VonDaniken admitting his fraud

Originally posted by AntiNWO
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.

The suggestion to search for the truth is a welcome one. However, your source is a crackpot site.

From the "Church of Critical Thinking" website:

Hmmmmm... So, are the Sumerians lying and it's actually just a myth as modern religion would have you think? Only problem is, they have this documented 4000 years before Chirstians even exsisted. Anyway, its clear I back up this claim. Me and that pesky science fella.

The above is just complete hooey. There exist no Sumerian writings indicating anything at all about any planet other than those that can be seen with the naked eye, not even including Uranus.

Although Nibiru now passes every 2,148 years it only orbits close enough to cause a pole shift every other time. Unfortunalty the numbers indicate last time it passed beyond Jupiter or Saturn resulting only in magnetic fluctuations and severe weather patterns. So this next pass should be between Mars and Jupiter. That can't be good folks. And the fact that both Maya and Sumer cultures (and about ten others), claim that their Gods told them this exact same timeline?

More Hooey. Note that this one is capitalized. Do you disagree?

Source for both: Church of Critical Thinking

More like Church of Zecharia Sitchin.

As for the Dogon myth, one need look no farther than this very forum to see the entire hypothesis shot down in flames and utterly humiliated.

Harte

Originally posted by AntiNWO
I grew up thinking that the mythology in ancient Greece, Native American tribes, African tribes, etc. were silly superstitions of primitive people. Now I am convinced that those people knew much more than we ever gave them credit for, and I'm facinated by what they have to say.

It's fascinating since there is often a common denominator, "Gods" from space etc. which can be found all over. Get a bunch of natives and chances are their legends will be something around that their ancestors "came from the stars". There is valid reason to speculate and ask why.

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


Thanks for the recognition - of EVD's fraud, I mean. LOL

He paid that guy to make a piece of pottery he claimed was ancient. Did you see that part?
(I ask because I haven't had time to even watch the thing. Last time I saw it had to be the early 80's.)

Harte

Originally posted by totallackey

So, ipso facto...your argument Von Daniken is a schill and shyster due to misrepresentation concerning a piece of evidence should now be ignored because of your blatant misrep?

Sure. Whatever floats your boat.

I don't expect that any mainstream documentary would change minds such as yours.

Harte

reply to post by flexy123

It is human nature to wonder about origins. "Natives" know that life (in the form of sunshine and rain) comes from the sky. Because they are careful observers, they understand that there is link between the movements of the stars and seasons. They believe that it is the movement of the stars which controls the seasons. They believe that everything that influences their lives has to do, ultimately, with the sky. That is the reason they link their origins and influences to the sky.

Theres the video that was asked for in page 1 of this thread.

Originally posted by flexy123
Even knowing his theories in and out, yesterday i read the wikipedia entry about him, YES they list a lot of errors and mistakes in his theories - but is mainstream SCIENCE free of making mistakes? Pleaaassseeeee...

You cannot apply a double standard here and say HIS theories are flawed since some points are errorneous- but forgive mainstream science and grant mainstream science the right to revise and correct errors (which is a normal M.O. in any science). NO THEORY is free of errors and wrong conslusions, mistakes etc. should be expected. What does this prove/disprove? Nothing.

So there's no difference between making a mistake and falsifying physical evidence?

Originally posted by fotsyfots
I was replying to Harte there champ & was questioning how he knew the pyramids werent mysterious to the AE.

Nice try. However, those of us with eyes who can read can plainly see you replied to Hans, specifically mentioning something he (not I) said in an earlier post. In the face of that, please quote where I stated that the pyramids were or were not mysterious to the AEs. That is, we see where Hans said that.

In the Information Age, it is unwise to so casually give away such personal information as your post I quoted lays bare.

Harte

This just shows you have to be careful when looking at anything (or anyone) who tries to show any ancient artifact. Pieces of historical significance have always been faked. This doesnt just apply to anything supposedly attributable to alien technology.

Ask any collector of civil war items. There are so many forged pieces being presented as authentic only a true expert can tell them apart. Ask any antiques dealer? they will tell you the same not everything that appears old really is.

There is a very good motive behind faking things like this. Fame, money, there is always a temptation to take short cuts. But it is shameful and does us all a disservice. Especially when it comes to alien artifacts or anything we would not consider mainstream thought. (although I think we ATS types are getting closer to outnumbering the mainstream types)..

Star and flag, Harte. Excellent thread, excellent documentaries. And I even got a few chuckles watching the Ancient Aliens fans excuse EVD for being a lying faking fraud.

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
wow...

I'm a bit disappointed. I red some of Danikens books...and I must admit...I was seduced by the info. I was for the most part a defender of the work of Daniken. Having watched this documentary...I will say that it made me wary...the man lied in his book about being in some cave and admitted it. He admitted saying he embellished a story a bit to fuel the readers imagination. This makes me think how many of them use this to promote sales of their books.

I still remain a believer in ancient astronaut theories...'cos I think there are many unexplained findings that don't jibe well with today's dogma. And having in mind that ancient history we know today is mostly from third hand sources and hearsay...I must remain open to the idea. It would explain a lot.

However....I will give Daniken couple of thumbs down for lying, and thus losing credibility with me. I will from now on always be skeptical of his claims...as I can not know now if he is only "embellishing"...

although...I must point out that some of the counter arguments for his claims are equally deceptive. Like that woman that talks about the Nazca lines...and how she met some guy that told her how to make those lines without any trouble...and also without any further proof or demonstration, after they tried so hard to demonstrate most of the things mentioned.

That was as ridiculous argument as I've seen or heard in a while, and is telling of an agenda. It's like debunking unsubstantiated claims with even more unsubstantiated claims.

Than the guy decending in to the "Mayan" temple, and in the process stating that it's very untypical for Maya to build such decending stairs in to the "shrine", and than proceeds explaining typical Mayan symbology...simply brilliant. I just love experts.

But parts of the Daniken admitting to lying are irrefutable. Shame on him...and shame on me for not doubting.


Thank you OP for this educational lesson...you made me rethink.

edit on 28-7-2012 by MarioOnTheFly because: (no reason given)

Don't feel bad. I read EVD's book when I was a teenager and bought into it, briefly. I'd like to say I didn't know any better, but I did.

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by totallackey

So, ipso facto...your argument Von Daniken is a schill and shyster due to misrepresentation concerning a piece of evidence should now be ignored because of your blatant misrep?

Sure. Whatever floats your boat.

I don't expect that any mainstream documentary would change minds such as yours.

Harte

This has nothing to do with a "mainstream documentary." This has to do with your own failure to perform due diligence. You committed fraud. You stated this:

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by VoidHawk
Thanks for the vid.

Your reference to G Hancock intrigues me because I once read something about the bbc and the way they unfairly represented him. This was upheld by the complaints commision.
Do you have any links?

Sorry.

These BBC programs from the long past run together in my mind...

Hancock's problem was with a Horizons program called "Atlantis Reborn."

I suppose I should have watched it before posting it, eh? LOL

It's just that I've been ttalking about this documentary for years. I hadn't looked for it in a while. It was finally posted this last December.

See if you can find the other one - Atlantis Reborn.

My Youtube kungfu is weak. Your's is probably stronger.

Harte

My boat is still floating...

Your attempt to castigate Von Daniken has sunk...by a torpedo you fired...

Your claim Von Daniken manufactured evidence is much in the same vein as a sculptor who makes bones for dinosaurs in the museum. Do you think that bone you see in the dinosaur is a real bone? Does this not constitute "manufactured evidence?"

Originally posted by totallackey

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by totallackey

So, ipso facto...your argument Von Daniken is a schill and shyster due to misrepresentation concerning a piece of evidence should now be ignored because of your blatant misrep?

Sure. Whatever floats your boat.

I don't expect that any mainstream documentary would change minds such as yours.

Harte

This has nothing to do with a "mainstream documentary." This has to do with your own failure to perform due diligence. You committed fraud. You stated this:

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by VoidHawk
Thanks for the vid.

Your reference to G Hancock intrigues me because I once read something about the bbc and the way they unfairly represented him. This was upheld by the complaints commision.
Do you have any links?

Sorry.

These BBC programs from the long past run together in my mind...

Hancock's problem was with a Horizons program called "Atlantis Reborn."

I suppose I should have watched it before posting it, eh? LOL

It's just that I've been ttalking about this documentary for years. I hadn't looked for it in a while. It was finally posted this last December.

See if you can find the other one - Atlantis Reborn.

My Youtube kungfu is weak. Your's is probably stronger.

Harte

My boat is still floating...

Your attempt to castigate Von Daniken has sunk...by a torpedo you fired...

Your claim Von Daniken manufactured evidence is much in the same vein as a sculptor who makes bones for dinosaurs in the museum. Do you think that bone you see in the dinosaur is a real bone? Does this not constitute "manufactured evidence?"

Dude, as I said, whatever floats your boat.

If you want, completely ignore any words I've posted.

I didn't make the documentary, and it speaks for itself.

Caught red handed.

Harte

this video is very outdated. they even mocked his concept of aliens coupling with humans. they laughed saying how ridiculous it was for alien species to mate with humans. of course, since this video was made we learned how to splice together genetic codes of different species. THATS how outdated this video is.

Originally posted by sirbadazz
this video is very outdated. they even mocked his concept of aliens coupling with humans. they laughed saying how ridiculous it was for alien species to mate with humans. of course, since this video was made we learned how to splice together genetic codes of different species. THATS how outdated this video is.

Now gene splicing has become mating?

Harte

Originally posted by Marduk

Originally posted by Harte
See if you can find the other one - Atlantis Reborn.

My Youtube kungfu is weak. Your's is probably stronger.

Harte

google video has it
video.google.com...
here is the Broadcasting Standards Commission - Synopsis of adjudication page
www.bbc.co.uk...
This used to contain all the details, but they cut it down as this happened more than a decade ago
this part though is what is most relevant

The programme had created the impression that he was an intellectual fraudster who had put forward half baked theories and ideas in bad faith, and that he was incompetent to defend his own arguments.

this was investigated and here was the BSC response

Adjudication: [The Commission] finds no unfairness to Mr Hancock in these matters.

or in other words Graham Hancock is an intellectual fraudster who puts forward half baked theories and ideas in bad faith, and is incompetent to defend his own arguments
so the conclusion is clear, Graham Hancock is fully aware that his ideas are rubbish but as a former journo doesn't care for the facts so much as he does the money

edit on 26-7-2012 by Marduk because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by VoidHawk
reply to post by Harte

 

What you just posted is what I was refering to. On hancocks site you can view the entire trancsript and all the letters that went between all parties. When you look at what they ommited and the sheer volume of what they ommited even someone who hates hancock would have to say the bbc were more than a little unfair. If I remember correctly THEY selected about 5% of what he said, leaving out the important bits.

Now I'm on a mission.

If I can find it I'll post a link

I hope when you go check Hancocks version of events (link to that page earlier in this post) you notice that the bit about him complaining that he was not an intellectual fraudster is conspicuously missing from his page
i.e. he complained they made him look dishonest, they checked and found that he was dishonest and he responded by not mentioning that adjudication anywhere on his website. What would you call that sort of behaviour, where someone is basically lying by omission ?
its not honesty is it

let me give you an example of the way that he distorts the truth to add weight to his theories so you can judge his honesty for yourselves
on page 158 of Fingerprints of the Gods Hancock states

The Popol Vuh is accepted by scholars as a great reservoir of uncontaminated, pre-Colombian tradition. It is therefore puzzling to find such similarities between these traditions and those recorded in the Genesis story.

he then goes on to list the many similarities between the Popul Vuh and the Bible stating later that the only way that so many similarities could exist is because both texts must have been influenced by the same lost advanced civilisation. In this light he makes a very compelling argument for hyper diffusion
But
The preamble for the Popul Vuh contains this statement by the author

This we shall write now under the Law of God and Christianity;

You see the Popul Vuh is not at all an uncontaminated source like Hancock would have us believe, it was actually written by one Francisco Ximénez a Dominican priest (Catholic)
en.wikipedia.org...
who was recording the myths told to him by natives who had converted to Christianity with a special emphasis on the similarities between the Christian Faith and the mythology of the Maya
so its not surprising that there are many similarities, but Graham Hancock decides not to mention that the book is from a christian source preferring his readers to remain in ignorant wonder at a lost advanced race, that he posits existed.

Your conclusion and the road you take to come to that end are bunk. The statement "This we shall write now under the Law of God and Christianity" is NOT a statement made to show that the preceding is then a version of Mayan story infused with biblical influnce but one made by the author to remind the reader that these old tales no longer have sway as the Maya are now under the influnce of the Church. There is NOTHING to indicate that the Popul Vuh was twisted, in its interpretation or telling, to reflect a more christanized Maya or that the Maya sought to patronize the writer with watered down retellings of these old histories. In fact the Popul Vuh reads more like a version of the same subjects recorded by the ancient Egyptians and Babylionians, that the recorder of the Popul Vuh or the tellers had no knowlage of, than it does just a very small portion of the Bible

Originally posted by Harte



Dude, as I said, whatever floats your boat.

If you want, completely ignore any words I've posted.

I didn't make the documentary, and it speaks for itself.

Caught red handed.

Harte

Well, I could imagine you want others to ignore any words you have posted, especially since your behavior in your own thread pretty much invalidates the substance of the thread according to the standards you desire to impose on others.

How about this...why not tell everyone here why a fabricated dinosaur bone is not a material misrepresentation or is not viewed as suspicious as the behavior you are trying to pin on Von Daniken?

Originally posted by Lazarus Short


Don't have a cow, man. I did admit, did I not, that Hancock's conclusions may be questionable? Please read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.

It's not 'may be questionable' they are

Originally posted by flexy123

Even knowing his theories in and out, yesterday i read the wikipedia entry about him, YES they list a lot of errors and mistakes in his theories - but is mainstream SCIENCE free of making mistakes? Pleaaassseeeee...

Has he corrected them? Science corrects

You cannot apply a double standard here and say HIS theories are flawed since some points are errorneous- but forgive mainstream science and grant mainstream science the right to revise and correct errors (which is a normal M.O. in any science). NO THEORY is free of errors and wrong conslusions, mistakes etc. should be expected. What does this prove/disprove? Nothing.

Does he still hold those ideas despite being wrong? Science doesn't support ideas based on wrong information, they redact and revise.

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by Lazarus Short

 

These guys are pseudo-intellectuals and regularly engage in hypocritical blowhard musings designed to placate themselves into a sense of superiority...in other words, they mostly know BUPKUS and are trolls...

Okay please show your superior knowledge then, please list the evidence used by the mainstream to support the contention that the Pyramids were built as tombs and by the Egyptians - then deny it.....


lol

Originally posted by Logarock
There is NOTHING to indicate that the Popul Vuh was twisted, in its interpretation or telling,

Apart from it being written by a catholic priest who was educated in Spain, you mean, but apart from that its entirely native mythology
riiiight