Information icon.svg The 2017 board of trustees election has started! We are electing 2 board members to serve 2017-19. Nominate users here and read their campaign slogans here!

Talk:Erich von Däniken

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon ufology.svg

This Ufology related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement.

This article is of MID importance to the wiki.

See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Copperbrain.png

fun[edit]

but he's fun isn't he? RojerB-KtF! 08:47, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Funny, and it still makes more sense than a talking bush in the desert. MiddleMan 09:14, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Not gonna lie, when I was a credulous fundie in middle school, this book blew my mind. Still fun to read through though I know it's bullshit now. -- Metz77 (talk) 07:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I was pretty impressed by it when I was ten. It helped that I knew nothing about the actual history it pooped all over - David Gerard (talk) 10:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

His books make for enjoyable reading, but at least I can see through some of it now.-Albannach (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

BookS[edit]

Is it me, or the article fails to mention that he wrote more than eight other books between the Chariots and the Gods? Perhaps they were not translated in English or faded in the background woo?--ZooGuard (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably the latter. Go for it - David Gerard (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Basic flaws[edit]

Mummification (including steeping in assorted chemicals which are unhealthy, and removal of internal organs) is an aid to immortality.

All aliens are humanoid - why? Why not Paul the Octopusoids, or mice, or triffids.... 82.44.143.26 (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

BoN[edit]

(Note to writer/editor: The original film Stargate was openly based on ideas from von Daniken's book Chariots of the Gods, and von Daniken himself helped with the film. So accusing him of plagiarizing is backwards and shows a lack of research. I could write pages about how off-base this entire Von Daniken page is, but I'm sure you would just delete it so I won't bother.)— Unsigned, by: 76.23.132.42 / talk / contribs

BoN edit. Тytalk 02:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The BoN is right about the main idea of Stargate, though that blurb does sound like a breathless ad for a sci-fi movie. :) I think that David Gerard wrote the section, I don't know what he was thinking. I'm going to remove it.
As for the rest, the article does need more sourcing and more clear delineation of snark and verifiable facts. I can write summaries of the rest of the Däniken books that I have, but I don't have time at the moment and the books are several hundred kilometers away anyway.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The 1974 Playboy interview and the 1977 NOVA documentary[edit]

I've found two contemporary debunkings of his early books. Here is a scan of Däniken's 1974 interview in Playboy (he gets skewered) (hat tip). A full, bad-quality version of NOVA/Horizon's The Case of the Ancient Astronauts documentary is available on YouTube (link). It features Carl Sagan and Thor Heyerdahl, including video of his expedition to Rapa Nui/the Easter Island: islanders cutting, dragging and raising statues using only "primitive" tools. It also comments on the Ica stones and shows the guy who made them making one. Just compare the tone and the conclusion to the modern "documentaries" on the History Channel. :(--ZooGuard (talk) 08:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The Space Gods Revealed[edit]

Is it really co-written by Thor Heyerdahl? When I search "the space gods revealed thor heyerdahl" on Google, this article is the third result, which leads me to believe the cake claim is a lie.--Krejtalk 01:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Huh, so it is - David Gerard (talk) 07:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Removed.--Krejtalk 18:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Broken link[edit]

This whole domain seems to be down - does anyone have a current link for the content? Helen 15:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

  • The Hall of Maat has a lot of good stuff debunking nutty ideas about the ancient world, including some of those espoused by von Däniken.
I've fixed it - it has been moved on another domain - now it's hallofmaat.com, not thehallofmaat.com.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

What the ancient astronauts would do[edit]

Assuming 'viable space travel' (as distinct from 'Escape from Armageddon and settle on first viable planet (however long it takes)') exists visiting the Earth is not implausible.

Having personally lived far, far longer than most denizens of this planet, I've learned to keep a VERY open mind about the evolution of knowledge - especially when based on long experience. (Say an extra million years or so?) Himagain 21:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Most ancient astronaut theorists appear to assume that such aliens can automatically speak the locals' language/have some facility for automatic bidirectional translation.

see my above point. The original poster here reminds me of the "infallible Englishman", or Rome at its peak. Of course there would be a "babel Fish"/bilingual dictionary/ Hitchhikers Guide equivalent. Himagain 21:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

But why would 'the aliens' go around constructing giant monuments (Pyramids, Nazca Lines etc)?

You missed the point: the LOCALS construct such things, even to this day. (Attention-getters.) Himagain 21:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Why not 'teach the locals' the basics of health and safety, Slavery is Wrong, Suppressing Women is Wrong etc, that the Earth orbits the Sun etc.

WHOA! Suppressing women is a good example. As soon as they escaped control - life for males became immeasurably more difficult.:-)
May I remind readers that Capt. Kirk often reiterated that we are supposed to leave people alone..... Himagain 21:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Or if they are Gap Year Travel the Galaxy young creatures, merely writing 'XGQSGSTbloop was here', and leaving the equivalent of beer cans around?

They obviously did so - What about Nazca "landing strip" and other giant graffiti? AND they left some knowledge of some things here. (Australian Aborigines legends - I do have personal experience/knowledge in this area) Himagain 21:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

And why shouldn't said aliens look like the FSM, triffids, Dalek or other non-human entities of choice? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Why not? What has that to do with considering the proposition that we are not alone? Just look at the diversification in the humanoids on this little planet right now: Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, FEMALES, MALES. Himagain 21:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Finally, instead of snide schoolchild "humour"(?), posters - including the "executives" here need to remember/learn the fate of Narcissus. There are so very few Politically Incorrect places left today to actually discuss/learn of alternative views in a civilised manner and it does all people well to consider their own personal bizarre beliefs/conditioning by simply regularly asking oneself: what a strange belief their own Religion is comparative to others. Namaste! --Himagain talk 21:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

"Australian Aborigines legends - I do have personal experience/knowledge in this area" ok, I'll bite. Are you an aboriginal (preferably tribal and initiated) or did you personally witness the dreamtime events , or did you just study aboriginal myths, and do you have a knowledge of cultural norms ? Hamster (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Not to mention that it's a stone cold appeal to ancient wisdom, of course. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I had to clean up the entangled posts above to make them somewhat readable. Don't do that again.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

WAY BEYOND THE USUAL SNIPING QUESTIONS[edit]

"Erich" is a very good place to start an intellectual appeal to expand on the astounding data that is actually available to us today. What is most important is to understand always the motives behind any attack, as distinct from any evaluation. Erich did a great service in that he gathered a tremendous number of ANOMALIES in his travels and although not too well-presented,(he is a poor writer and speaker)he created an astounding groundswell of interest in the Alien Visitor genre.

Over the decades, I've personally engaged many people in conversation about the subject and learned one critical fact: Do not mention him first! The astounding negative "press" about him and his work is identical to mentioning just the word "conspiracy", much less the whole phrase: "Conspiracy Theory of History", which produces the classic knee-jerk reaction in the bulk of humanity and automatically precludes any civilised discussion. A violent knee-jerk reaction is a very necessary thing when faced with an absolute challenge to the determined dogma of a given subject. Most people will go through their entire lives without ever realising that this knee-jerk reaction has been programmed into them from the very beginning.

The remarkable modern day true Alchemist Kylneth teaches a very simple method for a genuine researcher to eliminate their own natural bias/prejudice in examining a proposition that is new to them: simply identify your own belief, then set out to demolish it, not the new and possibly scary proposition.

I've chosen this point in the rational wiki dealing with Eric because both the man and his subject have attracted such incredible attention. My intention is to perhaps attract some thinking people to the idea of more closely examining this critical point: it can be very difficult to get past one's own knee-jerk reaction because of the fantastic effort by Our Owners in conditioning us to the "1984/Big Brother" world in which we actually live today.

Certainly, in all of those "unacceptable" characters and books and now websites, there will be much to challenge and even nitpick in our own account, much less the barrage of naysayers/5th columnists which will be generated by Our Owners.

The key point of my post here this morning is simply to remind you my fellow seekers of the truth, that in such examples as these there are those diamonds, which older more experienced seekers always look for and focus on: the anomalies.

It is these anomalies-the unanswerable questions-that both hide and reveal the truth that we seek.

This page is a great starting point. There are literally hundreds of anomalies discovered and presented by Eric that we should expound upon and while it is such a long shot, I am kind of hoping that we can create a bit of a round table on this very spot. Thank you for reading this far, I appreciate you. Namaste. — Unsigned, by: Himagain / talk / contribs 23:34, 5 May 2015‎

would you care to list them - so they can be answered. There is an entire series of vids on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJ-8MrEGFdrfxIkSNvCWTnQ) debunking the ancient astronauts theories. Hamster (talk) 02:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
What would be the fun in (or point of) listing them? Vague assertions are far better - once you get into the nitty gritty, people can actually debunk the AA nonsense (and as you've pointed out they already have). ScepticWombat (talk) 07:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Why did you drop the h in your later references to Erich? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 09:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

"official website" Link Broken[edit]

It appears that the evdaniken.com domain expired. I find it rather amusing, but is there an updated domain, or is it finally over? Is his official website now daniken.com? If it's a joke, it's a funny as hell to click the link and get redirected to the bought up domain. jrussellwrites (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)