Talk:Ancient astronauts

Purported Evidence

Shouldn't everything here be referenced by something that relates it to Ancient Astronaut something? It seems to be a dumping ground for anything someone finds mysterious. I see Peru is there twice also.--Doug Weller (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ancient astronauts in fiction and arts

The entire section is a ship wreckage. Generally popular culture/trivia sections are discouraged. I see no reason to keep this large section, it can be removed, if not a clean up is necessary to only include notable novels/films/games. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Rod Serling Supports Ancient Astronaut Theory? AND Carl Sagan's Ancient Astronaut Theory stance.

I noticed Rod Serling (The Twilight Zone) is mentioned as a proponent of the Ancient Astronaut Theory due to his narration of In Search Of Ancient Astronauts and In Search of Ancient Mysteries, both of which were produced by Alan Landsburg (In Search Of...) and not Rod Serling. Unless someone can find and provide a statement of some sort from the late Mr. Serling, his name should be deleted from the list.

Although I don't own it, I do know that Serling did do the forward of the book 'In Search of Ancient Mysteries' which was written by Alan and Sally Landsburg just before the 1-hour TV Version was broadcast on NBC. I would highly request information regarding what Serling says in that statement.

I also believe Carl Sagan's position on the theory should be clarified, because there are several Ancient Astronaut theories. Sagan disagreed with the writings in 'Chariots of the Gods?' and in 'The Sirius Mystery' but believed Ancient Astronaut absolutely possible.

Sagan (Cosmos, A Pale Blue Dot) wrote to the forward to 'The Space-Gods Revealed', which bashed von Daniken's claims of Ancient Astronauts. He took some responsibility for the theories sucsess in the 1970s due to his writing of the book 'Intelligent Life in the Universe', which took a more positive, but scientific approach to the Ancient Astronaut theory then he did in later years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.149.16 (talk) 03:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"Astronaut"?

Does this present itself as not taking the global viewpoint into account? If they were in China, wouldn't they be "ancient taikonauts"? and in Russia, "ancient cosmonauts"? Is there a neutral term for person who goes into space? 24.3.14.157 (talk) 13:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The theory is generally known in North America and Western Europe as the 'Ancient Astronaut Theory'. The 'Ancient Spacemen Theory' or 'Ancient Alien Theory' might be better internationally but as most AA Proponents mentioned in the article come from the Western World (and this article is in English), the name should stick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.149.16 (talk) 04:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not too informed about this much beyond a Mythbusters episode about Wan Hu and X-Files episodes about aliens interacting with cavemen. I didn't know if this was just a title someone had stuck on here or if it was the common name for actual theories. Thanks for the information. 24.3.14.157 (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Astronaut Theories are Pseudoscience?

Based on arbitration and clarification on same, the Pseudoscience category, which has been applied to this page, and the Ancient Astronaut Theories category, requires a citation from a reliable general source like the Encyclopedia Britannica describing the subject itself as pseudoscience, or a reliable academic source such as an Academy of Science which considers the subject to be pseudoscience, so as to sustain the category's placement. Can you point out some reliable source that will settle the matter? If not, we'll need to remove the Pseudoscience category tag from this page and its corresponding category. Thank you.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This request could have been a bit more open. He's already asked for sources. He was given a number of what I and at least two other editors thought were good sources, and he (1) said he couldn't access Google books, (2) didn't like using a philosopher of science or an archaeologist, and then (3) suddenly switched to this claim that we need an encyclopedia or an 'Academy of Science'. See the earlier discussion that just ended a few minutes ago, it seems, at Category talk:Ancient astronaut theory for the references already supplied. Doug Weller (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is a reference from an encyclopedia. [1] which says "There is widespread agreement for instance that creationism, astrology, homeopathy, Kirlian photography, dowsing, ufology, ancient astronaut theory, Holocaust denialism, and Velikovskian catastrophism are pseudosciences." It is an encyclopedia of philosophy, not a general encyclopedia, so I expect it won't satisfy self-ref. Doug Weller (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason this article does not have the Pseudoscience category on it? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk about irony, if self-ref hadn't moved here you (and I) wouldn't have noticed. It does now. Doug Weller (talk) 18:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

hehe, maybe he meant to complain about pseudoarcheology, but that isn't covered by the ArbCom (but then neither is PS) Verbal chat 18:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

T'ain't irony i tell ya! I'm all for proper labelling. I have no agenda but the clean-up of what seems to have yielded to some abuse. Now that the standards have been clarified for me, i am happy to try to pursue them. ;)-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 05:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience is such an obviously biased word. It helps simple-minded people pass judgment on the underlying idea before any discussion even begins. I couldn't think of anything more rooted in propaganda or sloganism, and less in empirical study than the use of this phrase by "scientists" who talk the talk but apparently walk no walk.

This page needs to be called what it is - alternative non fiction.

-- self-ref (c.r.l) (talk) 11:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was consensus for move.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Ancient astronaut theories → Ancient astronauts — For compliance with WP:WTA#Theory

WP:WTA#Theory is fairly clear that when we are dealing with "speculations" or "ideas" we should avoid using the ambiguous term "theory" which has very precise meanings in scientific contexts. Since the word "theory" doesn't add anything to the title, I suggest simply renaming the article Ancient astronauts which redirects here.

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Move to Ancient astronaut hypothesis see comments below. --Rogerb67 (talk) 02:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Move seems reasonable, but an entire rewrite would be even more helpful Kjaer (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• Move (rename) as above. I've done this to a couple of articles that used the word 'theory' in the title. I just bought a book that has some information on this subject that might be useful (no, it does not support the hypothesis!). Doug Weller (talk) 06:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• Move agree with Doug. Rename and copyedit required! Verbal chat 09:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• The normal naming convention is for articles to use the singular noun. Exceptions are not unheard of (e.g. Rights), however a justification for the use of a plural over the singular is required; you need to supply one. Also, WP:WTA#Theories and hypotheses (your link above does not work) merely says use an alternative; why not Ancient astronaut hypothesis/ies? I will put a placeholder vote for Ancient astronaut hypothesis pending justification for these two items; I expect there are justifications and my vote will change as appropriate when they are presented. --Rogerb67 (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  • As with other fictitious creatures Venusians, Transformers, or Greys I think keeping a plural indicator for the group is perfectly fine. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not rename it to "Ancient astronaut delusions" since there is no basis for them? If it is founded on pseudoscience and devoid of supportive evidence, then there is no reason to treat it seriously as either a 'theory' or a 'hypothesis' and should be known for the hokum that it is.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

So you would support renaming homeopathy along similar lines? We're writing an encyclopaedia here. Verbal chat 08:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this

section.

Religion Text

Under the Religion Texts section I added a bit more information about questioning God as an Astronaut. Yet i believe there should be more examples on the theory about Ancient Astronaut in the bible.--Vmeza89 (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)vmeza89

Proponents: From 1920-1950?

I arranged the proponents in chronological order to show possible influences. (And indeed there are.) One thing that came out was a BLANK from the years 1920-1950. Surely there were ancient astronaut authors writing during this time - or was the boom during the 1950s and beyond catalyzed by publicity around the 1947 Roswell incident? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.2.225.17 (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a mention of Scientology is in order here since a core belief of theirs seems to revolve around an ancient visit by an alien persononality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.67.163.97 (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

All the evidence?

Is this really all the evidence people have come up with? I mean, look at egyptian mythology:

It was sometimes said that the underworld (the home of the gods) was in the Sky.

Ra traveled around in a flying boat.

Are we sure the evidence section is complete, having looked at all claims?

--[[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The page is about a fringe theory with no mainstream support. Much of the "evidence" is not actually evidence. Putting a lot of emphasis on the "evidence" and giving credence to the existence of ancient astronauts is undue weight on a fringe theory. At best, the evidence should be presented with debunking links. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Article missing lots of Information

History channel had a good documentary on this subject. Compared to all the information and artifacts they presented, this article is extremely bare. Certainly many of the descriptions of ancient structures, possible pictures of spacecrafts and astronauts would be a nice addition to this article.

Additionally, if this is to be intellectually honest it needs to include all of the early theorists, even controversial ones. Certainly L Ron Hubbard's work in the very early 50's is one of the notable omissions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.213.234.79 (talk) 04:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

History Channel just reports what other people say, and can be a very unreliable source. And the criteria for Wikipedia articles do not include intellectual honesty, but that articles use reliable sources which are WP:verifiable and adhere to our WP:NPOV policy which asks that all significant views be reported proportionately. In addition, this article is covered by this statement: In pseudoscientific topics, the task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science. Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore may be significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, should explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.. dougweller (talk) 08:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course state that the ancient alien theory is not accepted by the scientific community, but why let that stop one from adding more interesting and thought provoking evidence to this article? The history channel documentary was mostly interesting for the artifacts and bizarre archeological findings they presented. A person reading this article might ask, why would anyone think this? Where's the evidence? This article provides relatively little in answering these obvious questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.153.89.181 (talk) 06:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think there should be something in this about the history channel special, however I don't think anything should be added without secondary sources to confirm or refute anything mentioned in the special. I can think of 4 or 5 things that they said that are easily refuted by more reliable sources. Of the top of my head there isn't anything on that special that wasn't at least exagerated. This means if it is handled this way it will raise doupts about the credibility of the show. The reason I think it should be added is that it has gained a lot of attention and is clearly the source for some material being added and reverted on wikipedia including on the Pumamunku page. This would amount to debunking not presenting it in a credible manor. If there is something that can be confirmed by a second source that would be fine too but I can't think of anything. One of the pieces of evidence they cited is that someone couldn't light a lighter in the pyramid due to lack of oxygen. If so what was he breathing? This show is notable only because it gets more attention everytime they rerun it. I'm not going to rush to do this but if noone else does it I may get back to it in a few weeks. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't touch History Channel with a barge pole. It might give some guides to other sources, but it isn't a reliable source in itself, sadly. Was I supposed to get back to you about something? Dougweller (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Some of their show aren't that bad but their track record is spotty at best, This show is amongst their worst and the reason I think it should be addressed is because so many people seem to accept it as a good source. This is the source for many of the edits you are reverting. Zacherystaylor (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not a huge fan of the Ancient Astronaut thing. It's fun and all that but... That said, I had to fix some matters in this article because, as a good scientist, I could not allow the sneering nature of it to continue. I have made it more balanced (and far more grammatical). Gingermint (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and particularly I had to fix the statements that read something like the entire scientific community (I imagine all several million of us must have had a convention somewhere and took a vote) think that such and such or have discounted this or that. I'm not sure if someone had an agenda or if it was sloppy writing. Gingermint (talk) 22:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph you removed wasn't necessary, but otherwise, noting that the "scientific community" has discounted a theory is perfectly legitimate shorthand in many circumstances. For example, saying that the scientific community has discounted the phlogiston theory would be a very good way to put it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Some of the most convincing evidence of these theories isn't included in this article at all. The large craters in Mohenjo Daro and Harappa in India that have crushed burnt and blackened rocks at their center that could only have been created by an extreme heat source like a volcano or nuclear bomb. This is especially interesting because there is no volcanic activity in that area. Add to that ancient accounts of pillars of smoke radiating out in rings and biblical accounts of entire cities destroyed (Lots wife turned to a pillar of salt) these theories become a lot more intriguing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.73.145 (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Anything in the article needs sources. By the way, what you've written about about Mohenjo Daro and Harappa just isn't true. Dougweller (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge from UFOs and the Bible

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge. -- StAnselm (talk) 08:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

---

After a deletion discussion on UFOs and the Bible failed to reach a consensus, the article has been pruned. It now looks a lot like the "Religious texts" section here. Thus, it makes sense to merge it into this article. StAnselm (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support merge per nom. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 09:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support merge. Timneu22 (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I have now completed the merge. StAnselm (talk) 08:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

History Channel

I've been watching the history channel "Ancient Aliens," the five-episode sequence (10 hours) and they've collected a vast amount of information supporting ancient astronaut theory. I was a bit baffled, but are they telling us that the aliens are the Anunnaki (translated to "those who the heavens came") and they influenced the writing of the ancient Samaritan text, which later got translated and abridged into the bible? That our galaxy is around 4-5 billion years old, and civilizations elsewhere in outer space could be 9-10 billion years old, and more technologically advanced than we are? So they basically took the the homo erectus species of the Earth and then biologically spliced the DNA and "made man in our image," the image of the aliens. In the ancient Samaritan text, the Adamu were the first human beings and that corresponds to Adam in the bible. Also, they made "bad splicing" projects where the other populations were wiped out by a huge flood, which Noah, who has the blood line of Lamech in the Samaritan text, survived. The evidence of the flood is where hundreds of sunken cities and towns are found underneath the body of water between African and European counties.The reason that we were made human beings in the first place was because the aliens needed gold and they made the first humans slaves to mine the gold on several continents. In return, we were given alien technology, such as the the ability to create large monuments. These monuments, when arranged together mimics the star formation of the star constellation Orion both in Egypt and Mexico, which are half a world apart. The Orion constellation gives a clue of where the aliens might have come from. Aliens continue to intervene with our history in the past, especially during wartime, where sightings are more often. The aliens are the guardians of the heavens, which we now know it as outer space. It is to my opinion that the Cain are the group of people left to "walk" the earth are actually the Sasquatch, skunk apes, abominable snowmen, yetis, etc that we have sightings today, which DNA analysis of hair and flesh shows that they have 1 significant base pair different from that of us humans. Those skeptical of these claims should watch the series: http://www.history.com/shows/ancient-aliens (get the DVD before critique) and also Monster Quest: http://www.history.com/search?search-field=monster+quest+sasquatch&x=0&y=0. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jensyao (talk • contribs) 17:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I watched that too. They brought "archaeologists" that talked about how baffling and confusing it was that the Ancient Egyptians had recorded every single thing they did with writing and stone carving etc., but that they don't have a single record or explanation on who, why, and especially how the Pyramids were built. But what they don't tell you is that the Egyptians actually do have tons of carvings and and writings explaining every single step about how they built the pyramids, and why they built them, and who built them. The fact that the History Channel intentionally ignores something so obvious is not surprising, because the History Channel was never made for telling people the truth, it was made for entertainment, which is why it has high ratings, because it tells people what they want to hear, not the boring old "truths and facts". They also talked about how the aliens used the Pyramids so that they could see where they were landing, but do you believe that these aliens who have mastered interstellar space flight have to eyeball where they're going to land? Can't they use a GPS or something? And they also talked about how it's astounding that there are 9 Pyramids in South America, which correlated with their being 9 planets. But that's just cause they stopped counting, cause there's the tenth pyramids, and the eleventh, and the twelfth... oh well if confronted with this they would probably say "The natives thought there were more planets". All the "damning evidence" that they provide, is just twisted facts that just sound 'scientific' to an uneducated viewer, but would sound outright ridiculous to anyone who understands what they're talking about. I think this article should be moved to the same category as the Easter Bunny.--Propaganda328 (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge from Giorgio A. Tsoukalos

The article on Giorgio Tsoukalos has been nominated for deletion — and rightly so, since it's not pulling its own weight. Its contents should be merged here, under proponents. -- BenTels (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

List of Ancient Astronaut and related books

I decided to list all these books, if anyone else knows of any other ancient astronaut or related books which are not listed here or in the article please add them here, thanks. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

GOD DRIVES A FLYING SAUCER R L DIONE 1973

THE BIBLE AND FLYING SAUCERS BARRY H DOWNING

UFO FLYING SAUCERS OVER BRITAIN? ROBERT CHAPMAN 1975

THE FLYING SAUCERERS ARTHUR SHUTTLEWOOD 1976

THEY DARED THE DEVIL’S TRIANGLE ADI-KENT THOMAS JEFFREY 1976

THE UFO EXPERIENCE DR J ALLEN HYNEK 1974

THIS HOLLOW EARTH WARREN SMITH 1977

IN SEARCH OF MYTHS AND MONSTERS ALAN LANSBURG 1977

SECRET OF THE AGES BRINSLEY LePOER TRENCH 1976

SECRETS OF OUR SPACESHIP MOON DON WILSON 1979

TEMPLE OF THE STARS BRINSLEY LePOER TRENCH 1973

GREAT SEA MYSTERIES RICHARD GARRETT 1971

OPERATION EARTH BRINSLEY LePOER TRENCH 1975

THE ILLUMINOIDS NEAL WILGUS 1980

MYSTERIOUS VISITORS BRINSLEY LePOER TRENCH 1975

FLYING SAUCERS ON THE ATTACK HAROLD T WILKINS 1967 US

THE LOST CONTINENT OF MU JAMES CHURCHWARD 1974

ANATOMY OF A PHENOMENON JACQUES VALLEE 1974

LASER BEAMS FROM STAR CITIES? ROBIN COLLYNS 1977

GIFTS OF UNKNOWN THINGS LYALL WATSON 1977

GUIDE TO ASTRONOMY JAMES MUIRDEN 1972

THE DRAGON AND THE DISC F W HOLIDAY 1973

FORBIDDEN UNIVERSE LEO TALAMONTI 1976

NEW LANDS CHARLES FORT 1974

THE HYNEK UFO REPORT DR J ALLEN HYNEK 1978

FLYING SAUCERS ARE WATCHING US OTTO O BINDER 1973

FLYING SAUCERS THROUGH THE AGES PAUL THOMAS 1973

PASSPORT TO MAGONIA JACQUES VALLEE 1975

THE GOLD OF THE GODS ERICH VON DANIKEN 1975

JOURNEY TO INFINITY JOHANNES VON BUTTLAR 1976

THE SKY PEOPLE BRINSLEY LePOER TRENCH 1972

MYSTERIES FROM FORGOTTEN WORLDS CHARLES BERLITZ 1974

IN SEARCH OF STRANGE PHENOMENA ALAN LANSBURG 1977

SECRETS OF THE LOST RACES RENE NOORBERGEN 1978

UFOS PAST PRESENT AND FUTURE ROBERT EMENEGGER 1974

LIMBO OF THE LOST – TODAY JOHN WALLACE SPENCER 1975

INSIDE THE FLYING SAUCERS GEORGE ADAMSKI 1969 US

THE WORLDS GREATEST UFO MYSTERIES NIGEL BLUNDELL 1988

INVESTIGATING UFOS LARRY KETTELKAMP 1973

BEYOND THE TIME BARRIER ANDREW TOMAS 1974

FROM THE DEVILS TRIANGLE TO THE DEVILS JAW RICHARD WINER 1977

THE WELSH TRIANGLE PETER PAGET 1979

FLYING SAUCERS EXIST! PARIS FLAMMONDE 1977

THE SPACE SHIPS OF EZEKIEL J F BLUMRICH 1974

IS ANYONE OUT THERE? JACK STONELEY 1974

THE UFO ENCYCLOPEDIA MARGARET SACHS 1981

CROP CIRCLES THE LATEST EVIDENCE DELGADO AND ANDREWS 1990

"Proponents"?

Is this really a good descriptor for someone like HP Lovecraft? He had story with it. He had stories with religion and was a staunch atheist, I'd hardly say that is enough to qualify as being a proponent.68.227.169.133 (talk) 07:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, HP Lovecraft was a fiction writer, but fact is he did have alot of beliefs. He has an interest in alot of occult ideas. There is no evidence he was a staunch atheist. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Johannes von Buttlar

The UFO author Johannes von Buttlar did his books support the ancient astronaut theory? Was he a proponent? If he does support the theory he should be added to the list. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Proof of Scientist Working on the Theory/Associated (Reference fest)

Being a newbie I provided 'unreliable' sources for scientists working/interest in the subject. I'd like to present the information here from new various reliable sources I have found since being told the sources I previously provided weren't reliable enough. To avoid editing the back and fourth with that user, I think its best I write this post so everyone is clear that there are actually scientist working on the theory.

A scientist is defined as an expert in science, especially one of the physical or natural sciences - reference. As that is quiet vague my references for scientists will be people with a doctrine or P.H.D working on the subject.

By the way for all the links I provide press Ctrl+F on your keyboard to search for the quote.

I basically want to get "According to certain authors..." - which currently doesn't have any references (that there are only authors working it) changed to "Certain scientists & authors theorize..."

Firstly when you go the IMDb page of Ancient Aliens the hit (viewership averages 2 million an episode) History Channel documentary series you clearly see a cast list with some of the following:

• Rev. Barry H. Downing
• Sara Seager PhD
• Dr. Luis Navia
• Michael Dennin PhD
• Arthur Demarest PhD
• Todd Distotell PhD

And so on

They all work on the theory and support it, by watching any episode you will see (here you can clearly see at the beginning of the video that a Dr. Uwe Apel - Aerospace Engineer & Dr Algund Eenboom theorize that ancient Mayans knew about aerodynamics.) But for reference reasons just because there in the cast list that doesn't mean there working on the theory.

But if we take a look at, for example, Dr. Luis Navia who is in the cast list as mentioned above. He is a professor at New York Institute of Technology and is member of the New York Academy of Sciences. Reference: here and here. Now if we take a look at Legendary Times which is a magazine made by A.A.S. R.A. - Archaeology, Astronautics and SETI Research Association who are at the forefront of Ancient Astronaut theory - reference. You can clearly see in the back issue description - for issue Vol. 7, No. 4, 2005 & Vol. 8, No. 1, 2006 - that Dr. Luis Navia is quoted as "Paleo-SETI Pioneers: Prof. Dr. Luis E. Navia / Josef M. Blumrich" See here. Paleo-SETI is the technical term for Ancient Astronaut Theory - reference here and here.

Now we can also see that Dr. Michio Kaku (a famous scientist/physicists who is pioneering string theory) writes in one of the magazines. See here. Just search Dr. Michio Kaku or Vol. 5, No. 4, 2003 & Vol. 6, No. 1, 2004.

Now lets just stop there. Why would a famous scientist do that? Especially with such a niche magazine. Well because he actually supports the theory otherwise he wouldn't want anything to do with it. Heres even more proof of recent connection: Giorgio A. Tsoukalos who is the chairman at A.A.S. R.A. - Archaeology, Astronautics and SETI Research Association posted on his Facebook on March 26th 2011 the following: "just attended a lecture by Dr. Michio Kaku, the eminent physicist, at Caltech Pasadena. One word: ILLUMINATING. I'm actually gushing right now." Reference.

Ok, now if we go to that same back issue page. And Ctrl+F 'Dr.' We can clearly see the following show up:

• Prof. Dr. Michio Kaku
• Dr. Michael Schetsche
• Prof. Dr. Luis E. Navia
• Dr. Johannes
• Dr. Pat S. Schievella
• Dr. Klaus-Ulrich Groth
• Dr. Horst Jungnickel

All of which write in the magazine.

No not the whole scientific community supports this theory, but it is clear there are scientists working it and the public deserve to know. So when I add that 'certain scientists theorize' to the page it should stick, if any one changes that they will be pointed to this post. Out of all the references which one do you older Wikipedia members think I should reference on the actual page?

For the sake of time and not writing a huge essay I think this is enough, if people would like more sources I can provided that in a reply.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Warmcocoa (talk • contribs) 09:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

IMDB is not considered a reliable source as it is a user-generated site. Anyway, the fact that someone wss interviewed in a show does not mean that they support any particular proposition. Similarly, we would need to know the content of Dr. Kaku's interview; the fact he was interviewed in Legendary Times does not make him a proponent of ancient astronaut theory either. To add people to the proponent list, you will have to cite things they wrote or said, in reliable sources, which specifically express their support for this idea. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Firstly they weren't interviewed in the show they are proponents to the theory, if you watched the youtube clip they clearly say that "One of the objects shows a typical stpeed wings like a morden day aircraft" and at 1 minute "we didn't need to put much effort into the shape as everything was already done by the natives people 2,000 years ago" as they enlarged the size of the small artifact added wheels and it took, you can see that video later on in the video. This is applied science and these scientist proved that the artifact could fly.

This is very odd and contradictory. By that same standard why does it state that "certain authors" without any reference, yet here I provide an abundance of information that scientists are working yet it doesn't work.

Your ignoring the Dr. Luis Navia who is is a professor at New York Institute of Technology and is member of the New York Academy of Sciences. And the magazine back issue which he writes in clearly states him as a Paleo-SETI Pioneer.

If scientists are defined as "A scientist in a broad sense is one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge. In a more restricted sense, a scientist is an individual who uses the scientific method" and A.A.S. R.A. - Archaeology, Astronautics and SETI Research Association clear states here (if you scroll down to mission) that "The A.A.S. R.A. is determined to prove, using scientific research methods, but in "layman's terms," as to whether or not extraterrestrials visited Earth in the remote past. Then by pure semantics scientist are working on this. Let alone the abundance of Dr and P.H.D people working on this.

If you have any doubt of A.A.S. R.A. - Archaeology, Astronautics and SETI Research Association or Legendary Times. They were both founded by Giorgio A. Tsoukalos and Erich von Däniken as you can see in the footer of the website.

The youtube video is no user created its a excerpt from the History channel documentary.

Yes IMDb is user generated but you can see that the page was made by Prometheus Entertainment, who are the production company of the series. References

1. Proof Prometheus Entertainment is the production company - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Aliens
2. Prometheus Entertainment in company credits - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1643266/

# The official Prometheus Entertainment website, the ancient aliens section clearly states on the bottom left that to 'View a more comprehensive list and check us out at IMDb'. If the production company sees that as a reliable source - as they are the people who made it on the IMDb page, and they should know who is in there prodcution - then Wikipedia should see it as one too. - http://www.prometheusentertainment.com/programs_ancientaliens — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warmcocoa (talk • contribs) 11:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:REDFLAG which says "Extraordinary claims require high-quality sources". You can't attribute a statement that X believes in Y to the mere fact that he was once interviewed in a magazine about Y, or for a TV show about Y. That is what you are trying to do. Even if IMDB was considered a relaible source, and it is not for almost all details, you could not use it for the statement "Professor Kaku believes in ancient astronauts", nor can you use a page claiming he was interviewed in a magazine. You need to find a statement he made in a book or article or an interview in a high quality source, and you don't have that. I am not very familiar with Dr. Kaku's work, but in a brief Google search I think what he actually said is that extraterrestrial life is possible, a commonly held view. That does not translate into Dr. Kaku believing aliens have visited earth. My advice to you is to read WP:RS and WP:V very carefully, as well as WP:REDFLAG and WP:FRINGE, then look for better sources. Arguing at this late date that Wikipedia is wrong about IMDB is not a good use of your time and energy. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Excuse my unreliable sources, I know there are scientist working on this as I have personal met them etc. I am just having trouble providing reference, as these scientist don't write in massive publications stating that they are 'scientists' and that they believe in ancient astronaut theory, its not as simple as that.

I agree with you just because they are interviewed etc. Doesn't mean they are studying it. I didn't once say Kaku believes in ancient astronauts, I just stated the fact that he has written in Legendary Times. And merely drew the conclusion that as its such a niche magazine and polarizing theory if he didn't have an inkle of belief in the theory he wouldn't have anything to do with it for fears of tarnishing his image etc.

It is not an extraordinary claim that scientists are working on this theory. Just because scientists are working on the theory doesn't validate it. I'm just trying to show the public that there are scientist working on this theory, it has evolved from the days of Chariots of the Gods.

I have found other sources of the German Dr. Algund Eenboom who is in the TV Show and a proponent of ancient astronaut theory. http://www-user.rhrk.uni-kl.de/~aws/seta/Eenboom.htm. Translate the page it clearly says he studies Paleo-SETI theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warmcocoa (talk • contribs) 11:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Please also read WP:SYNTH. Your following statement is an example of the kind of synthesis we are not permitted to do in editing Wikipedia: "And merely drew the conclusion that as its such a niche magazine and polarizing theory if he didn't have an inkle of belief in the theory he wouldn't have anything to do with it for fears of tarnishing his image etc." Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You completely just ignored everything else I just said? Your very selective in what you wish to answer.

I was just adjusting your misunderstanding. I understand that thats not good enough evidence for a Wikipedia page.

Can we please work together in finding the right references. Since we have talked you haven't pointed me to one example of a good reference, or site that is good enought;

You still haven't answered my question that if the Dr. Luis Navia from the New York Academy of Sciences and Dr. Algund Eenboom references are good enough? They are both have many sources from different time periods and types of site, which should render them more reliable. If I have to get in contact which these respected scientists then I will. I'm sure they won't be happy to hear that they are not given credit for there work and not being regarded as proponents of the theory on number one go to encyclopedia on the net.

Anyway I am in contact with the history channel who have told me that they will update there ancient aliens series page with quotes from the series were doctors/scientists states things that rank them as proponents of the theory and state there belief in the theory, and a cast list. So I'm sure that will suffice as reliable reference that scientists are working on the theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.249.221.180 (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I found the best source on the Ancient Astronaut Society dutch site that has all the proponents of the ancient astronauts theory they include: http://tatjana.ingold.ch/index.php?id=wk_redner

• Physicist
• Mathematician
• Astronomers
• astronomer
• Acheologists

All from around the world. Every person stated has a reference of a scan of a newspaper or article that states they are proponents. Example is for Dr. MATEST M. AGREST, next to it says (1993), (1997) that are hyperlinks to the following: http://tatjana.ingold.ch/index.php?id=wk93_agrest that are scans of references —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.249.221.180 (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You would need to show that these theories have been published in academic literature. Dr. Navia btw has a PhD in philosophy, not science, although he has a diploma in astronomy. His membership in the NY Academy of Science does not make him a scientist - they have 24,000 members. TFD (talk) 13:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but its still someone with a high stature that is part of the theory. Legendary times calls the guy 'Paelo-SETI pioneer' just because he didn't get a PhD in science but philosophy doesn't mean he isn't a valid proponent, are you suggesting we add philosophers? This reference isn't proof of scientist, but I do think its proof that there are physicists, astronomers and archeologists working on this. I will change the page to reflect this. Also I will take away according to certain authors as it sounds like a skeptic wrote it and doesn't sound very wikipedia like. I will change it to 'Certain philosophers, astronomers, archeologists & authors theorize.." --82.229.148.12 (talk) 13:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I found an interesting book on this, Alien worlds: social and religious dimensions of extraterrestrial contact By Diana G. Tumminia on page 273 says that the Ancient astronaut theory was a good example of an alternative view which has crossed over the boundarys of acceptance. All very interesting stuff. There are some very good academic books which discuss this theory, I am reading through them and shall present my findings in a few days should time allow. Tentontunic (talk) 13:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I do also think Warmcocoa has provided an overwhelming amount of references although not as reliable as we want. I actually followed the link and have skimmed though a couple of Ancient Aliens the series video. It does seem the theory has moved to a more evidence based theory, and I did see scientist, nick pope ex Head of UFO files in Ministry of Defense in the UK, even a Reverend talk openly about the possibility of this being true. Very impressive stuff and there are lot of authortive figures starting to talk about this, this wikipedia page needs some work to update the new findings and ideas that this tv show has offered, its very compelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.229.148.12 (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Nick Pope was a relatively-minor civil servant, who has since made something of a career out of UFO-related subjects. As such, he is hardly a reliable (i.e. disinterested) source. As for 'a scientist', and 'a Reverend', that tells us little. If people are going to suggest there is any scienctific basis whatsoever to this theory, they should read Wikipedia policy, particularly the section in WP:FRINGE covering 'unwarranted promotion of fringe theories': "Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original thought nor a soapbox for self-promotion and advertising. The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents". Unless and until this theory is given credibility in reliable sources other than those of its proponents, claims of 'scientific support' etc are contrary to policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your edits because you are still not presenting sources which meet Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines. You have recieved a lot of input as to what will and won't work, both here and on WP:RSN. Please comply and stop sourcing assertions to blogs, tables of contents of Legendary Times, etc. "Certain authord" is a perfectly appropriate opener for the lede until you find better sources. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not saying it is scientificly proven. I'm just pointing out there are scientists working on it. That doesnt validate it or not. What your talking about is if I was meant to write it has been scienfitically proven. I'm just proved a source that states there are acheologists working on this. Anyway there has to be. You can't do digs around the world if your not an archeologists, they don't just let anyone on these sites. And as for legendary times it is a magazine by A.A.S. R.A. - Archaeology, Astronautics and SETI Research Association. It was founded by Giorgio A. Tsoukalos and Erich von Däniken. Giorgio A. Tsoukalos being one of the producers of the tv show ancient aliens. And is said to be at the forefront of this theory. You both haven't proven that there are ONLY authors working it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.229.148.12 (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

We don't have to 'prove' anything. It is up to those wishing to include things in Wikipedia to provide the required reliable sources. You have had this repeatedly explained to you. If you are unwilling to comlp with established Wikipedia policy in this regard, I suggest you go elsewhere. And will you please sign your posts as you have been asked to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way I wasn't saying Nick Pope is a scientist. There are scientists working on this, that Warmcocoas has listed above. You can see for yourself by watching the video Warmcocoa provided. The point is, its hard to reference the archeologists and PHDs because of the lack of mainstream coverage. The only people that provide information on the scientists working behind the scenes are places like Legendary Times and the Ancient Astronaut Society. Now if you don't believe these to be reliable sources here, then we have a problem as if we were meant to find a alien remains in a site the news people would go to A.A.S. R.A. and giorgio tskoalos. They are as good as you get for reliable sources on this matter. its an organisation that has ties with michio kaku, discovery channel, history channel and various other main stream outputs --82.229.148.12 (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It may be that the mainstream is ignoring this research, but that is your problem, because then we cannot write about it. TFD (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't discredit that there are scientists and archeologists working on this. What would be an example of a reliable reference of scientists working on this matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.229.148.12 (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

We base articles on mainstream sources. Until they accept this, we don't. Find mainstream sources that state that "that there are scientists and archeologists working on this". AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, as a new contributor, you may be unaware that there is a rule against repeated reverts to the same article (even if you think you are 'right'): WP:3RR. If you persist in reverting in the way you do, I will report you, which is likely to result in you being blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

As they have again inserted this into the article (cited to Sitchin personal website and legendarytimes.com once again) can someone else revert and is it time to take this to 3RR board? Heiro 15:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I have provided a reference from the New York Time who regard Sitchin as a researcher who he is. A researcher is defined as someone who performs research on a given subject so by default they should be a researcher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.229.148.12 (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

'Researcher' is a meaningless term - anyone can research anything - it doesn't mean they have any credibility. And will you please sign your posts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I never said they had credibility. I just stated they are a researcher. I have provided a reference from the New York Time who regard Sitchin as a researcher who he is. If you look at that website and scroll down it shows the article which was printed. There was also a blog post on the new york times website I have provided a reference from the New York Time who regard Sitchin as a researcher who he is. A researcher is defined as someone who performs research on a given subject so by default they should be a researcher.

Here is the article and it clearly states that he researches. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/nyregion/10alone.html

A researcher is defined as someone who performs research on a given subject so by default they should be a researcher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.229.148.12 (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Since you show a complete unwillingness to comply with WP:3RR, nor with repeated requests to follow policy regarding sources, and to discuss edits here before making them (and to SIGN YOUR POSTS), I see no point in debating further.

Can someone else deal with the 3RR issue, I've had enough of this pointless debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

3rr report made here Heiro 16:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

And in the meantime the editor has once again filled up the article with their POV laden nonsense, unreliable sources and has blanked sections of reliably cited material they disagree with. Can someone not at 3RR with this guy do some cleanup? Heiro 16:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I've protected it for 3 days. Someone want to go to ANI 'cause I'm busy. Or WP:3RR, or SPI. Dougweller (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Already at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Warmcocoa reported by User:Heironymous Rowe (Result: ), just waiting for an admin to happen along and notice it. Heiro 16:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

New section to be added

Hi, i would like to add a new section at some point to the article about creationism and evolution for example most ancient astronaut proponents believe extraterrestrial Homo Hybrid, Interstellar Crossbreeding and i have good sources for this. Is the article locked for a few days? 86.10.119.131 (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I very much doubt that you can find reliable sources as required by Wikipedia policy to back that claim up - the ancient astronaut proponents seem to have had differing views on the subject, and in any case, a section would need to be based on a source which discussed this. Rather than working on a section which may very well not be unacceptable, why not tell us what the sources are, so we can at least confirm that they are of use. If you list them here, we can take a look. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Andy, well the main source i would use would be the book Mankind Child of the Stars By Max H Flindt and Otto O. Binder, Von Daniken himself wrote an introduction to the book, here is the book here which can be read online:

Book 1

In brief basically the book says we are descendants of ancient starmen, that we are hybrids due to interstellar crossbreeding. Other books say the same things such as Humanity's Extraterrestrial Origins: ET Influences on Human Kinds Biological and Cultural Evolution by Arthur David Horn.

There is also a good overview of the ancient astronaut hypothesis relating to creationism and evolution in the following book:

See Chapter 7:

Book 2

They all look like good sources to me. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The links you give don't work for me - this is often a problem with links to Google books. If you can give the author, title, and publisher, it should be possible for others to find them more easily.

These books may indicate that their authors subscribe to the 'hybrid' theory or similar, but they won't be any use regarding general statements about what ancient astronaut proponents believe. That would need a source that discussed the proponents in general.

The 'Details' section of the article already starts by saying that "Proponents of ancient astronaut theories often maintain that humans are either descendants or creations of beings who landed on Earth thousands of years ago", so we have at least mentioned this theory. If your sources can't be used for anything else, they can probably be cited for that - it really should have a reference to back it up. If you want to propose a new section, I'd suggest you either post it here, or register with a username so you can work on it in a user-space page. I don't think that the article merits more than a paragraph on this, unless you can find further sources. Remember, we need to base the section on what the sources themselves say, not on our own ideas about what they mean. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

See the first paragraph in the details section, well that paragraph has no references, so instead of making a new section, like you said what il do at some point is add some references there. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 02:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah - one of us should do it. Actually, if you are familiar with the topic, you could usefully find further references for the rest of the article - I read von Däniken years back, but haven't really followed the subject in depth lately, and someone more up-to-date will probably find sources quicker. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Stargate

How is there no mention of the Stargate franchise anywhere in this article OR in the discussion???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.212.57 (talk) 04:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Because it is a work of fiction. Although a very good one, perhaps it could be mentioned as a popular culture reference. Thoughts anyone? Tentontunic (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, lol, all of the works mentioned on this page are works of fiction. But isn't it mentioned that it is a popular trope in science fiction?Heiro 12:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I meant it in the way of Ancient astronauts being an alternative theory, and SG being a complete work of fiction. Tentontunic (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a section could be added concerning the more notable examples of the theory in Scifi. It would have to be well referenced of course, and should be limited to very notable examples, as the section could overwhelm the rest of the article if every example were included. Heiro 15:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Notable writers and publications

The Notable writers and publications list is getting ridiculously long, and it's time to do something more useful with it.

I've seen this situation happens in many articles: the list starts out as being a useful notification that the article's concept exists within the culture, but as editors add their favorite example it turns into a vast trivia swamp. Then it either gets deleted or, more usefully, turned into a summary discussion with a couple of carefully selected examples included in the text. That second example is better but isn't easy. I don't really know enough to do it - but I do know that the current list is uselessly long and cluttered. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

As a first step, I moved the long list to the bottom of the article, so it doesn't block the casual reader. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

No article, no entry so I've removed a couple. Is The Bermuda Triangle really about ancient astronauts? Dougweller (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Gallery

Looks random and unsourced. We don't need so many and I don't think we need any without some discussion of the particular whatever. Dougweller (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Since virtually every piece of ancient artwork depicting humans with oversized or stylized heads is considered evidence of alien visitations by somebody or other, I think only the best and most notable examples should be used in the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)