Forbidden Archaeology

Flinx,

I have the same problem this the book too, but It is an interesting material for reading, so I am going to finish and highlight the most important facts and maybe we will be able to bring some more opinions on this subject.

Right now I am reading the Pilgrim�s Path, about the Freemasons beginnings in the US, and also, Deception point I love Dan Brown books.

[edit on 19-7-2004 by marg6043]

Originally posted by Jazzerman
I was just wonder what some people here thought about this. There is a book by Michael Cremo, although some 1,000 pages long that I read awhile back in my local library, here is a link for it:
www.mcremo.com...

While there ARE some true mysteries (the "Baghdad Batteries" are genuine and a real mystery), and there are some apparently out of place artifacts, the ones I've seen him discuss are pretty bogus (the hammer is simply a real hammer locked in a concretion in the same way the spark plugs were (discussed on the Angelfire page.)

He and others have found artifacts and evidence such as Chalices, necklaces, leather soles of shoes, etc. fossilized in rocks that often date to Pre-Cambrian times, and back when the Earth was only covered with water. Here is a link with some pics of just a few of the artifacts:

It's been shown by a lot of people that he consistantly misidentifies things. The "finger," for instance is not a finger but a snail shell. This has been confirmed by x-ray and other techniques... but he espouses a Young Earth Creation and won't entertain the possibility that he's wrong.

Personally, this stuff is very compelling, and the evidence in the book is overwhelming. Being an Historian myself he and others present very well documented and collected evidence that either we have had Extraterrestrial visitors for a long time, or there used to be other civilizations living on Earth before us.

I don't find the evidence very compelling from an anthropological and archaeological standpoint (and I'm speaking as someone who's been on an archaeological dig.)

He also misstates things to bolster his viewpoint. For instance:

[i]Michael Cremo is no stranger to resistance. In 1993 when Forbidden Archeology was released
there was a vast array of response. From anthropologist Richard Leakey calling it "...pure humbug" to Fingerprints of the Gods author Graham Hancock referring to it as "One of the landmark intellectual achievements of the late 20th century," it has received both positive and negative international attention. In addition, in 1996 when NBC aired its special The Mysterious Origins of Man, hosted by Charlton Heston, and featured the book, establishment scientists felt so threatened by this program that they lobbied the Federal Communications Commission to censure and fine NBC for airing it (read the complete story in Forbidden Archeology's Impact

Yes, a number of scientists denounced it, but not because they felt threatened by it. They denounced it because it was bad science.

He focuses on old evidence -- evidence that has since been re-evaluated in light of newer material (and if you're a scientist and you're only basing your research and counterproposals off material published in the 1800's and early 1900's, you can expect to be laughed at for Not Doing Your Homework.)

Here's a review (ironically by a Christian who also has a PhD and is writing for a Christian Creation/Evolution magazine):
www.ramtops.co.uk...

Tarzia says much the same that I just did, and goes into specifics about Cremo's bad science and fact-twisting:

Similarly, when the book documents a claim for a modern-type human skeleton (reported in a geology journal of 1862) in a coal deposit 90 feet deep, we learn the authors wrote the Geological Survey to date the coal to about 286 million years (p. 454). But we are not treated to a contextual discussion of the bones -- how they were found, who found them, what was the site like, and how these allegedly 286 million year old bones came out of the earth with only a loose black coating that was easily scraped away to reveal nice white bone, etc. The impression left is that, if a tabloid reported Jimmy Hoffa�s corpse was found in Triassic deposits, then the authors would no doubt perform rigorous research to date those deposits and then include the data in their next book. At any rate, such credulity as does exist in the book strains reader confidence.

So, even the people you'd expect would support him find his material lacking and of poor quality.

I have been on archaeological digs before myself Byrd, and after having read the book it's still pretty compelling. I dont personally own the book, so I can't reference any quote's from it. However, I am an Historian and I think he presents a plethora of evidence that something or someone was here before us.

I have seen the X-rays of the finger you mentioned and they actually do NOT show a snail, but three seperate sections of the bones in a human finger. Unfortunately, I do not have a link to any website, but if anyone can find one please post it.

I also think Cremo's evidence that he presents in the form of arrowheads, etc. and the layer of strata that they were found in hints to a deeper mystery here. I realize that some evidence is fradulent such as the "spark plug" found in a geode that has been proven to be a fake. However, saying this, their is plenty of evidence elsewhere to suggest that there was something or someone here before us. Whatever it is, remains a mystery for now!

Originally posted by Soul Reaper
This is an excellent website for open minded
individuals which actually reinforces a true
creator theory.


www.bibleufo.com...

LOL....Great minds That's the same site I have been plastering all over the place.....I love that site!

It's actually a bit disingenuous... the sections really don't show human bones or any bone.

Since you've been on a dig, you know that fleshy parts don't fossilize. Bone does. Skin imprints do. Cartilage might. Muscle and skin -- no. Nor is it a cast similar to Pompeii because the bones would rattle around in it:

home.comcast.net...

You can see the "finger" here (the other "artifacts" on this page are frauds, including the footprint (the guy who did it came forward and confessed)):
www.biblebelievers.org.au...



To refresh your mind, here's the skeletal structure of the hand:
www.gwc.maricopa.edu...

Notice that the phalanx bones are shaped very differently than that "finger"... they're waisted and have bulbous ends. There's also a distinct difference in size between the middle phalange bones and the distal phalange bones (which are the ones that "should" be seen in that "fossilized finger."

Here's another link to what seems to be another "finger"...
www.ntskeptics.org...
(again, it was debunked soundly)

Now that I hunt for it, I can't find the "snail" explaination, but I did find this:

freespace.virgin.net...

The alleged fossilized finger promoted by Baugh and associates is more likely just an interesting shaped rock or concretion. I was allowed to personally examine the "finger" several years ago, and saw nothing in it to suggest it is a fossil of any sort. Nor do I know any mainstream scientist or regards it as a fossilized finger. Contrary to the suggestions in the NBC show, it does not show bones in the CT scans. The dark area in the center of the scans are not well defined and are likely due to differences in the density of rock at the middle of the concretion, or the greater mass of rock the rays passed through at the center than the edge of the rock. Last, a key point that Baugh did not reveal in the show is that the "finger" was not found in situ, but rather in a loose gravel pit some distance from Glen Rose. Therefore, like the Burdick print it cannot be reliably linked to an ancient formation

You know from your own field experience that this "evidence" wouldn't be accepted. Nobody looks through a possible rock shelter and goes shrieking "Look!!! Indian artifacts!!!" over a single mussle shell. A loose artifact is just a datapoint. It could have been picked up by modern people and moved, it could be any number of things.

Much of the evidence is (as the articles have said) of this same poor quality.

Byrd...thanks for that picture. I have been trying to look for it forever!

PS- Are you a history/archaeology/anthropology student? I just wanted to know if anyone else has a Degree in one of these on the ATS. I do, but Im not aware of any others!

Some websites give intelligent views of both religion and science, particularly the mathematicians who run the Torah Code websites. Two of these are www.exodus2006.com (United Kingdom) and www.onealclan.com (United States.)

I see no conflict between science and religion, particularly as it relates to the earth's creation. Although the Genesis version is written in symbolic form, the process of creation follows the same path as scientists' theories. The universe was formed from the "void," the great "Tanin" (which means monster or dragon) was slain - just as scientists say the dinosaurs passed before humans appeared - before the creation of man; The seas came next. The animals came next. Then humans.

The Bible Code (encodings within the first five books of the Torah versions that have been copied precisely as the original version) actually mention the words, "dinosaur" and "comet," crossing the plain text which tells us about the destruction of the dragon before man arrived on the planet.

By the way Byrd, I was told that under certain conditions skin, muscle, etc. can become fossilized or preserved. I dont know many good links but here is one of a mummified dinosaur:

www.freerepublic.com...

Here is another site that generally states muscles, etc. usually decay rapidly but in some instances can be preserved:

www.scienceviews.com...



PS- Do you have any idea what type of rock the "finger" was formed in?


[edit on 19-7-2004 by Jazzerman]

Originally posted by marg6043
Koka,

I thought everybody by now has gotten used to my spelling but obviously you have not, first of all I am a Spanish teacher and Spanish is my first language I have a very good spelling check but sometimes I am in a rush and post without it, at least is a reason for my spelling but somebody with English as their fist language is not excuse.

So get used to it.

You missed my point, but also, I shouldn't mock when I know it's not your first language, so I apologise.

My original point was regarding your "US is the greatest nation" remark, if you don't want the US to be perceived as a national of arrogant people, please don't make remarks such as this.

U2U me if you further want to discuss, as I am aware this is not really the place to be discussing this.

Koka,

I am an American and occurs I always will be patriotic, I know is other nations in the world that are perhaps better than US but I have to stick with and by my country. Not offense. It is like a mother you never call you children ugly not matter how really ugly they are.

I don�t see as arrogant but patriotic.


Sorry for getting of the thread.

Jazzerman,

The pictures of the mummify dinosaur are excellent, I wish we have more of these.

And the so call finger it does look like a finger to me, but occurs I am not expert and my eyes are (untrained).

Originally posted by Jazzerman
Byrd...thanks for that picture. I have been trying to look for it forever!

PS- Are you a history/archaeology/anthropology student? I just wanted to know if anyone else has a Degree in one of these on the ATS. I do, but Im not aware of any others!

Getting a Masters' in anthropology, in fact, and am a member of the Texas Archaeological Society and joined the Rock Art Foundation. I am by no means an expert, but I'm learning lots.

I intend to go on for my PhD in Anthro. It will probably be the anthropology of the internet -- if I can drag myself away from PaleoIndians!

Originally posted by Jazzerman
By the way Byrd, I was told that under certain conditions skin, muscle, etc. can become fossilized or preserved. I dont know many good links but here is one of a mummified dinosaur:

Nice finds! I would note, however, that the word "mummified" is in quotes... it's actually a fossil of a mummy (so the dino died, was mummified, and the mummy itself is turned into stone.

PS- Do you have any idea what type of rock the "finger" was formed in?

Not really, no. It does look limestone-ish, doesn't it? Texas was covered by seas several times, so we have a number of different limestone layers (some quite thick.) There's some nice fossil hunting in the area where those "finds" were made -- tons of snail and oyster fossils (my favorite is the very common exogyra arientina, because it was the first one I learned to identify. Somewhere around our house we also have a large (1 foot across) amonite.

[edit on 20-7-2004 by Byrd]

Byrd,


How interesting you work must be, and are you planning on traveling or just become an anthropology teacher? My dream was to visit the Middle East but now is just impossible. I will like to see the pyramids.

Originally posted by marg6043
How interesting you work must be, and are you planning on traveling or just become an anthropology teacher? My dream was to visit the Middle East but now is just impossible. I will like to see the pyramids.

(chuckle) My work is dull. I program for a living. The anthropology will start in 5 years (I'm going to grad school while working full-time) and then I'll try to get a teaching position.

My gender and my age will be against me, so I'm trying to turn out at least one published paper per quarter (even if it's only in a conference or a poster presentation) and trying to do a few "no-budget" films. Having a filmmaker/published author show up and want a job gives me an edge.

And I learn a *lot* from this board. It forces me to do research and pick up topics that I might never have approached (like learning Egyptian hieroglyphics.)

Yes I know about the down falls of gender and age, I am not that young anymore does not matter how cute you are age with tell the rest. ha, ha, ha, but that should not stop you for getting your goal. And I have always been fascinated by ancient history so all I got now is research and books.

I enjoy your post and how you bring the matter of fact on subjects. You will do great as a professor.

Byrd....great to hear your going into the field. I am mainly a History person myself, but I rather enjoy the archaeological/anthropological side of it more. The last paper I wrote that I am still waiting on to see if it will get published is a piece called "How did the Daughters of the Confederacy promote the history of the Old South concerning the remembrance of Confederate soldiers, public education, and monument building?", rather boring subject I know, but if it gets me published I'll take it.

Anyow, back to the subject. Has anyone heard of the spherical metallic "balls" that are coming up from drilling shafts in Africa. Supposedly, at the geologic level these things are coming up from it nearly dates to 2,8 Billion years old....yes, you heard me BILLION. Here is a link:

nersp.nerdc.ufl.edu...

Notice that the link is .edu, so its at least a credible site. I am very interested in what these things are, so if anyone has any thoughts or info on this please let me know.

Re: the "limonite" spheres:

If we have anyone in South Africa on this board it'd be great if they'd go out and visit this museum and just make sure this isn't a hoax; if there's only a couple of these "cannonballs" I would consider it more likely to be a hoax than anything else.

Assuming they're real, here's some fun, wild speculation:

In this week's "Science News" there's an article about some researchers who have developed a technique to fabricate nanoscale structures by way of "fossilizing" a diatom's shell. Specifically, the researchers invented a process to replace the shells of the diatoms -- tiny organisms that live inside little silica shells -- with titanium, keeping most of the geometry intact.

They needed some kinda funky environment to get the titanium to leach in and replace the silica, but if there's some kind of precambrian coral-like animals living inside shells with this spherical / ridged geometry, it's not entirely impossible that they got buried deep enough to allow some similar leaching in of iron to take place....presumably if this took place the outer shell would get replaced first, which is somewhat consistent with the description of some of the spheres having powdery-white crusts.

Anyone good enough with chemistry to figure out the likelyhood (0.1%? 0.01%, 0.0001%) of this happening or a mechanism for a silica -> iron replacement?

Originally posted by Jazzerman
The last paper I wrote that I am still waiting on to see if it will get published is a piece called "How did the Daughters of the Confederacy promote the history of the Old South concerning the remembrance of Confederate soldiers, public education, and monument building?", rather boring subject I know, but if it gets me published I'll take it.

Whoa! Heavy! Congrats to you for finishing it and submitting it! That always takes a lot of nerve!

Has anyone heard of the spherical metallic "balls" that are coming up from drilling shafts in Africa. Supposedly, at the geologic level these things are coming up from it nearly dates to 2,8 Billion years old....yes, you heard me BILLION.

Some of it's confirmed, such as the age of the spheres. But others have investigated it and talked to rockhounds who collect those spheres and have found problems with the "facts."

For example, the original news source is a tabloid called "The Weekly World News."

www.talkorigins.org...

I don't find an update on the page.

I do know that there have supposedly been thousands of these found in geological layers dating 2.8 Billion yrs. old from what I have heard. However, it would be nice if we had some African people on here to verify this!