Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Cuban 'Atlantis' Cover-Up Solved?

page: 5
30
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
Howdy EMM



Fact is a perception and changes from person to person, what you consider to be fact, others may not, myself, I try not to say anything's fact. What your talking about IMO, is the currently popular theory or theories and as we know, these change and evolve, so who knows what we'll discover in decades to come, to assume its wrong, as it is not yet proven or even 'popular' is like assuming guilt, until proving innocence.


Hans: Well let us look at Cuba what do the studies show? No sign of habitations before 8,000 years ago, no stone tools, pottery, indications of controlled fire, agriculture or death of certain species that are vulnerable to human hunters. None, that is not subject to one persons opinion. Those facts are there, openly published.


That is my point, fact is based on a current perception, the current perception is there were no inhabitants until 8000 years ago. What if and this is a big IF as I'm with Sky on this whether you like it or not lol, but IF there were a settlement found, in Cuba, that dated to around 10,000 years, would you still quote the 'fact' of 8,000? or would you altar this perception based on new data? I'm not saying all facts are bogus, I'm just trying to get you to see why I believe these things, we are told things are fact, right up until the point they are proved not to be, what if this find does show that there was a civilization in Cuba from 12,000 years ago, or even more incredibly 40,000 years ago?


From these facts we can then conclude, that going back several hundred thousand years there were no humans on Cuba or there were humans on Cuba who somehow didn’t follow other typical human behaviors and left no trace OR the scientists have been horribly unlucky and missed contrary evidence. Sky would add a fourth, that the evidence exists and its all being hidden by a massive conspiracy!


See I've seen supposed Giant teeth, Giant skeletons, I've seen pottery that isn't pottery, incredibly intricate, crafted from solid granite, cogs from 4000 years ago, batteries from 2000 years ago, buildings that to me at least, defy explanation. I don't have the expertise to say with any certainty that I'm right, but I haven't been given an acceptable explanaton, therefore I will keep looking for my own, I may not be right in the end, but the journey I took to get their is by no means any less important.


Science doesn’t use the legal sense of guilt and innocence. Either the evidence is there or not. Example, an area is considered to not have been inhabited if no evidence is found of people being there or all hills are natural unless shown to be artificial.


The evidence may be there, but you don't have the means to see it yet, as in this case, does that mean the evidence is not there? no, just that we don't have the means to attain it yet. IMO it's the 'facts' that are thrown round alot that prevent serious research into certain topics.


For now, that is true, but there is speculation and even the theory's you talk about have opposing theories, in all fields, who says that those that discredit this find are right?

Hans: Like what? Are you talking speculation or theories backed up by evidence? If the former yes if the later no. This is an absolute example one can find exceptions to this.


All theories have some evidence, it just depends on how compelling the evidence may seem, which reflects in how popular the theory is and another thing that I've noticed, how more 'down to earth' or mundane the explanation is, as if the 'truth' adheres to these rules, quantum mechanics is an example of this, easiest answer is usually the right one? yea right lol

This theory has evidence, they have seen geometric shapes in a deep ocean trench that shouldn't be there through natural means, logic deems they come from somewhere else, then someone links an article to ships dumping around that area, interesting possiility, only it raises more questions, whos dropping a 36ft (at least) pyramid off the coast? could be an even bigger block I suppose, submerged on an angle.



To me again, this is guilty until proven innocent.,


Hans: Again the legal wording just doesn’t work well in science. See my comments above. The default is natural or not there unless proven.


I wasn't using it in the legal sense, it was a description for the attitude towards the 'fringe' areas, someone heres about a discovery of a possible Atlantis, most people wouldn't believe it until they could walk through the streets reading the signs, which, if there IS a conspiracy to hide the truth, it really wouldn't be hard to do. Some others are offended so much by the idea, that they will ignore certain claims completely, I believed you to be one of the latter till this thread, you have shown skeptical interest and that benefits both parties, outright dismissal will get us no where.


From your second post

I don't think that there is a lack of evidence, circumstantial or not, for the existence of ruins around this area, only a lack of validation of what these ruins are, or who built them. Even though these are much deeper, at one point this could have been dry land,

Hans: But the problem is this is all "reported" there is no verification. circumstantial evidence in bulky doesn't turn into data. Until someone can find a site that can be studied in detail the story remains, null.


You have to ask why there is no verification, fair enough, yes, they could have had funding pulled, and yes, they could have disappeared into the shadows tail tucked firmly between legs, but it could also have been suppressed, you can't dismiss that outright, just think it has little probability of being true. An instance of this could be the sphinx, pyramid and the network of tunnels that could be underneath them, in my mind, there no doubt that there are tunnels underneath, the question is what are they are there for and why haven't we heard or seen more? you may not believe they are there, fair enough, you haven't seen enough evidence to prove to you they're there, but I have seen enough, or attempted suppresion of enough evidence to make me question motives and agendas.

Thanks. EMM




posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Howdy Srsen

I've found you comments to be interesting



I don't know if we can link no evidence for life 8,000 years ago to no evidence of life hundreds of thousands of years ago - bit of a jump.


Hans: I think you misunderstood what I meant, the data covers from hundreds of the thousands in the past today. The 8,000 year date is for the first known arrival of humans



But see, thats the point - it is highly possible that we have looked in the wrong places, gotten unlucky OR hidden what we found. All are JUST as likely as having found nothing at all.


Hans: Scientists and people interested in the natural sciences have been on Cuba for nearly 500 years and not a single thing prior to the first arrivals have been found.



And you make a good point, how do we know how we might have lived all those years ago - maybe we are looking for the wrong signs or in the wrong places or for the wrong type of remnants. To quote the great KG - "anything's possible"


Hans: Really anything? Okay create a time machine and go back in time and do NOT read this sentence. LOL. I don’t think you’re knowledgeable as to how much a presence humans leave on the countryside. Its considerable and for those who know how to look for it easily found.



If we, just for a moment, chose to use our own intelligence and consider what all these discoveries MOSTLY point towards, the odds are in favour of ancient civilization.


Hans: There not discoveries there reports with nothing confirmed. There is tons of stuff on astrology, it doesn't work but there is TONS of information, for all three types of it. One of my favorites example of lots of information and no facts is the Russians with snows on their boots story. In WWI a rumor got around that Russian troops were transiting the UK to fight in France - they were reported everywhere, there were newspaper stories and many people claimed to have see them, some with snow on their boots. Not a one was in UK at that time. Reports and circumstantial evidence is not data or facts.



As i said before, those sonar scans certainly don't appear natural to me. Or at least they appear more 'man-made' than natural.


Hans: Did you note the one opinion that the materials were Soviet equipment and construction debris dumped at sea? Are you an expert on sonar equipment returns?



Why is it simply not possible that the powers that be, whoever they are, hide such major discoveries because either:


Hans: What “powers that be”, if you mean governments they have other things to worry about beside hiding archaeological discoveries. I would strongly suspect that Raul would enjoy having a major find – which is what PZ was hired to find (galleons).



a) they think the public can't handle such history-changing truths; or


Hans: Sorry I’ve heard this lame, lame excuse dozens of times but no one can explain it, who in their right minds would be worried about an early civilization? Can you point me to an important political or religious group that advocates not finding stuff?



b) they can somehow profit or prevent another party from profiting by hiding such discoveries.


Hans: Except for tourism what actual profit would there be?



I mean, is that REALLY such an impossible thought? Really? I personally don't find it so impossible.


Hans: No I consider that theory to be just silly. I have found over time that these types of excuses are use to explain the lack of evidence. Oh, there is no evidence – the evil conspiracy has hidden it. No one ever likes to consider what it would take to run such a conspiracy – and the impossible part, keep it secret from the people who expertise you’d need to have to implement it.

Regards



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
 





what if this find does show that there was a civilization in Cuba from 12,000 years ago, or even more incredibly 40,000 years ago?


Interestingly enough, one of the institutions mentioned in this thread, National Geographic, recently published this:

Brian Handwerk
for National Geographic News
December 1, 2005

In July a team of English researchers reported the discovery of human footprints in Mexico that appeared to be 30,000 years older than when most scientists believe humans arrived in the Americas.

Researchers commonly accept that humans came to the Americas some 11,500 years ago. But new dating of the Mexican find suggests that the features are in fact 1.3 million years old./ex]

Now that, of course, is still open to debate, but the point is, that recent discoveries keep pushing the human occupation of the Americans back further and further.



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 



Yep and the movement by coastal migration is becoming more probable than the old Beringia passage concept.




Fossil "Footprints" Stir Debate About Earliest Americans


The link to that story




[edit on 27/7/08 by Hanslune]



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

b) they can somehow profit or prevent another party from profiting by hiding such discoveries.


Hans: Except for tourism what actual profit would there be?


I mean, is that REALLY such an impossible thought? Really? I personally don't find it so impossible.


Hans: No I consider that theory to be just silly. I have found over time that these types of excuses are use to explain the lack of evidence. Oh, there is no evidence – the evil conspiracy has hidden it. No one ever likes to consider what it would take to run such a conspiracy – and the impossible part, keep it secret from the people who expertise you’d need to have to implement it.

Regards


Well, it depends on what is being found, if it's pottery and tools, that match with a currently held notion then no, it's released to the public, if it doesn't fit in with a currently held theory, it is categorized as miscelaneous, or under another classification, or just carted off to a military installation, again, just hear say and rimours, mixed in with a distinct hole in the story.

As for covering up the 'secret', why cover it up, they can release the info and make fun of it, maybe even call it 'fringe' or 'hoax', they'll have plenty of people who will flock to the cause, wanting to prove their own theories on life and needing confimation for their ego, I've been prepared to be wrong about what I believe from the start, I don't mind, I don't think me being 'wrong' or 'right' matters, its the path I take that will determine my life and the beliefs I have.

EMM

[edit on 27-7-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Howdy EMM



Well, it depends on what is being found, if it's pottery and tools, that match with a currently held notion then no, it's released to the public,


Hans: you seem to think there is some sort of outside group doing this? Where it is? Do you have any idea of the work flow of an archaeological site? The time frames it takes to do all the work - especially a deep water site like we are discussing?



it is categorized as miscelaneous, or under another classification, or just carted off to a military installation, again, just hear say and rimours, mixed in with a distinct hole in the story.


Hans: Wow, that is some piece of interesting prose there EMM. I hate to rude but you so casually make these wild claims.

Lets look at it:



if it doesn't fit in with a currently held theory


Hans: So who determines that, if I want to know what the current held theory is where do I go to get it? Is there an email to contact somebody so I don't offend whomever?

You do know that the theories keep changing and adapting over the years? It takes years to gather the dig, get the data, analyze it, often by large numbers of specialists – it ain’t Indiana Jones stuff – who by name or the organization’s name do they sent it to determine if it fits into ‘x’ theory?

Its odd isn’t it that no Archaeologists seem to be aware of this – I mean it must be a massive operation and organization to watch tens of thousands archaeologists all over the world. I’d love to see the international agreement that covers that and hey who takes care of all the looters?



it is categorized as miscelaneous, or under another classification, or just carted off to a military installation


Hans: laughing, oh yeah that happens all the time, I think you watch to many movies and worse yet you seem to think they are true. So when all the other unknown civilizations have been found how come we know about them? Why weren’t they hauled off? The Minoans didn’t fit into “known theory”, nor did the Sumerians nor Dilmun or Harappa or I can name a dozen others – your supposed system doesn’t seem to be working very well? Oh god the dates for man in NA have been slipping earlier latterly – how come that information, tools, skeletons and corpolites haven’t been sent off to the military?

Why do you think that is? How about all those early man skeletons, all the evidence of mankind, very much cutting edge stuff-that was okay I guess as the discovery of an alleged human cousin (hobbits).

So what isn't okay? LOL



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 12:55 AM
link   
What a great debate. I am proud to be a part of it -- and genuinely sorry for being absent for most of today -- but will be back tomorrow with substanative things to add.

As for now... it's late and liquor has compromised me.

Until then,
TWISI


Edit(s): for drunkeness

[edit on 28-7-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]

[edit on 28-7-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 01:07 AM
link   
That okay - you started an interesting subject/thread. Don't worry if you missed it - we'll just delete everything tomorrow and do it again!



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

Howdy EMM

Hans: you seem to think there is some sort of outside group doing this? Where it is? Do you have any idea of the work flow of an archaeological site? The time frames it takes to do all the work - especially a deep water site like we are discussing?


Listen I don't claim to know everything, I accept that things happen behind the scenes that I do not know about, I can only say that things don't add up to me, they rarely have an adequate answer, so I look for my own. Now I do not know how things work on a dig site, I would like to know, it will only strengthen my argument, But, I'm guessing when something is found, it is logged, once it is logged, it is stored until it can be further studied. Sometimes these studies may happen onsite, for instance, if there is a specialist (minoan art or sumerian art), if not, it is carted off to a local 'museum' were they would have the means to examine it properly. From here, it may be sent to anywhere they need it around the world. Now, if you think the government don't get a copy of this inventory of findings, then you are quite naive, true, years ago i would've been harder, as everything was written and filed, MIB's all over the show (not sure, more of a joke lol), but now, ITS THE DIGITAL AGE!! whatever you keep on a computer, is in the public domain, and they can look, delete, make disappear. Now as for missclassification:

Tri-lobed bowl, now for me, this hasn't been explained well enough IMO, you may not believe this, fine, but for me, this doesnt fit:


How on earth did they do this? I haven't heard an adequate explanation:


Or this:


They may all have explanations to them, but I haven't been given one that persuades me as of yet, they actually classed the cogs as 'sun disks' i think it was, now that is laughable.


Hans: Wow, that is some piece of interesting prose there EMM. I hate to rude but you so casually make these wild claims.


they're only 'wild' to you, to others, they seem perfectly plausible, so let's cut the attitude shall we? just because we don't agree, we don't have resort to childish retorts now do we, keep it civil.


Hans: So who determines that, if I want to know what the current held theory is where do I go to get it? Is there an email to contact somebody so I don't offend whomever?


Ask any scholar that clings to the currently held notion, is it so hard to accept a possibility? would that ruin their world? How hard is it to think "possibly, but probably not", instead we get told it's rubbish, or BS, could never happen, I beg to differ, it could happen and IMO, probably has.


You do know that the theories keep changing and adapting over the years? It takes years to gather the dig, get the data, analyze it, often by large numbers of specialists – it ain’t Indiana Jones stuff – who by name or the organization’s name do they sent it to determine if it fits into ‘x’ theory?

Its odd isn’t it that no Archaeologists seem to be aware of this – I mean it must be a massive operation and organization to watch tens of thousands archaeologists all over the world. I’d love to see the international agreement that covers that and hey who takes care of all the looters?


Naturally theories change, but the change meets great pressure, people wouldn't accept Sumerians for a while, how could there have been an even earlier civilisation, people suspected, but again, these were the 'fringe'.

And now we are here again, "even earlier? proposterous, never heard such drivvle..."

As for being aware of it, more than a few are, but I doubt you may agree with them, but John Anthony West? Ed Conrad? Robert Schoch, there are many, but they are deemed as liars, con men, or just plain fools of fantasy, quite sad really. Point is, its not just 'conspiracy theorist's' that claim this, people within the field claim it to, due to suppression of their work. So If your an archaeologist and you find something, which just doesn't seem right, I'd keep it to yourself, otherwise, you won't see it again and if you say anything, chances are you'll be thoroughly discredited.


Hans: laughing, oh yeah that happens all the time, I think you watch to many movies and worse yet you seem to think they are true. So when all the other unknown civilizations have been found how come we know about them? Why weren’t they hauled off? The Minoans didn’t fit into “known theory”, nor did the Sumerians nor Dilmun or Harappa or I can name a dozen others – your supposed system doesn’t seem to be working very well? Oh god the dates for man in NA have been slipping earlier latterly – how come that information, tools, skeletons and corpolites haven’t been sent off to the military?

Why do you think that is? How about all those early man skeletons, all the evidence of mankind, very much cutting edge stuff-that was okay I guess as the discovery of an alleged human cousin (hobbits).


No idea, but I'll take a guess, they make decisions, they decide and gauge the impact certain items will have, for instance, hobbits, why not? understandable and easier to accept people were smaller, yet when a giant skeleton is found, or a giant femur, or teeth, they are covered up. Many more possibilities, but thts the way I see it.

Thanks. EMM

Edit: IMO, I don't see a theory should be thrown out just because it's been in a film or movie, does this automatically make it BS? it's a shame so many people think so, in my eyes, it would be a good cover story.

[edit on 28-7-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

[edit on 28-7-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

[edit on 28-7-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Howdy EMM

Not sure what you find odd about the stone and I'm not familar with the drivers wheel looking thing although I've seen it before. Do you have a link? I do know what the cogs are thou.



They may all have explanations to them, but I haven't been given one that persuades me as of yet, they actually classed the cogs as 'sun disks' i think it was, now that is laughable.


Hans: It appears to be a wooden cog wheel from a Sakia probably from the Ptolemy or Persian period. I would need to know from where it came from to be more precise and the dating. Can you link to where it is called a sun disk? I suspect this is fringe mislabeling but I might be wrong. I found some howlers in museums before.

www.vl-irrigation.org...

This is a modernized one they use to be turned by animals or people



they're only 'wild' to you, to others, they seem perfectly plausible,


Hans: Being plausible to some doesn’t make it real.



Ask any scholar that clings to the currently held notion, is it so hard to accept a possibility?


Hans: But wait they differ? How do you know which one is the official story? You seem to have the view that science, academia and “government” are a single monolithic organization that all think the same thing, no such reality exists. If you go into any archaeological subject you’ll find passionate debate on a number of subjects.



would that ruin their world?


Hans: No but it insults them when people tell them wrong when they have buckets of evidence to base their opinions on and there told to open their minds to non-evidenced 'stuff'. Much of what the fringe believes is not supported, some is.



How hard is it to think "possibly, but probably not", instead we get told it's rubbish, or BS, could never happen, I beg to differ, it could happen and IMO, probably has.


Hans: there is possibility and there is probability, one has to be intellectually honest with one self when accessing the ratio. Evidence and facts have dominated any change of opinion in the past – and it will do so in the future



Naturally theories change, but the change meets great pressure, people wouldn't accept Sumerians for a while.


Hans: Theory changes due to more evidence coming in. Example the old theory of people entering the Americas was by the land bridge, that is now changing to a more probable coastal migration down the west coast.



And now we are here again, "even earlier? proposterous, never heard such drivvle..."


Hans: It depends on the evidence, I’ve seen tons and tons of drivel and some good stuff- the evidence is what makes the difference.



As for being aware of it, more than a few are, but I doubt you may agree with them, but John Anthony West?


Hans: I’ve read much of his stuff I believe he posts at Hall of Ma’at



Ed Conrad?


Hans: Knew him from usenet, a complete fanatic on his area of interest and complete wrong on everything. The term crackpot can be applied.



Robert Schoch


Hans: An opinionated geologist who has done some good work. I agree with some of his ideas. I don't think I've ever met him on line.



there are many, but they are deemed as liars, con men,


Hans: Conrad was a liar and a con man the other two are not they just have different opinions, Schoch’s being far more fact based than West.



So If your an archaeologist and you find something, which just doesn't seem right, I'd keep it to yourself, otherwise, you won't see it again and if you say anything, chances are you'll be thoroughly discredited.


Hans: Complete nonsense. If you published stuff that is not evidence based that might happen to you. That has happened (very rarely in the past). If you have evidence and your methodology is solid the opinions will side with you. However there will be denialist to the end.



No idea, but I'll take a guess, they make decisions, they decide and gauge the impact certain items will have, for instance, hobbits, why not? understandable and easier to accept people were smaller, yet when a giant skeleton is found, or a giant femur, or teeth, they are covered up. Many more possibilities, but thts the way I see it.


Hans: Whose they? How do they get the material to make this decision? Where are the dozens if not hundreds of specialists to analyze this stuff – where are the archaeologists to make these determinations. To a non specialist the Florensis bones would just appear like a childs, dirty and broken up – meanlingless. So a non human hobbit is okay but a giant isn't - doesn't make much sense does it?



Edit: IMO, I don't see a theory should be thrown out just because it's been in a film or movie, does this automatically make it BS?


Hans: In many cases it does. One has to look at each case individually but much of your film based imagery is incorrect (IMHO)



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 12:18 PM
link   
I am still working on some posts with timelines, links, etc. but did want to point out that, IMO, they 'They' that would be the natural supressors historically is the Church - from which most States, and those in control of them, have sprung.

I am not alone in this assesment, the late, great Robert Jastrow has my favorite quote on the topic:


"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."


I may even change my signature....

As to Hans' post about MEGA being Russian Missile Crisis garbage, I would reccomend looking at the video images in some of the links already posted. They clearly show shaped WHITE STONE that does not look anhything like "missle containers, trucks, etc ". The sonar images, also do not reflect piles of smaller objects, but massive structures. Talk about having a theory with NO EVIDENCE. And Hans, I know it was not yours and you were just putting it forward.

And EMM, way to hold the line!



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Howdy the way I see it

I'm not sure how influenctial the church still is in Cuba.

One note the dumped material included the construction materials from harbour and weapon bunkers, some of which were destroyed and the concrete dumped (AIUI). Such a determination of modern trash could be one of the reasons for the shut down of the project - besides the money issue.

Did you note the info on Linda Mouton Howe - she might be a source to find out more on the subject.

[edit on 28/7/08 by Hanslune]



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Haaaaaaan's, dude, do yourself a favor and stop walking into the sword! I put the Linda Moulton Howe link IN MY FIRST POST... with a link that reads:


The 2002 Linda Moulton Howe Interview LINK


But I appreciate you trying to help me out. And I'll be back with some more data you can debunk soon. I just stopped by to pick-up an earlier post for reference.

As to Cuba and the church, my point was that the instituion of 'secrecy' and 'cover-up' in various governments have been in place since time immemorial and started by governments and heads of state who were beholden to the church. (see: Galileo et al)



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
Howdy EMM

Not sure what you find odd about the stone and I'm not familar with the drivers wheel looking thing although I've seen it before. Do you have a link? I do know what the cogs are thou.


Leave that with me, I couldnt even find images of these cogs on the net, I had to use Sky's links on forbidden egyptology. I read it a while ago, whilst on the forbidden egyptology thread, and as you can see on that thread, I aint been there in a while.


Hans: It appears to be a wooden cog wheel from a Sakia probably from the Ptolemy or Persian period. I would need to know from where it came from to be more precise and the dating. Can you link to where it is called a sun disk? I suspect this is fringe mislabeling but I might be wrong. I found some howlers in museums before.

www.vl-irrigation.org...

This is a modernized one they use to be turned by animals or people.


I'd doubt it's wood, although I maybe wrong, to me it looked like a metal, possibly copper.



they're only 'wild' to you, to others, they seem perfectly plausible,



Hans: Being plausible to some doesn’t make it real.


very true, but being implausible doesn't make them fiction, it works both ways.



Ask any scholar that clings to the currently held notion, is it so hard to accept a possibility?



Hans: But wait they differ? How do you know which one is the official story? You seem to have the view that science, academia and “government” are a single monolithic organization that all think the same thing, no such reality exists. If you go into any archaeological subject you’ll find passionate debate on a number of subjects.


Yes of course theories, differ, but it's the more 'fringe' ideas that get debunked and shut down before anything substantial is found, and even when they do. After West's underground imaging of the Giza Plateau and around the sphinx, he determined, along with his team, that there were passages beneath, the expedition was shut down and he was asked to never return, why? at the time, Hawass said it was nonsense, later he admitted it and even claimed discovering them.



Hans: No but it insults them when people tell them wrong when they have buckets of evidence to base their opinions on and there told to open their minds to non-evidenced 'stuff'. Much of what the fringe believes is not supported, some is.


I can understand that, but again it's ego, does it matter if their wrong, if the discovery that disproves them is so incredible? they defend there theories, as it is defending their jobs, there livelihood. Yes some theories can be considred rediculous, even though I try not to judge them, but when credible evidence is claimed to have been found, then is all shut down and hushed up, I ask questions.


Hans: there is possibility and there is probability, one has to be intellectually honest with one self when accessing the ratio. Evidence and facts have dominated any change of opinion in the past – and it will do so in the future.


Evidence and fact can be covered up and misleading, yes, it's all we have to go on, but when this fails, we must rely on our intuition, mines tells me somethings missing, yours tells you that all seems to be ok. Not to mention improbable doesn't mean impossible, which many seem to deem so, unfortunately.


Hans: Theory changes due to more evidence coming in. Example the old theory of people entering the Americas was by the land bridge, that is now changing to a more probable coastal migration down the west coast.


Bingo, and if the evidence coming in controls the theories, then who's to say any current MS archealogical theory is not based on bias evidence, until the 'supposed' conspiracy is uncovered (or not), we can't know for sure, even if it isn't uncovered, people want answers.


Hans: Knew him from usenet, a complete fanatic on his area of interest and complete wrong on everything. The term crackpot can be applied.


In your opinion, unless you have compelling evidence that nails it? I've seen people claim he's crazy or a fanatic, but if you found evidence that we have been round for a million years longer than currently thought, and this evidence went missing, would you not become 'fanatical' about uncovering the truth. He believed in something for years, that he proved was wrong, yet it was brushed under the carpet, I'd be pretty pissed.


Hans: An opinionated geologist who has done some good work. I agree with some of his ideas. I don't think I've ever met him on line.


lol, I personally wouldn't dub anyone 'opinionated' on a forum for debate.


Hans: Complete nonsense. If you published stuff that is not evidence based that might happen to you. That has happened (very rarely in the past). If you have evidence and your methodology is solid the opinions will side with you. However there will be denialist to the end.


lol, utter nonesense, well if, IF, Ed Conrad and John Anthony West were telling the truth, then yes, they have been thoroughly discredited.


Hans: Whose they? How do they get the material to make this decision? Where are the dozens if not hundreds of specialists to analyze this stuff – where are the archaeologists to make these determinations. To a non specialist the Florensis bones would just appear like a childs, dirty and broken up – meanlingless. So a non human hobbit is okay but a giant isn't - doesn't make much sense does it?


If I knew this, I wouldn't be discussing it on an internet forum would I? I'd be doing my best to bring them to light, yet power answers to power. If you are told to hand something over to your government, or the government of the country the dig is in, then you can't argue, you hand it over and hope they don't revoke your permission on the dig. Little non-disclosure agreement here, intimidation there, schtum.


Hans: In many cases it does. One has to look at each case individually but much of your film based imagery is incorrect (IMHO).


Afair enough, but IMO how can we know? Who knows whether or not the leader of NWO is a bald man with a white cat?

EMM

[edit on 28-7-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Sorry I have been so slow to repsond with data I mentioned yesterday, but my brain has been occupied mourning its recent losses (see: last nights post)

For starters I am going to put, as promised, some data up that highlights discussion by relatively meainstream pubs and people evidencing redating accepted theory for the pre-historic possibility of human habitation in the region MEGA lies in.


Until recently most researchers would have dismissed such talk of Ice Age mariners and coastal migrations. Nobody, after all, has ever unearthed an Ice Age boat or happened upon a single clear depiction of an Ice Age dugout or canoe. Nor have archaeologists found many coastal campsites dating back more than 15,000 years. So most scientists believed that Homo sapiens evolved as terrestrial hunters and gatherers and stubbornly remained so, trekking out of their African homeland by foot and spreading around the world by now-vanished land bridges. Only when the Ice Age ended 12,000 to 13,000 years ago and mammoths and other large prey vanished, archaeologists theorized, did humans systematically take up seashore living—eating shellfish, devising fishing gear, and venturing offshore in small boats.

But that picture, Erlandson and others say, is badly flawed, due to something researchers once rarely considered: the changes in sea level over time. Some 20,000 years ago, for example, ice sheets locked up much of the world’s water, lowering the oceans and laying bare vast coastal plains—attractive hunting grounds and harbors for maritime people. Today these plains lie beneath almost 400 feet of water, out of reach of all but a handful of underwater archaeologists. “So this shines a spotlight on a huge area of ignorance: what people were doing when sea level was lower than at present,” says Geoff Bailey, a coastal archaeologist at the University of York in England. “And that is especially problematic, given that sea level was low for most of prehistory.”


LINK to Discover Magazine Article

“Ancient skeletons found near Caribbean” Sept. 2004



Tests on charcoal beside one female skeleton would place it at least 10 000 years ago. An expert at the University of California, Riverside, dated it as 11 670 radio-carbon years old - which would translate to well over 13 000 calendar years once corrected for varying quantities of atmospheric carbon over the millennia.
LINK

“Caucasian Skull in Mexico dated at 13k plus” 2002



The discovery helps prove that humans inhabited the Yucatan at least 5 000 years before the famed Maya culture began building monuments at sites such as nearby Tulum.
LINK

"Scientific evidence has revealed that areas of the Atlantic Ridge were above the surface around 10,000-12,000 years ago"


"In 1948, a Swedish expedition, working at the Atlantic Ridge 500 miles from the coast of Africa, excavated core samples from a depth of almost two miles. The collections contained over sixty species of freshwater algae. Tests of the algae indicate the last above-water period of the region was 10,000 to 12,000 years ago. Since 1948, scientists have extracted many similar core samples containing shells of freshwater animals from deep in the Atlantic Ocean at the Atlantic Ridge and the Azores Plateau. (1)"
LINK TO PICS OF ANOMOLOUS TRIANGULAR SHAPESHERE:

“Ancient Bimini Harbour - Proof of Manmade Roads/Atructures and Evidence of HOAX perpetrated by SKEPTICS”
LINK FOR SUMMARY
Here’s the scribd link to the actual 29 page paper with GREAT PHOTOS please note the close-ups of the circular, linear rock formations. They also reference a paper published by the NatGeo Society in 1980 which dated some core-samples of beach-rock beneath the stacked stones, using Uranium-Thorium testing, at 15000 b.c.

“Lost City found off Cuba Pics” Link to satellite data showing circular linear anomalies: HERE

More pics showing same anomaly in different location off Cuba: HERE

Clearer circular linear formations off Florida: HERE

“Direct Line “Road” From Andros to MEGA“: HERE The implication being that MEGA is part of a ‘larger complex’ that was once connected to Andros.

“Guess what’s on Andros now?”
The Atlantic Undersea Test and Evaluation Center – AUTEC aka the Navy’s version of Area 51, but I wouldn't click on that link if I were you...

I am hopefully waiting for some correspondence that may bring fresh MEGA Zelitsky data to light. And I am trying to find a CIA map that I saw of the region between Cuba and Mexico that was exposed 10k plus years ago BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW TO POST AN IMAGE IN THE POST.

If anyone wants to do a newbie a solid, please post or u2u me directions. Cheers!


[edit on 28-7-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 08:11 PM
link   


I'd doubt it's wood, although I maybe wrong, to me it looked like a metal, possibly copper.


Hans: Could be, could be stone too but they seen to have not been well made or were distorted in some way. Its very hard to deside what something is out of context (like what size are they) and what is the material, etc.



very true, but being implausible doesn't make them fiction, it works both ways.


Hans: Unless they are really, really, really implausible! Not everything is real.



Yes of course theories, differ, but it's the more 'fringe' ideas that get debunked and shut down before anything substantial is found, and even when they do.


Hans: I don’t see Fringe getting shut down very often – if you’d take a look they’ve drilled holes into the area around the Sphinx in 1970s. Just found natural fissure common to limestone.



I can understand that, but again it's ego, does it matter if their wrong, if the discovery that disproves them is so incredible? they defend there theories, as it is defending their jobs, there livelihood.


Hans: Changes in theory do not effect an academics job or livelihood, in most cases it good because they get to issue new textbooks and write more papers – successful academics are those who find NEW stuff. Or so it has been for 150 years. Restating the status quo gets you a part time adjunct job at a community college. Finding something new gets you tenure at a major university, book deals and your picture in the National Geographic and an hour on the Discovery channel.



Evidence and fact can be covered up and misleading, yes, it's all we have to go on, but when this fails, we must rely on our intuition, mines tells me somethings missing, yours tells you that all seems to be ok.


Hans: Not just my intuition years of working in the field and decades of contact with many full timers in the field and monitoring the publications – and since the internet on the boards. No sign of any conspiracy.



Bingo, and if the evidence coming in controls the theories, then who's to say any current MS archealogical theory is not based on bias evidence,


Hans: if the evidence was being “monkeyed with” you hear it from everyone in the field, you don’t and please don’t try the “they got to them all” it’s the same in all the other countries – where there is some types of suppression of data – and its well known, talked about and documented.



In your opinion, unless you have compelling evidence that nails it?


Hans: Why don’t you start a thread on Ed, his stuff is completely nuts. His stories are just that and his data is %$#%$. Yes there are some crackpots out there in the real world. There is one or two on this board, fortunately they don’t post very often. If you’re interested I’d be glad to u2u you the name.

Hans: And what if Ed is just a crackpot? There are lots of bad theory out there, it helps to discard the ones that are useless. How do you tell? Evidence.



If you are told to hand something over to your government, or the government of the country the dig is in, then you can't argue, you hand it over and hope they don't revoke your permission on the dig.


Hans: great theory but it doesn’t happen in practice – there are all kinds of conflicts between host countries and archaeologists, subverting evidence ain’t one of them. Most third world officials are easily dealt with by a little bit of Bakshesh.



Little non-disclosure agreement here, intimidation there, schtum.


Hans: Easy to say but very very very hard to do without getting it sprayed all over the professional community – which talks a lot. Any talk of that happening? Nope.



Afair enough, but IMO how can we know? Who knows whether or not the leader of NWO is a bald man with a white cat?


Hans: Considering the size of the organization you’d need to keep track of everything you think they are suppressing you shouldn’t have any problems at all.



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 08:33 PM
link   
UNCLE!!!!

HAND AND EMM - While I appreciate your participation, we've veered too far off topic for too long. If you cannot have this debate somewhat around the topic of the thread, and somwhat in line with the way I opened it up on the top of page 4 -- and which you guys were doing a great job of there for a bit -- then I am politely requesting that you keep it over on Hanslunes satirical thread.



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Sorry about that we were getting into the zeal of it!



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWayISeeIt
 


Agreed and apologies, and can I say, some nice research you've found, especially about the Andros sight, interesting indeed. Found something on Andros maybe? built up an installation around it?

Hanslune, were as I don't agree with what you've done on the other thread, you have, for the most part, been respectful on this thread, would you admit that this would be a more compelling 'possibility' than some of the other nonesense, or would you class this find as the same? more nonesense?

(this refers to the finds in Cuba and around)

EMM



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 09:56 PM
link   
I just remembered, about 4 years ago or more Andrew Collins had a special update on his website about the sunken Cuban ruins. He said he was invited to see some actual research done by ADC. These were things not released to the general public. He had to sign some confidentiality documents and could not say too much about what he saw. I thought that was odd of him to say that. I looked all over Andrew Collins website and I could not find that posting. Did I miss it? I wished I saved that article to my word processor back then.

www.andrewcollins.com...

I guess I could e-mail him about this. He replied to my e-mail I sent to him back in 2002.

Update:

I e-mailed Andrew Collins, asking him if he could describe his experience with Paulina Zelitsky. I asked him if he could contact her and find out why they went quiet after 2004. He now has the link to this thread discussion. Let's see if he responds to my e-mail.

[edit on 28-7-2008 by lostinspace]

[edit on 29-7-2008 by lostinspace]





new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join