Are there any Real OOParts???

a reply to: lightedhype

This probably classes as a mega oopart and is in line with what you are saying though Yonaguni is even less spectacular and someone has blocked this out, perhaps as the territorial waters there are internationally sensative but I am convinced it is real.
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Then there is the story of Dwarka a civilization older than sumeria which modern archeaologists (IN THE WEST ONLY) do not want to tackle as it throw's a rather large sabot in there loome.
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

A good read.
www.atlantisquest.com...

More on the city off cuba but in spanish
www.youtube.com...

a reply to: ArtemisE

In my experience they are all either frauds, misinterpreted or mistakes due to some lack of information.

I don't regard the Antikythera Mechanism as an actual out of place object. It is remarkable, and it caused us to have to rethink our understanding of how much the ancient Greeks knew about science and engineering in the 1st century BC.

But having now done that, it is merely now a part of accepted mainstream archaeology.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

In that respect you have hit the nail on the head on some points such as that some are now no longer regarded as ooparts as ARCHAEOLOGICAL THEORY was then updated to include them and there is the crux there are a lot of fakes but there are indeed some less spectacular artifacts which do not fit such as hominid's in the wrong place and time or even possible modern humanoid remains and traces such as footprints which when cross sectioned are shown to not be simply weathering of saurian tracks but to have the same weight and pressure as human gait such as some paloxy tracks which were taken for examination after being freshly exposed by having the overlying sandstone layer removed and the rock sectioned and taken to a lab were the rock grain pattern under the impression was shown to have the exact pressure displacement to prove they were not the product of weathering but actual tracks, so either a human like being with a gait identical to ours or a two legged dinosaur about 5'11" and 9 stone walked there with a identical to human gait from the tracks which were freshly exposed and analyzed, then there is moccasin rock a human footprint in an alluviel rock with stitching around the soul, another on a half crushed trilobyte, the list goes on.
There is an active perception filter in place, accepted archaeology and anthropology are theory nothing more, they are not given facts though they are treated as such indeed they are an established idea supported with what is classed as evidence that fits the ideology and when it does not it get's either left in the anomlous box where it is quickly forgotten about or it is subject to rigorous levels of analysis that the acceptable find's are not subjected to as after all they fit the theory.
The argument about the Lucy skeleton is that it could also be reconstructed as simply an extinct primate and the theory it was a human ancestor was only one of many but it gained a following from TRUE believers among the anthropological fraternity.
www.forerunner.com...
www.amnation.com...
www.pathlights.com...
www.delusionresistance.org...
home.comcast.net...
And then again I am not being funny but take another look at that skeleton in the decayed space suit with the remnantis of the visor still visible around the bezel of the face plate, it is not a trick of light and shadow though it is litterally like a sand castle a dust impression that you could probably not pick up without it falling apart and this is due to long exposure of solar radiation and particle bombardment as well as extreme temperature variance, it is ancient and probably older than the human race is supposed to be so is that a chimp in a suit or could Darwins IDEA as far as human's are concerned simply be plain wrong, there are other mechanisms for explaining genetic links such as viral propegation of DNA/RNA between species as well.
What about the human like finger fossil which when X rayed showed the joint, bone tendon and finger nail inside the stone identical to a human anatomy of a finger, if you have looked into the subject then you know what I mean it was found near a set of humanoid tracks like the paloxy ones.

NOT every oopart (Or classed as such according to Accepted anthropological and archeaological establishment - which are sometime less than scientific themselves) is fake but most of the sensationist ones are and were produced to make money like the bearded lady, people want to see them.

As for the ica stones of peru, a guy bought one and took it back to the states, it came to the attention of a top museum, they leaned on the state department whom spoke to the peruvian authoritys whom arrested the guy selling them who then after being held by the police admitted faking them but get this one had already been sent to germany for argon krypton isotopic dating and found to be at least 10000 years old?.
If something is inconveniant they get it out of the way and discredit it, the guy whom admited making these chemically proven to be 10000 years at least old stone carvings which he had claimed to have found washed out of a cave after it was exposed by a flood which eroded the rock is supposed to have made tens of thousands of these things, not possible how did he fake the argon krypton ratio, the stone equivelant of carbon dating it works by factoring by the amount of the isotopes near the surface of the stone and how decayed they are how long the stone has been exposed to the atmosphere so is highly inaccurate for extremely old samples but for newer ones such as the outside of a medievil cathedral can be extremely accurate.

I am not saying evolution is wrong as it is a proven mechanism as far as fruit fly's and poison resistant mice, pathogens and indeed adaptaion to ecological niche is concerned but what I am saying is it is far from an open and shut case, there is supporting interpretation of evidence but no actual irrefutable evidence of our own ancestry and an out of place object is only out of place because we do not understand the mechanism as to how it got there, if the story about the pipe holder being blasted out of solid limestone it true then of course it is an OOPART even if it is an indian pipe holder from around the same period though it then fall's into the catagory of strange occurance such as rains of fish, and there is a potential explanation, matter is not alway's solid even when it should be, remember the bones of the buddhist tibetan monk whom dissapeard but was supposed to be able to walk through walls only for human remains fused with solid rock to be found when a wall was demolished in the monastery hundreds of years later well look at this.
www.rense.com... OK it's rense duh but you must admit intriguing.

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

I have avoided the religous forums though I myself am a religios christian.

Even orthodox archeology can step on the wrong toes.
www.youtube.com...

a reply to: LABTECH767

You are making the same mistake the creationists are making. You are only sourcing information from pseudoscience/pseudoarchaeology websites which fits with your cognitive bias.

These claims have all been debunked before, some many times. The Paluxy Tracks themselves have been so thoroughly debunked, even most young Earth creationists will not use them anymore.

None of them stand up to any scientific scrutiny at all.

If you are at all interested in what mainstream science thinks about such claims, see -

Overview with many links to articles debunking various "man-track" claims

Glen Kuban's article on the Paluxy tracks
The Rise and Fall of the Paluxy Man Tracks
Article on the Meister Print (the crushed trilobite you refer to)
Nevada Shoe Print
The Alleged Cretaceous Finger
Creationist website listing the Paluxy tracks as an argument "Creationists should not use"

It's just garbage. Stop repeating garbage.

ETA - That "decaying space suit guy" image you posted on the front page? I literally can not see a thing in the first image except rocks. Even your outline does not make it seem anymore like a space suited guy lying there decaying. It just looks like rocks.

Probably one of the most clear cut examples of pareidolia I have ever seen..

The "Maine Penny," a Norse coin found in the Americas (maybe), showing potential pre-Columbian contact between the Norse and N. Americans. There's still some dispute over it. But this sort of oopart isn't that much of a stretch, as the Norse are largely held to have visited the Americas before Columbus. If you want 'real' ooparts, you're going to have a short list.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Exactly why that's not really an oopart. The Vikings contact with 'Vineland' and the Americas is pretty well accepted now.

• 1927 W. W. McCormick of Abilene, Texas, reported his grandfather's account of a stone block wall that was found deep within a coal mine: "In the year 1928, I, Atlas Almon Mathis, was working in coal mine No. 5., located two miles north of Heavener, Oklahoma. This was a shaft mine, and they told us it was two miles deep. The mine was so deep that they let us down into it on an elevator.... They pumped air down to us, it was so deep." One evening, Mathis was blasting coal loose by explosives in "room 24" of this mine. "The next morning," said Mathis, "there were several concrete blocks laying in the room. These blocks were 12-inch cubes and were so smooth and polished on the outside that all six sides could serve as mirrors. Yet they were full of gravel, because I chipped one of them open with my pick, and it was plain concrete inside." Mathis added: "As I started to timber the room up, it caved in; and I barely escaped. When I came back after the cave-in, a solid wall of these polished blocks was left exposed. About 100 to 150 yards farther down our air core, another miner struck this same wall, or one very similar." The coal in the mine was Carboniferous, which would mean the wall was at least 286 million years old. According to Mathis, the mining company officers immediately pulled the men out of the mine and forbade them to speak about what they had seen.. Mathis said the Wilburton miners also told of finding "a solid block of silver in the shape of a barrel... with the prints of the staves on it," in an area of coal dating between 280 and 320 million years ago. What advance civilization built this wall?

• 1969 On June 27,1969, workmen cutting into a rock shelf situated on the Broadway Extension of 122nd Street, between Edmond and Oklahoma City, found an inlaid tile floor, found 3 feet below the surface, and covering several thousand square feet. A form of mortar was found between the tiles that were dated at 200,000 years old.

• 1969 In Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1969 sandstone strata filled with fossil tracks of now extinct creatures and many human tracks, which dated back between 3 and 5 million years.

Had these in my personal files and can't remember now which site they came from when I was looking up ooparts (may even be from an ATS thread?). Anyone know if they've been debunked?

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

In that respect you have hit the nail on the head on some points such as that some are now no longer regarded as ooparts as ARCHAEOLOGICAL THEORY was then updated to include them and there is the crux there are a lot of fakes but there are indeed some less spectacular artifacts which do not fit such as hominid's in the wrong place and time or even possible modern humanoid remains and traces such as footprints which when cross sectioned are shown to not be simply weathering of saurian tracks but to have the same weight and pressure as human gait such as some paloxy tracks which were taken for examination after being freshly exposed by having the overlying sandstone layer removed and the rock sectioned and taken to a lab were the rock grain pattern under the impression was shown to have the exact pressure displacement to prove they were not the product of weathering but actual tracks, so either a human like being with a gait identical to ours or a two legged dinosaur about 5'11" and 9 stone walked there with a identical to human gait from the tracks which were freshly exposed and analyzed, then there is moccasin rock a human footprint in an alluviel rock with stitching around the soul, another on a half crushed trilobyte, the list goes on.
There is an active perception filter in place, accepted archaeology and anthropology are theory nothing more, they are not given facts though they are treated as such indeed they are an established idea supported with what is classed as evidence that fits the ideology and when it does not it get's either left in the anomlous box where it is quickly forgotten about or it is subject to rigorous levels of analysis that the acceptable find's are not subjected to as after all they fit the theory.
The argument about the Lucy skeleton is that it could also be reconstructed as simply an extinct primate and the theory it was a human ancestor was only one of many but it gained a following from TRUE believers among the anthropological fraternity.
www.forerunner.com...
www.amnation.com...
www.pathlights.com...
www.delusionresistance.org...
home.comcast.net...
And then again I am not being funny but take another look at that skeleton in the decayed space suit with the remnantis of the visor still visible around the bezel of the face plate, it is not a trick of light and shadow though it is litterally like a sand castle a dust impression that you could probably not pick up without it falling apart and this is due to long exposure of solar radiation and particle bombardment as well as extreme temperature variance, it is ancient and probably older than the human race is supposed to be so is that a chimp in a suit or could Darwins IDEA as far as human's are concerned simply be plain wrong, there are other mechanisms for explaining genetic links such as viral propegation of DNA/RNA between species as well.
What about the human like finger fossil which when X rayed showed the joint, bone tendon and finger nail inside the stone identical to a human anatomy of a finger, if you have looked into the subject then you know what I mean it was found near a set of humanoid tracks like the paloxy ones.

NOT every oopart (Or classed as such according to Accepted anthropological and archeaological establishment - which are sometime less than scientific themselves) is fake but most of the sensationist ones are and were produced to make money like the bearded lady, people want to see them.

As for the ica stones of peru, a guy bought one and took it back to the states, it came to the attention of a top museum, they leaned on the state department whom spoke to the peruvian authoritys whom arrested the guy selling them who then after being held by the police admitted faking them but get this one had already been sent to germany for argon krypton isotopic dating and found to be at least 10000 years old?.
If something is inconveniant they get it out of the way and discredit it, the guy whom admited making these chemically proven to be 10000 years at least old stone carvings which he had claimed to have found washed out of a cave after it was exposed by a flood which eroded the rock is supposed to have made tens of thousands of these things, not possible how did he fake the argon krypton ratio, the stone equivelant of carbon dating it works by factoring by the amount of the isotopes near the surface of the stone and how decayed they are how long the stone has been exposed to the atmosphere so is highly inaccurate for extremely old samples but for newer ones such as the outside of a medievil cathedral can be extremely accurate.

I am not saying evolution is wrong as it is a proven mechanism as far as fruit fly's and poison resistant mice, pathogens and indeed adaptaion to ecological niche is concerned but what I am saying is it is far from an open and shut case, there is supporting interpretation of evidence but no actual irrefutable evidence of our own ancestry and an out of place object is only out of place because we do not understand the mechanism as to how it got there, if the story about the pipe holder being blasted out of solid limestone it true then of course it is an OOPART even if it is an indian pipe holder from around the same period though it then fall's into the catagory of strange occurance such as rains of fish, and there is a potential explanation, matter is not alway's solid even when it should be, remember the bones of the buddhist tibetan monk whom dissapeard but was supposed to be able to walk through walls only for human remains fused with solid rock to be found when a wall was demolished in the monastery hundreds of years later well look at this.
www.rense.com... OK it's rense duh but you must admit intriguing.

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

I have avoided the religous forums though I myself am a religios christian.

Even orthodox archeology can step on the wrong toes.
www.youtube.com...

I'm really excited to look at your material. I don't have time yet, but will in the morning.

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
a reply to: LABTECH767

You are making the same mistake the creationists are making. You are only sourcing information from pseudoscience/pseudoarchaeology websites which fits with your cognitive bias.

These claims have all been debunked before, some many times. The Paluxy Tracks themselves have been so thoroughly debunked, even most young Earth creationists will not use them anymore.

None of them stand up to any scientific scrutiny at all.

If you are at all interested in what mainstream science thinks about such claims, see -

Overview with many links to articles debunking various "man-track" claims

Glen Kuban's article on the Paluxy tracks
The Rise and Fall of the Paluxy Man Tracks
Article on the Meister Print (the crushed trilobite you refer to)
Nevada Shoe Print
The Alleged Cretaceous Finger
Creationist website listing the Paluxy tracks as an argument "Creationists should not use"

It's just garbage. Stop repeating garbage.

ETA - That "decaying space suit guy" image you posted on the front page? I literally can not see a thing in the first image except rocks. Even your outline does not make it seem anymore like a space suited guy lying there decaying. It just looks like rocks.

Probably one of the most clear cut examples of pareidolia I have ever seen..

I've never heard of the moccasin rock. Worth looking. I think missing types of intelligent creatures are completely possible. You might have had tool building dinosaurs about the same tech as Clovis man or even native Americans.

a reply to: ArtemisE

Except that when you look into it you find it's some naturally occuring inorganic geological phenomena or concretion which have caused the print, and which some time later someone has seen and misinterpreted as a human shoe print.

The "stitching" the authors claim to be present has never been properly demonstrated by them and is to all intents and purposes invisible.

It's bunk. It's all mistaken identities or outright frauds.

a reply to: whitewave


The first story you post seems to be a hoax. See www.badarchaeology.com...

The second one is a well known type of natural formation where stratified bedrock shatters and can appear to resemble tiling. Don't have a link at the moment, but if you need more, I'm sure we can find some info.

ETA - here is an image of a fractured limestone bed which exhibits the same aesthetic -



The last one I believe I've already dealt with above. If not, do you have any more information? I'll try and track it down.

Next?

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Your argument does have merit as I am indeed biased but I am also scientifically trained, real science, chemistry, physic's and electronic engineering though admitedly I never went into any of those field's with my qualifications more or less wasted and have like many now forgotten 80 to 90 percent of what I learned after so long, but the fact is that neither archeaology or anthropology (though the latter at least has basis in medical science to a small degree) are true sciences when taken in isolation from other scientific disciplines and I actually always felt annoyed when historians (Egyptologist and archeaologists) whom interpret from known facts possible scenarios are regared as scientists when they are patently not at all scientists, they do not follow trule scientific principle in most cases and history and archeaological theory are riddled with inconsistancys and errors that would if they were a physics equation make everything fail or worse produce catastrophic result's though the analogy between there theory and a physics theory based equation does no justice to just how innacurate there accepted model's are, in some cased they do have the ball on the field and the goals at the right end's of the pitch but they get a lot wrong as they simply do not know and base there ideology on supposition and conjecture.

a reply to: ArtemisE

Yes, the age of the earth is about 4.5 billion years give or take a few hundred million and it is now believe life may have existed from within a few hundred million years of it's formation so life can be said to be 4 billion years old on this planet.
From about 2.2 billion years ago the earth entered a particularly massive period of ice age's which at some periods litterally may have frozen the sea right from the poles to the equator, the seas then were much shallow and the earths crush more even as the continents had not yet formed and only early proto continents existed meaning land on the earth would have accounted to only about the size of africa but just before this we find what some call natural but I feel are indeed artificial spheroids from a soft deposit about 2.2 billion years old near klerksdorp south africa (forgive my spellings and gramme, big fingers small keys).
Now during that time there were undoubtedly interglacial periods perhaps lasting hundreds of millions of years and indeed we may be in such now though the sun is hotter now than it was then, during this time life forms may have evolved and entire eco systems existed only to be erased from the history of the earth, So where are there fossil's, well those spheroid survived but it is estimated that about every 650 million years the entire surface of the earth is cycled and resurfaced through a mixture of factors from eroison to vulcanism and even atmospheric conditions can NOT be reliably proven for those periods due to this effect, also the Snow ball earth period as it has been termed ended or at least entered a mega interglacial period that we are now in about 750 million years ago and ice sheets also have a way or destroying organic and even geological traces form the surface of the earth, get that again ever 650 million years and fossil's even micro organism ones are unlikely to survive so we find our eco system supposedly only started about 650 million years ago because that is when diverse fossil's of multi celled organisms begin to show up in the geological record which itself is only about 650 million years old and despite this fact which is now known to geology paleantology has not caught up so they call this sudden emergance of fossils the cambrian life explosion, now according to there theory before that all life on earth was bacteria, so they do not envisage any form of symbiosis which is the basis of multicelled evolution so quite obviously there theory is both flawed and out of date.
There was ample time for multiple eco systems to arise and die off due to both terrestrial and asteroidal catastrophy's and among an eco system it is concievable that sentience may have arisen multiple time's also.
Lack of evidence is not evidence against.
The simple truth though is we do not really know BUT?.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Howdy labtech767

One note, older parts of the Earth's crust have survived

3.8 billion year old

Old crust

The oldest known is 4.4 billion

a reply to: Hanslune

In parts and they were deep rock not surface exposed materials except and in as where they were later buried by subduction or erosion, of course some of the oldest are on greenland and often they are revealed by erosion so sample taken can not be regarded as conclusive to the analysis of atmospheric isotope's and such limit our understanding not only by there relative scarcity but also there lack of exposure, I have no doubt there is solid material that was here even older than them but it was probably deep material, the youngest rock it actually the ocean basins and some of the oldest is found in the continental material but your point is correct, however though I can not recall the theory stated that over 90 percent of the surface is cycled over that time period and newer continent theory has now postulated more than 3 previous supercontinents which grew larger with each new supercontinent with the added factor of increasing ocean depth, this level of geological turmoil of course mean's these rare survivors are remarkable but to survive as long as they did they did have to be buried deep underground for nearly the entire period of there existance.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Your argument does have merit as I am indeed biased but I am also scientifically trained, real science, chemistry, physic's and electronic engineering though admitedly I never went into any of those field's with my qualifications more or less wasted and have like many now forgotten 80 to 90 percent of what I learned after so long, but the fact is that neither archeaology or anthropology (though the latter at least has basis in medical science to a small degree) are true sciences when taken in isolation from other scientific disciplines and I actually always felt annoyed when historians (Egyptologist and archeaologists) whom interpret from known facts possible scenarios are regared as scientists when they are patently not at all scientists, they do not follow trule scientific principle in most cases and history and archeaological theory are riddled with inconsistancys and errors that would if they were a physics equation make everything fail or worse produce catastrophic result's though the analogy between there theory and a physics theory based equation does no justice to just how innacurate there accepted model's are, in some cased they do have the ball on the field and the goals at the right end's of the pitch but they get a lot wrong as they simply do not know and base there ideology on supposition and conjecture.

Constructive criticism here, so I hope you take it in the spirit it is offered, but your post could use some breaking up into more digestible portions.

What you've typed above is 1 extremely long sentence.

You need to punctuate it into separate sentences and use paragraphing to further break it up.

As to your post - well good at least you can acknowledge your bias, most people can not. People will take it as an insult - they do not realise that all of us, myself included have some bias and being aware of it goes a big way towards dealing with it.

I understand that archaeology isn't regarded as pure science (it's kind of a humanity) although it's all relative isn't it? When I was at university, the physicists regarded basically everything outside of their field of study as "stamp collecting".

However, I would argue that it is clear that the scientific method is used by them. It's a bit of a nebulous thing, as there is no one set of rules that all archaeologists follow with regard to everything, but the study clearly requires a certain level of familiarity in a number of different disciplines (off the top of my head I can think of geology, geography, history, physics, forensics, linguistics, mathematics/statistics/IT, chemistry, paleontology, anthropology etc). Additionally, there was a concerted effort made in the 1960's, led by American archaeologists to modernise the study and to make it more scientific, with emphasis on hypothesis testing and the scientific method. See Wiki: Processual Archaeology

I'm kind of over this general distrust of academia that's all the rage lately. It's getting old. The notion that all of science is one big conspiracy has to be one of the most half baked ridiculous things ever. It's stone age thinking. "Those scientists can't be trusted. You know who you can trust? Bob down the street. Bob might be a whino with only primary level education and a paranoid mindset, but he really knows what's going on.."

Forgive me if I give more importance to the word on a given subject of someone who has spent their entire career studying that given subject and who has the academic qualifications to prove it over Bob down the street.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
Excellent post and response.

I have to give you a star for that, I am aware of my terrible gramma and you are far from the first to point that out so no offence taken and also true about some physicists and cross discipline professors I have met but they tend more to frown down on business studies than archeaology, I actually do like the subject but some time's they do get it wrong though I more often admittedly get it wrong,.

Archeaology is not quite as bad as I came accross as painting it but anything that over say ten thousand years and the evidence is naturally more scant so it is more therefore built upon interpretation and sometimes the archeaologists own bias is then framed as set fact upon which further assumptions are sometime's made.

In general scientists of all disciplines have the same pride and ego problems, especially when they have cherished a theory and have built a house of well balanced card's on top only to have some rogue data or alternative theory blow them out of the water, which can I am sure be life shattering in some cases.

So it is not isolated to archeaologists and indeed some are what I would regard as proper scientists in there own right, especially those multi disciplined practitioners of the discipline such as engineers whom have identified and caused reclassification of object's and mathematician's whom are intrigued by the mesopotamian use of the zero, decimal point and base twelve mathematics when any strucural engineer would explain that fractions are a better method of working out engineering principles (and more accurate for there purposes) as they like to work with whole numbers and not infinitely recurring or rounded numbers which can introduce problem's for them.

I do not distrust them in general and the like's of the Time team a great british TV series with some real down to earth archaeological scholars was one of my favourite tea time show's when it is on, sadly they have lost a few of there members recently, they however do not perform or interpret such long term archeaology and for them it is more recent archeaological subject's and local history such as roman villa's in there dig's (though they perform far faster than there archeaological staff would like as it is a TV show so a bulldozer starts it off rather than a trowl and brush).

As you also mention among the multi discipline members Forensic archeaologists, these are most definitely genuine scientists as they have to apply rigorous scientific method the same as pathologist's so I do agree but the key word is nebulous and that is the problem,.

The nice thing about archeaology is that it is open to everybody and as you call it more accurately it is a humanity and tangeble to most people but the bad thing is quality control and the only real gripe I have with any of them is when they make a blanket statement that precludes possibilitys' outside of there own interpretation or bias (yeah I too am biased so the pot calling the kettle black as the old saying goes).

Anthropology is actually more of an applied science (like engineering is) as it is more closely related to the medical professions (though it is far from a medical profession as you know) and as for history a wise man once said the victor writes the history, sometimes archeaologists do throw a spanner in the works though and I enjoy seeing it rattle the history scholars such as the discovery's concerning the surprisingly cultured and advanced galls of france whom the Romans always painted as savage barbarians when in fact they were more tollerant and had more respect for woman than the romans themselves did,

(though as for the celtic culture in general as you know they were spread from anatolia to ireland but are thought to have originated in what is today southern germany south of the rhein and they had a few shared belief system but there culture varied from tribe to tribe and place to place as indeed did there ethnicity as the celts were a warrior elite not a race and conquered to rule in many cases, they also allowed members of there conquered tribes to prove themselves worthy and join that elite though of course they also had darker sides and slavery, human sacrifice were not foreign to them).

But it works and that is all I can say though the further back in time the less accurate they get, that processural archeology page is good though.

The other thing worth mentioning is the higher the profile the archeaologist the greater his ego and bias, this also interprets to how they percieve there finding's.

Most of them though are the same as yourself or myself and they would love to stumble on some great evidence of this I have no doubt but I stand by my argument, historians also when they have a good set of record's can work in conjunction with archeaologists but when there bread crumb's fail they too sometimes resort to speculative history as we all do in the face of mystery, we try to find familiar ground or make leaps of faith in our own judgement and this is a decidedly human trait which probably stems from our cave painting ancestors whom showed abstract thought at a high level (Though they may have had some herbel help on occasion).

a reply to: LABTECH767

Time Team is a great show. Although to be honest, I'd watch anything with Baldrick (Tony Robinson) in it..

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Thanks for that. It was just some info I'd squirreled away intending to one day investigate it further but with so much to research and so little time, it fell by the wayside. I appreciate your efforts.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Yeah, that was an intensely long sentence for sure. Just want to say that you summed up my thoughts on the subject perfectly and I totally agree. While I think that being open minded is just as much of a necessity for progress in anything as a requirement, I think that all too often, people very quickly dismiss the process in which all of the sciences work and then falling prey to charlatans trying to make a buck off of a shocking book. The difference between those authors and those academics is this--one is trying to make some money off a book so they need it to grab their potential reader's attention and the other is trying to advance knowledge and is considered to be as dry as the Sahara. The former has a more vested interest in building up a heady distrust of the latter because if we defaulted to the latter, then how would they ever sell a book? No, can't have that so they create an academic conspiracy.

How it works is pretty simple. It's like the view of cave men that I learned in primary and secondary school versus the view of the so-called cave man today. The difference between then and now has altered considerably yet everybody remembers the primitive cave men because that's what they learned 20-30 years ago. The sciences in these subjects only appear stagnant when they aren't. The once OOPART-like objects mentioned in this thread--the Maine Penny and the Antikythera Mechanism are not OOPARTs because the field adapted to the new evidence by finding additional compounding evidence. That's good science and definitely not stagnancy.