Did Erich von-Daniken have a point?????

[pretender]

If you take away the problems with some of his books. Did this man have a point and itn time will this point come to light. I happen to like his books>>>

[pretender]

I was sure someone would pick up on this topic. This man wrote about "was God an astronaut" etc.I believed in some of things he said. So hey all of you out there give it your best shot..

[JohnB]

Von Daniken's biggest fault is that his theory assumes that our ancestors were too dumb to do anything by themselves, they need some do-gooder alien to do things for them.

 

Yes, some ancient artwork does indeed look like rockets. So what? You can't use rockets for interstellar travel. At least not if you want to go somewhere in under a thousand years or so.

 

The Nazca lines are landing strips for aliens? What, they come all this way and forget to bring a radio beacon?

 

How the Crystal skulls were made and who made them is a mystery but that doesn't mean aliens made them.

 

He's simply showing up some of the holes in the conventional history and inserting an alien explanation. It is far more likely that an earlier, currently unknown human civilisation was responsible.

[pretender]

I get some of your points, not all his ideas were wrong. Ancient man did not know how to interpret what he saw. Therefore he just drew his idea of what he saw. Therefore not a true interpretation.

[Phi for All]

I get some of your points, not all his ideas were wrong. Ancient man did not know how to interpret what he saw. Therefore he just drew his idea of what he saw. Therefore not a true interpretation.

Drawing doesn't have to be literal, either. Ancient man could have drawn what they imagined.

[Royston]

Pretender, have you heard of a guy called Graham Hancock...I think you'll enjoy his work. He's another that tries to make links with gaps in historical knowledge, but is not nearly as far out as Von Daniken. There's some very interesting finds that he brings to light, and does raise questions on how advanced ancient civilizations were, compared to our almost arrogant portrayal of them.

[pretender]

Snail, I will look into this, thank you.....

[JohnB]

Snail, that's exactly what I was getting at. In many areas Hancock has at least as much proof for his theories as conventional archaeology does for theirs.

 

(How to annoy an Egyptologist. Ask him to show his evidence that the Sphinx is actually 4th Dynasty. )

 

Looking at the remains we have left to us, I think we've been selling our ancestors short for quite some time.

[Royston]

The maps of Antarctica are a particular favourite of mine...ice-free. I'm not sure if these have been debunked yet, might have to look into that.

[JohnB]

The "Piri-Reis" maps. They are an anomaly. AFAIK they have yet to have an adequate explanation. The general tactic is to ignore them and attack Hapgood. (Not that he doesn't sort of deserve it.)

 

However no-one has yet decided to call the USAF a bunch of idiots.

 

6, July, 1960

Subject: Admiral Piri Reis Map

TO: Prof. Charles H. Hapgood

Keene College

Keene, New Hampshire

 

 

Dear Professor Hapgood,

Your request of evaluation of certain unusual features of the Piri Reis map of 1513 by this organization has been reviewed.

The claim that the lower part of the map portrays the Princess Martha Coast of Queen Maud Land, Antarctic, and the Palmer Peninsular, is reasonable. We find that this is the most logical and in all probability the correct interpretation of the map.

The geographical detail shown in the lower part of the map agrees very remarkably with the results of the seismic profile made across the top of the ice-cap by the Swedish-British Antarctic Expedition of 1949.

This indicates the coastline had been mapped before it was covered by the ice-cap.

The ice-cap in this region is now about a mile thick.

We have no idea how the data on this map can be reconciled with the supposed state of geographical knowledge in 1513.

 

Harold Z. Ohlmeyer Lt. Colonel, USAF Commander

 

It's sort of hard to argue with.

[Royston]

Thanks for that JohnB, I guess it's one of those anamolies that's been swept under the carpet...very interesting.

[sunspot]

Ancient cultures were indeed smarter than we believe. If we look at the Roman army, the soldiers were also skilled craftmen and engineers. This allowed them to live off the land without the need of a supply line. They did not just live off the land but transformed it into civilization. Their army corp of engineers made aquaducts that are still operational 2000 years later with ingenuity and hand tools in a time when horsepower was measured in horses.

[pretender]

Its like all things, ideas are proved and disproved with new technologies. This is why we should keep an open mind to ideas that may seem out of sync with modern thought as they may be proved correct one day..

[Realitycheck]

I have not so far found any reasonable explanations for how or why the Nazca lines were made (including the animalia inscribed, as well.) Erecting monolithic construction is one thing, but mile-wide monkeys?

[JohnB]

agentchange, are you going for the "Lazarus Thread Award"?

 

Damn thing's 3 years old.

 

Anyhoo, you probably won't find a "reasonable" explanation for the Nazca lines. The problem is that the society that made them has gone and left basically nothing behind. (Except the lines.)

 

Because of this lack of information, we don't know how they thought.

 

In a similar vein, we know the early Mayans bound their heads with boards to give that distinctive sloping forehead. We know they did it, but due to lack of other information, we have no idea why.

 

Because of this, it's almost as valid to say that the Nazca lines were offerings to the Gods as to say that the local king had them done as an "art" project for unemployed artists.

 

Without some supplementary information, we are trying to use 21st century thinking to understand the reasons for doing something 1,000 + years ago. Very difficult and prone to problems.

[Realitycheck]

Just as long as they were't aliens that made them. I put a lot of stock in that choice not to believe in aliens anymore. It would be a shame if, all of a sudden, we could not explain how they were built, but I have to say that it is feasible. The scale involved just makes this tribe even that much more insane.

[JohnB]

The scale involved just makes this tribe even that much more insane.

That's the point though. From their POV they were quite sane and reasonable. From the effort expended, I would say that they had what they thought of as very good reasons.

 

Just because we can't work out why they did it doesn't make their reason invalid.

[phantom]

Anyhoo, you probably won't find a "reasonable" explanation for the Nazca lines. The problem is that the society that made them has gone and left basically nothing behind. (Except the lines.)

 

Because of this lack of information, we don't know how they thought.

 

Because of this, it's almost as valid to say that the Nazca lines were offerings to the Gods as to say that the local king had them done as an "art" project for unemployed artists.

I can provide another “unreasonable” explanation for the Nazca lines. These lines represent a road map of the human ‘soul’ (or mind if you don’t like the word: ‘soul’). One feature that stands out is the spirals found in the Nazca lines which one can also be found in Paolo Uccello’s “St. George and the Dragon” in the upper right:

 

http://www.paolouccello.org/

 

which also has some similarity to the NDE tunnel:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_death_experience

 

Another feature is the Nazca “flower” which could also be similar to Robert’s Fludd’s “Mundus Intellectualis” or “Deus” in his Collectio Operum, and may be also represented in the “rose window” of cathedrals.

 

This might be something more than ‘ just another art project’

[JohnB]

I can provide another “unreasonable” explanation for the Nazca lines. These lines represent a road map of the human ‘soul’ (or mind if you don’t like the word: ‘soul’).

And if they were Atheists? That's what I'm getting at, we know so little about the line makers that any meaning we ascribe ATM is nothing more than guessing.

[phantom]

And if they were Atheists?

I don’t think belief in anything is a prerequisite for any experiences, but one’s personal beliefs and cultural bias may effect the interpretation. Actually there may not be any such thing as a ‘clean experience’ in this realm of inner space (The real final frontier?).

 

Spiral structures and other geometric forms are quite common in this other realm but may have been expressed differently in various cultures. One can describe a spiral as a mere geometric form, a tunnel, a cornucopia, a cave, or a ram’s horn, etc., depending on how it is viewed, its contents interpreted, and how it is symbolically or literally expressed.

 

I was merely providing some ‘educated guessing’ and an alternative explanation based on limited reading along with some personal experiences which provided a different interpretation of the Nazca lines.

[JohnB]

So what would the spiders, sharks, monkeys and lizards represent?

[phantom]

Is the shark a shark, or the whale a whale? Why would the Nazca have familiarity with this? Somebody put labels on these figures which may not be correct. Is the tree actually a tree, or perhaps a sagittal section of the cerebellum? Is that really a figure of an astronaut or does it merely represent ‘man’? Or is it some sort of ‘spirit’? Is there a different way of looking at this problem?

 

Somebody also put on the label “Ingenio Valley”, maybe the Spanish explorers. The word “ingenio” might be derived from the Latin, ingeniosus = clever, or ingenium = genius. Somebody may have recognized the project as clever or representative of the genius of man.

 

The animals may just be a symbol of some aspect of man’s mental function and the ability to carry out the purpose, or how they related it. For example, the ‘parrot’ may represent speech/language or the ability to repeat.

 

Is the spider the predator or the prey? Does it represent some web of duplicity where the innocence is entrapped? It’s hard to know what exactly was on their minds when they made these geoglyphs. Some may have more simple explanations (or at least to me).

 

The ‘monkey’ may represent a learning process (monkey see, monkey do). In order for a monkey to repeat an action it will first be necessary to observe it. Then that action needs to be stored in memory and then recalled in order to repeat it. This may be represented in the spiral of the monkey’s tail (which is similar to the infamous NDE tunnel) which appears to be also the memory storage area. The memory itself is represented by a series of lines (frames?) to the left of the monkey’s hands.

 

These older societies didn’t have a lot of technological annoyances to deal with, so they had more time to ponder the origin of their existence and nature. The Nazca lines may just represent their findings of their explorations and ponderings. Just like the Egyptians represented their findings by building the pyramids and other civilizations did with their various temples and structures.

[Edtharan]

I have not so far found any reasonable explanations for how or why the Nazca lines were made (including the animalia inscribed, as well.) Erecting monolithic construction is one thing, but mile-wide monkeys?

How is easy, it is a matter of geometry, and not very complex geometry (understanding lengths and angles and multiplication is all that is really needed).

 

Why is something we will probably never know. These were made a long time ago and the civilisation that made them is long since gone.

 

But there are things that have occurred over the world that might offer an explanation.

 

On Rapa Nui (Easter Island), they made Moai (those statures that made the island famous). Although it is not absolutely clear why they were made initially, what occurred to perpetuate it is better understood.

 

These Statures represented social dominance. The more and bigger the statures the more it showed how powerful you were. It ment that you could command enough resources to put a lot of people to work in a non-productive manner.

 

So, over time, you would ahve had to out do the ones that had been done in the past, or you were saying that you weren't as good as them.

 

In our Capitalistic societies, we find this kind of behaviour odd and unreasonable.

 

But all it is, is that the society valued something more than the acquisition of resource. What was important to them was your standing in the society. Power, not wealth was what they desired.

 

Now, if you apply this to the Nazca glyphs, one could understand them in this manner. What if this was another case of demonstrating ones ability to command large amounts of people? If a ruler could afford to send that many people to work with the knowledge and skills needed to construct such large glyphs, this might be an explanation of why they are so big and so much effort went into them. It is very typical human behaviour, especially in Males.

 

Other examples can be seen in any school yard (especially with kids aged between 10 to 15).. But even the Egyptian Pyramids can be seen as this behaviour. Even the great Cathedrals of Europe are an effect of this behaviour. Look around you at the behaviours of people and see how much of this behaviour you can spot (the flashy sports car, the expensive cloths, etc)

 

This behaviour is so "Human" that it is probably wired into our genetics, it is an instinct of humanity.

[JohnB]

But even the Egyptian Pyramids can be seen as this behaviour.

I've heard this idea before. How does the fact that the grandsons pyramid (Menkaure) is the smallest of the Giza pyramids fit in?

 

As far as we know there wasn't any major social disruption at that point of the 4th dynasty. There would seem to be no logical reason for Menkaure to make his smaller than the other two.

 

Phantom. You bring up good points, it's just that they back what I and Edtharan have been saying. Because there is no societal context to put the markings into, any meaning is just a guess.

[Edtharan]

I've heard this idea before. How does the fact that the grandsons pyramid (Menkaure) is the smallest of the Giza pyramids fit in?

 

As far as we know there wasn't any major social disruption at that point of the 4th dynasty. There would seem to be no logical reason for Menkaure to make his smaller than the other two.

It doesn't need disruption, all it needs is a change in what that society considers representative of power.

 

In more recent (than the pyramids) western culture, having formal gardens laid out in geometrical patterns was considered representative of power, but a guy called "Capability" Brown came along and created a formal garden that was quite different, then all of a sudden these crafted landscapes became fashionable and formal gardens were no longer a representation of power and this radically changed the English landscape (with whole lakes and hills being created for these gardens).

 

Today, this extreme Landscape gardening has gone out of fashion, but we still do it to some degree.

 

Maybe it wasn't the size of the pyramid that was important, perhaps it was something else associated with it (location, coating, it's contents, or anything).