5/5 Entertaining, yet he jumps to conclusions too easily
  by Plaque
I read Chariots of the Gods as well as several other Von Daniken works, and he never ceases to entertain me (with the exception of Miracles of the Gods - a horrid, poorly executed book). I find his "theories" thought-provoking, yet very weak at their base. Mr. Von Daniken has an irritating habit of jumping from subject to subject, stating his opinions quickly and with little supporting evidence, and then suddenly switching to another "mystery" to start the cycle over again. Even though he makes many compelling points, he never stays on the same subject long enough to fully support his beliefs.

If a golden amulet looks like a modern airplane, then it's an airplane. Period. If a stone carving looks like an astronaut, then it's an astronaut. Period. If a straight line drawn in the sand extends for the length of a modern runway, then it's a runway. Period. And this same style has gone on and on for years and through several books, with more on the way.

I take everything he says with a grain of salt. He is sooo quick to jump to (seemingly) reasonable conclusions that I can't help but be intrigued... but obviously I can't even call that he does "theorizing" since he never spends enough time on one piece of evidence to complete his arguments.

I look at his work as a starting point, rather than a finished product. If someone takes one of his ideas and runs with it, gathering collaborating evidence and building a more air-tight case for the "solution" presented in his works, then in my opinion Von Daniken has done his job. Unfortunately, I can't be sure Von Daniken shares this opinion. I think he raises important questions, yet his answers are too quick off the mark and ultimately unsatisfying to the discriminating reader.

I much prefer the approach taken by Graham Hancock, for example, who normally stays much more conservative. Hancock presents compelling arguments supported by many different pieces of evidence, and will not insult the reader by leaping to his conclusions based upon a single painting or pottery shard. Anyone interested in "alternative" (for lack of a better word) history would do well to pick up Hancock's "Fingerprints of the Gods" for a better-realized examination of ancient mysteries.

I still find Von Daniken immensely entertaining, though. Call it a guilty pleasure. I would never be able to defend his ideas during an in-depth discussion of them, and I honestly don't believe Von Daniken would be able to either. I give this book 5 stars for being a lot of FUN and a closet masterpiece.

2/5 Fun, but horribly wrong
  by John (Houston, TX)
Von Däniken claims that the myths, arts, social organizations, etc., of ancient cultures were introduced by astronauts from another world. He questions not just the capacity for memory, but the capacity for culture and civilization itself, in ancient peoples. Prehistoric humans did not develop their own arts and technologies, but rather were taught art and science by visitors from outer space.

Where is the proof for von Däniken's claims? Some of it was fraudulent. For example, he produced photographs of pottery that he claimed had been found in an archaeological dig. The pottery depicts flying saucers and was said to have been dated from Biblical times. However, investigators from Nova (the fine public-television science program) found the potter who had made the allegedly ancient pots. They confronted von Däniken with evidence of his fraud. His reply was that his deception was justified because some people would only believe if they saw proof ("The Case of the Ancient Astronauts," first aired 3/8/78, done in conjunction with BBC's Horizon and Peter Spry-Leverton)!

However, most of von Däniken's evidence is in the form of specious and fallacious arguments. His data consists mainly of archaeological sites and ancient myths. He begins with the ancient astronaut assumption and then forces all data to fit the idea. For example, in Nazca, Peru, he explains giant animal drawings in the desert as an ancient alien airport. The fact that the lines of the drawing would be useless as a runway for any real aircraft because of their narrowness is conveniently ignored by von Däniken. The likelihood that these drawings related to the natives' science or mythology is not considered. He also frequently reverts to false dilemma reasoning of the following type: "Either this data is to be explained by assuming these primitive idiots did this themselves or we must accept the more plausible notion that they got help from extremely advanced peoples who must have come from other planets where such technologies as anti-gravity devices had been invented." His devotion to this theory has not dwindled, despite contrary evidence, as is evidenced by still another book on the subject, Arrival of the Gods : Revealing the Alien Landing Sites at Nazca (1998).

There have been many critics of von Däniken's notions, but Ronald Story stands out as the most thorough. Most critics of von Däniken's theory point out that prehistoric peoples were not the helpless, incompetent, forgetful savages he makes them out to be. (They must have at least been intelligent enough to understand the language and teachings of their celestial instructors--no small feat!) It is true that we still do not know how the ancients accomplished some of their more astounding physical and technological feats. We still wonder how the ancient Egyptians raised giant obelisks in the desert and how stone age men and women moved huge cut stones and placed them in position in dolmens and passage graves. We are amazed by the giant carved heads on Easter Island and wonder why they were done, who did them, and why they abandoned the place. We may someday have the answers to our questions, but they are most likely to come from scientific investigation not pseudoscientific speculation. For example, observing contemporary stone age peoples in Papua New Guinea, where huge stones are still found on top of tombs, has taught us how the ancients may have accomplished the same thing with little more than ropes of organic material, wooden levers and shovels, a little ingenuity and a good deal of human strength.

We have no reason to believe our ancient ancestors' memories were so much worse than our own that they could not remember these alien visitations well enough to preserve an accurate account of them. There is little evidence to support the notion that ancient myths and religious stories are the distorted and imperfect recollection of ancient astronauts recorded by ancient priests. The evidence to the contrary--that prehistoric or 'primitive' peoples were (and are) quite intelligent and resourceful--is overwhelming.

Of course, it is possible that visitors from outer space did land on earth a few thousand years ago and communicate with our ancestors. But it seems more likely that prehistoric peoples themselves were responsible for their own art, technology and culture. Why concoct such an explanation as von Däniken's? To do so may increase the mystery and romance of one's theory, but it also makes it less reasonable, especially when one's theory seems inconsistent with what we already know about the world. The ancient astronaut hypothesis is unnecessary. Occam's razor should be applied and the hypothesis rejected.

2/5 There Can be LOTS of Other Explanations!
  by Marney E. Mason (Galveston, Texas United States)
This is a worthwhile book to read. The author did some pretty good collecting, and his theories are tantalizing, to say the least. It is a shame that he had to repeatedly ruin some good information with the single phrase "There can be no other explanation."

He repeated this phrase throughout the book. Each time I saw it, I cringed. This phrase tries to cut off debate, stifles analysis, and generally hurts the credibility of the entire work.

When people are so convinced of their own position that they try to suppress any information to the contrary (even rhetorically), they are degenerating to the level of the "Thought Police" - or worse.

Sorry Herr von Daniken, you blew it.

2/5 Our ancestors did not need the help of aliens
  by Jose Vera P.Eng. (Scarborough, ON Canada)
Our ancestors did not need the help of aliens to build the pyramids or to build Machu Picchu.

Our ancestors (the Mayas, the Incas etc.) were good engineers. They had an advanced knowledge of hydrology, sustainable development, and structural design. None of this is mentioned in "Chariots of the Gods".

A much better book on this subject is "Machu Picchu: A Civil Engineering Marvel", by Kenneth R. Wright and Alfredo Valencia Zegarra.

5/5 Let's not forget UFO's are always dismissed.
  by J. Schinkel (Petaluma, CA)
Having stood with my neighbors and watched a UFO fly over us, and it's sighting refused to be acknowledged by the government, I can only say that not to believe the facts and points by Erich Von Daniken is to close your minds to reality. My belief that this is true dates to my mythology classes, for one, the facts that he shows in the Sumerian culture where it was written in their language that if it was "not for the gods from the skies"
that they would never have known how to cultivate their lands, build their cities, etc is evidence that only a person who believes we evolved from apes would deny.
You also cannot take this one book, or dvd as your evidence that beings from other planets don't exist. Read on, read on don't be narrow minded.
Some of the evidence Erich Von Daniken had made to prove his points I have to agree with. How difficult and how extremely frustrating it must be to have critics, the ones who won't think beyond their nose, to present his facts and theories only to have them laughed at. His frustration to try to make people see his interpretation of the facts that he read on the Sumerian artifacts was only to try to open peoples minds.
Think for a moment and look at what is left of the ancient cities and the pyramids, the intricate construction of the Colosseum their is no explanation for how they were built. If in Sumeria, which is now Iraq, they had great buildings, water systems, big cities, how then after the gods, as it is written on their artifacts, left look at what it has become. The area fell back into shambles, not representative of what the cities in Sumeria were. How could they have not have gone forward and built bigger and better civilizations in that area, instead it is what it is today. How is it in South America where their peoples were living in big cities, no explanation for their demise. Mexico who had great cities and there is no explanation for what happened to them, also believed in the gods, had a type of pyramid, yet look at Mexico now, all their buildings are in shambles, not the once proud nation it was centuries ago.
So not to think that these teachers from another planet or planets, left this earth, shows how these once outstanding civilizations fell apart is evidence that man on earth did not create these civilizations because they were no more. Man on earth didn't know how to go forward, which is shown by how the future generations lived.