This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.
3. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
4. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
1963: Matest M. Agrest (book, On the Track of Discovery: Riddles of Outer Space : Scientists Unravel Mysteries : Secrets of History)
I don't think that these are two books by Matest Agrest. In my opinion it's more likely that "Astronauts of Yore" is an essay published in "On the track of discovery" - by whomever that anthology (?) might be edited. See the bibliography Agrest's son put together, concerning his father's paleocontact writings. If his father had written two books about the subject, he would have known (and others would, too). I know that Google Books lists On the track of discovery as a book by Agrest - I simply don't trust them, because bibliographic accuracy is not exactly the strength of Google Books. Does anybody have an actual copy of these purported texts/ books by Agrest? Like, something papery that was printed fifty years ago? :) Jonas kork (talk) 08:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC) PS: The Russian wikipedia article on Agrest doesn't mention any paleocontact books by Agrest, too. Jonas kork (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Yep, there's a problem. On the track of discovery is something including various authors - there seems to have been at least 3 series.. Ah, searched for them both, confirmed that Astronauts of Yore (if that's the proper translation, 'antiquity' may be better' is in On the track of discovery.. Well spotted. Dougweller (talk) 11:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Agreed they are not books. However, the section it was under was Proponents and publications. So, I think that M. Agrest and his articles deserve mention, especially since he probably inspired von Däniken and Sitchin. Ljfeliu (talk) 04:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I do have a copy of the article titled "Ancient Astronauts" which he wrote in 1961 for "On Land and At Sea". This is the article in which he talks about Sodom and Gomorrah being nuclear blasted. The article is in Russian. I do have an English version machine-translated. Ljfeliu (talk) 04:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
You are free to add that (possibly in the article on Matest M. Agrest himself, too). But we should not make two books out of one essay, as just happened. ;) Agrest's influence may have gone through the publications of Vyacheslav Zaitsev (careful, different persons of the same name), and of course Agrest's contributions to the French magazine Planète (Pauwels/ Bergier). Personally, I'm interested in the article you mention (both languages). Do you have it in digital format, and would you be willing to email it to me? Jonas kork (talk) 11:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Sure, let me know where to send it. Ljfeliu (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Here's where you can access the article: [epizodsspace.no-ip.org/bibl/na-sushe-i-na-more/1961/agrest.html КОСМОНАВТЫ ДРЕВНОСТИ]Ljfeliu (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I updated the proponents section to list Agrest's 1961 article. I also expanded Matest M. Agrest.--Ljfeliu (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
It opens up with a reasonable "pseudo-scientific" label in the intro, but the entire article is packed from top to bottom with "evidence" that it's a scientific theory with anything contradictory being lightly mentioned and written in a way suggesting it's just a matter of opinion. In contrast, other articles regarding pseudo-scientific conspiracies, like the Moon landing conspiracy theories, tear apart every single claim the proponents make with utmost detail. This article on the other hand feels like it's a transcript from the History Channel.--22.214.171.124 (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
The current title can be interpreted as a statement of existence of ancient astronauts. Our titles usually indicate whether a subject is doubtful, a hypothesis, or a conspiracy theory. We need some type of added word or rephrasing of the title to indicate the doubtful nature of this subject. Ancient astronaut hypothesis is a possibility. What think ye? -- Brangifer (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm no fan of tweaky article renaming (Okay was recently moved to OK - sheesh!) but this seems reasonable, and your suggestion is a good one. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and make the move. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)