Originally posted by diablomonic

now imagine giant tsunamis and torrential rains lasting a month or more along with earthquakes and global polar shift, all occuring at the same time.

That just means all the world's geologists, climatologists etc are also all in on the conspiracy to hide the evidence

So we can find remains of fire pits created hundreds of thousands of years ago and date the carbon to determine when they were made, but civilizations as advanced as our own leave no real evidence?

Color me confused.

Although its is POSSIBLE that we have missed evidence for an advanced civilization (especially one in the last 20,000 years) I find it improbable, but my own incredulous belief is just that a belief. It is always possible something will come up but the evidence so far, a complete lack of evidence, is compelling.

Now a contrary opinion, one from one of my professors from long long ago...


Look at it this way. Go to a blank wall, a big one in a large room. Take a pencil and throw it at the wall so the point hits. Now that pencil mark represents the entire surface area of the earth that has been excavated versus (rest of the wall) that hasn't been.

As I like to tell all who believe in Atlantis and other advanced civilizations- don't post on websites, go become an archaeologist or explorer, or failing that provide funding and support to those that do and go find the sucker.

I think at this point I should say I agree with most of you that disagree with me in that you have fairly valid points but I think the main thing Im trying to say is IF there was a conspiracy to hide this, it COULD be done. And there are MANY reasons for such a conspiracy, whether its a global organized elite hiding their origins (and very existence) or unrelated groups (eg religious groups ) hiding discoveries for their own reasons.

All I can say is 1)plenty of strange stone ruins exist, many have people claiming they are older than the accepted date, maybe they are not quite as clear cut as is thought.
2) if you look up oopart (out of place artifacts) you get a whole bunch of wierd #, much of which may be hoaxes plus some real interesting things, and usually the only reason the interesting ones are considered hoaxes is because they are out of place in the accepted timelines (ie an object that if it dated to the right era, would be considered real, but is somehow dated to the wrong era)
3)anyone here like to tell me why you think the sphinx weathering is NOT water erosion? (I am not a relevant expert, but it looks like it to me), and if so, when that occured?

Originally posted by diablomonic

3)anyone here like to tell me why you think the sphinx weathering is NOT water erosion? (I am not a relevant expert, but it looks like it to me), and if so, when that occured?

If it is water erosion it means the Sphinx could date back to 4,000BC - but there's no reason for supposing any further than that.

The African Humid Period ended around 5,000 years ago, thereafter the climate of Egypt became much drier. I reckon 1,000 years of rain could produce that sort of erosion in soft limestone quite easily

ok cool, didnt know that.
Now this is still very interesting: we have a very large stone structure, which has had a fairly well accepted history for quite a while, and yet that history is most likely wrong!
Now as you say, this could date the object to only 500 - 1500 years before the traditional dating, but really that is a minimum date! in the absence of any other evidence it may make sense to date it as this age, but who knows how long it was there BEFORE the weathering (and indeed just how much weathering it has taken) especially given extended periods buried under the sand...
for the purposes of this topic, there is no evidence to prove it is NOT older than this, is there?
My point being, how many other "sphinxes" are there? stone relics dated to the wrong age simply because that seemed to fit better with accepted history? maybe there are none, I dont know, but theres certainly a lot of claims..

It could be posible.

I mean Sanskrit is an Object Oriented Language created by cavemen?

Thant sounds suspicious...

For Diablo, you can always volunteer to dig, volunteers are the lifeblood of archaeology these days....

no not everyone is knowingly "in on it" in fact, the VAST majority aren't (I expect). This is more a case of: teach someone the world is flat, and it takes a lot to change his view, especially if all his peers believe the same thing, he risks economic and career suicide by even considering otherwise, and all the proof that it is not flat has been tarnished by controversy (deserved or not).

Hans: Then nothing much should have changed in the last two hundred years, yet in fact change has been paramount and those causing the change have been deemed heroes and heroine of science. Where was the conspiracy?

Im not saying I believe 100% that the following is the case, I am only stating that I DO believe there is a global conspiracy in other areas so this wouldnt surprise me

now if you have such a (top level) conspiracy, you DO NOT need almost anyone to know the true extent of it (think compartmentalisation)

Hans: To suppress archaeological knowledge you’d need people knowledgeable in every aspect of it and associated areas of knowledge, scores of people if not up to around 150 to cover every aspect. Remember a pot shard would prove the existence of an ancient civilization as could pollen, sedimentary cores, geology, etc. You’d have to watch tens of thousands of publications and institutions and tens of thousands of scientists in every country.

and you can in almost all cases convince people to act for your own benefit without them knowing why they are really doing it.

Hans: Could you give a real world example of this dealing with archaeology?

Also you do not need to cover up every little discovery, all you need is to sow a little doubt on most small ones and the in built paradigm of linear civilisation proggression will do the rest.

Hans: Unless of course the evidence actually points to CP

The only time you need to actively cover anything up is if there is a major discovery that is hard proof, and for it to be hard proof it needs to be thouroughly documented by qualified archeologists, and this means 2 things:

1) word will normally get out in parts of the archeological community, giving the conspirators a warning they need to act and

Hans: Actually no this works against the conspirators as more people get in the know as the evidence is spread about

2) archeological digs take time, so this gives them TIME to act.

Hans: Such as?

as I said, there wouldnt normally be any need to kill anyone or similar, simply putting the reasonable suggestion that it is a hoax will be enough for most to dismiss without even properly looking at it, given the "overwhelming evidence" for the current paradigm.

Hans: How would you explain a city as a hoax? What if the discovery is made by an independently wealthy professor emeritus armed with hard evidence any archaeologist can see? Can you give an example of something that “was dismissed without properly (being) looked at”? Oh by the way when was the current paradigm established and by who?

Originally posted by Hanslune

Hans: Then nothing much should have changed in the last two hundred years, yet in fact change has been paramount and those causing the change have been deemed heroes and heroine of science. Where was the conspiracy?

Diablo: think of it more like damage control than complete stagnation: to completely halt archeological progress would be pretty much impossible, so simply slow it (for example by setting up a system whereby scientists learn to "tow the line" in the long struggle to become a tenured professor, by which time even if they were originally just paying lip service to the current paradigm, they are pretty much part of it by the time they get tenure)and steer it (by encouraging doubt on (and this is important) any discoveries that arent automatically dismissed by skeptical "tow the line" "experts", which are probably not many.

Originally posted by Hanslune

Hans: To suppress archaeological knowledge you’d need people knowledgeable in every aspect of it and associated areas of knowledge, scores of people if not up to around 150 to cover every aspect. Remember a pot shard would prove the existence of an ancient civilization as could pollen, sedimentary cores, geology, etc. You’d have to watch tens of thousands of publications and institutions and tens of thousands of scientists in every country.

Diablo: extremely old pot shards where supposedly found at that cuban "underwater city". They where dismissed by other "experts" as natural artifacts. This is, in all likelyhood, true, but how would I know? Now I dont claim the dismissing people are "in" on it, just applying occams razor a little too vigorously (ie apply it AFTER getting and studying all the evidence, not as an excuse to not even look...)

Originally posted by Hanslune
"and you can in almost all cases convince people to act for your own benefit without them knowing why they are really doing it."

Hans: Could you give a real world example of this dealing with archaeology?

diablo: in on it upper class university dean (UD) sees breaking story about some fantastic discovery. UD says to most traditional, respected (not in on it) expert in school "how about you write a paper on this giving your opinion, ride the publicity a bit. Personally, it sounds impossible, (hint hint) what do you think? WHAT DO YOU THINK THE EXPERTS PAPER WILL SAY? do you think he will really give the evidence a proper chance, or will he come at it with extreme bias and preconceptions?