How Much Can We Really Know about the Past?

a reply to: Quadrivium

You see, your OP summed up exactly how I feel about evolution... in the long term. I feel that scientists do the same thing you do and present their best guess on the evidence they have. I feel as you do and wonder how they can possibly know what happened 20,000 years ago, much less 560mya.

Let's not get too excited.

In the first place, the remarks that inspired this thread were speculative in nature. They were never presented as a scholarly conclusion.

"The individual who contracted the parasite might have done so through the use of irrigation systems that were starting to be introduced in Mesopotamia around 7500 years ago. The parasite spends part of its life cycle in snails that live in warm fresh water, before leaving the snail to burrow through the skin of people wading or swimming in the water. These irrigation systems distributed water to crops and may have triggered the beginning of the enormous disease burden that schistosomiasis has caused over the past 6000 years."*

NOTES TO EDITORS
*Quotes direct from author and cannot be found in text of Article.

Source

In the second place, evolutionary biology is not history. The sciences are held to higher standards of proof than the humanities. I don't care if you think otherwise and I am not going to debate the issue.

Because — in the third and final place — this thread is about history and archaeology, not about evolutionary biology or palaeontology.

a reply to: Astyanax

Is there something about Forbidden Archaeology that makes it more credible than peer-reviewed archaeological research?

No, there is nothing about the book "Forbidden Archeology" that makes it more credible than peer-reviewed archeological research. And in the other hand, I find nothing about it to be less credible. You have attacked the authors of the book, rather than attack what they offer.

I give the authors of "Forbidden Archeology" and the theories, facts just as much credibility as I do to this fellow who attempts to discredit OOParts (Out Of Place artifacts) Which should read Out Of Place Out Of Time, artifacts. archyfantasies.com...

The problem for these types of items, artifacts, fly directly into the face of the history the institution of Archeology attempts to create. It appears corruption within the field is ramped culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com...

Why is it here on ATS that Peer- Reviewed papers hold more weight, than a full blown books? Both are authored by "human Beings", are they not? Both are subject to error, are they not? So what is the main difference between the two? Peer reviewed papers are only read by a few select individuals, compared to a book which can have millions of eyes critiquing, reviewing it. Peer review is a very controlled process, where books can be read by anyone.

You might argue that the peer review process would guarantee the accuracy of the findings, by highly qualified and trained individuals, who are beyond reproach. I say they too, are only human beings, subject to error.

For more on OOParts follow the links below.

www.rabbithole2.com...

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

whofortedblog.com...

blog.world-mysteries.com...

www.youtube.com...

paranormal.about.com...

It is not my intention to claim all these OOParts are real, or not taken out of context. I only state that because they are here, they must be given full respect and attention they may truly deserve....

For when a man knows not his own first principle, and when the conclusion and intermediate steps are also constructed out of he knows not what, how can he imagine that such a fabric of convention can ever become science? -- Plato

www.world-mysteries.com...

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Because, one has real information and the other non-scientific nonsense. However, that is off topic for this thread. I would suggest you either start a new thread on Cremo's stuff or resurrect a necro thread - there are dozens.

I would say we know a lot less than we think we know. Let's put it this way: If an archeologist a thousand years from now had no knowledge of 2014, and in his digs discovered New York City and separately the remains of lost tribes in the Amazon rainforest, he would probably assume the two could not have lived in the same time period.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

No, there is nothing about the book "Forbidden Archeology" that makes it more credible than peer-reviewed archeological research. And in the other hand, I find nothing about it to be less credible. You have attacked the authors of the book, rather than attack what they offer.

I didn't attack them, I merely pointed out that they have no credentials in archaeology. What they say is not relevant to the point I am making. I am asking why you believe it.

I give the authors of "Forbidden Archeology" and the theories, facts just as much credibility as I do to this fellow who attempts to discredit OOParts (Out Of Place artifacts) Which should read Out Of Place Out Of Time, artifacts.

How much credibility is that, then?

Why is it here on ATS that Peer- Reviewed papers hold more weight, than a full blown books?

Peer review is a way of keeping scholars honest and truthful. No equivalent process exists for books. Publishers will put out anything they think will sell.

You haven't answered my question at all, have you?

a reply to: TheChrome

Flyers Fan made a similar point on p.3 of the thread.

My reply to her, as to you, is that historians and archaeologists have the normal amount of human caution and scepticism. But it certainly is true that we can't know more than we can deduce from existing evidence.

originally posted by: TheChrome
I would say we know a lot less than we think we know. Let's put it this way: If an archeologist a thousand years from now had no knowledge of 2014, and in his digs discovered New York City and separately the remains of lost tribes in the Amazon rainforest, he would probably assume the two could not have lived in the same time period.

Unless he had some material to date them, in the ruins of NYC numerous, Amazon a bit more problematic but if he can then no problem. When the great civs arose most of the people on earth were still HG, subsistence farmers or Pastoralists and most of the people in the civs led primitive lives, so disparity is well known to present day Archie's.

a reply to: Astyanax

You haven't answered my question at all, have you?

If the original question was

Is there something about Forbidden Archaeology that makes it more credible than peer-reviewed archaeological research?

Then yes I did answer you and the answer was No. Simply put as you requested.

a reply to: Astyanax

How much credibility is that, then?

I am not the type of person that believes things on face value, whether peer reviewed or not. It is only a format where like minded people agree to agree, or disagree on subjects. It really has no bearing on whether the subject is true, or not. Time has always been, and always be the final judge as to what the truth is.

I do not believe people are less intelligent or posses less common sense because they do not posses "Credentials". They may be lacking information, but when presented with that information are quite capable of making determinations. (less the present "Dumbing Down" agenda)

Many people who have made discoveries whether scientific or archeological, have done it by accident.
www.google.com...:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb



Scientific accidental discoveries have been made mostly by "Scientist". Accidental archeological discoveries are made by non credentialed, non peer reviewed, people. And just because a peer reviewed, credentialed, archeologists, didn't make the discovery, does not give the discovery less credibility.

And it appears academia will not accept these discoveries because it was not a controlled discovery, to their standards. It must therefor be a hoax...

What makes for credibility? Corroboration, research, evidence, diligence, and time. In as far as Cremo I have not researched him personally. But the materials he presents does have corroboration elsewhere. Does anyone wish to condemn the Antikythera Mechanism to a lavished hoax? en.wikipedia.org...

Of course the above construction could not have come from the time and place it was discovered. So another, more suitable "Theory" must be presented. But if the peer reviewed, accredited process continually allows the bits and pieces of the past to fall through the cracks in the floor, and in some cases, intentionally, because it does not fit what they want to perceive, mankind will never know the information, or have a choice to look at the evidence themselves, and make their own minds up. Do I know the original origin of this device? Well, I "Imagine" I do....

Reply to All Seeing Eye

If the original question was 'Is there something about Forbidden Archaeology that makes it more credible than peer-reviewed archaeological research?' then yes I did answer you and the answer was No. Simply put as you requested.

Very well. Yet earlier you said

You pick up an item from the files of the "Forbidden Archeology" and it is self evident that the item not only defies present logic, but also represents a great technological civilization.

How do you know this? What aspects of the item make it 'self evident'?

I am not the type of person that believes things on face value, whether peer reviewed or not.

Admirable. On what basis, then, do you make your judgements? You can't learn everything from scratch yourself.

(People without credentials) may be lacking information, but when presented with that information are quite capable of making determinations.

No doubt. But who will present them with that information, if not credentialled experts? How can they — how can you — tell good information from bad without expert knowledge or guidance?

Accidental archeological discoveries are made by non credentialed, non peer reviewed, people.

Obviously. People are always digging in the dirt for various purposes — farming, mining, building, tunnelling — and very often they will come upon some object of archaeological significance. It isn't until a trained and capable archaeologist comes along and identifies the object, though, that it begins to add to our store of knowledge about the past.

And it appears academia will not accept these discoveries because it was not a controlled discovery, to their standards. It must therefor be a hoax.

The accusation of 'hoax' is also something that requires expertise to make, wouldn't you agree?

What makes for credibility? Corroboration, research, evidence, diligence, and time.

These are precisely the tools deployed by professional archaeologists, and what those who allege an archaeological party line or conspiracy sadly do not demonstrate. They are also very much among the factors considered in peer review.

In as far as Cremo I have not researched him personally. But the materials he presents does have corroboration elsewhere. Does anyone wish to condemn the Antikythera Mechanism to a lavished hoax?

The Antikythera Mechanism is no hoax. But, however...

Of course the above construction could not have come from the time and place it was discovered.

How could you possibly know that? You've said you don't take conventional scholarship at face value. That means you cannot know anything for sure about life around the Mediterranean basin about two hundred years before Christ. In fact, you can't even know how old the Antikythera Mechanism is, because it is conventional scholarship that dated it. So — to drag this thread reluctantly back on topic — how much can you really know about the Antikythera Mechanism? How much can you really know about the past?

a reply to: Astyanax

Admirable. On what basis, then, do you make your judgements? You can't learn everything from scratch yourself.

"Everything" is a large,very large, knowledge pool. No one can know all the mysteries of our universe without being involved in the Origination of such. But on the other hand one can "Know" certain, subjects to be false, or truthful, or at least taken out of a realistic frame.

On what basis, then, do you make your judgements?

I will try to explain, but please bare with me, it can not be explained, leaving out certain events. Your question goes directly to my own, personal integrity/ credibility, which is off topic. There are no peer reviews, or credentials, for "Visionaries".

There is no room in the academic pursuits for such ideas as "Imagination" or "Faith". In other words, they are not faith based imaginations. They must be proven true beyond any doubt, reasonable or otherwise. But some things by their very nature, if you wish to find the truth of them, must be followed using the above methods.

In 1978, I saw the "light". No not some religious mis-beliefe, but the real deal. In 1978 no one knew, at least publicly what these things were. 3 lights in the sky. Science nor historian could explain these visions. So I had to answer it myself as to what these manifestations were. I did not see them once, but many years later, I saw them again. It was through years and years of " Corroboration, research, evidence, diligence, that I was able to come to terms, and the reality of who and what these lights were. They actually are mentioned in historical literature, but again, taken out of context, in my opinion. I answered the question to my own personal satisfaction. And because of who and what they are I feel a very deep responsibility, to assist them in any way I humanly can.

I do not Commune with them openly, but knowing who they are and what they represent, gives a person a certain insight, not only of our present condition on this planet, but also of the past. I have seen the truth of the light.

Now you might wonder why anything I say could be taken seriously, and I would have to agree with you. If, you only use the scientific approach you will only see inside the box, and we all know what that looks like. But if you are daring enough, brave enough, and diligent enough, you too might be able to see that we're are not alone, and never were. And, those hidden forces and powers are just as real, as you and I. And, have played a very large role in our ancient past.

Personal Knowledge trumps, peer review or credentials, in my most humble opinion.

How much can you really know about the past?

As much as my "Heart" and "Mind" will allow me. For I, am both..........

edit to add.

That means you cannot know anything for sure about life around the Mediterranean basin about two hundred years before Christ

Oh, you mean before the fictional retelling of the story of Apollonius of Tyana. Sure cant, unless you lived in that time. But thank God, he gave us a wonderful ability to imagine, and you know what Albert Einstein said about that

a reply to: AstyanaxYou have brought up the best of your questions

how can you — tell good information from bad without expert knowledge or guidance?

At a early age I saw how corrupt "Some" auto repair shops were by listening to my parents or others. As this was during my formative years the lesson went deep. As soon as I was able to hold a wrench, or a hammer, or a tape measure, I fixed it, repaired it, or made it. To this day I have never taken my car to a repair shop, but admittedly because of the increasing complexities of automobiles, may change in the future. I became a mechanic because I was mechanically inclined.

As I grew older I saw that corruption in other fields, first auto repair, then lawyers, and now virtually all other "Institutions". You know the old saying "If you want something done right, do it yourself". So, I became a "Jack of all Trades, Master of None". I make my judgments based on my very well rounded, self education. That isn't to say I haven't been to school, for I have. And lucky for me the schools I attended were, "Honest Based".

I do accept some credentialed information as truthful as you have pointed out. But, I decide what I will accept using my own logic and knowledge and it is not based on the presenters credentials or "Peer Reviews". The medical institution is full of peer reviewed deaths.

The Antikythera Mechanism as a example need only be dated by the ship it was recovered from, and its other cargo, no carbon dating required. Its date line is 50 BC to 400BC. Close enough to make the determination that the mechanism technological complexities could not have come from that time period.

No mills, no lathes, no miniature drills existed. It, in my opinion, would have been impossible for one man to have created. I have read one theory that one man could have, to which I reject because of the timelines involved. Another theory suggests it was a village project, to which I again reject. Why? Time!

The Antikythera Mechanism , "computer", computes the positions of the planets and our moon to a extremely accurate degree. Even if they had sophisticated telescopes it would have taken thousands of years to discover all the planets. No sophisticated telescope has ever been recovered. They must of had some really really good eye sight.

The gathering of information concerning the movements of the planets, the manufacture of the device, the gathering of raw materials for the forge, the machining of the individual parts, the testing and evaluation of its movements, all say a 400BC civilization could not have produced this machine, period!

And if this Civilization did not create this device, then who did!!! To answer this one must look into other areas, and I have!

I wont go there now as the subject would require too much information, but I will say, I believe the Antikythera Mechanism was a "Gift", but not to mankind as a whole.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

ASE do you realize that the Antikythera mechanism while a wonderful device displays the movements of the planets in a geocentric configuration?

As for who made it I would also point out that the 'Instruction manual' written on the back panels is in a particular dialect of Greek and one purpose of the mechanism is to tell the user when the next Olympiad is.

a reply to: Hanslune
I would also note that only planets visible to the naked eye are ever mentioned by the Greeks in antiquity.

In addition:

Even if they had sophisticated telescopes it would have taken thousands of years to discover all the planets.

Now, what's absurd about that? Could it be that all the planets were eventually discovered, only 300 years after the telescope was invented?

WTH? "...thousands of years..."???

Harte

a reply to: HansluneThank you Hanslung, for your reply.

ASE do you realize that the Antikythera mechanism while a wonderful device displays the movements of the planets in a geocentric configuration?

It seems your point is debatable. Either way, its only in the name of the body.

It is possible that the mechanism is based on heliocentric principles, rather than the then dominant geocentric view espoused by Aristotle and others. This may indicate that the heliocentric view was more widely accepted at the time than was previously thought.While the Antikythera mechanism was certainly remarkably advanced for its era, it was possibly not unique.

www.crystalinks.com...

As for who made it I would also point out that the 'Instruction manual' written on the back panels is in a particular dialect of Greek

I'm sure you are correct about this, but again, other possibilities also exist.

Presently, the Chinese are manufacturing products for export to the United States. The Chinese include "Instruction Manuals" for English. We presently have at least two well known English dialects, United States, and United Kingdom English. Similar, but not quite the same.

Lets suppose the machine was in fact " geocentric". Do you suppose the United States exports all of its military secrets to foreign powers when it ships planes, tanks etc?? No, it does not. Change a part here, rename a part there, and the secret remains safe.

But even if the machine had a "heliocentric view", what real difference would it make as to where it originated. The creators could have held the same belief as Plato, or any of the rest of the theologians, or the opposite. And just as with our present day computers are notorious for, "Garbage in, Garbage Out".

Another purpose, or possibility was it also told lunar eclipses as well. Could you imagine what effect this could have for the person in possession of it? Manipulate the masses by extorting monies or loyalties in order to have the sun come back?

Again Hanslune, thank you for your time, and your thoughts.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

As for who made it I would also point out that the 'Instruction manual' written on the back panels is in a particular dialect of Greek

I'm sure you are correct about this, but again, other possibilities also exist.

Presently, the Chinese are manufacturing products for export to the United States. The Chinese include "Instruction Manuals" for English. We presently have at least two well known English dialects, United States, and United Kingdom English. Similar, but not quite the same.

Lets suppose the machine was in fact " geocentric". Do you suppose the United States exports all of its military secrets to foreign powers when it ships planes, tanks etc?? No, it does not. Change a part here, rename a part there, and the secret remains safe.

The theories of geocentric and heliocentric were openly known in Greece, debated heavily and elsewhere in the ancient world and have zero military value. I would also point to its use of Greek specific terminology and calendars.

Where exactly do you think the AM came from and when? I presume you think it is high tech made by X or Y in year Z?

Can you explain the sloppiness of the manufacture? Excellent for the time but not up to machine standards of later years.

Again Hanslune, thank you for your time, and your thoughts.

So no comment on why it was made to 'predict' the dates of Olympiad? That seems an unusual item to follow if you're not Greek.

I also noticed you used crystallinks as a source and about twenty years out of date

Here is one a bit more recent

AM 2012

An interesting quote from that study is

In short, the Antikythera Mechanism was a machine designed to predict celestial phenomena according to the sophisticated astronomical theories current in its day, the sole witness to a lost history of brilliant engineering, a conception of pure genius, one of the great wonders of the ancient world—but it didn’t really work very well!

a reply to: HansluneSorry for the omission.

Taking from a popular fast food commercial, from the past, "Special Orders don't upset us". Order your "X Y or Z" in any color, shape or Size you wish. Of for that matter, function.

It may very well have been created to foretell the Olympiad, sure, why not. But as I pointed out, it actually could have been a power if misused. Military, or otherwise. It may even been the reason the cargo ship carrying it was sent to the bottom.

A better question might be how come there is no record of its existence in any contemporary writings? Surly it must of been a great device of the time.....known by king and pauper alike.. but especially known by the theologians of the time.

added:

As to where, and when the AM came from, well, Im not quite ready to discuss that openly. I do have a theory and you will be the first to read it.

Where exactly do you think the AM came from and when? I presume you think it is high tech made by X or Y in year Z?

Can you explain the sloppiness of the manufacture? Excellent for the time but not up to machine standards of later years.

The sloppy construction to who's standard? Sitting in a salt bath for 2000 years would make anything sloppy. The Titanic looks pretty sloppy as well, just give it 2000 years and see if you can figure out what it is.

Things are built to standards, even when their were no standards, or peer reviews? I think you might be trying to apply our present day standards to thousands of years ago. That is not being honest or realistic. The only real important part is, does it do what it is intended to do, and does its appearance satisfy who ever it is delivered to. Sloppy, or not.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
a reply to: HansluneThank you Hanslung, for your reply.

ASE do you realize that the Antikythera mechanism while a wonderful device displays the movements of the planets in a geocentric configuration?

It seems your point is debatable. Either way, its only in the name of the body.

It is possible that the mechanism is based on heliocentric principles, rather than the then dominant geocentric view espoused by Aristotle and others. This may indicate that the heliocentric view was more widely accepted at the time than was previously thought.While the Antikythera mechanism was certainly remarkably advanced for its era, it was possibly not unique.

www.crystalinks.com...

The only thing debatable about the point is that the fact the mechanism is based on the geocentric model (it has to be in order to show the heavenly bodies from the Earth's viewpoint) indicates nothing about the preferred model (perhaps heliocentric) of its creator.

The heliocentric model was proposed in 297 BC. That's a century earlier than the date for the mechanism.

Crystalinks should only be used as a last resort, IMO.

Harte

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
a reply to: HansluneSorry for the omission.

Taking from a popular fast food commercial, from the past, "Special Orders don't upset us". Order your "X Y or Z" in any color, shape or Size you wish. Of for that matter, function.

....and to whom would you have ordered this from? You seem unwilling to tell us where you think it came from instead you spend your time denying the evidence of it Greek construction.

So in your opinion who built it when?

It may very well have been created to foretell the Olympiad, sure, why not. But as I pointed out, it actually could have been a power if misused. Military, or otherwise. It may even been the reason the cargo ship carrying it was sent to the bottom.

??you seem to have some odd idea that calculating the positions of planets has some mysterious power and have taken the belief into the depth of CT land...that information was available in written form for centuries prior and people made a living casting 'horoscopes'.

A better question might be how come there is no record of its existence in any contemporary writings? Surly it must of been a great device of the time.....known by king and pauper alike.. but especially known by the theologians of the time.

Amazing device were mentioned in ancient writings.

The sloppy construction to who's standard? Sitting in a salt bath for 2000 years would make anything sloppy. The Titanic looks pretty sloppy as well, just give it 2000 years and see if you can figure out what it is.

Things are built to standards, even when their were no standards, or peer reviews? I think you might be trying to apply our present day standards to thousands of years ago. That is not being honest or realistic. The only real important part is, does it do what it is intended to do, and does its appearance satisfy who ever it is delivered to. Sloppy, or not.



It very good for its time but it has serious mistakes in its manufacture and in accuracy - read the link I posted here.

You are the one who previous said it was

ASE stated: Close enough to make the determination that the mechanism technological complexities could not have come from that time period. No mills, no lathes, no miniature drills existed. It, in my opinion, would have been impossible for one man to have created. I have read one theory that one man could have, to which I reject because of the timelines involved. Another theory suggests it was a village project, to which I again reject. Why? Time! The Antikythera Mechanism , "computer", computes the positions of the planets and our moon to a extremely accurate degree.

I have been refuting your statements that "could not have come from that time period' and ''to a extremely accurate degree', neither statement is correct.

That is why I have asked you to tell us, since you think it didn't come from the time frame around 80 BC, nor from Greece, when and where did it come from?

I suspect we will not get an answer from you....

a reply to: Hanslune

I have been refuting your statements that "could not have come from that time period' and ''to a extremely accurate degree', neither statement is correct.

That is why I have asked you to tell us, since you think it didn't come from the time frame around 80 BC, nor from Greece, when and where did it come from?

I suspect we will not get an answer from you....

Neither is correct? Your so certain? You reject Crystal inks, okay. How about National Geographic?

François Charette, a science historian at Germany's University of Munich, believes more devices like the Antikythera mechanism must exist.

"There has to have been a chain of development behind it," Charette said. "Otherwise it is like finding a high-speed 20th-century train without any of the earlier trains."

My comment about a 1000 years is his point. Where are all the prototypes, where are the little steps leading to this machine? The " chain of development"?
news.nationalgeographic.com...

"They" must have never counted on it being recovered........

I will only offer a hint as to where it came from, or more exactly, from who. Apollonius of Tyana gives you the hint.