Attila the Professor said:
I largely agree with the general consensus...although I do think there's probably something to be said for delving more fully into this. Anyone want to tackle that thread he keeps returning to about time travel (which I'm pretty sure I don't buy, but might just not misunderstand).
The writer jumps on the idea of time and time travel, and just like the rest of the essay, forces it into thier perspective of the film.
There are some definite references to time in KOTCS, such as the hot rod from Indy's classic adventuring era, the running sand 'hourglass' that opens the entrance to the temple, and the running theme of time passing and Indy ageing.
When it comes to time travel the writer, I feel, makes too much out of a simple idea. In the back story time moves much faster in the Interdimensional Beings' dimension, and much more slowly for the humans in theirs. Therefore, the conquistador theft of the the skull, and the Roswell scouts of 1947 were events which woiuld have happened very close together from the perspective of the 'alien' dimension. 1947 might have been only a few hours or days after the skull went missing. By 1957 an hour might have passed, hence no more scouts. The experience of the waiting IDBs would have been quite different. They have had to endure the long passage of human time.
In this case the many cultures and ages represented in the treasure house aren't evidence of time travel, but of the IDB's interaction with humans at different points in our history. In order that they didn't miss huge chunks of human history, they would have to be remain in our dimension. They act of going back to their own dimension and returning would mean missing many years of human history.
The problem with the "Saucer Men" essay is that it takes too much for granted, in building a case that has already been decided upon by the author. It isn't so much an investigation as a thesis should be, but a matter of fitting and twisting 'evidence' to fit a pre-determined theory. Some of that twisting is particulary painful and obvious, and is similar to the writing of Daeniken, who is the inspiration for the idea behind KOTCS.
Daeniken makes for interesting reading, but, like the essay, you have to take it with a sackful of salt. Daeniken was a bad historian, though a great imaginist. Which would also cover your other point, Attila:
Attila the Professor said:
The other thing I'll add, speaking generally, is that he takes the rather easy route of skipping anything that doesn't fit in with his interpretation.
An objective view has to take in everything, even that which threatens to destabilize the pre-determined theory. The subjective view is self-destructive, on all but a cursory level.