A Skull that rewrites the History of Man!

Originally posted by hoghead cheese
...[there was] a super civilization that was on this planet a very long time ago and that we are digging up bits and pieces of that world and not seeing it for what it could be.

That's something I've wondered from time to time. Could there have been an advanced civilization in Earth's remote past that, perhaps, rivaled or technologically surpassed our own civilization?

At present, our civilization is on the verge of playing around with the human genome, tweaking it to produce man-made Man in the very near future. What will be the outcome of this experimentation a few thousand or hundreds of thousands of years from now? Will we see the rise of several new species branching off from Homo sapiens?

Quite possible.

Well, then, what if it's already been done?

Could a "super" civilization have explored genetic engineering in the very distant past, producing several different species of proto-humans? Why not?

It's amusing to think that the last remnants of the "super" civilization may have hung around until fairly recent times, attempting to pass on fragments of their advanced knowledge to their descendants — farming, writing, metallurgy, astronomy, math, etc, may be the surviving "fragments" of a super knowledge base.

Think of this. If a very primitive people asked us how to become immortal, what might we tell them?

We might reply, "Well, a kind of immortality may be achieved through cloning technology in the future."

The primitive people would scratch their heads and say, "How do we do that?"

We answer, "Well, the technology isn't yet perfected, but we would need samples of your blood and bone and flesh and a few tissue samples from your internal organs. We would need to preserve these samples until our cloning technology was perfected, and then we could bring you back to life using the tissue samples, and we could keep you alive indefinitely by cloning replacement organs for you."

The primitive people are thrilled, and they all want to be cloned.

We patiently explain, "Hold on, this won't be a free service. Cloning technology is going to be enormously expensive, so only the very rich will be able to afford it."

Disappointed, the primitive people wave goodbye to us as we board our riverboat and chug away on our journey back to civilization.

A month later, our modern civilization totally destroys itself through greed and stupidity. Only the primitive people remain, awaiting our return.

In anticipation of our return, these primitives follow the description we left them for preserving their bodily tissues and entombing these preserved tissues with gold and gems and other treasures, so as to pay for the mystical cloning process that would lend them immortality.

This eventually becomes their religion, steeped in much folklore and ritual.

Now, think about what the ancient Egyptians did with their extraordinary mummification processes and elaborate burials with fortunes in treasure. They were preparing for an eternal life, also, as promised by their gods.

So who were their gods? Remnants of an ancient "super" civilization who casually mentioned cloning one day?

— Doc Velocity

I am an undereducated idiot, so bare with me. I of course know about evolution and all that, but my question is, how the hell can anyone know that those are human skulls? Looks like a monkey skull to me. They say we evolved from them, neanderthals and all that, but yet we have what, two less chromosones (spelling?) than the neanderthal? We are weaker than they were? Why would we lose our strength?

I have heard people say it's because we got smarter, so we don't need it anymore, I call bull. Think about people in construction.. Hell, think about changing a tire on your car after some a-hole used an air wrench to tighten the lugs down... That extra strength would help so many people in everyday activities, not to mention people in construction, warehouses, any type of job which requires strength.

Evolution to me, as an undereducated idiot, has always suggested the betterment of a species. I know brains before brawn and all that, but to me, it seem's the best would be brains AND brawn.

Can anyone help me out here?

To state the obvious

What the find does show is that erect walking apes, humanoids, homo erectus, what have you, existed outside of Africa at one time.

This doesn't mean that Cro-Magnum didn't come out of Africa.

Chances are that this is another homo erectus branch that didn't survive, or who knows, possibly the ancestors of the abominable snow man, if he exists.

Too bad this story didn't get more attention when it originally came out.

reply to post by silo13


What would be rather interesting is whether the evolutionists reject this whole discovery. I mean this will change alot of things, scientifically speaking.

reply to post by sharps
Well, let’s see.
I read the article dated the 9th.
I posted it.
TA DA! It’s here for people to enjoy, this new skull, this new information - as it’s presented as such.

Now I’ll be the first to admit in this area of science I’d need to do a few more Google searches than most - One reason I’m enjoying the thread so much - I’m learning a terrific amount as it grows and the whole thing fleshes out.

So call me a Neanderthal when it comes to Neanderthals - but - hey - I’m still learning, we all are, when it comes to the subject of the age of man. No one knows the truth. No one.

That being said, I don’t think a prerequisite to posting an article in a PhD in the subject is it?

There’s a grand difference between being a know-it-all, actually knowing, and ignorance.

Anyway, thanks to your time and effort spent, we will know a lot more about this fascinating subject, if we take the time to read the links you’ve provided.

But in thanking you for your time and effort I'll also would suggest you refrain from insinuating others are ignorant because they don't have the depth of knowledge you might posses.
Sure, you might be correct but it’s also rude and goes far to alienate you from those who might have listened if you’d used a spoonful of honey instead of vinegar.

Thank you again in all sincerity for your post.

peace

reply to post by silo13


Well these fellas were not Homo- Sapien Sapianus (Human), I doubt they had much of anything as far as cultural benefits (drawing, minor tools, etc). These million year old hominids seem much more like Australopithecus or Ardapithecus or Afarensis, way further back in the human scene. As found out in the spring in the new gene sequence of Neanderthals we have a 63% genetic link to them, on a side note we have an 84% genetic link to dogs. Not very good evidence that we evolved from anything resembling the genetics of Australopithecus or this new find.

reply to post by RocketScientist

Still... I look at this skull and it makes me want to slap the dog vomit right out of a Darwinist... as soon as it is discovered that other life forms exist on other planets, Darwinism is right out the window. This skull could have landed here 1.8 million years ago and saw no threat or challenge to self or same, and lived and died here already knowing all it needed to know about survival, but deciding not to populate the Earth with humans (yet) for climate reasons or resource deficiencies...

I asked this of my mother when I was young.
What if we landed.
I got put to bed without my super.

I bring it up now when she get to whining about something.
‘Hey Mom! Ya hear about the 3 million old human skull they found?’
Quickest way to get her to hang up and not call back for a week.

Point being, I love the theory - but there are those who are terrified by it.



Joscarfas

but ... doesn't the Project Blue Beam includes something about the breakdown of all archeological knowledge as one of its first steps.

If you’ve any information on this could you send me a url? Or start up a thread and let me know. I’d really like to hear more about this!

Thank you

Peace

Originally posted by Republican08

1,800,000 million years ago.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2c88b8d720a4.jpg[/atsimg]

Still reading

For comparison Human Skull [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/880818023f0e.jpg[/atsimg]



[edit on 9-9-2009 by Republican08]

[edit on 9-9-2009 by Republican08]

I think it's interesting that some of the Mayan Glyphs and figures have a very similar skull shape. Makes me wonder if a certain race was created and or used as slaves or hosts by these past mysterious visitors. Our assumptions that these types of shaped skulls is that they were less intelligent.

Some other tribes or races such as American indians also may have had similar skull shapes.


www.soul-guidance.com...



[edit on 10-9-2009 by aleon1018]

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by RocketScientist

 

Still... I look at this skull and it makes me want to slap the dog vomit right out of a Darwinist... as soon as it is discovered that other life forms exist on other planets, Darwinism is right out the window. This skull could have landed here 1.8 million years ago and saw no threat or challenge to self or same, and lived and died here already knowing all it needed to know about survival, but deciding not to populate the Earth with humans (yet) for climate reasons or resource deficiencies...

I asked this of my mother when I was young.
What if we landed.
I got put to bed without my super.

I bring it up now when she get to whining about something.
‘Hey Mom! Ya hear about the 3 million old human skull they found?’
Quickest way to get her to hang up and not call back for a week.

Point being, I love the theory - but there are those who are terrified by it.

 

Joscarfas

but ... doesn't the Project Blue Beam includes something about the breakdown of all archeological knowledge as one of its first steps.

If you’ve any information on this could you send me a url? Or start up a thread and let me know. I’d really like to hear more about this!

Thank you

Peace

I found this... educate-yourself.org...

Edit: I just finished reading that.... Scarey stuff.

[edit on 10-9-2009 by OpenMindCuriousMind]

Originally posted by poet1b
Chances are that this is another homo erectus branch that didn't survive, or who knows, possibly the ancestors of the abominable snow man, if he exists.

Actually, this find is pre-Homo erectus, an immediate ancestor that would later evolve into Homo erectus. Yes, this discovery has revealed a mysterious branch of pre-human evolution, and the paleontologists and archaeologists and the paleo-archaeologists will be compelled to rewrite a few chapters, at least, of the story of Human evolution on the strength of it.

— Doc Velocity





[edit on 9/10/2009 by Doc Velocity]

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Modern Man (that's us) is Homo sapiens (The Wise Man). Our immediate ancestor, of about 200,000 years ago, was Homo sapiens sapiens (The Old Wise Man).

uh no, sorry but you have it all wrong.
homo sapien is our species, homo sapien sapien is our sub-species
why in the world would homo sapien sapien mean the old wise man, when homo sapien means the wise man? where did you get 'old' from?

This new set of skulls discovered in Georgia, "...represent the most primitive population of the species Homo erectus to-date. They might be ancestral to all later Homo erectus populations, which would suggest a Eurasian origin of Homo erectus," according to Professor David Lordkipanidze, general director of the Georgia National Museum.

according to what i can gather its a transition between homo erectus and habilis the species is called "homo georgicus"
apparently news outlets don't keep up with science, they no longer consider it to be homo erectus and haven't for a long time.
at most they have found a new species that split off from habilis some 1.8 mya

That is to say, these newly discovered bones appear to be the immediate ancestors of Homo erectus. Meaning that Homo erectus himself didn't "come out of Africa," but that he evolved in Eurasia.

— Doc Velocity

well you, i'm afraid would be wrong, this doesn't prove anything of the sort.
at most it goes to show that early hominids moved around a lot.
the thought i would surmise is this.
homo habilis populations migrated north out of africa over time and a group evolved from habilis into the new transition species homo georgicus then traveled back through asia to africa, where by we find the later transitions.

though thats only a guess, i'd have to check sources that keep up to date, rather than recycle old stuff.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by poet1b
Chances are that this is another homo erectus branch that didn't survive, or who knows, possibly the ancestors of the abominable snow man, if he exists.

Actually, this find is pre-Homo erectus, an immediate ancestor that would later evolve into Homo erectus. Yes, this discovery has revealed a mysterious branch of pre-human evolution, and the paleontologists and archaeologists and the paleo-archaeologists will be compelled to rewrite a few chapters, at least, of the story of Human evolution on the strength of it.

— Doc Velocity

its not mysterious, they have a good grasp of that part of history.
about the only thing they will have to rewrite is that there was a transition between homo habilis and homo erectus that was found in georgia named homo georgicus

i don't understand how this is a big deal, its been known for nearly 10 years, its like watching creationists trying to claim "junk dna" is somehow junk because the MSM uses the term and somehow scientists didn't know about non-coding dna for 40 years.
the only people that make a big deal out of stuff like this are people who didn't know it to begin with.






[edit on 10-9-2009 by demongoat]

Originally posted by silo13
This quote not only fascinates me, but, warms me, warms me that the old *Cave man* cliché, is just that, a cliché.

One of the five skulls is of a person who lost all his or her teeth during their lifetime but had still survived for many years despite being completely toothless. This suggests some kind of social organization based on mutual care, Professor Lordkipanidze said.

Exactly. How, from where did the "violent caveman" idea originate ?

If one single individual was "violent" - he would get expelled from the tribe.

If more were "violent" : well, they would simply form a warrior tribe - and fight their neighbor tribes, but never among themselves. Because that would be the end of them. I never heard of a warrior tribe, where suddenly everyone turns into some Gollum, interested only in himself, and starts killing his friends with whom he grew up. That does not happen. People seek a community to be part of. To contribute to. We have none today. We compete among ourselves for the privilege of some boring jobs. We evade reality filling our life with stuff.

Only we, who are divided and conquered, can imagine a world where you fight your neighbor for food. We are so brainwashed that we can't even think it was not always like this.


--------------------

paimei01.blogspot.com...

"No Arguments, no Intreaties, nor Tears of their Friends and Relations, could persuade many of them to leave their new Indian Friends and Acquaintance; several of them that were by the Caressings of their Relations persuaded to come Home, in a little Time grew tired of our Manner of living, and run away again to the Indians, and ended their Days with them. On the other Hand, Indian Children have been carefully educated among the English, cloathed and taught, yet, I think, there is not one Instance, that any of these, after they had Liberty to go among their own People, and were come to Age, would remain with the English, but returned to their own Nations, and became as fond of the Indian Manner of Life as those that knew nothing of a civilized Manner of Living. And, he concludes, what he says of this particular prisoner exchange “has been found true on many other Occasions.”




[edit on 10-9-2009 by pai mei]

"Cave man mentality" is a very simple psychological mechanism of projecting one's own stupidity (evilness) on someone else and diverting attention from themselves.

It's an automatic "fire and forget" mechanism of conscienceless people who pretend to be "civilized". Even the word "civilized" itself is non-critically assumed to mean something "good" while in truth it stinks just like that...

Originally posted by demongoat
ii don't understand how this is a big deal, its been known for nearly 10 years, its like watching creationists trying to claim "junk dna" is somehow junk because the MSM uses the term and somehow scientists didn't know about non-coding dna for 40 years.

Perhaps they're resurrecting and sensationalizing this minor discovery in preparation for a more spectacular reveal in the near future. Maybe this is hype to get the masses energized and focused on our common humanity just before scientists make the monumental announcement that modern humans didn't come from Africa.

Oops!

But anything is possible.

— Doc Velocity

Tsk, don't these pesky scientists realise that God created the world in 7 days and only about 2000 years ago?

1.8 millions years old indeed


j/k all.


[edit on 10/9/09 by DataWraith]

reply to post by pai mei

If more were "violent" : well, they would simply form a warrior tribe - and fight their neighbor tribes, but never among themselves. Because that would be the end of them. I never heard of a warrior tribe, where suddenly everyone turns into some Gollum, interested only in himself, and starts killing his friends with whom he grew up. That does not happen. People seek a community to be part of. To contribute to. We have none today. We compete among ourselves for the privilege of some boring jobs. We evade reality filling our life with stuff.

Only we, who are divided and conquered, can imagine a world where you fight your neighbor for food. We are so brainwashed that we can't even think it was not always like this.

I really encourage you to start a thread in the psychology (?) section of the board and open this issue for posts.

Please let me know if you do - I would so appreciate being able to participate on this topic.

Thank you for a fascinating, insightful and painfully true observation.

peace
gracie

Originally posted by El Davicho
Just one step closer to evidence that man originated in South America. The question is, were evidence of such a thing to come to light...would our scientists recognize, or even aknowledge it?

why wouldn't they?

Originally posted by Gixxer


What you are calling proof is nothing more then hope and fear all rolled up into a nice little ball , and it is all yours to enjoy but please do not try and debate science you will loose everytime.

I agree with John Matrix and disagree with your claim he will lose everytime. Unless you got a crystal ball, or this is something sylvia brown told you, it is pure speculation and err, Not very Scientific.

but it IS typical around here for some reason.

reply to post by silo13


Thanks But what kind of thread should I start ? Start one if you want , I am not sure of the question

I wanted to show that no society can be composed only of "cavemen", "brutes". It would disintegrate. Imagine the bad guys - the mafia kill us all. Only mafia left on Earth. But inside - they cannot kill each other no matter if they are "the bad guys". Else they disappear. It's not in their interest. This violence inside a group - and the group still remaining as it is, cannot exist.