link   

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]



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectroMagnetic Multivers

...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.

There is no such thing as an "OOPArt."


Originally posted 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.

You are propagating a myth here about "everyone once believed that the Earth was flat."

This is not the case - it is in itself a myth.

By propogating this falsehood, you are foisting your own ignorance on the unsuspecting readers here at ATS.

The idea that "everyone once thought that the earth was flat" originated with Washington Irving. It's simply not true at all.

Fringe ideas have not "been progressing us," they have been misleading and lying to us.


Originally posted by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
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.

Hardly. Galileo merely agreed with Copernicus that the solar system was heliocentric and defended heliocentrism against claims that it was contrary to scripture. It was the latter that got him into trouble, not the former, as Copernicus had proposed this theory, and backed it with data, a hundred years earlier.


Originally posted by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
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.

If you don't have the 'WHOLE" picture, that is entirely your OWN fault.


Originally posted by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
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."

The problem is, he doesn't.

Harte



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 07:31 AM
link   

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?



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 07:34 AM
link   

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.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

There is no such thing as an "OOPArt."


Ahh Harte, how I have missed you. Semantics? Really? Should I even bother linking OOparts, or should I just assume you will tar them all with the same brush? Badly researched, Lies, Hoaxes? I'll let you decide.


This is not the case - it is in itself a myth.

By propogating this falsehood, you are foisting your own ignorance on the unsuspecting readers here at ATS.



MMMMkay, I don't think your giving our dear reader's here enough credit, some of these people are the smartest I've met, I'm sure if they disagree with me, they'll make sure I know it.

As for the er..'myth' I didn't mention that Gallileo was imprisoned for the evidence he uncovered, it was for his blasphomy fo saying the Earth wasn't the centre of the 'universe' or rather, the Earth rotates around the Sun, what I was pointing out was that people fought against this idea and not just the church, many people who's belief systems were endangered thiswas my argument, but I can see where you may have gotten confused, my apologies.


The idea that "everyone once thought that the earth was flat" originated with Washington Irving. It's simply not true at all


To be fair, this may be true, but it is not the only case that new ideas have been met with resistance, by not only religions, but also with established science.


Fringe ideas have not "been progressing us," they have been misleading and lying to us.


This is were I'm not sure about you, you seem to really believe that every 'Fringe' idea, is not only wrong, but deliberately out to decieve you and I thought I could get paranoid. Some of them are wrong, some of them are right, some of the ARE out to get you, point is, you keep eneralising, some of it is disinfo IMO, and hell, I may even believe some of the stuff that is disinfo, I don't know, same way you don't know they are lies. Difference between us is, I accept it, you will fight to the death befpre you accept it.



If you don't have the 'WHOLE" picture, that is entirely your OWN fault.


Lol, I'm sure you think you do have the whole picture Harte, I really do. It's teachers like you that make me want to home school my kids, you not only belittle other people's beliefs, but you actually think that your point of view (Or should I say reality?) is actually everyone else's reality, that everyone should think like you. It's quite scary actually.



The problem is, he doesn't.


Sweet lord, reality 101, people believe different things to you. You may not think he raises some interesting questions, since you already have all the right answers, but others might want to actually learn something new? Rather than be oh so satisfied with the knowledge they've got.

EMM

Harte



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 07:55 AM
link   

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



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 07:58 AM
link   
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"?



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 08:09 AM
link   

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



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 08:14 AM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

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.


You people?!? What d'ya mean, you people!??

LOL, sorry, I had too.

I ain't being defensive, I will be the first to admit that I believe some pretty messed up stuff and to be fair, If I hadn't travelled the path I had, read the things I had, then I would not understand, as an outsider, why I believe such crazy things, to me, they just seem to fit.

You have not once challenged my beliefs, in fact, you haven't challeneged anything, the closest you got was to link the (/sigh) 'Junior Skeptic?!?' article (I still can't get over that! lol Is it just a magazine that rubbishes alternative ideas?!? Or is it more for the junior scientist? experiments, current theories etc.)

You can say, OKay, Cool and Fine if you want, but I'd like a more 'meaty' argument, you know, that we can actually learn from. I don;t mind you opposing my beliefs, but I'd like you to explain why you oppose them, not just sit there and repeat the same stuff.

To tell you the truth, I've barely read any of Von Danicken's work, I read a bit of Sitchin and from what I have seen of Von Danicken, he is much the same. I don't think they are right, I don't even think they are close, but they ask questions and raise issues that many don't seem to want an answer to and many who's answers just aren't up to scratch.

I added to this thread, not because 'My hero, Von Danicken' was being attacked, but because I think it is utterly dispicable and totally childish that a university (Or is it many?) have decided to teach his theories as hoaxes and lies, thus perpetuating a lie.

Now, once again, you have side stepped the original issue;


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



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Okay, you're just posting your own opinions about my responses, and that's okay. Telling me shut up, however, is not. So don't try. I don't know if doubters get banned here for expressing their doubts, but it would be sad if they did.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
Okay, you're just posting your own opinions about my responses, and that's okay. Telling me shut up, however, is not. So don't try. I don't know if doubters get banned here for expressing their doubts, but it would be sad if they did.


Did I tell you to shut up? I must've missed that, If I did in some strange code, then I apologise. 'Doubters' don't get banned, most people here are a skeptic to at least one idea or theory, some many, some all, lol.

They are my opinions and I could be wrong so you will have to clear it up for me.

Care to answer the question, I'm not going to include it again.

EMM



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Please return to the topic of von Daniken and refrain from discussing each other.

Thank you.




posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   

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.


I can accept if they cite him as an example of how not to right a report, or carry out an investigation, because as you said, he doesn't follow these procedures, but IMO they are not right. They are not doing this to show a bad example of how not to right a report, they are lying. They have not proven him to be a hoax, nor has anyone else, so they are lying, IMO.

As I have said, Sitchin got me into this type of thing, and for that I thank him, but we evolve our thoughts and our perceptions, and 'evolved' out of Sitchin, some interesting ideas but nothing special, he does however ask interesting question, just like Von Daniken and these are still being ignored, not just by people on this thread.

EMM

ps thanks for getting it back on topic, I tried several times to no avail.

Edit to change tone, I seemed a bit combatative and I apologise.

I loved psychology when I took it, the information itself wasn't too bad, it was the dates and the three or four names per argument that sunk me tbh, lol. Couldn't remember all those names and numbers!!

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



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
I can accept if they cite him as an example of how not to right a report, or carry out an investigation, because as you said, he doesn't follow these procedures, but IMO they are not right. They are not doing this to show a bad example of how not to right a report, they are lying. They have not proven him to be a hoax, nor has anyone else, so they are lying, IMO.

No, you are wrong. The BBC did this.

VonDaniken was forced to admit to forgery, regardless of how Skyfloating wants to "spin" it.

You seem to think it's necessary to prove that every single utterance he makes is a hoax.

Would you allow your children to be babysat by a person who had molested a child, if they had been babysitting since then with no (known) incident?

Von Daniken, and everyone else caught in a lie, does not even begin to approach the level of "reasonable" as a source.

Harte


[edit on 4/14/2009 by Harte]



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   
I do think many valid questions are raised by books from Von Daniken, Hancock and Wilson. One of the intriguing questions is why the ancient Americans did not have the wheel. I have been told that toys of theirs had wheels, but they did not invent the wheel for their own use. Colin Wilson writes that the ancient Americans learned by rote, and their civilization did not technically advance. I wonder why they never invented the wheel, or advanced themselves in the periods they were around?

There are many valid questions that the "fringe" authors ask that can only be speculated on. While I respect all the debunkers out there and do read their opinions, I disagree that the books of the aforementioned authors should be put in the fiction area. They still raise valid questions, even if their theories are out there.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidflash2008
I do think many valid questions are raised by books from Von Daniken, Hancock and Wilson. One of the intriguing questions is why the ancient Americans did not have the wheel.


While the wheel might have made some small differences in their culture, it really wouldn't have impacted much.

The wheel did little for the Eastern Hemisphere until someone connected it to a horse.

There were no horses in early America.

Besides, why a civilization didn't do something is not a "valid" question. The "act" of "not doing" is not an event, and is nothing but an invitation for speculation.

Better to ask if they did something than why they didn't do something.


Originally posted by kidflash2008There are many valid questions that the "fringe" authors ask that can only be speculated on. While I respect all the debunkers out there and do read their opinions, I disagree that the books of the aforementioned authors should be put in the fiction area. They still raise valid questions, even if their theories are out there.


What you don't know, but could if you searched ATS (or on the internet) enough, is that practically every "question" they raise that you might consider valid has in fact been answered many times over by serious researchers that do serious work. The work of these researchers is completely ignored by these so-called "fringe writers" (actually, they are merely lying con men) because it does answer precisely the questions that the liars want you to think have no answers.

Harte





new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join