In this instance, you're quite right. I was getting ahead of myself.

And I think "hell-bent on character assassination" is a tad overdramatic -- not, god knows, that I have any problem with the drama as such -- but I do insist on calling a spade a spade.

But isn't there /something/ to what I suggested? "Possibility" is a completely different concept that "probability" -- is there no value in believing something that's true, or the thing most likely to be true over the merely amusing?

--Jaylemurph

Surely you must agree that there are some things that can be known, and thus, in that sense, are "true," no?

For example, VonDaniken's admission that he forged "evidence" of alien contact in ancient history.

After all, he admitted it. Why would he do so if it were not "true?"


VonDaniken was a pioneer of the genre, but the idea can arguably be attributed to H.P. Lovecraft.

Hannah Barbera was also a "pioneer" in this - the Flintstones were visited by an ancient alien astronaut.

Too bad Fred couldn't publish.

VonDaniken has had all the consideration he deserves. More than he deserves, actually.

Harte

Wow. Thats about all i can say. To give credit to little green men for what mankind made is just crazy.

My basic take on Von Daniken; i think he basically started out with genuine intentions on his theories & research but after his first book & movie/doco that followed it made him an instant multi mega millionaire virtually overnight i think the dude started loos'n it and i'm not talking about his vast wealth. Do a search you'll see a followed up sequel to Chariots Of The Gods ('68) (got the DVD in my collection ) with Return Of The Gods('70), the a dozen or so other books in quick succession followed after that. ...imo that looks/sounds like a bloke driven more by greed & an ego trip rather than in pursuit of genuine research of the truth of our ancient past. (not say'n all his theories are complete bullsh*t tho) It's just i'm weary of any author that brings out too many books in such a short time...


Just my take on him anyway



Chariots of the Gods? (1968) <-wonder how many times it's re-released since '68? (different cover & all)
Gods from Outer Space (1970) (Return to the Stars)
The Gold of the Gods (1972)
In Search of Ancient Gods (1973)
Miracles of the Gods (1974)
According to the Evidence (1977)
Signs of the Gods (1979)
Pathways to the Gods (1981)
The Gods and Their Grand Design (1982)

*(Bit of a gap between books here?)
I assume thats when he was busy building his mystery theme park with extraterrestrials/ancient space ships and all.
The theme park was a financial disaster for him so i guess he pumped out a few more books to recoup the losses?...

The Eyes of the Sphinx (1996)
The Return of the Gods—Evidence of Extraterrestrial Visitations (1997)
Odyssey of the Gods—An Alien History of Ancient Greece (2000)


Funny how after his first & only two real mega $uc$e$$e$ he wrote a book ''Gold'' Of The Gods shortly after.

Can't read that because 'Webpage cannot be found'.'




My opinion of this link is more or less......"TWADDLE".....

If all the sections of it were examined in detail.....and all the people mentioned in it....were
available to explain (in detail) the exact circumstances of each point.....it might mean something.
Also....it would be interesting to know more about the person who has gone to such lengths to
isolate those points....ie.the person who wrote the piece.

If information about ETs visiting earth in ancient times and NOW is a major cover up....and from what I've
been coming across on the internet just lately....I'm at the point of thinking.....'OH, MY GOD...IT'S
ALL TRUE.!!!'.....then Von Daniken....will naturally be a target for character assassination and ridicule.




Are you refering to the 'Lolladoff' plate? I've had a dig around...and it seems that Daniken was not
the only person to be DUPED by this....there are masses of links on the web....those concerning the
possible hoax of the plate....ascribe the hoax to someone called David Agamon(?)

Perhaps you could highlight EXACTLY what evidence he is surposed to have FORGED....and some kind
of PROOF that he admitted it?? As you are making the claim....the burden of proof is on you...yes?







I've got to say....that what-ever the merit of every little detail of what Von Daniken speculates on....
the photos and pictures in his books make up a fantastic collection......the pics and photos alone make
the books worthwhile......

David Agamon admitted to Fortean magazine that tha Dropa Stone "mystery" was a hoax.

Agamon was the supposed "editor" of the book "Sun Gods in Exile" (1978) by "Dr. Karyl Robin-Evans " - a non-existent person.

The 1978 book carried the Lolladoff plate as part of it's "evidence."

Agamon has been accused of the forgery, but he successfully showed he got his info and the picture from VonDaniken.

The 1978 book was the first book written exclusivelyabout the Dropa stones.

VonDaniken's "Chariots of the Gods" was the very first publication of the Dropa story. It was in his book in 1968 - before it ever appeared anywhere else in print on Earth.

The Dropa hoax is VonDaniken's baby.

The Lolladoff plate, which also appears in "Chariots...", is the pottery forged by VonDaniken.

Here's a piece of this convoluted and pathetic tale:

SOURCE

More here, with better links at the bottom of the page.
I've documented this before in a more thorough manner. It might have been here at U-M, I can't remember right now.

But the above info is enough for you yourself to find what you want regarding "PROOF" of VonDaniken's dishonesty, unless, that is, you (like so many others) would prefer not to know the extent to which you've been robbed by this lying, cheating fraud of a "human being."

Harte

Try this: http://www.debunker.com/texts/vondanik.html



Well, I'll be. You can use critical reading skills.

Too bad you only use them for the things you /don't/ want to believe.



Just because you don't like the fact he's a convicted liar and admitted fraud doesn't make him any less of one. I still say, if you insist on throwing your money away, throw it to me. At least I'm not an admitted liar and convicted fraud.

The idea that historians are covering up things is so tired and so without proof I'm not going to respond to it twice in a day. But why would historians cover up history?



Geez, I hope you never watch Star Wars or Doctor Who, least the special effects lead you to think they're real!

Well, you wouldn't be the first at UM...

--Jaylemurph

Because it does not go with the story they like, such as 666 and 616 for example.
Everyone has an ideology, a faith, a nation, some bias they cannot shake.
It is why we need many of many backgrounds to balance it all out.

You have put up a good fight here........ .....but.....as the tale is so convoluted and convenient
for the....anti Daniken lot....I still have my doubts. He was obviously convicted of a couple of things
but I have noted that he claims he was set up/framed by the Vatican....on the more serious charges
for which he went to prison. I've come across some stuff about the Vatican lately...that makes me
think he MAY be right about this. Or not, as the case may be.

Re. him confessing to some kind of deception on a BBC documentary....I would have to see this
documentary before conceeding anything......

I don't think I've been robbed by Daniken......he's not the only person to put forward these kind of
ideas.....even if he was proved beyond doubt to have 'forged' a bit of pottery....(this would have been
silly of him....because there was obviously no need, with all the other stuff he gets into.) but, anyway...
the Disclosure Project and all the offshoots of it is blowing the lid off the ET business......so regardless of
some POSSIBLE personality flaws with Von Daniken.....he is being vindicated on a daily basis, as more
of the Disclosure Project comes out.

So there.......






You tell me..... (I have my suspicions.....but it would be mere speculation.)




yea right.... As you very well know.....the photos in his books are of real places, statues, artefacts...etc

What are you talking about?

Other than that opaque example, I agree with you completely. It's why theories of historical cover-up are so laughable -- historians are far too diverse in their beliefs to cover-up something for the sake of one single interpretation. Saying that all historians are uniform in their beliefs is a statement of the utmost ignorance of the field. It's pretty much only "internet researchers"/pseudo-historians with no real knowledge of what they're talking about that suggest them.



One gets the feeling you personally could write a lie for him to deliver and you still might just be willing to think he's telling the truth.



I don't know. Historians are in the business of finding things out, not hiding them.

--Jaylemurph

I agree with you, Bee.
After Erich von Daniken wrote his first book, many other writers went in his footsteps, and came to the same conclusions as EvD, directly and indirectly supporting his general theory about a possible visit by ancient astronauts vitnessed by early man.
None of these writers got anywhere near the same hash critic as EvD, perhaps possibly because they are scientist themselves, with titles.
Erich von Daniken, a former hotelier, and with a perhaps a bit challenging writing style towards etablished science relevant to his theories, like archeology, is a much more thankful target to shoot down.
It seems like, to the casual observer, that Erich von Daniken is the object of ridicule for the whole etablished science. Not so.
In A.A.S., or Ancient Astronaut Society, an organisation for those who are interested in discussing the theories for a possible visitation by extraterrestials in ancient time and witnessed by early man, have many reputable scientist as members. With titles like professors and ph.d in many scientific disiplines.
If these reputable scientists find it worthwhile to travel all around the world to join A.A.S. meetings several times a year, how can EvD theories by so wrong?

AND making money off those ideas, too. Let's not forget that. I imagine the first liar and the first thief didn't have to wait terribly long to gain imitators, either.



Sure they did; I mean, you can look around here and find harsh criticism of Graham Hancock, Sitchin, et al. But I don't know of any legitimate scientist backing up their foolish theories.
Perhaps you could enlighten us.



And one might suggest, as a former hotelier, EvD had neither the knowledge nor the experience to make legitimate historical claims. (Aside from the obvious fact that he was /making things up/ to prove his point. And then /admitted it/.) That's to say nothing of his fallacious style of writing -- BUT CAN IT BE ANY OTHER WAY?!!

--Jaylemurph

Hi there...... .....I take your point....and welcome it.

I think that the reason that von Daniken (and others like Sitchin) get such a battering on forums like this
is because it's part of a rather insidious agenda to sway the 'casual observer' away from these kinds of ideas.
As you have probably noticed....on a fairly mainstream forum like this....the 'dirty tricks' are quite successful.
So your post was like a breath of fresh air.....wafting through the fog of censorship...

Cheers

Actually he is. He has no respect within the scientific community at all.

See what I mean, Nordmann61......?

Sorry, I do not know of any colleague of mine who doesn't think Von Daniken is a joke. He is and he really is full of s**t trying to sell it to the gullible.

I'm not sure what your specialty is, Matt, but I'm a historian. Generally speaking, most of my colleagues don't even know who von Daniken is so they don't abuse him at all. They stick to real history, though, and don't waste time with specious clap-trap. They can scent it a mile away.

I'm sure, like you, they're too busy doing the real business of teaching and learning to waste time on an admitted liar like EvD.

--Jaylemurph

My field is biology and I know a few people who have read his stuff when they where younger, but the now know how much nonsense he writes.

I wrote:
"Have anyone tried to separate a 10 ft by 8 ft by 8 ft stone from a mountainside, then shape it with perfect 90 degree corners, make it perfectly slabsided and smooth, often with intricate precise recessions, using stone tools no harder than the material you want to shape? Please try.
The archelogoists say they had only stone tools, because they have not found other than stone-tools in archaelogical diggings. Period. So there."

Many of the magificent ancient buildings in for instance South America are made up of blocks of the hardest granite. If stone tools were used the tools used cannot be made of a harder material than that.
If you try to bang a granite block with a stone tool from the same material, all you will make is at best some scratches on the surface. A handheld stone tool made will not have a weight more than 10 pounds or so, about the heaviest practical weight for a handheld tool.
If you were living in ancient times, and held a stonetool like that, what ideas of what you can make with it would come to mind?
Ancient mans brain volume was not any differnt from us, so using a granite tool on softer stones, would easily produce drinking wessels, plates, weapons, art as they found out quickly.
But when banging a granite tool against a granite rock will only make scratches at best, do you think they saw before them, holding their stone tools, huge buildings made by thousands of perfectly shaped rectangular granite blocks weighting many tons, with perfect 90 degree corners and intricate recessions?
They were not unintelligent, so they would not even try.
If you have hardened metal chiesels, and 8 pound hand held sledges, prybars, etc. then you not only get ideas of building domes, you would build them too.
I suspect the achelogists who have explained many of the sites of the ancient magnificent buildings in South America do not have the practical inclination to understand that you cannot shape thousands of perfectly rectangular blocks of the hardest granite, weighting many tons, with perfect 90 degree corners, perfectly slabsided and with intricate perfect recessions with stone tools of the same hardness.
They have simply not even tried to make one single granite block that way. I do not believe it. If someone knows about someone who have tried this and succeeded, please enlighten me about it.
Ok, so then I suggest aliens then? No, I simply suggest that the people who buildt them were a lot more advanced than we think, for instance, many of the granite blocks found in the many ruins, has narrow and deep t-shaped recessions* for metallic clamps**, holding the block together.
If we admit that they used metallic clamps, then we must admit them metallurgic knowledge, so why could they not have metal chiesels and metall sledges even if no metallic tools have been found?
(Metallic tools would have corroded or rusted away after so many years).
They mastered metallurgy, but their tools for shaping stone were made of stone? Come on.

*How do you shape a narrow and deep t-shaped recession with perfect 90 degree angels on the inside, with stone tools no harder than the granite block itself?
Answer: It cannot be done.

**Remains of the metallic clamps used and the alloy have been found and analyzed to my knowledge.

Daniken asked a simple enough question: has the Earth been visited by extra-terrestrials some time in its history?
It is a question that is harmless enough if asked on its own and who can say that the Earth has not been visited by people from another world? to say that it is impossible is to say that no intelligent life exists in the universe other than ourselves.
Unfortunately Daniken supported his simple question with some very faulty 'science' some of which he deliberately fabricated and of course Daniken also became one of the world's best selling and richest authors which created considerable jealousy.
But nonetheless; his question still stands as valid.

I think it is fair to say, someone else asked it first.

Okay, where are these humongous granite slabs again?


Are they? Which ones, please.


Where, again, was this done?



Please give some references when you make these claims, or at least give us the name of the site you're talking about. Otherwise it's a straw man argument.


The clamps you're talking about have not completely rusted away. I remember reading an article about the investigation into the metallurgy of these very clamps used in South America.

So, why do you claim they "only had stone tools" again?


You need to do much better than this. VonDaniken is a lying, scheming, uneducated con man. Yet he, at least, states where these things are.

Harte

Does using the National Enquirer as a source for his information give some clue?

Puma Punku, Tiahuanaco, Gobekli Tepe, Incan city of Sacsahuamán, are good examples.
"They only had stone tools" is a claim from archeologists, not from me, if you read what I wrote.

I would also like to add Machu Picchu and Chichén-Itzá of course.

http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_8.htm
http://www.world-mysteries.com/gw_rn3.htm
http://www.thestoneage.org/stone_age_02_a.php
These are links to websites with good pictures of the sites in question.

The first link you provided above refutes basically everything you have claimed.

Thanks for that.

Harte

I have also read the text to the pictures shown, and if you read carefully it says "scientists speculate..." and "the masons might have used...". Exactly.
Much of the text is about what archelologist speculate about what have happened. As usual when achelologists explain how enormous stone blocks weighting many tens of tons have been moved, they comeup with their three staple items: wooden rollers, ropes and elbowgrease. If you utter a protest, they just add more people.
The archelologist have no proof of how it have happened here, the woodenroller-rope-elbowgrease theory fits all for them. Then they repreate this theory in lectures and books, and after the principle if you repeat something often enough, it becomes the truth.
I have personally seen these magnificent huge buidings and structures it up close , and me and others with technical background are certain it can not be done as the archelologists speculate about here.

Archaeologists are about speculation. They do not possess time travel technology.

It's extremely rare that any archaeological theory can be said to be "proven."

On the other hand, I'd go with the men and women that have spent their entire lives looking into these things rather than a group of friends viewing a few slides you took.

You, on the other hand, are welcome to whatever opinion you wish to hold. No matter how baseless, of course.

Harte

If achelologists spend their entire life with others that also use the woodenroller-rope-elbowgrease solution for everything, then they will not know about any other solution.
My problem with the achaelologist community is that achelologists are left alone to explain sites like this. It would be better if scientists from other disiplines could join in, together with experts on transportation of heavy loads, lifting, logistics, stone cutting and shaping etc, to see if the explainations they come up with are feasible.
But archaelologists will not allow anybody else in, unfortunatly.
Just curious:
You admit that achaelology is about speculation, and that it is extremely rare that any archaeological theory can be said to be "proven." So why cannot Erich von Daniken do his speculations and make them known?

That's just naive. Of course they hear other things and know other possibilities. Just because they come back to a solution you don't like doesn't mean they're ill-informed; quite the reverse, unless you profess to know more about it than people who've studied for decades.



And this is just ignorant. They do this all the time; the fact that you can even claim they don't speaks volumes about how little you actually know what you're talking about. Trying watching an episode of Nova.



Mr von Daniken has every right to subject the willing to his dreck. However, because he has no training in the field of archaeology, a crude understanding of history and of different cultures' technology, uses questionable sources with no qualms and BECAUSE HE IS AN ADMITTED AND CONVICTED FRAUD what he does doesn't deserve the title of academic archaeology. There's a perfectly good term for him already: a pseudo-historian.

And as long as he has that, he's guaranteed hundreds of smug followers convinced they're smarter than real archaeologists since they plunked down $14.95 for his book.

--Jaylemurph

Ok, so just archaeloligsts have the right to explain for instance Puma Punktu. No others, even if they are experts on transportation and heavy lifting can speak up to the achaelologist. I have a friend who is a field manager in a company that is doing heavy lifting and transportation, they have to their disposision the heaviest of mobile cranes and cranes, hydraulic rams, water cooled stone saws, all the latest and most advanced equipment. He visited Puma Punktu a few years after me. Puma Punktu made him speechless.
The heaviest block weight in at over 400 tons, and several others weight in over 100 tons to up to 200 tons. He said they could not duplicate that, after he had evaluated the site. He just shook his head the the archaelologists explaination of how his mega heavy block was made, transported and erected. He said no way. He is not an "danikenite", but he is now a believer that the makers of Puma Punktu were ahead of us technologywise, and I agree.
I trust his opinion more than the achaelologists explainations for Puma Punktu.
Go to Puma Punktu and see for yourself. Woodenrollers, ropes only and elbowgrease? No way.

Quote by itsnotoutthere:

"Don't you think that if an alien race who were capable of designing space ships that could traverse the vast distances of space at light speed have the capability to at least put a few windows in there buildings. !!! According to Daniken & yourself a monolithic stone pyramid of the simplest form is the height of alien architectural design."
EndQuote.

The monolithic stone pyramids were monuments to the gods, I do not think they were built by aliens nor have I said that in my posts, I think. If you have read Erich von Danikens books carefully, I have, also in EvD own language, he does not think so either. As I have understood him, he think that the builders of these buildings were far more technologically advanced than we think, but some time after the "gods" left, this knowhow was lost.

As you humourously remarked:" .. at least put a few windows in there buildings", yes many ask themselves if it was extraterrestials present as the buildings were erected, why did they not leave some of their technology behind, hidden in the buildings, so we, at a time we are advanced enough, can find them?
Maybe we will someday. I think not, the buildings were buildt by humans to honour the gods who left them.

No, that's a deliberate confusion of what I said, and I'm sure you're aware of it.

I don't know where you got the idea in your head that archaeologists work only with other archaeologists and not with other specialists (though I suspect the idea's been put in your head by pseudo-scientists and you've run with it). They do. And it'd be as foolish for them to theorise about how such structures were built without them as it would be for your friend to make sweeping statements about how the people of Puma Punktu without any historical or archaeological training.

--Jaylemurph

I the "old days of achaelology" when they discovered Puma Punku, Tiahuanaco, Gobekli Tepe, Incan city of Sacsahuamán, Machu Picchu and Chichén-Itzá, I am not so sure achaelologists consulted of scientists from other disiplines and experts on heavy lifting and transportation to see I the achaelologists own ideas were feasible.
The referals and credits in the books describing the excavations, are all to the archaelologists who explained the sites to the world, no one else.
My mind were on these sites when I claimed the quite bastant "But archaelologists will not allow anybody else in, unfortunatly."
Today I know achaelologists bring in scientist from other disiplines to the excavations.
But they do not alway like what other scientists from exact scienses say about their findings.
I must mention one example from recent time: When an outsider to the achaelologists community took a closer look at the Spinx.
He, Robert M. Schoch of Boston University, Colin Reader and other geologists concluded that the erosion on the spinx was caused mostly by water erosion. This mean that the Spinx is probably 2500-5000 thousand years older than what the mainstream egyptologists have dated it to. Schoch and his colleges conclution did not sit well with the egyptologists community.
In fact , they did not accept their conclutions it, despite the fact that geology is an exact sciense.

Here is a link to Robert M. Schoch's own website: http://www.robertschoch.com/

So? In the old days of medicine, they used leeches to draw blood to balance the humours. They don't do that any more. Are you suggesting that unlike medicine, archaeology hasn't changed since the 1850s?



I'm not sure exactly what you're citing, so I can't comment. I will suggest that if these books are written in the same time as what you're talking about above, that there have been more recent studies done on them. As I often say, the fact you're not aware of them doesn't mean they don't exist.





You're being a little disingenuous here. Schoch's findings haven't gone undisputed, nor are his findings completely incompatible with current ideas about the history of the Sphinx (again, just because you don't know these theories doesn't mean they don't exist.) And don't forget that Schoch has his own agenda in proving a mythical global civilisation of pyramid builders; any findings he makes need to be understood in that context, too.

--Jaylemurph

nice post, welcome

This websites may also be of interest for you:
http://www.sagenhaftezeiten.ch/index.php?P...70dd6ccb1315bec the Swiss original, German language.
http://www.legendarytimes.com/ the English version.

Sometime when I read comments from Erich von danikens critics I got the feeling that they have not read his books, or just skimmed through them. EVD belittles ancient people? On the contrary, I can not remember that EvD have belittled ancient people, for instance the ancient Nazcas.
Ancient people tales of who made the buidings and structures is what EvD refers to when he claim that ancient astronauts were here, living with man.
Tiwanaku is an example. The Tiwanakus believed who made Tiwanaku involved Gods, like Viracocha, the Tiwanakus do not claim they buildt Tiwanaku themselves.
When I read EvD books my impression is that he takes ancient tales of how the buildings and gigantic megaliths were build more seriously than the mainstream achealologist.

Sure he does. All the time. The entire premise of his books are the native peoples could not possibly have built the things they built because they're too simple or to primitive to have done it (alone). They seems to be belittlement to me.

--Jaylemurph

TheQuote by itsnotoutthere:
"Don't you think that if an alien race who were capable of designing space ships that could traverse the vast distances of space at light speed have the capability to at least put a few windows in there buildings. !!! According to Daniken & yourself a monolithic stone pyramid of the simplest form is the height of alien architectural design."
EndQuote.

Monolithic stone pyramids were monuments to the gods, I do not think they were built by aliens nor have I said that in my posts, I think. If you have read Erich von Danikens books carefully, I have, also in EvD own language, he does not think so either. As I have understood him, he think that the builders of these buildings were far more technologically advanced than we think, but some time after the "gods" left, this knowhow was lost.
As you humourously remarked:" .. at least put a few windows in there buildings", yes many ask themselves if it was extraterrestials present as the buildings were erected, why did they not leave some of their technology behind, hidden in the buildings, so we, at a time we are advanced enough, can find them?
Maybe we will someday. I think not, the buildings were buildt by humans to honour the gods who left them.

daniken is a person who had the audacity to fabricate evidence to sell his books.

what kind of truth is there in his books, then??