I thought the idea that the continents drifted all at once made a far better explanation than the silly but scientifically accepted ones I learned in Anthropology 101.

One problem was that there shouldn't be monkeys in the New World, because that continent separated from Africa too early for them to have evolved or for people to bring them there. So the theory goes that a primate from Africa rafted over to the New World.

Yeah, the idea of a monkey on a raft is pretty funny, but they aren't saying the monkey built the raft with the intention of sailing anywhere, just that they happened to be on some sort of log or something that broke free into the ocean and drifted those thousand miles to South America. And, uh, the monkey not only survived for the long journey but stayed healthy enough to give birth to the little monkey it was pregnant with and they mated and lived happily ever after. Alternatively, the raft brought over a mating pair. And all the diverse primate life on South America evolved from them.

Yeah, this crazy story is part of what made me very distrustful of anything I learned in that class. You know when a liar gets caught and the explanations get more and more fanciful and outlandish? Yet the whole thing could have been explained by saying, maybe our dating of either the continental separation or the arrival of man is wrong, we should revisit it.

So I don't say the Earth definitely shifted as that scientist proposed, all at once, but it's not as ridiculous as many of their other theories and should be examined like anything else.

I wanted to post to this thread because I find this a very interesting topic, and also very relevant to how I spend my free time at the moment. To explain, I saw the Mysterious Origin of Man video on Youtube about 3 weeks ago, and was very intrigued by it and what it proposes. So I was compelled to find this book by Mr Cremo & Mr Thompson and form my own opinion of the evidence presented in the book. So I tried to loan it from the main library in my city, surprise, surprise they dont have it on their list (recommended reading for the public). So I had buy to it over the internet (thank god for the internet). Been reading it in my spare time past week, and I have to say, its brilliant, they put forth evidence taken from actual scientific papers written by accredited experts in their fields from the ninteenth century to the present. All sources are properly referenced so that the reader can actually look up the source of the information that is being presented. Completely open as any good source of information should be. Ive only got half way through part (chapter) 3 which has only covered the evidence of worked bones and stones so far. I havn't got to the cooler stuff of skeletons, etc yet. But what I have read so far has convinced me that what we told and taught aint the true picture of our history. An also only into a short part of the book, you can see the objections to these discoveries based mainly on preconceptions aka prominent theories.
I read previous posts to this thread which attempt to debunk the even thought that the prevailing ideas of our prehistory and evolution which is accepted and propagated in the mainstream could be wrong. Please all I ask if are going to attempt to debunk, read the book and base your argument for debunking on the evidence, or lack of evidence not present to challenge the prevailing theory that modern humans homo sapien sapien came into being only 100,000yrs ago.
Some might be wondering that I may be advocate of the authors personal beliefs, im not, im interested in the truth, finding out where we really came from, who really are, so we can find out where we should be heading.
I forgot to mention im reading Forbidden Archeology, though there is a concised version of the book called The Hidden History of the Human Race, which is much cheaper.

Love, Peace & Truth to you all

it's like half the planet (or more) is mesmerized. few even consider that what has essentially happened is, someone threw out 5000 years of recorded history, under the pretense that it was mythological! that's insane, truly.

[edit on 28-3-2009 by undo]

Originally posted by lindalinda
I thought the idea that the continents drifted all at once made a far better explanation than the silly but scientifically accepted ones I learned in Anthropology 101.

One problem was that there shouldn't be monkeys in the New World, because that continent separated from Africa too early for them to have evolved or for people to bring them there.

It's ok to be glib using half a notion and armed with Anthro 101, but you leave out the fact that the monkeys are different...and that brings on a whole new set of equasions.

I'd got for Anthro 201 before you try to slag the science.

Oh, and furthermore, Earth Crust Displacement isn't associated with evolutionary theory at all.

It is simply a geological hypothesis that nobody in academia has really taken the time to consider.
My guess is because it isn't really testable. I mean, the day we run a test on it is the day we die.


[edit on 28-3-2009 by Jay-in-AR]

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
Oh, and furthermore, Earth Crust Displacement isn't associated with evolutionary theory at all.

It is simply a geological hypothesis that nobody in academia has really taken the time to consider.

Just off the top of my head, human evolution and plate tectonics are not quite coeval. But feel free to mutter among yourselves....

Hey did anyone notice the Alien body at 3:51, its the size of a small child, and the skull is elongated and bulby near the top, its pretty eerie, tis what you would expect from a movie.

Yeah...thats a fact...
Uuuh? What´s a fact?
All we read on the internet is the truth! Yeah right... But all we read in the history books is true? But who wrote them? An opinion with a decided opinion or agenda wrote them as well as textures on the net!

And theres where we fail!

We don´t know, but somebody shureley does! And what about if we connect the loose ends together?
Does it really sound that odd? Time in our consistence of the meaning doesn´t match anywhere near the real truth! We can see it by just looking at the last 1500 yeaars of our civilisations history, we make a lot of assumptions but we can´t put out facts.

Who can really put out facts? NO ONE! everything is based on that specific arkeologists, scientists or astronomist OWN beliefs...

But what if...

If man as a species walked side by side with the dinosaurs some 65 million years ago and the dinosaurs ruled the earth for 200 million years why is it so impossible that a civilization vanished then for som 12000 years ago?

Considering the real figures this becomes a number wich is 2 seconds of 6 months in our time calcylations...

In our 19th century WE thought that we were on the peak of universal intelligence...and look what happened a hundred years later, call in Einstein, Tesla, Verner von Braun or whoever you want. Like I said in my previous post we are lightyears from the technology we find in solid rock.

Yeah right, so a nanoscientist just happened to drop some nanotechnology of his/hers in a russian river some several hundreds of thousands of years ago...

Like someone put forward in a previous post, we are sure about the last thousand years of our history but the time before that we only speculate in. Or did someone like the massive power of the church alter the truth? By meanings of somebody else?
I know this seems like farout the beyond believes but look at it!
Church definately doesn´t have anything to do with god or a universal power! In my opinion, feel free to believe in what power you seek, call it god if you wan´t but don´t mix it with the church, the church is an institution that feed on peoples needs for their own selfish purposes and is a dying race if you ask me! You don´t need a priest to pray, you need your knees!
I don´t believe in god but the feeling that there is something out there that sets the rules, not control it, yes definately!

Just as a philosophic thought? What if?

Then we leave what we learned for 1500 years cause the church has "pracked" it upon us. This doesn´t mean that we give up our religious books like the Bible, Veda, Koran, old norse and further on. Most definately not! But it is the interpretation of these stories we have to mix in to a whole to get the real picture. It feels like yesterdays news when somebody is trying to convince us of their so called truth, mine counted, don´t forget that! But if we all mix what we have at this very moment then what do we get?

-Timelining is totally wrong!

"We cant explain how they could have the technology to do what they did in that time cause they literally had just left the stone age""We cant explain how they could have the technology to do what they did in that time cause they literally had just left the stone age"... Well? Did man leave the stone age 6000 years ago after having lived in the stone age for 2,800 000 000 (billion) years according to some sources?" Uuuh... yes... Just looking at it, well say no more, say no more!
Some time to live in a stone age if you just ask me...

If we together fill in our views from different angels and there seek the real truth we will find our true history, not some loose connected past which every day proves to be questioned.

If we had a total nuclear holocast today, or a total flood or a giant meteorite hit, what would people who survived it do in a hundred years?
Probably start over... Why is it so strange?

[edit on 09/3/28 by serenityone]

Look, here is the deal...
It doesn't require evolutionary theory to be incorrect in order for this to be considered.

All that it requires is that our time-lines be brought closer together.

Everything in the evolutionary record is based on geological findings. Skeletons found in the different layers of strata.

If we have evidence that these things considered modern are found in older strata then we need to relook at the evolutionary time scale that is dependant on the excepted geological time scale.

Saying that it is possible that man and dinosaur coexisted does not mean that evolutionary theory is incorrect.
Not by any means.
All it says is that we need to revisit the geology used to date the changes observed in the evolutionary model.

Please consider it.

[edit on 28-3-2009 by Jay-in-AR]

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
Look, here is the deal...
It doesn't require evolutionary theory to be incorrect in order for this to be considered.

All that it requires is that our time-lines be brought closer together.

Everything in the evolutionary record is based on geological findings. Skeletons found in the different layers of strata.

If we have evidence that these things considered modern are found in older strata then we need to relook at the evolutionary time scale that is dependant on the excepted geological time scale.

Saying that it is possible that man and dinosaur coexisted does not mean that evolutionary theory is incorrect.
Not by any means.
All it says is that we need to revisit the geology used to date the changes observed in the evolutionary model.

Please consider it.

[edit on 28-3-2009 by Jay-in-AR]

Exactly my point!

Change the dates and we´ll have a total other history!
Imagine it!

What we need to do is stretch out the timelines to fill in the gap in history, like adding some 10 000 years in egypt for example. John Anthony West claims this with his colleges f ex.

And the need to extend our human race´s existance with several million years is essential!

It´s not important to fill in all the gaps in human history but whats´s of outmost importance is to show that our excisting civilisation was far from the first on this planet. "Real" archeologists obviously are put out of business if they claim this, well shame on their employers for being stupid and narrowminded. We have much and everything to learn from history and if we control the knowledge we know how history is gonna repeat itself we also have a chance to change it.

In our hearts we suspect where our ancestors went in a terrible wrong direction and it´s our quest and crusade to hinder that history repeats itself again, and again, and again!

Originally posted by undo hi johnny, ...but please try to consider, just for the sake of the thread and the readers, that it makes zero sense to claim thousands of years of historical record are fable and myth, but the next couple hundred years are the facts and nothing but the facts.

What you need to consider is that observations made in the last couple of hundred years...to use your example...have been discerned through a lens tempered by the likes of Darwin and Edison and Einstein and such. What came before has to be interpreted. What was once considered magic is now science. So, it is entirely reasonable to re-think what was said before in terms of what we now know. Disease is not caused by an imbalance of humours...it is brought on by germs and viri.

Correspondingly, much of what we see in archaeology is filtered through the knowledge we have today. And whatever answers Cremo comes up with are not necessarily the best. He is also applying a filter to his statements that introduces a bias. He beleives in Hindu Fundamentalism, and he is not a scientist. Therefore what he says supports his premise...not science.

Science may be a buzz-kill, but as I keep on saying, you don't build a house on a shaky foundation and expect it to stand up. And the truth is, while the Bravo Sierra doesn't stand up...the real story is generally even better.

Originally posted by undo for example, the pendulum went way too far to the opposite side. the position it maintains is untenable. it deliberately ignores EVERY ancient piece of evidence that casts doubt upon even the smallest detail. if it can't ignore it, it reinterprets it so that it agrees. and if it can't do that, it pretends that it agrees even when it's clear it does not. ...the only persons capable of modifying that position are a very select few at the top of the heap and they are all on each other's payroll and good buddy program.

Yes, there is an academic hierarchy...the "Ivory Tower" does exist. And sometimes it is ego-driven and seemingly self serving and impenatrable.

But...I point you towards the example of Tom Dillehay and the Monte Verde site. Science worked under the paradigm of the Americas being peopled during the last Ice Age, and basically racing down the hemisphere in the course of a thousand years or so. There were 'problematic' sites that called this theory into question, but no one site that could budge the prevailing train of thought until Monte Verde. It combined an investigator with impeccable credentials, a totally sealed context and multiple dating in agreement. The 'establishment' was flown to Chile, given all of this and was compelled to change the paradigm. And one site blew the floodgates open.

This goes to say the process is slow, but there's a need for it and it does work! Not fast enough for some...and certainly slow enough that a lot of speculative dreck can be tossed out there by the Cremos and the Hancocks. Still, it was the poop that got me to study the real thing, and as I said, ultimately those stories are way better.