Mysterious Origins of Man - Forbidden Archeology

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


it doesn't work as well as you might suggest. let me give you an example:

i was researching radio-metric dating, including carbon-dating, when i stumbled upon a site which explained the entire process. they noted that a dig site is dated once, and thereafter, everything that comes out of the dated strata in that site, must be consistent with the pre-determined dates of the strata or the item is thrown out as contamination. i had to read that a few times because i couldn't believe my eyes.

their reasoning for this process was that they couldn't afford to date every artifact or item in a dig. so the entire site is dated once, according to geological strata, and everything must agree visually with those dates, to be considered concurrent.

this also means that they can and do throw away items found in a strata, based on nothing but visual confirmation, which is itself fueled and filtered by a theory.

that's not science, that's forcing the site to fit the theory. which is okay, provided the end result agrees with the rest of the data. but it doesn't. for some 5ooo years of recorded history, the information in no way agreed with what the new theory claims and massages out of the dig sites. ... with prejudice.


now don't get me wrong, in no way am i saying the world is only 6000 years old. i don't believe that for a second. i believe the planet is very old and had other civilizations on it in the very distant past (not necessarily human civilizations!) but i also don't believe in macro evolution.

[edit on 29-3-2009 by undo]

Originally posted by undo i was researching radio-metric dating, including carbon-dating, when i stumbled upon a site which explained the entire process. they noted that a dig site is dated once, and thereafter, everything that comes out of the dated strata in that site, must be consistent with the pre-determined dates of the strata or the item is thrown out as contamination. i had to read that a few times because i couldn't believe my eyes.

this also means that they can and do throw away items found in a strata, based on nothing but visual confirmation, which is itself fueled and filtered by a theory.

The base belief is what's called "the Law of Stratigraphic Superposition", which says that all things being equal, the deeper you go, the earlier it was laid down. So...there are also processes that challenge that law...cryroturbation, for instance. That is the same process by which fields 'grow' rocks. Or groundhogs! They can place an intrusive item into a context that will make your head spin.

Another law is "One date is no date", so nobody is going to do a carbon-14 test on a piece of charcoal and throw out everything that doesn't correspond. Also...stuff doesn't get thrown out. It is catalogued and ends up in a box on a shelf. Trust me...I've processed nails by the pound.

Also, since you often have students working as shovel monkeys...their finds are bagged and processed later on by those with more skills.

Most importantly...lots of excavations end up being multi-componant sites. A friend of mine capsulised it by saying 'A nice place to camp is a nice place to camp'. You need to expect the unexpected.

Don't forget, nobody goes to school or academia in order to confirm the status quo. Everybody is looking to be Howard Carter, or Indiana Jones, or a great theorist. They're looking for the unusual!

You know what? You have an obvious interest in the subject. Join a society, or take a course. Get in on a dig and talk to pros. It will open your eyes.

Take this from somebody who was talking about Graham Hancock to a Prof...who explained to me patiently that he knew exactly how the Pyramid's blocks were cut, as he had excavated sites where the tools had been dropped beside the partially processed stone.

Find somebody who'll let you dig. Pick their brains. Happy trails!

Here's a self edit to include the fact that just because you're an academic...that certainly doesn't mean you can't be some kind of arse, too...

[edit on 29-3-2009 by JohnnyCanuck]

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Sp in other words, you smart guys have figured it all out, and anybody who questions you, or the other higher ups in the status quo of the fraternity, must be wrong.

They are all theories, and that you need to knock them down without ever presenting a decent, logical argument for doing so, really blows your credibility, no matter what school you went to, or what sites you have dug on.

How did those artifacts get down under a mountain where people mine for gold? What might happen out in a sandy desert or muddy plain is one thing, but under a mountain?

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


well that was the problem. the site i found the data on was part of the community you refer to. and they clearly said out of place artifacts were thrown away. perhaps they meant discarded into big bins and stored in the warehouse like the ark of the covenant in the raiders of the lost ark film, but the point is the same. many people would like to know just what is in the basement of the smithsonian, for the very same reason.

another thing. margaret murray was a female egyptian archaeologist. you know of her? according to her, the trend of dating the buildings of egypt based on an inscription was new at the time of her career, and that they had hitherto dated the buildings based on style, composition and other details - not the signature of a pharaoh. on at least 2 buildings in egypt, they've parted with their prior tradition of dating it based on those considerations and when the building wouldn't fit their theories, they'd ignore all the obvious signs and just go with the ......so and so signed it, theory. in this way, they could make up anything they wanted about egypt (you realize the historical timeline for the rest of the western world is set by events in egypt, minus any consideration for what their texts actually say!)

how about the osirieon at abydos? there's an eye opener for you. no way was that building built by SETI I , but mainstream egyptology insists he did. funny, the reasoning they use is even shown to be incorrect by one of their own supporters! the architectural plans didn't originally include SETI I's inscriptions or additional hallways.

[edit on 29-3-2009 by undo]

Originally posted by poet1b
Sp in other words, you smart guys have figured it all out, and anybody who questions you, or the other higher ups in the status quo of the fraternity, must be wrong.
They are all theories, and that you need to knock them down without ever presenting a decent, logical argument for doing so, really blows your credibility, no matter what school you went to, or what sites you have dug on.
How did those artifacts get down under a mountain where people mine for gold? What might happen out in a sandy desert or muddy plain is one thing, but under a mountain?

Forgive me for saying, but I think you're blowing your credibility by arguing with me based upon what some guy with an obvious agenda has told you. You don't know that stuff is there, came from there, looks like that. You're taking buddy's word for it.

I'm not in a fraternity. I'm a tradesman. I'm some schmuck that decided when he was forty that he enjoyed the subject so much he'd go for a degree in anthro.

I just don't take 'some guy's' word as sacrosanct. And if I want to know about a subject, ultimately I'll track down the science, so that I can see what somebody has endeavored to prove to his peers. Who all put their academic asses on the line. Who, if they fake science, are tossed out and everything they've ever published is discounted forever.

You want me to comment about some goodie found under a mountain, show me how the excavation went. Show me the logs. Was it a sealed context, or did somebody drop a sparkplug into a coal mine and go "Well, lookey there!"

Originally posted by undo well that was the problem. the site i found the data on was part of the community you refer to. and they clearly said out of place artifacts were thrown away.

gimme the link...then I can comment further.

another thing. margaret murray was a female egyptian archaeologist. you know of her?

Frankly, I focus on the archaeology of Southern Ontario, so that I can always make a phonecall, then walk onto a site and pick up a trowel. I don't see myself getting to Egypt so I didn't stay on top of the work.

You, I have hope for. Get involved locally. You can, it's fun.

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by serenityone

 

I KNOW how the pyramids were built.

Pretty easily actually. IF one employs his or her brain.

Cheops pyramid for example, could have easilly been built in five years, using only a small workforce. Around a thousand skilled quarrymen/masons, and around five thousand labourers.

These are arbitary figures, but the number is very small in comparison to 'official' estimates.

All one has to do is think about a task with your own mind, NOT using text books and other biased knowledge, and the solution presents itself.

Remembering of course, that the ancient builders were aparently a LOT cleverer than modern builders, and took the logical route.

And the solution is so simple it's scary that it has escaped the 'professionals' and most of the worlds scolars.

If i had funding and manpower, i could build a bigger pyramid in perhaps five to eight years using my method.

Want to know how it was done? I bet you do!

spikey.

One person who can give an explanation in this matter should be aware of that he/she not only gives the explanation on all the pyramids in the world but also the rest of the sites with all that comes to it!

I have my own theory but I gladly hear yours, maybe it´s the same!

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


I am not supporting any theories by any guy telling what ever nonsense you are writing about. I am just keeping an open mind on the subject, which is what I think you need to do.

I don't know how these various excavations were conducted any more than you do. What I am saying is if you don't have any real evidence to dismiss these finds out of hand, you should leave some room in your skepticism to admit they might have some legitimacy.

It is not all all unreasonable to suggest that maybe the current theories on the time line of Human development, or the development of technology through the millenniums might be off considerably. We really don't know enough yet to claim that the current theories are all that accurate. More and more evidence seems to be coming to light to suggest that current theories could be very wrong.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

I am not supporting any theories by any guy telling what ever nonsense you are writing about. I am just keeping an open mind on the subject, which is what I think you need to do.

I don't know how these various excavations were conducted any more than you do.

If the excavation was a proper archaeological dig, chances are pretty good you can find the paperwork somewhere. As to keeping an open mind, I have to say that I am not going to discard a scientifically-based analysis because of what is written by a layman with an apparent contradictory agenda...especially when that agenda is fuelled by religion.

It's one thing to say 'I have examined the evidence and I have reached a different but equally plausable conclusion' It's quite another to say that this guy said something interesting therefore we must give it equal standing. Gotta bring more than that to the table if you're going to tackle the status quo. If there is a strong possiblity of there being a different story, hunt it down and prove it. 'Could very well be wrong' isn't the same as 'Is wrong', and there's a reason for that.

You can hunt these things down. Learn how to use a research library. Email principal investigators...they love to talk about their stuff.

People are still using the fact that a person is religious to invalidate their professional work?
Even when the videos in question here never mentioned religion even once?

This is silly.

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
People are still using the fact that a person is religious to invalidate their professional work?
Even when the videos in question here never mentioned religion even once? This is silly.

No, 'silly' is not looking up the writer and asking how such beliefs factor into their...perception.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


If you were paying attention, you would have noticed that I did some research, and posted a link about Tiahuanaco. Have you done any research on any of these sites talked about to make your claim that they all have no validity? Also, I didn't claim that this new evidence should be automatically put on equal standing with established theories, just given a possibility of having some merit.

In other words, if you are here to debunk, then provide some research to back up your claims.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


No, 'silly' is looking for any excuse to discredit a work because it doesn't fit your paradigm.
Something that has happened multiple times in this very thread.

Once again, is the author of this work incorrect when he calls into question the logic of assuming that not only did builders half way across the planet decide to build structures that appear similar to one another in both style and size but ALSO materials used, specifically alloy stapes in the joints of the building, but that they did so without any knowledge of one another?

How about any OTHER thing of credence in this presentation?

Instead, you discredit him because he is religious. Your bias is glaring.


[edit on 30-3-2009 by Jay-in-AR]

And I suppose the fact that coca and tobacco have been found in Egyptian mummies is just another coincidence in this equation.
Give me a break.

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
Instead, you discredit him because he is religious. Your bias is glaring.

I am biased against stoopid. I am biased against ignorance.

As to the nicotine/coc aine question? It's a doozy, and personally, I can hardly wait til that one gets figured out.

I'm just not going to buy into Cremo because he can ask a question. It's the answers that interest me. And that's where the proof has to materialise.

And you can believe what you want to, but I think assuming that people couldn't come up with impressive architectural and engineering accomplishments...on both sides of the pond, shows some bias as well.

Look at the journal articles. Make JSTOR your friend. If you're gonna be an armchair expert, may as well do it right.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Once again, you have discredited the idea through preconceived notions or outright bias against the man for personal reasons.
You are tiresome.

He HAS given his explanation. And it is something you have stayed away from this entire time. Man is older than believed.

He has given quite a bit of evidence to support his hypothesis, but as I have pointed out, you ignore it and focus on your personal differences.

Got anything better, canuck?

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


PROOF?



Surely you jest.
We are talking about events that happened thousands of years ago.
Surely a studied man such as yourself realizes the folly in this statement.

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

You are tiresome. Got anything better, canuck?

Nope. Happy trails. Knock yourself out, and write when you're published.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Cool dude. To tell you the truth, I have actually been done here for quite some time.
I just found it sort of hillarious (don't take this the wrong way) that when I came back a few times to check on the thread, as it is still in my queue, that you were always like the most recent poster and you were always making the same bullsh!t unsubstantiative counters while claiming the entire time yourself to be a member of something above the entire thing.

Laughable.

Don't worry about ever reading me in your journals. They aren't worth my time. I have bigger fish to fry in other venues. This was just something I was interested in and thankfully, your lack of a serious argument merely piques my interest moreso.

I'd like to interject something here.

Originally, the reasons given for not considering the ancient texts were based on things like:

1) it's not scientifically possible for-
--a) people to fly in the sky, therefore, references to gods and/or people flying in the sky are myth
--b) create new life from anything other than a womb, therefore, references to people being created outside a womb, are myth
--c) create hybrid species, therefore, references to cross breeding and animorphs are myth
--d) destroy two cities at once, destroy entire planets, or make large amounts of water move, therefore, references to such things are myth

2) this was followed up shortly by-

--a) the greek texts are fabrications because the ancient greeks couldn't write, therefore anything they say is a falsehood
--b) the hindu texts are fabrications
--c) the roman texts are fabrications
--d) the babylonian, assyrian, chinese, japanese, egyptian, mayan, inca, aztec, texts are fabrications
--e) the torah, hebrew pseudopigraphia, dead sea scrolls and the bible, are fabrications

3) which gave rise to-

--a) the even more ancient cities mentioned in these texts, such as Troy, never existed.

AND ALL OF THIS WAS DETERMINED BY ACADEMIA BEFORE THE ADVENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY.

Today, we are lead to believe all those ancient texts are mythological fabrications because some pre-enlightenment professors decided the ancient world was one big lie, AND they did this before they had any evidence to support their conclusions.

40 years later, it was determined that the ancient greeks could write. The professors who wrote on the subject and trashed ancient greece, never recanted. When confronted, their excuse was -- "well you don't actually believe the stories in their epics, do you?" It didn't matter whether or not the initial hypothesis was right, as far as they were concerned, there was no evidence "and besides, TROY NEVER EXISTED"....that is, till it was found 1000 years later.

This goes on and on. Did you know Gilgamesh never existed? That is, till they discovered his city in the desert, along with a monument dedicated to his burial spot.

Just ignore the rest of the information, call our ancestors what you will. But do so at your own intellectual peril.


[edit on 30-3-2009 by undo]

reply to post by undo


Apparently calling someone out on the meat of an issue is enough to turn them away from the subject.

No wonder I disdain "academia" in regards to these subjects.

Yeah, I won't be picking up any of the canuck's texts any time soon and I'll be looking forward to HIS publishings otherwise.