Space Jockeys & Derelicts

In the course of the past week or so I have opened 2 threads, which have been met by many with some controversy. So I have started this thread in the Community Discussions section to set the record straight. In the first thread [url=http://www.prometheus-movie.com/community/forums/topic/1105]FOUND HERE[/url] I stated that the Space Jockey found in Alien was not a long dead, fossilized alien pilot, but a briefly dead alien pilot in a suit. Illustrating my point with images. Of course this means that our collective belief that we held for the past 33 years was wrong, and as such many refuse to accept the truths of the thread. Now when I say truths, instead of findings or theory people believe me to be arrogant. But the FACTS in this thread are facts. Why, because the interview in [url=http://www.prometheus-movie.com/community/forums/topic/1094]THIS THREAD[/url], started by craigamore, which includes the following quote from Ridley Scott himself: "[i]Therefore, who is that, inside that suit? That wasn’t a skeleton, that was a suit.[/i]" In my thread I was accused of being wrong. How can I be wrong when all I have done is repeat what Ridley has said above, with pictures to illustrate and support the fact. Surely if I am wrong then Ridley is wrong. In my second thread [url=http://www.prometheus-movie.com/community/forums/topic/1170]FOUND HERE[/url] I stated that the Derelict in Prometheus is the same one as in Alien & Aliens, again illustrating my point with images. Immediately I was accused of being wrong despite the logic of what I had written being sound. The two main arguments put against me were: 1. [i]The design of the Derelict in Prometheus differs both internally and externally to that seen in Alien and Aliens. Thus by this logic these people claim there is more than one Derelict.[/i] Answer - Ridley has clearly decided to change what we thought we knew, thus is it really beyond the realm of possibility that Ridley would make other changes. Also Ridley clearly states in the documentaries on the second disc from the Alien: Directors Cut DVD that he never liked the way the Derelict looked on film, stating that it looked like a model not a spaceship. 2. [i]According to a fans website chronicling the production of Alien and that films Novelization the Derelict had been there for at least 1 million years for the pilot to be fossilized.[/i] Answer - This is simply answered by answer for the first thread of mine I refer to. The fans website and the novelization of Alien are now void because Ridley has changed it to suit Prometheus. 3. [i]Possibly preemptive here. Some may say that the planet in Prometheus looks completely different to LV-426 as seen in Alien and Aliens.[/i] Answer - One of the many themes proposed to be in Prometheus, amongst others, is terraforming (see forum member Spartacus). If we look at the planet shown in Prometheus it looks dead and barren, kind of like Mars, whereas LV-426 looked primordial, prehistoric, kind of like Venus. If the Space Jockeys do have the power to terraform an entire planet I imagine we are talking of something similar to the genesis project seen in Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan. Thus something similar could be released at any point during Prometheus and would explain the difference in landscape. Also on another note I find it hard to believe that Ridley would want to portray the Space Jockeys as dumb and stupid by having them crash two almost identical ships in two films.