Oldest Americans 1.3 millon years???

Originally posted by Scott Creighton

Lost advanced civilization? Please show me where I say I believe in a lost advanced civilization?

You posted this as an opening statement in your own forum:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It would seem probable then that the AEs of the 4th Dynasty constructed the Giza monuments (most likely for their own cultural/religious ideas) but that the design for them came from another time and place - from another relatively advanced civilisation that is now lost to our history books. If we cannot credit the AEs with this level of advanced knowledge that is clearly on display, then we have to conclude that it came from some other source. We have to conclude that what we are looking at is evidence from a 'Lost Civilisation'.

And later in that same thread you also say:

Exactly right! However, I do believe that in the layout of the Giza pyramids, this (relatively) advanced 'Lost Civilisation' have demonstrated to us their very advanced grasp of mathematics and astronomy. We may never find their artefacts - but at Giza we can see their mind!

Have you since changed your mind due to a more thorough examination of the evidence? If so, I applaud your decision to reexamine the flaws in your original concepts.

Howdy Byrd

I could add that if there was a separate evolution it must have died out a long time ago as none of the existing (AFAIK) lifeform have unique DNA or a non DNA life system.

The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution by Dawkins gives a good description of the interlocked chemistry and DNA of life. How we are all related to one another, species to species.

Its an interesting idea, multiple 'creations' and it may have happened at the start our present 'type' of life won out a long time ago and dominated the type of life on earth - AFAWK

I would think it far more likely that another earlier species of mankind had a sudden rush of development and might have reached 'civilization' first, however all that remains speculation!

.....................

Have you since changed your mind due to a more thorough examination of the evidence? If so, I applaud your decision to reexamine the flaws in your original concepts.

LOL


[edit on 1/6/09 by Hanslune]

Originally posted by DangerDeath
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

Your argument is so generalized that it isn't argument at all...

I don't see how you are actually contributing to this thread. On the contrary, you are trying to use authority of some highly mystified "science" which reserves the right to prove nothing to anyone.

Interesting diatribe. Yes, I now speak in generalities because I lack the patience to micro-debate every half-baked theory that emerges on this site. Instead, I try to point one towards the truly exciting stuff that's being revealed on a daily basis. This 'highly mystified' science is right out there in front of God and everybody if you care to look. Read. Make JSTOR your friend...

And science has assumed a role of inquisition in many cases, burying all those who come up with theories which are not supporting the "official" version. They simply don't get funds if their research can not be used by society to further on the existing oppression.

And you think I speak in generalities? Over twenty years in a university environment informs me that what you say about Academe is more than simplistic, it is frighteningly narrow minded and aggressively ignorant. Sorry if I sound insulting...nothing personal, but your values are scary. If one is to deny ignorance, one must identify it as such.

One of these days it will become known to everyone that there is no such thing as empty space between planets. It is all populated by living beings, invisible only to those who wear heavily restrictive oculars, dictated by the "unseen" authority. But, they are not really invisible, they're just transparent.

Well then...


As the prophet said: "Don't step in that, Wilbur"

Do you believe that an extinct species is a failed species?

Species is an "entity"? A "self"? A "personality"?

This kind of categorization, as invented long time ago, has one purpose only: to manipulate the data. Values are applied to data, they are not inherent to data.

Human species, that is a statistical/logical category. It does not exist in nature as such. If we are really "members" of the one species then we are all responsible for whatever any of us does. This is the speech of an Institution, an ideological construction imposed on individuals.

So, when each of us dies, the species still survives, that is important, isn't it?

I don't believe I am a "member" of this species. I don't remember that I ever applied for membership. And I'm sure I never will.

I will tell you about ancient civilizations. The pyramids were not built by Egyptians as we know them from historical times. There is not one single reason which would justify such an enormous enterprise. And science never answered that question simply because it avoided to ask it. It is much safer that way. All attempts in history, from absolutist rulers never made even close to pyramids. Hagia Sophia, Taj Mahal, nothing from the ancient era can match Pyramids, not just Egyptian pyramids, or huge blocks of stone like those in Baalbek and elsewhere. Our science has no explanation, and despite the "consensus" that decided to ignore these simple facts, science has lost its authority in these matters due to ideological and political position.

Insisting that Pyramids were built by historical Egyptians is the same as insisting that Bin Laden destroyed WTC. Both actions were beyond the strength of the assigned forces. "Consensus" here only means that someone is in control of all loudspeakers and the only argument is the parrot like repeating of the same lie.

Science is systematically ignoring other facts. For instance, there is not one single work of art that has been admitted by science. All prehistoric art is "in function" of either social or religious agenda. Nothing is allowed to be free from such context. Everything our ancestors did must have been in function of today's scientific "consensus". Scientists know everything about how their minds worked...

And this ideology is very old. The latest discovery of a statuette, which was discussed here on ATS, from 35.000 BC.

Here's the article and picture:

www.nytimes.com...

The article says:

one of the oldest known examples of figurative art

But, look carefully. This is not art. This is a work of an amateur and the agenda is so obvious. The idea of a woman which is meant strictly to give birth! That is an ideological agenda applied to all women. That is not art!

Woman = birth-machine.

Another archaeologist, Paul Mellars of the University of Cambridge, in England, agreed and went on to remark on the obvious. By modern standards, he said, the figurine’s blatant sexuality “could be seen as bordering on the pornographic.”

Not just "bordering", it is pornographic, it is political pornography!

This kind of thinking existed 35.000 years ago and I can only imagine how happy some scientists are about this find It justifies so much about us, doesn't it?

This is another scientific conclusion from this article:

Scholars say the large caves were presumably inviting sanctuaries for populations of modern humans migrating then into Central and Western Europe. These were the people who eventually displaced the resident Neanderthals, around 30,000 years ago.

Pay attention to the vocabulary: "displaced". Like, what is going on right now before our eyes in Pakistan, with 2,5 million people "displaced", on the verge of expiring, to say the truth.

How the hell they know they were "migrating" into Central and Western Europe? Were they migrating? From where? In what numbers? Facts?

There are no facts to support this. Just assumptions based on our present behavior and in search of justification of it.

More...

A greatly enlarged vulva emphasizes the “deliberate exaggeration” of the figurine’s sexual characteristics, Dr. Conard said.

I disagree. Why he says "sexual" when it is obvious that it is the "birth machine", not the "pleasure machine"? Did they have sexually oriented rituals, hedonistic religion?

There is nothing realistically tangible or sensual about this figurine. It is all ideologically bloated. Here we don't have a living female being, we have a distorted ideal, a "mind" creature, and I can say: a seriously sick mind.

Science interpreting art - give me a break. Science is hardly capable of recognizing art. Scientists have no training in art. That is a fact. But their training in ideology is enviable.

Just compare this figurine to the erotic scenes from Tassili. What? You haven't seen those? Well, let me tell you. They are not allowed for everyone to see. Not politically correct seeing those, unless you're a scientist with appropriate clearance...

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

And you think I speak in generalities? Over twenty years in a university environment informs me that what you say about Academe is more than simplistic, it is frighteningly narrow minded and aggressively ignorant. Sorry if I sound insulting...nothing personal, but your values are scary. If one is to deny ignorance, one must identify it as such.

I know for a fact how much politics is present in scientific establishment, especially in archaeology. There are things that are "forbidden" to speak about or show them. People lose their jobs, or more, just like that. They don't need expert scientists there, they need obedient ideological errand boys and girls.

It takes many decades for truth found in archaeological sites to find its way to the public. Some never does.

It's a war out there...

Try to present the facts. Literacy existed in Europe 5.000 BC and earlier. But it is ignored. Even 6.500 BC there were places strictly in function of teaching geometry and god knows what else, places from the Neolithic where people didn't live like farmers or shepherds, but came to learn.

Science still claims that Phoenicians invented alphabet which was later adopted by the Greeks. That has been proven incorrect. This literacy preceded Old dynasty by 2.000 years at least. Alphabet was brought to Palestine by Pelasts, who came from Balkan peninsula. Their alphabet originates from Vincan culture, 5.000 - 4.000 BC. This culture was functionally conneted to the Anatolian culture of those times, as well as with Central and Western European cultures. The finds in Gobekli Tepe are even older than this culture, maybe 9.000 BC. Only these facts put a very big question on claims that Egyptians from Old dynasty were the only ones technically capable of erecting pyramids. It is more likely that they were not. Vincan culture existed parallel to Sahara civilization and was most probably connected with it from two directions: Spain and Anatolia and Near East.

This whole cultural development during Neolithic is promptly ignored by most scientists, with some fair exceptions.

Etruscan alphabet from 1.000 BC is fully derived from Vincan proto alphabet. That is a fact. It is not adopted from Greek or Latin. This alphabet could have easily be the alphabet of Trojans, from the same source. After all, all those nations from the northern Balkans fought on the side of Trojans. They were of the same culture. But, somehow, history only likes the winners, isn't it?

Even Homer's Iliad and Odyssey were not originally conceived in Greek . They were ordered to be translated into Greek by Pisistratus. But do they teach us in school about that? Oh no, the facts are not so "clear". Yet, the tradition similar to Homeric existed in other parts of the Balkans until modern days.

Here's the Vincan proto alphabet, so you can check out the facts:

www.omniglot.com...

Only this changes a lot about our perception of the "sources" and "placement" of civilization as we know it.

And here's Etruscan alphabet, so you can see what is a fact in archeology.

www.omniglot.com...




[edit on 1-6-2009 by DangerDeath]

reply to post by Scott Creighton
Hello Scott,

SC: Atlantis? Please show me where I say I believe in Atlantis? Lost advanced civilization? Please show me where I say I believe in a lost advanced civilization?

Done. Like a kid with his hand in the cookie jar...denial! Anyway, who cares? Moving on...

SC: Fact: The Earth was devastated by a series of cataclysmic events some 12,500 years ago.

Not 'fact' entirely...more provisional theories that may explain events in the Americas. Comet impacts etc. Interestingly, 12 500ka is always attached to Atlantis and Diluvial reasons for yet another civilization being clinically removed from the face of the Earth...

Fact: Many animal and plant species disappeared at that time.

I wonder how many have disappeared in our time?

Tell me this is not where Plato (via Solon) obtained his original inspiration for his allegorical tale of Atlantis. It may have been allegorical to Plato but perhaps not for the first inhabitants of Ancient Egypt.The date the AE indicate in their Grand Precession Clock (that is the structures at Giza) concords incredibly well with the date Plato gives for the destruction of this island people.

You already have several threads relating to your Giza Orion idea. Let's keep it over there. I raised the idea only to show where you referred to lost civilizations...or don't...never said it...

SC: Explain clearly what you are referring to here. What evidence was "found wanting"?

Your theory has fallen at the first hurdle. It isn't supported by convincing evidence. If it was -and you'll disagree here- we wouldn't be having the discussion. You'd be an honorary fellow with a book deal and a TV documentary. At least you are in the rare position of having had some rather experienced minds look at your evidence. Have you considered doing an Open University degree?

SC: Complete rubbish! How can "parallel evolution" be in conflict with anything if you (and others) now see it as a possibility? If ONE cell can evolve and ultimately produce higher life forms, why is it not possible that two or more such cells could have done the very same?

OCD? When an idea takes you, evidence is just frosting isn't it?

The lengthy extract from Graham Hancock is a post from a forum. Given the tone and language used, it could have been written by you. Wordy rhetoric and bombast n'est-ce pas?

SC: It's not deliberate. They just do not focus too much on anything beyond Menes. The AE civilisation goes many tens of thousands of years further back in time than Menes. The Edfu Building Texts tells us that.

You'll need to provide a new definition of 'civilization' here. Tens of thousands of years? Truly a lost civilization...

Essentially, you offer two possibilities. One is for another thread, but remains short on supporting evidence that can be widely accepted. The second is required to explain the missing evidence for the first.

reply to post by Byrd

Hello Byrd,

Byrd: They weren't brimming with innumerable identical single celled organisms with identical DNA. This world isn't a giant petri dish. It was never a giant petri dish.

The first traces of life appear nearly 3.5 billion years ago, in the early Archaean. However, clearly identifiable fossils remain rare until the late Archaean, when stromatolites, layered mounds produced by the growth of microbial mats, become common in the rock record. Stromatolite diversity continued to increase through most of the Proterozoic. Until about 1 billion years ago, they flourished in shallow waters throughout the world.

Source: www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...

Byrd: It rotates; so sometimes the sky is full of direct radiation (the sun is a very high radiation source) and sometimes it isn't. The moon was nearer, so tidal influences that were stronger swept over the area at different times of the day. The ocean floor was not a consistent depth, so currents existed in the environment.

SC: And ALL early life forms would be affected to varying degrees. This is not in question.

Byrd: The minute one of those proto-bacteria got swept into another area, it would change.

SC: And if another proto-bacteria was swept into another area (in a different part of the world) it would also change, no?

Byrd: And the first proto-bacteria is now the mother of the second one, and the second one can spawn others... and so on and so forth.

SC: And the other bacteria (i.e. the one on the other side of the world) is now the mother of the second one...and the second one can spawn others..... of course, there could have been trillions of such bacteria doing this all over the world.

Byrd: Those that make it to the poles or to the other side of the Earth... offspring of that first proto-bacteria.

SC: Which could eventually evolve higher life forms (on the other side of the world) than those life forms evolving from the original parent bacteria.

SC: So, does it remain your view that only ONE of these cells in the Precambrian ocean managed to evolve, eventually resulting in all past and present plant and animal species on Earth?

Byrd: Yes. The world is not a huge petri dish. The minute its offspring got out of the area and into another area, they changed. They became many things, including many failed lineages.

SC: The "...offspring got out of the area and into another area...they became many things..." Forgive me for thinking this but it seems you are now actually agreeing with my original premise.

You accept parallel evolution can occur within existing phylae and yet you cannot accpet that it can occur at a much earlier stage in evolution of plant and animal life? That is entirely contradictory.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

reply to post by Hanslune

Hello Hans,

SC: I have proved my case for a Giza-Orion connection (if that is what you are alluding to) far and above reasonable doubt.

Hans: Laughable Scott, as is your odd denial of not mentioning Atlantis. You did why not just admit that you did and move on?

SC: I have already made my position regarding ‘Atlantis’ known. But just for you since you seem to want to make an issue of it – it’s my view that Plato (via Solon) sourced his allegory of the fall of Atlantis from Ancient Egyptian texts that tell much the same story. So Plato may well have made philosophical use of a story that may actually have been based in fact i.e. from the history of the prehistorical Egyptians. Unless, of course, you think the Prehistorical Egyptians made it all up?

Hans: You haven't proved your case at all. As you well know science is based on acceptance and consensus - so who supports your idea? Please list them? You haven't convinced any Egyptologists that I'm aware of or any Archaeologists. There are no peer reviewed papers supporting your theory. It is not discussed at conference - National Geographic haven't called have they? Yours is just another of the 700 or so failed theories about the pyramids. They lay littered around like the pieces of the L'Orient at Aboukir.

SC: Original ideas have no peers. And I much prefer and am happy to have my work reviewed in the open court of public opinion. So, for anyone who is interested:

Giza-Orion – The Proof:

www.scottcreighton.co.uk...

www.scottcreighton.co.uk...

Hans: Self acceptance is not acceptance by the scientific community - now we both know you already know that so why the foolish statement above?

SC: I don’t regard a mathematical proof as “self acceptance”.

Hans: Please stop the silliness. All you have is an idea that fails because it lacks sufficient evidence. Full stop.

SC: You’re entitled to your opinion but the evidence I present tells me you’re wrong. Period.

Hans: I consider the speculation about multi-evolution of more interest. Let your dead idea rest and move on.

SC: Good to hear it.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

reply to post by Byrd

Hello Byrd,

SC: Lost advanced civilization? Please show me where I say I believe in a lost advanced civilization?

Byrd: You posted this as an opening statement in your own forum:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

SC: It would seem probable then that the AEs of the 4th Dynasty constructed the Giza monuments (most likely for their own cultural/religious ideas) but that the design for them came from another time and place - from another relatively advanced civilisation that is now lost to our history books. If we cannot credit the AEs with this level of advanced knowledge that is clearly on display, then we have to conclude that it came from some other source. We have to conclude that what we are looking at is evidence from a 'Lost Civilisation'.

SC: Read what I am actually saying here, Byrd. “If we cannot credit the AEs with this level of advanced [precessional] knowledge that is clearly on display, then we have to conclude that it came from some other source.”

SC: The evidence of precessional knowledge is patently obvious at Giza. If you deny that then we simply have to agree to differ at this point. If you accept it (even tentatively) then we may continue.

Egyptologists do not acknowledge that the AE of the 4th Dynasty (i.e. the people that constructed the Gizamids) had any knowledge of precession so who do you suppose placed that knowledge into the arrangement of the structures? How do we reconcile this? If Egyptologists tell us the AE of the 4th Dynasty had no such knowledge then what is the logical conclusion – that the precessional knowledge came from some (earlier) source that DID know of such things i.e. the Prehistoric Egyptians. This would not be the first time in history that knowledge has been lost (and later rediscovered).

Byrd: Have you since changed your mind due to a more thorough examination of the evidence?

SC: I am not actually disputing the vast body of Egyptological evidence, so let’s get that absolutely clear. I am pointing out that Egyptology is missing a piece of the picture. And it is a piece of the picture that is hinted at in the Building Texts that are largely ignored by mainstream Egyptology. If it takes unorthodox researchers/writers such as myself to point this out and bang on it about then I am happy to be that drummer.

Byrd: If so, I applaud your decision to reexamine the flaws in your original concepts.

SC: Please explain to me precisely the flaws in my original concept?

Regards,

Scott Creighton


[edit on 2/6/2009 by Scott Creighton]

reply to post by Kandinsky

Hello Kandinsky,

SC: Atlantis? Please show me where I say I believe in Atlantis? Lost advanced civilization? Please show me where I say I believe in a lost advanced civilization?

Kandinsky: Done. Like a kid with his hand in the cookie jar...denial! Anyway, who cares? Moving on...

SC: Read the AE Building Texts – that’s the source of Plato’s Atlantis allegory, in my view. It stands to reason then that if I consider the original AE version of the story as perhaps residing more in truth than myth then, by extension, I have to accept what Plato tells us because it’s my view that his writings were based on the original AE texts. Why do you have difficulty understanding this? Or, is it your view that the AE made it all up just as you think Plato did?

SC: Fact: The Earth was devastated by a series of cataclysmic events some 12,500 years ago.

Kandinsky: Not 'fact' entirely...more provisional theories that may explain events in the Americas. Comet impacts etc. Interestingly, 12 500ka is always attached to Atlantis and Diluvial reasons for yet another civilization being clinically removed from the face of the Earth...

SC: Okay – there is strong evidence to support a cataclysm at the end of the Younger Dryas. And a comet impact over America (expecially if parts of it crashed into the Atlantic ocean) would have severe repercussions all over the world.

SC: Fact: Many animal and plant species disappeared at that time.

Kandinsky: I wonder how many have disappeared in our time?

en.wikipedia.org...

SC: I would say that an event that caused the extinction of most of the large mammals in North America was a fairly unusual and significant extinction event.

SC: Explain clearly what you are referring to here. What evidence was "found wanting"?

Kandinsky: Your theory has fallen at the first hurdle. It isn't supported by convincing evidence. If it was -and you'll disagree here- we wouldn't be having the discussion. You'd be an honorary fellow with a book deal and a TV documentary.

SC: Watch this space!! ;-)

Kandinsky: The lengthy extract from Graham Hancock is a post from a forum. Given the tone and language used, it could have been written by you. Wordy rhetoric and bombast n'est-ce pas?

SC: Lets you see how other intelligent people view your beloved HoM though, doesn't it! BTW - my writing is never that good!!

SC: It's not deliberate. They just do not focus too much on anything beyond Menes. The AE civilisation goes many tens of thousands of years further back in time than Menes. The Edfu Building Texts tells us that.

Kandinksy: You'll need to provide a new definition of 'civilization' here. Tens of thousands of years? Truly a lost civilization..

SC: The AE themselves tell us their civilization goes as far back as some 36,000 years. Why do you doubt them?

Regards,

Scott Creighton

The Thiaoouba Prophecy by Michel Desmarquets says that we have been on Earth for 1.3 Million years.

reply to post by Scott Creighton
Hello Scott,

It stands to reason then that if I consider the original AE version of the story as perhaps residing more in truth than myth then, by extension, I have to accept what Plato tells us because it’s my view that his writings were based on the original AE texts. Why do you have difficulty understanding this?

This is the logic that has led you down the garden path and away with the fairies. You've added evidence to a conclusion. You've taken numerous facts and figures, taken them out of context and then used them to support a bizarre idea.

The OP wondered about footprints being 1.3 million years old. They've been firmly planted 40ka. The 40ka has been supported by evidence supplied by reliable sources. Those sources used the experience and results of decades of studies and repeatable tests. Rather then fit into a 'self-serving' paradigm, they extend accepted accounts of human migration by at least 20ka. They've done so without any condemnation or people losing their livelihoods...

I have personally spoken with archaeologists who have been working on digs around the world who were asked to 'lose evidence' since it did not fit the 'narrative'. And I am told also that this is not an uncommon occurrence.

I am not going to name names - livelihoods involved here.

Lost Civilizations

It's around that point that the thread holds it's nose and plunges off the deep end...Following in the footsteps of such credible researchers as Von Daniken, Cremo, Thompson, Sitchin and Berlitz you use their arguments and techniques. The footprints are removed from their context and run through the wonderful 'what if?' machine. What if they actually are 1.3 million ya?

Of those authors above all wanted money for personal or religious gain. All sought to undermine the validity of accepted models of evolution and history. Why? Because their ideas couldn't stand without doing so and books wouldn't sell. They are all intellectually dishonest. They conceal explanations for their de-contextualized 'mysteries.' They never offer the alternative prosaic, explanation. They lie to their to their readers for personal gain and profit. Lies and liars.

So 'what if' they were 1.3million ya? Although it's clear they aren't...'what if? This leads us into a discussion on 'pre-Cambrian parallel evolution'. Fossil, genetic, evolutionary, ice-core and everything else does not show evidence for humanoids at that period in time. The only way to avoid sharing the 40ka conclusion is to invent a parallel evolution model and drag out the VSM strawman. If she was sorely used in the 70s, she's been utterly exploited to support ooparts, parallel evolution and anything else by you and the Cremo books. Funny how science is correct in Hueyatlico and so mistaken in the 40ka footprints in the same basin...

Another important fact that is overlooked by purveyors of these types of theories is that our understanding of history changes always. It isn't dictated to by conservative archaeologists. 40ka footprints? Homo Floriensis? Oxbow people medicine wheels? Pre-Clovis lithics in Texas? Maybe Topper? Maybe Valsequillo? Hall of Maat may not support the wildest claims, but they do discuss all of these fringe dates from an informed position. The above are discussed and remain distinctly possible...

Pre-Cambrian parallel evolution of a distinct species of tool using humanoid, subsequently extinct and erased from fossil record (including precursor fossils)? Sort of way out possible...remotely...

Without this 'parallel evolution,' accepted models of history must remain and be adapted to new evidence. If they remain? Atlantis never happened. Lost civilizations didn't exist and what else? No codex falling from skies in either physical or allegorical sense. No Giza-Orion alignment. No warnings of cyclical cataclysms. Essentially, one more theory to be cast aside in the real search for knowledge. Even more, ten years of internet discussion made redundant. No glory and no booksales.

I think your kidding yourself Scott. You want to believe it so much that conflicting and missing evidence is all cast aside. On a positive note, I admire your willingness to run the ideas out in front of a non-partisan audience. You'd never be questioned on the Hancock site (I bet he's made some fame and fortune!), but HoM was a brave move. Letters to universities etc were a brave move.

Kandinsky:

Pre-Cambrian parallel evolution of a distinct species of tool using humanoid, subsequently extinct and erased from fossil record (including precursor fossils)? Sort of way out possible...remotely...

Neanderthals are parallel to modern humans. It is claimed that they had "one" common ancestor like 600,000 years ago.

Now, what is taken as point here is to prove that all present life can be traced back to one particular single cell organism in pre-Cambrian era. What is the point for this insistence?

Who can check out every living being on Earth to prove this? And what would be the meaning of this proof?

Once they successfully clone a human being, will this clone also be considered a descendant of that same protozoa?

It may become a legal matter, but biologically or otherwise, this Clone will be a "creation".

That is a fact. And if it turned out that someone inseminated Earth with protozoa in pre-Cambrian times, it will turn out that we are all "creations" and evolution as it is will finally be accepted for what it really is - a statistical account of changes and nothing more than that.

reply to post by Kandinsky

Hello Kandinsky,

SC: It stands to reason then that if I consider the original AE version of the story as perhaps residing more in truth than myth then, by extension, I have to accept what Plato tells us because it’s my view that his writings were based on the original AE texts. Why do you have difficulty understanding this?

Kandinsky: This is the logic that has led you down the garden path and away with the fairies.

SC: Ad hominem – not worthy of a response.

Kandinsky: You've added evidence to a conclusion.

SC: Nonsense.

Kandinsky: You've taken numerous facts and figures, taken them out of context and then used them to support a bizarre idea.

SC: Clearly then my ability to consider the ancient texts of the AE as being a credible source is greater than yours. Clearly my ability to see the flaw in evolution and come up with a solution to it is better than yours.

Kandinsky: The OP wondered about footprints being 1.3 million years old. They've been firmly planted 40ka. The 40ka has been supported by evidence supplied by reliable sources.

SC: Good. Now tell me when the maker of the footprint – or their ancestor – first arrived in the Americas?

Kandinsky: It's around that point that the thread holds it's nose and plunges off the deep end...Following in the footsteps of such credible researchers as Von Daniken, Cremo, Thompson, Sitchin and Berlitz you use their arguments and techniques. The footprints are removed from their context and run through the wonderful 'what if?' machine. What if they actually are 1.3 million ya?

SC: So tell me – what’s the context of the ancestors of this footprint?

Kandinsky: Of those authors above all wanted money for personal or religious gain.

SC: All my work and theories are FREELY available to read online. I don’t subscribe to any religion. So, what’s your point?

Kandinsky: So 'what if' they were 1.3million ya? Although it's clear they aren't...'what if? This leads us into a discussion on 'pre-Cambrian parallel evolution'.

SC: And what is so wrong with that? Discussion is healthy.

Kandinsky: Fossil, genetic, evolutionary, ice-core and everything else does not show evidence for humanoids at that period in time.

SC: And yet there’s VSM’s evidence (pending confirmation) of an intelligent species being in the Americas some 250,000 years ago (at least). Perhaps these were the ancestors of your 40kyo footprint?

Kandinsky: The only way to avoid sharing the 40ka conclusion is to invent a parallel evolution model and drag out the VSM strawman.

SC: Labelling VSM’s evidence as a ‘strawman argument’ is without foundation. And Preceambrian Parallel Evolution can hardly be considered an ‘invention’ – it’s a logical deduction based on evolutionary theory as we presently understand it.

Kandinsky: If she was sorely used in the 70s, she's been utterly exploited to support ooparts, parallel evolution and anything else by you and the Cremo books. Funny how science is correct in Hueyatlico and so mistaken in the 40ka footprints in the same basin.

SC: All the more reason to suspect that there has been a continuous settlement in that area for a very long time.

Kandinsky: Pre-Cambrian parallel evolution of a distinct species of tool using humanoid, subsequently extinct and erased from fossil record (including precursor fossils)? Sort of way out possible...remotely...

SC: Well we know the fossil record is incomplete – we are always being told this. And – as I keep saying to you – Forbidden Archaeology presents many anomalous artifacts some of which cannot be explained by the prevailing evolutionary theory. PreCambrian Parallel Evolution might help us find an explanation instead of the present knee-jerk response of simply writing it all off as fakes, hoaxes or accidents of nature.

Kandinsky: Without this 'parallel evolution,' accepted models of history must remain and be adapted to new evidence. If they remain? Atlantis never happened. Lost civilizations didn't exist and what else? No codex falling from skies in either physical or allegorical sense. No Giza-Orion alignment. No warnings of cyclical cataclysms. Essentially, one more theory to be cast aside in the real search for knowledge. Even more, ten years of internet discussion made redundant.

SC: Such is the price of progress. You’ll be telling us next that Gobekli Tepe doesn’t exist.

Kandinsky: No glory and no booksales..

SC: Glory? Book sales? I don’t see much of that happening here, do you? As I have repeatedly told you – all my work/theories are entirely available FREE of charge here on ATS and Graham Hancock.

Seems to me you are merely trying to do everything you possibly can to taint, tarnish and otherwise discredit. If you can’t beat the theory – beat its author. I’ve seen it all before. But concern yourself not – I have tough skin and a strong chin.

Kandinksy: I think your kidding yourself Scott.

SC: I beg to differ. You initially attacked my ideas of parallel evolution but you now accept it as a ‘possibility’ but yet you are not prepared to take that concept to its ultimate, inescapable conclusion – the parallel evolution of other intelligent hominid species. You can see the total logic of parallel evolution and yet you are holding your hands to your eyes because you don’t want to see where that simple logic inevitably leads. I think it is you that is kidding yourself, not I.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

reply to post by Scott Creighton

I have personally spoken with archaeologists who have been working on digs around the world who were asked to 'lose evidence' since it did not fit the 'narrative'. And I am told also that this is not an uncommon occurrence.
I am not going to name names - livelihoods involved here.

Scott, I've tried to find the context in which you quoted this little nugget, because it surprises me. For someone who decries the closed ranks of conspiratorial science, this is the worst form of blackbox argument.

I mean, you can spew any ol' tripe and say "I'm right because somebody I can't name said something to me about it once." That's ok as a conversational observation, but serves no use in a debate.

That's not to say scientists haven't been broken for bucking the status quo, but if you're going to throw it out there, you need to back it up.

Faith and religion are to be found on a different board.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

Hello Johnny,

JC: I mean, you can spew any ol' tripe and say "I'm right because somebody I can't name said something to me about it once." That's ok as a conversational observation, but serves no use in a debate.

SC: To be honest I could say pretty much the same thing about some of the comments that have been levelled at me of late. However.... what I said happens to be the words of a qualified archaeologist. I can't honestly see why they would wish to lie about something that is so obviously detrimental to their profession? So, short of a signed testimony from them you are simply going to have to take my word that this is what I was told. Not a lot else I can say to you.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

I have personally spoken with archaeologists who have been working on digs around the world who were asked to 'lose evidence' since it did not fit the 'narrative'. And I am told also that this is not an uncommon occurrence.

BS Scott, you simply made it up to support your bias of "I hate science because it rejects my idea". Odd isn't that after 40 years associated with archaeology I've never heard anyone mention this except Soviet archaeologists and their "suppression" was well known and documented.

I think we can put this one with your "I never said Atlantis" joke.

Are you working at attaining a crank image?

Okay Scott

I have personally spoken with fringe researcher who have been working on websites around the world who were asked to "make up evidence' since we need some to challenge the narrative. I'm also told this is very common.

Is that true Scot?

reply to post by Hanslune

Hello Hans,

Ad hominems notwithstanding, play the ball, not the man.

Deal with the evidence, the proof of Giza-Orion. Your resorting to ad hominems does your argument absolutely no favours. You're better than that.

Very best,

Scott Creighton

So Scott you are still trying to self-approve your idea? So you now claim (Actually I do believe you claimed it before) that you have mathematical proof.

Okay list those math experts who agree with you? Math is math, math doesn't lie. So those names are?

You have claimed that evil people threaten those who make discoveries that threaten the 'narrative'...is that correct?

Yet you ALSO claim that you have proof that will disprove the narrative.

Yet as far as I can tell you are neither dead nor suppressed.

This seems to falsify either your opinion that your idea is great narrative changing stuff OR their is no evil organization suppressing information against the 'narrative'.

Please explain....LOL

reply to post by Scott Creighton


I'm responding to a guy who likes to make up stuff, state it publically then deny he said it then expects us to accept it and not make a judgement based on that. That sir, doesn't make you a 'scholar' it means you are acting like a crank.

Along with a highly laughable concept of you self approving your own idea and blowing of the science community and expecting to be taken seriously.

You're not being taken seriously and there is a reason - what do you think that is?

As usual you didn't address the question, is my quote on par with your made up quote?



[edit on 3/6/09 by Hanslune]