Unraveling the Olmec Mystery

a reply to: Jonjonj

This is the nose of a direct descendant of the people who created the heads


Are you saying his nose is particularly negro in origin ?

Here's what you were saying was an African


I guess that you aren't aware that Olmec DNA is entirely native in origin, not a sign of Africans
This is how Quetzlcoatl was depicted before the Spanish invasion

Do you think he looks particularly white skinned ?

In fact the Spanish arrived shortly after some omens were cast predicting the return of the Aztec god from the direction of Sunrise, which is why they were treated so well.

So I think its about time that you actually read a credible source on this subject rather than relying on what a bunch of pseudohistorians want you to think

Im going out on a limb here.....
My guess is 25-35000 yrs old.......
Pre Egypt
Pre Sumeria
pre east indian or parallel to it......
My thoughts run to a far older history of man....

a reply to: Marduk

He's pointing at 3000BCE and claiming that it says "Olmec" when it doesn't say Olmec anywhere on it

actually...he states...

The first (earliest) civilization, that of the Olmecs, was shown as begun circa 3000 B.C.!

"that of Olmecs" is obviously his addition/opinion. The chart refers to the "earliest" civilization in mesoamerica.


As far as I can understand...there indeed is evidence for civilizations in America at around 3000 B.C. At least it says so right here...

History_of_the_Americas

The Norte Chico civilization (also Caral or Caral-Supe civilization)[1] was a complex pre-Columbian society around 3500BC-1800BC that included as many as 30 major population centers in what is now the Norte Chico region of north-central coastal Peru. Since the early 21st century, it has been established as the oldest known civilization in the Americas and one of the six sites where civilization originated independently in the ancient world

so...Since the early 21 st century...it has been established as the oldest known civ in America. That was a little bit after Sitchin. Olmecs were for the long time considered oldest known...therefore...his addition isnt really faulty.

edit:

so apparently I missed this...

The outstanding museum on the Olmec civilization in Jalapa, in the Veracruz province of Mexico, included when it was built a wall panel showing the extent and dates of Mexico's various cultures.

so the panel was about "Mexico's various cultures"....not Americas...therefore he is right that they are the oldest known in that area. He argues they date 3000 BC...obviously mainstream archeology disagrees on that.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
so the panel was about "Mexico's various cultures"....not Americas...therefore he is right that they are the oldest known in that area. He argues they date 3000 BC...obviously mainstream archeology disagrees on that.

Um, No

He is claiming that the chart that he is pointing to says "Olmecs" at the 3000bce Mark

The first (earliest) civilization, that of the Olmecs, was shown as begun circa 3000 B.C.!

It doesn't
Not only does the picture show he is lying, but as you know, mainstream archaeology also disagrees with him.

So I am completely failing to see what point you are trying to make here because the only evidence I've seen from your link so far is that he is wrong about the date and is clearly lying about it to bolster his claim that Thoth the spaceman flew over from Egypt with some Africans around 3100BCE

You don't really believe that do you ?
Dna has already proven all his claims wrong, no African DNA has ever been found in Olmec bones, so either way, he's a liar, or an idiot and we know he wasn't an idiot. As an economist and a journalist he knew exactly what would sell when he was writing his books at the height of the 1970s UFO cults craze
Why is it that you posted that crap in the first place ?

originally posted by: bandersnatch
Im going out on a limb here.....
My guess is 25-35000 yrs old.......
Pre Egypt
Pre Sumeria
pre east indian or parallel to it......
My thoughts run to a far older history of man....

So you are saying that the Olmec civilisation lasted for 35,000 years
and they didn't get round to inventing the wheel ?

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: bandersnatch
Im going out on a limb here.....
My guess is 25-35000 yrs old.......
Pre Egypt
Pre Sumeria
pre east indian or parallel to it......
My thoughts run to a far older history of man....

So you are saying that the Olmec civilisation lasted for 35,000 years
and they didn't get round to inventing the wheel ?

they didn't need the wheel they had all them wimmins to carry **** around, it was actually after the wimmins rights movement the wheel became necassary, I can't believe you didn't know that!

jk, sorry

a reply to: Marduk

You don't really believe that do you ?

Basis for myths interest me.

I believe in it as much as you can in any myth.

He is claiming that the chart that he is pointing to says "Olmecs" at the 3000bce Mark

from my point of view, that's open to interpretation.

he even states that second time he came to the museum...that panel was gone and the official dates for Olmecs stated 1500 BC.

My point is...you are accusing him of lying...while that may not be the case. Being wrong and lying is not the same. Being stubborn in being wrong...is also not necessarily lying.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
My point is...you are accusing him of lying...while that may not be the case. Being wrong and lying is not the same. Being stubborn in being wrong...is also not necessarily lying.

Well that wasn't your point when you posted the link to his website
If you'd like me to list all the times he has deliberately lied, I don't have a problem doing so. So this lie is just one of many that I know about. The thread would run to scores of pages.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFlyhe even states that second time he came to the museum...that panel was gone and the official dates for Olmecs stated 1500 BC.

Well how convenient that was then, but it makes his point moot doesn't it. Even if it did say "Olmec" at 3000BCE (it didn't), then what would you think, that a museum which is regarded as one of the best in the world for Olmec artifacts, either
1. Got it wrong and corrected it
2. Is involved in a global cover up to make people think that the Olmec weren't around until 1500BCE

What would be the point ?

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
Basis for myths interest me.

But this isn't mythology, there is no myth that claims that an Egyptian God was a spaceman who flew some Africans over to America. This is just science fiction.
I'm figuring that you haven't read many of Sitchins books, because if you had, you'd have reached the credibility tipping point a long time ago


For the record, Sitchin has no linguistic training, he can't read the tablets he was making up nonsense for and he has no training in any history discipline
What he was, was a journalist and an economist, that should make you go hmmm...
en.wikipedia.org...
Read it

a reply to: Marduk

I am sorry but the photo you used is not verifiable. I too can ignore reality when I want to. Right?

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: Marduk

I am sorry but the photo you used is not verifiable. I too can ignore reality when I want to. Right?

Well you are ignoring the facts...
The Maya priest who was pictured is descended from the Olmec



You are arguing that the nose on the left, doesn't look anything like the nose on the right, whether the picture has been verified to your satisfaction or not, because you were claiming that the nose must be African, based on your limited understanding of facial features
Well there it is bucko, on the face of a non African...
They are almost identical

Please link me to any credible site which discusses African DNA found at an Olmec site
Because if you can't...

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: Marduk
My point is...you are accusing him of lying...while that may not be the case. Being wrong and lying is not the same. Being stubborn in being wrong...is also not necessarily lying.

No honest person can look closely at the pic of Sitchin and read what he wrote yet come to the conclusion that he isn't lying.

You have the wrong idea of what a "civilization" is. The museum, on the other hand, does not.

Note that the panel refers to Mexico's various "cultures."

That means the oldest culture goes back to maybe 3000 B.C.

But you don't have to be a civilization to be a culture.

If you'd read the link Marduk gave, you would have seen that there were several different cultures extant in the Early Preclassic Period in Mexico, but no civilization and no Olmecs.

originally posted by: bandersnatch
Im going out on a limb here.....
My guess is 25-35000 yrs old.......
Pre Egypt
Pre Sumeria
pre east indian or parallel to it......
My thoughts run to a far older history of man....

Well, they do run, I'll say that.

Run they do.

originally posted by: Marduk
For the record, Sitchin has no linguistic training, he can't read the tablets he was making up nonsense for and he has no training in any history discipline
What he was, was a journalist and an economist, that should make you go hmmm...
en.wikipedia.org...
Read it

I would have thought that you would have corrected the VA243 translation in that wiki article by now.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte


I would have thought that you would have corrected the VA243 translation in that wiki article by now.

Harte

Why would I do that, he could then claim to know more about it than I do
Like here, from his website where he claims this from right to left

Shows the Sun, the Moon and a star
When in fact, as you can see from here
It is actually how they depicted the planet Venus.


What could it really be on the VA243 cylinder seal, Venus, in the middle of a group of stars
who knows

originally posted by: Marduk
Brien Foerster, the guy from Ancient Aliens TV show and general "lost civilisations" idiot
no, I'll pass thanks

If you blame everything on aliens you. Can air confidential info.

a reply to: Marduk

Well that wasn't your point when you posted the link to his website

??

I posted a link because it was about Olmec culture. The thread title is..."unraveling the Olmec mystery"...the link seemed appropriate.

If you'd like me to list all the times he has deliberately lied

A lie ? Just name one for educational purposes. But remember. It has to be a lie...not subject to interpretation or opinion.

1. Got it wrong and corrected it
2. Is involved in a global cover up to make people think that the Olmec weren't around until 1500BCE

What would be the point ?

You are aware that you are on ATS..right ? There could be various reasons for the potential cover up...not that I'm stating there was one.

I'm sure you've heard it already...that some people date the pyramids way back than the official history does ? And that's not just one...there are plenty.

If you are here to toe the party line...it's wasted on me. Cant count the number of times I've heard official history being revised...due to new findings...

But...20 years later we get something like this..."Scientists previously thought..."

I'm just being pragmatic in not accepting science ad-hoc...all the while I consider various "lunatic" theories.

The key is not to get "married" to any of it.

Sitchin means nothing to me...but I appreciate his role. He made a lot of trips to ancient sites. Made plenty of interesting notes...and surely has some merit for his work, whether you or "science" agrees with it or not.

For the record, Sitchin has no linguistic training, he can't read the tablets he was making up nonsense for and he has no training in any history discipline
What he was, was a journalist and an economist, that should make you go hmmm...

Ancient language scholar Michael S. Heiser states he has found many inaccuracies in Sitchin's translations and challenges interested parties to use this book to check their validity.[16][21] Prof. Ronald H. Fritze,[22] author of the book Invented Knowledge: False History, Fake Science and Pseudo-religions,[22] mentions the example of Sitchin's claim that the Sumerian sign Din-Gir means "pure ones of the blazing rockets", adding that "Sitchin's assignment of meanings to ancient words is tendentious and frequently strained."[23] Fritze also commented on Sitchin's methodology, writing that "When critics have checked Sitchin's references, they have found that he frequently quotes out of context or truncates his quotes in a way that distorts evidence in order to prove his contentions. Evidence is presented selectively and contradictory evidence is ignored."[23]

You know...I realize you dont see it...but official science does that all the time. Ignoring evidence of the contrary in favor of the currently accepted. But science is "ever evolving" for it...and Sitchin is a liar for doing the same.

a reply to: Marduk

When its clear from the wording on the left that the period he is pointing at is marked "Preclásico Temprano", which in English is "Early Preclassic era", Which is about 1000 years before the Olmec appeared So he's either incompetent or lying...

I disagree.

If anything, he is pointing way below "Preclásico Temprano", and at the moment that photo was taken, could have pointed at the accepted time of the Olmecs, and then was snapped pointing even lower. It's a reasonable to say he might have been saying something along the lines of 'Who knows, the Olmecs could even be much older than accepted wisdom states..they could even have been older than..THIS! Or the complete opposite of course, he could be pointing there and saying "They certainly were not this old" or indeed saying anything else.

We weren't there when the image was snapped...so we don't know what was said at that moment...could be anything.

a reply to: Marduk

Do all anglo-Saxon noses have the same shape?

I think not.

So really, i fail to see why anyone would think all Afro-Carribean / South American peoples noses are all going to be the same either.

If anything, the nose could be representative of an indiginous person, an African person, but in my opinion, looks to be more like a Polynesian person.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: Marduk

When its clear from the wording on the left that the period he is pointing at is marked "Preclásico Temprano", which in English is "Early Preclassic era", Which is about 1000 years before the Olmec appeared So he's either incompetent or lying...

I disagree.

If anything, he is pointing way below "Preclásico Temprano", and at the moment that photo was taken, could have pointed at the accepted time of the Olmecs, and then was snapped pointing even lower. It's a reasonable to say he might have been saying something along the lines of 'Who knows, the Olmecs could even be much older than accepted wisdom states..they could even have been older than..THIS! Or the complete opposite of course, he could be pointing there and saying "They certainly were not this old" or indeed saying anything else.

We weren't there when the image was snapped...so we don't know what was said at that moment...could be anything.

No, but we know what he wrote about the picture he published.

You can make up any imaginary conversation, of course. Sitchin's problem is that he actually wrote the lie that accompanies the very picture he chose to illustrate his lie.

Harte

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: Marduk

Do all anglo-Saxon noses have the same shape?

I think not.

So really, i fail to see why anyone would think all Afro-Carribean / South American peoples noses are all going to be the same either.

If anything, the nose could be representative of an indiginous person, an African person, but in my opinion, looks to be more like a Polynesian person.

The usual argument is that these heads MUST be representative of Africans. That argument appears in this thread and millions of other places.
The photos you've been shown certainly illustrate the bankruptcy of the idea that these are African based on facial features.

Harte