it is possible, but there is no supporting evidence that the Aztec/Maya had and used such technology, if you know something to the contrary, please point me in the right direction.
[edit on 1-9-2009 by enduser]
All Crystal skulls found! Coast to Coast 20 Aug, 09., page 3
privacy
reply posted on 1-9-2009 @ 06:12 PM by GigaloCool
reply to post by zarp3333
Make no mistake about it (everyone). At the end times, the dawning of Aquarious, there will be many imposters. This is a deliberate move to take attention away from prophecy. BUT - the imposters themselves verify the dawning of the end times.
Make no mistake about it (everyone). At the end times, the dawning of Aquarious, there will be many imposters. This is a deliberate move to take attention away from prophecy. BUT - the imposters themselves verify the dawning of the end times.
reply posted on 1-9-2009 @ 06:17 PM by Bspiracy
Originally posted by enduser
reply to post by Bspiracy
to be honest with you, i wanted the skulls to be ancient but the evidence suggests otherwise. i appreciate your comments, and i am a very open minded person, but unfortunately i have to go with the scientific findings.
unless you can provide actual evidence that these skulls were made x thousand years ago, i will stick with the current scientific verdict.
First, I don't want or not want.
Second, the "scientific findings" are prefaced with
"" The researchers used an electron microscope to show that the skulls were probably shaped using a spinning disc-shaped tool made from copper or another suitable metal.""
Do I need to point out the word PROBABLY ?
too many times I hear "scientific fact" that only changes by 180 degrees a decade later. I believe the links i provided are PROOF that the word PROBABLY is seriously over valued.
I'm not trying to change your mind per say, I'm just trying to remind you that scientific PROBABLES followed by reasoned DERIVED from these probables are FREQUENTLY dis-proved.
If you choose to "stick" with that then so be it... I however will stick with the "no one knows so we'll see later. If everyone let the PROBABLE rule how they thought, then a great many advances and discoveries would never have come to pass.
b
reply posted on 1-9-2009 @ 06:25 PM by enduser
reply to post by Bspiracy
I understand the meaning of the word probably, as i understand the word unlikely. there is a high probability that these are fakes,
1. probably - with considerable certainty; without much doubt; "He is probably out of the country"; "in all likelihood we are headed for war"
belike, in all likelihood, in all probability, likely
2. probably - easy to believe on the basis of available evidence; "he talked plausibly before the committee"; "he will probably win the election"
credibly, plausibly, believably
I understand the meaning of the word probably, as i understand the word unlikely. there is a high probability that these are fakes,
1. probably - with considerable certainty; without much doubt; "He is probably out of the country"; "in all likelihood we are headed for war"
belike, in all likelihood, in all probability, likely
2. probably - easy to believe on the basis of available evidence; "he talked plausibly before the committee"; "he will probably win the election"
credibly, plausibly, believably
reply posted on 1-9-2009 @ 06:30 PM by GigaloCool
Originally posted by Bspiracy
Originally posted by enduser
reply to post by Bspiracy
to be honest with you, i wanted the skulls to be ancient but the evidence suggests otherwise. i appreciate your comments, and i am a very open minded person, but unfortunately i have to go with the scientific findings.
unless you can provide actual evidence that these skulls were made x thousand years ago, i will stick with the current scientific verdict.
First, I don't want or not want.
Second, the "scientific findings" are prefaced with
"" The researchers used an electron microscope to show that the skulls were probably shaped using a spinning disc-shaped tool made from copper or another suitable metal.""
Do I need to point out the word PROBABLY ?
too many times I hear "scientific fact" that only changes by 180 degrees a decade later. I believe the links i provided are PROOF that the word PROBABLY is seriously over valued.
I'm not trying to change your mind per say, I'm just trying to remind you that scientific PROBABLES followed by reasoned DERIVED from these probables are FREQUENTLY dis-proved.
If you choose to "stick" with that then so be it... I however will stick with the "no one knows so we'll see later. If everyone let the PROBABLE rule how they thought, then a great many advances and discoveries would never have come to pass.
b
You are correct my friend, doctors putting leaches on people was considered the top of medical science not too long ago. And they still had the nerve to think that anyone doubting them was a fool.
reply posted on 1-9-2009 @ 06:43 PM by enduser
here's the documentary from the sci fi channel, watch it and then come back for debate
www.youtube.com...
[edit on 1-9-2009 by enduser]
www.youtube.com...
[edit on 1-9-2009 by enduser]
reply posted on 2-9-2009 @ 09:01 AM by DwaynetheSpecious
Bull#, I am no debunker, but this is clearly bull#.
Read on wikipedia.
The paris skull:
In 2009 the C2RMF researchers published results of further investigations to establish when the Paris skull had been carved. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis indicated the use of lapidary machine tools in its carving. The results of a new dating technique known as quartz hydration dating (QHD) demonstrated that the Paris skull had been carved later than a reference quartz specimen artefact, known to have been cut in 1740. The researchers conclude that the SEM and QHD results combined with the skull's known provenance indicate it was carved in the 18th or 19th century.[46]
Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
Wikipedia; en.wikipedia.org...
If you read about all the skulls you will realize that NONE of them are really that old... 36.000 years... HAHA... ATS is becoming so funny reading these days. I am no debunker nor a none beliver, but I want HARD proof when statements like that are just thrown out. What a disgrace.
Read on wikipedia.
The paris skull:
In 2009 the C2RMF researchers published results of further investigations to establish when the Paris skull had been carved. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis indicated the use of lapidary machine tools in its carving. The results of a new dating technique known as quartz hydration dating (QHD) demonstrated that the Paris skull had been carved later than a reference quartz specimen artefact, known to have been cut in 1740. The researchers conclude that the SEM and QHD results combined with the skull's known provenance indicate it was carved in the 18th or 19th century.[46]
Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
Wikipedia; en.wikipedia.org...
If you read about all the skulls you will realize that NONE of them are really that old... 36.000 years... HAHA... ATS is becoming so funny reading these days. I am no debunker nor a none beliver, but I want HARD proof when statements like that are just thrown out. What a disgrace.
reply posted on 2-9-2009 @ 12:43 PM by enduser
reply to post by DwaynetheSpecious
unfortunately, some people just dont want to believe scientific findings over myth and tale, as that would require having to change their view on a topic they hold dear to their heart. it would also throw a spanner in the works of their overall view of the world/civilisation, much like telling religious people there is no god.
i have to admit, i was disappointed in hearing that the skulls were fakes but im open minded enough to accept any outcome
unfortunately, some people just dont want to believe scientific findings over myth and tale, as that would require having to change their view on a topic they hold dear to their heart. it would also throw a spanner in the works of their overall view of the world/civilisation, much like telling religious people there is no god.
i have to admit, i was disappointed in hearing that the skulls were fakes but im open minded enough to accept any outcome
reply posted on 3-9-2009 @ 04:32 AM by Lasheic
reply to post by Bspiracy
If you think that is a weakness of the Scientific Method, then you know nothing of science, and have no room to criticize it.
A fact, in science, is merely an objective and a verifiable observation. Hypothesis are structured concepts that may potentially explain a set of facts. A Theory is a comprehensive explanation of a set of facts, and is the highest status a hypothesis can raise to. Because science works on falsification, not validation, science will always only ever be an estimate of probabilities based on evidence. Evolution is a theory, and open to falsification. However, the probability of it being true is extremely high (even if one only wants to insist on "micro/macro" BS) - especially because Evolution is also a fact which we have observed.
That site you listed claimed that Tiwanaku was over 17,000 years old. Even Arthur Posnansky apparently only claimed it to be 10,000 years old in his book, the Cradle of American Man. What made the date jump 7,000 years back? Some new science and technology? Hmm... well what's the buzz around the site now?
1,500 years ago huh? That makes your site off by about 18,500 years. That's not a small error.
Also... I believe you said "links" "s". Plural. I only see one, aside from the link copy/pasted from enduser.
Do you know why they are disproven? Because EVERYTHING in science is falsifiable, even the scientific method itself. It has to be, because there must ALWAYS be room left for further investigation and study. Otherwise, science would stop. It uses probabilities to determine how likely an explanation is given the current evidence. That the earth orbits the sun is STILL up for debate, even though we are 99.999~repeating percent sure of it.
This is why science is a self correcting process, and it works.
Until someone can falsify the scientific method, and provide evidence that it doesn't work, I'll "stick" with the evidence of amazing advancement we've had over the last 500 years of it's application, even despite the mistakes.
That's exactly what science says, except they're not too lazy to evaluate the evidence and suggest what it might conclude. So why are you condemning science for something you do, the going a bit further to put some work into it? Is it cause they burst your little fantasy bubble? Are you embracing ignorance, or trying to deny it?
Those discoveries would never have been made without first having the preponderance of evidence to back them up... even if that evidence wasn't found/available until after the theory proposer died.
[edit on 3-9-2009 by Lasheic]
Do I need to point out the word PROBABLY ?
If you think that is a weakness of the Scientific Method, then you know nothing of science, and have no room to criticize it.
too many times I hear "scientific fact" that only changes by 180 degrees a decade later.
A fact, in science, is merely an objective and a verifiable observation. Hypothesis are structured concepts that may potentially explain a set of facts. A Theory is a comprehensive explanation of a set of facts, and is the highest status a hypothesis can raise to. Because science works on falsification, not validation, science will always only ever be an estimate of probabilities based on evidence. Evolution is a theory, and open to falsification. However, the probability of it being true is extremely high (even if one only wants to insist on "micro/macro" BS) - especially because Evolution is also a fact which we have observed.
I believe the links i provided are PROOF that the word PROBABLY is seriously over valued.
That site you listed claimed that Tiwanaku was over 17,000 years old. Even Arthur Posnansky apparently only claimed it to be 10,000 years old in his book, the Cradle of American Man. What made the date jump 7,000 years back? Some new science and technology? Hmm... well what's the buzz around the site now?
Tiwanaku Interactive Dig
Approximately in the middle of the valley are a series of large mounds and small platforms marking the center of the city of Tiwanaku, occupied ca. A.D. 500-950. A dense scatter of ash and pottery and other artifacts is witness to the fact that a large population once lived around these monuments.
1,500 years ago huh? That makes your site off by about 18,500 years. That's not a small error.
Hall of Matt: Weighing Alternative History
His conclusions, published in 1943 in Tihuanacu: The Cradle of American Man have never been taken seriously. And with good reason. The "shoreline" Posnansky identified on surrounding mountains was the result of the formation of the river valley in which Tiwanaku sits (see C. Clapperton, Quaternary Geology and Geomorphology of South America [Elseiver. New York, 1993]) and the stones cannot be aligned with stars, since the Spanish smashed the idolatrous site when they found it, and it was used for centuries afterward as a handy quarry for building materials by locals, including the inhabitants of La Paz. Travellers as late as the 1920s saw statues and stones from Tiwanaku re-used in settlements all round the region. At the site itself, the stones aren't in their original positions. Many were moved and smashed when a railway was built through the centre of the site in the 19th century. Given all this, you can't argue from star-alignments with stones that the site is 17,000 years old; that would be pure guesswork.
Also... I believe you said "links" "s". Plural. I only see one, aside from the link copy/pasted from enduser.
I'm just trying to remind you that scientific PROBABLES followed by reasoned DERIVED from these probables are FREQUENTLY dis-proved.
Do you know why they are disproven? Because EVERYTHING in science is falsifiable, even the scientific method itself. It has to be, because there must ALWAYS be room left for further investigation and study. Otherwise, science would stop. It uses probabilities to determine how likely an explanation is given the current evidence. That the earth orbits the sun is STILL up for debate, even though we are 99.999~repeating percent sure of it.
This is why science is a self correcting process, and it works.
If you choose to "stick" with that then so be it...
Until someone can falsify the scientific method, and provide evidence that it doesn't work, I'll "stick" with the evidence of amazing advancement we've had over the last 500 years of it's application, even despite the mistakes.
I however will stick with the "no one knows so we'll see later.
That's exactly what science says, except they're not too lazy to evaluate the evidence and suggest what it might conclude. So why are you condemning science for something you do, the going a bit further to put some work into it? Is it cause they burst your little fantasy bubble? Are you embracing ignorance, or trying to deny it?
If everyone let the PROBABLE rule how they thought, then a great many advances and discoveries would never have come to pass.
Those discoveries would never have been made without first having the preponderance of evidence to back them up... even if that evidence wasn't found/available until after the theory proposer died.
[edit on 3-9-2009 by Lasheic]
reply posted on 3-9-2009 @ 04:39 AM by detachedindividual
Originally posted by gandhi
Listen to this, they found all 13 crystal skulls in mexico, dating back to 36,000 years old! can you say Atlantis?
www.youtube.com...
All of them found huh? Does that include the fakes? (of which there are believed to be several)
Incidentally, how does one know all of something has been found, if we don't know how many there were to begin with?
reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 07:05 PM by Lasheic
I know this thread is a bit old, but I just remembered something which may add a bit of context to not just this, but other "mysterious
constructions" of the past. Regardless of whether or not the skulls are of modern or ancient construction, just because their manufacture may be
unexplained does not open the door to mystical and magical metaphysical makings. Our ancestors may not have been as technologically savvy as we are,
but they WERE capable of amazing feats of craftsmanship and construction which we still today have trouble replicating.
To use an example which isn't mired in pseudo-spiritualism, consider the case of the Stradivarius. Antonio Stradivari lived in the 15th century, and to this day his top violins are considered by far and away the highest quality instruments ever constructed, followed only perhaps by Giuseppe Guarneri - another 15th century violin craftsman. Each Stradivarius has it's own unique and distinctive characteristics which distinguish them. Not all of them are masterpieces, but the ones which are can fetch millions on the auction block.
Yet here we are, almost 300 years of technical advancement after Stradivari's "golden era", when he made his finest instruments, and we are still unable to fully replicate their craftsmanship. Theories abound, ranging from the denser and more solid wood the instruments were crafted from during the little ice age, to the chemical compounds used in preserving the wood, only recently (this year, for the latest discoveries) replacing the older debunked (often non-scientific) theories - some of which mystical, attributing the extraordinary sound quality to supposed divine providence - supposing the finest of his instruments were crafted from the wooden beams of old historic european Cathedrals. Yet, to this day, the quality of the instruments has yet to be reproduced using the materials and technology thought to be available to him in his day.
Debates are still held over whether or not Stradivari instruments are truly tonally better than today's top modern manufactures - with most audience listeners unable to pick up the subtle tonal differences there are, Stradivari are none-the-less considered to be the most famous and desired violins in existence, and not just for their history and prestige.
So just because something is unexplained, or unreproducible by modern technology, doesn't necessarily imply metaphysical origins. The only difference, in the scope of my example, between some of the finer (and more extraordinary) Crystal Skulls and the finer (and more extraordinary) Stradivari violins, is a mystical storyline surrounding them. If the de-mystifying of the Stradivarius's construction is unremarkable, then why shouldn't the de-mystifying of the Crystal Skull construction be similarly un-remarkable?
To use an example which isn't mired in pseudo-spiritualism, consider the case of the Stradivarius. Antonio Stradivari lived in the 15th century, and to this day his top violins are considered by far and away the highest quality instruments ever constructed, followed only perhaps by Giuseppe Guarneri - another 15th century violin craftsman. Each Stradivarius has it's own unique and distinctive characteristics which distinguish them. Not all of them are masterpieces, but the ones which are can fetch millions on the auction block.
Yet here we are, almost 300 years of technical advancement after Stradivari's "golden era", when he made his finest instruments, and we are still unable to fully replicate their craftsmanship. Theories abound, ranging from the denser and more solid wood the instruments were crafted from during the little ice age, to the chemical compounds used in preserving the wood, only recently (this year, for the latest discoveries) replacing the older debunked (often non-scientific) theories - some of which mystical, attributing the extraordinary sound quality to supposed divine providence - supposing the finest of his instruments were crafted from the wooden beams of old historic european Cathedrals. Yet, to this day, the quality of the instruments has yet to be reproduced using the materials and technology thought to be available to him in his day.
Debates are still held over whether or not Stradivari instruments are truly tonally better than today's top modern manufactures - with most audience listeners unable to pick up the subtle tonal differences there are, Stradivari are none-the-less considered to be the most famous and desired violins in existence, and not just for their history and prestige.
So just because something is unexplained, or unreproducible by modern technology, doesn't necessarily imply metaphysical origins. The only difference, in the scope of my example, between some of the finer (and more extraordinary) Crystal Skulls and the finer (and more extraordinary) Stradivari violins, is a mystical storyline surrounding them. If the de-mystifying of the Stradivarius's construction is unremarkable, then why shouldn't the de-mystifying of the Crystal Skull construction be similarly un-remarkable?
Maybe he'll grant it psychicly?
2012, Awakening within, the third eye...it\'s all coming together.
Posted 12 days ago with 38 member flags
Posted 12 days ago with 38 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Argentina accuses UK of deploying nuclear weapons near Falkland Islands
Breaking Political News, Posted 17 minutes ago
Breaking Political News, Posted 17 minutes ago
HAARP at work? "Tsunami clouds" of fog over Florida High Rise Condos
General Chit Chat, Posted 17 minutes ago
General Chit Chat, Posted 17 minutes ago
Gingrich Campaign Being Investigated for ‘Illegal Acts’
Breaking Political News, Posted 44 minutes ago
Breaking Political News, Posted 44 minutes ago
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
Be sure to NOTICE how Threatening they are to YOU!!! Warning Graphic Footage!
US Political Madness, Posted 16 hours ago, 33 flags
US Political Madness, Posted 16 hours ago, 33 flags
Video: Angry Dad Shoots Daughter's Laptop [Posts on Facebook]
General Chit Chat, Posted 14 hours ago, 31 flags
General Chit Chat, Posted 14 hours ago, 31 flags
Nat Rothschild loses libel action against Daily Mail
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 17 hours ago, 30 flags
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 17 hours ago, 30 flags
Current Potential Habitable Worlds - Update February 2012
Space Exploration, Posted 10 hours ago, 19 flags
Space Exploration, Posted 10 hours ago, 19 flags
Threatened by a Ron Paul victory in Maine, GOP (insider spills beans) adds last minute caucuses.
2012 US Elections, Posted 7 hours ago, 19 flags
2012 US Elections, Posted 7 hours ago, 19 flags
Egypt: Muslims attempt to purge village near Alexandria of its Christian population
Middle East Issues, Posted 13 hours ago, 16 flags
Middle East Issues, Posted 13 hours ago, 16 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
Video: Angry Dad Shoots Daughter's Laptop [Posts on Facebook]
General Chit Chat, Posted 14 hours ago, 216 replies
General Chit Chat, Posted 14 hours ago, 216 replies
BREAKING rumour: Kim Jong-Un assassinated?
Breaking Political News, Posted 12 hours ago, 160 replies
Breaking Political News, Posted 12 hours ago, 160 replies
Most Canadians want the death penalty back
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 10 hours ago, 95 replies
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 10 hours ago, 95 replies
Egypt: Muslims attempt to purge village near Alexandria of its Christian population
Middle East Issues, Posted 13 hours ago, 78 replies
Middle East Issues, Posted 13 hours ago, 78 replies
Be sure to NOTICE how Threatening they are to YOU!!! Warning Graphic Footage!
US Political Madness, Posted 16 hours ago, 76 replies
US Political Madness, Posted 16 hours ago, 76 replies
EWTN (Catholic TV Network) Sues Obama Admin Over Mandate
US Political Madness, Posted 13 hours ago, 71 replies
US Political Madness, Posted 13 hours ago, 71 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.253 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.253 seconds
