But the even bigger mystery is where this unusual rock came from. Only one jadeite source has been reported with similar chemical properties—a
site in Baja California Sur, Mexico. If this were the gouge’s original home, though, it would have had to been transported across the Pacific, a
highly improbable scenario for the Neolithic people of the time.
Why is that so surprising?
Chinese people were originally Olmecs. That is what I was told. How else could they end up looking like Olmecs?
I think that some day, archaeologists will maybe accept the fact that these footprints...
(remove the spaces in http to copy paste link into your browser, wayback machine compound links confuse this website and the link will be broken
ht tp://web.archive.org/web/20070208174325/ht tp://www.mexicanfootprints.co.uk/
That those footprints are in fact, 1.3 million years old, as stated by the world renowned expert, Who dated the lava at Olduvai Gorge and hence dated
all the hominids there.
Ref 1 Nature Article here
and some images of the footprints here
Modern man, in Mexico, 1.3 million years ago, with footprints in ash, and the ash is magnetically aligned, hence it is not a sediment deposit, the
prints were made in hot newly formed lava. And there are prints along the human prints, of dogs and cats and cloven hoof animals, perhaps farm
Now you can deny, that these exist, but Gonzales did an exhibit at the Royal Museum, regarding these footprints and I assure you, the Royal Museum,
would not stick their neck out and do a special exhibit on these footprints, if they were not absolutely sure they were footprints. The fact that the
lava had not been dated at that time, is unfortunate, since it has completely destroyed all current theories, regarding the out of Africa hypothesis,
and the evolution of man, and has pretty much showed that what scientists believe they know, using such things as the genetic record, and their
current models, are in no way concurrent with the facts as they exist.
There is other data as well like a sunken city off Cuba, that is 2,200 feet under water, with no geological evidence that the ground has sunk at all.
There is not even evidence of earthquake damage.
So whatever the story is, the water level when that city was built, was 2,200 feet lower than it is today.
Which again, destroys all the current geological theories.
But nothing destroys Pangaea and all that plate tectonics nonsense like the Expanding Earth data.
You can see that in youtube.
For some reason unknown scientists appear to be down the garden path, even though they work hard and do careful work, they seem to project their own
beliefs into the data sufficiently, that when they are done, it in no way resembles the facts at hand.
Hiding data that doesn't fit the paradigm, only builds a house a cards. Denying the data and covering things eventually leads to where they are today.
With a lot of egg on a lot of faces. Clinging to theories that have been falsified. And unwilling to accept the facts.
edit on 5-2-2012 by
Rocketman7 because: (no reason given)