Talk:Ancient astronauts

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

...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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"..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)[reply]

Infobox

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