There’s that Arthur C Clark quote: “When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.”

I’m all for shaking up the establishment, but the problem is that Van Daniken displays all the same behavior as the people you’re complaining about.

Since I still maintain an abiding interest in these fields though, I am frustrated by the “experts” in the field, who develop their own pet theories and disparage any new thoughts. There is also a political/religious component to this thought suppression as illustrated by Egyptology and by the attempted hijacking of the “Dead Sea Scrolls.” While claiming themselves sciences, the current Archaeology and Anthropology establishments eschew the scientific method and prefer the familiarity of “the old boys” network. Therefore I’m in favor of whatever pisses them off and while I can see the flaws in the works of the four names I listed above, they are helpful in setting me out on my own flights of fancy about the evolution and history of mankind.

With as much stuff as Van Daniken just flat out makes up, and all the ongoing research that he ignores, you almost have to view it as the most in depth marketing campaign for a sci-fi series ever.

Also, I’d say he falls flatly into the smugness of humanity in regards to the past that you were arguing against. His whole argument is essentially “Well, since WE don’t know how they did it they couldn’t have done it on their own.” When you consider all the things that would need to be true for his theory to be right, it’s pretty clear which theory Ockham’s razor trims off.

Also, I like Van Daniken, even though he is not the greatest researcher. I think his ideas have possibilities, especially given the ancient texts of Sumer and India. Also biblically speaking there too exists interesting possibilities. Also
Sitchin does good stuff in that area, as does Hancock to a lesser extent.

Listen Mister, Erik Von Daniken is a god! Here’s a link to a sweet article on Von Daniken’s museum, written up in the AIA magazine. You could tell the author was charmed despite everything in it being at odds with his scientific background. I’m going–so there!

http://www.archaeology.org/0401/abstracts/letter.html

Here’s a much more accurate account of Von Daniken’s theories…
http://www.skepdic.com/vondanik.html

He gets his own entry in the Skeptic’s Dictionary… that quite the feat.

Forgive this tangential reply, I can only post this forward not backwards.

General David Petraeus, current Commander, U.S. Central Command declares U.S. Violated Geneva Conventions.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/29/736713/-Petraeus-Says-U.S.-Violated-Geneva-ConventionsWhat-Will-Cheney-and-Rush-Say

Speaking of swords… I just finished “The Hand of Oberon,” I had forgotten how literal the title was.

Just out of curiosity did you ever try and read Robert Jordan’s series? I got to book 4 or 5 and the quality of writing just tanked. I think that must have been the point where he had to spend more time making notes so he got the continuity right than actually writing.

http://www.daniken.com/e/pictures.shtml

Nah, it’s obviously the work of the last of the ancient astronauts.