should von daniken sue?

reply to post by Kryties


While the first group of artifacts have some verification, possibly, I haven't hard of thm before myself. Over all they sound interesting.

The second and third groups of artifacts in your quote are not, however.

The Baghdad batteries were not batteries, the people who reconstructed them did so in a way as to make them work. There are to many flaws in the original jars for them to actually work.

The Baijong pipes are a natural structure, they are similar in form to the Navajo pipes in the Colorado desert.

The Coso artifact is a regular, 1920's era sparkplug.
Here's a similar, but more recent spark plug:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/126e86f4bf154c02.jpg[/atsimg]
It's conglomeration. It happens when metal rusts, things near it tend to clump to it. Tends to form a sandstone like material, which is what happened with the coso artifact.

Most very crystal skull that i know of off hand was proved to be of a recent construction. The cultures they supposed came from also make no mention of the crystal skulls.

Havn't done any serious research into some of the other artifacts, like the Dorchester pot, though what I can find about it has no trace of it's actual existences, only descriptions of it appearing after a blasting of coal.

I see no reason why the Dendra lamps should not be exactly as they appear, inscriptions of louts flowers.

Why a iron post is called an Iron man is a little weird, makes it a pain to look up. It would probably be similar to the Iron Pillar of Delhi.
The pillar of delhi was a accidental manufacturing of a common item, in this case, a temple pillar, that came out different for some reason or another, and more resistant to erosion.
I've remarked before about working in a metal working facility, and how we'd get metal left outside after a rain, and how even in the mass produced metal, there could be significant differences on how they'd rust.

Analysis of the Lake Winnipesaukee stone seems to indicate a modern hoax.
Whether it is or not, however, is not definite.

The Wolfsegg Iron could possibly be a iron meteor, I've seen examples of them and several seem to have a general shape to them. it is definitely a oddity, and on that probably won't be resolved to anyone's satisfaction.

The Kingoodie hammer (which is a nail, actually. Weird.) has a very confused history. Going off of similar discoveries, it's probably the same as the Coso artifact above, a rusting iron object that formed a conglomerate as it rusted.
There is an actual hammer found, that was on here a few months ago, that was in a similar state.

The Klerpsdorff spheres are some of my favorite artifacts.
They were mentioned in Forbidden Archaeology, which featured an article from the Weekly World News in regards to them, one of my favorite tabloids.
They are formed from a type of metamorphic stone, and generally appear pretty much to be normal, unique shaped rocks.
Again, there are similar types of stones.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/206ccafe6397fb45.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/9dae16a83f95372f.jpg[/atsimg]

Not exactly similar, of course, as the Klerpsdorff (which were found in Ottosdal, actually) and unique things tend to shaped by local process'.


As for the dinosaur stones... Byrd did a expansive debunking of them a bit ago in another thread. They found a fellow who was producing them with the aid of his family.

Originally posted by rapunzel222
his books are being used...as an example of a baseless hoax and students ...also textbooks like Fagan 2007 have blurbs which ridicule authors like graham hancock and go on to state that people who believe in these alternative theories are 'cultists' and basically, nutjobs.

Should von Daniken sue?

To answer the original question...Sure! I'd love to see him sue everybody who has ever accused him of being either a fraud, a nutter, or both. I'd pay to sit in the front row. It would be hugely entertaining.

Perhaps some of his acolytes here could help talk him into it. I really think you'd be doing him an honour to suggest it. And you owe it you your site-mates to allow us a shot at the spectator's gallery. Good thinking!!

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


I would so buy tickets to that. It would be more fun than the Dover ID crucifixion or the Kansas blood bath after the Evolution Wars.

Hi, new guys here, I'll be honest, I joined the board just because I saw a program about EvD yesterday where they presented several interesting bits of information (Egyptian Light bulbs, Baghdad Battery, Puma Punku etc...) so I did a little research and I fell on this thread...

Gawdzilla, please don't take it personally, but a history major aught to always ask the same question, why, both in context and in interpretation. Every time you present an "explanation" you fail to take these into consideration. For example, where you discuss the Baghdad battery, yes, there are only 6 found until now, however, you failed to ask the most primary question of all -- Why? Surely their design was so specific that they could not have been an accident, they were there for the purpose of creating electricity, even in minute amounts. Now, I'm no electrical engineer, but it seems the voltage produced was so minute that you need a voltmeter to detect it so an accidental discovery would be rather improbable as the effects of such a low voltage are almost imperceptible without specialized equipment. So now that we've established that they produced these Batteries for the purpose of getting electricity, and they KNEW the concept of electricity, we must ask HOW did they come to know that certain chemical reactions enabled the creation of invisible and undetectable (by their standards) energy? The chances that some poor Assyrian or Sumerian farmer made a clay pot, poured in some orange juice, got a copper sheet, isolated it with asphalt and inserted an iron rod, then let it rest seems absurd enough as it would be a pointless activity to do seeing as both copper and especially iron were rather... hard... to come by, thus, making them too valuable to waste, then add to that the notion that he "discovered" electroplating by connecting the battery to some metal (I'm not too familiar with the process, but I'm sure it's actual application is fairly more complex), without prior knowledge of electric currents and chemistry is beyond any doubt a silly notion. Nonetheless, it is what I was taught when I was attending a lecture 2 years ago. A simple "we don't know how they came to have this "advanced" knowledge" would have been far more satisfying than a story that makes Mickey Mouse look like a credible historical figure.

For sure Erich Von Daeniken has his own agenda and for sure he would love to sell more books, however, that in itself doesn't discredit then notion that the questions he raises offer more interesting and plausible explanations than the officially presented ones, that is, if you're not hiding your head in the sand, waiting for time to stop.

Back on to the original topic, Why sue? People will disagree with him just as he disagreed with people, it's part of modern life. Besides, we don't all live in America...

[edit on 14-4-2009 by Jurand]

reply to post by Jurand


Eh, like I said earlier, the Baghdad batteries didn't work as they were. The people who put them together again redesigned them so that they would work.

the bitumen completely covers the copper cylinder, electrically insulating it, so no current can be drawn without modifying the design;
there are not any wires or conductors with them;
a bitumen seal, being thermoplastic, is excellent for forming a hermetic seal for long term storage. It would be extremely inconvenient however for a galvanic cell, which would require frequent topping up of the electrolyte (if they were intended for extended use).

From the wiki article.
They look just like the jars that were used to store sacred scrolls.

reply to post by RuneSpider


Not out of the realm of possibility, but I don't see how a scroll jar would benefit from the addition of an iron rod and a copper cylinder. Nonetheless, stranger things have been seen.

People all ways try to put there beliefs on archaeological finds thats the problem. A person makes the assumption they were a battery and everyone runs with it. People try to mold facts to fit there beliefs it should be the other way around. The Baghdad battery was not a battery at all just a storage container. The Antikythera mechanism was made of gears they were known in the ancient world and used.

It is probable that the Antikythera mechanism was not unique, as shown by Cicero's references to such mechanisms. This adds support to the idea that there was an ancient Greek tradition of complex mechanical technology that was later transmitted to the Islamic world, where similarly complex mechanical devices were built by Muslim engineers and astronomers during the Middle Ages. Archemedies Fully understood gears and how they work it was a known technology of the Greeks that disappeared for a while during the dark ages but luckily was not forgotten by all.


People today are no smarter than are ancient ancestors we just have more information to pull from then they did. Aliens didn't have to give them anything. I really hate it when people today get so condescending to say that they would never have been able to build this they must have had help. Id bet if Archemedies was here today he'd know more then many of our top scientist.

Originally posted by Jurand I don't see how a scroll jar would benefit from the addition of an iron rod and a copper cylinder.

Why would you put copper in a scroll jar? Just off of the top of my head, I seem to recall that copper is used as a wood preservative. Think horses...not zebras.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

Originally posted by waynedg
if it was not for Chariots of the Gods i don't think i would have been interested in our ancient past. this was the first book that opened my eyes to possible out of this world visitations and it taught me not to take everything were are told at face value and question things we don't understand.

So, a mass market ersatz archeological fantasy is a good start? I wonder if you've ever read the studies of people who actually looked at the objects von D. fantasized about?

better his real life fantasy then a book called the bible which is a myth.

reply to post by waynedg


"better his real life fantasy then a book called the bible which is a myth. "

They both have their worshippers.

One of the reasons A&LC is my favorite section on ATS is that I usually learn something I didn't know because of a good thread.

Here's some things I've learned from this thread in no order of importance. I already knew Daniken was a fairly unreliable source for explaining artifacts and human history. I've learned that he was dishonest, jailed and deliberately had evidence falsified to support his theories.

Of all his 'mysterious objects' only two remain interesting and open to further investigation as puzzles...

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.

From Kryties. Genuinely interesting when I'd already assumed through experience that Daniken had nothing more than words. Thanks.

I've learned that Gawdzilla has a sense of humor and should use it more often to get his points across

I've realized that Runespider can explain the Baghdad Batteries forever and people will still believe they are something more than what they are

More and more posters show that archaeologists are wholly misrepresented. These guys are subject to 'hostility' from their colleagues when papers are peer-reviewed. They spend a decade in training and spend years reading the literature and being out in the field. They handle the evidence, talk to more experienced peers. Often they are able to read other languages and cuneiform and hieroglyphics. Some actually know from experience that whatever stone blocks aren't so well made a 'piece of paper' can't fit in the courses. They are scholars and know their subject. Despite all this some members roll their eyes, use words like 'paradigm' and phrases like, 'out of the box thinking' and dismiss them. It's not on at all.

Back OT, it's right that Daniken is exemplified as 'bad practice', Sitchin should join him. It's regrettable that universities need to. They bring nothing to archaeology, but they help some people to feel a sense of wonder about our past. That's not a bad thing as long as folk are willing to move away from the stepping stone...

reply to post by Harte


While most researchers may not ask why an item such as a wheel was not used, I am one to do so if I think the question has merit. Here, I think it does, as the wheel would of helped the people move their items much easier. Why someone did not think of it while their children were playing with such toys is something that I wonder about.

I am one that is curious about such things, so I will ask such questions. I do agree with you somewhat on the endless speculation that comes with such questions, but I also would look for the answers.

I was always taught from the earliest age in school and from my parents that there is no such thing as a stupid or bad question. To ignore such questions does not sit right with me.

Colin Wilson also asks such questions, so I feel a connection to the author. I am one to read what the author has to say, and then read what others state to counter the author. I started out a debunker/strong skeptic to any type of thought that was not mainstream. I am now in my forties, and realize there is much out there we do not know. I think Von Daniken (who should not sue because of his past errors would be admitted in court and make him look foolish) does raise some good questions. I think other authors are better than Von Daniken because they bring up other possible theories than the usual ancient astronaut stories we are usually subjected to.

Again, I do read what the others have to say about the Baghdad batteries and the metal spheres, but I can make up my own mind as to the validity of the claims made.

reply to post by kidflash2008


Regarding the wheel for use in building the ancient monuments. Take a stone that weighs multi-tons, and design a wheeled vehicle to carry it. Use only materials and skills known to Incas, Egyptians or Easter Islanders of the day. What do you think would be the problems with that. This is why they didn't use wheeled vehicles, they wouldn't have worked. The Indian Juggernaut, IIRC, was the largest wheeled "vehicle" for centuries and it didn't weigh more than a few tons.

Originally posted by kidflash2008
reply to post by Harte

 

While most researchers may not ask why an item such as a wheel was not used, I am one to do so if I think the question has merit.

If you mean scholars/Egyptologists/archaeologists/anthropologists, yes, there is actually a body of speculation on that and includes articles like the quality of wood available, draft animals available, terrain, and a lot of other things.

But the discussion is in scholarly journals, and nobody other than scholars hunts through those dry musty pages.

reply to post by Kandinsky

If the Kensington Runestone is of interest, you might want to check out the following article: "Goodbye Columbus? The Pseudohistory of Who Discovered America" by Ronald Fritze www.hallofmaat.com... Have fun!

Making mistakes does not make one a criminal or a fraud. Daniken made mistakes in regards to the "Metal Library" and ever since them he is being called "a fraud" and the metal library is being called "a hoax".

Two current books which expose the cover-up of the metal-library, the smear-campaign against Daniken, the fight for Gold worth tens of Billions and even the cold-blooded murder of people involved in the "metal library" affair:

Stan Hall / Tayos Gold

(This is the guy who led government- and university-supported expeditions to the metal library with Neil Armstrong and who, in his book, admits that Daniken was right in publishing about it)

Daniken / Disinformed

(not available in English, German Title: "Falsch Informiert). This book contains official Government Documents that would pass in any court of law proving the cover-up.

[edit on 16-4-2009 by Skyfloating]

reply to post by Skyfloating


"Making mistakes does not make one a criminal or a fraud. Daniken made mistakes in regards to the "Metal Library" and ever since them he is being called "a fraud" and the metal library is being called "a hoax"."

You say "mistakes". Other people say "deliberate lies". He lied about the circumstances of discovery, for example. Lying from the outset is not a good way to gain respect or trust.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
You say "mistakes". Other people say "deliberate lies". He lied about the circumstances of discovery, for example. Lying from the outset is not a good way to gain respect or trust.

Why should Daniken be judged differently than all the mistakes, acts of deception and lies made in the name of science?

Oh and btw: Stan Hall himself...who was involved in the campaign against Daniken...admits that Daniken was right about a metal library in the first pages of his book.

reply to post by Skyfloating


"Why should Daniken be judged differently than all the mistakes, acts of deception and lies made in the name of science? "

Who said he should be? Frauds are frauds. Just because he's in one particular camp and not the other doesn't give him special status. Regardless of the "camp". Spectacular failures like "table top fusion" show that the scientific community polices it own house. Others should take note of that.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Two current books which expose the cover-up of the metal-library, the smear-campaign against Daniken, the fight for Gold worth tens of Billions and even the cold-blooded murder of people involved in the "metal library" affair:

Stan Hall / Tayos Gold

(This is the guy who led government- and university-supported expeditions to the metal library with Neil Armstrong and who, in his book, admits that Daniken was right in publishing about it)

Another load of crap.

No "Metal Library" has ever been found.

Armstrong accompanied Hall on an exploration of an ordinary cave. He agreed to do so because of supposed family ties and as an honorary citizen of Scotland.

No metal Library was found, lthough a few artifacts were found:

How did Neil Armstrong get involved? "The expedition needed an honorary figurehead," Stan Hall said. "The name of Prince Charles, who had recently received a degree in archaeology, was proposed, but I knew Neil Armstrong had Scottish connections. My mother was an Armstrong and via another Armstrong in Langholm, where Neil Armstrong had been made an honorary citizen, I made contact. Months later, I got a reply that Neil Armstrong was more than willing to join us on this mission. It's when the expedition suddenly became a life's challenge."
On 3 August 1976, when the expedition was winding down, Armstrong entered the tunnel system. Even though they were not looking for it, the team members did not stumble upon a Metal Library. Had they done so, the discovery would have altered mankind's perspective on our history and origins. For Amstrong, it could have been his second great contribution to mankind's exploration. However, the team did catalogue 400 new plant species as well as a burial chamber inside the cave, in which a seated body was found. The chamber was later dated to 1500 BC, and it was believed that at the time of the summer solstice the sun illuminated this tomb.

SOURCE
My Emphasis.

As noted in the bolded portion above, Armstrong was not even looking fior any ""Metal Library," he was exploring a cave.

Harte