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.
Originally posted by Rocketman7
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?
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.
Originally posted by Rocketman7
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...
That those footprints are in fact, 1.3 million years old, as stated by the world renowned expert.
Gonzalez initially felt that the footprint marks could be differentiated from old quarry marks.[5] Argon-Argon dating may be contaminated by olivine including older argon. Xenocrysts and phenocrysts were removed in a later dating of the ash material by Mark et al. 2010, which confirmed Renne's proposed age for the Xalnene Tuff. A re-examination of whether the features were footprints was conducted by Morse et al. 2010. A comparison with other markings thought to be footprints was undertaken, from various species of humans and in varying substrates and ages. This suggested that the marks were made by recent mining activity using picks. "The picks produce a spalling effect which removes material more widely around the point of impact,' says Morse. 'Actual pick marks are visible in the quarry but this spalling seems to have caused the print-like depressions with their 'mid-foot' deep points.'
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.
Expanding Earth data
........ 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.
Originally posted by Propulsion
I am utterly confused about what is going on here with the censoring. Can someone please give me some details? Just curious…
I'm sorry....Figured it out...edit on 5-2-2012 by Propulsion because: (no reason given)