Scientists deliver blow to Clovis myth about how people arrived in America

a reply to: Snarl

oooh ta for that. I haven't seen it will watch it with a mug of cocoa in a bit and possibly a croissant too as after all we are European

a reply to: Byrd

or she was completely accurate and this story is true instead....always a possibility

Dating cover up

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
a reply to: Byrd

or she was completely accurate and this story is true instead....always a possibility

Dating cover up

Worst source on the internet
here's why, from the intro page

S8int.com (saint.com) is a unique and personal collection of articles, artifacts, commentary, photographs and creationist oriented research curated from a literal, bible believing, Christian perspective.

We take a biblical perspective on science, without apology!

They are quite happy to believe that man was on every continent early on after the Great flood of Noah..

My own take is that we were possibly created as modern man ( by who and for what ultimate purpose I'm not sure) and then seeded around as a safeguard for our survival. I think Europeans were transported here before Asians came across from Siberia and intermingled. But there was that comet strike that ended the ice age and wiped out much of man on the east coast which pretty much ended that culture.

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: 727Sky
South America and maybe central America would be the place to look for older ruins in this part of the world.

Didn't some female archaeologist find such evidence ... and subsequently had her reputation smeared and her career destroyed?

I distinctly remember something about an Out of Place construction site going up right over the top of her dig so no one else could come back and re-examine what she had found.

Anyway ... the Official Story doesn't cut it. It was a bunch of boneheads who got together tens of thousands of years later and 'mad s# up' ... same thing they always do in academia.

Considering that Virginia Steen-McIntyre continued to publish in peer reviewed journals all through the 70's and into the early 80's, I would be hard pressed to say that reaction to a paper she published after the 1969 dig season led to her being blacklisted. She simply didn't gain a lot of recognition for the subsequent work that she did and chose to retroactively blame the dig at Hueyatlaco for this. She has made a considerable career promoting fringe hypothesis by beating Hueyatlaco's dead horse.

The biggest issue with Steen-McIntyre's work, was that at the time of the Hueyatlaco dig, she was just a Geology Grad Student working under archaeologist, Cynthia Irwin-Williams Dr. Irwin-Williams also wrote a paper giving the date of 250 KA and she had quite a distinguished career after Hueyatlaco which kind of moots the point that writing a paper with a date that ancient, ruined Steen-McIntyre's career. What led to any degree of flak for Steen-McIntyre, was that she rushed to publish a paper out from under Irwin-Williams feet. It was in poor taste to try to one up someone who was acting as your mentor by stepping on their toes in such an unprofessional manner.

Her lack of professionalism and the quality of her work is what impacted her long term career goals, not publishing a date for a N. American site that appeared to be too ancient for current paradigms as the existed in the late 60's. Over the course of the next 40+ years, evidence was reexamined, new tests were completed and new techniques derived. While there is certainly the possibility of an extremely old date, that window is slowly shrinking and it is nowhere near 250 KA.

For the record, it was learning about sites like Hueyatlaco(amongst other oddities) that made me want to study Anthropology in the first place. Unfortunately for those pushing a "fringe" or "alternative" explanation, as badly as I may want to believe something, I have to follow the actual facts and the evidence. Humans living in Mexico BEFORE Homo Sapiens emerged in East Africa stretches the loosest boundaries of incredulousness.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Harte

2 million years ago? What?
not even close, the oldest ancestors of the mammoth were roughly that old, but they didn't migrate until relatively recently to the america's. If they migrated here 2 million years ago.

You're a little off on the time frame. The first Mammoths evolved in Africa ~5 MA, they made their way into Europe ~3 MA and made their way across Beringia ~ 1.5 MA.

www.livescience.com...

a reply to: Byrd

There goes that knowledge filter again.

If she says she was cut off, I believe she was cut off.

'They' did everything to discredit her because she stole somebody else's thunder. I get it. The other person paid ... or came up with the funding ... and thought they had every right to control the narrative.

Isn't that really the way it works?

Hint: Don't leave us with a reason to question your integrity. Folks on my side of the story do the same damn conniving thing. Let's start being really honest and when "I don't know." ☜ (note the period) is the answer ... let's say that.

-Cheers

a reply to: peter vlar

I didn't say it. It's how I remember her saying it in the video I added to the thread.

I also admire the heck out of Charlton Heston ... Love hearing that guy talk. When a guy like him is speaking ... you know he's telling the 'truth'.

a reply to: SLAYER69

Controversial finding such as the true age of some Peruvian sites may be finally coming within realistic striking distance. Professor Arthur Poznansky examined the ruins of Tiahuanako (Tiwanaku) in Bolivia (megalithic ruins of Kalasaya and Puma Punku) for forty years as well as German cosmologist Edmund Kiss, established that these ancient enigmatic structures of giant stone blocks had been built somewhere around 14-17 thousand years ago.

I am for one in this camp. I spent some time going over the "studies" that are commonly used to "debunk" the Ancient Alien theories. What I found is a lot of them just toss in 'best guess' declarations. Now, I realize Im being kind of a dick by not listing them, arguing each point, etc---but Im not really in the mood nor do I have the time to allocate towards arguing back & forth over stuff most people have dogmatic beliefs over.

For those open to true skepticism and the realization as humans, we simply do *not* know as much as we think, what I found interesting was searching out all the old Megalithic structures, around the world, and the similar 'notches' that can be found on them. As you point out a few of them have been dated at times anywhere from 10k-20k years old. There's also vitrification and what appears to be purposely warped stone.

The comparison I found very striking was the Osireion, Sacsayhuaman, Puma Punku, Tiwanaku, as well as Japanese megalithic ruins. All seem to have similar remnants in the stones in certain places.

Osireion I think is my favourite, because the official word on it by Egyptologists, which I read it was literally labelled as a hoax (an ancient fake to make it "appear" older.) and it barely gets a blurb on wiki. even though its amazingly constructed.

There's a few other ones as well, and correlations. There are also geological explanations for certain rock formations I want to look into as well. They've dated certain formations to 200,000 years, but in some cases they look like dressed rocks. Coincidentally, there are oral traditions speaking about gods planting rocks in those places.

The Ural mountains is an area where a bunch of people think there are megalithic structures, but to geologists they are obviously geological. There is indeed some signs of megalithic construction from what I saw in certain pics. My question there is, is it possible people could be tricked with no logical or reasonable known explanation for giant megaliths pre-dating everything we know?

Is it any wonder the producers the producers of Ancient Aliens came up with Giorgio's hairstyle? Or asked David Childress to hold accentuate his characteristic style of speaking, just absurd enough for both to make their statements seem silly. Especially when the scripts are very purposely stringing non-sequiters together as if it were *trying* to discredit the arguments.

A couple other questions (though Im not seeking answers at the moment):

The water erosion on the sphinx, the sphinx's from Serapeum and the Greek histories that speak about it as ancient remnants. The alignments ancient structures have with the stars. Seemingly ignored, the Puma Punku I think were enlightening. I wish I had more time to look into these things, but they are all fascinating.

a reply to: Marduk

Now if the Bible which Christians follow state the world is only 6000 yrs old what reason could S8int.com have for falsifying or even publishing Virginia Steen-McIntyre's story which clearly states that she believes the planet and more importantly the human race as being over 300,000 yrs old in direct contradiction to the Bible teachings?

The whole system of this young science (like many others) based on funding coupled with the need for peer reviewing and the published or be damned philosophy is a system which can often end up stagnating due to fear of being ostracised and the need to find what the funding body wants you to find. Stepping outside the mainstream and being controversial is still not the done thing...unless you can get a large group of already published peers to agree with you. Often controversial findings are not even investigated unless it can possibly add to already known and accepted theories

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
a reply to: Marduk

Now if the Bible which Christians follow state the world is only 6000 yrs old what reason could S8int.com have for falsifying or even publishing Virginia Steen-McIntyre's story which clearly states that she believes the planet and more importantly the human race as being over 300,000 yrs old in direct contradiction to the Bible teachings?

Because it shows academia arguing about radiometric dating, for which they already have this typical stock answer

source

The Bible gives a much different picture and explains that relying on man’s reasoning is foolishness. A fear of God and reverence for His Word is the beginning of wisdom. Starting with the Bible and developing a model for dating events in earth history will lead us to the truth. The Bible gives us a much more reliable history of the earth as it was recorded by God

Ergo, it just reinforces "look at the silly heathens making dating claims which we know are false because "Bible"

a reply to: peter vlar

What led to any degree of flak for Steen-McIntyre, was that she rushed to publish a paper out from under Irwin-Williams feet. It was in poor taste to try to one up someone who was acting as your mentor by stepping on their toes in such an unprofessional manner.

You sure that's what happened? Because number Irwin-Williams were pushing an earlier age, and who knows, maybe Virginia Steen-Mcyntire published hers "out from under Irwin-Williams feet" because there was a plan to kill it or misrepresent the evidence?

For the next several years, the excavation team were often at odds as they discussed how to move forward with the Hueyatlaco findings. Malde and Steen-McIntyre argued that the 200,000 ybp findings were valid, while Irwin-Williams argued in favor of a more recent -- though still somewhat controversial -- figure of 20,000 ybp. Webb and Clark[6] suggest that her promoting the 20,000ybp date is "particularly puzzling," as it was unsupported by any evidence the team uncovered.

Prevented from writing the doctoral she set out to do:

The delays forced Steen-McIntyre to write her doctoral dissertation not on Hueyatlaco as planned, but rather on the dating of volcanic ash in geographic strata.

peter velar posted: Williams Dr. Irwin-Williams also wrote a paper giving the date of 250 KA and she had quite a distinguished career after Hueyatlaco which kind of moots the point that writing a paper with a date that ancient,

Indeed.

Despite leading the original excavations, Irwin-Williams never published a final report on the site.

en.wikipedia.org...

Something I notice, when I actually have time to look into certain controversies (and by no means did I here, just a quick search) is that people are so quick to reject anything out of the establishment conclusions, while simultaneously rejecting the fact that the establishment pushes certain truisms and 'established' truths. Often when you actually take the time to look into these controversies, you do indeed find exactly what is levelled at the establishment.

Reminds me of the guy who "debunked" Stitchen, Michael S Heiser, (a Hebrew scholar-bible college influence), no surprise he always treats all Biblical-history establishment truths as the ultimate truths, and rejects anything outside of that dogma. Then you find just blatant misrepresented claims, like where he infers there's no mention of Annunaki - and writes an open letter challenging Stichen to find a single instance of "Annunaki" ---he even arrogantly lists a single Cuneform database which doesn't have one, (or at least not how he instructed) and tells people to search it the same as "proof" I guess.)

....the reality being Sitchen & others are referring to the Anunna gods, -ki, or -ke

Now, even if Stichen is wrong, Dr Eisner still misrepresented the issue, and he is still pushing the Hebrew-Establishment view which he is loyal to. He knows what the Anunna are, and he knows what the ending -ke is, he can easily piece that together.

Him challenging people to search a database implying Annunaki is made up, is just him obfuscating and trying to confuse people. [url=http://bdts.filol.csic.es/ficha_simple_ventana_lexema.php?miReferencia=0]Here's one, and here's another.



Now, Im not saying I agree with all Stichen's translations, or anything like that. All Im saying is the argument that's being used to "debunk" him is just as bad as what they are claiming he is doing. If you wanted to properly address it, you'd explain the meaning between Anunna, Anunke, and Annunake (Annunaki). Just an intelligent explanation as to why this means that, nothing more.

But I noticed in other places, Eisner does similar feats of mental masturbation to push his dogma, (a dogma developed in establishment though I might add) and it seems its a more common practice than anyone would ever expect.

My point being is that if there were a global group of very wealthy, powerful individuals, who have huge influences over schools of thought, professional societies, & the retained priceless private collections that many have no access to & they can also exert their influence of archaeological sites when needed, (ownership, buying out, permits, support-financial, political, etc, etc) it seems very feasible a group of wealthy royals or an aristocracy (whatever you wish to call them) with their influence over establishment thought and outside factors, could indeed block or prevent certain realities from being discovered. Even if they just delay the inevitable, it probably suits their agenda.

And it's not like these ideas or histories sprouted up over night, they've been writing the history books a certain way since the days of the massive influence the Vatican wield worldwide. We are only a few years out of 9.11 and if you put 10 people in a room to discuss who did what and what part of the "official story" is legit, and what is fiction, good luck getting them to agree.

Certainly it's not an indisputable truth.

When we find an "anomaly" we seem to just ignore it, when it reality we should be putting it front and centre. It's the paradox. The challenge. It's the difference between light acting like a wave or an electron. It's the entire reason for searching the unknown. We treat it like it's poison.

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
a reply to: Marduk

Now if the Bible which Christians follow state the world is only 6000 yrs old what reason could S8int.com have for falsifying or even publishing Virginia Steen-McIntyre's story which clearly states that she believes the planet and more importantly the human race as being over 300,000 yrs old in direct contradiction to the Bible teachings?

The whole system of this young science (like many others) based on funding coupled with the need for peer reviewing and the published or be damned philosophy is a system which can often end up stagnating due to fear of being ostracised and the need to find what the funding body wants you to find. Stepping outside the mainstream and being controversial is still not the done thing...unless you can get a large group of already published peers to agree with you. Often controversial findings are not even investigated unless it can possibly add to already known and accepted theories

Ok, where in the bible is the verse that says it's 6000 yo?

Where in the bible says the earth is any age at all?

Anyway, like some people are wrong about the age of the earth, people are wrong about the age of man.

It's like that, yes.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

I've no idea actually....I ain't a Christian...but from reading it seems all texts and the tenets of the Christian belief state the world is 6000 yrs old and then quote some strange long arsed calculation from geneologies etc. to prove it..either way my question was answered by Marduk who could be correct

Oh and Virginia isn't the only archaeologist who has been in the doghouse for daring to question the existing norms and think outside the percieved box, there are many others such as Louis Leakey and Ruth Dee Simpson who worked at the Calico site in California, excavating over 1000 tools dated 100,000 yrs old which again flew in the face of established "facts" and "evidence"

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
it seems all texts and the tenets of the Christian belief state the world is 6000 yrs old

That's a false argument. No where in the Bible is the age of the Earth defined. In fact, the text of the Bible is rather cryptic about a good many things where the frames of time are concerned.

Anyone throwing down that 6000 year old thingy ... well ... their integrity is right in the crapper.

Real science says we can see out about 14 billion light years into the universe. It's probably safe to assume the components of the Earth are just as old as that since everything came into being at the exact same 'singularity'.

Now ... somebody please explain to me how the Earth can only be 4.5 billion years old? ... When Einstein pretty much proved matter can neither be created nor destroyed.

And how old is the human race? Our bones don't really stand up to the test of time, do they?

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
it seems all texts and the tenets of the Christian belief state the world is 6000 yrs old

That's a false argument. No where in the Bible is the age of the Earth defined.?

Errr,
Ussher chronology

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
it seems all texts and the tenets of the Christian belief state the world is 6000 yrs old

That's a false argument. No where in the Bible is the age of the Earth defined.?

Errr,
Ussher chronology

Yep ... you're one of the guy's whose integrity is right there in the dumper waiting for the final flush. I hope it's attached to you tighter than Peter Pan's shadow was to him.

The Ussher chronology came out 1700 years after the friggin' Bible. It took 1700 years for somebody to be that blatantly stoopit and only another few hundred for you to join the conga line.

a reply to: Snarl


lol!!! Conga line..

a reply to: Snarl

Its not a matter of integrity nor is it a matter of what I or the other poster believe I am just stating what is "said" to be true by those believers. Was asked how the earth was stated to be 6000 yrs old by Christians which is by their interpretation of the bible and various geneologies etc. Never said I believed it just stating what is as I believe so was Marduk who just pointed out the Ussher Chronology. There are those believing this as fact and as such some scientists also believe it depending on the religious leanings. This type of thing is where science & religion cross into each other's paths and sometimes come up with results that are biased to personal belief systems

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
it seems all texts and the tenets of the Christian belief state the world is 6000 yrs old

That's a false argument. No where in the Bible is the age of the Earth defined.?

Errr,
Ussher chronology

Yep ... you're one of the guy's whose integrity is right there in the dumper waiting for the final flush. I hope it's attached to you tighter than Peter Pan's shadow was to him.

No, I'm the guy telling you, you got it wrong, the Ussher chronology is the basis for the 4004BCE date so beloved by creationists. Its based on genealogies, yanno, counting backwards s l o w l y



As for my integrity, that's fine thanks, maybe you could get some