Forbidden Archaeology - Civilizations Existed Before the Last Ice Age

originally posted by: Wolfenz

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Wolfenz
WOW

you only see what you wanna see what i Type Harte.
and Yes of Course im Aware .


Her Own Fault ? as where the Board was not Able to Refute it! and let the go ahead and have the findings to be exposed to the public anyhow.


I the Fact is Williams did bring it to the Board and the they themselves didnt like the Results but Publicized the papers Regardless what the Outcome , Just as Williams Herself wasn't Satisfied

She ( Williams ) was the Lead in the Dig as in the BOSS! LOL

Right a Student at the Time!
and your Missing the Point n that Joe Liddicoat did a examination of Dating the Ash in 2008 which was 780,000 Years Old is the very Same place ( Kill Site ) where those Stone Tools were Found .

and Micro water organism dirite ? found in the Ash and was extinct 80,000 years ago
so from that still amazing if the Kill site is that Old 80.000 +

She was a Student , a Pretty good one too , and became a well known.


Quaternary Research
Volume 16, Issue 1, July 1981, Pages 1-17
Geologic evidence for age of deposits at Hueyatlaco archeological site, Vasequillo, Mexico
www.sciencedirect.com...



So what was the Slander ( her Suppose own Fault ) if it wasn't about the Hueyatlaco Site ?

No, it is you that missed the point. Entirely.

You yourself admit that Irwin-Williams published the same results.
Please, tell us how these anomalous dates ruined Irwin-Williams' career.


You can't, because they didn't.

Then how could it ruin Steen-McIntyre's career?
It didn't.

She did it herself by publishing the results of another academics' dig.

Harte

I Missed nothing...



Where Did I say Williams Career was Ruined ?? !

I Said Seen McIntyre Career was :

Right I did Admit that Both Williams and McIntyre Had the
Same Results and the Board got the Same Conclusion Results ,

and What I said was the Williams wasn't Satisfied ! with its Dating ,

that is what I said..


I think you Need to go back and look what ive had Txted


Mysterious Origins of Man (1996) - Supplemental Material
www.youtube.com...


ok Harte I know you hate Videos ,

but watch the 5:30 mark and listen too her , and about her Career.
could of Let too better things , That all Changed Now ... as she said ..
I did because I can, in Virginia McIntyers Case.

So, you don't think her career was ruined, but you think her career was ruined?

I told you what happened. You can make up all kinds of fantasy in your mind, but it doesn't change what happened and why it happened.
A student jumped the Lead Archaeologist's findings at a dig and published them herself.

I think anyone with a brain that knows anything about academia could have instantly predicted the result.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Wolfenz

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Wolfenz
WOW

you only see what you wanna see what i Type Harte.
and Yes of Course im Aware .


Her Own Fault ? as where the Board was not Able to Refute it! and let the go ahead and have the findings to be exposed to the public anyhow.


I the Fact is Williams did bring it to the Board and the they themselves didnt like the Results but Publicized the papers Regardless what the Outcome , Just as Williams Herself wasn't Satisfied

She ( Williams ) was the Lead in the Dig as in the BOSS! LOL

Right a Student at the Time!
and your Missing the Point n that Joe Liddicoat did a examination of Dating the Ash in 2008 which was 780,000 Years Old is the very Same place ( Kill Site ) where those Stone Tools were Found .

and Micro water organism dirite ? found in the Ash and was extinct 80,000 years ago
so from that still amazing if the Kill site is that Old 80.000 +

She was a Student , a Pretty good one too , and became a well known.


Quaternary Research
Volume 16, Issue 1, July 1981, Pages 1-17
Geologic evidence for age of deposits at Hueyatlaco archeological site, Vasequillo, Mexico
www.sciencedirect.com...



So what was the Slander ( her Suppose own Fault ) if it wasn't about the Hueyatlaco Site ?

No, it is you that missed the point. Entirely.

You yourself admit that Irwin-Williams published the same results.
Please, tell us how these anomalous dates ruined Irwin-Williams' career.


You can't, because they didn't.

Then how could it ruin Steen-McIntyre's career?
It didn't.

She did it herself by publishing the results of another academics' dig.

Harte

I Missed nothing...



Where Did I say Williams Career was Ruined ?? !

I Said Seen McIntyre Career was :

Right I did Admit that Both Williams and McIntyre Had the
Same Results and the Board got the Same Conclusion Results ,

and What I said was the Williams wasn't Satisfied ! with its Dating ,

that is what I said..


I think you Need to go back and look what ive had Txted


Mysterious Origins of Man (1996) - Supplemental Material
www.youtube.com...


ok Harte I know you hate Videos ,

but watch the 5:30 mark and listen too her , and about her Career.
could of Let too better things , That all Changed Now ... as she said ..
I did because I can, in Virginia McIntyers Case.

So, you don't think her career was ruined, but you think her career was ruined?

I told you what happened. You can make up all kinds of fantasy in your mind, but it doesn't change what happened and why it happened.
A student jumped the Lead Archaeologist's findings at a dig and published them herself.

I think anyone with a brain that knows anything about academia could have instantly predicted the result.

Harte

I think that's the crux of the issue though. And I'm sure I be called an elitist gatekeeper or some other garbage for this but...

The negative and condescending attitude towards higher education in general is pretty rampant around here and the consensus amongst some posters seems to be that either we are all towing some magical party line ideologies that we know are wrong or were lied to and duped by those who educated us. Both mind sets stem from and lead you the same places.

Both think they're smarter (and some likely are) than people who took the time to learn how those working actively in a variety of scientific disciplines actually operate, were put on the spot to find the errors in other people's work as well admit our own and learning from that. But the naïveté and willful ignorance that comes with it leads to such cognitive dissonance that no amount of show and tell with facts will ever change their minds.

At the end of the day,some people understand from experience that being a grad student and being able to work a site like that is a gift and you sure a simple hell don't co-opt the lead and rush out a paper ahead of them by essentially stealing their work and repackaging it as your own. And that is exactly what happened with Cynthia Irwin-Williams. She got sand bagged by someone that she gave an opportunity to. Anyone that wants to argue that Virginia's career was ruined because she published anomalous dates has their head so far up their posterior they can lick their own uvula. No, she through away her chances at future opportunities by showing that she doesn't know how to, or isn't willing to follow the rules and wit her turn. Before I abandoned my Masters, I would never have even contemplated it and that specific site/case was used as an example in an ethics class.

I'm still waiting to see this poster put up some photos demonstrating examples of Inca architecture to compare to the other structures they insist were part of some special global network that left zero evidence of its existence. Should I stop holding my breath yet?

I wonder if our current technology would be considered primitive compared to what the antediluvian civilizations had? I love how the oldest megalithic and monolithic show more advanced technology compared to what was built on top of it. Maybe at some point in the near future we will stop devolving and reclaim our true past.

a reply to: ClovenSky

Can you give some examples of these "antediluvian civilizations" that demonstrate higher grade craftsmanship at the earliest levels?

a reply to: peter vlar

I will see if I can dig something up. It probably won’t be information that will provide satisfaction. It is more of a hunch at this point. Trying to put multiple theories together, it almost appears that we have had many advanced civilizations in the past, even extending past the end of the last ice age.

The uncovered monoliths and megaliths appear to show more advanced construction methods at lower levels. The blocks are usually more precise even showing octagonal masonry. The blocks are also larger at lower levels and when they have been built on over, it is usually with smaller and less precise blocks.

Then you could debate or agree on our methods of predicating the dates of these ancient structures. Even well know sites are still actively debated, like the great sphinx of giza. There are geological studies on the water erosion that would put the structure well before its estimated 2500 bc timeframe.

I think there is a large concentrated effort in main stream academics to support the current theories. Theories like evolution and even the OT & NT timeline must be preserved.

Some of the most spectacular evidence to me is the underwater structures

www.earthporm.com...

Dwarka, Gulf of Cambay, India

Many artefacts have been recovered from the site but perhaps none more important than one which was dated to 7500 BCE, supporting the theory that the ruins may well be the ancient Dwarka.

rabbithole2.com...

Japan's Underwater Pyramids or Ruins as they have become to be known are a mystery. In all, around eight sites have been discovered. There are certain features that are very hard to dismiss as natural occurrences. Such as a large, semi-circular structure that almost looks like a park bench. Then there is a large head which appears to have hair and a head dress carved into it. There are also numerous round holes carved into the rock, including some that look as though they were made to support large wooden poles. Again, these are just hard to dismiss, including this head with eyes carved out of it. As stated, the structures are lying on the seabed, around 60 to 100 feet below the surface. The last time that these areas were not covered by the ocean was between approximately 8 to 12 thousand years ago, during the last ice age when much of the sea was caught up in the ice caps. At the time Yonaguni formed a landbridge with Taiwan, leading many to speculate that the area is part of the lost continent of Mu, or Lemuria.

And I think this is just starting to scratch the surface.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Wolfenz

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Wolfenz
WOW

you only see what you wanna see what i Type Harte.
and Yes of Course im Aware .


Her Own Fault ? as where the Board was not Able to Refute it! and let the go ahead and have the findings to be exposed to the public anyhow.


I the Fact is Williams did bring it to the Board and the they themselves didnt like the Results but Publicized the papers Regardless what the Outcome , Just as Williams Herself wasn't Satisfied

She ( Williams ) was the Lead in the Dig as in the BOSS! LOL

Right a Student at the Time!
and your Missing the Point n that Joe Liddicoat did a examination of Dating the Ash in 2008 which was 780,000 Years Old is the very Same place ( Kill Site ) where those Stone Tools were Found .

and Micro water organism dirite ? found in the Ash and was extinct 80,000 years ago
so from that still amazing if the Kill site is that Old 80.000 +

She was a Student , a Pretty good one too , and became a well known.


Quaternary Research
Volume 16, Issue 1, July 1981, Pages 1-17
Geologic evidence for age of deposits at Hueyatlaco archeological site, Vasequillo, Mexico
www.sciencedirect.com...



So what was the Slander ( her Suppose own Fault ) if it wasn't about the Hueyatlaco Site ?

No, it is you that missed the point. Entirely.

You yourself admit that Irwin-Williams published the same results.
Please, tell us how these anomalous dates ruined Irwin-Williams' career.


You can't, because they didn't.

Then how could it ruin Steen-McIntyre's career?
It didn't.

She did it herself by publishing the results of another academics' dig.

Harte

I Missed nothing...



Where Did I say Williams Career was Ruined ?? !

I Said Seen McIntyre Career was :

Right I did Admit that Both Williams and McIntyre Had the
Same Results and the Board got the Same Conclusion Results ,

and What I said was the Williams wasn't Satisfied ! with its Dating ,

that is what I said..


I think you Need to go back and look what ive had Txted


Mysterious Origins of Man (1996) - Supplemental Material
www.youtube.com...


ok Harte I know you hate Videos ,

but watch the 5:30 mark and listen too her , and about her Career.
could of Let too better things , That all Changed Now ... as she said ..
I did because I can, in Virginia McIntyers Case.

So, you don't think her career was ruined, but you think her career was ruined?

I told you what happened. You can make up all kinds of fantasy in your mind, but it doesn't change what happened and why it happened.
A student jumped the Lead Archaeologist's findings at a dig and published them herself.

I think anyone with a brain that knows anything about academia could have instantly predicted the result.

Harte

and the Board Reviewed the Result and could not themselves Disprove it nor Deny the Results
and had it publicized Regardless

you forgot that part Harte,

we are talking about too people here Harte

the One im talking about is Virginia Steen McIntyre
Not Williams !

Now Im saying Her Career could of been Better,

but it was Hasted, Smited

you did see that part in the video right!?

Apparently not , I figured Much,

A student jumped the Lead Archaeologist's findings at a dig and published them herself.


Steen McIntyre did in 1981 !

The Board of the (U.S. Geological Survey) is what im talking about
this was in the 70s and they that Publicized the Findings

Explain that too the Board,

The Mexican government got involved and closed the Site down ,
not liking American Woman , doing the Work and making these findings

Shortly after the excavation of the Hueyatlaco site, and shortly after the dating of the site was made public, the Mexican Government came to be directly involved. The head of the Archaeological Department of the Mexican Government was very upset at these very ancient dates at this site. It is also believed by us that he did not like the fact that Americans were finding this site, nor did he like that the Americans involved were women. Whatever his motive, he had the Mexican army go and close the site down, and confiscate all of the artifacts and related materials.

and

you can Argue if you want

I send a Email Link of Joe Liddicoat . to dispute the Site
as his findings is 780,000

where those stone tools like Buried.


Some good Points although a Conspiracy Ooparts Site

Hueyatlaco Site--"Extreme Dating Controversy"
www.s8int.com...

There was still the problem of the U.S. Geological Survey team's date. That date placed the site of Hueyatlaco at 250,000 to 350,000 years ago, as previously mentioned. He must get that date changed. He went to the United States Ambassador and told him in no uncertain terms, that no more Americans would be allowed to excavate in Mexico, unless that date were changed. In fact, he would try to make all relations with the United States extremely difficult. The Ambassador reported this to the Secretary of State of the United States, who "leaned upon" the U.S. Geological Survey to change their dates. The U.S. Geological Survey went back to their team and told the members that the date was going to be changed. They were going to take away one zero, thus making the date "35,000" years ago

Good video, well worth watching.

It seems to me that there was civilization more than 12,000 years ago and something happened.

I think that the megalithic structures scattered throughout the world point to this.

So what happened and where should you look for more clues to this ancient culture?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: AndyMayhew

Could there have been multiple pole shifts that could account for the discrepancy ice coverage wise?

No. Nor is there any credible mechanism for them to happen.

Hapgood came up with his theory in the 1950s before we discovered plate tectonics or understood the current cycle of ice ages. He rightly made a series of predictions which would help validate his theory. They all failed as new data came to light.

a reply to: peter vlar

at the end of the day,some people understand from experience that being a grad student and being able to work a site like that is a gift and you sure a simple hell don't co-opt the lead and rush out a paper ahead of them by essentially stealing their work and repackaging it as your own. And that is exactly what happened with Cynthia Irwin-Williams. She got sand bagged by someone that she gave an opportunity to. Anyone that wants to argue that Virginia's career was ruined because she published anomalous dates has their head so far up their posterior they can lick their own uvula. No, she through away her chances at future opportunities by showing that she doesn't know how to, or isn't willing to follow the rules and wit her turn. Before I abandoned my Masters, I would never have even contemplated it and that specific site/case was used as an example in an ethics class.

I see you choose too Ignore the video I placed McIntyre Explaining what Happened to her .
LOL..

U.S. Geological Survey sent 3 Woman too the Site , and Williams took the Lead right,
why McIntyre went because of her background and involvement with the government

any how make a argument with this in mind

Suppressed Evidence for Ancient Man in Mexico
pleistocenecoalition.com...

. A Review of the Valsequillo, Mexico Early-Man Archaeological Sites (1962-2004) with Emphasis on the Geological Investigations of Harold E. Malde
pleistocenecoalition.com...

Geological observations at Hueyatlaco archaeological site, Valsequillo area, Puebla, Mexico
file:///K:/Steen-McIntyre2003-CRIP-submission.pdf



Even Williams Herself in 1968 had a hard time Believing she found carbon dating to be 25,000 to 35,000
years old at the Site , and saying the site is doubled of age of it once thought that man
had been too the New World

Irwin-Williams1968.pdf
pleistocenecoalition.com...


Pleistocene Coalition Web page
pleistocenecoalition.com...

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: dragonridr

I think that a mega earthquake, or multiple successive ones, could slide a location into a very low area and that could account for exceptional depth.

For what it's worth, I'm not really fond of the comet/meteor theory though I won't entirely discount it. I prefer the earthquake explanations.

I am convinced that we as a civilization definitely don't really know how to explain many of these sites satisfactorily yet.

Compared to structures from ancient Greece, which are well established as to dating chronology and widely accepted by expert and layman alike - I must stress that many of these sites (of the forbidden archaeology style) are highly controversial, disputed, and mysterious.

So when I go to bed at night I just shrug my shoulders and say "we don't really know".

If an earth quake caused a city to sink it would have destroyed everything no walls building or pyramids.

There different things that could happen; sea levels have risen - that's a fact. An Earthquake can cause liquefaction of the ground if it is made from sand, pebbles or even landfill. The best examples are those videos of nuclear bomb tests that created hundreds of new lakes. and the examples of Japan. Land could have sunk slowly over decades.

a reply to: AndyMayhew

So are you suggesting a pole shift is an impossibility given the discovery of the theory of plate tectonics?

Not disputing plate tectonics per-say, as science and technology have pretty much proven such.

But if you are suggesting that pole shifts or multiple pole shifts are indeed impossible one has to wonder why our earth is somewhat tilted on her axis?

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: peter vlar

Some of the most spectacular evidence to me is the underwater structures

www.earthporm.com...

Dwarka, Gulf of Cambay, India

Many artefacts have been recovered from the site but perhaps none more important than one which was dated to 7500 BCE, supporting the theory that the ruins may well be the ancient Dwarka.

If you'll look at a map, you'll see that Dwarka is not in the Gulf of Cambay. The "artifact" mentioned is a piece of wood literally dredged off the ocean floor.

Dwarka is a legitimate underwater site, though. Evidence collected has so far shown that it sank sometime during the European Medieval period.

originally posted by: ClovenSky
rabbithole2.com...

Japan's Underwater Pyramids or Ruins as they have become to be known are a mystery. In all, around eight sites have been discovered. There are certain features that are very hard to dismiss as natural occurrences. Such as a large, semi-circular structure that almost looks like a park bench. Then there is a large head which appears to have hair and a head dress carved into it. There are also numerous round holes carved into the rock, including some that look as though they were made to support large wooden poles. Again, these are just hard to dismiss, including this head with eyes carved out of it. As stated, the structures are lying on the seabed, around 60 to 100 feet below the surface. The last time that these areas were not covered by the ocean was between approximately 8 to 12 thousand years ago, during the last ice age when much of the sea was caught up in the ice caps. At the time Yonaguni formed a landbridge with Taiwan, leading many to speculate that the area is part of the lost continent of Mu, or Lemuria.

And I think this is just starting to scratch the surface.

Even Robert Schoch will tell you that the Yonaguni "monument" is completely natural. The same sort of features - looking like rectangular blocks were removed (the "stair" look) - can be seen in many places on the island of Yonaguni itself.
Additionally, evidence shows that the "monument" sank due to an earthquake sometime around the turn of the first millennium - IOW, 1 AD or so.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Lost city 'could rewrite history "Old Dwarka"

Marine scientists say archaeological remains discovered 36 meters (120 feet) underwater in the Gulf of Cambay off the western coast of India could be over 9,000 years old. The vast city - which is five miles long and two miles wide - is believed to predate the oldest known remains in the subcontinent by more than 5,000 years.

Dr Morris added that artifacts from the site would need to be very carefully analysed, and pointed out that the C14 carbon dating process is not without its error margins. It is believed that the area was submerged as ice caps melted at the end of the last ice age 9-10,000 years ago

This actually goes along quite well with the topic of this thread. ^^

originally posted by: Triton1128
a reply to: Harte

Lost city 'could rewrite history "Old Dwarka"

Marine scientists say archaeological remains discovered 36 meters (120 feet) underwater in the Gulf of Cambay off the western coast of India could be over 9,000 years old. The vast city - which is five miles long and two miles wide - is believed to predate the oldest known remains in the subcontinent by more than 5,000 years.

Dr Morris added that artifacts from the site would need to be very carefully analysed, and pointed out that the C14 carbon dating process is not without its error margins. It is believed that the area was submerged as ice caps melted at the end of the last ice age 9-10,000 years ago

This actually goes along quite well with the topic of this thread. ^^

Dwarka is not in the Gulf of Cambay (Khambhat.)

The artifact is a piece of wood dredged out of a bay that receives the runoff from almost 1/3 of the Indian subcontinent.

There is no underwater city in the Gulf of Khambhat.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Harte,

Could you share a link to the source documents you are referring too?

The only thing I can find that sums up anything with what your saying is a small paragraph on Wikipedia titled "Controversies".

But those are opinions^ not fact. The entire find is still disputed. It to me, looks like a work in progress..





Those sure look like man made ruins to me ^^

.

originally posted by: Triton1128
a reply to: Harte

Harte,

Could you share a link to the source documents you are referring too?

The only thing I can find that sums up anything with what your saying is a small paragraph on Wikipedia titled "Controversies".

But those are opinions^ not fact. The entire find is still disputed. It to me, looks like a work in progress..

Those sure look like man made ruins to me ^^

.

I take it then that you've noted that Dwarka is not in the Gulf of Khambhat.

Please note that everything found was through dredging. In only 60 meters of water.
Have you ever wondered why scuba hasn't been used?

Some of the pottery shards dredged up are identified as Roman. The rest of it appears to be the remains of tube worm burrows on the sea floor. Such worms coat their holes with slime which eventually cements the sand and silt together. Note the following examples:"Artifacts or Geofacts?"

Once you've seen that, take a look at the "pottery" dredged up - small photos on this page of Graham Hancock's website:
Link

Scroll about halfway down the page. The piece of wood is pictured as well.

Think of the possible age of a piece of wood found on the ocean floor of a bay that receives a third of the runoff from the Indian Subcontinent.

The pics are side scan sonar - a tech that is not intended to show actual pictures of what the ocean floor looks like.
On top of that, the Indian Department that came out with this "finding" (NIOT) is not actually the department of government that would make such a declaration.

More on this at this website, a link to which you can find at the bottom of the wiki article you mentioned:

Many aspects of the Khambat discovery are open to question. For instance, though the NIOT discovered the site last year, it has not involved agencies such as the National Institute of Oceanography (NIO), which has a marine archaeology department and has many submarine excavations to its credit. Nor have the respected departments of archaeology at Deccan College or the University of Allahabad been involved. Kathiroli says: "The work done so far is very little and helps only to establish the existence of an archaeological site. Much more detailed investigations are required to unravel the complete truth. With this in mind, a national project is being contemplated involving institutions such as the NIO, the ASI, the National Geophysical Research Institute, the Physical Research Laboratory (in Ahmedabad) and other academic institutions."
There are some basic objections which have been raised against the claim that the remains of a 9,500-year-old settlement exist under the sea in the Gulf of Khambat. First, no marine archaeologist has actually gone down and seen the site. Says Shereen Ratnagar, Professor of Archaeology at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, and the author of many books on the Harappan civilisation: "There have been no divers, no mapping, no underwater photography in this case. These are the basics of excavating a submarine site. It's a long, tedious process. Even the work of mapping by people trained in archaeological draughtsmanship takes very long." Kathiroli says that an attempt to photograph the site failed because the water was turbid.

Lastly, if this is a work in progress, then they sure are moving slow for it only being 60 meters down. I mean, the claim is almost two decades old now.

Harte

Wow this is so intriguing ... I have so many questions! I feel like I have an open mind and reject politics / modern distractions because there is a bigger picture... Msg please if you feel like sharing knowledge etc

Harte,

What are your thoughts on Göbekli Tepe?

I see recent finds points to skull modification at the site. It seems the temples could have housed a skull cult.

According to new research published in Science Advances, three Neolithic skull fragments discovered by archaeologists at Göbekli Tepe show evidence of a unique type of post-mortem skull modification at the site.

.

originally posted by: Triton1128
Harte,

What are your thoughts on Göbekli Tepe?

I see recent finds points to skull modification at the site. It seems the temples could have housed a skull cult.

According to new research published in Science Advances, three Neolithic skull fragments discovered by archaeologists at Göbekli Tepe show evidence of a unique type of post-mortem skull modification at the site.

Freaking barbarians! LOL.

What am I supposed to think about the site?
Very little of it has been excavated - so far all we can say is it was probably not a settlement, since there's no evidence of long time occupation (so far.) I like the carvings, but I don't consider them anomalous - and I certainly don't buy the recent hypothesis that they represent constellations.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

I'm in the same boat as you. I don't buy the constellation claim either. I was actually let down when I read about the skull modifications. I was hoping it was going to be a temple of higher power and enlightenment. Now it looks like something out of the movie The BeastMaster. They say that only a small portion of the temples have been excavated. Lets hope they don't take 10 years to uncover it all.