It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Unraveling the Olmec Mystery

page: 3
32
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: Marduk




When its clear from the wording on the left that the period he is pointing at is marked "Preclásico Temprano", which in English is "Early Preclassic era", Which is about 1000 years before the Olmec appeared So he's either incompetent or lying...


I disagree.

If anything, he is pointing way below "Preclásico Temprano", and at the moment that photo was taken, could have pointed at the accepted time of the Olmecs, and then was snapped pointing even lower. It's a reasonable to say he might have been saying something along the lines of 'Who knows, the Olmecs could even be much older than accepted wisdom states..they could even have been older than..THIS! Or the complete opposite of course, he could be pointing there and saying "They certainly were not this old" or indeed saying anything else.

We weren't there when the image was snapped...so we don't know what was said at that moment...could be anything.


No, but we know what he wrote about the picture he published.

You can make up any imaginary conversation, of course. Sitchin's problem is that he actually wrote the lie that accompanies the very picture he chose to illustrate his lie.

Harte


you still dont get it...it's all the same to you. It's interesting...all the while you accept dubious science on the same basis. But with a slight difference...some guy works for... [ ](insert any of the science institutions)...and immediately it becomes science to you.

The opponents dont get a fair vote...they are not published in science journals. It takes cca 20 years of opposition for your view to be taken seriously. And even then. It's not a given. No matter the subject.

Anyway...to my mind...it seems perfectly obvious...that Olmec culture didnt just spring forth at 1500 BC. Right on the New Year's eve at 1501 BC. The culture has existed obviously for some time...and obviously shifted and changed...as all cultures do.

But you guys are married to your science. It really amuses me when "science"..introduces new parameters to account for new findings. That way...you can never go wrong. You are always right with some room to wiggle about if needed.




posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: Marduk




When its clear from the wording on the left that the period he is pointing at is marked "Preclásico Temprano", which in English is "Early Preclassic era", Which is about 1000 years before the Olmec appeared So he's either incompetent or lying...


I disagree.

If anything, he is pointing way below "Preclásico Temprano", and at the moment that photo was taken, could have pointed at the accepted time of the Olmecs, and then was snapped pointing even lower. It's a reasonable to say he might have been saying something along the lines of 'Who knows, the Olmecs could even be much older than accepted wisdom states..they could even have been older than..THIS! Or the complete opposite of course, he could be pointing there and saying "They certainly were not this old" or indeed saying anything else.

We weren't there when the image was snapped...so we don't know what was said at that moment...could be anything.


No, but we know what he wrote about the picture he published.

You can make up any imaginary conversation, of course. Sitchin's problem is that he actually wrote the lie that accompanies the very picture he chose to illustrate his lie.

Harte


you still dont get it...it's all the same to you. It's interesting...all the while you accept dubious science on the same basis. But with a slight difference...some guy works for... [ ](insert any of the science institutions)...and immediately it becomes science to you.

The opponents dont get a fair vote...they are not published in science journals. It takes cca 20 years of opposition for your view to be taken seriously. And even then. It's not a given. No matter the subject.

Anyway...to my mind...it seems perfectly obvious...that Olmec culture didnt just spring forth at 1500 BC.


A subtle shift of your goal post, I see.
Fine. However, their predecessors, the ones that eventually banded together into the literate, agricultural, civilization we call the Olmec, were not the Olmec. The Olmec left no evidence of their existence prior to around 1500 BC.

You can speculate all you want about when this civilization formed. However, if you read what Sitchin wrote about the picture we're talking about, you'll note that he's not speculating, he's lying.

He claims the banner shows the Olmec originating in 3000 BC. The banner certainly shows no such thing.

Do you doubt your own eyes?


originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
But you guys are married to your science. It really amuses me when "science"..introduces new parameters to account for new findings. That way...you can never go wrong. You are always right with some room to wiggle about if needed.

Imagine that. Facts influencing science.

Look, if I'm "married" to anything (other than my wife,) it is the facts that were are aware of. That doesn't change when new facts surface. It only means we are aware of new facts.

Are you suggesting that facts are useless in determining things?

Harte



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 11:08 AM
link   
The Olmec heads: proof that all our ideas of "race" are just a bunch of manure.

Interesting read through this thread....thanks folks.



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 01:49 PM
link   
The Olmec appear to be Black Africans. It has been postulated that they came over with Nin.gish.zidda/Thoth/Quetzalcoatl in 3113 bc. It would help explain the similarity in construction and phonetics (Tenoch city - Enoch).



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Oannes
The Olmec appear to be Black Africans. It has been postulated that they came over with Nin.gish.zidda/Thoth/Quetzalcoatl in 3113 bc. It would help explain the similarity in construction and phonetics (Tenoch city - Enoch).

Way to not read the thread.

Harte



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Oannes
The Olmec appear to be Black Africans. It has been postulated that they came over with Nin.gish.zidda/Thoth/Quetzalcoatl in 3113 bc. It would help explain the similarity in construction and phonetics (Tenoch city - Enoch).

Firstly, the name Enoch means "dedicated", so has nothing in common with Tenoch "city"
Secondly, from a linguistic perspective, every single language on earth has at least 600 words which share similar sound and meaning, so you just claiming that Tenoch sounds like Enoch is meaningless. You can play that game with any language, Like Ti (Rib) sounds like Tea (drink), but without any other connection, its just a word game.

As for your second claim, the heads display features which are all present in the local population and all the Olmec DNA recovered is Indian.

You basically are saying that because they have squat noses that they appear to be African to you, which ignores the evidence like this

On the left, the nose from the most "African looking" of the giant heads, on the right, the nose of a direct descendant of the Olmec, a Maya shaman.

Are you saying that the Maya priest has an African nose ?

Ningishzida has nothing in common with Thoth, I have no idea why you think they are the same individual, except of course that you are a Sitchenite, so have a very low standard of evidence.

Finally, if you were right, how would Enoch, who was not an African, and who never left the old World, have anything to do with Mesoamerica. Questions questions....


edit on 23-1-2016 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

The Fuente Magna bowl is proof of ancient transatlantic crossings.



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Oannes
a reply to: Marduk

The Fuente Magna bowl is proof of ancient transatlantic crossings.


Lol,
1. can you read the writing on the Fuente Magna bowl ?
2. Can you tell me what makes Dr Winters, the "translator" not credible at all ?
3. Can you prove, accepting that the bowl is genuine (its not, but for the sake of argument) that the bowl did not arrive in the last 100 years ?

Because you have not even considered these questions, just completely swallowed the entire fraud, you do not have proof, nor know how to decide if something is proof of anything


I don't expect you to be able to answer these questions, in fact I know you can't, because

originally posted by: Marduk
you are a Sitchenite, so have a very low standard of evidence.


Please drag out the Pokotia Monolith next and I will show you how these claims you are making should have been left back in the 90s...

Also, you didn't answer my question, does the Maya shaman have an African nose YES/NO ?


edit on 23-1-2016 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Oannes
The Olmec appear to be Black Africans. It has been postulated that they came over with Nin.gish.zidda/Thoth/Quetzalcoatl in 3113 bc. It would help explain the similarity in construction and phonetics (Tenoch city - Enoch).


Like Harte said: you didn't read the thread.

In the year 2000 a genetic comparative study came to the conclusion that the Olmecs were a really isolated group:




“Significant genetic input from outside is not noticed in Meso and South American Amerindians according to the phylogenetic analyses; while all world populations (including Africans, Europeans, Asians, Australians, Polynesians, North American Na-Dene Indians and Eskimos) are genetically related. Meso and South American Amerindians tend to remain isolated in the Neighbor-Joining.”



From here: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Well reading this thread reminded me of some research I did on the origins of the Olmec about a decade ago, which I never posted anywhere, so here it is...

The first mystery of the Olmec is what they called themselves, Olmec is the name that they were called by the Aztec and it means “Rubber people”.
This however is unlikely to be what they called themselves. Even in modern times, people are usually named after the land that they originate, so the English come from England, the French come from France, the Maya came from Mayapan and the Aztec from Aztlan
So logically, the Olmec would have called themselves after the place that they originate, its known that the Olmec region was the tropical lowlands of south-central Mexico, in the present-day states of Veracruz and Tabasco

The Aztec have a mythology of a place called Tamoanchan, the noun itself is derived from Mayan Etymology and so is a loan word in the Aztec Nuahatal language. It basically translates as “We go down to our home” and was the proverbial paradise where the first men were created by the gods.
But there's a few oddities about it.

Firstly, because it is a loan word in Aztec from Mayan, this indicates that the word was a true noun and therefore actually represents an actual place. Loan words in case you don't know, are qwords which cross from one language into another because the receiving language has nothing similar. In English for example we get the French words "battalion" and "envoy" and "croissant"

Secondly, depictions of Tamoanchan are always shown with a tree, with a cleft, from which the gods nourish themselves on blood which pours from the tree. But it is well known that the Olmec, being so closely linked to rubber, would have also been closely linked to the tree Castilla Elastica, which grows in the region and from which they obtained their latex. The tree itself closely resembles the tree from their artwork.



To obtain rubber from this tree, it is neccesary to cut a cleft, from which the rubber sap will pour out, exactly in the same manner as depicted. Except for the sap not being blood, but then if you think about it, thats is what sap is, sap is tree blood. So the Gods nourishing themselves on the blood of the tree, could be equated as the civilisation being nourished from the sap of the tree, which would explain why the Aztec called them "rubber people".

Thirdly, the Olmec, being the ancestors and progenitors of the Mayan civilisation,it also seems logical that like most other ancient cultures, who venerate their ancestors, the Olmec would have been seen as the Gods and their heroes deified. As the Maya heroes included Kukulcan, who is better known as Quetzlcoatl by the Aztecs it follows that he is based on a king or hero of the Olmec people.

So when you put together, the lowland home of the Olmec along with the etymological meaning of Tamoanchan as "We go down to our home” and add to that the rubber tree, which grows there which is depicted in their reliefs as the place that they originated then it seems logical to me, that the Olmec would have called themselves Tamoanchan, or more simply, "the Tamoa"

edit on 23-1-2016 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Nice. Good info Marduk.

Harte



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 08:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Marduk

So when you put together, the lowland home of the Olmec along with the etymological meaning of Tamoanchan as "We go down to our home” and add to that the rubber tree, which grows there which is depicted in their reliefs as the place that they originated then it seems logical to me, that the Olmec would have called themselves Tamoanchan, or more simply, "the Tamoa"


Really cool!



edit on 23-1-2016 by Rosinitiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Harte




A subtle shift of your goal post, I see.


In what way ?




Fine. However, their predecessors, the ones that eventually banded together into the literate, agricultural, civilization we call the Olmec, were not the Olmec. The Olmec left no evidence of their existence prior to around 1500 BC.


well..when you state "they left no evidence"...you mean to say...as of yet...we havent found any. Your way makes it sound so...final. As if...we know all there is to know...we've dug all there is to dig. We know full well..that so much of our history is constantly upgraded with new findings. Who knows what the stance on Olmecs will be in 50 years. All I'm saying here...dont get "married" to official things.




You can speculate all you want about when this civilization formed. However, if you read what Sitchin wrote about the picture we're talking about, you'll note that he's not speculating, he's lying.

He claims the banner shows the Olmec originating in 3000 BC. The banner certainly shows no such thing.

Do you doubt your own eyes?


You know...let's break that down. Which part specifically are you saying he lied about ? the 3000 BC date on the panel...or that it was concerning Olmecs ?

I'm simply not seeing this "lie". Care to help me out and understand ?




Imagine that. Facts influencing science.


I wish science is consistent about that. But it's not about science. Science is innocent...it's a tool in the hands of men. It's scientists that are the problem.

Sadly I'm constrained by the language barrier to properly express my views...which is why I will post this interesting link...in hope it can further explain why I dont discount crazies and I dont get "married" to "official" science.

If you have the will, read up on it and let me know what you think.

p.s. I find the Harlen Bretz case particularly interesting.

crackpots-who-were-right

The summary of it is...if you go against the established...better bring an umbrella. It also shows...that at least in some cases...the so far established views were not slightly wrong...but completely.



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Marduk




So when you put together, the lowland home of the Olmec along with the etymological meaning of Tamoanchan as "We go down to our home” and add to that the rubber tree, which grows there which is depicted in their reliefs as the place that they originated then it seems logical to me, that the Olmec would have called themselves Tamoanchan, or more simply, "the Tamoa"


Wow...cool...it's just that...it says so also on wiki...olmec


It is not known what name the ancient Olmec used for themselves; some later Mesoamerican accounts seem to refer to the ancient Olmec as "Tamoanchan".[101] A contemporary term sometimes used for the Olmec culture is tenocelome, meaning "mouth of the jaguar".[102]


Did you edit this wiki page with your findings ? Or perhaps the author borrowed from your research...

Anyway...it's good that you're on the right track.



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 11:01 AM
link   
and a little support for the Sitchin here...


Early modern explorers and archaeologists, however, mistakenly applied the name "Olmec" to the rediscovered ruins and artifacts in the heartland decades before it was understood that these were not created by people the Aztecs knew as the "Olmec", but rather a culture that was 2000 years older. Despite the mistaken identity, the name has stuck.[100]


So what you call a lie...is actually a case of mistaken identity upon which a theory was built.

See wiki link in previous post for source.


edit:

I already posted a link that explains that it was only in the early 21 century...that it was established...that these ruins were not of Olmec people as previously thought. And perhaps even that will have to stand the test of time. We will see.
edit on 24-1-2016 by MarioOnTheFly because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly

Wow...cool...it's just that...it says so also on wiki...olmec.

It doesn't go into detail on wiki and I didn't read it, most of what I posted came from an email dated 2006

You still seem stuck on Sitchin, who is not an authority on anything except selling crap to the gullible, your continued insistence that he is right says a lot about your depth of knowledge

Your claim that early explorers attributed everything to the Olmec does not support Sitchin as he wrote that in the early 2000s, not the 19th century

As for his lie, he is pointing at a timeline and claiming that it says "Olmec" at 3000bce. It doesn't say that at all, if you download the picture and enlarge it you can clearly see that his claim is patently false. This has been explained to you several times now, is there a reason you are being obtuse ?

As for crackpots, you are comparing real scientists who admittedly had views which were not accepted at first, but science did accept them in the end. This is not the same as people like Sitchin, Hancock or Childress, who knowingly lie for profit because they know that enough people will buy their books anyway. None of anything they have said has been accepted. Not one thing...


edit on 24-1-2016 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: Harte




A subtle shift of your goal post, I see.


In what way ?

In the way of changing the word "civilization" to the word "culture."
Like I said, there is a difference.


originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly


Fine. However, their predecessors, the ones that eventually banded together into the literate, agricultural, civilization we call the Olmec, were not the Olmec. The Olmec left no evidence of their existence prior to around 1500 BC.


well..when you state "they left no evidence"...you mean to say...as of yet...we havent found any. Your way makes it sound so...final. As if...we know all there is to know...we've dug all there is to dig. We know full well..that so much of our history is constantly upgraded with new findings. Who knows what the stance on Olmecs will be in 50 years. All I'm saying here...dont get "married" to official things.

Can we stipulate here that there is no reason at all to believe things for which we have exactly zero evidence?


originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly


You can speculate all you want about when this civilization formed. However, if you read what Sitchin wrote about the picture we're talking about, you'll note that he's not speculating, he's lying.

He claims the banner shows the Olmec originating in 3000 BC. The banner certainly shows no such thing.

Do you doubt your own eyes?


You know...let's break that down. Which part specifically are you saying he lied about ? the 3000 BC date on the panel...or that it was concerning Olmecs ?

I'm simply not seeing this "lie". Care to help me out and understand ?

hey man, it's your link. Didn't you read it?

The outstanding museum on the Olmec civilization in Jalapa, in the Veracruz province of Mexico, included when it was built a wall panel showing the extent and dates of Mexico's various cultures. On my first visit there, I could hardly believe my eyes: The first (earliest) civilization, that of the Olmecs, was shown as begun circa 3000 B.C.!

I urged the members of my group to take pictures of me pointing to the date: Finally, the date claimed by me has been officially accepted!


Now, look at the picture that Sitchin himself picked out to illustrate this obvious and blantant lie. See any indication of Olmec there? But yet his bogus and made up date was "officially accepted?"


originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly


Imagine that. Facts influencing science.


I wish science is consistent about that. But it's not about science. Science is innocent...it's a tool in the hands of men. It's scientists that are the problem.

Sadly I'm constrained by the language barrier to properly express my views...which is why I will post this interesting link...in hope it can further explain why I dont discount crazies and I dont get "married" to "official" science.

If you have the will, read up on it and let me know what you think.

Is there some reason you assume that I haven't already read up on it?

Harte



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 05:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Harte

this will be my last post on the subject...




In the way of changing the word "civilization" to the word "culture."
Like I said, there is a difference.


You are right on this one. Mea culpa...it was not about moving goalposts...now that you pointed it out...I do indeed use these terms interchangeably, but completely innocently. At the moment...I meant the same thing.




Can we stipulate here that there is no reason at all to believe things for which we have exactly zero evidence?



Believe is such a strong word man. I like to say..."i'm not ruling it out"...even though evidence is at a certain point in time..non existent. Same way I don't believe in God...but I'm not ruling it out.

But...to each his own...we are here simply to discuss it.




Now, look at the picture that Sitchin himself picked out to illustrate this obvious and blantant lie. See any indication of Olmec there? But yet his bogus and made up date was "officially accepted?"


I downloaded it, zoomed in...and except for the period names...those little tiny letters on the panel itself are unreadable.
At least I'm not able to see what it states. How did you read it ? You are claiming that it doesnt say Olmec...then surely you see what it does say. Care to transcribe it here for me here ? It would really end the debate right here and now...and I will concede that Sitchin is a liar.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 05:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Marduk




As for his lie, he is pointing at a timeline and claiming that it says "Olmec" at 3000bce. It doesn't say that at all, if you download the picture and enlarge it you can clearly see that his claim is patently false. This has been explained to you several times now, is there a reason you are being obtuse ?


same question to you as to Harte. IF you could pretty please tell me what it says...I'm just not seeing it, apart from period names. Are you using some kind of special software ? I'm honestly asking in the interest of proving what you guys say.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: Marduk




As for his lie, he is pointing at a timeline and claiming that it says "Olmec" at 3000bce. It doesn't say that at all, if you download the picture and enlarge it you can clearly see that his claim is patently false. This has been explained to you several times now, is there a reason you are being obtuse ?


same question to you as to Harte. IF you could pretty please tell me what it says...I'm just not seeing it, apart from period names. Are you using some kind of special software ? I'm honestly asking in the interest of proving what you guys say.


Where Sitchin is pointing is to the 3000 BPE mark and it says "preclasico temprano" which in English would be the equivalent of archaic preclassic. It is the demarcation between what in Anthropology we would call 'Paleo-Indian' and the first organized settlements based on agriculture. It predates the Olmec by at least a millennium and the period roughly extends from 3500 BPE until 2000 BPE when we see the beginnings of culture beyond agricultural settlements.



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join