Mysterious Origins of Man - Forbidden Archeology

page: 1
24
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 01:42 AM
link   
Hey...

Not sure how many people have seen this but I just checked it out...

It's a really interesting documentary from 1996 I think which talks about archeological evidence of human civilizations that predates what our textbooks say by, in some cases, millions of years, and suggests that there have been many civilizations before us that rose and fell or were wiped out. They also discuss why it is that this information is ignored by mainstream science as a matter of practice.

Some, if not all, of the evidence is really compelling.

I think I saw somewhere from the person who originally had this up (someone I am randomly friends with on Facebook) that this never actually aired, even though it appears to have been very professionally produced for prime-time television. Hell, Charleton Heston is hosting the damn thing.

Anyways check it out below...the link goes to the YouTube video for part 1...there are 5 parts and all of them can be found by using the "Related Videos" box on the right.

Hope someone finds this interesting.


www.youtube.com...



Cheers




posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 02:24 AM
link   
Very interesting first segment. I'll watch the others later on but first, I was intrigued by the story of Dr. Virginia Steen-McIntyre and her find. Some people don't believe this type of thing happens in the scientific community. I say we can't begin to know the truth until it ends. Let the facts be the facts.

Here is her official site which has much of her data:
www.valsequilloclassic.net...


Much of the data concerns Hueyatlaco, the youngest of four archaeologic sites discovered in 1964 by Mexican Prehistorian Juan Armenta Camacho and archaeologist Cynthia Irwin-Williams, then a graduate student in anthropology at Harvard. It contains the most complete sedimentary record. El Horno, a topographically lower, older site is also discussed. Both have been dated using U-series methods (on a bone and a tooth fragment respectively) to approximately 250,000 - 300,000 years. The Hueyatlaco site in addition has had volcanic ash layers dated by the zircon fission-track method and the tephra hydration dating method, and more recently its sedimentary layers by diatom stratigraphy. All methods agree as to the site's great age.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by suterlaben
 


Well, I haven't finished all of the 5 part series yet, but so far this is what I have been led to understand;

1. Dinosaur and man walked the earth together.
2. No "missing link" has been found.
3. Darwin was wrong.

I don't know, sounds like a bid for religious creationism to me. I should have known when I saw that Heston was the narrator.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 06:42 AM
link   
To be honest, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that civilisations predate us.
Prehistory is a selection of 'best guesses' and theories.
It's only our arrogance to presume we're the best thing to happen to it.
There could have been other civilisations before ours, could have been more than one. When you look at figures about how long we have been around then your mind does start to wonder 'what if' Some of our best long term legacies are the pyramids, several thousands of years old. Will they last longer? How do we know that when the Egyptians built them, they didnt just steal the actually building blocks from an older site?
Or were inspired by them?

Dating back our earliest civilisations, will give you a ball park figure of around 10,000 years. Sounds a lot until you compare how long the Earth actually has been here and able to support life. Dinosaurs were around until 65 million years ago, but they were around for around approx 200 million years. It's when you look at those figures, your mind begins to wonder.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 07:44 AM
link   
If you look into the background of this program you'll find that the scientific community tried desperately to punish the network ( nbc or abc, can't remember which ) that aired this back in 1996. Scientists demanded the fcc ban the program from ever being shown again and that the network be fined, neither of which happened.

Check out the work of Michael Cremo, an author who delves deeply into this topic. There are some great Coast 2 Coast interviews with him and George Noory on youtube.

IMO this subject is one of the most interesting and important pieces of evidence that we are not being told the whole truth about our history.

s&f



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by wakingmind


IMO this subject is one of the most interesting and important pieces of evidence that we are not being told the whole truth about our history.



Well there's no question that Mysterious Origins of Man doesn't tell the whole truth about our history! It's full or errors and misinterpretations and rather lacking in pertinent facts that show what they allege to be one thing is in fact nothing of the sort.

In conjunction with watching the videos, it's worth reading this:

www.talkorigins.org...

Just because it's broadcast on TV doesn't necessarily make something true, any more than being on youtube does



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by wakingmindIMO this subject is one of the most interesting and important pieces of evidence that we are not being told the whole truth about our history.


Honestly, I hate to be a poop but this subject, as compelling as it is, comes up every so often and you are correct that we don't get the whole story. You see, Cremo is also known as Drutakarma Dasa...that's when he's wearing his krishna outfit. He is a proponent of Hindu creationalism, and his stretches, intuitive leaps and whoppers are every bit as valid as Christian Creationalism. If you like that, you'll love Cremo.

Get all breathless if you want...flame me if it makes you feel better...just don't bet the farm on Cremo and his Forbidden Archaeology.

Frankly, there are much better stories out there...



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 08:42 AM
link   
The reason that TPTB do not let us know about past civilizations older than acknowledged in the Mainstream, is that they probably dont have a definite reason for their decline, due to the length of time. They cannot tell us about past civilizations because people will demand to know how they came to an end. Also, what if that ancient civilization was all black (lets say, you can pick whatever color you wish here), then how would the rest of the world react to such news.

This is just speculation but I believe that TBTP are trying to protect whatever they have learned about these past civilizations. Another thought that I have had before, was imagine that ETs came here in a single ship. Set up a camp, and ended up staying here. They created a huge civilization only to be wiped out by X. How would we react to having knowledge that this world that we thought is ours, was actually inhabited by other beings before the rise of present day man.

Interesting stuff... I myself believe that there is much more to this world than is stated in the history books. Im sure that most here know this already.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 08:45 AM
link   
I just started watching these videos, but anyone else notice in the first video at 3:51 the small skeleton with the err... rather large skull? Can anyone tell if that is a real skeleton or if it is just a sculpture?



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 





Just because it's broadcast on TV doesn't necessarily make something true, any more than being on youtube does


I completely agree, in general this is a great rule of thumb, but it is not to say that periodically some nuggets of truth don't slip thru into both of these realms.
While Mysterious Origins may not be perfect, it still is interesting and thought provoking as to why these artifacts appear in rock layers that are in some cases millions of years older than the oldest known form of intelligent man, or why the scientists that uncover said artifacts are silenced and in some cases have their careers ruined, and why the scientific community would go such great lengths to attempt to punish nbc for airing the show.
Also consider why Darwin's theory of evolution has been elevated to near religious ideology, rather than the potentially disprovable THEORY that it is. Even Darwin himself admitted ( as a good scientist should ) that his theories had little backing from the fossil record and may be inconclusive. However, these days, questioning Darwin's theories instantly relegates you to the status of Creationist nutjob who thinks the Earth is 5000 years old and Jesus buried dinosaur bones to test the faith of his followers.
I have no political or religious affiliations, and I don't drink anyone's kool-aid, I just think there are compelling questions raised by Mysterious Origins that deserve answers.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by wakingmindAlso consider why Darwin's theory of evolution has been elevated to near religious ideology, rather than the potentially disprovable THEORY that it is.


Please, please, please look up the use of the word 'theory' in scientific parlance. Buy into the rest of the...shall we say stuff?...if you like, but please don't base your argument on a false premise. One day you'll say it in public, and somebody just a little more aware will make you feel stupid.

And we don't need that. Cuz we're all pals here, right?



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 





Get all breathless if you want...flame me if it makes you feel better...just don't bet the farm on Cremo and his Forbidden Archaeology.

Frankly, there are much better stories out there...



Like I said earlier, I don't drink anyone's kool-aid. I know Cremo's ideas aren't perfect, just like mine or yours or anybody's, but I also know that Michael Cremo didn't go out and bury these bones and artifacts to sell books. Maybe his theories are wrong, but at least he's trying to answer questions that mainstream science is completely ignoring.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   
the⋅o⋅ry   [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
–noun, plural -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

I don't see anything up there that says a "theory" in any context equals undeniable fact. Seems to me that tangible evidence to the contrary might make said group of general propositions rather incoherent as a means of explaining a class of phenomena.
But please, I'm sure your command of the english language far exceeds mine, so excuse me for sinking deeper into my quagmire of stupidity, pal.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by wakingmind Seems to me that tangible evidence to the contrary might make said group of general propositions rather incoherent as a means of explaining a class of phenomena.
But please, I'm sure your command of the english language far exceeds mine, so excuse me for sinking deeper into my quagmire of stupidity, pal.


Oh, now I've gone and caused offence. I was actually being quite sincere...my sarcasm is much, much richer. But here's chapter and verse from Wiki:


A theory, in the general sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of observations. A theory does two things:

it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and

makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.

The term is often used colloquially to refer to any explanatory thought, even fanciful or speculative ones, but in scholarly use it is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of that class. These requirements vary across different fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena.
en.wikipedia.org...

In other words, in science, a theory is the best possible explanation given what we know...which is to say that it is considered factual unless it can be disproven. You need to go through both life and science using a baseline of knowlege. That is wrapped up in a 'theory'.

I mean you can argue this if you want, but you're better of investigating what I say, first. And no, no offence taken.

Secondly, regarding your comment:


but I also know that Michael Cremo didn't go out and bury these bones and artifacts to sell books. Maybe his theories are wrong, but at least he's trying to answer questions that mainstream science is completely ignoring.


you are working under two misapprehensions...first that Cremo's examples are all that he says they are, or found where it is said they were, etc, etc. You know what they say...if you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras. Cremo is famous for zebras...they suit his agenda.

Secondly, that mainstream science did not or can not explain some of his phenomena.

Finally, you know, sometimes we just don't know why something is the way it is. PhDs are awarded to those trying to find out, and fame goes to those who are sucessful. Scientists go into their fields becasue they have asked the same sort of questions you are.

It all comes down to what you want to accept as fact. Somebody elses flawed explanations, or the ones you dig up. And I'll tell you, the adventure is not in the knowing...it is in the seeking.

Finally...no, you're not stupid. I've studied a little archaeolgy, is all.

Peace



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
You know what they say...if you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras. Cremo is famous for zebras...they suit his agenda.


Although I think with Cremo it's more likely he thinks Unicorns!


Now it's just possible the hoofbeats really are coming from a unicorn. Or maybe the equine expert who says it's an Arabian stallion trotting towards us is right? Who should we believe? And why? Tricky one that!



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by wakingmind Seems to me that tangible evidence to the contrary might make said group of general propositions rather incoherent as a means of explaining a class of phenomena.
But please, I'm sure your command of the english language far exceeds mine, so excuse me for sinking deeper into my quagmire of stupidity, pal.


Oh, now I've gone and caused offence. I was actually being quite sincere...my sarcasm is much, much richer. But here's chapter and verse from Wiki:


A theory, in the general sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of observations. A theory does two things:

it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and

makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.

The term is often used colloquially to refer to any explanatory thought, even fanciful or speculative ones, but in scholarly use it is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of that class. These requirements vary across different fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena.
en.wikipedia.org...

In other words, in science, a theory is the best possible explanation given what we know...which is to say that it is considered factual unless it can be disproven. You need to go through both life and science using a baseline of knowlege. That is wrapped up in a 'theory'.

I mean you can argue this if you want, but you're better of investigating what I say, first. And no, no offence taken.

Secondly, regarding your comment:


but I also know that Michael Cremo didn't go out and bury these bones and artifacts to sell books. Maybe his theories are wrong, but at least he's trying to answer questions that mainstream science is completely ignoring.


you are working under two misapprehensions...first that Cremo's examples are all that he says they are, or found where it is said they were, etc, etc. You know what they say...if you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras. Cremo is famous for zebras...they suit his agenda.

Secondly, that mainstream science did not or can not explain some of his phenomena.

Finally, you know, sometimes we just don't know why something is the way it is. PhDs are awarded to those trying to find out, and fame goes to those who are sucessful. Scientists go into their fields becasue they have asked the same sort of questions you are.

It all comes down to what you want to accept as fact. Somebody elses flawed explanations, or the ones you dig up. And I'll tell you, the adventure is not in the knowing...it is in the seeking.

Finally...no, you're not stupid. I've studied a little archaeolgy, is all.

Peace


A theory is not considered factual, it is only the best explanation scientists have until a better explanation becomes available. Theories and facts are not the same thing. If a theory is falsified, poof, no more theory. Of course whenever a person is trying to push their belief in something, they will claim that theory is fact.

What people should accept as fact, is facts. A theory should never be accepted as fact, that's the whole reason it's premise is falsifiable.

If you've "studied" archeology or any science you should know this.

You actually had to pull a definition off of wiki? You couldn't freehand that one? No, you're not stupid, just need to "study" more.

deny ignorance



[edit on 27-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by suterlaben
 


This video series isn't based on good evidence and objective research.

I wouldn't put any weight in these finds. They are definitely pushing an agenda.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary
 


I is from a creationist point of view, but SCIENTIFICALLY backed. They don't like it when Archeologists prove evolution incorrect. That's why it;'s called Forbidden Archeology. Did you know that when they find giants bones they rebury them? there were over 24 of these found in Illinois in a burial mound, they reburied them because evolution says we are getting better and bigger now, so anything that shows bigger or better in the past is hidden, reburied or just pretended not to exist.

Example - Dagon fish god brass/bronze bell found inside a lump of coal dated to 2,500,000 hears old. Another term they use for this is OOPART, Out Of Place Artifacts. The coal seam isn't that old and the bell was from the era of metallurgy and metal working. There are many of these finds that are available to look at, but as I said, science don't like anything that makes Darwin's Racist theory go down...



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   
I recognize that there isn't MUCH to go on here and that this certainly could be used by some mainstream religions to justify their creation myths. Nor am I calling this some sort of holy grail of information...but I thought it was cool that some kind of information of this sort exists, or existed, within mainstream media. I don't think its particularly biased in any way, religiously.

I had already heard or read from numerous "whistle-blower" or "insider" sources before that the PTB are aware of the fact that several civilizations of humanity and risen and fallen prior to our own. Ours has essentially taken about 10,000 years (-ish?) to develop from very primitive to its current level. So it's not unreasonable to think that others could have come before us.

What I think this supports is the notion that our Earth (and the universe) runs on a sort of cyclical time, and that our current civilization is likely about to undergo a shift into the next cycle, hence the 2012 business.

Just how I see it, anyway.

Thanks for all your input.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   
BTW I just want to add that I am not trying to promote belief in any sort of Christianity or creation myth...in case that wasn't obvious from my last post. I am very much against Christianity but I think its scripture contains some truths that are cloaked in symbolism and surrounded by a lot of simple stories and perversions.





new topics
 
24
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join