• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Pseudo-Archaeology & The Racism Behind Ancient Aliens

Yes, I think you are getting her confused with James Randi. An easy mistake to make I'm sure. :p

Though I am not sure even he spent much time debunking von Daniken?
 
I watched von Daniken in a more recent interview, and he was defensive, stating that he was just suggesting that some of the archaeological evidence could be interpreted as alien and wasn't definitively stating it was true.. He is responsible for folks like Tsoukalos and Childress and their ongoing misinterpretation of archaeological evidence and belief in things like the Vaimānika Shāstra. By misinterpreting archaeological evidence they injure both our understanding of history and the reputation of UFOlogy, in my opinion. Just because a past human achievement is amazing, it doesn't always mean aliens were involved. The idea that they liked to help humans build monumental architecture is funny.
 
And you've never made any money out of it either? What's your fee to appear at a conference? You'd be a bit fucked if there were no Von Danikens' around.

Not sure whether it was your intention, but this comes across as combative.

You can disagree without the venom, I'm sure.

*Set phasers to stun*
 
I watched von Daniken in a more recent interview, and he was defensive, stating that he was just suggesting that some of the archaeological evidence could be interpreted as alien and wasn't definitively stating it was true.. He is responsible for folks like Tsoukalos and Childress and their ongoing misinterpretation of archaeological evidence and belief in things like the Vaimānika Shāstra. By misinterpreting archaeological evidence they injure both our understanding of history and the reputation of UFOlogy, in my opinion. Just because a past human achievement is amazing, it doesn't always mean aliens were involved. The idea that they liked to help humans build monumental architecture is funny.

I did get Von Däniken's last book "Impossible Truths" around 18 months ago.
I too found it somewhat more sober and measured than his previous material and, with gorgeous colour photographs on almost every page, it could be treated almost as a beautiful coffee-table travelogue across (mostly) South America.

He does fallaciously still play up the woo factor a bit though with the section on OOPARTS, including the supposed manufactured pin embedded in a geode (in reality an early 20th century spark-plug around which a concretion had developed) and the Klerksdorp spheres (also now dismissed as natural concretions).

If you can forgive him that, the book is an entertaining read and his overall message, that humankind's history is almost certainly a lot stranger than conventional anthropology would have us believe, is still laudable.

It's somehow quite comforting to know that the great-granddaddy of a Fortean take on archaeology, is still with us.
 
I did get Von Däniken's last book "Impossible Truths" around 18 months ago.
I too found it somewhat more sober and measured than his previous material and, with gorgeous colour photographs on almost every page, it could be treated almost as a beautiful coffee-table travelogue across (mostly) South America.

He does fallaciously still play up the woo factor a bit though with the section on OOPARTS, including the supposed manufactured pin embedded in a geode (in reality an early 20th century spark-plug around which a concretion had developed) and the Klerksdorp spheres (also now dismissed as natural concretions).

If you can forgive him that, the book is an entertaining read and his overall message, that humankind's history is almost certainly a lot stranger than conventional anthropology would have us believe, is still laudable.

It's somehow quite comforting to know that the great-granddaddy of a Fortean take on archaeology, is still with us.
Why do you forgive a purported scholar printing claims that have been roundly disproven? Why do you say that "conventional anthropology" thinks that subject matter is not strange? Egyptologists praise the near-unbelievable accomplishments of ancient Egyptians constantly, as do those who actually study pre-Colombian civilizations. I'm sure there's a beautiful coffee-table book of archeological sites. No sympathy with the guy,
 
Good Lord people have some CRAZY ideas about the Egyptians and the pyramids --alien stonemasons would be more plausible than some of crazy nonsense I've heard --of course people built those ancient structures; the Maya get dragged into the nonsense all the time too. I don't have any problem with their being UFOs in ancient times, but pretty much everything I've seen from the ancient alien folks is misinterpretation of archaeological evidence and iconography. Will puke if I hear anything more about alien conehead mummies too..
 
And you've never made any money out of it either? What's your fee to appear at a conference? You'd be a bit fucked if there were no Von Danikens' around.

Make money off of my website? o_O

Please be aware that it COSTS money to host websites and I have no advertising or even donations to support my site. I can't even monetize my YouTube channel, not that that would matter. I have never been paid to talk about this topic except once, tangentially, as a geologic professional. Even that was an honorarium for travel and the work to produce a talk. I'm afraid you seem uninformed at how most outreach works. Scientists don't get paid to the degree popular authors or celebrities do.
 
She's a professional skeptic. Had her own TV show.
I am not a professional skeptic nor have I EVER even agreed to be on a TV show, let alone have one of my own.
I'd like to know where you are getting this nonsense from. In any event, I'd suggest you stop saying stuff that is entirely false.
 
I am not a professional skeptic nor have I EVER even agreed to be on a TV show, let alone have one of my own.
I'd like to know where you are getting this nonsense from. In any event, I'd suggest you stop saying stuff that is entirely false.

No, who was the very, very similar woman I saw on Nat Geo about 2 years on a paranormal/sceptic programme who fits your bill? A scientist with an identical brief check- good haircut check -basically you check.

If I'm wrong I'm very sorry. I'm pretty it sure was you I saw.

If it wasn't then I'm sorry. In a parallel universe you have your own Nat Geo show - Congrats!
 
No, who was the very, very similar woman I saw on Nat Geo about 2 years on a paranormal/sceptic programme who fits your bill? A scientist with an identical brief check- good haircut check -basically you check.

If I'm wrong I'm very sorry. I'm pretty it sure was you I saw.

If it wasn't then I'm sorry. In a parallel universe you have your own Nat Geo show - Congrats!
I have no idea who that was but try not to be so confident as you are sorely mistaken. It's confounding why you would think I could/would lie about such a thing. My name is real, how about looking that up on IMDB and see that I have never appeared on any TV show.

Eyewitness testimony is entirely unreliable. The burden of proof is on you, sir - the one making the outrageous claim - not me.
 
If you can forgive him that, the book is an entertaining read and his overall message, that humankind's history is almost certainly a lot stranger than conventional anthropology would have us believe, is still laudable.
When you look at conventional archaeology and anthropology from the perspective of what we DON'T know, it becomes a lot harder to take conventional takes as "gospel" if you will. When the question is: "Why do you hold that to be true?" "We did years of research." is NOT an answer. It's a cop out. It's a way of telling me you think you have knowledge, but not sharing the knowledge.

Conventional wisdom: the idea that there was a tribe of red haired giants called "Si-te-cahs" was just a myth.

Paiute legends: we buried them in that cave over there

Guano dealer: excavates cave and finds mummified corpses that appear to have red hair

Conventional wisdom: .... well they didn't have red hair when they were alive.

Me: why do people listen to "conventional wisdom"?
It's somehow quite comforting to know that the great-granddaddy of a Fortean take on archaeology, is still with us.
Honestly.... his books were something more entertaining to read than a lot of the older stuff. People have been finding crap they can't explain for longer than archaeology has been a science. It gets even weirder when you sit down and try to figure out which folklore has some sort of truth behind it and which are just stories.

I don't see this as me being "anti-intellectual". I highly value people who genuinely work at collecting and sharing knowledge. But I don't think that is true of all people in mainstream archaeology.
Why do you forgive a purported scholar printing claims that have been roundly disproven?
That's kinda how I feel about the mainstream. I'm sure some people will disagree, but I don't define "main stream" in this context as being the cutting edge of research. Mainstream is the version that's being taught to the masses. This version is overly simplified... and usually to the point of becoming inaccurate... One study demonstrated that most textbooks and encyclopedias are actually LESS accurate than wikipedia. This is apparently most often because Wikipedia gets updates daily. But textbooks might be decades out of date.
 
When the question is: "Why do you hold that to be true?" "We did years of research." is NOT an answer. It's a cop out. It's a way of telling me you think you have knowledge, but not sharing the knowledge.

How is it a cop out? If you then ask for a reading list or a suggested course, do they refuse? Who on earth /are/ all these "mainstream archaeologists and academics" that you are talking to? It's more usually a problem to shut people up once you've got onto their research topics :) Although I do know people who for some unaccountable reason get dismissive when it's the nth person that semester who wants to know why said academic isn't teaching the obvious and revealed truth of the British Israelites and threatening them with damnation and worse if they don't immediately start doing so...


Me: why do people listen to "conventional wisdom"?

Because, like most heuristics, it has proved valuable. In this case it's also being continually critiqued by people who really REALLY want to be able to change it.

Published stuff is peer-reviewed. Hang on, didn't you do a similar post about how peer-review doesn't work because nobody takes it seriously. I remember the AlchoPwn (former member of this parish) and I did long, detailed answers about why it works and how it does it. Not saying "because" and leaving it at that. Did you reply? I'm sorry, I can't remember it. Anyway, those posts are also relevant to why I don't think your argument hangs together here. If I find them I'll include a link here.

I'm sure some people will disagree, but I don't define "main stream" in this context as being the cutting edge of research.

Are you confusing the easy watch and thrilling television and blogs with where the actual research is happening? Uni courses are often based directly on the research being done by the lecturer - including blind allies, mistakes, blank areas and future possibilities. Book content is subjected to the rigours of student review and critique before it is published.

I'm really sorry if your experiences are different. Name and shame where they have happened!
 
When you look at conventional archaeology and anthropology from the perspective of what we DON'T know, it becomes a lot harder to take conventional takes as "gospel" if you will. When the question is: "Why do you hold that to be true?" "We did years of research." is NOT an answer. It's a cop out. It's a way of telling me you think you have knowledge, but not sharing the knowledge.

Conventional wisdom: the idea that there was a tribe of red haired giants called "Si-te-cahs" was just a myth.

Paiute legends: we buried them in that cave over there

Guano dealer: excavates cave and finds mummified corpses that appear to have red hair

Conventional wisdom: .... well they didn't have red hair when they were alive.

Me: why do people listen to "conventional wisdom"?Honestly.... his books were something more entertaining to read than a lot of the older stuff. People have been finding crap they can't explain for longer than archaeology has been a science. It gets even weirder when you sit down and try to figure out which folklore has some sort of truth behind it and which are just stories.

I don't see this as me being "anti-intellectual". I highly value people who genuinely work at collecting and sharing knowledge. But I don't think that is true of all people in mainstream archaeology.
That's kinda how I feel about the mainstream. I'm sure some people will disagree, but I don't define "main stream" in this context as being the cutting edge of research. Mainstream is the version that's being taught to the masses. This version is overly simplified... and usually to the point of becoming inaccurate... One study demonstrated that most textbooks and encyclopedias are actually LESS accurate than wikipedia. This is apparently most often because Wikipedia gets updates daily. But textbooks might be decades out of date.
I didn't use the word mainstream, you did, but we are in disagreement regarding the value of science, evidence, and spending years in research.
 
"Mainstream" is problematic. This could mean any view in popular culture, many of which are not scientifically rigorous.

If you mean "academic" archaeology, this entails following the standard procedure of scientific research, review, publication, and peer review. This process is necessarily conservative. There are many archaeologists that are too "creative" to remain in such a strict process so they venture out and appeal directly to the public - by aligning with non-academic institutions or direct through media.

Recommended: Lost City, Found Pyramid: Understanding Alternative Archaeologies and Pseudoscientific Practices, Card and Anderson, eds.
 
... When the question is: "Why do you hold that to be true?" "We did years of research." is NOT an answer. It's a cop out. It's a way of telling me you think you have knowledge, but not sharing the knowledge. ...

The more pertinent issue is whether the person told of such research (e.g.):

- Asks to learn more;
- Asks for pointers / references to said research; and more importantly ...
- Bothers to dig into the details for him- / herself.

Advising someone there's been substantial research on their topic looks like a cop-out only if the listener assumes there's a quick 'n dirty shrink-wrapped final answer to be obtained. This assumption belies a lack of understanding that scientific research is an ongoing process of making sense of the world. It also entails the naive assumption that any answer to anything can be procured as quickly and casually as getting a Big Mac at a McDonalds drive-thru.

It's no less a condescending cop-out to project willful withholding and conspiratorial intent onto anyone who advises you the answer you seek is complicated, unclear and / or unapproachable without additional effort on your part.
 
... Conventional wisdom: the idea that there was a tribe of red haired giants called "Si-te-cahs" was just a myth.
Paiute legends: we buried them in that cave over there
Guano dealer: excavates cave and finds mummified corpses that appear to have red hair
Conventional wisdom: .... well they didn't have red hair when they were alive. ...

The Si-te-cah example illustrates an important point - 'conventional wisdom' is conventional only by association with a particular group among whom it's consensually accepted.

When one is talking about something involving multiple groups it is important to specify which group it is among whom a particular claim or conclusion is conventionally / consensually held. In the case of the Si-te-cah affiliations associated with the Lovelock Cave excavations there are two groups I'll use for illustration - modern Paiutes vested in ancestral lore and archaeologists.

From The Archaeologists' Perspective ...

The initial conventional wisdom of the archaeologists had nothing to do with the Paiute legend of the Si-te-cah. It was simply this: "When cultural remains are discovered it is wise to conduct an orderly excavation to see what we can learn."

The triggering event was guano miners discovering a lot of human remains and artifacts while digging bat shit out of Lovelock Cave - much, if not most, of which was destroyed, lost or looted before any archaeologists were notified. The miners' discoveries were in 1911. Partial excavations and artifact collections were done in 1912, and more formal excavations were performed in 1924.

Besides an additional array of artifacts, multiple mummified corpses were discovered by the archaeologists in 1924 - deliberately / ritually interred feet beneath the cave's floor. Some bore traces of reddish hair remains. One of these was a male of unusual stature (6 ft. 6 in.). They also happened to discover a total of 3 purportedly human bones which had been cracked open as if their marrow had been extracted. To the extent stratigraphic analysis could be done after the top layers had already been disrupted / destroyed / removed all indications were that the cave had been used for a long time - perhaps only intermittently - by possibly multiple different groups occupying the area at one or another time.

The excavations turned up no evidence directly supporting the legend that all the Si-te-cahs had been killed by fire to end a climactic siege. Because the topmost layers of historical human relics and remains had already been lost or rendered FUBAR there's always the chance it was a matter of the evidence being obliterated.

The resulting conventional wisdom was that Lovelock Cave had served as a storage, ritual and / or habitation site for multiple groups over a long period of time. There was no comment about the one corpse's relatively tall stature. The reddish coloration on hair remains was attributed to chemical staining. The small set of cracked human bones suggestive of marrow extraction was hypothesized to be evidence of situational cannibalism during a period of famine.

From The Paiutes' Perspective ...

The initial conventional wisdom of traditionalist Paiutes is unclear in its details. The most solid elements traceable back to before the 20th century relate to a separate cultural / tribal group with whom the Paiutes had been in conflict and whom the Paiutes had progressively confined into living on or within Humboldt Lake's environs and eventually eradicated in place or forced to abandon the area.

Even the Paiute informants weren't consistent or clear about the alleged massacre of the Si-te-cahs. Some related that the victorious Paiutes didn't find any bodies inside the cave when they were finally able to inspect it.

The most interesting possible change in Paiute conventional wisdom (i.e., lore) relates to the fact that allusions to the legendary Si-te-cahs as being (a) 'giants'; (b) 'red-haired'; and (c) 'cannibals' cannot be traced back any farther than the early 20th century, when the lore was collected during the course of the Lovelock Cave investigations or separately reported later.

It would be very interesting to check whether any earlier ethnological documentation (e.g., from the Smithsonian's extensive ethnological collections of the late 19th century) can verify whether these allusions were part of the Paiute lore prior to the Lovelock Cave discoveries.

As to all the purported 'research' ... You can review all the gory details in the 1929 book written by the lead investigators from both the 1912 and 1924 archaeological digs:

Lovelock Cave
L. L. Loud and M. R. Harrington
https://archive.org/details/LovelockCaveLoudAndHarrington1929/mode/2up
 
After the triangles and circles we now get keyholes during the lockdown.

Review of Ancient Aliens S16E03 "The Galactic Keyhole"
12/4/2020 35 Comments


What is there to say about this episode’s topic? Having previously aired episodes about triangles and circles, the show has now combined both into an episode about “keyhole” shapes, or a circle overlapping a triangle. More prosaically, the shape is formed when any two converging lines approach a circle. In a pinch, parallel lines will do. It should take no genius to see how ancient people might strike on the notion of intersecting a circle with a triangle or a rectangle, or why a causeway might lead to a circular enclosure. For Ancient Aliens, however, the very notion of shapes toddlers master at the age of two is a cosmic leap that could only descend from the stars. Whatever would they make of the fact that my three-year-old has mastered dodecahedrons? Oh, right. They did an episode about them, too.

Anyhow, the show’s perverse game of intergalactic Sesame Street is getting old. I am starting to feel that the value of writing up summary reviews of Ancient Aliens is falling into sunk-cost fallacy territory. Given the profoundly silly nature of this week’s topic, I will offer only bullet-points to highlight the major claims. It doesn’t feel worth writing a full review of the flatulence wafting from a half-assed effort. ...

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/review-of-ancient-aliens-s16e03-the-galactic-keyhole

 
Von Daniken attacks Jason Colavito.

On February 4, Chariots of the Gods author Erich von Däniken put out an official statement attacking me by name and disputing accusations that his history of using phrases like “failure” to describe the “Black race” constituted racism.

The statement appears to be a reaction to tweets I made in response to a recent New Yorker article which interviewed von Däniken to comment on Harvard astronomer Avi Loeb’s claim that the interstellar object ‘Oumuamua was a piece of technology from an alien world. I noted at the time that von Däniken had a history of making statements that were racially insensitive or which expressed transphobic and homophobic views. That did not sit well with him.

In a statement on his personal letterhead, von Däniken said the following:
For decades there have been groups of people who believe that some of the contents of my book is racist. More recently, a pseudo-historian by the name of Jason Colavito had made himself important. Obviously, he has neither read nor understood my books.

He claims that my books contain Islamophobic comments and that I praise the Aryan race. None of this is true. There are no Islamophobic comments in my books, nor does the Aryan race appear anywhere.
As should be obvious, everything von Däniken said here is untrue. My book review page contains reviews of only some of the books by von Däniken I have read since the mid-1990s. Each contains quoted excerpts demonstrating von Däniken’s unpleasant and often controversial views. A simple review of his own writing demonstrates the falseness of his denials.

Here he is, writing in his book Signs of the Gods about the “failure” of the Black race:
“Was the black race a failure and did the extraterrestrials change the genetic code by gene surgery and then programme a white or a yellow race?”

“Nearly all negroes are musical: they have rhythm in their blood.”

“I quite understand that I am playing with dynamite if I ask whether the extraterrestrials ‘allotted’ specific tasks to the basic races from the very beginning, i.e. programmed them with special abilities.” ...

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/erich-von-daniken-puts-out-official-statement-attacking-me-by-name
 
Von Daniken attacks Jason Colavito.

On February 4, Chariots of the Gods author Erich von Däniken put out an official statement attacking me by name and disputing accusations that his history of using phrases like “failure” to describe the “Black race” constituted racism.

The statement appears to be a reaction to tweets I made in response to a recent New Yorker article which interviewed von Däniken to comment on Harvard astronomer Avi Loeb’s claim that the interstellar object ‘Oumuamua was a piece of technology from an alien world. I noted at the time that von Däniken had a history of making statements that were racially insensitive or which expressed transphobic and homophobic views. That did not sit well with him.

In a statement on his personal letterhead, von Däniken said the following:

As should be obvious, everything von Däniken said here is untrue. My book review page contains reviews of only some of the books by von Däniken I have read since the mid-1990s. Each contains quoted excerpts demonstrating von Däniken’s unpleasant and often controversial views. A simple review of his own writing demonstrates the falseness of his denials.

Here he is, writing in his book Signs of the Gods about the “failure” of the Black race:


http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/erich-von-daniken-puts-out-official-statement-attacking-me-by-name
Von Däniken tries to put someone down by calling them a pseudo historian!
 
Honestly it doesn't surprise me. Von Daniken's work was more science-fiction than fact. It has enough ideas that seem plausible that you have reason to wonder if maybe part of it is true. But it's not based in fact, more in speculation derived from fact. Then toss on several more layers of speculation on that.. and eventually you get to crazy town.
 
Honestly it doesn't surprise me. Von Daniken's work was more science-fiction than fact. It has enough ideas that seem plausible that you have reason to wonder if maybe part of it is true. But it's not based in fact, more in speculation derived from fact. Then toss on several more layers of speculation on that.. and eventually you get to crazy town.
In interviews he skirts his ridiculous assertions by claiming that he was only "suggesting" his nonsense could be a possibility "What if?" And folks have misinterpreted him to mean that he meant it.. Sounds damn familiar..
 
Thanks for posting that Ramon; very unfortunate and disturbing.
Von Daniken's work is the work of a madman possessing very narrow tunnel vision and nil for the facts: ". No no alien's and the study of math, engineering, archeology and anthropology are the work of us (humans). I do believe that as time marches on the timeline of such topics will serve to move the timeline for human back and present many amazing no material. Good post Ramon
 
Von Daniken's work is the work of a madman possessing very narrow tunnel vision and nil for the facts: ". No no alien's and the study of math, engineering, archeology and anthropology are the work of us (humans). I do believe that as time marches on the timeline of such topics will serve to move the timeline for human back and present many amazing no material. Good post Ramon
Don't forget his followers... D'oh!!!


1612816854727.jpeg


1612816912529.jpeg
 
Von Daniken's work is the work of a madman possessing very narrow tunnel vision and nil for the facts: ". No no alien's and the study of math, engineering, archeology and anthropology are the work of us (humans). I do believe that as time marches on the timeline of such topics will serve to move the timeline for human back and present many amazing no material. Good post Ramon

I think after his books sold eye-watering amounts there was a huge incentive to carry on churning out the ancient aliens' crap, I think it was pretty shrewd. A fair few people on both sides of the debate make a living out of the subject.
 
Back
Top