Physical Evidence of Prehistoric Cultures – The Throw Down Thread

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
- my position is that these anomalous megalithic structures are physical evidence of earlier civilizations we have lost record of. Given that the vast majority of the Establishment tries to now insist that Seti I built the Osirion, in the face of all physical evidence and logic pointing away from that, I say the Establishment has lost its credibility when trying to date megaliths in order to fit their dating agendas.

And yet all your "evidence" is a huge lump of assumption paired with a personal bias against "the establishment". Fight the power!

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying you couldn't possibly be correct. I'm saying there's no evidence that you are. Again, arguing from silence. You're taking a lack of evidence supporting your supposition, and claiming that absence itself is evidence.

Almost all of the known megaliths are not easily explained by the narrow-focus thought of modern archaeology as it is always trying to date everything inside of the parameters of recorded history. To suggest anything before that is heresy in the field and you know it.

Just like suggesting they might have actually been built by Egyptians is cause for petulant insults and smarmy attitudes from the "True Believer" crowd.

And yes, there is strong resistance. And there's good reason for that strong resistance. There's simply so damn many crackpots out there telling straight-out lies, that the bar for acceptable evidence has to be set pretty high, or else human history becomes a superstitious mish-mash of apace aliens, apocryphal Judaic myth, worldwide atlanteans, hollow-earth mastadon-cloning Soviets with time machines, the list goes on.

In order to do that modern archaeology has to overlook, look away from and furiously, narrow-focusedly 'date' these megaliths to fit their agenda. While they are also unable to come to any kind of final consensus on how exactly they were buiilt and how exactly the cultures they assign them to could no longer keep building in that fashion.

Is there any indication that the dating used on this particular structure is incorrect, or is this just more of your insistence that The Man is keeping you down?

You don't know me, and you surely don't know my color or views on race. So I suggest you seriously consuder treading a little more lightly before you go throwing feces like that around again...

Sure don't. I addressed this above, though.

Here is another question i have about radiometric dating:

How can we even begin to utilize this technology, as it is completely self defining?

We know that there have been supernova's in the recorded past. Well...we assume that is what it was, as the event described matches something being monitored in today's sky.

Each of these events releases large amounts of neutrino's, which is well known for its ability to skew radiometric dating.

If we consider the current state of our local star, it isn't a stretch to see large amounts of neutrino's bombarding the Earth. I would say that the presumption of a static local environment is among the most fool hearty things I have seen come from the "orthodox view".

Yes, i know there is no evidence for such. But, what evidence would we find? If we were bombarded with neutrino's, what kind of footprint would we see left behind? It is obvious that the radiometric dating is one such footprint, but I do not expect orthodoxy to let go of such an important part of their faith.

Further, what about volcanic flows? It is well known that volcanic flows will push the date back exponentially.

So, in essence, what we have here is a VERY tangled web of circular logic. We believe that the radiometric dating works because it is supported by other geological finds. These other geological finds are "proven" because they are supported by the radiometric dating. Archaeology supports geology, while geology lends credence to archaology.

I really have a hard time fathoming how such well educated people see so little flaw in such circular logic that they would take a position of obstinance and insistance. But, then again...that Cramer guy from Mad Money was adamant that Behr-Stearns was a solid investment. So much for the experts.

Is there any indication that the dating used on this particular structure is incorrect, or is this just more of your insistence that The Man is keeping you down?

I am not sure there is any indication that the dating used on any structure is correct, if it uses radiometric dating.

Further, i would say post contemporary settlements make the dating of it by using other clues would yield little results.

What it seems we are left with is a guess. Sure it is a guess made by educated people...but that does not make it an educated guess.

Reply to TheWalkingFox

TWF - "The people who live here could not possibly have ever been smart enough to do any of this, it must have been someone else." And it keeps getting recycled by quacks like Hancock and Sitchen, and people keep buying into it... And yes, I would speculate that people keep buying into the quackery because of some racist ideas.

So everyone who embraces alternative archaeology is racist? Because... that's what you just typed.

And because I'm not as nice as BFFT -- who at this point is bordering on sainthood in my books -- I'm gonna say say that's some pretty all encompassing, WILDLY OFFENSIVE speculating on your part. And then I'm gonna suggest you take it someplace else... I need a drink.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Here is where my thinking lies: Schoch is fairly well known, and somewhat well reputed. When discussing Yonaguni, a skeptic will happily cite Schoch when trying to dismiss the potential site.

So, why the double edged sword? Why does Schoch's dating of the Sphynx get ignored almost wholesale? If it wasn't the status quo, what could it be?

Schoch dismisses Yonaguni due to a lack of any supporting evidence.
Schoch dismisses the Bosnian pyramid due to a lack of any supporting evidence
Other scholars dismiss Schoch's Egypt theory due to a lack of any supporting evidence.

If he's right about the age of the Sphynx, then what that means is that the date for a stone-working Egyptian civilization gets pushed back a thousand years. However there's no collaborating evidence of a pre-egyptian advanced civilization that was catastrophically wiped out - no remains, for instance. In fact the most sensible thing we can get from his egypt theory is that the Egyptians got started earlier than we thought. Interesting, but hardly earth-shattering.

Let's not mention the vested interest that the Egyptians have in keeping their monuments as theirs, and the constant obfuscation by Zahi Hawass.

I am always amused when, on TV, Hawass is revered as the authority on Egyptology. Yet, among most who are "non-academic", he is seen as an obfuscating shill for the status quo.

You realize that if there were a pre-dyanistic great Egyptian civilization, Hawas would leap on it and cradle it like his own child to further the claim of Egyptian primacy, don't you? Such a find would in no way shake Hawas' faith in the antiquity of his nation's civilization, and in fact only expands it.

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
So everyone who embraces alternative archaeology is racist? Because... that's what you just typed.

I said I believe racism plays a part. There are people who buy this crap because they find the idea that space aliens built Egyptian civilization more believable than the idea that Egyptians did it.

I don't know what you would call that sort of outlook, where the wildly speculative becomes more acceptable than the idea that Africans, Native Americans, or South Asians could have built something.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

You realize that if there were a pre-dyanistic great Egyptian civilization, Hawas would leap on it and cradle it like his own child to further the claim of Egyptian primacy, don't you? Such a find would in no way shake Hawas' faith in the antiquity of his nation's civilization, and in fact only expands it.

Unless this predynastic Egyptian civilization was not of Meditaranean heritage. At which point...

...you see what I am saying, right? Lower Egypt is not that far away.

Regarding Schoch...what do you mean he has no supporting evidence? The dating based on geology is pretty convincing to me.

I thought his dating would push the Sphinx back quite a bit more than just a thousand? Did he acquiesce to appease reviewers?

The impact event in Libya, Kebira Crater..what is the date for it? I see wildly varying ranges. 214 million down to 65 million.

Why no consensus?

What impacts do these events have with radiometric dating?

reply to post by TheWayISeeIt


Gee Twisi try not to be so immature. LOL While you look at things from a narrow ego support point of view (I'm right! I'm right!) I look at things from the point of view of truth and correct information.

There is a debate within Egyptology over whether the Oserion is:

1. An old kingdom structure repaired by Seti or
2. A new kingdom structure built in the style of the old kingdom by Seti

As you see despite your dogmatic vision of Egyptology as a monolithic structure that only thinks one way, a great deal of things are debated-endlessly. I believe it is 1. Harte seems to be believe in 2. So be it, the evidence IS debateable. Unfortunately there is no evidence for a number 3. which seems to be your point of view.

Can I point to a structure like the O? No I cannot off the top of my head but then I'm not an Egyptologist. I'll go ask them that. In reply to that question I'll ask you one, give me the name of the site that documents the culture you think built the O.

For our Texan

C-14 dating has to be calibrated with tree rings and other dating methods to achieve complete accuracy. Even without it it can give you a ball park date and more importantly it can show differences in ages between areas of a site. The American SW has been calibrated, Egypt has no long lived trees and ancient wood survival has been poor.

The Walking Wolf. welcome,

There's simply so damn many crackpots out there telling straight-out lies, that the bar for acceptable evidence has to be set pretty high, or else human history becomes a superstitious mish-mash of apace aliens, apocryphal Judaic myth, worldwide atlanteans, hollow-earth mastadon-cloning Soviets with time machines, the list goes on.

I do love that, its very true - may I steal it?

Also may I add for all involved here to keep the conversation civil? We lost two earlier knowledgeable people, Marduk and KW. We's like to keep you around TWW and TWISI


[edit on 28/9/08 by Hanslune]

[edit on 28/9/08 by Hanslune]

An additional comment

In the Atlantean belief stuff written in the 1940-1970 the writers did realize that their was lack of evidence for another earlier non-Egyptian culture. It was in this period I believe that the concept of "influence" by Atlanteans jelled*. Therefore there was no need for evidence of an earlier culture, the existing Egyptian culture, for which their is staggering amounts of evidence, is simply guided by advanced people who small presence left no archaeological impact.

*I believe Ignatius came up with the idea but I haven't read Donelly in many years

If i may, Marduk is certainly no loss. I dealt with that guy at atlantisrising, and he was as big a jerk there as he was here. Good riddance....if he is involved with academia, then that would be indicative of part of the problem.

Having said that....

What do you mean by "calibrated"? Certainly you can understand my concern about any dating technique, relative to its use of self supported circular logic.

If i may, Marduk...snip

Hans: Yes he was jerky but very knowledgeable. I believe he was involved in academia but not in the subjects he posted about. People should not act in that way as it interferes with the discussion

What do you mean by "calibrated"? Certainly you can understand my concern about any dating technique, relative to its use of self supported circular logic.

Dendrochronology and Dendroarchaeology are the two science methodologies that look at this subject. By calibrated I mean that they used tree ring chronologies match the C-14 dates of the southwest. From those a general concept of the error rate in C-14 has become known. The error rate is about 10% to old (I'm doing this off the top of my head)

I did a Google here to double check...
Atlantis is based on Plato's story, abotu a advanced, ancient culture that was beaten by the early Athenians. Lemuria is based off of a early and poor understanding of Plate Tectonics.

After that, however, the spiritualists of the nations seemed to capitalise on them, even more so than SciFi and fantasy authors.

There is evidence of ancient cultures, not as advanced as people want them to be, having been inundated or destroyed by intense waves.

reply to post by RuneSpider


Its a human trait to embellish stuff and add in more detail. Interestlngly I found that many believers in Atlantis have never actually read the original Plato documents but instead go with out takes from other believers.

From a very small kernal of information or just a brief human idea - vast amounts can be created. Look at LOTR, Star Trek, Harry Potter and Star Wars. All completely fake yet massive amounts have been written about them with astonishing detail.

reply to post by RuneSpider


I love Plato's account. The entire point of Atlantis is to be a despotic kingdom that gets its butt kicked by republican Athens, thus proving the superiority of the Republic system. That's all. It's a parable and, sadly, Plato may have been drunk because it's self-validating "Yhe Republic is a better system than the monarchy because of this story where an imaginary monarchy gets its butt kicked by Athens!"

Personally, I have no issue with "advanced" ancinet civilizations... Thetrouble is when you start speaking as if advanced equals modern technology or beyond. WHat particularly cracks me up is that so many people love pointing to precise masonry and geometrics in Egypt or Qosqo or Chichen itza and claim "Modern people couldn't do that"

Most modern people have nothing resembling the technical skill these people had, because modern people have more or less automated machines that take all the work and innovation out of such things. But hte Egyptians sure as hell could polish a rock, the La Venta culture certainly could carve a head, and the Polynesians could erect moai without a hitch (well, aside from completely stripping Rapa Nui of trees to do so, proving technological ability doesn't necessarily translate into outstanding genius...)

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


The Ancients were able to work wonders with the tech they had. They didn't invent the micro chip, but their non electronic mechanics knowledge was amazing.
People today trying to understand the Ancients is like trying to understand a Master Craftsman pouring his skill and time into a project.
Normal person can't do the work he did, but the normal person doesn't have the time, the determination, or the reasons he does. SO they can't understand.

As for Plato's story, I'm afraid I cheated and read the CliffNotes version.
However, I do realize the allegories of the story, and the possibility of it being partially inspired by real events.

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
Anyway, and again, the point of the Osirion in this context is to point out the conflict of the dating by The Establishment aka the sworn enemy of The Curious Outside of the Box Thinkers who are getting 1 point for Harte's lazy approach!

Okay. So, please point out the "conflict" regarding the dating. A couple of sentences from you about how it "might be" this or "seems to be" that simply won't cut it.

Please explain Seti I's cartouche, found inside the wall on the dovetail joint.

Originally posted by TheWayISeeItPS - When, and if, you or anyone else on your team gets it together to come back with Larry Olcutt's sources, you can bring that on too. We're ready for ya'!

I assume he's read this (it's from wiki):

Frankfort, H., De Buck, A. & Gunn, B. The Cenotaph of Seti I at Abydos, 2 vol. Memoir of the Egypt Exploration Society, Egypt Exploration Society. London, 1933.

That's what he referenced.

Orcutt is a fine gentleman and a knowledgeable writer on Egyptology.

Though I'm fairly sure I already know it, would you care to provide your source for the claim that there is something fishy about the current date given to the Osireion?

And, yes, I'm quite lazy!

Harte


[edit on 9/30/2008 by Harte]

Sorry to be absent for the last couple of days, my significant other got all neglected feeling and required my undivided attention. Having said that, I' m baaaaaaack.... (for my beatings from the looks of it)

Harte - I'm glad to see your here too. I'll show you mine if you show me yours. Put LINKS up to the wiki reference and your infamous dovetail joint and then I will comment.

Hans said - "As you see despite your dogmatic vision of Egyptology as a monolithic structure that only thinks one way, a great deal of things are debated-endlessly. I believe it is 1. Harte seems to be believe in 2. So be it, the evidence IS debateable. Unfortunately there is no evidence for a number 3. which seems to be your point of view."

One point for the PWS -- that's your tream -- for breaking ranks and having differing opinions! That would be the first time I've seen that happen, you guys usually move in such lock-step. Congratulations!
(Obnoxious OP scoring now stands at COOBT - 3 PWS - 1)

Yep, that's right I believe in "3" a massive cataclysm occurred on a 'global' scale wiping out civilizations that built on a megalithic scale -- and were, like 85% most of todays populations, coastal inhabitants. Just like we were discussing on the Global Floodmyth thread. I put this thread up so as not to derail the other, see OP, but allow me to go on the record one more time:

I don't know who built these megalithic structures, but I do know that every no-knowledge-of-the-wheel culture that orthodox archaeology says "somehow" built them -- and if we ever get past the Osirion we can keep going -- were never able to build like that again.

Which I hope we can all agree is at the very least odd. And, IMO, Occam's razor could more easily be applied to 'my' line of thought than the orthodox one which refuses to look past the sudden rise of civilization out of Sumeria.

Cheers!

reply to post by RuneSpider


What a lot of people don't realize is that our technology is more often than not exactly as good as technology used thousands of years ago. The only changes are that it's less labor-intensive, or works faster. Our stuff is more efficient by and large, but the same job could be done just as well by ancient methods. We have laser levels, they had water lines. We have diamond saws, they have hours of scrubbing with water and grit.

Hell, some of their methods are more effective. Take those stone balls in Mesoamerica. It'd be really hard for our modern methods to take a rock and make it so round. How did the ancients do it? They hit it with another rock for a day or two.

I'd like to say that we haven't figured out why, but c'mon, useless enterprise is another trait I'm sure the ancient people had in common with us. The Inka kept building roads, for instance, just to build roads and keep people busy. It was an empire run by middle management.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Here is another question i have about radiometric dating:

How can we even begin to utilize this technology, as it is completely self defining?

We know that there have been supernova's in the recorded past. Well...we assume that is what it was, as the event described matches something being monitored in today's sky.

Each of these events releases large amounts of neutrino's, which is well known for its ability to skew radiometric dating.

BFFT,
As far as I'm aware, there's no evidence at all that neutrino bombardment would have any effect at all on radiometric dating.

But, even if it could, there's hardly any likelihood that it would. Neutrinos are so small that any interaction between any neutrino and any other particle is extremely, extremely rare.

99.9% of all neutrinos that come this way pass right through the Earth and out the other side without contacting or affecting any other particle in the entire makeup of the planet. That's how small they are.

If you mean cosmic rays, then that's another thing. Cosmic rays can influence the amount of Carbon 14 our atmosphere contains. There are several time intervals in the past where it is known that C14 spiked in our atmosphere - presumably due to cosmic rays spiking.

As Hans said, given that C14 is only useful over the last 50,000 years as far as dating, calibration of what's known as the "carbon date" of organic material into the "actual date" has been accomplished through documenting the age -and C14 content - of trees and wood samples by comparing tree ring data (dendrochronology.)

The period from which an artifact dates can, therefore, have an impact on the margin of error given with the calibrated date. If an artifact, dated through C14 dating, dates from a time of known C14 spiking (or before,) that will cause the margin of error for that date to be larger.

Harte