Chariots of the Gods

[Srelex]

Who here has read it, or any other 'ancient astronauts' nuttiness? I am aware of the bullshit that a lot of these people like to spout, but I'd also like to know how their various arguments stack up in nonsense levels.

[TithonusSyndrome]

Use the search function to look up the user "Killik". There's really no better production on the issue you could ask for.

[Kanastrous]

I read 'Chariots' when I was about 10. At the time it seemed kind of below my grade-level.

[Spoonist]

Read it as one of those testprint runs going to proofreaders which an archeology friend of mine gave to me. I found it highly entertaining and promptly did a few CoC RPG scenarios given the premise of the book as trueish. Its complete and utter bunk though.

But I didn't quite get what you would like to know that you couldn't simply get from the wiki page? or from some of the sceptic pages debunking it?

[Temujin]

I once had a large collection of old paperback books I inherited from somewhere that consisted of stuff like von Däniken, Velikovsky, etc. I read through them years ago when one of my job commutes consisted of an hour long bus ride, one way!

At the time I was at least willing to entertain some of the less crazy ideas, but for the most part it was just a lot of

[Kanastrous]

Thing about 'Chariots' is that the lies are so *easy* to spot. Look at this! It's clearly a series of ramps and turnouts like the runways at an airport!

Yeah, unless you happen to know that the image depicted is a small portion of a much larger design, which is the outline of a bird. And the 'runways' are the lines making up one of the feet. And that in order to travel along one of these 'runways' our little space friend's flying saucer would have to be about 1' or smaller, in diameter.

Etc, etc, etc...

[Twigler]

I used it for a role playing campaign, so yeah, I've read it. It was similar to reading the Jehovah Witnesses' book on why evolution was wrong: Entertaining.
Maybe it's me, but it felt like there was less pseudo-science bullshit about when it was published, so it was an amusing oddity, while today it would be one more piece of badness in a huge section of science subverting crap. If I were to read it today it would probably make me angry.

[Spoonist]

Maybe it's me, but it felt like there was less pseudo-science bullshit about when it was published,

Well every genre was less than it is now but pseudo-science was thriving all through the last century.
Chariot of the Gods was preceded by The Morning of the Magicians which was preceded by pulp fiction as Lovecraft et al.
The davinci code was preceded by The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail which was preceded by Dossiers Secrets d'Henri Lobineau which was based on local lies of th earistocracy like the merovingians.
Etc
So I'd rather say that we have less pseudo-science today because it is recognized as such.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Wasn't that Erich von Daniken's Stargate fanfic masquerading as serious science? Yes, I read it in the school library in Belle Chasse when I was 13.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I watched the Chariots of the Gods special on the history channel today, I'm pretty sure they quoted Marina's fake Ramayana text

[PeZook]

I watched the Chariots of the Gods special on the history channel today, I'm pretty sure they quoted Marina's fake Ramayana text

The INDIAN GOVERNMENT quotes that one. It always cracks me up when I see it plastered all over the interwebs, knowing for a fact it's completely made up.

You really have to admire how people will lick up anything that ties into their prejudices, however outlandish. Worse, such things have a tendence to take a life of their own.

I once posted that on a conspiracy website, and the denizens pissed their pants with joy.

[Ilya Muromets]

My uncle has those. As in, the whole series. He believed those were real during the 1990s, but later wised up and felt extremely embarrassed. Now he just keeps them for the lulz, and because he's a pack rat.

I tried reading through one of them for some shits and giggles, but the whole thing was too boring and clunkily written that I fell asleep after a few pages.

I once posted that on a conspiracy website, and the denizens pissed their pants with joy.

Wait, is that the one that was put up on Testing for some Shoop Fu? You actually went and posted it up on some UFO conspiracy board?

Can you get me a link or something. That should be good for a few laughs.

[PeZook]

I was banned from that forum and had my posts deleted some time ago - it was in 2007 or so. Besides, it was a Polish conspiracy nut site, so a link wouldn't do you much good

EDIT: OH, I also tried to post it on prawda2.info, which is still up, but they were on to me by then.

Here's the link

Still, even though I spent plenty of time arguing with them over the moon hoax, one guy wrote:

To jest B-2, tylko... właśnie teraz zwróciłem uwagę na datę na zdjęciu. Hmmm czyli albo mieli już wtedy B-2, albo tak jak w "Spisek Oriona" B-2 jest własnie przykrywką tego samolotu, o którym mówisz. Jeśli wierzyć dacie na zdjęciu jest ono przynajmniej dziwne... Wink. A tak dla zobrazowania:

Translated:

It is a B2, but...yeah, I just noticed the date on the picture. Hmmm, so either they had B-2s already back then, or like in "Orion's Plot", the B-2 is a cover for that sophisticated aircraft you were talking about. If we believe the date on the picture it's pretty odd...

He correctly identified the airplane, but kept looking for a conspiracy.

I literally wrote that date there at random.

[Ilya Muromets]

Aw... Oh well. Maybe a Google search will reveal some repetitions of the stunt...

EDIT: Oh, wow, that is one of the most awesomely hilarious mental flip flops in the world.

"It's a B-2. But wait, it says 1964... There were no B-2s in 1964, so the date must be a prank they must've had it back then! From reverse-engineered UFO technology!"

[PeZook]

It's even more hilarious because they spend time (poorly) analyzing every dot, rock and shadow on Moon and space photographs, yet they don't even try as long as the photo shows something they think fits their view of the world.

Truth seekers indeed.

[Shroom Man 777]

Why can't you just say that NASA used alien technology to land on the moon? Won't that convince them enough?

[PeZook]

Why can't you just say that NASA used alien technology to land on the moon? Won't that convince them enough?

Shroomy, don't offend them! They're truth seekers, they have standards! UFOs are silly business, it's insulting to suggest that just because they believe some outrageously irrational shit they will believe all of it!

At least that's what some people on that forum say. Others go all the way into UFO astral projection Reptillian flat earth land...

[Srelex]

Why can't you just say that NASA used alien technology to land on the moon? Won't that convince them enough?

Shroomy, don't offend them! They're truth seekers, they have standards! UFOs are silly business, it's insulting to suggest that just because they believe some outrageously irrational shit they will believe all of it!

At least that's what some people on that forum say. Others go all the way into UFO astral projection Reptillian flat earth land...

It was amusing to see people claiming that Earth warrants attention from spacefarers owing to atomics. Anyway, at least writers of X-files fanfiction will have a good material supply.

edit:Do these people also profess to watching Overlords of the UFO or shitty Roger Moore documentaries?

[PeZook]

It was amusing to see people claiming that Earth warrants attention from spacefarers owing to atomics. Anyway, at least writers of X-files fanfiction will have a good material supply.

Yeah...but there's more stuff:

One amusing thread on those forums has people asking why the lunar rover had a solid alluminium frame with no holes in it, and a suspension system of any sort if it was supposed to be as light as possible.

Other people ask why NASA can't just build another Saturn V if they really truly want to go back to the Moon.

Their understanding of topics such as science, engineering and spaceflight is like a four year old's knowledge about economics: stuff is on the shelves and Mommy puts it into a cart and then it appears at home.

edit:Do these people also profess to watching Overlords of the UFO or shitty Roger Moore documentaries?

Oh, hell yes. There are entire threads filled with nothing but hour-long Youtube clips with no summary or argument whatsoever, and Overlords Of The UFO come up decently often.

I have a theory that these guys simply have no lives at all, and can spend hours watching youtube clips and constructing poorly thought-out arguments using Googled scientific concepts.

[Simon_Jester]

I watched the Chariots of the Gods special on the history channel today, I'm pretty sure they quoted Marina's fake Ramayana text

Eh? Enlighten me, please.

It was amusing to see people claiming that Earth warrants attention from spacefarers owing to atomics.

That strikes me as one of the saner things a UFO conspiracy theorist is likely to say (though this really isn't saying very much). I can at least imagine an intelligent species going "Ah-ha! Nuclear power! These people are now out of the Stone Age and actually know enough science that it might conceivably be worth talking to them rather than impersonating gods as a practical joke!"

Whereas I cannnot imagine the US government managing to cover up extensive alien involvement for sixty years, for instance.

One amusing thread on those forums has people asking why the lunar rover had a solid alluminium frame with no holes in it, and a suspension system of any sort if it was supposed to be as light as possible.

Other people ask why NASA can't just build another Saturn V if they really truly want to go back to the Moon.

Rocket science not being my specialty:

I assume the answer to the questions in the first amusing thread is "because it needs to be reasonably durable and not get broken into itty bitty pieces while bouncing around under lunar driving conditions."

As for the second: I know that new Saturn V's cannot be made. What I'm curious about is whether it would actually take longer to build a new Saturn V-equivalent than it did to develop the things from scratch in the first place (which was... about six to seven years, as I recall). That I kind of doubt. Am I wrong?

[PeZook]

I assume the answer to the questions in the first amusing thread is "because it needs to be reasonably durable and not get broken into itty bitty pieces while bouncing around under lunar driving conditions."

The answer is that it didn't actually need to be as light as possible. The design requirement list was long and weight was at the very bottom (and vague ; It needed to be carried by the LEM, that's it): most requirements had to do with things like communications, navigational capability, ability to move over the lunar soil, and yes, durability and ruggedness.

As for the second: I know that new Saturn V's cannot be made. What I'm curious about is whether it would actually take longer to build a new Saturn V-equivalent than it did to develop the things from scratch in the first place (which was... about six to seven years, as I recall). That I kind of doubt. Am I wrong?

The question probably can't be answered precisely, but the challenges involved in developing the Saturn V were all engineering in nature (the science was all solved), so the timeframes of restarting production and developing a new rocket would probably be similar, especially since you'd have to redraw all the plans anyway to make them viable for modern techniques, materials and procedures, unless you want to build a 1960s production line just for that rocket.

Since you're doing that anyway, you might just as well make use of all the advancement made in spaceflight technology since the 1960s, and they were tremendous (again, contrary to what conspiracy theorists claim). The Shuttle, for example, is a rather poorly thought-out vehicle, but technologically, it's far more advanced than the Saturn V ever was, putting 112 tonnes in low orbit for just 2/3 of the launch mass.

So not only is restarting Saturn V production difficult, it's also largely pointless. The timeframes are similar, but you get a vastly more capable rocket for a similar price tag.

[Simon_Jester]

A "Saturn V-equivalent" wouldn't necessarily be identical to a Saturn V; I'd rate the Ares V (which may wind up being aborted with the collapse of Constellation) as one even though it is definitely more capable and more advanced than the Saturn V.

But yeah. Just checking to make sure there wasn't some specific detail like "You fool, did you not know that the vital Alloy X which was in widespread production in 1962 is no longer made today, without which no heavy lift booster can be built?"

[CaptainChewbacca]

I watched the Chariots of the Gods special on the history channel today, I'm pretty sure they quoted Marina's fake Ramayana text

Eh? Enlighten me, please.

There's several passages in the Ramayana that can be interpreted to being about nuclear weapons. Marina wrote a fake passage that's MUCH more clearly about nuclear weapons, and posted it on SDN. Later, it started turning up on UFO websites and an Indian Government cultural website.

I wish I could find the text of the original quote here...

[Crossroads Inc.]

I watched the Chariots of the Gods special on the history channel today, I'm pretty sure they quoted Marina's fake Ramayana text

Is that the "text that 'describes ancient Indians (dot not Feather) as seeing a "Great metal disc cloaked in fire and flame that a God drove across the skies that would hurl lightning bolts!" as 'proof' of alien spaceships?

[CaptainChewbacca]

There are real 'UFO Proof' texts in the Ramayana. Marina just wrote a better one that people also think is genuine. I believe there's generally three 'big quotes', and one of them is hers. I even found some website/blog that takes comments and one of the comments was 'hey, I can't find the 2nd quote, where is it from?'