It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
In that respect you have hit the nail on the head on some points such as that some are now no longer regarded as ooparts as ARCHAEOLOGICAL THEORY was then updated to include them and there is the crux there are a lot of fakes but there are indeed some less spectacular artifacts which do not fit such as hominid's in the wrong place and time or even possible modern humanoid remains and traces such as footprints which when cross sectioned are shown to not be simply weathering of saurian tracks but to have the same weight and pressure as human gait such as some paloxy tracks which were taken for examination after being freshly exposed by having the overlying sandstone layer removed and the rock sectioned and taken to a lab were the rock grain pattern under the impression was shown to have the exact pressure displacement to prove they were not the product of weathering but actual tracks, so either a human like being with a gait identical to ours or a two legged dinosaur about 5'11" and 9 stone walked there with a identical to human gait from the tracks which were freshly exposed and analyzed, then there is moccasin rock a human footprint in an alluviel rock with stitching around the soul, another on a half crushed trilobyte, the list goes on.
There is an active perception filter in place, accepted archaeology and anthropology are theory nothing more, they are not given facts though they are treated as such indeed they are an established idea supported with what is classed as evidence that fits the ideology and when it does not it get's either left in the anomlous box where it is quickly forgotten about or it is subject to rigorous levels of analysis that the acceptable find's are not subjected to as after all they fit the theory.
The argument about the Lucy skeleton is that it could also be reconstructed as simply an extinct primate and the theory it was a human ancestor was only one of many but it gained a following from TRUE believers among the anthropological fraternity.
And then again I am not being funny but take another look at that skeleton in the decayed space suit with the remnantis of the visor still visible around the bezel of the face plate, it is not a trick of light and shadow though it is litterally like a sand castle a dust impression that you could probably not pick up without it falling apart and this is due to long exposure of solar radiation and particle bombardment as well as extreme temperature variance, it is ancient and probably older than the human race is supposed to be so is that a chimp in a suit or could Darwins IDEA as far as human's are concerned simply be plain wrong, there are other mechanisms for explaining genetic links such as viral propegation of DNA/RNA between species as well.
What about the human like finger fossil which when X rayed showed the joint, bone tendon and finger nail inside the stone identical to a human anatomy of a finger, if you have looked into the subject then you know what I mean it was found near a set of humanoid tracks like the paloxy ones.
NOT every oopart (Or classed as such according to Accepted anthropological and archeaological establishment - which are sometime less than scientific themselves) is fake but most of the sensationist ones are and were produced to make money like the bearded lady, people want to see them.
As for the ica stones of peru, a guy bought one and took it back to the states, it came to the attention of a top museum, they leaned on the state department whom spoke to the peruvian authoritys whom arrested the guy selling them who then after being held by the police admitted faking them but get this one had already been sent to germany for argon krypton isotopic dating and found to be at least 10000 years old?.
If something is inconveniant they get it out of the way and discredit it, the guy whom admited making these chemically proven to be 10000 years at least old stone carvings which he had claimed to have found washed out of a cave after it was exposed by a flood which eroded the rock is supposed to have made tens of thousands of these things, not possible how did he fake the argon krypton ratio, the stone equivelant of carbon dating it works by factoring by the amount of the isotopes near the surface of the stone and how decayed they are how long the stone has been exposed to the atmosphere so is highly inaccurate for extremely old samples but for newer ones such as the outside of a medievil cathedral can be extremely accurate.
I am not saying evolution is wrong as it is a proven mechanism as far as fruit fly's and poison resistant mice, pathogens and indeed adaptaion to ecological niche is concerned but what I am saying is it is far from an open and shut case, there is supporting interpretation of evidence but no actual irrefutable evidence of our own ancestry and an out of place object is only out of place because we do not understand the mechanism as to how it got there, if the story about the pipe holder being blasted out of solid limestone it true then of course it is an OOPART even if it is an indian pipe holder from around the same period though it then fall's into the catagory of strange occurance such as rains of fish, and there is a potential explanation, matter is not alway's solid even when it should be, remember the bones of the buddhist tibetan monk whom dissapeard but was supposed to be able to walk through walls only for human remains fused with solid rock to be found when a wall was demolished in the monastery hundreds of years later well look at this.
www.rense.com... OK it's rense duh but you must admit intriguing.
I have avoided the religous forums though I myself am a religios christian.
Even orthodox archeology can step on the wrong toes.
originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
a reply to: LABTECH767
You are making the same mistake the creationists are making. You are only sourcing information from pseudoscience/pseudoarchaeology websites which fits with your cognitive bias.
These claims have all been debunked before, some many times. The Paluxy Tracks themselves have been so thoroughly debunked, even most young Earth creationists will not use them anymore.
None of them stand up to any scientific scrutiny at all.
If you are at all interested in what mainstream science thinks about such claims, see -
Overview with many links to articles debunking various "man-track" claims
Glen Kuban's article on the Paluxy tracks
The Rise and Fall of the Paluxy Man Tracks
Article on the Meister Print (the crushed trilobite you refer to)
Nevada Shoe Print
The Alleged Cretaceous Finger
Creationist website listing the Paluxy tracks as an argument "Creationists should not use"
It's just garbage. Stop repeating garbage.
ETA - That "decaying space suit guy" image you posted on the front page? I literally can not see a thing in the first image except rocks. Even your outline does not make it seem anymore like a space suited guy lying there decaying. It just looks like rocks.
Probably one of the most clear cut examples of pareidolia I have ever seen..
originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
Your argument does have merit as I am indeed biased but I am also scientifically trained, real science, chemistry, physic's and electronic engineering though admitedly I never went into any of those field's with my qualifications more or less wasted and have like many now forgotten 80 to 90 percent of what I learned after so long, but the fact is that neither archeaology or anthropology (though the latter at least has basis in medical science to a small degree) are true sciences when taken in isolation from other scientific disciplines and I actually always felt annoyed when historians (Egyptologist and archeaologists) whom interpret from known facts possible scenarios are regared as scientists when they are patently not at all scientists, they do not follow trule scientific principle in most cases and history and archeaological theory are riddled with inconsistancys and errors that would if they were a physics equation make everything fail or worse produce catastrophic result's though the analogy between there theory and a physics theory based equation does no justice to just how innacurate there accepted model's are, in some cased they do have the ball on the field and the goals at the right end's of the pitch but they get a lot wrong as they simply do not know and base there ideology on supposition and conjecture.