February 4, 2018 — Erich von Däniken and David Halperin

[Gene Steinberg]

Unexpectedly, I had the opportunity to book von Däniken on The Paracast, though not for the entire episode. But I don't think he expected to hear his theories quietly disassembled by Biblical scholar David Halperin, once a member of the teen Ufology movement back in the 1960s.

So fascinating that I was joined by Greg Bishop and J. Randall Murphy in discussing it further on this weekend's episode of After The Paracast, an exclusive feature of The Paracast+.

For more information on our premium subscription service, please check:

Introducing The Paracast+ | The Paracast — The Gold Standard of Paranormal Radio

 

[kanakaris]

That writing as careless as von Däniken's, whose principal thesis is that our ancestors were dummies, should be so popular is a sober commentary on the credulousness and despair of our times. I also hope for the continuing popularity of books like Chariots of the Gods? in high school and college logic courses, as object lessons in sloppy thinking. I know of no recent books so riddled with logical and factual errors as the works of von Däniken.

— Carl Sagan, Foreword to The Space Gods Revealed

Despite his 'logical and factual errors' , von Däniken has a point on the origins of the ancient 'gods'.

 

[kanakaris]

As a Belgian i am offended to hear Eric Ouelett's so called explanation on the Belgian Ufo wave.
I saw one myself during a second wave during the 90's.
And then there was the most ridiculous 'explanation' for the Barney Hill case i have ever heard .
Otherwise , this was an excellent episode.

 

[wwkirk]

It was a delight to hear the "high priest" of the ancient astronaut theory on the Paracast.

As for Halperin, while he did a good job debating with von Daniken, his own point of view struck me as outlandish. His symbolic interpretations of UFOs and abduction were no more plausible than ancient astronauts.

 

[SRL+]

Although Erich says, his musings are guesswork, does anyone think Erich believes in what he writes, or, realizes he can earn a living by passing science fiction as fact?

 

[kanakaris]

Although Erich says, his musings are guesswork, does anyone think Erich believes in what he writes, or, realizes he can earn a living by passing science fiction as fact?

You mean like Whitley Strieber ?

 

[SRL+]

You mean like Whitley Strieber ?

If I were only a mind reader. Although, at one time I read that Whitley's wife had said something to the effect of Whitley making some of the stuff up.

 

[Greers Meeting Planner]

Chris can cancel his San Louis valley project and Bigelow can give back his 24 million because we now know what causes UFO's and its, er .... mental projection (WTF?)

Apparently those Cops in Belgium were chasing round after their minds projection of (cough) a dimming Soviet power that was er surrounded by NATO (serious face now everyone).

Strangely enough the mental projection of this change in world events stopped over a body of water and projected a beam of light into it.

Makes sense. Not.

Ninja please

 

[Greers Meeting Planner]

On the ancient astronaut theory I appreciate it takes confirmation bias to buy into it as you have to ignore those aspects that don't line up to the theory.

I think what Eric is trying to get at, is that all the existing theories on the ancient texts need confirmation bias to be believed.

If you believe its the real God being witnessed you have to ignore those bits that make no sense, e.g. the real God leaving a tree of knowledge and a mischeavous talking snake in the garden of Eden. Thats not the actions of an all wise entity

If you believe it's all imagination emerging from the culture at the time, then you have to overlook the similarity between ancient texts from very different cultures and times.

I'm not advocating the astronaut theory but the fact that it has proponents and does land some good punches is a sign that the other hypothesis have not done a good enough job of explaining what we are reading

 

[pigfarmer]

Although Erich says, his musings are guesswork, does anyone think Erich believes in what he writes, or, realizes he can earn a living by passing science fiction as fact?

I just looked him up on a couple of 'celebrity net worth' sites. $30 million. He doesn't need to believe that nonsense - too many people already do.

 

[pigfarmer]

As a Belgian i am offended to hear Eric Ouelett's so called explanation on the Belgian Ufo wave.
I saw one myself during a second wave during the 90's.
And then there was the most ridiculous 'explanation' for the Barney Hill case i have ever heard .
Otherwise , this was an excellent episode.

You're not kidding. I give Erich extra credit for being more personable while shoveling crapola.

 

[pigfarmer]

Despite his 'logical and factual errors' , von Däniken has a point on the origins of the ancient 'gods'.

I was reminded of post-WW2 cargo cults. What he's saying isn't necessarily unbelievable but has been cherry picked and isn't in context.

I'd like to give our ancestors greater credit for their understanding of astronomy and geographic mobility.

 

[SRL+]

he has zero credibility, his thesis’ have been debunked and made a mockery by intelligent people for decades.

Apparently, a mockery of a different sort by those in his homeland as well

“The Mystery Park was labeled a "cultural Chernobyl" by Académie suisse des sciences techniques member Antoine Wasserfallen who was cited by the Swiss newspaper Le Temps and other media."

Jungfrau Park - Wikipedia

 

[TDSR]

On the ancient astronaut theory I appreciate it takes confirmation bias to buy into it as you have to ignore those aspects that don't line up to the theory.

I think what Eric is trying to get at, is that all the existing theories on the ancient texts need confirmation bias to be believed.

If you believe its the real God being witnessed you have to ignore those bits that make no sense, e.g. the real God leaving a tree of knowledge and a mischeavous talking snake in the garden of Eden. Thats not the actions of an all wise entity

If you believe it's all imagination emerging from the culture at the time, then you have to overlook the similarity between ancient texts from very different cultures and times.

I'm not advocating the astronaut theory but the fact that it has proponents and does land some good punches is a sign that the other hypothesis have not done a good enough job of explaining what we are reading

One thing I think that is being overlooked in terms of the context of the ancient text and any connection to modern experience, ET or otherwise.....is Literacy.

Less than 15 percent of people could read in the 15th century and less than 10 percent of males could read during the Roman period. If we are looking at stories written during a time when the audience was extremely small, what role did that dynamic play in the crafting of these stories? Were the stories embellished during the time when they were passed down as a verbal history? This seems more likely than the modern reader "misinterpreting" the text.

Erich has developed a narrative that is deeply satisfying to the modern reader when they consider the mystery of the text through the paradigm of a technologically advanced period of human existence. That was not the case when the stories were written, without technology providing a context to the phenomena in the stories the details become more literal and relevant. If your writing could only be read by few other literate people there would not be, in my opinion, a demand for "fiction" writing, rather quite the opposite.

That being said I am a "nuts and bolts" guy, which for me means Erichs theories are as credible as the "mental projection" theory. I have been in near death situations and my senses were heightened, details were sharper, and my memory much better than during the routine driven experiences and I have never seen any visions, projections, or had a collective cultural upwelling manifest itself. If I had to pick a side...I'm with Erich.

TDSR

 

[Chuckleberryfinn]

That writing as careless as von Däniken's, whose principal thesis is that our ancestors were dummies, should be so popular is a sober commentary on the credulousness and despair of our times. I also hope for the continuing popularity of books like Chariots of the Gods? in high school and college logic courses, as object lessons in sloppy thinking. I know of no recent books so riddled with logical and factual errors as the works of von Däniken.

— Carl Sagan, Foreword to The Space Gods Revealed

Once again, sound advice from the wise old sage, Mr. Sagan. Why oh why didn't I listen to him when I was younger? Probably the whole of Ufology is as true as Von Daniken's book. I know of no single case anymore that is not riddled with dismissible pseudo-evidence.

 

[David Halperin]

I've just posted to my blog some of my thoughts on my conversation with Erich von Daniken: "Chariots of the Gods?" – Erich von Däniken and the Book of Enoch. Although I think von Daniken is wrong, I wouldn't judge him as negatively as some of the comments in this thread do. Where he's mistaken, he seems to me honestly mistaken. I've found many places in "Chariots of the Gods?" where I think he's misinterpreted his sources, none where he's invented them or deliberately distorted them.
Two questions for "kanakaris":
(1) You speak of being "offended" by Eric Ouellet's interpretation of the 1989-90 Belgian sightings, as symbolic representations of the transformations taking place in Central and Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall, projected into the sky. In what way do you find this idea offensive? "Speculative," yes; "unconvincing"--I can understand that. But why "offensive"?
(2) You find my understanding of Barney Hill's abduction experience highly implausible. My suggestion was that he was re-living his ancestral trauma of being abducted in the middle of the night and taken onto an alien craft (the slave ship); hence the abject terror he experienced in the psychiatrist's office as the memories surfaced. Can you be clearer as to what you find implausible about this?

 

[kanakaris]

I've just posted to my blog some of my thoughts on my conversation with Erich von Daniken: "Chariots of the Gods?" – Erich von Däniken and the Book of Enoch. Although I think von Daniken is wrong, I wouldn't judge him as negatively as some of the comments in this thread do. Where he's mistaken, he seems to me honestly mistaken. I've found many places in "Chariots of the Gods?" where I think he's misinterpreted his sources, none where he's invented them or deliberately distorted them.
Two questions for "kanakaris":
(1) You speak of being "offended" by Eric Ouellet's interpretation of the 1989-90 Belgian sightings, as symbolic representations of the transformations taking place in Central and Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall, projected into the sky. In what way do you find this idea offensive? "Speculative," yes; "unconvincing"--I can understand that. But why "offensive"?
(2) You find my understanding of Barney Hill's abduction experience highly implausible. My suggestion was that he was re-living his ancestral trauma of being abducted in the middle of the night and taken onto an alien craft (the slave ship); hence the abject terror he experienced in the psychiatrist's office as the memories surfaced. Can you be clearer as to what you find implausible about this?

(1)Offensive , because you imply that the witnesses were lying.
(2)Is it possible that Barney Hill simply was telling the truth ?Is this a possibility for you ?

 

[David Halperin]

(1)Offensive , because you imply that the witnesses were lying.
(2)Is it possible that Barney Hill simply was telling the truth ?Is this a possibility for you ?

"Kanakaris," thank you for giving me the opportunity to clear up what seems to be a misunderstanding of my views.
(1) Neither Eric Ouellet nor I intended any implication the witnesses were lying. On the contrary: it's precisely because they were telling the truth as they experienced it that their testimony is so important. Testimony--not to machinery flying around in the sky, but to the human capacity for symbolizing our awarenesses and experiencing them in visible form.
(2) I have absolutely no doubt that Barney Hill was telling the truth as he experienced it. Not even the harshest skeptic has doubted that--even Philip Klass has conceded that Barney had certainly experienced "something," and the memory of whatever that was terrified him so badly the psychiatrist was afraid he was going to throw himself out the window. The question is: what was that "something"?
When Barney recalls a face that reminds him of "a red-headed Irishman" smiling at him through the UFO's windows (Fuller, "The Interrupted Journey," pp. 86-87), will you say that this is something he actually saw? What would a "red-headed Irishman" be doing on a spaceship? But Barney goes on to explain the meaning of that vision for him: it's related to the tension he experiences as a black man in 1960s America, particularly a black man married to and traveling with a white woman. It's also a clue to what was evoked from within him by a chance stimulus--I think it was probably a light on an observation tower--in the New Hampshire mountains. The UFO was real, but it came from within.

 

[Randall]

I've just posted to my blog some of my thoughts on my conversation with Erich von Daniken: "Chariots of the Gods?" – Erich von Däniken and the Book of Enoch.

Welcome to the forum. I'm still kicking myself for missing the opportunity to be on the show. I completly agree with the points you made, but if I may ask a couple of pertinent questions:

If you can bear with me here they require a little setup:

It's true that humans create fictional stories that are often fantastical in nature, and I tend to think that 99% of mythology ( including religious mythology ) is exactly that sort of thing ( as you suggest ). I don't know your position on UFOs as a topic of study in modern times, but for the sake of argument, if we suppose that they are really some sort of alien craft, and not simply fictitious, then:

1. Why isn't it possible that the same phenomenon was observed in ancient times, and that it did contribute to the mythology?
2. Given that the answer to question 1 is that it is possible, how might we separate actual observations from the myth and fiction?

USI has a member who is a professor specializing in mythology out of Hawaii, and in my past correspondence with him, he doesn't see the reality of ancient sightings as all that far fetched. I also think it's entirely possible for us to look at ancient descriptions of alleged observations of things fantastical to them in their day, and realize we would see it very differently and probably more accurately and objectively. This does nothing to diminish our appreciation for the psyche of the ancient mind. We simply recognize that their interpretation is as primitive as a cargo cult looking at airplanes. Just because they saw airplanes as mystical flying creatures controlled by humans doesn't mean there were no airplanes.

So I see your points. Do you think there is any room to meet somewhere in the middle? If not, then how is it that we can be 100% certain that no mythology contains even a single grain of truth that could be related to sightings of the same sort of craft numerous witness in modern times have observed?

 

[David Halperin]

Many thanks for your post. I very much appreciate the points you've made.
To respond, I will need to get into my reasons for being so skeptical about the physical reality of UFOs today. I remember how, in the 1960s when I was a teen UFOlogist, the UFOlogical discourse anticipated some dramatic denouement to the UFOs' presence within the next few years--massive and undeniable contact, for example, or possibly an invasion. The years passed; nothing of the sort happened. Our own space program revealed nothing about extraterrestrial visitors, provoked no response from them. As far as their impact on human affairs went, the UFOs might not have been there at all.
This did not suit what I would have anticipated from a space visitation--that it would turn out to be a major turning point in human history.
We UFOlogists had our answers to the old why-don't-they-land-on-the-White-House-lawn question: we can't put ourselves in the ETs' position and ask why they don't behave as we would, because we don't know what their position is. It was only long afterward that I realized that this robbed the extraterrestrial hypothesis of any explanatory power it might have had. If absolutely nothing can be predicated of the space visitors, their motives, and their expected actions, then to say that UFOs are extraterrestrial spacecraft amounts to the same thing as saying we don't know what they are. I would prefer an open confession of our ignorance.
Going back to the "ancient aliens," I would ask: does positing their presence make anything within the ancient texts more intelligible? Or does it just create more problems of the why-didn't-they variety? My own view is: the latter. On the "Paracast" show, I touched on von Daniken's treatment of ancient myths and legends about giants. He writes near the beginning of chapter 4 of Chariots: "'Giants' haunt the pages of almost all ancient books. So they must have existed." He means, of course: "existed" as gigantic superhuman beings. But suppose they "existed" as the giants we all remember from our infancy, "giant" only in relation to our own smallness. (But anything is "giant" only by comparison with something else.) I'm not sure this is the full explanation of "giant" legends; in fact, I'm sure it's oversimplified. But it seems to me more promising than finding the reality-core of the legends in the extra-human world.
I hope I've responded to the issues you've raised. Thanks again for posting.