Talk:Ancient astronauts/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Ancient astronauts in the first thanskgiving

Please add this to the main article, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.174.218.38 (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Well there are two problems here, firstly why should this be added to the main article? Secondly, why can't you do it then? 41.132.125.119 (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

Yes, you're right, plus, "Battlestar Galactica" has as much right to be there as "Doctor Who" and so... There was, however, a comic-book directly based on Daniken's books, and this probably does warrant inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.144.220 (talk) 08:15, 20 October 2011 (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)
I know of no reliable general or academic source that calls the ancient astronaut hypothesis "alternative non fiction". --Jonas kork (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I would go so far as to say that "alternative non fiction" is itself a heavily biased attempted at obfuscating a (at best) fringe theory with little scientific merit or support. Simply because some people believe in ancient astronauts does not make it any more valid and this seems to be little more than an attempt to call a elephant a slightly less feathery type of duck. 41.132.125.119 (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2012 (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 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)
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)

Unfortunately Scientology only started in the 1950s, Dianetics was also only published in the 1950s, so this falls outside of the time-period. Some of the earliest work that I know of relating (loosely) to ancient astronauts more falls under science fiction and not under proponents however. 41.132.125.119 (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2012 (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)
Alas History Channel gave into sensationalism and started publishing stories about aliens and ghost... of course I guess it is to be expected from network television where priority is placed on attracting viewer-ship. The issue however is that once we start adding every fringe theory which supposedly proves that ancient aliens exists where does it stop? Wikipedia has criteria for what constitutes credible information but what constitutes credible refutable information? The moment you allow the presentation of unsupported fringe theories in quantity, even if clearly marked as none-factual, you open yourself up to having to play defence to every half-brained theory from funny looking rocks to psychics receiving messages from the stars 41.132.125.119 (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2012 (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)

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.

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

Dont forget Flying Serpents and Dragons - R.A. Boulay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.48.214.19 (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

"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)

Where are they now?

What I want to know is what the theorists say about where the aliens, or ancient astronauts, are now? Why did they leave after their time here on earth, after helping the human race out (or not)? In other words, why didn't they stick around and see what became of their hard work? It seems a waste of time to make a trip that would take hundreds of light years, huge amounts of energy and life, and then stay for only a few eons or so, then leave. I'm not discounting the theory, it's just a point that I can't find any information on, and want at least a guess, or a shot in the dark at. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.186.193 (talk) 04:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

No one writing in this pseudoscientific discipline seems to write about where they went after supposedly visiting Earth, so we can't write about it here. See these policy pages WP:CITE, WP:SECONDARY and WP:OR, which should explain why. Heiro 05:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
New Jersey - they all went to New Jersey. I think we can take that as a given. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
You say where are they now, and you can not find information on this topic?. Have you looked? Check out the books of Peter Kolosimo and Robert Charroux, they say the ancient astronauts have gone back to other planets. Von Daniken says the astronauts may come back in 2012, or in the next 100 years or so. Richard Mooney says the ancient astronauts are us human beings ourselves not aliens. Brad Steiger says the ancient astronauts are most likely hiding from us. John Keel says they could exist in a different dimension to us on earth. Brinsley Le Poer Trench says they could be living inside the earth, aka the hollow earth theory. Alienspaceships (talk) 23:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
There's no evidence, not even circumstancial, to even speculate about it. To do it we would need much stronger and detailed evidence of their presence, the kind of evidence that would help to actually give some credibility to those claims of alien visitations.
A possible speculation (and I'm just borrowing ideas from fiction here) may be that there was not a visitation on purpose, but that a group of aliens crashed here and got stranded in this planet. They had limited alien technology with them, just what they were wearing, and simply died in time. Of course, to find a planet capable to mantain life "by chance" or by "scanning the area" (as they do in Star Trek) is simply nonsense, but it works for fictional works as an acceptable break from reality. Cambalachero (talk) 12:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I have seriously no idea, but what I do know is that an earthworm wouldn't think of us as another lifeform. So maybe even if we saw aliens we wouldn't think they are lifeforms. In this scenario they might very well still be among us. 95.96.128.2 (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Please folks stop speculating, this isn't a forum. Look for sources and if you find some bring them here, but we aren't going to change or add to the article without sources. Dougweller (talk) 06:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Timeline of publications moved

Timeline of publications can now be found on a separate article. Timeline of ancient astronauts. Alienspaceships (talk) 23:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Quick question from a New wikipedia User

Hey, Is Religion under Pseudo Science? what constitutes an article being under pseudo science? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.166.3 (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience is a broad system of theories or assertions about the natural world that claim or appear to be scientific, but that are not considered being so by the scientific community." See here Category:Pseudoscience. Heiro 00:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Define "the scientific community"...

File:Pacal the Great tomb lid.svg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Pacal the Great tomb lid.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Pacal the Great tomb lid.svg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Popular culture / Proponents List

The popular culture list is WAY too long - it has become a pointless trivia dump. Since an entire article exists about the topic, I propose to throw out all the examples, write a couple sentences saying that it's a common plot device in fiction, from books and movies and TV shows and video games - perhaps mention one or two very famous ones ("2001", for example), and let people click to the other article to find examples.

This is a common approach in other articles that have the "way too many examples to list" problem.

Any thoughts? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe export it to the main article if its not already there. ќמшמφטтгמtorque 03:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Generally I agree. But the list seems to include several entries that do not fit into the popular culture article. For instance there are a number of ancient astronaut proponents (non-fiction authors) listed, as well as the current documentary series. Instead of deleting this, either these proponents should form a new section in the Ancient astronauts in popular culture article (non-fiction or whatever - the whole article would then need a new introduction, as it is geared toward fiction right now), or stay in this place, but labeled differently. --Jonas kork (talk) 10:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I just gave it a shot. But I don't know all the names in the new "proponents" list. Did I miss any authors of fiction? --Jonas kork (talk) 10:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Looks good to me. I tweaked the text slightly; the "proponents" section is already too long! We probably need to do the same breakout-to-new-article with it, as you suggested. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's worth its own article. How about getting all the authors in the Category:Ancient astronaut speculation and then try to cut the list by half (or more)? If someone feels inclined, the list could also be merged into the section Notable writers and publications, or form an uninspired subsection there. ;-) --Jonas kork (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

POV

I made a few edits to fix the POV problems in the article. Some sentences here and there were crafter to apparently discredit the whole idea. I don't really buy the Ancient Astronaut thing myself, but I don't need propoganda from someone who has their own agenda. I want to read an article about a subject without the slant. Gingermint (talk) 23:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Saying that an article on pseudoscience/conjecture(Closer to conjecture, I'd say) has a POV problem for being presented as such is ridiculous. There is no prefacing tag to add to the top of the article 'This may all be bullshit, but we'll present it here as though it many really be true. Turbolinux999 (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. It's not "slant" to present the rality that this concept is regarded as baloney by all of science and has no supporting evidence of any weight; it would be slant to pretend otherwise by making is sound "neutral." Balancing silliness and vast weights of evidence is not balance. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Goddess on the Throne

Please consider also this sculpture:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goddess_on_the_Throne — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.114.76.82 (talk) 07:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources discussing this in relation to this article's topic? - SummerPhD (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Sitchin

RE: Sitchin, this article says: Modern archaeologists and experts in the ancient Sumerian culture and language reject every one of these claims insisting Sitchin had simply invented a non-existent Sumerian mythology, that the texts and tablets which Sitchin described do not actually exist, and that the texts of ancient Sumer, Akkad, and Ugarit do not contain any of these stories or even variations on them.[11][12] It has also been pointed out that many of Sitchin's translations of Sumerian and Mesopotamian words are not consistent with Mesopotamian cuneiform bilingual dictionaries, produced by ancient Akkadian scribes.[13]

Is this what ALL "Modern archaeologists and experts in the ancient Sumerian culture and language" say? They got together and unanimously agreed? Do they really, this body of professionals, "reject every one of these claims insisting Sitchin had simply invented a non-existent Sumerian mythology, that the texts and tablets which Sitchin described do not actually exist, and that the texts of ancient Sumer, Akkad, and Ugarit do not contain any of these stories or even variations on them".

The only sources cited are all Christian Scholar Michael S. Heiser. It not that what is said may not be true, but this is nothing less then scathing OR based on the opinion of one and only source, Christian Scholar Michael S. Heiser. This needs to be reworded and the particular person making these accusations against Sitchin needs to be cited by name.Thanos5150 (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not just Michael S. Heiser. Go look at all the references at the Zecharia Sitchin biography and you'll have more to choose from. Sitchin is widely dismissed by academics, so we accurately tell this to the reader. Binksternet (talk) 03:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey Blinksternet-don't just undo and edit because you don't like it. The edit is 100% correct and fair. Do not remove it again until you can explain point for point why it should be removed.Thanos5150 (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Yup - I was about to suggest the same thing. Sitchin's claims appear to have no academic credibility whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Nope. You have to actually read what I said here people. Why is it necessary to repeat everything again and again? Heiser is the only source provided and all of the remarks made about Sitchin are his alone. You need to cite him by name, which I have done. And also, very few "scholars" have even read Sitchin or care so don't extrapolate that to the whole field as if they ave rigorously investigated his work as a group.Thanos5150 (talk)
Do not try and reduce the scholarship of Michael Heiser by telling the reader he is a Christian "Semetic". First and foremost, he is analyzing Sitchin and commenting on what he sees. Binksternet (talk) 04:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Heiser reduces it himself by who he is. I'm just trying to put the source in context. First and foremost, Heiser is a born again evangelical with an active ministry specifically devoted to turning people away from alternative beliefs and back to Christianity and when he is not promoting himself works for a Bible company. Yes, he has a PhD, as do many people, but other than his graduate school all of his secondary education was done at Christian Schools. He is only relevant because he has a website named SITCHINISWRONG.com and has self promoted himself specifically by criticizing Sitchin. Also, his conclusions about Sitchin are his own and have not been peer reviewed and neither has Sitchin's work. You people try so hard to pass Heiser off as some objective scholar just doing his job but that is obviously complete and utter nonsense. And if you actually read what Heiser says he doesn't even say what you are saying in this article.

Very easy to understand if you are being honest. "Modern archaeologists and experts in the ancient Sumerian culture and language reject every one of these claims" Which ones? One-Michael Heiser? Name one other professional archeologist or linguistic scholar that has peer reviewed Sitchin's work and come to these findings. You will be hard pressed to find more than one. And what claims are those? Every single claim about every subject that comes out of Sitchin's mouth? Do they not just reject the ancient alien idea regardless of who supports it?

"insisting Sitchin had simply invented a non-existent Sumerian mythology" This is complete nonsense. Is this made up:[2]? Or did Samuel Noah Kramer make all this up [3]? You do understand Other than the "ancient alien" aspect he didn't "invent" any of it. And who says this exactly? They need to be cited by name.

"that the texts and tablets which Sitchin described do not actually exist" This is so stupid and dishonest its painful. Heiser says that there are a FEW texts and/or tablets that he cannot find records of. And what is Heiser even talking about if these text don't exist? The words Nibiru, Annunaki, Din Gir-these do not appear on texts? This isn't real [4]? Where do the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Enuma Elish come from-fairy dust?

"and that the texts of ancient Sumer, Akkad, and Ugarit do not contain any of these stories or even variations on them" Which stories would those be? The Enuma Elish? Epic of Gigamesh? You see, what is being said here is a complete lie or a 1/2 truth at best.

I do not care if you do not want to call Heiser out for the biased, fringe source he his, but at least my edit was honest and helped create a fair and balanced article. Regardless of it being nonsense, you are attaching OR material or completely misrepresented comments from one source and applying it to the academic community at large. Bash Sitchi if you want, just be honest and write a good article.

Furthermore, Criticism of Sitchin is given undue weight in an article not directly about him, especially when compared to the other proponents such as the infinitely more known Von Daniken. What I have written is factual and succinct. If you want to make sure people get a good thrashing of Sitchin then refer them to his article. Thanos5150 (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I know nothing about Sitchin, but as a casual editor I have to say the current edits don't seem to give his wacky ideas any credence, and it doesn't seem that any more detail is needed in this article. I think we could trim a bit of ancillary goofball ideas - like the asteroid belt silliness, which isn't directly related to the ancient-astronaut idea. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, good point. Sitchin's section should only discuss ancient aliens. Binksternet (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Definitely, this isn't an article about Sitchin so we need to stick to what is relevant. Dougweller (talk) 08:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeesh. For the record so no one is confused about my motives, as if my edits weren't proof enough, other than the fact, like Carl Sagan, though I do accept the possibility of paleocontact I do not support the overwhelming majority of Sitchin's conclusions regarding this subject. I could write volumes why and how he is wrong or misguided, but this is not the point. I make these edits not to "defend" his theories, but rather to defend his right to be treated fairly, honestly, and accurately which simply does not happen on Wiki. What I find time and again is a concerted and unchecked disproportionate manic vitriolic treatment of not just Sitchin's work, but him as a person, that is also often poorly sourced, inaccurate, and at times just made up. The negative is given such undue weight as to make one wonder why there is an article about him at all or that children should even be able to speak his name. Even Hitler gets better treatment than Sitchin, which is not an exaggeration. When I came upon the Sitchin page it was little more than an open hate letter. Content wise and structurally, easily the most lopsided and poorly written article I have yet to come across on Wiki. I actually had to fight tooth and nail to include in an article about a guy who is only relevant because he has sold millions of books worldwide the simple fact that he indeed has sold million of books world wide. Seems pretty stupid right? And why was this such an issue- because as stated by the offending editors including such information could be construed a saying something "positive" about Sitchin, which despite only being a statement of fact is still apparently unacceptable. Take it or leave it, but I will defend Sitchin the same as I would Mark Lehner or even Hitler. You don't have to like someone or agree with what they say to be honest and treat them fairly. Thanos5150 (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

To my knowledge, academic scholars have a habitual aversion against concerning themselves with "alternative archaeologies". There are a few exceptions; some scholars are also skeptics (e.g. Kenneth Feder - although I'm not sure if he has mentioned Sitchin - and Ronald Fritze, who agrees with Heiser). In the case of Erich von Däniken, his popularity spawned some more responses from scholars. Still, not a single professional sumerologist picking up Sitchin's theory speaks volumes - volumes we can't cite, I know. I agree with Thanos5150 that we don't need the exaggerations which he points out. His arguments for crediting Heiser instead of talking vaguely about "all scholars" are also very valid.
Apart from Heiser, check out Jason Colavito (not a trained archaeologist, sumerologist or similar, as far as I know), and don't forget the paper by Hector Avalos: "The Ancient Near East in Modern Science Fiction: Zecharia Sitchin's "The 12th Planet" as Case Study", in: Journal of Higher Criticism 9 (2002), Nr. 1, S. 49-70. Sitchin might be mentioned in some of the encyclopedias of pseudosciences, the paranormal etc. I'm pretty sure there's an article of several pages in Shermer's Skeptic Encyclopedia. If you can't find it, bug me and I'll search for the reference. There's also a German (online) article by Klaus Richter, a skeptic. It's based on another German article by Wolfgang Siebenhaar, as far as I know, which was published in Scientific Ancient Skies, which was a pro-ancient-astronaut journal from the German AAS. I haven't read Siebenhaar, but despite his criticism of Sitchin, he is a proponent of ancient astronauts. Must be an interesting paper.
Instead of looking for quotes specifically about Sitchin, what about academic texts that dismiss ancient astronaut speculations in general? Those are less rare than authors addressing Sitchin by name. --Jonas kork (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Jonas. I must try to find the Avalos paper. I agree we should treat Sitchin as we do anyone else - I've been cleaning up an article on an alternative medicine BLP, and I'm no fan of alternative medicine either. Thanos argued against using Fritze on the Sitchin article also. The idea that we can't use an academic because they are endorsing what other academics say without doing a lot of original research themselves seems to be against the way we work. Dougweller (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad that you now agree. Its not just that the academic is merely endorsing the work of others and putting their name on it, though this seems pointless in lieu of just using the actually source they are agreeing with and leave it at that, but compendiums wholly devoted to the skeptical view are biased by definition and as such are a dubious source themselves because they are completely lacking in objectivity. In the same vein, this is why I have an issue with Heiser is that despite being accredited in his field he is also beyond biased with a whole different lot of fringe beliefs of his own. You should know better than anyone Doug that two professionals can take the same exact data and depending on their POV come to completely different conclusions. When it comes to skeptical review, being only one POV is represented the conclusion is already preordained which is hardly the scientific method. And if these sources must be used it should be made clear what the intention of the material is solely intended to do.Thanos5150 (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

GA-Class

Does anyone have any specific recommendations for making changes to this article that would upgrade it from a C-class to a GA-class? --Ljfeliu (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Mormonism

Should mormonism be included as a religion that professes a believe in ancient astronauts? Mormonism was founded circa 1830 CE and professes that God's throne is near a star named Kolob, among others. --Ljfeliu (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

No. The source you link does not state that mormonism is a religion that professes a believe in ancient astronauts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, they do believe in a being who's not from planet Earth and visited Joseph Smith (who happened to live in New York) in the 1800's. If that doesn't qualify as ancient astronaut, I don't know what does. But if it is just a matter of providing more references, I can certainly do so. --Ljfeliu (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Are you saying Mormonism is a UFO religion? - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes.--Ljfeliu (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
The 19th century is not "ancient". Binksternet (talk) 05:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
But the mormon God is, since he not only appeared to Joseph Smith in New York in 1820 but to Adam and Eve, Abraham, and Moses.Ljfeliu (talk) 04:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
To clarify - it isn't "just a matter of providing more references". It is a matter of providing a reference that states directly that Mormons profess to believe in ancient astronauts. Your opinion (or anyone else's) that their statements regarding beliefs imply that they believe in ancient astronauts cannot be taken as evidence that they do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, I can provide references that mormons believe in a God who lives in another planet, created countless of worlds inhabited by other people, lived in another planet as a man, and appeared to ancient peoples. So, no, it is not my opinion, it is documented mormon doctrine. Ljfeliu (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
For starters, here's a quote from Brigham Young, second president (prophet) of the mormon church:

God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost constitute the Godhead. President Brigham Young taught the Latter-day Saints to worship God the Father and address prayers to Him in the name of Jesus Christ. He taught further that God the Father was once a man on another planet who “passed the ordeals we are now passing through; he has received an experience, has suffered and enjoyed, and knows all that we know regarding the toils, sufferings, life and death of this mortality” (DBY, 22).

Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, (1997), 28–35Ljfeliu (talk) 04:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Nope. The source doesn't say that Mormons believe in 'ancient astronauts'. Find one that does, explicitly, or forget about it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Well then, I propose that you delete the entire article, because astronauts did not exist prior to 1961.Ljfeliu (talk) 05:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
If you want to make a formal proposal that the article be deleted see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion - though I doubt that you will get far with that bizarre rationale. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
The bizarre rationale is the one that does not understand sarcasm when it is staring it in the face.Ljfeliu (talk) 05:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
What appears to me to be staring me in the face is someone who fails to comprehend that Wikipedia articles are based on material that can be verified from reliable sources. And so far, you have offered none that remotely suggest that Mormons believe in (pre-1961) astronauts at all. From what little I know of Mormonism, their God is a supernatural being, as in the more orthodox Abrahamic religions - and if he (I assume it is a 'he') wishes to 'transport' someone from one planet to another, he will use supernatural powers to do so - astronauts, spacesuits, spaceships and the rest are superfluous. I might be wrong about this - but I'd prefer to see a source that said so, rather than relying on the suppositions of a random contributor. Otherwise, the next contributor will be adding the Archangel Gabriel to the list of astronauts, along quite possibly with the souls of the dead - depending on one's theological understanding of who goes where, and when. Not a sound basis for an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of Mormonism/ Church of Jesus Christ Latter-Day Saints in the context of UFO religions is very scarce. I can only find Mikael Rothstein: UFO beliefs as syncretistic components, in: Chr. Partridge (ed.): UFO Religions, Routledge 2003, pp. 256-273 here 262f.; and Gregory L. Reece: UFO Religion, Tauris 2007, pp. 161-165. Anyway, I don't see why Mormonism needs a mention in this article. Please look at the UFO religions sections: I think a marginal case like Joseph Smith and the book of Mormon is already covered by what is written there. Jonas kork (talk) 11:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

All anybody needed to say was that my proposal qualified as synthesis. End of story.--Ljfeliu (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Reception vs. Criticism

It appears to me that the section Reception should be renamed to Criticism instead. The content of the section briefly discusses criticisms of the paleocontact hypothesis and does not really talk about any "reception". Anyhow, since this article is about a hypothesis that has developed over the decades, I do not think there should be a "Reception" section as though it was meant to state the public's or critics' reaction to a published book or film. In addition, the first statement of this section I marked as [neutrality is disputed] and [citation needed] since it does not cite any source for the statement being made and it appears to be biased.Ljfeliu (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, criticisms of von Daniken's books and Sitchin should be moved to their corresponding sections since they are specific to those authors and are not directed directly at the paleocontact hypothesis in general. Sagan's criticism of the hypothesis in general should be included here, though.Ljfeliu (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I changed the section title as stated above and removed statement that lacked citation.Ljfeliu (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of a statement fact tagged only last month

"Despite the proponents' own interpretations of ancient writings and artifacts, there has yet to be found any evidence to support the ancient astronaut hypothesis. [citation needed][neutrality is disputed]" Of course it's pov, that isn't a terrible problem. It's also easily sourced so shouldn't have been summarily deleted. It should probably be attributed. It will still be a pov but then we actually do allow mainstream povs, right? If no one else replaces this with sources I will tomorrow. I've found sources, just no time tonight. Dougweller (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ancient_astronauts/Archive_2&oldid=1092043273"