Why Historically Known cultures hid information about the Ice Age

a reply to: LABTECH767

found isotopes that do NOT form in the quantity's they are present in the atmosphere of mars naturally and are only the product of fission reactions

Xenon 129? Are you sure?

In particular, it looks as if some of the barium surrendered neutrons that got picked up by xenon to produce higher-than-expected levels of the isotopes xenon-124 and 126. Likewise, bromine might have surrendered some of its neutrons to produce unusual levels of krypton-80 and krypton-82.

www.jpl.nasa.gov...

a reply to: Phage

Phage I am not a nuclear physicist but you will forgive me if I go along with a guy that is.

However if a more recent explanation has been proposed and it also work's then it may also be correct, the question then is do you accept the face on mars is artificial or do you like so many out there deny it because I believe it is both artificial, ancient and was deliberately destroyed very recently to hide the evidence causing that landslide event, of course IF that conspiracy is correct Brandburg's Isotopes could have a very much more recent atmospheric burst event explanation.

That Landslide and the difference between the current images and the older Viking images make me think that this is very plausible. Despite there lower resolution and the fact a pixel could hide a dump truck it's sheer size would still have shown so many features now present that were not then such as that huge landslide indicative of a near air burst type event shattering the ancient visage of the monument.

a reply to: LABTECH767

the question then is do you accept the face on mars is artificial

I do not.

so many features now present that were not then such as that huge landslide indicative of a near air burst type event shattering the ancient visage of the monument.

You are seriously saying that there was a nuclear blast on Mars after 1976 and that it's purpose was to destroy the "face?" Were there separate blasts for the "pyramids" too?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LABTECH767

the question then is do you accept the face on mars is artificial

I do not.

so many features now present that were not then such as that huge landslide indicative of a near air burst type event shattering the ancient visage of the monument.

You are seriously saying that there was a nuclear blast on Mars after 1976 and that it's purpose was to destroy the "face?" Were there separate blasts for the "pyramids" too?

Hey Phage you may not be up to speed with the "fringe world' viewpoint on this. These might help....kinda....

www.vice.com...

www.express.co.uk...

Yes and of course as soon as the face on mars was discovered NASA or other nefarious folks launched a rocket to Mars and obliterated it.

a reply to: Hanslune

I've been aware of Brandenburg for a while.
But what he (or Mars) may have to do with the the last glacial period is a bit confusing.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Phage

Phage I am not a nuclear physicist but you will forgive me if I go along with a guy that is.

So you are electing to go with one fellows opinion versus all the others who disagree? However, you don't have the technical knowledge to know if he is right so your opinion appears to be based on your just liking his idea.

However if a more recent explanation has been proposed and it also work's then it may also be correct, the question then is do you accept the face on mars is artificial or do you like so many out there deny it because I believe it is both artificial, ancient and was deliberately destroyed very recently to hide the evidence causing that landslide event, of course IF that conspiracy is correct Brandburg's Isotopes could have a very much more recent atmospheric burst event explanation.

So the face isn't just a hill and a good example of paradolia huh? Who sent an obsolete fission bomb to Mars then?

That Landslide and the difference between the current images and the older Viking images make me think that this is very plausible.

Yes I'm sure you do

Despite there lower resolution and the fact a pixel could hide a dump truck it's sheer size would still have shown so many features now present that were not then such as that huge landslide indicative of a near air burst type event shattering the ancient visage of the monument.

LOL, howdy Lab, sorry but that is such a made up self-serving story. Now if you want to believe that then please do but please understand that it is unreasonable to expect anyone else to?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Hanslune

I've been aware of Brandenburg for a while.
But what he (or Mars) may have to do with the the last glacial period is a bit confusing.

Oh yeah, its all a bit confusing. The one about nuking the Face was made up by someone else don't remember quite who that was - so that mental gymnastic move was made so they didn't have to lose the great face on Mars - one of the great monuments in the Fringe viewpoint.

Lab is a very believing fellow.

a reply to: Phage

It's an old debate.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.collective-evolution.com...

What I am saying is that while the radioactive decay of the isotopes he has analysed supports a date of about half a billion years it is possible that fresh isotopic material has been added at some point that may skew data which otherwise would suggest a far older date and therefore if the conspiracy about the face destruction (and there is no evidence that it was caused by a nuclear device so this is up in the air there and it could have been an air burst caused by some other event but a nuke is the easiest explanation for causing the shock wave to destroy the face after all) is real then that could be a possible source for some of the isotopic material he has used to support his hypothesis, a hypothesis I find compelling and actually believe.


Hanlune without dissecting your reply to my reply that is more or less what I said, He himself has challenged his critics to an open debate but they have backed down.


n.b.
My opinion is NOT set in stone, I like to keep an open mind but some criticism of these ideas has about as much validity or even less as the theory's themselves do.
Erring on the side of caution is indeed safer BUT is that how great discovery's are made?.

And what if we are indeed sitting on a gold mine of lost knowledge, we just need to interpret it, past civilization in our own solar system could even be every bit as alien and incomprehensible to us as trying to talk to real alien's would be, if that is the case we need to study them as a case study for the day should it ever happen when we meet real ET and have to open a dialogue with them.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Phage

It's an old debate.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.collective-evolution.com...

What I am saying is that while the radioactive decay of the isotopes he has analysed supports a date of about half a billion years it is possible that fresh isotopic material has been added at some point that may skew data which otherwise would suggest a far older date and therefore if the conspiracy about the face destruction (and there is no evidence that it was caused by a nuclear device so this is up in the air there and it could have been an air burst caused by some other event but a nuke is the easiest explanation for causing the shock wave to destroy the face after all) is real then that could be a possible source for some of the isotopic material he has used to support his hypothesis, a hypothesis I find compelling and actually believe.

No its not the easiest and best explanation. The best solution is that it was natural formation that due to the poor resolution looked something like a face but when a better resolution image was obtained it was seen to be a hill.

Hanlune without dissecting your reply to my reply that is more or less what I said, He himself has challenged his critics to an open debate but they have backed down.

No that is his claim there is no need for a face to face debate they can debunk him with science evidence quite easily. You will notice that we are not having a face to face debate either. I didn't have a face to face with Daniken, Velikovsky, Sitchin etc., etc., to debunk their stuff. Its an old ploy.

n.b.
My opinion is NOT set in stone, I like to keep an open mind but some criticism of these ideas has about as much validity or even less as the theory's themselves do.

In my opinion you mind is fully shut, welded, then encased in concrete but I'll keep an open mind that I might be wrong.

Erring on the side of caution is indeed safer BUT is that how great discovery's are made?.

Yes great discoveries are made but more often untrue theories live longer than necessary and die only with the death of the creator who do to reasons of ego, money or spite and cannot let them go.

And what if we are indeed sitting on a gold mine of lost knowledge, we just need to interpret it, past civilization in our own solar system could even be every bit as alien and incomprehensible to us as trying to talk to real alien's would be, if that is the case we need to study them as a case study for the day should it ever happen when we meet real ET and have to open a dialogue with them.

The evidence for a past civilization in this solar system at present is zero. However I would be very please if we ever found such. I suspect we will find that the life began on Mars but died out as the planet was to small and to far from the sun to maintain a suitable environment - some may still be deep within the planet still (microscopic - probably not Martian mole men).

a reply to: LABTECH767

He himself has challenged his critics to an open debate but they have backed down.

"Backed down" would seem to indicate that they changed their minds rather than standing by their criticisms. Is that what happened?

Did he challenge anyone in particular? Directly?

Ok so none of this Mars talk really means anything to the topic at hand. Let's say that Mars had a civilization that is equal to the one we have right now, but it was hundreds of years in the past. Does it matter? There is no evidence that they had the technology to come here, and now there's no known evidence that they survived whatever it was the happened to them.

So the idea that a green and inhabitable Mars did exist at one time, doesn't mean anything to the Earth life forms that existed during the end of the last Glacial Period.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LABTECH767

He himself has challenged his critics to an open debate but they have backed down.

"Backed down" would seem to indicate that they changed their minds rather than standing by their criticisms. Is that what happened?

Did he challenge anyone in particular? Directly?

Hmm, they criticized him but only on his interpretation since they could not argue with his data and he invited them to an open debate to which they declined since he would then have demolished them.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Whom did he invite?

which they declined since he would then have demolished them.

According to whom?

a reply to: Hanslune

Now I am not meaning to be rude but to be perfectly frank with you your opinion is just that YOUR opinion, you have your crowd of fellow cronies but believe me it does not wash with the open minded and educated among the rest of the community, sadly this site has suffered because of pig headed sceptic's that will not accept the truth and deny it at every turn and even more sadly those looking for somewhere that they can have an honest open discussion without being ATTACKED have mostly left the site causing it to suffer a loss in quality, interesting threads and basically everything that most of the rest of us came here for, do not underestimate the damage pig headed bald faced dishonest scepticism causes to this site.

That said GOOD Scepticism and honest scepticism is a necessary function of any debate, however is it about the debate or the subject matter, if it is about the debate then the sceptic is not here honestly but to demolish and to win a debate, in such a case though I am personally for freedom of speech (within reason and common sense of course and subject dependant) then such a debater is not of value to a topic but has only one agenda to win an argument regardless of if they be right or wrong to drive there debating skill's toward such a goal.

YOUR OPINION.
MY OPINION.

I am not YOU (Thanks be to the Lord God).

You are NOT ME.

You have YOUR opinions and I have mine.

I thoroughly believe that site is REAL and is artificially shaped, I also believe that we may not be the first sentient being to call either this earth or indeed our solar system home though we may be the only indigenous race here now (if indeed we are indigenous and that is an entire other debate).

The age of OUR race of sentient being's is constantly being pushed further and further back, there was already evidence that pushes it back even further but those artefacts have a nasty habit of being lost or stolen just like the Paluxy tracks, someone wanted the human like footprints gone so bad that they were actually seen with an IRON bar in the area, they later - much later - denied it online but had indeed attended a debate about them and seemed extremely agitated according to witness in the room at the time, before the iron bar incident (no one actually saw them doing the damage) the track's were complete, distinct human footprint's (one of which has been cross sectioned and shown to have the correct weight distribution for a human being due to the granular pattern of the pressure beneath the footprint locked into the fossilized impression) while after the incident the human like footprint's had been smashed most thoroughly.

Once again it is a debate were Sceptic's think they have won and the evidence has conveniently been destroyed, with no new evidence they can then saturate searches into the subject with there lies.
www.violations.org.uk...

This is the defensive post made by the guy that was accused of the vandalism, was he innocent or guilty I do not know but I do know someone destroyed those track's and I would not accuse him on the basis of internet third hand rumours, that said someone did destroy them regardless of claim's otherwise.
www.talkorigins.org...

And there are many other's.
archaeology-world.com...

So as you can see WE that seek the truth and a place to search for it with intelligent debate and open mind's and whom joined this site for that very reason have for the most part become disheartened by what to many of us seem to be a flock of troll's intent on shutting down all debate with often groundless and baseless denial's.

If this site is to survive this has to stop, good scepticism is constructive, it works toward the truth not an opinion but the truth, bad scepticism is more about winning an argument and has only that goal in mind.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Harte

You can't do that without a clock.

For longitude, this is true. For latitude, a zenith star (along with Polaris) will get you there. Sail north until Arcturus is overhead, then hang a right. Next stop, Hawaii.

The word "navigate" was used.
If all you want to do is sail (or drive) in a given direction, you're good. Wouldn't call that navigation myself though. Likely wouldn't end up where you wanted without the landmarks.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Not many landmarks in the North Pacific. Granted, we aren't talking about Polynesians, but you don't need a clock to navigate. It doesn't hurt though.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Harte

Not many landmarks in the North Pacific. Granted, we aren't talking about Polynesians, but you don't need a clock to navigate. It doesn't hurt though.

This is true, but it takes a great deal of skill.
1976:

Using no instruments, the canoe team navigated as their ancestors did, by the stars. They had no maps, no sextants, no compasses, and they navigated by observing the ocean and sky, reading the stars and swells. The paths of stars and rhythms of the ocean guided them by night and the color of sky and the sun, the shapes of clouds, and the direction from which the swells were coming, guided them by day. Several days away from an island, they were able to determine the exact day of landfall. Swells would tell them that there was land ahead, and the surest telltale sign would be the presence of birds making flights out to sea seeking food. By sailing from Hawaii to Tahiti, Hokule'a's team was able to prove that it was possible for Polynesian peoples to migrate over thousands of miles from island to island.

source
Using swells and birds and other landmarks. However, I was responding to:

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Guyfriday

It was probably all a mind trick to remember the places that stars rose and set, if you were a hunter gatherer following herds, it would be as handy on land as well as on sea, to be able to navigate by the rising and setting of stars.

Following landmarks, and actually seeing these "herds" with their eyeballs would, of course, be the means of "navigation" used by hunter-gatherers, and not the stars.

Harte

The ice age selected for those who could survive winter.

originally posted by: rom12345
The ice age selected for those who could survive winter.

And people who lived in the Southern Hemisphere.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Guyfriday

Some cultures give the bears long tails. Others don't. Still others don't see a bear at all. For example, we see a big 'ol dipper.

To save Callisto and her son from further damage from Juno, Jupiter changed Arcas into a bear also, grabbed them both by their tails, and swung them both into the heavens so they could live peacefully among the stars. The strength of the throw caused the short stubby tails of the bears to become elongated.

www.aavso.org...

Or perhaps the constellation has been recognized as a long tailed bear for a very long time. It's still not part of the zodiac.

Yeah. Astronomy probably started a long time prior to there being a "Zodiac". Ursa is visible all year round in the Northern hemisphere.

However, it would take me a while to find a good link, but there is also a very old cave painting of a bull with a bunch of star-looking symbols in it, which might have been intended as a representation of "taurus".

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Guyfriday

It was probably all a mind trick to remember the places that stars rose and set, if you were a hunter gatherer following herds, it would be as handy on land as well as on sea, to be able to navigate by the rising and setting of stars.

You can't do that without a clock.

All you need is the north star to move your herd. Landmarks would guide you.

Harte

I don't think Ursa was the North star back when bears still had tails. But it was always somewhere in the Northern area of the sky.

originally posted by: LABTECH767

originally posted by: AndyMayhew
a reply to: LABTECH767

Brandburg? The guy who thinks a naturally occurring, stable, isotope, often found in meteorites, and used to date them, is proof of a nuclear explosion on Mars?

Seriously what are you talking about, he analysed atmospheric isotope ratios in Mars Atmosphere and found isotopes that do NOT form in the quantity's they are present in the atmosphere of mars naturally and are only the product of fission reactions not fusion reactions, if those isotopes were also found in Mars originated space rock's AKA impact ejected that has been propelled into the solar system by large impact event's on mars surface such as asteroid impacts then that also proves his point.

I think that is probably true.

However it does not prove that Mars was, at any time in the past, habitable.

It could have been just as inhospitable as it is today, and aliens could have put an outpost there or something, and then fired nukes at each other fighting over the outpost.

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Phage

Phage I am not a nuclear physicist but you will forgive me if I go along with a guy that is.

So you are electing to go with one fellows opinion versus all the others who disagree? However, you don't have the technical knowledge to know if he is right so your opinion appears to be based on your just liking his idea.

My problem with this is the "others who disagree" are presenting alternative hypothesis that require a lot of "fine tuning".

They're expecting their arguments to be believed because they are possible interpretations of data, instead of because they are likely interpretations of data. (Or only "likely" if you assume aliens are cannot possibly exist, and that the isotope count therefore "must" be from an implausible, but not impossible, source other than aliens.)

But I don't entirely disapprove of covering up aliens. The idea that someone out there has already developed all the technology we now have would take away from the feeling of accomplishment when our scientists invent and discover stuff.


Edit: actually turns out the link for the Taurus cave painting wasn't that hard to find:

news.bbc.co.uk...#:~:text=Today%2C%20this%20region%20forms%20part,stretches%20back%20thousands%20of%20years.&text=D r%20Rappenglueck%20has%20also%20identified,in%20Spain%2014%2C000%20years%20ago.