Talk:Ancient astronauts/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Nation of Islam

The article describes the Nation of Islam as one of the groups "believ[ing] in ancient and present-day contact with extraterrestrial intelligence", and cites UFO religions by C.H Partridge as a source. [1] I have to question the validity of this, in that (at least from what I can see via Google books), Partridge doesn't explicitly state that the NoI see UFOs as of extraterrestrial origin - and as can be seen, Elijah Muhammad has expressly stated that the 'UFOs' were man-made:

"The Honorable Elijah Muhammad told us of a giant Mother Plane that is made like the universe, spheres within spheres. White people call them unidentified flying objects (UFOs). Ezekiel, in the Old Testament, saw a wheel that looked like a cloud by day, but a pillar of fire by night. The Hon. Elijah Muhammad said that that wheel was built on the island of Nippon, which is now called Japan, by some of the original scientists. It took 15 billion dollars in gold at that time to build it. It is made of the toughest steel. America does not yet know the composition of the steel used to make an instrument like it. It is a circular plane, and the Bible says that it never makes turns. Because of its circular nature it can stop and travel in all directions at speeds of thousands of miles per hour. He said there are 1,500 small wheels in this Mother Wheel, which is a half mile by-a-half-mile. This Mother Wheel is like a small human built planet. Each one of these small planes carry three bombs." [2]

No mention of astronauts, ancient or otherwise. No suggestion that the UFO/Mother Plane/Wheel of Ezekiel was of extraterrestrial origin. Since Partridge makes no mention of astronauts, and since Elijah Muhammad has stated the 'UFOs' were of terrestrial origin, I suggest that unless a source that explicitly states that the NoI believe in ancient astronauts, they should be excluded from the list. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

That's ok. I thought it was the IP I was reverting (I'd saved the diff shortly after the IP made it, and must have refreshed for some reason, not noticed the other edits and reverted you - maybe having 250 tabs open doesn't help). Dougweller (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

LOL - easily done. I should probably check the remaining 'UFO religions' too, in case any of them are inappropriately included. Scientology looks a legitimate inclusion, though only if we go by sources that Scientologists say we shouldn't be looking at ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

From looking at Partridge, and by applying a little common sense, it seems evident that 'Theosophy' should probably read 'Some branches of Theosophy' - it is a long-standing and complex system of beliefs, many of which pre-date any concept of 'extraterrestrials'. The other 'UFO religion' I have doubts about is Urantia - Google won't show me the relevant sections of Partidge's book. I'll see if I can find information elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I used to think Urantia was a UFO religion, but I've been able to see Partridge's book online and another comment and the only thing I can find is someone saying "some scholars classify it as a UFO religion but it's New Age" or something like that, not enough to include it here. Dougweller (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah - I had a quick look, and got the impression that any Urantian 'visitors' were seen as 'spirit beings' rather than anything more corporeal. I'll remove that for now too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

"Pseudo-scientific" description questionable

Whether or not a person subscribes to these types of theories, I'm not sure the term "pseudo-scientific" can accurately describe the entirety of activities and research that proponents of such theories employ. In fact, many researchers use mathematics, analysis of material samples for content or age, utilize chemical and radiological testing, etc. I would say such undertakings are definitely "scientific" in nature. I'm saying this here in the talk section before removing the term in the article because I know if I do that, within five minutes, someone will just revert it and start an edit war over it. Please discuss why or why not the term should remain. G90025 (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The following RS works identify it as a pseudoscience. Gamaliel (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• Pseudoscience: a critical encyclopedia Professor Brian Regal Greenwood Press, Oct 15, 2009
• Encyclopedia of Dubious Archaeology: From Atlantis to the Walam Olum By Professor Kenneth L. Feder
• The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience by Shermer, Michael

The methods of science do not eliminate the possibility of research being pseudoscientific. Even legitimate scientists can fall into the trap of pseudoscience.

In Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem, pages 72–73, the author Sven Ove Hansson discusses the complex definition of pseudoscience. He says that pseudoscience is characterized by any of the following:

• 1) Belief in authority: some persons have special access to the knowledge
• 2) Unrepeatable experiments
• 3) Handpicked examples, not representative of the general category
• 4) Unwillingness to test a theory even when testing is possible
• 5) Disregard of refuting information
• 6) Subterfuge in testing such that the theory can only be confirmed, not disproved
• 7) Explanations are abandoned without being replaced

I think the ancient astronauts topic, depending on the researchers involved, hits a few of these straight on. Certainly #3 and #5 come into play very often. Binksternet (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Nice finds on the information and definitions; however, those apply specifically to individual researchers. I guess the conclusion I am coming to myself is that there are a good number of people investigating the subject with pseudo-scientific methods, but that doesn't preclude other researchers from conducting legitimate scientific work on the same subject. To label the entirety of a group of thousands of people involved as pseudo-scientific or scientific is an over-reaching and broad generalization. G90025 (talk) 10:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you've read the sources then. Brian Regal barely mentions specific names in his analysis. The field is pseudo-science. Whether or not there are hypothetical individuals studying this with scientific methods is irrelevant. Dougweller (talk) 12:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

"The field is pseudo-science." That is your opinion. The measure is what methods people use to research the material. And many researchers use scientific methods, so therefore, regardless of personal opinions on the legitimacy of theories in the field, it is not pseudo-science, generically speaking. G90025 (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

You mean to say the "scientists" who research this material claim themselves that their methods are scientific? OMG who would have expected that? So I can just come up with my own claim that the Easter Bunny is real, and then I back it up with dubious research that resembles science and mathematics, and them claim it is a scientific theory and anyone who doesn't agree with me is just giving their personal opinion; and it doesn't matter if not a single member of the scientific community takes me seriously, afterall, I'm on the History Channel!--94.187.74.2 (talk) 09:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you cite recognised mainstream scientific journals which publish the results of this science? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Agrest: books?

I took the following two new entries from the list:

• 1961: Matest M. Agrest (book, The Astronauts of Yore)
• 1963: Matest M. Agrest (book, On the Track of Discovery: Riddles of Outer Space : Scientists Unravel Mysteries : Secrets of History)

I don't think that these are two books by Matest Agrest. In my opinion it's more likely that "Astronauts of Yore" is an essay published in "On the track of discovery" - by whomever that anthology (?) might be edited. See the bibliography Agrest's son put together, concerning his father's paleocontact writings. If his father had written two books about the subject, he would have known (and others would, too). I know that Google Books lists On the track of discovery as a book by Agrest - I simply don't trust them, because bibliographic accuracy is not exactly the strength of Google Books. Does anybody have an actual copy of these purported texts/ books by Agrest? Like, something papery that was printed fifty years ago? :) Jonas kork (talk) 08:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC) PS: The Russian wikipedia article on Agrest doesn't mention any paleocontact books by Agrest, too. Jonas kork (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, there's a problem. On the track of discovery is something including various authors - there seems to have been at least 3 series.[3][4]. Ah, searched for them both, confirmed that Astronauts of Yore (if that's the proper translation, 'antiquity' may be better' is in On the track of discovery.[5]. Well spotted. Dougweller (talk) 11:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed they are not books. However, the section it was under was Proponents and publications. So, I think that M. Agrest and his articles deserve mention, especially since he probably inspired von Däniken and Sitchin. Ljfeliu (talk) 04:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I do have a copy of the article titled "Ancient Astronauts" which he wrote in 1961 for "On Land and At Sea". This is the article in which he talks about Sodom and Gomorrah being nuclear blasted. The article is in Russian. I do have an English version machine-translated. Ljfeliu (talk) 04:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You are free to add that (possibly in the article on Matest M. Agrest himself, too). But we should not make two books out of one essay, as just happened. ;) Agrest's influence may have gone through the publications of Vyacheslav Zaitsev (careful, different persons of the same name), and of course Agrest's contributions to the French magazine Planète (Pauwels/ Bergier). Personally, I'm interested in the article you mention (both languages). Do you have it in digital format, and would you be willing to email it to me? Jonas kork (talk) 11:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, let me know where to send it. Ljfeliu (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's where you can access the article: [epizodsspace.no-ip.org/bibl/na-sushe-i-na-more/1961/agrest.html КОСМОНАВТЫ ДРЕВНОСТИ]Ljfeliu (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I updated the proponents section to list Agrest's 1961 article. I also expanded Matest M. Agrest.--Ljfeliu (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Auto archiving

I have set up auto archiving on this talk page. If there are objections, revert my edit. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Theory?

I notice that the word "theory" is used a number of places in the article, contrary to this discussion from the archives:

• Talk:Ancient_astronauts/Archive_2#Requested_move

Shouldn't we substitute other words most of these places? -- Brangifer (talk) 07:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

We need to alter the title

The current title can be interpreted as a statement of existence of ancient astronauts. Our titles usually indicate whether a subject is doubtful, a hypothesis, or a conspiracy theory. We need some type of added word or rephrasing of the title to indicate the doubtful nature of this subject. Ancient astronaut hypothesis is a possibility. What think ye? -- Brangifer (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm no fan of tweaky article renaming (Okay was recently moved to OK - sheesh!) but this seems reasonable, and your suggestion is a good one. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and make the move. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I think after the move, this talk page's archives no longer work right (it says there are no archives, but there is a working archive link in the talk page section above this one). Does anyone know how to link the past archives back to here? (I briefly searched, but couldn't find how, and I don't want to risk messing up the page...) Zeniff (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

POV

First time I've read this article, and it seems full of POV. E.g. the introduction calls it a 'pseudo-scientific', even though it has been and continues to be advocated by respectable scientists. E.g. was Carl Sagan a 'pseudo-scientist'? No mention of him in the info box, which ludicrously cites Erich von Däniken as an 'original proponent' (even though he was writing after Sagan, and many decades after the hypothesis actually originated).

No doubt some proponents of it (e.g. von Daniken) were or are pseudo-scientific but that doesn't mean the hypothesis is. Also it is closely related to theories such as Directed panspermia which are considered perfectly acceptable. Ben Finn (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

"...a pseudo-scientific hypothesis that posits intelligent extraterrestrial beings have visited Earth and made contact with humans in antiquity and prehistory."

"...the possibility that extraterrestrial contact occurred during recorded history...Shklovski and Sagan stressed that these ideas were speculative and unproven."

The pseudo-science is the claim that extraterrestrials have visited Earth, along with the claims that these supposed visits influenced and created pretty much everything in human culture (language, the pyramids, Roxanne ... everything too advanced to have been created by mere humans, plus religion). Sagan stated, essentially that it is not impossible that Earth has been visited by extraterrestrials. Sagan likely also made it clear that it is possible there is/are a god(s). There is a world of difference between that and the belief that there is some loving grandfather type who created everything and wants nothing more than for us to believe that despite all evidence to the contrary.

The bottom line, though, is a lot simpler: If independent reliable sources said it was a pseudoscience created by Honey Boo Boo some time late last week, that is what we would report. If those sources said it was a proven fact discovered by Archimedes on July 25, 205 BCE... - SummerPhD (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Here and here are sources for you. XFEM Skier (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the "pseudo-scientific" bit from the beginning of the article. It is not an unbiased and objective view of a hypothesis some people subscribe to. An hypothesis is a essentially an assumption and needs no proof anyway, therefore cannot be "pseudo-scientific", regardless of the lack of evidence supporting the Ancient Alien hypothesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CFDC:C940:71E2:4C66:CFE3:41E5 (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see below. (One discussion on this, not two.) - SummerPhD (talk) 03:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Alfred Russell Wallace

I have rewritten a section that was headed Alfred Russel Wallace, because Wallace never wrote anything about aliens - it refers to a modern writer, Craig Stanford, who thinks Wallace was unknowingly referring to aliens when Wallace posited a "creative intelligence" shaping evolution at times. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The Craig Stanford Wikilinked clearly isn't an ancient astronaut theorist - see [6] Possibly there is another author with the same name? As to the merits of this material, the only source cited is Wallace himself - and he clearly cannot have written about ancient astronauts. Accordingly, I am going to remove the section as unsourced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Looking into this further, it appears that the Craig Stanford our article refers to (a biological anthropologist) may have appeared in the Ancient Aliens TV series - see IMDb [7]. Assuming that this is the same person, we clearly can't under WP:BLP policy describe him as an 'ancient astronaut theorist' or ascribe specific views to him without citing a reliable source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree - I had deleted it previously, but it was reinstated by [User:SummerPhD]. At best, it's somebody modern speculating about something said by somebody famous in the past, with possible confusion that the famous person also thought that way (that's how it originally read, at least to me). - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)