Ancient America Rocked!

page: 6
69
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 22 2009 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Mack
But you got the paluxy river footprints-human foot prints fossilized next to dino prints, some say they are carved but there is video of sheets of limestone being removed (by archeologists) showing that they were not carved recently.

Bible-thumping bull hockey


Originally posted by The Mack
and the Sandia Cave, New Mexico- more 200,000+ stone tools.

Nothing unusual about Sandia Cave, regardless of what you might have read.
read these:
Source1
Source 2
Source 3

Harte




posted on May, 22 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Oh i have heard that people dissagree with the finds but it all comes down to evidence thrown out because there is no evidence to support it. Like the Hueyatlaco, Mexico stone tools, even though the tools were tested and the dates found to be correct the best thing to do in this "highly scientific community" was to attack her character and do no other investigation. They pretty much sat back and said no that is impossible.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by The Mack
 





Oh i have heard that people dissagree with the finds but it all comes down to evidence thrown out because there is no evidence to support it. Like the Hueyatlaco, Mexico stone tools, even though the tools were tested and the dates found to be correct the best thing to do in this "highly scientific community" was to attack her character and do no other investigation. They pretty much sat back and said no that is impossible.


The tools were not dated. Various volcanic layers were. The dates were challenged. Do you know why?

These layers are jumbled and confused. There is a expedition working on the site now to try and untangle it.



do no other investigation.


Huey and Valsequillo

There is an expedition there now and has been for many years. I would humbly suggest you stop believing everything fringe sites tell you to believe. Do your own research.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 





Work briefly resumed with a new team in 2004 and it was hoped that new finds together with new and more reliable dating technologies would sort things out. It did not. The new dating reduced the claimed age to a milder but still mind-boggling 250,000 years

From the link you provided.
I would humbly suggest you start reading everything you post as a soruce. Do your own research.


[edit on 22-5-2009 by The Mack]



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by The Mack
 


Very funny Mack laughing at your attempt to dodge reality

So lets clear up your misunderstanding. Are you claiming based on your own research that no excavations have occurred at Huey/Valsequillo since the initial research? Is this your claim?

From the website I suspect you didn't read




Field investigations were undertaken during May and June of 2004 at Hueyatlaco. Three trenches were excavated at the site in order to examine and evaluate the stratigraphy at Hueyatlaco. We were able to confirm that the Hueyatlaco Ash did indeed overlie what was reported to be the unifacial artifact-bearing deposits (Bed I). An unconformity separated the alluvium containing the bifacial material (Bed E and C). Samples of the Hueyatlaco Ash and other units are being dated by the Ar-Ar and luminescence techniques. These dates will resolve once and for all the age of this important site. This research is being done in collaboration with Joaquin Arroyo-Cabrales (INAH), Patricia Ochoa-Castillo (National Museum of Anthropology), and Mario Perez-Campa (INAH).



[edit on 22/5/09 by Hanslune]



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


no.......
The quote i provided from a source that you gave me said a team went back in 2004 and came up the the date of 250,000 years old. That website you gave me is a forum like this and is no more valid than wikipedia, as for all i know you could have written on that forum AND wikipedia.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Mack
reply to post by Hanslune
 


no.......
The quote i provided from a source that you gave me said a team went back in 2004 and came up the the date of 250,000 years old. That website you gave me is a forum like this and is no more valid than wikipedia, as for all i know you could have written on that forum AND wikipedia.

Duh.

Charlie Hatchett got the links from Virginia Steen-McIntyre's website.

You know who she is, I hope?

Harte



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by The Mack
 



So I created an entire website that has existed for years before just to fool you? LOL man THAT is paranoid. But then you are in extreme denial aren't you?

So I also forged the wikipedias too? Just for you? If you look at the Wikis under history it shows when and what was edited....so when was it changed?

Man you are funny

Change of focus:

I'm adding a link to the original site report made in 1968 which was presented at a conference in Mexico.

Original site report 1968



[edit on 22/5/09 by Hanslune]



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Mack
That website you gave me is a forum like this and is no more valid than wikipedia, as for all i know you could have written on that forum AND wikipedia.


I can't help the ironic chuckle you just gave me. You realize that, a few posts back, you cited a youtube video, extracted from a goofy little creationist "documentary" as proof that humans walked around with dinosaurs. And here you are, arguing the validity of anothers' sources? Particularly hwne those sources come from the very person who published hte claims you're talking about?

I think you're just arguing for argument's sake.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
No.
I was saying that link was to a forum just like this where anyone can write in it and Wikipedia is about as reliable as urban dicitonary. I could go in right now create an article with references that have little to do with the subject and are so long that nobody will bother reading through it.

walking fox:
If you watch the entire documentary it's not some goofy little creationist documentary. It is exploring the idea that the whole theory of the age of modern man,the earth its self is wrong and that the whole cycle of evolution from the sea to land may have happened more than once.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by The Mack
 


Not if they read the edit and history.

But back to your reality. Do you accept that scientists are working at H & V? Or do you think its all fake? Including the 2008 conference where that site was discussed?



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


I never said that i do not believe that they were not working there, although i buy into fringe science at times I am not delusional. People will continue to work there time to time until someone can proove a date that is socially acceptable. Science advances one funeral at a time.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   


People will continue to work there time to time until someone can proove a date that is socially acceptable. Science advances one funeral at a time.


Why would a date need to be 'socially acceptable' and to whom? Funeral huh the main investigator at the site IS dead, I see no acceptance of the geological dates to the tools - it would seem your idea is falsified.

99.9% of the people in the world could care less if Homo Erectus got to the Americas before HS? Is there a secret cabal out to prevent this shocking discovery?

If socially acceptable is so important how is it that just 150 years ago a 6,000 year old world was accepted....how did it change?



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


It changed because authorites on the subject all died, as time goes on people become more open to new ideas. The date of 250,000,000 years is not socially acceptable because Christians want the world to start where their bible starts(africa), evolutionists think that they are all from african monkey decent and the hardcore creation crowd still thinks the earth is 6,000 years.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by The Mack
 


Any links?
That would be appreciated.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Returning to the topic... I'll be going to the Texas Archaeological Society meeting in Del Rio this year, and they've arranged for us to do a tour of Big Satan Rock Shelter. It's rather hard to get to (take a look at the climb here: fieldmethodsinrockart.blogspot.com... ) but I'm really looking forward to it.

I've no idea how old this art is. Most of it in this area is only 2,000-4,000 years old though some (some of the overpaintings at White Shaman) may be as little as 200 years old.)



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


Interesting.
Keep us up on the adventure. Post some pics if you can.



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   
I thought I would add that there are genetic markers of what are considered to be Europeans in Native American tribes.

findarticles.com...


Twenty-five thousand years ago Xenia and her descendents lived in a chilly Kazakhstan. Today about six per cent can call her mother. Her band populated central Asia and Siberia, and some migrated to the Americas, as well as to France and Britain.


Those sites in Peru are amazing. I tried to find more information on how Tiwanaku is dated to the first millennium, but all I could were just plains statements that this is the age of the site.

However, we do have Caral in Peru, which is the city I believe they are talking about on the first page of the thread, which is dated to 3,000 BC

www.historyworld.net...

A sad thing I learned is that TIwanaku apparently is in a pretty bad state. They built a railroad right through the site, using the stone of the site to as a foundation for the tracks.

What a shame as it seems to be one of the most amazing architectural sites on the planet.



posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   
ha ha You rock. I knew this would be you slayer. SnF



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 12:52 AM
link   

(click to open player in new window)





top topics
 
69
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join