Ally.Madison wrote:I know wiki isn't 100% reliable. There's plenty of biased content.
I am mostly curious to find out if it's true that he 'fabricated' any part of his book/s.
I don't want to believe he did.
Gemini wrote:I don't know what is being claimed as being fabricated.
Absolutely, or people who believe there is a God someplace waiting for them so when they die they can be together, happily ever after, with all their dead friends and relatives. And yet they can't even consider the AA theory. Mind boggling!Sagittarii wrote:I know it's ridiculous... like their [mainstream archeologists and the media] theories about the Bible, GOD and Jesus and theories about creation hold any water whatsoever. It's like the pot calling the kettle black.
They feel it's SO far fetched that intelligent beings once visited Earth but absolutely without a doubt they believe angels will materialize out of thin air and float down from the clouds or whatever. It's comical if you think about it.
Oh dear whoever! What a crack up, but yeah, exactly!tony_latino wrote:oh oh - and to add to metaluna's observation about religious folks - this is a bumper sticker I once saw ....
"The Definition of Christianity:
The belief that a cosmic jewish zombie who was his own father, can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and drink his blood and telepathecally tell him that you accept him as your master, so that he can remove from your soul an evil force that is ever present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree, which in turn made child-birth unbearable, which also led to incest among her offspring."
and they call US crazy?
fotoguy wrote:Keep in mind that Wikipedia is written by everyman. The integrity of the article could be in question here. I personally believe in EvD. He seems totally honest, to me. And a man doesn't work as hard as he has just to ruin his work with lies...would not make sense at all. I'll stand by EvD.
There is only the accepted version of whatever you are looking up too, no outside of the box thinking on wikipedia. I've more than a few times looked up something I know quite a lot about and don't find all or even the correct facts there.upperworld wrote:fotoguy wrote:Keep in mind that Wikipedia is written by everyman. The integrity of the article could be in question here. I personally believe in EvD. He seems totally honest, to me. And a man doesn't work as hard as he has just to ruin his work with lies...would not make sense at all. I'll stand by EvD.
That is a very important fact. I am no library of historical facts myself...yet i have edited 2 wikipedia pages in the past year. I changed false information to factual information but when i saw how easy it was, i realized that probably 50% of what is cataloged in wiki is bull@#$% and 50% is legit. You do the math. Don't use wiki as your sole source of research, make sure it corroborates with several more sources (preferably some non-internet ones) as a fail safe.
Return to Erich von Däniken
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests