VonDaniken admitting his fraud

page: 2
30
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by VoidHawk
reply to post by Sulie
 


Whether he faked stuff does not bother me. I make up my own mind about things by getting info from as many sources as possible, he was just one source. What he did do was introduce MILLIONS of people to ancient sites etc that they would never have known about otherwise.

So he got caught out on one item, miniscule crime compared to what the msm and our governments do...and many people on this website.
edit on 26-7-2012 by VoidHawk because: (no reason given)

And the only reason you believe that msm and government is lying is based on a comparison on what they report versus what somebody link Daniken (and many many others) state is the unreported alternative.

I think you'll find that msm and government do not tell as many porkies as you are led to believe! People claim they are doing so because it conflicts with their entrenched belief.




posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 07:30 AM
link   
as interested as i am in 'forbidden arch.', ala klause dona and the like, i've always been sceptical of EVD.
for god's sake9or ancient alien's sake!!!!) the man opened up an amusement park with the theme based on his books!!!
"mom,dad,where are we going this summer?
to the chariots of the gods theme park!!!!!



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Congratulations, you're a pseudo-skeptic.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by yorkshirelad

I think you'll find that msm and government do not tell as many porkies as you are led to believe! People claim they are doing so because it conflicts with their entrenched belief.


The assertion that msm and government are lying LESS than we assume is a great example of entrenched belief; this site literally churns out stories that expose govt/msm lies on a daily basis...

I do agree that Ancient Aliens theory has serious flaws, but there are plenty of serious flaws in the mainstream story too. The difference is that without the resources that are provided for mainstream researchers, it is much more difficult to produce compelling evidence. Does this excuse fabrication? No, I don't think so.

However even if EVD was just trying to make money, this is certainly not unique to alternative theorists; there are plenty of authors that profiteer from mainstream theories as well. And if you want to talk about a real money-making machine, how about all the institutions worldwide that charge tuition, receive grants, funding, prestige, etc.

More money means greater ability to produce compelling evidence, including fabrication (and there have been cases of mainstream science fabricating evidence if you have eyes to see). Mainstream theories also enjoy the ability to suppress information and evidence that does not "fit."

I think anyone doing honest critical thinking will find that all humans, including oneself, are more or less full of crap and act out of their own entrenched beliefs. It's much easier to accept info that fortifies your beliefs than info that challenges them, and this happens with mainstream beliefs just as it does with alternative, "crazy" ones.

This is why it is always important to cross-reference information, but all information is valuable, even if it is not "true." Food for thought might not always be palatable, but it is very nutritious.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

This documentary (which I first saw in 1978 or 1979) was the beginning of the end for my own beliefs concerning "alternative" archaeological claims.


So one bad experience and you dump all alternative archaeological evidence?



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by WhamBam
 


well if you'd like, you name any alterno history researcher and I will show you evidence that they have lied for personal gain.
And not opinionated evidence either, but evidence that you can easily confirm for yourself

I started off totally believing everything, it took me years of personal research to realise the truth of that. There is a reason that every single one of them makes the claim that the authorities are lying to you. There is even a name for the logical fallacy, its called a "god of the gaps" argument
en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 27-7-2012 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
reply to post by WhamBam
 


well if you'd like, you name any alterno history researcher and I will show you evidence that they have lied for personal gain.
And not opinionated evidence either, but evidence that you can easily confirm for yourself

I started off totally believing everything, it took me years of personal research to realise the truth of that. There is a reason that every single one of them makes the claim that the authorities are lying to you. There is even a name for the logical fallacy, its called a "god of the gaps" argument
en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 27-7-2012 by Marduk because: (no reason given)


Here are some logical fallacies for you:

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Is it really necessary to point out how illogical it is to say that every alternative history researcher is lying for personal gain? "All alternative theories are BS and are fabricated simply for personal gain, people. Only listen to the official story because it's automatically true!" lol...



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by nonono
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Congratulations, you're a pseudo-skeptic.


Actually a real skeptic!

Here is an example; an archaeologist in a peer reviewed publication states he has found evidence of an unknown off shoot of humanity, the Denisovians....now how would I research that? I cannot, unless I were to go in a time machine and watch the excavation and more importantly the lab work. Since I cannot obtain a primary source I accept said report until someone with the expertise and ability can show it is wrong.

Example two, an evanglical preacher states he has found the bones of Adam, he offers as proof that god told him so but also he does produce archaic human bones, of unknown provenance. Again I cannot observe how this evidence was found or created, but given the source, I will consider it false until someone with the expertise and ability can show it to be true
edit on 27/7/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


wow this actually explains how they built the pyramids and why!! As well as how the hell they could have ever managed the stones in Baalbek that were over 1000 tonnes....

oh wait...no it doesn't...

EVD was never the glue holding everything together when it came to AA or alternative histories...its has been and always will be the perplexing megalithic structures throughout the ancient world...that you can go visit today still and warp your mind that people apparently were supposed to have done all that with copper and rope....

My belief that history is no where near what mainstream science says its supposed to be lies in their continuing inability to even come close to providing a rational, logical, or practical,....reason, method, purpose, for doing the things the ancients did....they picked the hardest way possible to do what they wanted to do...all over the world

EVD may be bunk, Hancock may be bunk, all of them may be bunk...but the archaeological evidence that sits there today for all to see says the mainstream version of history is bunk as well...



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sly1one
reply to post by Harte
 


EVD may be bunk, Hancock may be bunk, all of them may be bunk...but the archaeological evidence that sits there today for all to see says the mainstream version of history is bunk as well...


Yes you can believe that but you come up with a problem. What evidence would you accept? The large structures are 'mysterious' because people want them to be mysterious, the pyramids were not mysterious to the AE or the ancient, they knew what they were and how they got there. This mystery is a modern confusion.

Here's a question for you how many 500+ ton stones were moved in the ancient world?



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Marduk
 



There's almost no substance to your belief that Hancock is a fraud. The BSC works hand in hand with the BBC - the fact that they fell in line with BBC's original stance regarding Hancock is evidence that they protect their own interests. It's like claiming that Niels Harrit's paper was debunked by the 9/11 Commission. It's an empty argument from a source with a great deal to lose. If they had agreed with Hancock, that would have humiliated the BBC. See?

Hancock wouldn't put this fiasco on his website because, well there's no reason whatsoever to post it. I'm surprised that anyone considers this evidence that he agrees with BSC's conclusions. Maybe he just felt like the public would misconstrue the facts, knowingly or otherwise, to suit personal agendas. Sound familiar?

As for the Popol Vuh, historians DO consider it a relatively uncontaminated source of ancient Columbian mythology. Ximenez transcribed an oral tradition, yes but there is virtually no evidence that he intentionally re-wrote any parts of it or injected Christian concepts into it.

In the end your argument is reduced to a bunch of hot air.

Cheers
edit on 27-7-2012 by Son of Will because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by Sly1one
reply to post by Harte
 


EVD may be bunk, Hancock may be bunk, all of them may be bunk...but the archaeological evidence that sits there today for all to see says the mainstream version of history is bunk as well...


Here's a question for you how many 500+ ton stones were moved in the ancient world?


>1 is how many there were and what does it matter anyway? Isn't just one enough to warrant question? I honestly don't know how many 500+ tonne stones there are in the ancient world, I guess if I thought that it mattered I would have researched it...but I don't think it does...all that matters is that they do in fact exist in a time in which they wouldn't have been manageable or practical... that's why its an anomaly that warrants questions...
edit on 27-7-2012 by Sly1one because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
reply to post by WhamBam
 


well if you'd like, you name any alterno history researcher and I will show you evidence that they have lied for personal gain.
And not opinionated evidence either, but evidence that you can easily confirm for yourself


Graham Hancock.

Go.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhamBam

Originally posted by Harte

This documentary (which I first saw in 1978 or 1979) was the beginning of the end for my own beliefs concerning "alternative" archaeological claims.


So one bad experience and you dump all alternative archaeological evidence?

I see.

Not only do you know me well, it appears, but you offhandedly dismiss the personal research I've conducted since 1978.

Were you even alive then?

Sorry, but you've got the wrong guy. Perhaps you should read some of my posts on the subject. Especially the older ones, before I got tired of fringies posting statements that I (now) know to be lies as if they were factual.

Read what I posted. After all, you quoted it.
"...the beginning of the end..."

This documentary caused me to try and find out if there had been other such lies that were told to me in books I paid money for on this subject.

Turned out, there were. A great many lies.

Good luck in your search for factual evidence. That is, if you have decided to look for any.

Harte



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sly1one
reply to post by Harte
 


wow this actually explains how they built the pyramids and why!!

They dragged the (relatively) small stones up ramps, some of which the remains have been found, right in front of the Great Pyramid. They did this to construct a tomb which functions like a machine. No, not that kind. A resurrection machine. Another link.


Originally posted by Sly1oneAs well as how the hell they could have ever managed the stones in Baalbek that were over 1000 tonnes....

oh wait...no it doesn't...

Why do you need an explanation for something that was still being done as late as 1768? Thunder stone.
That one was over 1500 metric tons.


Originally posted by Sly1oneEVD was never the glue holding everything together when it came to AA or alternative histories...its has been and always will be the perplexing megalithic structures throughout the ancient world...that you can go visit today still and warp your mind that people apparently were supposed to have done all that with copper and rope....

The fact that you refuse to understand a thing does not render that thing incapable of being understood. There are simply no reasons whatsoever to think human beings were incapable of constructing any of the structures that you have allowed to "warp your mind."


Originally posted by Sly1oneEVD may be bunk, Hancock may be bunk, all of them may be bunk...but the archaeological evidence that sits there today for all to see says the mainstream version of history is bunk as well...

My guess is that you haven't even looked at any of the actual archeological evidence you claim here to interpret.

Harte



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
So all alternative archaeology is bull$$it according to you.



[b[UNSUBSCIBE

I don't need any more closed minds and slanted POVs to remind me what a bunch of fools often post here.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by RongoRongo
 


No there is a difference between alternative and fringe.




Consensus is based on what the majority of the specialists believe and agree on based on the accepted facts

Alternative is based on what a minority of the specialists (and others) believe and agree (rarely) on the accepted facts - but have a different idea what they mean

Fringe as above but the facts are either ignored or stuff is made up

Fantasy, facts pretty much ignored or made up stuff predominates often violating physical laws or is dependent of religious fiction

Lunacy an excess of Fantasy with a general disregard of physical laws well lubricated with a vast conspiracy of much of the world’s population


I hold two alternative views to consensus, I believe that the Polynesians did push on from Rapa Nui to SA and that the Yonaguni monument may have been modified by man

Alternative points of view often become mainstream consensus, fringe rarely does



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sly1one



>1 is how many there were and what does it matter anyway? Isn't just one enough to warrant question? I honestly don't know how many 500+ tonne stones there are in the ancient world, I guess if I thought that it mattered I would have researched it...but I don't think it does...all that matters is that they do in fact exist in a time in which they wouldn't have been manageable or practical... that's why its an anomaly that warrants questions...
edit on 27-7-2012 by Sly1one because: (no reason given)


Well the number is 11 (AFAIK) so it was very, very hard to move such stones, and so they did it rarely. Now if it had happened 10,000s of times that would make one think differently? So ancient man moved 11 enormous blocks during all of human history and also cut a number of even larger stones but didn't move them - probably just to hard to do so. Why do you find that unmanageable or practical ---- I would point out one fact, they were in fact moved so somebody thought it was manageable or practical....

I would ask that you consider how the Roman's pick up 8 100-435 ton obelisks from Egypt, shipped them to Rome and erected them?

Harte has already mentioned the Thunderstone which was 1,250 -1,500 tons and was moved by non-mechanical means in historic times - so how could that be if man is so limited he needs aliens or whatever to move rocks for him?

There ain't no mystery to archaeologists but if you really want it to be a mystery to you personally, please drive on!
edit on 27/7/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Busted!!!!!


Although, he was busted and he should be shunned I could see where our ancient ancestors could easily misconstrue an alien for an angel. I think we have just as much evidence for Gods as we do for Aliens.

Also too bad the old documentary are better researched than the sensationalism documentaries we get today like that chasing Ufo crapola.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


This NOVA show is obviously meant to be a hit piece on Von Daniken, and like all mass media productions, they start with a premise and build upon it with the intention of convincing you to buy into it. It was not meant to be a balanced "report" of any kind, although it is masquerading as one in the beginning.

They took a few of Von Daniken's weakest arguments and made counter-claims, most of which were every bit as much speculation as Von Daniken's. They proved nothing. I read all of Von Daniken's books in the late 70's and the shear volume of evidence that he presents in his books is overwhelming, and should make one wonder if only 1/10th of it is true.

The most interesting fact of the entire show though IMO was presented at the very end, and simply glossed over. The Dogon Tribe's knowledge of the Sirius Star System is absolutely unexplainable without a vastly greater scientific knowledge being passed onto to them...even greater than we humans had in 1977, when this hit piece was made.

They clearly showed that they believed that the Sirius Star System is made up of three stars in their drawings. This NOVA show states that there are two stars in that system - Siruis A and Sirius B. Well guess what? Sometime after 1977 we discovered that there may indeed be a third star in that system. I'd really like to know how people who have never seen a telescope could possibly have known that 5000 years ago.

For those interested, I found with a simple Google search that there's an enormous amount of facinating information about the Dogon Tribe on the web, such as THIS.





top topics
 
30
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join