Being dispassionate is important because it allows you view facts and consider evidence without a preconcieved bias. Von Daniken is obviously a swiss clock, but he has a different "take" on things so maybe in the morass of moronity there might be a small jewel. Maybe by turning the jigsaw puzzle piece upside-down it will fit better. You never know until you try it. ( and of course you may be just wasting your time too. )
Marduk, not bad, 42 lines to reply to a three line off the cuff comment and totally miss the point of my post. I do wonder however if you read the full text, with particular reference to "evidence". (See above for my thoughts on "dispassionate consideration of...")
Firstly I don't "believe" in any theory ATM.if you want to believe in this kind of crap then thats up to you
if youre not prepared to do the actual research yourself or listen to experts who have then it isn't science anyway is it
its personal belief
Secondly I will listen to the experts provided they are willing to demonstrate their evidence. I don't accept knowledge ex cathedra from the church and I sure as hell won't accept it from any "expert". To again use the Sphinx as an example, there is no direct evidence linking the monument to the IVth Dynasty. Hence any demand that I accept the "experts" opinion to that effect is a demand without basis in fact and therefore worthless.
You want me to "believe" the Sphinx was carved to represent Khafre during his reign? Fine. All you have to do is show me your evidence. Prove it to me and I'll believe you.
While I don't think there is any world-wide conspiracy amoungst archaeologist to hide the truth I also don't subscribe to the fanciful concept that the "scientist" is inhumanly dispassionate and will throw out (or easily reconsider) an outdated theory when provided with new evidence.
No lecturer will look forward to the idea of going up in front of the students he has been teaching for four years and admitting that what he taught them was wrong. No professional, respected in his field likes to admit fallibility. It's not "conspiracy", it's called being human. Life is so much easier if no-one disturbs the peace. This is true in all industries and callings. Why some should believe that the same rules of Psychology would not apply to the "scientist" is frankly beyond me but then again, most religious dogma is.
As an aside, I lurk at "The Hall of Ma'at" too. I'm in awe of the wealth of knowledge there. It's slow lurking though. You know how it is, read one thread and spend 4 days reading the evidence links.
It was actually one of your posts that pointed me in this direction. I've always been impressed by your knowledge and would not think of challenging you on a point of fact unless I could provide reliable evidence to back it up. I do however feel quite up to the concept of challenging you on the interpretation of evidence at times.