It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

should von daniken sue?

page: 9
8
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
One would hope, however, that it might elevate the truth of our history and origins to the place it belongs - in our history books. And they should do it before we sue them!

Regards,

Scott Creighton


You're going to sue? Who, exactly? Good luck finding an attorney to work on a contingency basis.

No. There will be no apologies. There never are. Science is not about that, it is about moving on. Galileo got an apology but it took a while and the apology wasn't exactly because he was shown to be right. But then, he wasn't just called a crackpot, he was arrested and sentenced to prison. Sniveling about not getting "respect" is pretty weak in comparison to that. That's a risk every scientist takes when they have something that goes radically against what is known (or thought). It's part of the territory.

Sometimes it takes a while but eventually the facts do come out. As has been said before, "extraordinary claims...".

[edit on 4/18/2009 by Phage]




posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by rapunzel222
 


I dont think anyone thats ever read anything from Graham Hancock, could possibly compare him to the ilk of Van Daniken.
Van Daniken has plagiarized just about anything he ever did; in regard to ancient mysteries.
Even his appearance on the television special when announcing the previously undiscovered door in the shaft of Khufu's Pyramid (around mid 90's), almost made me sick.

In comparison Graham Hancock has to be commended in the fact that he actually researches and visits the places and enigmas he writes about.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


SC: No one is using Steen-McIntyre's research as a buttress for anything other than to demonstrate how information that has been known for many decades is effectively suppressed and the proponents of such controversial findings are marginalised, vilified and discredited by the academic mafia in order to maintain the status quo.


You use Steen-McIntyre in two ways. First, to establish academics are quick to suppress findings that challenge accepted models. Second, you use the first assertion to build an argument that if they suppress evidence it allows for the possibility that they are hiding 'forbidden archaeology.' It's a familiar refrain across the internet and such ideas never alter.



On the basis of this example of how the academic mafia operate when threatened, one would easily be forgiven for thinking that if any evidence of "advanced technology" or "alien visitors" was "known" it will have been suppressed or discredited in a similar manner and you or I will never get to see it let alone discuss it.

See. You did it again.

New research is apparently scheduled for 2010-2011 at Valsequillo and there's some fairly academic discussion about the 250 000 dating here, here and here.

Even if this great age is correct, it doesn't support any extraordinary ideas of suppressed technologies and lost civilizations. It most clearly is dealing with a stone age culture using stone tools.

Of course all of this moot, as EVD has no credibility and will only ever feature in academia in situations illustrated by the OP.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 



SC: No one is using Steen-McIntyre's research as a buttress for anything other than to demonstrate how information that has been known for many decades is effectively suppressed and the proponents of such controversial findings are marginalised, vilified and discredited by the academic mafia in order to maintain the status quo.

Kandinsky: You use Steen-McIntyre in two ways. First, to establish academics are quick to suppress findings that challenge accepted models. Second, you use the first assertion to build an argument that if they suppress evidence it allows for the possibility that they are hiding 'forbidden archaeology..


SC: I reference Steen-McIntyre’s research as but one example of how the establishment does indeed suppress controversial findings and in the process attempts to ridicule and discredit such researchers and their findings. Are you seriously suggesting that this practice does not take place, that academia is beyond reproach?


Kandinsky: ' It's a familiar refrain across the internet and such ideas never alter.


SC: Well how exactly do you expect people to respond? Bury their collective heads in the sand and pretend that such practice does not go on, that academia is squeaky clean? If it happens once then why exactly should we not suppose that it might have happened twice, thrice….. I can cite other examples of suppression of evidence – how many would you like? And why exactly should you expect such “ideas” to alter in the minds of people when this malpractice amongst academics continues to this day?


SC: On the basis of this example of how the academic mafia operate when threatened, one would easily be forgiven for thinking that if any evidence of "advanced technology" or "alien visitors" was "known" it will have been suppressed or discredited in a similar manner and you or I will never get to see it let alone discuss it.

Kandinsky: See. You did it again.


SC: And I have every right to take what academics tell us (because of what they don’t tell us) with a big dose of salt. Much in the same way many will take the writings of EVD. Glass houses.


Kandinsky: New research is apparently scheduled for 2010-2011 at Valsequillo and there's some fairly academic discussion about the 250 000 dating here, here and here.

Even if this great age is correct, it doesn't support any extraordinary ideas of suppressed technologies and lost civilizations. It most clearly is dealing with a stone age culture using stone tools.


SC: No one is arguing that such will support ideas of advanced technologies. Lost civilizations? Well tell me then – if these artefacts are indeed 250,000 years old, exactly what civilization placed them there? None that I have ever heard of so I guess they pretty much fit the definition of a “lost civilisation” since we did not even know they existed. And let us not downplay the ramifications of this research being verified for it will place so much of what was formerly believed right in the dumper. We are talking about a civilisation that existed on another continent at least two, possibly three ice ages ago. Where did they come from? How did they get there? Were they always there? But that's an entirely different discussion.


Kandinsky: Of course all of this moot, as EVD has no credibility and will only ever feature in academia in situations illustrated by the OP.


SC: And with every revelation of suppression or distortion of evidence by academics you think this does not harm their credibility? Well, I beg to differ. The hypocrisy of the professor holding up EVD’s book to his students is thoroughly detestable.

Regards,

Scott Creighton


[edit on 19/4/2009 by Scott Creighton]



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


"The hypocrisy of the professor holding up EVD’s book to his students is thoroughly detestable. "

Only if you're a die-hard von D. believer. If you look at the books with a critical eye (not skeptical, btw) you see that flaws that you find are simply not possible except by deliberate hoax.

von D. is a classic con man and this type of examination needs to be taught in science classes to show how criminals use science to bilk the general public out of their money.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 

Only if you're a die-hard von D. believer.


I see you are still spewing out your baseless diatribe Gawdzilla. You are a trooper for sure



von D. is a classic con man and this type of examination needs to be taught in science classes to show how criminals use science to bilk the general public out of their money.


I think that is quite classically shown in real life (you know...that world outside your window).

[edit on 19/4/2009 by Kryties]



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

Originally posted by Kryties

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 

Only if you're a die-hard von D. believer.


I see you are still spewing out your baseless diatribe Gawdzilla. You are a trooper for sure



von D. is a classic con man and this type of examination needs to be taught in science classes to show how criminals use science to bilk the general public out of their money.


I think that is quite classically shown in real life (you know...that world outside your window).

[edit on 19/4/2009 by Kryties]


Ad homs aside, do you think von D.'s hoaxes should be used to teach students how such crimes are committed?



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 

Hello Gawdzilla,


SC: "The hypocrisy of the professor holding up EVD’s book to his students is thoroughly detestable. "

Gawdzilla: Only if you're a die-hard von D. believer. If you look at the books with a critical eye (not skeptical, btw) you see that flaws that you find are simply not possible except by deliberate hoax.


SC: I am far from a believer of EVD's writings let alone a diehard believer. What I am rightly pointing out to you is the hypocrisy of said professor and the books he upholds and regards as the "truth". Aspects of his "truth" are every bit as suspect as those of EVD. If you cannot see the hypocrisy in this then there is little else I can say to you.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 19/4/2009 by Scott Creighton]



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 07:17 AM
link   




Do you have a transcript of the lecture or are you simply using buzzwords to justify your position?



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 
Kandinsky: You use Steen-McIntyre in two ways. First, to establish academics are quick to suppress findings that challenge accepted models. Second, you use the first assertion to build an argument that if they suppress evidence it allows for the possibility that they are hiding 'forbidden archaeology..



SC: No one is arguing that such will support ideas of advanced technologies. Lost civilizations? Well tell me then – if these artefacts are indeed 250,000 years old, exactly what civilization placed them there? None that I have ever heard of so I guess they pretty much fit the definition of a “lost civilisation” since we did not even know they existed.

See. You did it again


A loose collection of stone age populations using stone tools is not a civilization. There is evidence of such tool use going back up to 500 000ya and they are not considered a civilization. You could read this thread by Hanslune or the Science Now article that inspired it.




And let us not downplay the ramifications of this research being verified for it will place so much of what was formerly believed right in the dumper. We are talking about a civilisation that existed on another continent at least two, possibly three ice ages ago. Where did they come from? How did they get there? Were they always there? But that's an entirely different discussion.

Not at all. We don't know what the findings will be from Vasequilla and will have to wait and see. A common misconception amongst those that believe in 'lost civilizations' and 'forbidden archaeology' is that the world will be unable to accept new findings. It has managed to do so thus far...I would guess that, if Vasequilla extends the dates, human populations arrived there in the same manner they are there today...crossing over using a land bridge during a glacial period.




SC: And with every revelation of suppression or distortion of evidence by academics you think this does not harm their credibility? Well, I beg to differ. The hypocrisy of the professor holding up EVD’s book to his students is thoroughly detestable.

I notice that you are literate...Did one of your teachers commit a miscarriage of justice against you? I only ask as your contempt for 'academics' seems slightly more personal in tone than most. I don't believe anyone claims that academics are above the petty traits that humans are heir to. Nonetheless, to characterize a section of humanity amounting to several million as hypocrites and liars appears in, some small way, over the top?



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 08:29 AM
link   
I just saw this thread now and only read a fewposts so I apologise if what I said has already been said.

Yes, he MUST sue. This is outright indoctrination. The University has no right to use their power to defame and slander fringe researchers and to try and influence the beliefs of their students.

If this is really happening it a mockery of education and I suggest you contact both Daniken, Hancock and the media and your university press, class president and others and turn this into an issue.

A university is a place of free learning and free and open discussion, not a place to be indoctrinated. Shame on the university if it really is teaching its first year that fringe researchers are nutjobs.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


"Yes, he MUST sue. This is outright indoctrination. The University has no right to use their power to defame and slander fringe researchers and to try and influence the beliefs of their students."

Please, please, please urge him to sue. Then he'll have to prove his theories and demonstrate his sources to show he's not a fraud and hoaxer. Then we'll have at least a perjury case pending on him, if not lawsuits to get the readers' money back for his books.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


Kandinsky: You use Steen-McIntyre in two ways. First, to establish academics are quick to suppress findings that challenge accepted models. Second, you use the first assertion to build an argument that if they suppress evidence it allows for the possibility that they are hiding 'forbidden archaeology..

SC: No one is arguing that such will support ideas of advanced technologies. Lost civilizations? Well tell me then – if these artefacts are indeed 250,000 years old, exactly what civilization placed them there? None that I have ever heard of so I guess they pretty much fit the definition of a “lost civilisation” since we did not even know they existed.

Kandinsky: See. You did it again


SC: Not quite sure what I have apparently “did” again? Do explain.


Kandinsky: A loose collection of stone age populations using stone tools is not a civilization. There is evidence of such tool use going back up to 500 000ya and they are not considered a civilization.


SC: Well, we know this but you miss the point. If the present historical paradigm is correct then there should have been NO ONE on that continent until - at best - 20,000 years ago. That there were people on that continent prior to the last two (possibly three) ice ages is the point. And it does make one wonder – how much of any civilisation would have survived after two or three ice ages? And it makes one question further – are these finds of Steen-McIntyre and her colleagues merely the proverbial tip of the iceberg?


SC: And let us not downplay the ramifications of this research being verified for it will place so much of what was formerly believed right in the dumper. We are talking about a civilisation that existed on another continent at least two, possibly three ice ages ago. Where did they come from? How did they get there? Were they always there? But that's an entirely different discussion.

Kandinksy: A common misconception amongst those that believe in 'lost civilizations' and 'forbidden archaeology' is that the world will be unable to accept new findings.


SC: Eventually! In the interim the old guard ensures careers are destroyed, researchers are pilloried and vilified. Steen-McIntyre’s evidence – confirmed by her colleagues – is as solid as one can offer. But the old guard dismissed her and the evidence through nothing but circular reasoning. “Well, we know there was no one on that continent prior to 20,000 years ago so your evidence is flawed.” Steen-McIntyre’s evidence was NOT flawed. The historical paradigm is flawed and not only flawed but jealously guarded. Once again we see that someone’s ego prevails over hard science.


Kandinsky: It has managed to do so thus far...


SC: Eventually – when the old guard and their egos are removed from the levers of power, only then has the science a chance to finally prevail. But these people really do let their egos hold back progress, don’t they!


SC: And with every revelation of suppression or distortion of evidence by academics you think this does not harm their credibility? Well, I beg to differ. The hypocrisy of the professor holding up EVD’s book to his students is thoroughly detestable.

Kandinsky: I notice that you are literate...Did one of your teachers commit a miscarriage of justice against you?


SC: As far as I remember I had fantastic teachers at every level of my education, most of whom taught me to seek my own truth. I have no gripes here and I really don’t see the relevance.


Kandinsky: I only ask as your contempt for 'academics' seems slightly more personal in tone than most. I don't believe anyone claims that academics are above the petty traits that humans are heir to. Nonetheless, to characterize a section of humanity amounting to several million as hypocrites and liars appears in, some small way, over the top?


SC: Let me clarify - I do not have contempt for ALL academics. I certainly have contempt for those academics who disregard or distort evidence to "protect" the prevailing paradigm and who, consequently, present a distorted historical narrative. And my contempt in this regard is no different to the way many here have contempt for the way EVD and other unorthodox writers present their evidence.

The academics are professionals that we are supposed to be able to trust so I regard it as a betrayal of that trust when evidence that proves a different truth of our past is disregarded or distorted by these individuals. EVD does not expect our trust nor is he given it. Professional academics are in a position of trust. They should not be abusing that trust. Period.

Regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Mr Daniken is still up to his old tricks I see. According to his website...


In May 2005 scientists delivered the final proof for the existence of other planets in the far universe. More than 30 years ago Erich von Däniken came up with the hypothesis that other planets exist outside our solar system. However, during that period the scientific community was not ready and many scientists publicly denied the chance for the existence of such planets. But Erich von Däniken’s theories went further. At that time, he openly speculated that genetic manipulations and cloning will soon be reality. Only few scientist understood his foresight. The basis for Erich von Däniken's theory – the existence of extraterrestrial life – could not be proven yet, but modern science has quietly accepted the high probability for the existence of extraterrestrial life. Today, thousands of interdisciplinary scientists from various faculties are conducting experiments and generate data. The quantity and quality of available information is growing exponentially. Like a big puzzle data gathered from other galaxies and our solar system are analyzed to find the ultimate answer on the creation of the universe. Space agencies and renowned institutes engage Astrobiologists to explore scientific models about possible extraterrestrial forms of life. Physicists debate latest theories about parallel universes, about interstellar space travel and even time travel. Therefore, it is not surprising, that the scientific community initiated the program SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Life). Today, SETI engages several thousand scientists worldwide. When Erich von Däniken initiated the basis for many of the above scientific work by publishing his books in 1968, only a few could understand the impact of his revolutionary theories. 30 years latter, his theories have been widely accepted and influenced the scientific world.


By golly, I think he's taking credit for most scientific advances since 1968. The impression is of the spiritual father of modern science. Based on his website, very little has changed. The same locations are brought blinking into the light. It's all about gilding the lily now as he's certainly a very wealthy man and unlikely to be in need of the extra cash.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


I'd like to see him in a room with Seth Shostak and Jill Tarter. He'd be flayed alive in a few seconds.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 



SC: Well, we know this but you miss the point. If the present historical paradigm is correct then there should have been NO ONE on that continent until - at best - 20,000 years ago. That there were people on that continent prior to the last two (possibly three) ice ages is the point.

I understand the point. As far as we know there is currently no peer-reviewed evidence that life extends pre-Clovis. If the evidence comes in during the next 3 years that clearly shows a population existed at Vassequille, it remains just there. It doesn't demonstrate a population that existed throughout 250ky. Perhaps it's not surprising that the findings are in Central America? Glacial/ interglacial periods would have less 'bite.'

Given EVD's moral compass, I feel sure he'll accept credit for any findings with amicable good grace. It's funny because 'we' know that he isn't responsible for SETI or the Keppler Mission...but do his readers???



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 

Hello Kandinsky,


Kandinsky: I understand the point. As far as we know there is currently no peer-reviewed evidence that life extends pre-Clovis.


SC The "peer-review" of the research of Steen-McIntyre and her colleagues effectively dismissed her findings i.e. they rejected the hard science that proved her case on no other grounds than it would mean the historical paradigm they believed and supported would have had to be rewritten. Steen-McIntyre's peers embarked upon a process of circular reasoning which basically concluded that their model of the historical past was correct in spite of the hard scientific evidence that Steen-McIntyre presented that proved they were wrong. Her evidence was based in hard science. Her peers dismissed her findings with nothing more than something they believed to be true. In short, her peers dismissed her science over their "faith". How very unscientific of them.


Kandinsky: If the evidence comes in during the next 3 years that clearly shows a population existed at Vassequille, it remains just there. It doesn't demonstrate a population that existed throughout 250ky. Perhaps it's not surprising that the findings are in Central America? Glacial/ interglacial periods would have less 'bite.'


SC: I certainly hope that such evidence is not - once again - suppressed by the academic mafia, to wit:


"'Numerous meritorious grant proposals have been rejected because their goals and objectives were incompatible with entrenched academic opinion,'' he said. ''At least five South American archeologists admitted that they are suppressing pre-12,000-year-old data out of fear that their funds would be cut off by American colleagues who endorse the short-chronology school of thought...

Dr. Guidon is frustrated by the lack of acceptance of her results from the Brazilian rock shelter, known as Pedra Furada. In an interview, she said: ''Why is American archeology so conservative and rigid? Nobody questions dates since 12,000. Why are only the earlier dates considered suspect and bad? It's emotional.''

Source: www.nytimes.com...



Kandinsky: Given EVD's moral compass, I feel sure he'll accept credit for any findings with amicable good grace. It's funny because 'we' know that he isn't responsible for SETI or the Keppler Mission...but do his readers???


SC: I am rather more concerned about the "moral compass" of those who wear the badge of "authority" and who use that badge to abuse their position of trust by suppressing and distorting evidence in order that it conforms with what they believe to be true rather than what the hard science says is actually true.

Regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


I'd like to see him in a room with Seth Shostak and Jill Tarter. He'd be flayed alive in a few seconds.


I'd put my money on Herr Von Daniken, and I have seen Dr Shostak lose debates with Stanton Friedman.

Say what you will about Herr Von Daniken as he is a survivor. He is still quite popular even now, and that must make most of his detractors quite upset.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by KRISKALI777
Van Daniken has plagiarized just about anything he ever did; in regard to ancient mysteries.

In comparison Graham Hancock has to be commended in the fact that he actually researches and visits the places and enigmas he writes about.


Daniken regularly went on Expeditions and World-Travels to the places he writes about. I know because I once even attended one of those trips.

Allow me to quote the T&C of this site:



1). Posting: You will not post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate.


[edit on 19-4-2009 by Skyfloating]



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by KRISKALI777
 


I have noticed that they do attack Erich Von Daniken a lot more than they go after Graham Hancock. You are correct in that Mr Hancock does visit the places he writes about in his books.

There are a few here who attack Mr Hancock on some of his ideas and theories. I had stated in a thread my intention to purchase Mr Hancock's book "Fingerprints of the Gods" and was told it was all a pack of lies. I decided not to, when another person posted I should make my own mind up. I am glad I did buy Mr Hancock's book, as there is a lot of information in it that is rarely covered in the threads here.

I will tell others to read the books and then decide for themselves. Do not let the others try talk you out of reading an idea because it is a little out there. The basis of education is to discuss all the theories out there, and not just the few ones that are in the text books.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join