The Denisovans & Mystery Of Gobleki Tepe

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: Hanslune
A common problem. Many believers take the opinions of their gurus to be 'facts'.

It’s unfortunate because Göbekli Tepe and the discovery of Denisovans are both game changers and huge discoveries that will be giving insight into our past for decades to come without the need to ad magical woo into the mix.

Yes reality is not only real but quite interesting in itself, Hobbits, Denisovians, GT - all put forth as delightful parts of a story as yet untold.

Why people feel compelled to make up stuff is beyond me.

originally posted by: Vhedza

originally posted by: Hanslune
A common problem. Many believers take the opinions of their gurus to be 'facts'.

I dont have any gurus...Just the information I encounter from different sources.

Sorry but you do you take non-scientist pronouncements as gospel - "Collins and Hancock" are not sources of real information. They make stuff up and sell it for money.

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: Vhedza

originally posted by: Hanslune
A common problem. Many believers take the opinions of their gurus to be 'facts'.

I dont have any gurus...Just the information I encounter from different sources.

Sorry but you do you take non-scientist pronouncements as gospel - "Collins and Hancock" are not sources of real information. They make stuff up and sell it for money.

I dont see how saying I heard it from them means I'm taking their position as gospel.

I had to hear it from someone since I didnt come up with the idea.

originally posted by: Vhedza

originally posted by: Hanslune
A common problem. Many believers take the opinions of their gurus to be 'facts'.

I dont have any gurus...Just the information I encounter from different sources.

Some new sources have already been suggested which I will check out and I'm grateful for that.

We're all at different stages of learning...Is it wrong to state what you know to the best of your knowledge at a given point in time?

How else will you develop?

Thanks for all the links that will actually provide me with information not just criticism that adds nothing to what I already know except to point out the errors both perceived and correct.

These posts are not Sermons but genuine attempts at discussing the subject so in addition to the criticism, its also useful to have more information that forms the basis of the criticism because its more constructive that way.

If you will excuse my French, but you actually "discuss" f-all!

originally posted by: Vhedza

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: Vhedza

originally posted by: Hanslune
A common problem. Many believers take the opinions of their gurus to be 'facts'.

I dont have any gurus...Just the information I encounter from different sources.

Sorry but you do you take non-scientist pronouncements as gospel - "Collins and Hancock" are not sources of real information. They make stuff up and sell it for money.

I dont see how saying I heard it from them means I'm taking their position as gospel.

I had to hear it from someone since I didnt come up with the idea.

Except that your OP gives the impression that you are making statements of fact, that aren’t factual. You made claims that you haven’t supported at all and quoted content from source material without proper attribution. Disregarding the minor T&C issue, your OP in no way says that you “heard it” and want to discuss the merits of Hancock and Collins claims. You simply repeated the claims as though they were straight forward facts and come across as unprepared to debate your claims.

It’s not about being at different points in the learning process. It would be implausible for everyone to possess the same knowledge simultaneously. Having gone back and looked through your other OP’s, you utilize a similar strategy in each one. Perhaps if you were more clear that you had recently read or come across information that sparked curiosity on your part, the replies would be less harsh. But the fact is, you consistently utilize “fringe” pseudoscience sources and then get perturbed when people like Hanslune, Harte or myself, who have spent decades studying these subjects, point out the flaws in the premises you are promoting. The onus is on you to defend the position you take in your OP.

originally posted by: Vhedza
I watched an Andrew Collins Lecture on it, and I remember him saying they were a Giant Indo-Aryan Race.

What?!? They weren't even Homo Sapien, now Collins claims they spoke Indo-European languages? And they were giants? What?!?

It's nuts how they think they can get away with this crap. They just seem to string together random ancient discoveries, that their fans have vaguely heard of from dodgy youtube videos, into some kind of fictional story arc.

Denisovans - check
Göbeklitepe - check
Indo-Aryans - check
Sumeria - check

Then throw in some giants for a bit of spice, and you have your "alternative" history. The fact that these people/places are separated by vast spans of time and location (or even by species) doesn't seem to bother them in the slightest. I suppose they have to keep throwing fresh meat to the fans, which means their claims just get sillier over time.

originally posted by: FatherLukeDuke

originally posted by: Vhedza
I watched an Andrew Collins Lecture on it, and I remember him saying they were a Giant Indo-Aryan Race.

What?!? They weren't even Homo Sapien, now Collins claims they spoke Indo-European languages? And they were giants? What?!?

It's nuts how they think they can get away with this crap. They just seem to string together random ancient discoveries, that their fans have vaguely heard of from dodgy youtube videos, into some kind of fictional story arc.

Denisovans - check
Göbeklitepe - check
Indo-Aryans - check
Sumeria - check

Then throw in some giants for a bit of spice, and you have your "alternative" history. The fact that these people/places are separated by vast spans of time and location (or even by species) doesn't seem to bother them in the slightest. I suppose they have to keep throwing fresh meat to the fans, which means their claims just get sillier over time.

Howdy FLD

Yep brainless entertainment to beguile the gullible.

I'm waiting for one of the guru's to declare he has a theory about transgender giant socialist pre-Sumerian Hebrews.

I'm waiting for one of the guru's to declare he has a theory about transgender giant socialist pre-Sumerian Hebrews.

ROFL...Thanks for pointing out the flaws in Collins and Hancock I didnt know.

Its a Blog Post so it wasnt written like a college essay.

Now I know Collins and Hancock's Denisovan hypothesis isnt necessarily a good explanation for the site.

Will do an update once I've finished going through the material suggested here.

a reply to: Vhedza

The are many questions about GT and even the Denosavians. We just need to go where the evidence shows. No need to over-speculate.

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: Vhedza

The are many questions about GT and even the Denosavians. We just need to go where the evidence shows. No need to over-speculate.

Its clear...I wonder why they had to go as far as the Denisovan thing though?

Are they just saying it for the sake of argument or they really believe it?

originally posted by: Vhedza

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: Vhedza

The are many questions about GT and even the Denosavians. We just need to go where the evidence shows. No need to over-speculate.

Its clear...I wonder why they had to go as far as the Denisovan thing though?

Are they just saying it for the sake of argument or they really believe it?

No. They made it up. At the time those two con men wrote that book ("Gobekli Tepe: Genesis of the Gods: The Temple of the Watchers and the Discovery of Eden,") the only fossils we had were a piece of a tiny finger bone and a molar. And I doubt those two nit wits knew about the molar.

Denisovans had hit the news though, and it was big news - finding another species of Homo doesn't happen every year - so Collins and Hancock jumped on it with both feet - to sell books.

When I say like ducks on a june bug, I'm not over exaggerating. Their actions are the human equivalent.

Harte

a reply to: Harte


They actually did know about the molar. It formed part of their rationale for Denisovans being “giants” by comparing it to an isolated group of South African Heidelbergensis that for a period of 40-50 KA, managed to grow to nearly 7’ tall due to favorable conditions in their isolated eco-niche.

One thing they couldn’t account for however was new genetic analysis of remains from Sima de los Huesos which, while morphologically looking like proto-Neanderthal, were genetically much closer to Denisovans. This gives me the impression that Denisovans were likely within the mean of Neanderthal. Accounting for sexual dimorphism, this would put Denisovans males at ~5’7” and females ~5’2” on average. It also means that using an outlying group of Heidelbergensis as their basis for comparison about as accurate as Sitchins translations of Sumerian.

originally posted by: Vhedza

Now I know Collins and Hancock's Denisovan hypothesis isnt necessarily a good explanation for the site.

It's not a hypothesis, it's just hack fiction.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Harte


They actually did know about the molar.

Still have my doubts.
Someone must have pointed it out to them.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Vhedza

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: Vhedza

The are many questions about GT and even the Denosavians. We just need to go where the evidence shows. No need to over-speculate.

Its clear...I wonder why they had to go as far as the Denisovan thing though?

Are they just saying it for the sake of argument or they really believe it?

No. They made it up. At the time those two con men wrote that book ("Gobekli Tepe: Genesis of the Gods: The Temple of the Watchers and the Discovery of Eden,") the only fossils we had were a piece of a tiny finger bone and a molar. And I doubt those two nit wits knew about the molar.

Denisovans had hit the news though, and it was big news - finding another species of Homo doesn't happen every year - so Collins and Hancock jumped on it with both feet - to sell books.

When I say like ducks on a june bug, I'm not over exaggerating. Their actions are the human equivalent.

Harte

Thanks...Who do you suggest reading or watching on this kind of subject?

I've sort of hit a brickwall in terms of my level of knowledge.

After I read Sitchin, I've read Hancock, Buaval etc and watch Documentaries regularly.

But there's clearly another level...Please point me to where I can start.

Its both for my personal interest as well as the people that read what I write.

I've been giving them the best of what I know so far, and would really like to correct certain things that need correcting based on the information.

Thanks again for pointing me in the right direction.

a reply to: Harte


Considering the compendium of work previously presented by the aforementioned frauds, I’d say your doubts are well placed.

a reply to: Vhedza


It all depends on which specific areas you want to start with. If you want to learn the scholarly approach to Sumerians, I again highly recommend Samuel Noah Kramer. If you want to learn about Denisovans, this google scholar link will give you a ton of papers to read through Denisovan Links

If you want to learn about Neanderthals, I would recommend Svante Paabo’s ‘Neanderthal Man in search of Lost Genomes’ You could also look into works by Lee Berger who discovered Homo Naledi and Australopithecus Sediba. His recent book, Almost Human, about the Rising Star Cave site where H. Naledi was found is one I would highly recommend as well. It’s a fairly easy read for the lay person.

I’m happy to give you other suggestions based on your specific interests or where you would like to start at. There’s a lot of ground to cover and a lot of areas of interest you have. The fact that you are more interested in learning than propagating and regurgitating is a rarity on ATS these days. Ask away because there are a lot of people with wide ranging backgrounds who are happy to point you in the right direction.

originally posted by: Vhedza
Thanks...Who do you suggest reading or watching on this kind of subject?

Well, Klaus Schmidt is dead now, but he put out enough info to last you a while, some of it old enough to not be behind a paywall: Google Scholar

originally posted by: Vhedza
After I read Sitchin, I've read Hancock, Buaval etc and watch Documentaries regularly.

But there's clearly another level...Please point me to where I can start.

If you don't want to pretend, then you need to leave guys like these alone. They won't teach you a thing. In fact, they might even remove knowledge from your brain.

Harte

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Vhedza


It all depends on which specific areas you want to start with. If you want to learn the scholarly approach to Sumerians, I again highly recommend Samuel Noah Kramer. If you want to learn about Denisovans, this google scholar link will give you a ton of papers to read through Denisovan Links

If you want to learn about Neanderthals, I would recommend Svante Paabo’s ‘Neanderthal Man in search of Lost Genomes’ You could also look into works by Lee Berger who discovered Homo Naledi and Australopithecus Sediba. His recent book, Almost Human, about the Rising Star Cave site where H. Naledi was found is one I would highly recommend as well. It’s a fairly easy read for the lay person.

I’m happy to give you other suggestions based on your specific interests or where you would like to start at. There’s a lot of ground to cover and a lot of areas of interest you have. The fact that you are more interested in learning than propagating and regurgitating is a rarity on ATS these days. Ask away because there are a lot of people with wide ranging backgrounds who are happy to point you in the right direction.

Thank you so much...I think I've gone as far as I could alone.

I am just really interested in the subject so I would read and watch what I could find.

Much appreciated...I'll start and you'll be sure to get questions for me.

Its all about the facts at the end of the day.

I didnt start this to be anyone's 'disciple'.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Vhedza
Thanks...Who do you suggest reading or watching on this kind of subject?

Well, Klaus Schmidt is dead now, but he put out enough info to last you a while, some of it old enough to not be behind a paywall: Google Scholar

originally posted by: Vhedza
After I read Sitchin, I've read Hancock, Buaval etc and watch Documentaries regularly.

But there's clearly another level...Please point me to where I can start.

If you don't want to pretend, then you need to leave guys like these alone. They won't teach you a thing. In fact, they might even remove knowledge from your brain.

Harte

ROFL...