Ice Age Proto Writing system discovered

originally posted by: DaRAGE
a reply to: Harte

Obviously you have something against Graham Hancock. Your source says nothing about Graham Hancock.

What fraudulent claims of antiquity are you talking about?

Well you could start with a lost civilization being located in the Antarctic (that was his first claim) he later switched that to the Atlantic area and now in North America.

So specific claims ....how about his claim that the Piri Reis map is evidence of an lost civilization?

“The Piri Reis map of 1513 features the western shores of Africa and the eastern shores of North and South America and is also controversially claimed to depict Ice Age Antarctica--as an extension of the southern tip of South America. The same map depicts a large island lying east of the southeast coast of what is now the United States. Also clearly depicted running along the spine of this island is a 'road' of huge megaliths. In this exact spot during the lowered sea levels of the Ice Age a large island was indeed located until approximately 12,400 years ago. A remnant survives today in the form of the islands of Andros and Bimini. Underwater off Bimini I have scuba-dived on a road of great megaliths exactly like those depicted above water on the Piri Reis map. Again, the implication, regardless of the separate controversy of whether the so-called Bimini Road is a man-made or natural feature, is that the region must have been explored and mapped before the great floods at the end of the Ice Age caused the sea level to rise and submerged the megaliths.” ― Graham Hancock, America Before: The Key to Earth's Lost Civilization

upload.wikimedia.org...

originally posted by: DaRAGE
a reply to: Harte

Obviously you have something against Graham Hancock. Your source says nothing about Graham Hancock.

What fraudulent claims of antiquity are you talking about?

Maybe you haven't heard about the Netflix show "Ancient Apocalypse?"
Hancock spends half of every episode haranguing archaeologists as close-minded and exclusive.

Since I live in the real world, I just assumed that you knew about what Hancock has been doing.
As far as fraudulent claims, do you really want a list?
Let's just start with one of the earlier ones:

Alaska and Siberia: the sudden freeze

The northern regions of Alaska and Siberia appear to have been the worst
hit by the murderous upheavals between 13,000 and 11,000 years ago.
In a great swathe of death around the edge of the Arctic Circle the
remains of uncountable numbers of large animals have been found-
including many carcasses with the flesh still intact, and astonishing
quantities of perfectly preserved mammoth tusks. Indeed, in both
regions, mammoth carcasses have been thawed to feed to sled dogs and
mammoth steaks have featured on restaurant menus in Fairbanks. 8 One
authority has commented, ‘Hundreds of thousands of individuals must
have been frozen immediately after death and remained frozen,
otherwise the meat and ivory would have spoiled ... Some powerful
general force was certainly at work to bring this catastrophe about.’ 9

archive.org...
cdn.centerforinquiry.org...

Harte

a reply to: zandra

I'm a firm believer that Pangaea was actually teaming with life and civilization the great flood happened once Pangaea broke up quickly ,

I have never considered the fact that the Moon showing up could have caused it .

And it would have caused mass devastation if it just got caught in Earths orbit . Hum interesting

"These points were taken up and elaborated
upon further by Kurten (1986, 51-2): "Various
legends exist about frozen mammoths. It has been
said, for instance, that the scientists who excavated the
Beresovka mammoth, discovered in the year 1900,
enjoyed a banquet on mammoth steak. What really appears to
have happened (as I was told by Professor Anatol Heinz) is
that one of them made a heroic attempt to
take a bite out of the 40,000 year old meat
but was unable to keep it down, in spite of
a generous use of spices... The facts are not
hard to find. In 1902, Otto Herz, a zoologist at the Imperial Academy of Sciences in
St. Pietersburg published in German an
account of the expedition to the Beresovka
River which he had led the year before,
with the purpose of salvaging the mammoth carcass diat had been discovered in
1900. . . . The point here is this: Herz definitely states that it
was only the superficial part of the cadaver that had been preserved. The internal organs had rotted away before the animal
had become frozen."

cdn.centerforinquiry.org...

Here's the reference for that snippet (Kurten, B. 1986. How to Deep Freeze a Mammoth. New York: Columbia
University Press. )

But where's Kurten's referenced snippet? (as I was told by Professor Anatol Heinz) The facts are not
hard to find. Im sorry but where are the facts that are not that hard to find?

You know, this one article has been referenced over and over again. We already know the mechanism for an instant deep freeze, and an instant ice-age.

Fast Frozen Animals on the Back Side

Just after the solar dust shell passes the Earth, the dust shell side will have extremely low atmospheric pressure because the dust shell would have blown most of the atmosphere away on that side, we just do not know how much. The backside of the Earth will temporarily have normal atmospheric pressure, but that condition will not last long. Very shortly after the dust shell passes by, the normal atmosphere on the backside, will expand very rapidly to fill up the front side (dust shell side) of the Earth. Two things will result from this process: The first will be extremely high-speed winds traveling around the Earth from all four corners of the globe, to fill up the extremely low atmospheric pressure on the dust shell side. The second consequence of this process is revealed in Boyle’s law: “If a given weight of gas is considered and if its temperature is held constant, the pressure and volume of the gas will be inversely proportional.” Applying this law to the conditions that will be present on the backside of the Earth, the atmosphere will expand very fast and, therefore, the temperature will drop to extreme levels, possibly below -180 degrees Fahrenheit below zero. Any life forms caught out in the open, or even in the average building will be fast frozen almost instantly!

dieholdfoundation.com...

In my own personal opinion, Graham Hancock is a pompous ass and a righteous prick.

Nothing he writes about is his own actual research (or his own theories for that matter), which is fine as long as he sticks to just maintaining he is just a journalist.

I think it's fine as long as he sticks to the information he's told by those at the sites he visits.

His personal interpretations are meh. He draws far to many conclusions trying to tie too many disparate bits of information together.

Having said that, I do admire that he actually goes to the places he writes about and checks them out. I check his work out once in a while mostly just to see what he's regurgitating about and adding to his talking points.

Also...

In my own personal opinion many (if not most) archaeologists and anthropologists are also pompous asses and righteous pricks too.

Many (most?) of them absolutely refuse to look past the research done decades or centuries earlier. All they want to do is classify and assign.

It takes new people, working towards making a name for themselves, to do new original research to bring new things to light. Otherwise, the majority of finds already classified and assigned just sit and stagnate.

Why did it take an "amatuer" to do the work to understand this?

Is a different over-arching approach to ancient studies needed?

Maybe more multi-disciplinary collaborations need to happen than do at present?

a reply to: Harte

I haven’t watched ancient apocalypse yet.

This particular case has nothing to do with Hancock's fraudulent claims about antiquity, but it DOES have to do with Hancock's (also fraudulent) claims about Archaeologists. I'll concede that Hancock fans can easily overlook or side-step that bit of evidence about Archaeologists. After all, they already ignore the tons of evidence against his other ridiculous claims.

Ah yes, the comedians speak again.
You mean Hancock’s claims about Archaeologists that were just proved completely true on his Netflix series , where he was refused access to Serpent Mound because of his ‘ideas’ or are we talking also then, about fraudulent unprovable claims from archaeologists like the time it took to build the Great Pyramid etc , on NO AVAILABLE EVIDENCE?
Oh I see . Pseudo-Academics such as yourself can come on here and ‘proclaim’ truths though, and that’s ok.
My stomach hurts from laughing again . a reply to: Harte

If you read enough about the OP, you’ll find that an amateur guy who has been studying it for years , went to Academia with his theory , it seems like the ‘experts’ were impressed by his theory ( as they didn’t have a f’ing clue) and they gave him unfettered access to library materials , including more resource pictures than he could find himself. Pretty simple .
The amateur guy had done all the groundwork , but needed to test his theory with more resources and pictures .
I even read one article about it , that didn’t even mention that an amateur archaeologist had come up with this idea , instead it just talked about the ‘experts’ who figured this out. Bloody joke .

I particularly like the idea that these dots refer to moon based life/breeding cycles of the animals pictured, in particular the ‘Y’ shape symbol that could symbolise the birth month of these extinct animals, ‘one form becomes two’ very interesting indeed.

It would appear that cave art is not just beautiful and highly skilled ART, it is also information for future generations to learn from , to keep, about the animals they live with, hunt , and use.
Information they didn’t want forgotten , and also information that proves they were keeping track of time using the moon.
If you’re going to use that ‘moon’ info for hunting, following herds, catching their young, you have to also know where YOU are in that time cycle .

What the pseudo Academic Harte is saying is that academia is prepared to ‘go’ with amateurs on less risky subjects that don’t undermine years of misinterpreting data.

Nothing he writes about is his own actual research (or his own theories for that matter), which is fine as long as he sticks to just maintaining he is just a journalist.

Hmm. Have you read many of his books?
Have you actually checked out the bibliographies of his work?
They are full of academic research, peer reviewed papers. You know, the stuff you are supposed to cite.
What you need to realise is that Academics HATE those people who try to connect inter-disciplinary dots, as it goes beyond the stifled blinkered remit of what they do.

In my own personal opinion many (if not most) archaeologists and anthropologists are also pompous asses and righteous pricks too.

Indeed. Just look at how Hans and Harte talk to people on here , and Hartes just a psuedo-Academic, who talks to people as if he is one , when he isn’t . He’s just a Math teacher, I believe .

Harte reminds me of those people you see on YouTube in America, who dress up as veterans , and walk round pretending they’ve served , then they get found out and owned by people who have served. So funny really.

a reply to: gspat

a reply to: Byrd

That sort of thing would be taught directly. You'd have learned it from the time you could barely walk - the men of the group going out at certain times and doing ceremonies to ensure good luck and a good hunt.

It's a good enough assumption, although I have to say we're ages better at education these days and the super children you're describing are pretty rare.

I'd say it's an assumption on tribe size and make-up too.

Uhmmmmm.... that's not how deer behave or how the nomadic hunter-gatherers behaved. And that's not how ancient humans fished. Depending on who they are and where they lived, many made fish traps or fish gardens to bring the fish in.

In fresh water systems. Were humans definitely trapping fish 20,000 years ago?

I was using deer as an example, Europe had migratory species which are featured in these cave paintings.

If you're nomadic you're not going to make fish traps for salmon in a lake in mid summer are you. My point was it doesn't matter where you are in western Europe you do your hunter gathering if you have have calender knowledge and know a bit geography.

There's absolutely no point in being nomadic if all that's achieved is randomly successful hunts, small fish and shellfish.

originally posted by: bluesfreak
What the pseudo Academic Harte is saying is that academia is prepared to ‘go’ with amateurs on less risky subjects that don’t undermine years of misinterpreting data.

What the pseudo historian bluesfreak is saying is that there are "years of misinterpreting data" in the archaeological timeline.

Of course, there would absolutely HAVE to be dozens of DECADES of misinterpreted data for any of the pseudo historian bluesfreak's fairytale theories to be supportable. Such a one must ignore or deny the evidence in hand before they can propose something else.

Harte

originally posted by: bluesfreak

...


Have you actually checked out the bibliographies of his work?
They are full of academic research, peer reviewed papers.

...

From Jason Colavito's blog:

Hancock praises himself for using “2,000 footnotes” which readers of his books can use to follow up and evaluate whether a source “is worthy or not.” Skimming his references, we see frequent citations to midcentury pseudoscience books, outdated scholarship from the nineteenth century, incomplete early science from the postwar era, and many popular books of dubious accuracy. But even great footnotes don’t mean that an author has understood and utilized the material accurately. www.jasoncolavito.com...

There are always ‘years of misinterpreting data’ when a subject such as archaeology is concerned .
It is an open book that should continually be re written as it evolves .
It’s only d*cks like you that think it should remain closed with a big full stop at the end.

I will continue to refer others in the class to the work of J Harland Bretz in response to the way Archaeology and Academia like to operate . But there are more examples .

We all saw how archaeology operates in Hancock’s series, refusing access due to disliked ‘ideas’. Disgusting .
The same manner in which you in your pseudo-Academic pretence treat others on this forum.

Science and history will be challenged by alternative theories and so it should be .

Notice how pseudo-Academic Harte laid into Hancock on his first post , Forget about the years of study from the amateur guy, Hartes common narrative must be upheld , as we must infer there are ‘good’ and ‘bad’ amateur archaeologists, but Harte will determine for you all which you must choose and why.

Harte actually has nothing to say here except the repeatable mantras from Encyclopedia . Never a “ maybe” or never “ that’s an interesting line of thought” or never actually joining in a discussion , to him it’s all about a giant foot stamping you all out .
That’s not real science , or academia, or archaeology as science is moved by open minds .
That’s why he’s a pseudo-Academic and a total fraud himself , hoisting himself above you all and hoping no one calls him out , hating it when others treat him as he treats them . Clown.

a reply to: Harte

Who the hell is Jason Colavito?
Some researcher who happens to be on your ‘side’?
He’s a nobody .
Wrote some books , has a blog.
Wow.
What, and suddenly he’s someone we should all be looking to for answers ?
Get out of here.



a reply to: Hooke

Well you could start with a lost civilization being located in the Antarctic (that was his first claim) he later switched that to the Atlantic area and now in North America.

So no one’s allowed to change their opinion now, either?
That’s a good researcher in my mind. An open mind,
Willing to change course is a GOOD thing.
Steven Hawking changed his mind about subjects in his sphere of learning , I think on more than one occasion, so are you going to rip into him and his legacy too?
I think he was also wrong about many parts to do with String Theory too, so get ripping Hans.

Hypocrisy, Jealousy, Academic obstruction are the world you come from.
a reply to: Hanslune

originally posted by: bluesfreak
Who the hell is Jason Colavito?
Some researcher who happens to be on your ‘side’?
He’s a nobody .
Wrote some books , has a blog.
Wow.
What, and suddenly he’s someone we should all be looking to for answers ?
Get out of here.
a reply to: Hooke

From his website:

Jason Colavito is an author and editor based in upstate New York whose books include The Cult of Alien Gods: H.P. Lovecraft and Extraterrestrial Pop Culture (Prometheus Books, 2005), The Mound Builder Myth (Oklahoma University Press, 2020), and more. Colavito is internationally recognized by scholars, literary theorists, and scientists for his pioneering work exploring the connections between history, science, and pop culture. His investigations have appeared on the American Heroes Channel and the History Channel, in The New Republic, Slate, and more. www.jasoncolavito.com...

And he has reviewed other work by Hancock, e.g.:

www.jasoncolavito.com...

www.jasoncolavito.com...

www.jasoncolavito.com...

Still, just a guy whose opinion fits your narrative .
No different from anyone on the fringe really, he’s just ‘your guy’.
Can you see the stinking hypocrisy that is so tiresome? One rule for thee, another for me.
You claim your guy is better , others claim their guy is better . Snore .

And who wrote that description of him? Is it his own ‘written in third person’ description of himself from his website? !!!
You believe he himself had nothing to do with his own description on his own website ?!!!!!

These institutions he writes for and has appeared in front of , will only accept people like him, who fit into their approach toward alternative theories.

I’m not knocking him for his life’s work etc and being critical of things he wants to investigate , but the institutions he gets praise and recognition from are the ones who like his kind of work…



a reply to: Hooke

originally posted by: bluesfreak
Still, just a guy whose opinion fits your narrative .
No different from anyone on the fringe really, he’s just ‘your guy’.
Can you see the stinking hypocrisy that is so tiresome? One rule for thee, another for me.
You claim your guy is better , others claim their guy is better . Snore .

And who wrote that description of him? Is it his own ‘written in third person’ description of himself from his website? !!!
You believe he himself had nothing to do with his own description on his own website ?!!!!!

These institutions he writes for and has appeared in front of , will only accept people like him, who fit into their approach toward alternative theories.

I’m not knocking him for his life’s work etc and being critical of things he wants to investigate , but the institutions he gets praise and recognition from are the ones who like his kind of work…

He's a reviewer; he reviews academic works so he's got a good background in what the academics think. The people who are on the "fringe" as you call it, are almost always unaware of recent developments and the scope of how much information we have about sites and people.

It's like the guy on Quora who's trying to relate Egyptian heiroglyphs to "the original Chinese words." You might celebrate him as a "free thinker" and "alternative historian" but his system is totally unworkable (he finds the occasional word whose symbols match his idea and show that Egyptians are really just Western Chinese) and it can't match pictures with descriptions written just below them.

What we know about hieroglyphs - the translations match pictures perfectly. You can even try this on something that hasn't been translated yet (there's a coffin here in the art museum that's been looked at but no official translation published.)

Colavito is significant because he reads interdisciplinarily - so he's read a lot of wide-ranging stuff. Your average scientist reads deeply on one subject (like Einstein -- he knew more about physics than almost anybody BUT he couldn't tell a dragonfly from a damselfly (Biology's not his subject) and his knowledge of chemistry was about the level of a high school student. I always check his references (look up the original) but I don't always know the pieces that he does.

And he'll correct his mistakes. Unlike some.

The people who are on the "fringe" as you call it, are almost always unaware of recent developments and the scope of how much information we have about sites and people.

I didn’t name it ‘the fringe ‘ that’s what Academia has labelled it .
Randall Carlson is just as polymath interdisciplinary as this guy, with a thorough knowledge of peer reviewed work, but because of the subject matter he discusses, academia want him tarred with the ‘fringe ‘ brush.

Just a word to the wise about this ‘fringe’ term that is bandied about, and referring back to J Harland Bretz , whose work would have been labelled ‘fringe’ today;
He was right about huge volumes of water passing through the scablands but was ridiculed, verbally attacked at his own lectures by members of ‘your’ establishment , for literally decades.
Even now, because the lake Missoula multiple refill theory is challenged , we have geologist Jerome Lessman co authoring a paper entitled “ back to Bretz” because the drumlin fields further north than ‘lake Missoula ‘ suggest more water pouring down from the north subglacially instead of the accepted theory.
So with Bretz, you have a theory treated by yourselves as ‘fringe’ , then the gradual acceptance of Bretz’ work until all his opponents were defeated or conceded , him awarded some serious science medals because of his work, and now a further reinforcement of his work as the standard model doesn’t add up to the geological evidence further north.
Precedents are there to be remembered , I think. a reply to: Byrd

originally posted by: bluesfreak

He was right about huge volumes of water passing through the scablands but was ridiculed, verbally attacked at his own lectures by members of ‘your’ establishment , for literally decades.

...and I told you the reason for that? Did you not understand it?

He's a geologist - a geologist is NOT an archaeologist - do you not understand that? You seem confused?

His idea were accepted once other folks found a method for the water to be stored and released. So, what are you exactly screaming about?

Lots of theories are not accepted because the evidence doesn't currently support them. Later new evidence is found (often because people are doing research to support or not support the new theory).