Underwater cave found with skeletons in them.

page: 3
49
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Starred and Flagged.

My question is how these skulls and bones were able to NOT be swept away by the under-current? Even standing shin deep in the ocean, one can feel the under-tow, or was this discovery made in an isolated area. I know it said 'cave', but every crevasse must be affected by the ocean's power. I could be wrong, awesome find either way.




posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   
I realize these were in isolated cave systems, but isn't seawater incredibly corrosive? Especially to something already fairly soluble, like the minerals in bone matter?



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 04:53 PM
link   
If these are cenotes they will be fresh water.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Tybrus
 


Regretably much of this book by Cremo was written to support his belief in Hindu creationism. Take anything said in that book with a piece of salt the size of Gibraltar.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 07:45 PM
link   
wow that was very very interesting. i hope there will be more news on this topic soon



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 08:08 PM
link   
I have a problem with carbon dating, it is not 100% accurate. In fact, none of the methods used is 100 % accurate.

Just reading the books: Forbidden archeology and forbidden history give us an idea of how old humanity really is.
www.abc.net.au...

www.clearwisdom.net...

www.ballot.com...

www.biblelandstudios.com...

And one of my favorites: www.skybooksusa.com...

www.answersingenesis.org...

Of course, scholars can debunk this or have debunked these finds as they please, after all, they have the best weapon: the media with their "official version".



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Howdy thegreyone



Of course, scholars can debunk this or have debunked these finds as they please, after all, they have the best weapon: the media with their "official version".


No actually science has two much better weapons than the mythical "control of the MSM". They have facts and the scientific method. The fringe has misstatement and belief.

The media tends to promote fringe materials much, much more than actual science.

Oh could you tell us thegreyone were you think the "official version" comes from? For example I want to know the "official version" of or about x where do I get it from? Where ever that is how do I know that is the "offical version"?

How is the officilal version changed? Over the last 150 years the view of the world, especially archaeology has changed - how did this change occur?

[edit on 7/9/08 by Hanslune]



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


And that's exactly why I ask questions.

I wouldn't have known that without you telling me. Thank you.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
Howdy thegreyone



Of course, scholars can debunk this or have debunked these finds as they please, after all, they have the best weapon: the media with their "official version".


No actually science has two much better weapons than the mythical "control of the MSM". They have facts and the scientific method. The fringe has misstatement and belief.

The media tends to promote fringe materials much, much more than actual science.

Oh could you tell us thegreyone were you think the "official version" comes from? For example I want to know the "official version" of or about x where do I get it from? Where ever that is how do I know that is the "offical version"?

How is the officilal version changed? Over the last 150 years the view of the world, especially archaeology has changed - how did this change occur?

[edit on 7/9/08 by Hanslune]


I tell you how the official version goes. 99% of scientific facts are actually theories waiting to be disproved. What does the scholars do? When a person comes with a new idea, that person is met with ridicule only for that person's idea to be accepted 50 years later.

How do scientist change their minds?: when their own method is used against themselves and the person using the method is long dead.

How many artifacts, monuments, ancient maps and suppressed info (unofficial archeologist found) have to be unearth until the scholars in power use their energy, together with new ideas, to find out where we really come from and what we are?

Do you really think that scientist KNOW how old planet earth is or the universe for that matter? Everything is observation and theories but they teach you in school this observations are real facts!! I mean, how long did it take Pluto not to be a planet?

Carbon dating is not accurate, which makes earth probably 2 mil years old, and the dinosaurs could have lived just 1 mil years ago. But they don't teach you this at school. the official version is what they say it is: the pyramids are tombs created by hunters and gatherers; any reference to UFOs and aliens in ancient history are just myths; the Mayan were good sky observers with a very good power for calculation; Evolution is a fact besides the inability to find the missing LINKS; If you believe in UFOs you are a wacko, just like you are a wacko if you believe in ghosts, ancient high civilization and anything not aligned with the norms.

What's the difference between the Inquisition and the nowadays scholars? well, at least the Inquisition killed you literally and you didn't have to worry about anything else. Now, they only kill your character through ridicule and opposition and you stay alive unable to do nothing even when you know that you are right.

Why do we have to have ONE official version for humanity, when the official version doesn't hold up to all the facts?

The day that the Internet is controlled 100% and you can read books no more (just like in 1984) and you only have to accept one version, that would be the day that I would have to say bye bye!

This tiny, little article here to make a point: www.allaboutarchaeology.org...

[edit on 9/9/2008 by thegrayone]



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Howdy TGO




I tell you how the official version goes. 99% of scientific facts are actually theories waiting to be disproved.


Hans: Yep science discards those theories that are disproved. How many fringe theories have you seen discarded?



What does the scholars do? When a person comes with a new idea, that person is met with ridicule only for that person's idea to be accepted 50 years later.


Hans: You seem to be presenting a distorted version of the acceptance of tectonic plates-the delay was caused by the lack of supporting data, once the data came in, ocean bottom drill core and the finding of the subduction zones etc. The theory needed facts to confirm it. Many new theories don’t take that long. There was a theory that the Norse got to NA. It was a theory for several hundred years. Once l’Anse aux Meadow was found the truth of the sagas was acknowledge very quickly, less than a year or two I believe




How do scientist change their minds?: when their own method is used against themselves and the person using the method is long dead.


Hans: Hmmm no they look at the facts and make changes based on those – dissent and discussion is rampant however which is why I find your belief in an “official version” so funny.




How many artifacts, monuments, ancient maps and suppressed info (unofficial archeologist found) have to be unearth until the scholars in power use their energy, together with new ideas, to find out where we really come from and what we are?


Hans: Which scholars are “in power”? I’m not aware of them. It would help if these finds were real and not hoaxes or misinterpretations.



Do you really think that scientist KNOW how old planet earth is or the universe for that matter?


Hans: Physics tells us that



Everything is observation and theories but they teach you in school this observations are real facts!!


Hans: Not the schools I went to



I mean, how long did it take Pluto not to be a planet?


Hans: Not sure I understand what you mean. Its been discussed a long time then changed at a convention. Your point is? That is a change of nomenclature not a change in science




Carbon dating is not accurate,


Hans: It accurate especially when calibrated with tree rings



which makes earth probably 2 mil years old, and the dinosaurs could have lived just 1 mil years ago.


Hans: Not really, physics and geology give a very different reading and it doesn’t say 2 million




But they don't teach you this at school.


Hans: Tell them what? That the world is two million years old – why tell children falsehoods? Science can tell how the world is.




the official version is what they say it is:


Hans: Again WHO is they?




the pyramids are tombs created by hunters and gatherers;


Hans: Agriculturists who had hundreds of years of extensive irrigation practice on the Nile




any reference to UFOs and aliens in ancient history are just myths;


Hans: Without collaborative evidence why believe otherwise? One is left with a theory but no evidence.




the Mayan were good sky observers with a very good power for calculation;


Hans: yes your point was?




Evolution is a fact besides the inability to find the missing LINKS;


Hans: Ah the gods of the gap falsehood – what about what is known. How do you dismiss it? What theory do you have to explain the know evidence?




If you believe in UFOs you are a wacko, just like you are a wacko if you believe in ghosts, ancient high civilization and anything not aligned with the norms.


Hans: Your word not mine, people who believe in such things have just that, belief, the facts are still not obtainable. Until then their beliefs remain just that. Belief based theory.




What's the difference between the Inquisition and the nowadays scholars? well, at least the Inquisition killed you literally and you didn't have to worry about anything else. Now, they only kill your character through ridicule and opposition and you stay alive unable to do nothing even when you know that you are right.


Hans: Not that the fringe EVER attacks the orthodoxy… LOL. So no opposition is allowed eh?




Why do we have to have ONE official version for humanity, when the official version doesn't hold up to all the facts?


Hans: there isn’t an official version there are commonly agreed on facts. You’ll find a great deal of disagreement on lots of things. You will also find constant change in those fields also. Again who puts out the “official version”? There is no such thing. I can assure you that education in different countries is quite different. Muslim nations often teach history and science in different ways than the west.



The day that the Internet is controlled 100% and you can read books no more (just like in 1984) and you only have to accept one version, that would be the day that I would have to say bye bye!


Hans: Well we can agree on that. The net is controlled in China and Cuba, interestingly enough science information is not controlled at all in those countries. Odd isn’t it?



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Stari
 


Woops
my reply was of the picture page only
ssssshisssshh

anyway she's an old girl



Dubbed Eva de Naharon, or Eve of Naharon, the female skeleton has been dated at 13,600 years old.



[edit on 7/9/08 by Zelong]



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuauhtemoc
 



The polar ice caps melted dramatically 8,000 to 9,000 years ago, causing sea levels to rise hundreds of feet and submerging the burial grounds of the skeletons. Stalactites and stalagmites then grew around the remains, preventing them from being washed out to sea....


Does anyone know how these are formed? Can they be formed under these conditions?

Star

[edit on 9/7/2008 by Stari]



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stari
reply to post by Cuauhtemoc
 


Does anyone know how these are formed? Can they be formed under these conditions?

Star

[edit on 9/7/2008 by Stari]


I asked the same in this post on pg. 2.

So far no takers.



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


Ya I saw that and then seen someone missed it.. it was worth another asking. I would like to know since I know nothing of them.

Star



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Stari
 


Stalactites and stalagmites only form in air. There is no way of telling when the skeletons got there, before or after the stalactite/stalagmite formation. The thing we do know is that the stalactites/stalagmites were there when the water entered the cave system. This would prove the cave was above sea level at one time.

Check out the wikipedia article on this subject.

en.wikipedia.org...

I don't remember the National Geographic article saying anything about the cave having stalactites. If they inform us later that there is, then this rules out the Cenote theory.



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


Hm... y'know I tried google, and based off of what I've read, it must be a mistake by National Geographic. What I've read so far idicates that stalags and stalacs only form in above ground caves. So they should have only formed when the cave was above water, not after it was inundated. Makes sense to, since as slowly as they form, they wouldn't have been able to keep anything from rolling out of the cave.
Did find a interesting articale about carbon dating, aand the level of radioactive carbon:
findarticles.com...
Edit: Links are a pain in the butt when you have to type them out.

[edit on 8-9-2008 by RuneSpider]



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 12:58 AM
link   
I'd just like to point out how this discovery suports the timeline of 2012 and the dule 26000 year, or singular 13000 year, world cleansing, world wide devistation. Mostlikely these people were in a cave hiding when their land mass sank.



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Incarnated
 


Ok, first, the one skeleton is 13,600 years old. It only kinda fits inside your timeline.The others ones are withing a few hundred years of that particular skeleton. Meaning they weren't all there at one time, hiding. Also makes it a probably burial site with people of different apparent ancestries.
The flooding, while on a massive scale, was not incredibly sudden. It took several years for it to flood.



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


I'm sorry I don't know how to do that neat thing that you guys do, quoting like that, so I'm gonna have to do it this way if you excuse me.


1-science discard those theories that don't fit their preconditioned ideas, or, the only ideas that they have set to be the only facts without alternatives.

2-Do you think that is the only one? Read the book, or the beginning of the book, supernatural for another reference for what I'm talking about, so you don't have to take my word for it.

3- They look at their facts and the only one they have set without looking for alternatives. Much like religion (Christianity in this case) deciding what books were good to compose the bible with and which were not.

4- I don't know how you can fake painting on caves, from thousands of years ago, depicting and even narrating a different story of the official history, nor the skeletons and bones and artifacts found; and using the scientific method of carbon dating, shows something different to what is believed ind the scientific community ( I did post links above, so I'm not going to go into those details again) Misinterpretation is whatever don't fit their version.

5-Physics, like I said, theories and speculations. We don't even know how old the human race is, much less the universe. Scientist KNOW they don't know most things, it's only theories, but when some one comes with a new theory, not supporting the official theory, well, we know what happens.

6-So, you mean to tell me that the school you went to, they gave you different views of reality. If that is so, I applause that school!

7- What I mean to say is that nothing is certain in science, and they should say that more often. What was a fact or believed at one point has changed over time, and for that reason alone, NOTHING should be discard or labeled as "mass hypnosis".

8- Carbon dating...read the link I posted about carbon dating.

9- Like I said, the method use to dating is not accurate at all.

10- Not to say the the world is 2 mil years old but to say they don't know either, because their method is not accurate and it's just a speculation.

11- Who are they? Ha, and I thought you weren't funny...there you proved me wrong!

12- Maybe those agriculturist used water to build what they built and to know what they knew, even thought they make no reference at all about building anything of that magnitude (just for starters).

13- It doesn't matter the amount of evidence, there would never be enough for you. If the ufo case was taken to court to prove its reality, I don't think skeptics would stand a chance.

14- My point?? There again... You are funny, I give you that!

15- I guess, the same way you dismiss conspiracies despite the unbelievable amount of evidence. To start an argument about evolution we would have to start another thread with evolution being the main subject. Don't get me wrong, I do believe that evolution has happened in this planet, but not for humans, or at least, not they way is presented. In other words, not without intervention ( and I don't mean divine)

16- Do you really think that the UFO and ET phenomenon is new? Guess again then, UFOs are as old as the oldest accepted civilization on earth, and that is just being conservative.

17- Oh, but we do attack you but it just happen to happen that when a well respected figure (like an astronaut for example), who was held in a respectable position decides to come forward about, let's say, UFOs, that person becomes not credible anymore and ways are found to discredit that person and even ridicule him.

I apologize, again, for not being as neat as you quoting ( I must learn) but science is just like religion, "it is my version or none". Why can't just science admit that they don't know everything, that in fact, what they know is only a version and there could be other possibilities?



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by RuneSpider
 


Do you need glasses? Go back and read the artical again. Toward the bottom of that page, and within the artical, it states that the 13600 is an estimate, and it could be between 11000-14000. Oh such the folly to rush to an illusionary realization.



Because reading an artical doesn't seem to be your strong point here's a quote from the artical.

""
The three other skeletons excavated in the caves have been given a date range of 11,000 to 14,000 years ago, based on radiocarbon dating.

""

[edit on 8-9-2008 by Incarnated]





new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join