NUTTIER THAN ALEX CHIU!!!!

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-12-05 02:37pm

http://www.daniken.com/e/index.html

ENJOY!

DocHorror · Post by **DocHorror** » 2002-12-05 02:42pm

Whats your point?

Though sometimes he does go to lengths to think up convelouted stories to back up his ideas. His theories are as valid as anyone elses. And he does raise points that should be properly investigated.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2002-12-05 03:03pm

argh!
Erich von Däniken is an idiot.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2002-12-05 03:25pm

Erich von Däniken, the world's most successful non-fiction writer of all time, has written 26 books on the topic and has sold over 60 million copies worldwide.

Oh, oh that is just wonderful.

*claps*

Bra-fucking-o!

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2002-12-05 06:36pm

personally i think daniken can go overboard on some things, but him and others (namely Graham Hancock) have good reason to question historical "knowledge". I'm not bothering to look at either Erichs site or Grahams tapes but I can say that the dating of the sphinx, for example, has been proven to be atleast 3 thousand years off, if not more (as many as 8 thousand, possibly). Water weathering on the sphinx and enclosure wall prove that it could have only been build well before 5000 BC (which is that 3000 years older date) since after that time there was no appreciable amount of water in the egyptian sky, certainly not enough to actually wear down the sphinx. This also means that the large stone blocks (many of which weigh more then diesel locomotive engine cars) were hewn and built into a temple thousands of years before egypts first dynasty, which would make egyptian civilisation far older then we know.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2002-12-05 08:18pm

Yeah, I've read one of his books. He tends to take evidence past the point it can support, but I think he does have a good point about Egyptologists ignoring evidence that doesn't fit in with their pet theories. I dunno, I enjoy reading even the crackpot theories, since they make for an amusing read, as long as they're well-written crackpot theories.

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-12-05 09:24pm

The Dark wrote:Yeah, I've read one of his books. He tends to take evidence past the point it can support, but I think he does have a good point about Egyptologists ignoring evidence that doesn't fit in with their pet theories. I dunno, I enjoy reading even the crackpot theories, since they make for an amusing read, as long as they're well-written crackpot theories.

A lot of archaeologists overlook the evidence that doesn't support their pet theories. Which is why quite often those pet theories are torn to shreds within a few months...