It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why do finds of ancient evidence get buried totally while ridiculously impossible histories get play

page: 10
66
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by aRogue
Is the link the OP posted, working for anybody else atm?


Nope.

I was just ghoing to mention it seems to have been removed.

Wish i'd downloaded the site with Htrack or Webcow.

Too close to too many truths, ay.

Edit to add: Google has pages cached...
www.google.co.uk...

If these suddenly get removed, we'll know the information on this site is too sensitive for somebody in power, innit mate.
edit on 15-12-2010 by DeltaPan because: Add Google link to cached pages.




posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


I might make the point that this is precisely why it is important to provide a context for archaeological material...even OOPARTS. If a site has been properly excavated, and artifacts and features precisely mapped within the matrix, then one may return to the site reports centuries later and examine the resources with new eyes and/or technology.


gee thats exactly what lee and his crew did
but it didn't count that time


The essential argument in sorting out Sheguiandah is whether the site is located in glacial till or beach deposits...or a combination of the two. It is by no means a straight forward interpretation Yes, Lee was treated badly but that really has no bearing on whether or not he was right, does it?

You can support Lee's hypothesis...but unless you have a pile more qualifications that you're not letting on...that is strictly an opinion which may as well be faith-based.
edit on 15-12-2010 by JohnnyCanuck because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeltaPan

Originally posted by aRogue
Is the link the OP posted, working for anybody else atm?


Nope.

I was just ghoing to mention it seems to have been removed.

Wish i'd downloaded the site with Htrack or Webcow.

Too close to too many truths, ay.

Edit to add: Google has pages cached...
www.google.co.uk...

If these suddenly get removed, we'll know the information on this site is too sensitive for somebody in power, innit mate.
edit on 15-12-2010 by DeltaPan because: Add Google link to cached pages.


Well that sucks! Hmmm...

is there another website that's similar to Forgotten Age Research? Do you know for a fact it got removed or perhaps the host server crashed or something along those lines?



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

You get an investigator whose reputation is beyond reproach, you get an artifact excavated in a sealed context with clear stratification, you have multiple dating techniques in agreement, then you have a serious shot at changing history. You have a guy with a curio in his hand saying "I found it in a hole"...well, in a world where archaeology is more than a just a planning and development issue, you might get the time of day. But right now chances are slim.


Which is what so much of respected archaeology was for many years. A lot of smart guys that did much that still stands to this day that may be considered as you say "with a curio in his hand". But really that would be a misrepresentation of their work and methods. I mean we are going to trash the golden age of american archaeology, some many records of early digs, the writings educated expositor's in light of the modern schools and its political hypersensitivity.

One thing that comes to mind in the modern political climate are the vast number of testimony from local tribes that they had no knowlege of those that built the mounds and earthworks of the mound building culture. Now in modern times this info is disregarded and any local tribe that as historic roots in these areas are now making claimes to an ancestry with the mound builders.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 09:36 AM
link   
My point really is that the rise of cooper use in North America was not in isolation. One can compare tools and weapons from other bronze and cooper cultures around the world and see what when on.


Here are some tools and wepons found in Wisconsin. Go down to bottom of page and have a look at the so called "Copper "Banner Stone". That my friends is a battle ax! A dobble bladed battle ax.

Copper Battle Ax

We also see in this collection the Socketed "Spuds" / Adzes. Socketed copper tools of this same type were in common us in the old world bronze/copper cultures going all the way back th Ur.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

You get an investigator whose reputation is beyond reproach, you get an artifact excavated in a sealed context with clear stratification, you have multiple dating techniques in agreement, then you have a serious shot at changing history. You have a guy with a curio in his hand saying "I found it in a hole"...well, in a world where archaeology is more than a just a planning and development issue, you might get the time of day. But right now chances are slim.


Which is what so much of respected archaeology was for many years. A lot of smart guys that did much that still stands to this day that may be considered as you say "with a curio in his hand". But really that would be a misrepresentation of their work and methods. I mean we are going to trash the golden age of american archaeology, some many records of early digs, the writings educated expositor's in light of the modern schools and its political hypersensitivity.

One thing that comes to mind in the modern political climate are the vast number of testimony from local tribes that they had no knowlege of those that built the mounds and earthworks of the mound building culture. Now in modern times this info is disregarded and any local tribe that as historic roots in these areas are now making claimes to an ancestry with the mound builders.


It's not that big a mystery...you can follow the culture from Central America up as far as Ontario. The Creek were a remnant of the Moundbuilders and were amply documented by the Spanish. My opinion? They were a stratified society whose non-elite decided to quit playing and return to the land...for their own benefit. I have a pretty good hunch that the Iroquois evolved out of this culture, but I haven't really looked at the science. Ultimately, to say that the Moundbuilders disappeared is the equivalent of saying that the Maya did.

As to the Golden Age of Archaeology...even your Clarence Moores were essentially looters, but the good ones took good notes. The others would dynamite mounds to get quicker access to the 'goodies'. That's where the difference lies between archaeology and pothunting.

And a guy with a curio who found it 'over yonder' has a clue, a reason to look further but in a disciplined manner.


Originally posted by Logarock
My point really is that the rise of cooper use in North America was not in isolation. One can compare tools and weapons from other bronze and cooper cultures around the world and see what when on.


The difference is that there was no smelting of copper in North America.
edit on 16-12-2010 by JohnnyCanuck because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

The difference is that there was no smelting of copper in North America.


It is certain that there was.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

The difference is that there was no smelting of copper in North America.

It is certain that there was.

No, we're talking cold hammering and perhaps annealing...not sure of that, but smelting was not done,therefore no alloys like bronze.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

The difference is that there was no smelting of copper in North America.

It is certain that there was.

No, we're talking cold hammering and perhaps annealing...not sure of that, but smelting was not done,therefore no alloys like bronze.


I have seen experts that say many of the cooper celts had to have been from smelting and mold. Many bear zero evidence of having been worked or beaten into shape. Besides lets give these native americans some credit. I mean at some point they would have discoverd the low temps needed to melt cooper and the light would have come on.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 07:43 PM
link   

It is known that during the European Bronze Age, large quantities of copper were mined in North America. However, no-one is able to answer as to what became of the copper that was mined there.
If we were to add the two problems together, do we have the solution? Of course, the answer for the accepted scientific dogma is “no”, as it argues that there were no transoceanic contacts in the Bronze Age, and hence copper could not have been traded from the New to the Old World. But perhaps there is sufficient scientific evidence available that will alter the assumptions of the scientists.
The chief ingredient for bronze is copper. The era around 3000 BC saw more than 500,000 tons of copper being mined in the so-called Upper Peninsula, in the American state of Michigan. The largest mine was on Isle Royale, an island in Lake Superior, near the Canadian border. Here, there are thousands of prehistoric copper pits, dug thousands of years ago by ancient peoples unknown. The Minong Belt on Isle Royale has a distance of one and three quarter miles in length and is nearly four hundred feet wide. The copper pits range ten tot thirty feet deep with connecting tunnels; one archaeologist estimated that their digging would take the equivalent of 10,000 men working for 1000 years.
After two centuries of speculation, no-one has ever satisfactorily explained where the world’s purist copper might have gone. Extraction from Isle Royal began in 5300 BC, with some even claiming that it began as early as 6000 BC. Evidence for smelting is known to exist from “only” 4000 BC onwards.
The exact size of the mined ore is perhaps never going to be exactly determined, but what is known, is that ca. 1200 BC, all mining activity was halted. But around 1000 AD, mining was restarted and lasted until 1320 AD. During this period, a moderate 2000 tons were removed.

In North America, not even 1% has been recovered.

www.philipcoppens.com...

people unknown and missing copper
no answer to the smelting question there
but I suspect they would have traded it to the smelters in south america
but to think they never melted any in the fire...they wouldnt have left it lying around if they did
it was to precious.


edit on 16-12-2010 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-12-2010 by Danbones because: comment spelling



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 07:51 PM
link   

In South America the case is quite different. This early familiarity with metals then developed into full metallurgy with smelting and various metals being purposefully alloyed. Metallurgy in Mesoamerica developed from contacts with South America, as such the largest section of this entry will be dedicated to it.

en.wikipedia.org...

Again the trouble is
anything that happened before the last or preceding glaciations and occured north of the southern edge of the glacier is going to be hard to prove either way.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
I have seen experts that say many of the cooper celts had to have been from smelting and mold. Many bear zero evidence of having been worked or beaten into shape. Besides lets give these native americans some credit. I mean at some point they would have discoverd the low temps needed to melt cooper and the light would have come on.


Best cite that for me, cuz my sources say no.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by aRogue

Originally posted by DeltaPan

Originally posted by aRogue
Is the link the OP posted, working for anybody else atm?


Nope.

I was just ghoing to mention it seems to have been removed.

Wish i'd downloaded the site with Htrack or Webcow.

Too close to too many truths, ay.

Edit to add: Google has pages cached...
www.google.co.uk...

If these suddenly get removed, we'll know the information on this site is too sensitive for somebody in power, innit mate.
edit on 15-12-2010 by DeltaPan because: Add Google link to cached pages.


Well that sucks! Hmmm...

is there another website that's similar to Forgotten Age Research? Do you know for a fact it got removed or perhaps the host server crashed or something along those lines?


Bump.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 08:23 AM
link   
JC, here is some info you will like taken from a writer on the Gosnold expedition 1602 said to be the first English expedition to Nantucket are, Cape Cod, Marthas Viniard. Local tribes in the area used cooper at that time. There is also some other very good info, strange really. Anyway this info blows up the idea that cooper use may have ended many years before 1602 with the fall of the mound building culture.

Cooper In Use By Massachusetts 1602

Before this cooper was noted as used by local tribes in the same area. In records from the 1524 voyage of Varrazno for the King of France landing around Rhode Island. Page 26.

1524 Voyage Cooper Use Noted



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 

I was thinking these tidbits might be of some interest, considering the thread title. I'm not sure what you consider to be ridiculous, but these might be of interest in speaking at least somewhat to why some things get swept under the carpet. The Smithsonian, being an independent federal institution, seems to frequently act as a gatekeeper, especially in matters that challenge the paradigm of what we know as history. And in some cases, to the point of dumping, shall we say, politically incorrect artifacts into the ocean. Or at least, they have been accused of it. I'm sure it just can't be true.


To those who investigate allegations of archaeological cover-ups, there are disturbing indications that the most important archaeological institute in the United States, the Smithsonian Institute, an independent federal agency, has been actively suppressing some of the most interesting and important archaeological discoveries made in the Americas.



The Vatican has been long accused of keeping artefacts and ancient books in their vast cellars, without allowing the outside world access to them. These secret treasures, often of a controversial historical or religious nature, are allegedly suppressed by the Catholic Church because they might damage the church's credibility, or perhaps cast their official texts in doubt. Sadly, there is overwhelming evidence that something very similar is happening with the Smithsonian Institution.


Link to whole article: Archeological Coverups?

Also, I'm sure the following has been discussed somewhere before on ATS. But for those who may not have heard of it or seen it.







The article these come from is about halfway down the page: Grand Canyon



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Klassified
 


I love those KeelyNet things...and I recall, back in the day, when it seemed that the writers for the X Files were reading them on a weekly basis and tweaking the storylines accordingly. I'd go so far as to say that they helped to inspire me to take a genuine academic interest in archaeology in the mid-late 90's.

However, follow up on some of the claims like Waldemar Julsrud and the Acámbaro figures (en.wikipedia.org...), and you'll find that the evidence is pretty slim. There may well be a pile of controversial artifacts sequestered in the Smithsonian, and I'd be mightily surprised if the Vatican were not concealing any evidence that the Roman Catholic Church may have fibbed here and there...

...but there are a whole lot of other explanations that include lies and fraud, for various reasons.

My favourite OOPART? A butternut excavated at L'ans aux Meadows.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
JC, here is some info you will like taken from a writer on the Gosnold expedition 1602 said to be the first English expedition to Nantucket are, Cape Cod, Marthas Viniard. Local tribes in the area used cooper at that time. There is also some other very good info, strange really. Anyway this info blows up the idea that cooper use may have ended many years before 1602 with the fall of the mound building culture.
Cooper In Use By Massachusetts 1602

In this case, it is plain that the indigenous people had already been exposed to Europeans as they were wearing and using their goods.


Before this cooper was noted as used by local tribes in the same area. In records from the 1524 voyage of Varrazno for the King of France landing around Rhode Island. Page 26.

1524 Voyage Cooper Use Noted


...and here, while it refers to copper, there is no indication it was smelted. Copper of a certain purity could be simply cold hammered into shape. I don't dispute the prehistoric (pre-contact) use of copper, in fact I didn't say that its use had ceased post-Hopewell. I simply say that the First Nations of North America did not use smelting technology.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 09:56 AM
link   
It's funny what happens when you turn the tube off a start looking around you. Have u ever seen Wall-E. Thats where we're headed if we don't wake up.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 

Yeah, the Acambaro story is an interesting one. I have my skepticisms on both sides of any oopart stories. However, I admittedly am more skeptical of the mainstream.

I'm sure you and others are familiar with the Russell Burrows Cave "Hoax". There are many links about it. A complete and total hoax. And proven to be so. Or so I thought.
A few years ago a couple of guys came down here with a signed letter from Russell giving them permission to dig on his land. Funny thing was they were very secretive about it. I thought it was laughable until I verified their names. I wouldn't have even known they were down here if it weren't for a friend. Anyway, my piont being, what were these guys doing back down here excavating a known hoax site, and spending an investor's money to do it. Unless maybe it wasn't a hoax after all. Just one of those curiousities.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Klassified
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 

Yeah, the Acambaro story is an interesting one. I have my skepticisms on both sides of any oopart stories. However, I admittedly am more skeptical of the mainstream.

I'm sure you and others are familiar with the Russell Burrows Cave "Hoax". There are many links about it. A complete and total hoax. And proven to be so. Or so I thought.
A few years ago a couple of guys came down here with a signed letter from Russell giving them permission to dig on his land. Funny thing was they were very secretive about it. I thought it was laughable until I verified their names. I wouldn't have even known they were down here if it weren't for a friend. Anyway, my piont being, what were these guys doing back down here excavating a known hoax site, and spending an investor's money to do it. Unless maybe it wasn't a hoax after all. Just one of those curiousities.


Maybe trying to find evidence to put it out of its misery.




top topics



 
66
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join