Matt deMille said:
That is a very reasonable position, Montana. I'm glad we're finally coming to understand one another better.
I'm glad, too. Now that we've found a middle ground, I'm struggling to find the right words so as not to lose it.
When this began you were very assertive of an alien reality, which the mainstream are overlooking. At that time you were reluctant to reveal the reasons for your certainty (for obvious reasons).
Since then you've revealed a lot of personal details, which was brave, but also made for uncomfortable reading, since they
were so personal. Psychoanalysis by web-forum isn't a journey I would recommend to others! However, through that journey you've revealed uncertainties that were not apparent from your initial statement. Would it be true to say, then, that your personal experiences, and the manner in which you interpreted them, lead you first to
reconsider mainstream history. And second, upon reconsidering, the alien aspect became the most
likely answer. It would adjust your initial statement from "my knowledge of the alien reality" to "my knowledge of the
likely alien reality."
This may seem a pedantic point, but it is, I think, where the middle ground lies. It's the area where evidence may be analysed for the most probable answer. (e.g., for argument's sake I could agree that aliens exist, but that they didn't build the pyramids).
When it appeared that you were asserting you had the answers, it implied that there could be no discussion, and we would merely be awaiting a litany of answers. The alternative, that we are all on a journey of discovery, unbound by faith, with clear heads and clear senses, putting history to the test, is a much more exciting and "entertaining" prospect.
Matt deMille said:
If I may offer some helpful advice, though. Ignore Von Daniken. Unfortunately, too often the media fixates on Von Daniken and thus pins too much credibility of the larger issue on his works. This in turn guides those new or not well read on the subject into troubled waters. Von Daniken has interesting ideas and theories. That's good in as far as spurring investigation. But much better research has been done.
The pop-culture fixation of Von Daniken is comparable to saying all of Spielberg's movies were terrible if everyone kept focusing on 1941 or War of the Worlds. What about Indy? Jaws? Close Encounters? Private Ryan? Etc.
There are much better books out there on the subject. Thousands of them. I said it before and I'll say it again, Graham Hancock's work is at the top of the mountain (or should I say, pyramid). His books are incredibly well researched and give all the evidence one could want. He purposefully makes his books very thick in order to include every detail he possibly can to support his hypothesis, as sound research should. I find it heartening that his works have become so well respected that many bookstores (including big boxes like Barnes & Noble) have stopped stocking them in the "new age" category and actually shelve them under "history" (and if the store is versatile enough, "archeology").
Daeniken was my first contact years ago, then Mooney and Charroux. I know that Daeniken has been debunked, almost certainly by himself in admitting that he created evidence to strengthen his theories.
If Hancock's books are as good as you say, then they would at least provide jumping off points for investigation into the more problematic parts of our history.
With my interest in the Antarctic expeditions of Richter and Admiral Byrd I got the book
Arktos: The Polar Myth in Science, Symbolism and Nazi Survival, by Jocelyn Godwin. Still haven't done more than dip into it, though. My renewed interest in German ufos and super-technology came from Hellboy! I gathered thousands of pages of information, then expanded it in all directions, such as the mind-control myths and stories of the Montauk site. The hollow earth is a favourite myth, hence the
Arktos book, and a pulpy paperback by Warren Smith, entitled
This Hollow Earth. So you see, I have an interest in the weird world of what-ifs? But I realistically stop short before belief - but that's the eternal skeptic in me.