Originally posted by zorgon
There are little bits of evidence found from time to time . An off the wall author managed to find a few and present them. Its a good starting point
because they are tangible evidence, no matter wether you agree with his theories or not {Von Danekin{sp?} "Chariot of the Gods" etc.
Erich von Daniken has admitted to fabricating evidence to support his claims. So, it's not a matter of "whether or not you agree with his
theories," it's a matter of "whether or not you so badly want to believe that you are willing to stand up for and believe in a man that has already
told you that he is lying to your face."
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)!
Originally posted by zorgon
Main stream archeologists are a funny lot. They form a theory, apply for a grant, then go dig... if they find something out of place... oh say
surgical steel scapels in a 5000 year old grave
it would mess up there theory, may lose their funding, and be ridiculed by their peers...
So the artifact goes into some dark cellar in some museum never to see the light of day again... {remember that warehouse in Indian Jones "In Search
of the Lost Ark"? Thats what I'm talking about!
I wonder if you could possibly provide one single source that supports this slander against scientists?
Originally posted by zorgon
A stainless steel cube found in a bed of coal in Britain, showing the imprint of a fossil leak on the steel and the coal. {Last I heard five years ago
it was still on display in the British Museum...
Source please, that is, if one actually exists other than some creationists' crapola webpage.
Originally posted by zorgon
A preacher took his daughter fossil hunting. They found a fossil bearing two foot prints... a left and right shoe print with pointy toes and heals
similar to ours today... under one heel was a crushed Trilobite, extinct some millions of years ago. {I will have to track down the info on that
again... its been a few years since I looked at this stuff}
Nope, this claim's been debunked to death, over and over, here and elsewhere. It's one of your run of the mill "young Earth" claims that are made
to support the "theory" that the Earth is only 6,000 years old or so.
The specimen does contain at least two real trilobites (which are abundant in the outcrops around Antelope Springs), but the supposed sandal print
does not stand up to close scrutiny. The overall shape is seen to consist of a spall pattern in a concretion-like slab, similar to many others in the
area. There is no evidence that it was ever part of a striding sequence, nor that it was ever on an exposed bedding plane, as real prints would be.
The "print" is very shallow and shows no sign of pressure deformation or foot movement at its margin. However, on one side of the print, extending
to the side of the supposed toe end is a rim or lip that is typical of similar concretions from the area, but which is incompatible in position and
form to be a pressure ridge. Also, of the two halves of rock, the side that has the heel indented shows raised relief at the toe end, and vice versa,
whereas in a real print one should show impression or raised relief throughout each half.
The supposed "heel" demarcation is actually a crack that runs beyond the boundary of the supposed print...
Some creationists have noted that the find was "confirmed" by "Dr. Cook." However, Dr. Cook was a metallurgist with little paleontological
experience or knowledge. In his own report on the find Cook states, "...I am by no means an authority on fossils and footprints." He adds that the
print seems to "speak for itself". However, upon careful inspection the evidence does not support Cook's conclusions.
From your Discovery Channel source:
When archaeologists excavated an unusual 2000-year-old burial site in the outskirts of Colchester, England -- the oldest recorded town in Britain
-- they uncovered various vessels, a dinner setting and a wooden game board. But what brought the find to international attention was a surprisingly
sophisticated medical kit dated at about 50 A.D.
"The medical pieces are extraordinary," says Philip Crummy, director of the Colchester Archeological Trust. "There are lots of examples of medical
kits in continental Europe, but this is the first example from Britain. It's very special because it's a very early example and it's British."
First of all, ask yourself why
this "out of place" find ended up on a public webpage, and on a television show to boot? Somebody smuggle it
out of your Speilbergian "shadowy cellar in some museum" ala Indiana Jones? Please tell us why
these particular archaeologists let this
amazing and obvious evidence of ancient advanced civilizations slip out into the public eye. What does this say about your "theory" of
archaeological conspiracy?
Secondly, don't have a cow, man. Surgical kits
at least as advanced as this
one have been found in archaeological sites that are thousands of years older than the British site described here (50 AD.) On second thought, I
wonder how we heard about these
much older surgical kits? I guess those archaeologists just can't keep their traps shut when it comes to
archaeological finds of any significance. But that's what they are
supposed to let us know about, right? Now I'm confused.
Harte
In the
search you might run across a few secret societies. 
