ChatterBank1 min ago
Horizon BBC2 tonight
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Don't worry about the name thing.
I can certainly back up that he lied. Especially seeing as he has since confessed to either fabricating "evidence" for them or deliberately distorting other facts in order to back up his silly claims. When challenged about that, he said "There was no other way of getting people to believe me." Oh, well, that's ok then.
Why should I say he lied about all of them? It would be inaccurate in that some of his statements were indeed simply outright lies, while the rest were distortions by manipulating facts, so I wouldn't count the latter as lies, hence he lied about SOME of them. Perhaps with some of them he was genuinely muddled and confused about some things but that would be charitable given that before becoming an author he'd been convicted of fraud more than once.
I can certainly back up that he lied. Especially seeing as he has since confessed to either fabricating "evidence" for them or deliberately distorting other facts in order to back up his silly claims. When challenged about that, he said "There was no other way of getting people to believe me." Oh, well, that's ok then.
Why should I say he lied about all of them? It would be inaccurate in that some of his statements were indeed simply outright lies, while the rest were distortions by manipulating facts, so I wouldn't count the latter as lies, hence he lied about SOME of them. Perhaps with some of them he was genuinely muddled and confused about some things but that would be charitable given that before becoming an author he'd been convicted of fraud more than once.
By the way, in case anyone reading doesn't know what we're on about, it's the bloke who wrote books saying we've been visited in the past by aliens who were responsible for various achievements such as the pyramids, the Nazca lines, early maps, and that certain ancient symbols, etchings, carvings etc depict these visitations. And therefore dismissed in a single sweep the inventive genius of a number of ancient cultures. Indeed, in insisting the Nazca lines were made by aliens, he referred to the Nazcans as "these primitive idiots".
For you to say "no one knows whether or not there could be some truth in his theories" is not simply bending over backwards to accommodate this liar, it's bending yourself into a pretzel. What we can do is look at the evidence and see that it points clearly to the inventiveness, endeavour, intelligence and resourcefulness of many ancient cultures. If you're essentially saying "Ah, but none of us were there, so how do you know these things weren't all done by aliens, eh?" that is a dead-end - it's good to be open-minded but not to the extent of allowing the possibility of outlandish 'theories' at the expense of dismissing our own achievements.
For you to say "no one knows whether or not there could be some truth in his theories" is not simply bending over backwards to accommodate this liar, it's bending yourself into a pretzel. What we can do is look at the evidence and see that it points clearly to the inventiveness, endeavour, intelligence and resourcefulness of many ancient cultures. If you're essentially saying "Ah, but none of us were there, so how do you know these things weren't all done by aliens, eh?" that is a dead-end - it's good to be open-minded but not to the extent of allowing the possibility of outlandish 'theories' at the expense of dismissing our own achievements.
Yes, in many instances I think it's possible, since some examples aren't 'demonstrably' achievable by the cultures existing at the time, as you claim. But in talking about 'achievements', you're still missing the whole point of his basic theory, and hence you are not addressing the fundamental question. To put it plainly, why do you think the idea that beings from other planets may have visited earth in the dim and distant past is preposterous?
Geezer, Actually, I think it's nearer to four light years away, but never mind. To guarantee that we will never see or communicate with beings from other planets is tantamount to saying that we have reached the peak of our knowledge and that science has advanced as much as it's ever going to, which is plainly not true. As the Horizon programme which began this thread demonstrated, we are mere babies in the real world of science - so how can you know where it will lead us in, say, 1,000 years - or 10,000 years? You can't.
Yeah, I'm aware of that, Jno. But I still find it irksome. Worst of all, many of these programmes are made with airing on commercial channels in mind. Hence the reminders aimed at those who start watching after a commercial break. But when these same programmes are being shown on e.g. BBC, these reminders are not only superfluous, they're distinctly annoying.
naomi it is preposterous because contrary to your claim, there are no examples where it is not clear how humans of the time could not have been responsible for things EvD claims were done by aliens (can you cite some where you think there is no evidence of human cause), there is nothing to suggest we were ever visited by aliens, and to say that doesn't mean we never were is nothing more than pointless sophistry and a waste of time, which is a characteristic of many of your posts. You seem to delight in constantly pursuing a tack of "prove it ISN'T so" knowing full well that proof of an absence is usually impossible, yet you pathetically use that as some kind of cloak of false logic behind which you can make claims for all sorts of silly things. The most hilarious thing is that in this in this thread you are doing it to back up the false claims of a con man, liar and fraud who based his entire theory on fabricated and distorted "evidence" then attempted to backtrack when made to admit his fraudulence.
Ellette, Goodness! Why so rude? This isn't World War III. It's simply a discussion. Just so that you don't expose yourself as a hypocrite again by offering false information, the very thing you're so angry with Mr Von Daniken for, I can categorically confirm that I have never challenged anyone to 'prove it isn't so', and I don't believe I've ever made claims for 'all sorts of silly things'. The fact that my input to this thread is making you so irate, and yet you find it hilarious is quite worrying, so may I suggest that if you want to continue this discussion you calm down and refrain from turning it into an unjustifiable personal attack.
continued...
continued...
...continued
Back the to subject. I'm afraid you're mistaken, because there are examples that we have yet to explain - and the terrace at Baalbek is one of them. There are plenty of theories, but none conclusive. I've seen it and it defies logic.
You are clearly unwilling to consider the possibility that beings from other planets may have visited us in the past, preferring instead to discredit the originator of the theory as much as possible - as though that somehow negates his original theory. Well, it doesn't because the fact remains that scientifically speaking there is no reason whatsoever why other civilisations couldn't have visited us in the distant past. Much of the universe is far older than the earth, so logically there could be civilisations in existence that are millions, if not billions of years in advance of ours. Whilst there is no proof, there is evidence to suggest we may have been visited, and as Mr Von Daniken proposed, there is evidence to suggest that those beings were considered to be gods. I believe he was right, and that is precisely where religion originated. If you want some written evidence, read the bible. Or is that suggestion what really makes you so irrationally hateful towards Erich Von Daniken - and me?
Back the to subject. I'm afraid you're mistaken, because there are examples that we have yet to explain - and the terrace at Baalbek is one of them. There are plenty of theories, but none conclusive. I've seen it and it defies logic.
You are clearly unwilling to consider the possibility that beings from other planets may have visited us in the past, preferring instead to discredit the originator of the theory as much as possible - as though that somehow negates his original theory. Well, it doesn't because the fact remains that scientifically speaking there is no reason whatsoever why other civilisations couldn't have visited us in the distant past. Much of the universe is far older than the earth, so logically there could be civilisations in existence that are millions, if not billions of years in advance of ours. Whilst there is no proof, there is evidence to suggest we may have been visited, and as Mr Von Daniken proposed, there is evidence to suggest that those beings were considered to be gods. I believe he was right, and that is precisely where religion originated. If you want some written evidence, read the bible. Or is that suggestion what really makes you so irrationally hateful towards Erich Von Daniken - and me?
Latest Posts
Crosswords5 mins ago
ChatterBank13 mins ago
ChatterBank16 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles16 mins ago
News17 mins ago
