Talk:Ancient astronauts/Archive 1

Some discussion

The Ancient Astronaut Theory does not state that "humans are descended from aliens" or "were created by aliens"---only certain popular variations of the theory claim that. Ancient Astronaut Theory itself (more correctly, Paleocontact theory) is simply the idea that intelligent extra-terrestrial beings visited earth in the past---that's it. And that is not pseudo-science at all. Decius 16:53, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I expect that someone will be eager to restore the two categories I removed: Pseudoarchaeology and UFOs. Before you consider doing that, realize that the base of the theory does not necessarily involve hackneyed interpretations of archaeological sites & artifacts, nor does it involve the contemporary UFO phenomenon. The categories are misrepresenting a theory which at base is within the realm of science (intelligent extra-terrestrial creatures visiting earth in the past). Decius 18:10, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Categories are not placed or removed because they reflect well or badly on the topic, they are placed or removed because they reflect how readers categorize topics and to help readers go from one article to another related one. It may be annoying and unfair that people associate hoo-hah like Chariots of the Gods with more reasoned theories, but such is life. So, yes, I would like to return them - and, again, not because I think they accurately represent the theory at its essence, but because they accurately represent the way some people approach the topic. - DavidWBrooks 00:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

...Well, I then plan on creating a new article which deals only with the core of the theory and its history, while the more cranky versions of it can remain in this article, and can bear those categories. It is (without being melodramatic or corny) an injustice to have those categories on the base-theory itself. Decius 00:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

In fact, it would violate NPOV to have those categories on an article that dealt only with the core theory. Decius 00:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

That certainly seems reasonable. - DavidWBrooks 00:52, 31 May 2005

(UTC)

Alright, new stub created here :Paleocontact theory. Those 2 categories are back on this Ancient astronaut theory article which now focuses on the cranky theories. Decius 02:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Adherents

The list of adherents is quite long, what "bits" of the theory did they each propose and when? i'd like to see them listed vertically with a note explaining who did/said what (along the lines Decius suggested in his last update) Niz 10:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree that we must detail, and I'll detail what I can in the coming days. Decius 19:30, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A problem I'm dealing with is: how much detail should we discuss here, how much should be discussed in their respective articles? For example, you removed detailed discussion of von Däniken's ideas from his article (and I'm not saying you did wrong), but the opposite could also have been done. Decius 20:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think von Däniken's ideas should be discussed in detail in his article, while we may want to trim or rephrase the same material here. Decius 20:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, the article shouldn't focus too much just on von Däniken. It's supposed to deal with the various expressions of the theory. He is perhaps the most well-known figure in this field though, so he will get a lot of space comparatively. Decius 20:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ancient astronaut theory and imperialism

Surely the ancient astronaut theory is related to the imperialist attitude that "primitive peoples" could not have achieved "x", therefore there must have been a Western input?

Ancient peoples had sufficient time to achieve quite a lot - and did not necessarily record everything they did (in triplicate) for future generations to discover.

Even if astronauts came in ancient times there must have been a first civilisation.

As with other topics of ambiguity - Occam's Razor applies: given that ancient cultures had some strange/non-scientific theories and activities (at least as far as we in a minimalitic space travelling age see them) surely the probability is that they developed locally?

Some more adherents & authors

Going to 'dump' some more A.A.T. adherents here, most of whom will be included & discussed later:

• M. K. Jessup (UFO and the Bible, 1956)
• H. S. Bellamy and P. Allan (The Great Idol of Tiahuanaco, 1959)
• Brinsley Le Poer Trench (The Sky People, 1960)
• Max H. Flindt (On Tiptoe Beyond Darwin, 1962)
• W. Raymond Drake (Gods or Spacemen?, 1964)
• Roberto Pinotti (Flying Saucer Review, May-June, 1966)
• Otto O. Binder (Flying Saucers Are Watching Us, 1968; also co-authored Mankind--Child of the Stars, with Max H. Flindt, 1974)
• Dr. Roger W. Westcott (The Divine Animal, 1969)
• Andrew Tomas (We Are Not the First, 1971)
• Warren B. Smith--his complete works listed here [1], under 'box 3'; he often used pennames. Not quite an adherent, seems rather to have just authored some books that went into the subject.
• Brad Steiger (Atlantis Rising, 1973)
• Josef F. Blumrich (The Spaceships of Ezekiel, 1974)
• Alan Landsburg (In Search of Ancient Mysteries, 1974)

and lots of other figures whose names I've forgotten. Will continue. Decius 21:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, all individuals who published works discussing Ancient Astronaut theories before the publication of Chariots of the Gods (1968) are notable, while the bandwagon-fellows like Alan Landsburg and Brad Steiger who came after don't even have to be discussed in detail unless they contributed some new aspect. Decius 21:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See also [[2] and [3] (this page only shows A-C, but you can navigate to other letters). Ancient Astronaut authors included among the bunch in both those resources. George Adamski is mispelled as "George Admaski" in the first link, so be wary of other possible errors. Another good link is this one: [4].Decius 00:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Has nobody out there read Alan F. Alford's "Gods of the New Millenium"? It is frankly the most concise and plausible of all the Paleocontact theories and deserves to be recognised as such. Alford uses Zacheria Sitchin as a basis and streamlines all the chronologies on which Sitchin was refuted, bringing everything together in one neat little A4 sized book, as opposed to Sitchin's ten books. If everyone read Alford's book there'd be a hell of a lot more adherents to the Paleocontact theory. --Wolfsangel 17:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Not a theory

A Theory can be described as " A coherent statement or set of statements that attempts to explain observed phenomena, and which has testable implications." However, this does not in any way reflect what this article is

This is as much of a theory as most modern religions - user:everett3 03:00 sep 20, 2005

Yes, but Ancient astronaut hypothesis is hard to spell. - DavidWBrooks 13:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but Ancient astronaut mythology is easy to spell. I propose changing the title of the article. — Aldaron • T/C 02:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

This is from the NPOV page, and bears contemplation in this article. I was tempted to slap an NPOV or a Cleanup tag on this page, but I think the authors are well meaning in pursuit of this hypothesis. I think the article really needs to stick to describing the concept. Accepting that we do not have a comprehensive understanding of history; I think that associating images and real places (the cave painting, Easter Island, etc) with extraterrestrial intelligence propogates disinformation in a particularly unencyclopedic manner. Hiberniantears

From the NPOV Page:

"How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?

If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

Pseudoscience can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant. However, pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article.

There is a minority of Wikipedians who feel so strongly about this problem that they believe Wikipedia should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy, given that the scientists' view of pseudoscience can be clearly, fully, and fairly explained to believers of pseudoscience." Hiberniantears

Sitchin

The lengthy essay recently penned on Sitchin reads rather more like some personal view of the author's on the relative merits of his speculations; many others would view the speculations of Sitchin, von Daniken et al as being equally misguided and wrong-headed as one another. Any (independent) sources to show that Sitchin's views are better founded, or less susceptible to attack, than the others? There have been quite a few refutations put forward over the years, I personally don't see any "higher" level of rigour in Sitchin's claims than the rest.--cjllw | TALK 08:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I trimmmed it, including some hagiographic elements, but I'm not sure he should be mentioned ... is he just one more New Age staple? - DavidWBrooks 01:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

He's been publishing these wildly esoteric claims for about thirty years, and seems to have been doing very nicely out of it, so in the scheme of things he would qualify for notability in this context. At least one source I've seen claims his works had some influence over Raël. If all characters such as he were to be disbarred from the article, it would be a very short one, indeed. I agree that mention of him here should not be overlong, given that it is about such speculations in general- over at Zecharia Sitchin is the place to go into as much detail as one can stomach. However, his ideas if they are to be presented need to be done so accurately and cohesively, if succinctly; as I've only read extracts of his work I don't know whether that pruning may or may not have impaired the presentation unduly.--cjllw | TALK 05:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thie Sitchin section is entirely too long and has many problems. It should be mercilessly cut down in length, with a "for more info, see main article" link to his article, so we don;t repeat info. Furthermore, above where it calls Sitchin "more scholarly" than von Däniken (and shouldn't the article refer to him as von Däniken instead of just Däniken?) is highly POV. Furthermore, all the links to different pages of the same website used as cites appears to be kind of spammy, and there are a number of links that are repetitive (how many times do you have to link to Giant (mythology) anyway?) and just plain wrong (Tiamat is about the genuine mythological character and not this hypothetical bizarre unscientific mystery planet for which there is no evidence of ancients ever believing in. The extensive Sitchin section gives the POV slant that he is somehow the driving force of the field, which is not really accurate. DreamGuy 08:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd be the last person wanting to be seen as lending any credence to these fanciful concoctions, but we do need to take care not to misrepresent what they claim or to bowdlerise such "evidence" as they have put forward. If this article is to have any value or use at all, I think that it needs to present some specific cases which serve to illustrate the type and nature of the subject. Otherwise, we shall be dealing in generalities only, and be on shaky ground ourselves. Thus for von Däniken, Sitchin et al it would seem appropriate to have a para or three succinctly outlining their main points, and the main "evidence" upon which they base their ideas— accompanied, naturally enough with disclaimers that they are wholly unsupported by any mainstream scholar and summary and citation of any published refutations of note.

As mentioned earlier I agree that the portrayal of Sitchin as being a better class of researcher than v.D. or anyone else is not supported, and unless someone can show that he is the poster boy on many an ancient astronautist's wall, such comparisions ought to be removed. And yes, Tiamat is recognised as an authentic entity of Sumerian mythos by Assyriologists, but I guess the point of its inclusion was that Sitchin (mis-)uses the accounts of Tiamat in support of his own conclusions. If it has some central place in his theory, then it could probably bear mentioning, as wrong-headed as it may appear. To that end, I thought that Cuchullain's earlier cleanup edit was quite adept.--cjllw | TALK 10:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

To doubt Sitchin's prominence in any discussion concerning ancient astronauts shows a clear lack of understanding for the genre as is reffering to his material as purely works of "science fiction". Sitchin deserves equal time with von Däniken and the clear distinction between the quality of their work is worth noting for the reader because it represents a different aspect of the genre's perception. Regardless of the merit of Sitchin's theories or the Ancient Astronaut Theory in general, which isnt really the point of this page, it is obvious just by reading and researching their books (and from some of the comments something I doubt anyone here has actually done) the clear distinction between the two is directly related to the scholorship involved. This is the main crux of Sitchin's books, whether you think his interpretations are total bunk or not, is that they are "scholarly", being reviewed and critisized as such and arguably the only reason why they have been on the shelves so long. Maybe one of you can term it better, but Sitchin and von Däniken are clearly different in methodology and public perception and in fairness to the subject is worth noting in some fashion.

"Heavyweight Scholorship...For thousands of years priests, poets, and scientists have tried to explain how life began...Now a recognized scholar has come forth with the most astonishing of all" United Press International (12th Planet review)

The fact Sitchin can read cuneiform isn't a "claim" as is evidenced by his material, it's his interpretions that are suspect more so than a complete lack of ability. This isnt to say he holds certifications attesting to his competency or even that he is correct, but neither are prerequisites to read any written language when substituted with independent study.

This is the "Ancient Astronaut Theory", so to not include significant and specific examples of UFO's in ancient texts or artifacts relating to flying machines or gods who descended from the skies and the like defeats the whole purpose of the page. Right or wrong and whether you agree or disagree with it or not is not an issue, it needs to be presented because that is the information required to illustrate the theory. thanos5150

er, Thanos5150 - where exactly is Sitchin's work reviewed by mainstream scholars, in such a way as to at least acknowledge his scholarship skills, if not his actual conclusions? Any and all such mentions of his work I've been able to locate actually decry his merits as a scholar, condemn him for using others' images without attribution, mis-stating what original texts say, and various other transgressions. Quotes from publishers or other booksellers don't count, as they will naturally enough tend to hyperbolise his credentials, as they want you to buy his books.--cjllw | TALK 08:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

"..errr" what, CJLL? I didnt say his work was studied and revieved by mainstream scholars which isnt required to be "scholarly", nor is it required to be 100% accurate, and given the nature of the subject, why or proffesionally how could they? Of course, the few that have will "decry his merits" and throw him or any other alternative author under the bus by any tactics necessary whether they've actually reviewed the work or not. They do this to their own when a dissenting opinion is offered. I was trying to illustrate the public review and perception of his work as compared to von Däniken and that all that is required to determine if its scholarly or not is to read it for one's self. Have you done this or are you only repeating what a "mainstream scholar" told you to think? I'm not supporting him either way, just calling it like I see it. You dont have to agree to be fair and unbiased.thanos5150

Thanos as I already mentioned, I've not read an entire one of his works, but have read a few lengthy extracts from some of his works, not to mention a decent perusal of the articles on his website. His work rather reminds me of Velikovsky's, whose Worlds in Collision trilogy I did once wade through in their entirety: rogue planets bashing about, dense with footnotes and citations to obscure works, biblical references, ancient allegorical formulations which can only be interpreted correctly under the guiding hand of the author (Velikovsky is admittedly the more turgid writer). At least it can be said that they appear to be well-read, but that is not the same thing as being "scholarly": that epithet also should describe the methodology employed, and not merely the number and range of sources quoted. "Calling it like I see it", the methodology employed is poor, the unjustified leap of faith quotient is high, and the implausibility off the scale, for both of these. So by my own assessment at least I can tell the difference between scholarship and pseudoscholarship without needing to be told, patronising-sounding remarks notwithstanding.

But this is beside the point; I merely and simply enquired whether you had any citations other than your own views that Sitchin is more scholarly than v.D, and that Sitchin's 'scholarship' is regarded as anything more than a veneer by anyone other than his supporters or publishers. It would seem not.

Note however that in earlier posts to this page I have actually been arguing for his inclusion in the article, and for some actual detail on what he has to say; but since the article is not called Zecharia Sitchin's Ancient Astronaut theory, it only needs to be done in moderation.--cjllw | TALK 13:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

When you respond to my comments as "er, Thanos5150" or the like which you have done so repeatedly in the past when responding to my edits you only are hearing the echo of your own patronising-sounding remarks.

[5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

I dont have time to sit here all day and find references for you but here are a few basic ones to get you started. Other than actually reading their books for yourself its easy to see the perception the general public has comparing the 2 authors and to know the genre is pretty much common knowledge. I'm sure there are many more sites and other print references of the same vein.

I have read all of his books and found, at least on the surface, his methodology reasonably sound and his arguments well stated. I certainly dont agree with everything he says but it's obvious the man has done his homework, or his scholorship as it were. His Sumerian-centric bent is unreasonable at times and to me this is often the least desireable aspect of his work and I'm sure that he has streched several interpretations to their fullest to serve his purposes, but to his credit, he at least explains in detail why he thinks what he does and provides sources. I know no mainstream scholar has ever dreamed of doing such a thing, but regardless, to read his work in its entirety taking the good from the bad, certainly gives pause for thought, and whether you believe any of his ancient astronaut conclusions there is no doubt one can not walk away infinitely more informed by the credible and confirmable facts provided certainly worthy of the label "scholorship".

The information he presents can only be obtained by "scholorship", it does not fall out of the sky, and the references are worthy not only by their sheer number or scope but by the actual sources cited. The main argument against him is not that he's not "scholorly", they just dont agree with his interpretations. If anything he's a scholor gone mad or critisized as employing "shoddy" scholorship when necessary to suit his purposes. Just for a hoot you should pick up a copy of the 12th Planet and give it a shot. I'm sure at the least you would be entertained. Much more than Velikovsky thats for sure.

At the end of the day, there really are 1000 ton stones at Baalbek that are not attributable to the Greeks, Romans, or any one else for that matter which who's age and purpose remain unknown- not to mention how they could have possibly been moved or cut and put in place with such perfect precision. The same precision employed in the Great Pyramid. They are roughly 60ft long, 14ft high and are comparable in size and weight to a semi-truck filled with lead. The largest one (#4) is still in the quarry almost 1mi away over hill and dale and is estimated at 1500-2000 tons. This certainly doesnt mean they were used as a space port by aliens, but the mystery remains all the same and is ultimately only part of a larger whole. This is not psuedoscience or "crack-pottery", but a credible as yet unexplained phenomenon found around the world that has been sufficiently un-addressed by the mainstream if not completely ignored because there is no answer within the confines of accepted dogma. Baalbek employs the largest stone blocks ever quarried on earth yet I would bet 99.99% of the population has never even heard of it. Or what about megalithic Nan Madol? This place is sitting in the middle of the south pacific and rivals if not surpasses in scope the Great Pyramid and was built on an artificial island over 13sq miles no less, yet again, who even knows it exists? I'm certain the wonders of Egypt would be the same if they could be ignored. I wonder where our understanding of human history would be if the anomolous artefacts such as these were explored with the same vigor by the mainstream as the mundane? [thanos5150]

dear anon user, please dont delete stuff already in the article (e.g. the ancient astronauts supplanting atlantis stuff in the earlier ideas section - the earlier ideas stuff is not about ancient astronauts, but earlier ideas of "advanced civilizations"), it is considred vandalism, ok? also see WP:POV with respect to your questionable edits re sitchin. Zzzzz 11:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont know if you are refering to me as I didnt remove it, but I will if you dont provide a reference. You are saying that the ancient astronaut theory has replaced the idea of lost civilisations as the popular idea of the day specifically because no evidence has come forth for lost civilisations in conjuction with the advent of space flight. This is an opinion without reference or merit and without reference should be deleted. How could this be vandalism?

If anything, its the opposite, as no new material or "proof" of note has come forth regarding ancient astronuats and really is an idea who's day has largely come and gone in the 60's and 70's that has increasingly faded from public perception.

In contrast, regarding lost civilisations, reams of new data, ideas, and interpretations continue to come forth in film and print building over the last 20 years making it arguably more popular than ever.

What also needs reference is the "old work of giants" bent concerning Roman ruins in Britain. This is quite a lengthy statement of facts with no source, not to mention, depending on which ruins they were refering to, may not actually have been built by Romans creating a misconception of the Anglo-Saxons and why they may have thought they were built by giants.

Also, civilising heroes and the idea of the ancients believing their creators came from the heavens are 2 completely different ideas, so quit joining them together as if they are one and the same.[thanos5150]

Infobox

User:Zzzzz, why did you remove this? I think it is valuable. ---CH 17:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

why do you think its valuable? its an ugly box that just reiterates stuff already in the article and spoils page formatting. infoboxes are supposed to be for " hard statistic" type info, e.g. for a book article, number of pages in book etc. i'll remove it if no further objections. Zzzzz 18:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

anon user "thanos", please learn wiki-editing

it seems you are unfamilar with the "ref" tag in wiki-editing. i suggest you learn about it at WP:CITE before breaking this page - your last edits completely deleted three whole sections which i believe was not your intention. "ref" tags are preferred to "external link" tags as you will see at WP:CITE.

furthermore, references should normally be reliable. crystalinks and world-mysteries cannot in any sense be considered reliable or neutral. i will leave them for now but be warned other editors may not be so generous.

finally, its interesting you demand citations for facts you dont like, but when the tables are turned, suddenly you dont need to provide reliable citations because "its common knowledge". how convenient! ;-)

Easy there tough guy. Nothing has been deleted. I accidently chopped off a "/ref" tag and noticed what happened immedietly and fixed it. No harm no foul.

The site I provided is highly nuetral and informative and only mentions ancient astronauts in passing at the very end of the article. For your benefit alone I have added a secondary link to the peru.com travel site which mentions ancient astronauts as well. I am more than happy to provide citations for anything and have. Please tell me where I haven't and I will find one or delete it myself.

The citations I "demanded" from (I assume you) are not because I like or dislike what you are saying, but because they are opinions with little or no merit not to mention reference. By the same token, I would say that these "other editors" will leave in derogatory or misleading comments that are clearly opinion or without reference as long as it supports their bias. If they were equally unfounded statements supporting the alternative theory they would be removed immedietly.

Read carefully before you freak out or wonder why I have deleted these lines.

RE: "The ancient astronaut theory has supplanted these old legends...."

First all of, as I said above, this is clearly POV and regardless not supported by facts if only to the contrary. The reference you provide says absolutely nothing regarding this statement if only implying the exact opposite only briefly mentioning ancient astronauts. The entire article is about lost continents and it's prominence, scope, and increasing popularity especially in the last 15yrs (which only goes to further prove what I told you before), which the 2nd page (of only 2) is entirely devoted to this new evidence which you say hasn't been found. So, not only does this article not support the statement it completely contradicts it. You speak of "reliable sources" yet offer "New Dawn Magazine"?

RE: "The Anglo-Saxons were skilled at carpentry...."

The reference you give says nothing (among other things) of the Anglo-Saxon's lack of knowledge of large scale masonary being the reason they mistook large earth works as the work of giants. If this ignorance were the reason, what does this say of the Greeks who were masters large scale masons who despite all their expertise knew of no better explanation for the Mycenaean ruins than to be that of the work of giant Cyclopes?

It doesnt even refer to Gog or Magog (much later Biblical characters) or the "some people" who supposedly say this or what in particular they were talking about.

Furthermore, it doesnt say "poets", as in plural, who describe the Roman work in question as those of giants, it specifically refers to ONE poem that makes mention of Roman ruins (or ruin). This scant reference you give is reffering to ancient earth works almost exclusively, most certainly of the prehistoric megalithic variety, which like the Greeks, and regardless of their skill level, it is understandable why they would consider them the work of giants.

Your statement is misleading, incorrect, and implies that Anglo-Saxons were not only inept at but were so ignorant of basic construction techniques (not to mention roman culture) that it was common for them to be unable to distinguish between even Roman ruins as the work of humans as compared to that of giants, which as a whole, couldnt be farther from the truth. Anglo Saxons came to prominence on the heels of the Roman demise and were well aware of them as a previous human, not "giant", culture. They were prolific and acomplished builders of impressive churches among other large structures all over Britain, some of which are still around today.

In both cases, you've taken something you seem to know little about and infused your opinion with references that do little to support your statement if strangely only refute them. I have deleted these statements accordingly and will continue to do so until another party can explain to me it merits inclusion. I dont understand why you and others have to be so nasty or snide as if adding or editing comments is something personal. This should be fun. thanos5150

If you two are going to get into a debate, please (a) write shorter (if it's more than three paragraphs, you're probably covering too much ground at one time, and nobody will wade through it), and (b) sign and indent (put a colon before the start of each paragraph; two colons before each paragraph for the response, etc.) so the debate can be followed. - DavidWBrooks 21:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Histories are unverifiable experimentally

The Ancient Astronaut idea of history is one that we cannot reproduce for study. The best we could hope for verification in this area is to see if we could become ancient astronauts and do the same thing. But any thing, place, person, event, idea, etc. which does not exist anymore is gone, which makes it unobservable and therefore outside of science. Proof must be timeless, but on the contrary, archaeological remains are not alone in the universe, and thus they can have outside influences. Science is a method (thought not perfect) intended to unravel the mysteries of the timeless principles of the universe that define and emerge from nature which can be observed over and over again to affirm suspicions beyond reasonable doubt.Kmarinas86 20:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid your meaning is obscure. Was the above intended to be a propos anything in the article itself, or just some general passing comment...?--cjllw | TALK 00:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Is there a citation for Carl Sagan ever putting this theory forward? I've read a lot of Sagan and not come across it; it would have thought I would have remembered.

"which the Sumerians believed to be a remote "12th" planet" The implies that the Sumerians both knew about all nine of the modern 'planets' and that they classified them exactly as we do now (i.e. the Pluto is a planet, but 'Xena' which is bigger than Pluto, 'Quaoar' and the other trans-Neptunians are not). Surely this is very unlikely? Does anyone know anything about Sumerian cosmology? Or is this saying that the Sumerians believed there was a planet that, if it existed we today might call a '12th' planet? This is confusing.

"basing their theories on the basic tenet that nearly all ancient creation myths of a god or gods having descended from the "heavens" to earth to create man" They may indeed have based their work on this tenet, but the tenet is itself not correct; creation myths vary enormously across the global. Should this be pointed out in the article? [ http://www.archaeolink.com/creation_myths_religious_anthrop.htm ]. There's a much bigger list of hundreds of these on the web which I haven't been able to relocate yet.

"Probably the most famous piece of circumstantial evidence are the Nazca lines of Peru; countless enormous ground drawings which can only be seen from high in the air." I believe this statement is incorrect, I have read that though they are not visible from the ground level, they are discernable when stood on a reasonably sized ladder or platform. That is, you don't need to be very far 'in the air' to see them (image of Maria Reiche, apparently looking at the lines from a ladder: http://www.incalink.com/nazcalines/NAZCALINES3.htm). I don't know is this is true for all of the glyphs or whether you need to be selective about where you view from. BTW citiation 27 (1) says nothing about visibility and is a tourism site. Citation 27 (2) says "most clearly visible from the air." (not invisible).

This article has an Evidence section; should it have a Counter Evidence section? (There is plenty of it; even Von Daniken's books - probably the most popular source of this theory - contain factual errors on nearly every page.)

Discussion moved from Talk:Paleocontact theory

Explanation: Ancient Astronaut Theory is a term that came into usage to describe the cranky theories of Erich von Däniken et al.; Paleocontact theory on the other hand is a term that is used more to describe the more general and basic hypothesis that intelligent extra-terrestrial beings have visited earth in the past---a hypothesis that has been and is considered by some scientists. I'm not creating usage. This is the usage, though the term 'Paleocontact theory' can also be interchangeable with 'Ancient Astronaut Theory'. 007 03:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed :) The pointer outer 21:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hermann Oberth

Oberth has went on record stating his belief in paleo-contact. On one occasion, he stated: "I believe extraterrestrial intelligenes are watching the earth and have been visiting us for millenia in their flying saucers". I'm surprised that he went on record saying that, but he did. Will clarify exactly when & where. 007 23:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

External Links?

I don't know enough to flush out this article. I looked around for other sites that may give me an unbiased exegesis of the suggested evidence for this theory (hypothesis?), but most of what I find is ranting and/or sensationalism. Can someone suggest links and/or is someone planning on flushing out this page? Amid all that garbage there really does seem to be some compelling evidence.

I am tempted to add what I know from reading the Book of Exodus, but don't know if it's really appropriate to just start spouting my opinions on the theory. However, when I look at how God is portrayed there, I see something much closer to a spaceship than a divine entity. That God is physically present with Moses, speaking with the voice of a trumpet either from his column of metal-above and smoke-below or from the ark of the covenant (also having trouble finding credible sources about the ark acting as a current conductor and/or capacitor, but do know that people died if they touched it). That God is there, raining fire on Moses' enemies and otherwise stopping in from time to time. He's not just some spiritual concept like today.

But again, I have no idea how to write up such a thing for wikipedia, nor if it is really appropriate for this article. So has someone already done a better job? Thanks!

P.S. I'm also quite intrigued by the Urim and Thummim. Currently, wikipedia states: "According to the teachings of Judaism, a small parchment with God's holy name, the Tetragrammaton, inscribed on it was slipped into an opening under the Urim and Thummim on the high priest's breast plate, which caused the breastplate to "glow" and thereby "transmit messages" from God to the Children of Israel. Some scholars have suggested "the" Urim and Thummim consists of two crystals; however, the precise nature of the medium is unknown to most secular scholars. According to the Hebrew Bible, stones used for "an" Urim and Thummim were kept in the breastplate of Aaron, the brother of Moses." Epastore

It is always a bad idea to discuss personal research in an article or present a very personal slant on previous research. Such things should be done on User Pages or Talk Pages, not in articles. This article will focus on the more scientific manifestations of Paleocontact theory: the history of the idea among actual scientists, and what scientists have written of the theory; preferably, qualified scientists. Alexander 007 03:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting I'm not a qualified scientist?!?! Oh... wait... I'm not. OK, fine. But my initial question stands... I'd love to see some external links, or the fleshing-out you describe. There are clearly some scientifically intriguing bits of evidence and speculation about paleocontact, but they are drops swimming in an ocean of good ol' conspiracy theory and other ranting. Web searching has for me revealed nothing but the latter, so I'd love to see some legitimate research. Thanks! Epastore 17:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I wasn't suggesting that at all. I was referring to "scientists" such as Matest M. Agrest who went off the deep-end and speculated outside of his field. Alexander 007 09:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of good books that deal with the history of the idea within science, but I forget the titles. Can find out though. Alexander 007 10:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

If you can find a source or two, that'd be great. I'd love to flush out this article. Thanks. Epastore 02:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

My Edit Removed?

Why was the fact that Sagan later expressed extreme skepticism and said it was unlikely earth had ever been visited removed?Apofisu 00:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Who knows? Anyway, I'd like to see it in there, preferably properly cited. Do you have the book on hand? Quotes and page numbers would be helpful. — coelacan talk — 06:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Balancing out the Evidence Paragraph

That paragraph definitely needs to be "balanced." What I mean is that there is line upon line of evidence that is not scientifically supported, such as references to the [[Nazca Lines].] Meanwhile, if you read that article, researchers from the University of Kentucky and others were able to reproduce some of the largest figures of those lines without the aid of modern technology, and therefore proved that they could be built by the people of that time without aerial suspension. I think that should be added, as well as some other information to balance that paragraph, but I do not add that yet because the information about the Nazca lines is all I have, other than we have not yet made official contact with Extraterrestrials.

The Modern Prometheus 01:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I made some edits to the Theories examined section because I thought it would be the best section to place the counterevidence that I mentioned above. I also moved the information about the Dogon Tribe into that paragraph.

POV

Can whoever put up the POV template on the page please tell us what problems you have specifically? I read through it and it appeared balanced to me. It really pisses me off, to be honest, when people slap on the POV tag and don't even bother to comment on the talkpage, much less give us details. Anyway, anybody have any ideas? Cheers, Rothery 02:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC).