Pyramids......sound and water???

Why would scientists try to hide the truth and avoid any test of their hypothesis? Their motivations are equally transparent. If it can be proved that the Egyptians did not build the Great Pyramid in 2500 BC using primitive methods, or if the Sphinx can be dated to 9000 BC, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. Orthodox views of cultural evolution are based upon a chronology of civilisation having started in Sumeria no earlier than 4000 BC. The theory does not permit an advanced civilisation to have existed prior to that time. End of discussion. Archaeology and history lose their meaning without a fixed timeline as a point of reference.

Since the theory of "cultural evolution" has been tied to Darwin's general theory of evolution, even more is at stake. Does this explain why facts, anomalies and enigmas are denied, suppressed and/or ignored? Yes, it does. The biological sciences today are based on Darwinism.
Pressure Tactics: The Ica Stones of Peru

Now we turn to another, very different case. In 1966, Dr Javier Cabrera received a stone as a gift from a poor local farmer in his native Ica, Peru. A fish was carved on the stone, which would not have meant much to the average villager but it did mean a lot to the educated Dr Cabrera. He recognised it as a long-extinct species. This aroused his curiosity. He purchased more stones from the farmer, who said he had collected them near the river after a flood.

Dr Cabrera accumulated more and more stones, and word of their existence and potential import reached the archaeological community. Soon, the doctor had amassed thousands of "Ica stones". The sophisticated carvings were as enigmatic as they were fascinating. Someone had carved men fighting with dinosaurs, men with telescopes and men performing operations with surgical equipment. They also contained drawings of lost continents.

Several of the stones were sent to Germany and the etchings were dated to remote antiquity. But we all know that men could not have lived at the time of dinosaurs; Homo sapiens has only existed for about 100,000 years.

The BBC got wind of this discovery and swooped down to produce a documentary about the Ica stones. The media exposure ignited a storm of controversy. Archaeologists criticised the Peruvian government for being lax about enforcing antiquities laws (but that was not their real concern). Pressure was applied to government officials.

The farmer who had been selling the stones to Cabrera was arrested; he claimed to have found them in a cave but refused to disclose the exact location to authorities, or so they claimed.

This case was disposed of so artfully that it would do any corrupt politician proud. The Peruvian government threatened to prosecute and imprison the farmer. He was offered and accepted a plea bargain; he then recanted his story and "admitted" to having carved the stones himself. That seems highly implausible, since he was uneducated and unskilled and there were 11,000 stones in all. Some were fairly large and intricately carved with animals and scenes that the farmer would not have had knowledge of without being a palaeontologist. He would have needed to work every day for several decades to produce that volume of stones. However, the underlying facts were neither here nor there. The Ica stones were labelled "hoax" and forgotten.

The case did not require a head-to-head confrontation or public discrediting of non-scientists by scientists; it was taken care of with invisible pressure tactics. Since it was filed under "hoax", the enigmatic evidence never had to be dealt with, as it did in the next example.
Censorship of "Forbidden" Thinking: Evidence for Mankind's Great Antiquity

The case of author Michael Cremo is well documented, and it also demonstrates how the scientific establishment openly uses pressure tactics on the media and government. His book Forbidden Archeology examines many previously ignored examples of artifacts that prove modern man's antiquity far exceeds the age given in accepted chronologies.

The examples which he and his co-author present are controversial, but the book became far more controversial than the contents when it was used in a documentary.

In 1996, NBC broadcast a special called The Mysterious Origins of Man, which featured material from Cremo's book. The reaction from the scientific community went off the Richter scale. NBC was deluged with letters from irate scientists who called the producer "a fraud" and the whole program "a hoax".

But the scientists went further than this--a lot further. In an extremely unconscionable sequence of bizarre moves, they tried to force NBC not to rebroadcast the popular program, but that effort failed. Then they took the most radical step of all: they presented their case to the federal government and requested the Federal Communications Commission to step in and bar NBC from airing the program again.

This was not only an apparent infringement of free speech and a blatant attempt to thwart commerce, it was an unprecedented effort to censor intellectual discourse. If the public or any government agency made an attempt to handcuff the scientific establishment, the public would never hear the end of it.

The letter to the FCC written by Dr Allison Palmer, President of the Institute for Cambrian Studies, is revealing:

At the very least, NBC should be required to make substantial prime-time apologies to their viewing audience for a sufficient period of time so that the audience clearly gets the message that they were duped. In addition, NBC should perhaps be fined sufficiently so that a major fund for public science education can be established.

I think we have some good leads on who "the Brain Police" are. And I really do not think "conspiracy" is too strong a word--because for every case of this kind of attempted suppression that is exposed, 10 others are going on successfully. We have no idea how many enigmatic artifacts or dates have been labelled "error" and tucked away in storage warehouses or circular files, never to see the light of day.

Data Rejection: Inconvenient Dating in Mexico

Then there is the high-profile case of Dr Virginia Steen-McIntyre, a geologist working for the US Geological Survey (USGS), who was dispatched to an archaeological site in Mexico to date a group of artifacts in the 1970s. This travesty also illustrates how far established scientists will go to guard orthodox tenets.

McIntyre used state-of-the-art equipment and backed up her results by using four different methods, but her results were off the chart. The lead archaeologist expected a date of 25,000 years or less, and the geologist's finding was 250,000 years or more..

source:
www.unitedearth.com.au...


(MOD EDIT: please dont' cut and paste other folks' websites. This is against the TOS for ATS. Discuss what's on them, present a few paragraphs and link to them.)

[edit on 20-1-2007 by Byrd]

STORMTROOPERS FOR DARWINISM

The public does not seem at all aware of the fact that the scientific establishment has a double standard when it comes to the free flow of information. In essence, it goes like this... Scientists are highly educated, well trained and intellectually capable of processing all types of information, and they can make the correct critical distinctions between fact and fiction, reality and fantasy. The unwashed public is simply incapable of functioning on this high mental plane.

The noble ideal of the scientist as a highly trained, impartial, apolitical observer and assembler of established facts into a useful body of knowledge seems to have been shredded under the pressures and demands of the real world. Science has produced many positive benefits for society; but we should know by now that science has a dark, negative side. Didn't those meek fellows in the clean lab coats give us nuclear bombs and biological weapons? The age of innocence ended in World War II.

Source:
www.unitedearth.com.au...



MOD EDIT: Please don't copy other folks' websites. Summarize, discuss, link to them. Copying them in whole is a violation of our policies.. and often of their site policies, too.

[edit on 20-1-2007 by Byrd]

And that is the last one

TABOO OR NOT TABOO?

So, the monitors of "good thinking" are not just the elite of the scientific community, as we have seen in several cases; they are television producers and magazine editors as well. It seems clear that they are all driven by the singular imperative of furthering "public science education", as the president of the Cambrian Institute so aptly phrased it.

However, there is a second item on the agenda, and that is to protect the public from "unscientific" thoughts and ideas that might infect the mass mind. We outlined some of those taboo subjects at the beginning of the article; now we should add that it is also "unwholesome" and "unacceptable" to engage in any of the following research pursuits: paranormal phenomena, UFOs, cold fusion, free energy and all the rest of the "pseudo-sciences". Does this have a familiar ring to it? Are we hearing the faint echoes of religious zealotry?

Who ever gave science the mission of engineering and directing the inquisitive pursuits of the citizenry of the free world? It is all but impossible for any scientific paper that has anti-Darwinian ramifications to be published in a mainstream scientific journal. It is also just as impossible to get the "taboo" subjects even to the review table, and you can forget about finding your name under the title of any article in Nature unless you are a credentialled scientist, even if you are the next Albert Einstein.

To restate how this conspiracy begins, it is with two filters: credentials and peer review. Modern science is now a maze of such filters set up to promote certain orthodox theories and at the same time filter out that data already prejudged to be unacceptable. Evidence and merit are not the guiding principles; conformity and position within the established community have replaced objectivity, access and openness.

Scientists do not hesitate to launch the most outrageous personal attacks against those they perceive to be the enemy. Eminent palaeontologist Louis Leakey penned this acid one-liner about Forbidden Archeology: "Your book is pure humbug and does not deserve to be taken seriously by anyone but a fool." Once again, we see the thrust of a personal attack; the merits of the evidence presented in the book are not examined or debated. It is a blunt, authoritarian pronouncement.

In a forthcoming instalment, we will examine some more documented cases and delve deeper into the subtler dimensions of the conspiracy.

lol
gotta laugh at that outburst from Nexus magazine

NEXUS is an international bi-monthly alternative news magazine, covering the fields of: Health Alternatives; Suppressed Science; Earth's Ancient Past; UFOs & the Unexplained; and Government Cover-Ups.

see that
its an alternative news magazine. thats alternative meaning not real
claiming that Michael Cremo is credible is a case in point
I've heard him speak at the fkcuk and not one piece of his evidence of mankinds ancient past was from later than 1900
now you can take that as either there is a global conspiracy of every archaeologist and palaeontologist on earth who are all conspiring together to hide the truth or
there is no more recent evidence because it doesn't exist


heard of Occhams razor ?
you can read the truth about Cremo here
www.ramtops.co.uk...
so bearing in mind that this article claims Cremo as its poster boy and I have just proven hes a quack well
down goes your house of cards

Should I now post articles from magazines that claim the english royal family are all lizard aliens from another planet that eat new born babies and expect the other posters here to be stupid enough to believe that as you seem to think them stupid enough to believe the rubbish that you just posted

coz as I said I studied phsychology

If that were really true Telos that you did study that then I would suggest and of course this is just my opinion that if you did as you say actually study the discipline then you might actually be able to spell it correctly


[edit on 19-1-2007 by Marduk]

[edit on 19-1-2007 by Marduk]

Originally posted by Marduk
lol
gotta laugh at that outburst from Nexus magazine

NEXUS is an international bi-monthly alternative news magazine, covering the fields of: Health Alternatives; Suppressed Science; Earth's Ancient Past; UFOs & the Unexplained; and Government Cover-Ups.

see that
its an alternative news magazine. thats alternative meaning not real
claiming that Michael Cremo is credible is a case in point
I've heard him speak at the fkcuk and not one piece of his evidence of mankinds ancient past was from later than 1900
now you can take that as either there is a global conspiracy of every archaeologist and palaeontologist on earth who are all conspiring together to hide the truth or
there is no more recent evidence because it doesn't exist

heard of Occhams razor ?
Should I now post articles from magazines that claim the english royal family are all lizard aliens from another planet that eat new born babies and expect the other posters here to be stupid enough to believe that as you seem to think them stupid enough to believe the rubbish that you just posted

And may I ask how that post benefitted anyone that is going to read it? If you have nothing to add, please feel free to NOT post. If you feel the need to post, please do so with decorum.

you jumped too soon
i linked to a very credible site which disproves Telos's claim completely
if you don't see the value of that then its because your agenda is in favour of mankind being on earth for 100,000,000 years
because that is what Michael Cremo actually believes
he doesnt mention it anywhere in his books

besides which
the 6 posts (count em) are completely off topic
and so as form of rebuttal to mine is yours

Originally posted by Marduk
besides which
the 6 posts (count em) are completely off topic
and so as form of rebuttal to mine is yours

No it isn't. Reread what I said. If you are going to post here, do it with "decorum". May I suggest that you read, or reread the T&C.

I know your still viewing Mondo, I found this.. www.gizapower.com...

Much better photos, and some analysis, from an apparent master crafstman. I'm reading up on Dunn right now.

I'm sure it won't be long, before a debunking link shows up, but the 1000 words or so I've read so far, have intrigued me to at least read more.

the topic of this thread is Pyramids "sound and water"
now I would like you to explain to me just how posting six pages from an alternative magazine which rails against the scientific establishment is on topic for this thread
from the terms and conditions that you so graciously supplied

1f.) Relevant Content: You will not post messages that are clearly outside of the stated topic of any forums nor disrupt a forum by deliberately posting repeated irrelevant messages or copies of identical messages (also known as "flooding").

fyi
here is what Byrd (super moderator) has already posted in this thread

This section tends to focus on well rounded arguments from evidence.

Arguments from the "let's do a thought experiment" are shuffled off to Skunk Works. We don't discourage these, but this section is for discussing known history (and therefore the links.)

I can, of course, move it to Skunk Works (where I actually do NOT participate) and folks can theorize without being bothered by historical evidence to their hearts' content.

Just like the Science forum, this is the section for discusssing evidence and not speculation. We have the same rules over there, too.


So........ What's the call, folks?

Do you want to discuss evidence here in the Ancient Civ culture (which means you have to post links and discuss evidence) or do you want me to move it to Skunk Works so that you can discuss speculation?

so I guess that means you just got outranked doesnt it
clearly the previous six posts were so far off topic that this whole thread should now be moved to Skunk works
and clearly as you believe they were on thread its you who should be doing the moving
n'est pas ?

I'm sure it won't be long, before a debunking link shows up, but the 1000 words or so I've read so far, have intrigued me to at least read more.

I don't think its possible to debunk Edward Leedskalnin as his achievement is there for all to see
but his story does contain a word of warning
he died of malnutrition and kidney failure a result of working himself too hard




[edit on 19-1-2007 by Marduk]

[edit on 19-1-2007 by Marduk]

I meant Christopher Dunn. Do you have any info on him, I'm not concerned about his GizaPower theories, just his credentials as an engineer.

hes an engineer
but he has no egyptology qualifications and most of his ideas were debunked as soon as he stated them

I have a material that I'm posting here. Is not from internet otherwise I would have provided the link. So i'm posting it here as it is.

if its not from the internet then how do you explain this
www.nexusmagazine.com...
which is word for word the same as the 6 pages you just posted

so that claim by you is clearly a lie
where are you claiming you got it from ?

also your post is in breach of the T&C in two areas

1f.) Relevant Content: You will not post messages that are clearly outside of the stated topic of any forums nor disrupt a forum by deliberately posting repeated irrelevant messages or copies of identical messages (also known as "flooding").

you entire six pages of post are completely off topic

2a.) Identity Spoofing: You will not impersonate any person or entity, forge headers or otherwise manipulate identifiers in order to disguise the origin of any posting

your lie that this is not from the internet is a clear attempt by you to disguise the origin of the post

I will now suggest that Intrepid who has taken a keen interest in terms and conditions in this thread (for some reason) issues you a warning

hmmm you don't change do you?

I said is not from internet coz I have as a word file. If I knew that was from that webpage I would have posted as I did in the past. Next time don't assume a role that has not been asigned to you. Let the mods and smods do their jobs. I know you're good with weblinks but this is not the case.
Don't challenge the messenger but the message.

Originally posted by Marduk

coz as I said I studied phsychology

If that were really true Telos that you did study that then I would suggest and of course this is just my opinion that if you did as you say actually study the discipline then you might actually be able to spell it correctly

English is my second language and I'm proud the way I speak and write it. But you wouldn't understand. Anyway, before I hit again the ignore buton I honestly thought you've changed. Judging by your last posts I thought 'this guy finaly set up his mind and decided to be more "civilized" '... but I see I was very wrong. Not that I care off, just I feel sorry seeing all this nice threads getting ruined by an incorrigible inmature and suck up and at the same time bonehead like you, which make it even worst. Silly isn't it? Is like that thing we all do in our daily needs, changes shapes but never the smell.

p.s. To the mods, smods: Sorry if I broke any ATS rule. If it is so has been done in good intention. I wish I could post all the material in a only reply but I have a limit of characters. As for the material it self being out of topic, I think is very in the topic considering the direction of the thread and the mentioning of surpressed facts and dogma in science.

[edit on 19-1-2007 by Telos]

Again some more material about suppression of the facts and archeological findings:

True Suppressions 2:"Ancient Civilisations: Six Great Enigmas"

We stand today at an unprecedented turning point in human history. In recent years two versions of ancient history have formed. One, we shall call ‘alternative’ history, the other we shall refer to as ‘official’ history.

The former ponders over a variety of anomalies and tries to make sense out of the corpus of evidence, i.e., the pyramids and timelines, why they were built, by whom and when. The latter conducts digs, catalogues pottery shards, and tries to defend its proposal there are no enigmas, and virtually everything is explained.

At one point perhaps as late as fifteen years ago these two camps seem to be engaged in an informal dialogue. That all changed after,

1) the Great Sphinx redating controversy caught Egyptologists off guard and, 2) the impact of Chris Dunn’s book The Giza Power Plant: Technologies of Ancient Egypt at the end of the last decade.

There is no more dialogue and no more polite, gloves on debate. The proponents of ‘official’ history have taken an increasingly political and ideological approach to the issue. They now do little more than offer pronouncements of the historical ‘truth’ on the one hand, and denounce of all those who dare challenge officialdom on the other.

In this context we offer evidence that our ‘scholars’, the gatekeepers who control our institutions of ‘higher learning’, refuse to consider.

[LINK

Another one:

True Suppressions 3:
Burrows Cave, "Newark Holy Stones, "Sopher Plates";

Fakes as Orthodox Science Claims--Or -- True Suppressions?

Here at s8int.com, we don't have the technical expertise to determine if the items discussed below are actual ancient artifacts or fakes. We know that science says that they are all forgeries and it would seem that just the law of probabilities if nothing else would dictate that the orthodox view be correct occasionally.

What we would say is that if one needs to forge thousands of artifacts to pull off one of these "hoaxes", it is hard to see where the profit motive is. If these guys are/were hoaxers you've certainly got to admire their diligence.

"THE MYSTERY CAVE"

By Russell E. Burrows

Retired army officer, Fellow of Institute for Study of American Cultures ISAAC) and Midwest Epigraphic Society (MES)
and
James P. Scherz, PhD Professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison

In 1982, Russell E. Burrows while living in southern Illinois discovered a remarkable cave, today known as "Burrows Cave". By 1992, two books had been written detailing the discovery and contents of Burrows Cave--"Mystery Cave of Many Faces" and "Rock Art Pieces from Burrows Cave".

The cave appears to have been a repository of ancient art and records from people much different than the Hopewell culture of the Ohio Valley and the later Anasazi of the American southwest.

Most of the pieces taken from the cave before 1989 and now in private collections are saucer-sized black rocks covered with remarkable art work, portraits, and letters from what was then undeciphered Old World alphabets...

LINK

I think alot of members in this board are enough educated to get their own opinion about what's going on this days. You have to be either blind or narrow mind to think that coz one of this has been said by Hancock or this has been posted in Nexus Magazine or...etc, is gotta be either a hoax or a disinformation by people who're seeking publicity. IMO this is a big insult to everybodys intelligence. At this point I don't care if the info comes from G. Hancock (whose books I've read them all) or from M. Cremo or W. Hart etc. What counts is the message and not who brings it. Bashing the messenger to avoid and discredit the importance of the message it self is just the known tactic (as you read in the first true suppression), character assassination" tactic. Therefore if you contaminate the source, you've changed the quality of the message. Alot fall for that, alot push for that and alot try to open their eyes and wake up from the lethargic sleep we've been in for so long.

This is my personal opinion!

Originally posted by Deus_Brandon
HOw hard is it to create ROCK ??? Does anyone know ??? or Stone .. or ??? And eventually does this petrify ??? Or get harder or turn into another sort of ROCK ??? Just wondering cause I know that Wood Petrifies over time ... Wondering if Stone would ever Turn to anything else ??

There's more than one item that's called "rock" and yes it can transform over time. Limestone, with heat and pressure metamorphises into marble.

I don't have time for a full set of references on this for you. Google for "metamorphic rock"... those are rocks that were changed to other things. You'll find the information very interesting!

As to "how long does it take to fossilize something or turn something into rock", the answer is "a long time" and 'there's no definite set of years." We find, for instance, mammoth bones that are only partly fossilized (rock replaces bone material) that are on the order of 50,000 years old.

So much of it depends on the conditions... there's really no easy answer there.

Originally posted by Telos

Why would scientists try to hide the truth and avoid any test of their hypothesis? Their motivations are equally transparent. If it can be proved that the Egyptians did not build the Great Pyramid in 2500 BC using primitive methods, or if the Sphinx can be dated to 9000 BC, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. Orthodox views of cultural evolution are based upon a chronology of civilisation having started in Sumeria no earlier than 4000 BC.

Whoever wrote that seems to be unaware of the archaeological material... and of the definition of "culture" and "cultural evolution." Scientists believe that culture began with the first hominids and has been evolving since then.

As to "oldest civilization", well, there's interesting doings in looking at stone age Europe:
www.buzzle.com...

Note that the 6,000 year old civilization hasn't caused shock and awe or been denounced by packs of roving archaeologists and historians. In fact, it's been embraced with interest.

The presence of Catal Hoyuk hasn't caused the field to fall apart... and it's older than the Sumerians:
archaeology.about.com...

I could give lots more examples, including Native American civilizations.

Since the theory of "cultural evolution" has been tied to Darwin's general theory of evolution

By whom? Folks who never read anything about "cultural evolution" other than the name? Cultural evolution has nothing to do with Darwin and everything to do with how civilizations get and distribute technology.
en.wikipedia.org...

The Ica Stones are well documented hoaxes. I know you don't want to believe this, but the "costumes" are actually incorrect (taken mostly from memory and not from reference) and the dinosaurs are definately incorrect in shape and form... though they do fit the cartoons of dinosaurs that were around during the time the stones were made.

If they'd been real, the clothing would have also been real and the dinos and pteros shown would have looked "weird" to the eyes of those in the 1940s and would later have been shown to be correct.

Anyway... have you actually checked out what the scientists are saying and their evidence? Or have you simply taken the word of some websites about this and a few books -- sites that say they're wrong?

Remember, good researchers go back and look at the original evidence (as much as possible) and read the original counterevidence as well. That's the hallmark of a good conspiracy researcher.

Conspiracy Believers, on the other hand, simply believe anything prefaced with "this is a conspiracy and The Man/government/academia doesn't want you to know the truth!"

I encourage you to be a Conspiracy Researcher and not a Conspiracy Believer.

[edit on 20-1-2007 by Byrd]

Byrd don't bother to convince me. And don't bother also to contradict me. I've been around enough and I'm educated very well to get my opinions based in what I read, see and hear.
I trully hope that one day you won't regreat all this trouble you're putting your self in by writing and trying to convice everbody. I really do hope not coz if it happens I'll be prepared and used to the idea. What about you?

Anyway as I said, my previous posts are my opinion and I don't propagate ideas to 'poison' people's mind. Is what I think it is. What you and others like you post I've known for years. Now I want to see if there is something on the other side of the coin.

Originally posted by Telos
Byrd don't bother to convince me. And don't bother also to contradict me. I've been around enough and I'm educated very well to get my opinions based in what I read, see and hear.

I'll certainly contradict you when you're wrong.

I trully hope that one day you won't regreat all this trouble you're putting your self in by writing and trying to convice everbody. I really do hope not coz if it happens I'll be prepared and used to the idea. What about you?

I write what I learn, and as I suggested YOU do, I read both sides of the issue and I examine the evidence. I go to original sources and try to get as many pictures and articles about the situation as I can. I also try to teach myself other languages and other scripts so I can read even a little of what they originally said.

Anyway as I said, my previous posts are my opinion and I don't propagate ideas to 'poison' people's mind. Is what I think it is. What you and others like you post I've known for years. Now I want to see if there is something on the other side of the coin.

Fair enough.

I'm moving this to Skunk Works (where the rules favor speculation and theorizing without constraint) -- there's lots of folks who'll enjoy this!

[edit on 20-1-2007 by Byrd]