Have explorers in Ecuador found ‘Lost City of Giants'?

reply to post by peter vlar


ok so what about the diatom evidence? how do you explain that?

reply to post by peter vlar


Peter,
Thanks for that link to the archeology fieldwork forum.

reply to post by bottleslingguy


The evidence presented by the diatoms is impressive and even with the revised dating of 75,000 to 125,000 BPE its a very impressive age. To be considered verified there would need to be additional sites of similar age or human remains that could be verified to a similar age. The thing that most people dont get is that anthropologists and archaeologists love to come up with all sorts of hypothesis. While the pay is about the same, it beats the heck out of running a drive thru window at McDonald's. the difference is that the vast majority of professionals in these fields are only going to discuss publicly what they know for sure or think they can prove. Most speculation stays behind closed doors. There are enough bar room brawls at conferences over accepted theories without letting speculation take center stage. It's even more important when dealing with ages this ancient to doule and triple check everything before its presented as definitive. It does to an extent come in the form of covering ones butt because nobody wants to become a laughing stock and end up teaching at community college because they rushed to present something that was found to be wrong after subsequent analysis. Ie said it several times, I would be really stoked to have a site like Hueyatlaco turn out to be that old. Sure there would be some cranky old cats moaning about it. It took a few decades to get past "Clovis First" but there are now many sites that are verified as older than Clovis and as we do more digging, more sites are going to produce even better evidence. I just don't see any sort of cover up or suppression at this site.

reply to post by punkinworks10


Not a problem. The more information people are armed with the better the argument they can present.

bottleslingguy

Harte

bottleslingguy
reply to post by Harte

 

what lie?

why are you the head debunker on all things archeology? if you support the main stream science which we all know is full of it then that makes you what? www.s8int.com...

edit on 14-1-2014 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)

Oh yeah.

Linking a Creationist website - that'll establish your credibility.

If you want me to be the "head debunker," I will be.

But first, I would require at least an iota of evidence that you possess one.

Harte

one what? a head debunker? head debunkers need good grammar first, too.

A head. Reading skills would also help those that link to creationists claptrap.

bottleslingguyAnd as far as your method you should attack the data but oh gee guess what? no one can find it. imagine that?

You claim here to be unable to find any data relating to the dig at Heuyatlaco? Apparently then, you haven't looked.

I linked to four different papers written about the site in the thread concerning Hueyatlaco. Do you only read the things that support your false worldview?

The links I provided all came from the first page of returns on Google Scholar. Since you seem so much to detest scholarship, I'm sure you could find on Google the data you claim doesn't exist. I know Steen-MacIntyre had it posted on her website.

Harte

reply to post by peter vlar


I forget about that site,
The calico/manix lake thread is one of my favorites

reply to post by punkinworks10


It's a great resource for sure. Glad I could pull it out of the woodshed and have someone appreciate what it has to offer. Hopefully some others will check it out as well.

reply to post by peter vlar

you don't think it's weird they built a house complete with walled perimeters on top of the dig?

and this doesn't only apply to you, but people who are "in the know" or work within a specific field are usually the ones most in the dark.

reply to post by Harte


what happened to the artifacts?

reply to post by bottleslingguy


Do I think it's weird they bolt a house there? I thi it sucks really bad because it stopped further excavations but Hueyatlaco was only one site from the original dig, there were several. If that had happened in America(the house) I'd agree that something was a little off. In an emerging 3rd world country like Mexico without building codes or proper enforcement it's a little different. Unless I missed something and the Mexican government built the home. But when you get down to it, the data had been collected already. Papers have been published as recently as a decade ago and there may have been one in 2006 updating the research into the diatoms, of which the paper was published in 2004. The links for those papers is in the link I provided above. You just watched a video about the site featuring some very prominent specialists and there are multiple papers regarding the subject. That to me doesn't scream coverup when people are able to submit and have work peer reviewed. It sounds a lot cooler to the anti science crowd though, not referring to you, when people can make claims of coverups by scientists while not understanding the scope of a worldwide, multidisciplinary conspiracy operating for over 100 years and secretly stashing the truth away in some dark back room of the smithsonian.

reply to post by peter vlar


the bad thing about the house is that it prevents them from excavating on either side of the original dig in order to prove they were in a consistent layer of strata to prove conclusively the diatom evidence. I'll bet they can't even get a straight answer of who owns the property. One of the red flags as far as the Mexican govt goes was the guy who headed the archeology stuff. Either she pissed him off or it came from higher up (probably up to the US) but he shut them down for no real reason and then it was roadblock after roadblock and when the group applied for another permit, the project was stalled for a year and then allowed to return only to find the property had been landscaped and walled in.

it's just amazing to me how people can be so laissez-fare over things like this. You sound as though you guys accept your glass ceiling and are content studying the things you are allowed to study. Personally I believe many in the field would not want to hear a date at Hueytlaco because it makes archeology look bad for being so confident they are the authority on a subject when it's obvious they haven't a clue. And it's why they make fun of ancient alien theories.

bottleslingguy
reply to post by Harte

 

what happened to the artifacts?

Why do you think something happened to them?

bottleslingguy
it's just amazing to me how people can be so laissez-fare over things like this. You sound as though you guys accept your glass ceiling and are content studying the things you are allowed to study. Personally I believe many in the field would not want to hear a date at Hueytlaco because it makes archeology look bad for being so confident they are the authority on a subject when it's obvious they haven't a clue. And it's why they make fun of ancient alien theories.

You have a skewed view of archaeology.

How "bad" did archaeology look when Pre-Clovis was confirmed?

How "bad" did Archaeology look when Gobekli Tepe was discovered?

How "bad" did Archaeology look when Akrotiri was discovered?

How "bad" did Archaeology look when Sumer was discovered?

All the above discoveries were made by Archaeologists - except Gobekli Tepe, which was discovered accidentally because the tip of a single stone was protruding from the side of a hill.

Harte