Mysterious Origins of Man - Forbidden Archeology

reply to post by spikey


haha, i'm also happily married and i don't obsess on people, just educational stuff

oh gosh.

i've been studying the ancient texts for a few years now. in some cases, several decades. and one thing you will pick up on is how they are all interconnected at some very basic levels. for example,

inana appears to also be isis, astoreth, astarte, and later her story was retold in part as semiramis.

and her case is not isolated. the gods of mesopotamia were concurrently gods of egypt, india and china. (although the chinese connection is alot harder to prove, primarily because they lost alot of their antediluvian data and don't appear to be looking for it)

All throughout known history there have been allusions to prehistoric super-civilizations.

More recent discoveries are threatening to screw up the traditional out of Africa theory of Man's origin, with one of those pesky Cro Magnons turning up in a layer dating to 750,000 years ago. Oops.

And I recall the old Jim Brandon book Weird America that contained a remarkable account of amateur rock hunters finding two pairs of modern human leg bones and feet embedded in rock that dated to 100,000,000 years old (That's one hundred million years old, for you guys using text-to-voice technology).

Which would overlap modern humans with dinosaurs of the Cretaceous. I know, it's crazy, but it somehow meshes with that prehistoric pictograph of a human battling a dinosaur in the American Southwest, or the ancient temple in Southeast Asia that features a stone carving of a stegosaurus.

Sure, yeah, I guess these could all be hoaxes — or the Earth may not be nearly as old as I think it is. Did anyone else feel a chill when real, organic bone tissue from a Tyrannosaur was discovered?

Well, maybe Science doesn't really know anything about the survivability of organic tissues and the fossilization process, or maybe those danged old dinosaurs were alive more recently than Science has hypothesized.

Yeah, I think we modern humans have been around a long time, a lot longer than our rickety evolutionary timeline tells us.


— Doc Velocity





[edit on 4/2/2009 by Doc Velocity]

reply to post by Doc Velocity


well part of the problem is, the science of evolutionary theory was born out of the science of the vatican, which at the time, had certain positions on various science-related topics. some of those positions were not disposed of during the enlightenment, and so what you have is modern science maintaining this all or nothing position. they give you 2 choices:

1) believe the positions on the topic of the vatican (which has already moved past alot of the older theories but the evolutionists insist we follow the stuff even the vatican no longer believes in) or

2) believe mainstream evolutionary theory (which contains data from the priest-scientists of the holy roman empire (pre-enlightenment)

those are our 2 options.

ever wonder how it's possible to date "ages" based on the use of metal tools when copper and stone and even bronze based cultures were known to have existed (and in some isolated cases, still do today!) simultaneously? i mean, there are cultures out there that still use organic tools (stone, wood, etc)

[edit on 2-4-2009 by undo]

And, you know, it's funny — Last night I was watching a National Geographic program on the vast contributions of Louis and Mary Leakey and the research of Donald Johanson, all of whom transformed our understanding of Man's evolution through their awesome work (picking up rocks) in the Rift Valley. Between them, they provided us with two proto-human missing links that lived concurrently in Africa millions of years ago.

As I listened to and watched the program, I was struck by something odd. While Louis Leakey was working himself sick digging in the dirt for months on end, his wife Mary would take the dog for a 15-minute walk and accidentally find a fossilized skull that would stand Science on its ear (Australopithecus boisei). Or she'd be driving the Land Rover, her cargo would shift, so she'd stop and get out to tighten the straps or something, and bang she'd find a fossilized skull on the side of the road.

I'm not kidding. The greatest discoveries in the study of early humans were made by the same woman, Mary Leakey, just going about her business and bang here are these 3-to-4-million-year-old fossilized specimens just laying there on the surface, in her path.

Meanwhile, Louis Leakey was killing himself digging a crater with a toothbrush.

And when Donald Johanson discovered the very famous "Lucy" (Australopithicus afarensis), it was the same thing — he was just hiking along and bang he spots a skull cap right in the middle of his path. Turns out it was more than a skull cap, it was almost an entire skeleton, just laying there waiting to be scavenged.

So my question is, Don't you find that really, really odd? Here are these guys who are digging a hole to China with a toothbrush, suffering heat stroke and malaria, not finding anything; meanwhile, the world-changing discoveries are made by these bozos who are just whistling and strolling around a few yards away.

I mean, this sounds too easy. I keep thinking about the Piltdown Man, you remember that one? It was a freakin' hoax that confounded paleontologists for 40 years, perpetrated by someone who, apparently, just walked up to the excavation and tossed various fossilized primate bones into the pit every other day.



Has anyone ever challenged the Leakey and Johanson finds as hoaxes? I dunno, the National Geographic presentation didn't address the possibility of fraud — Instead, it was all praise for the intrepid scientists who just accidentally stumbled upon these specimens placed in their paths.

And these are cornerstones of our understanding of Human evolution, right?


— Doc Velocity




[edit on 4/2/2009 by Doc Velocity]

reply to post by Doc Velocity


Some good points you made. I think it's funny how incomplete the "Lucy" skeleton is (if you do an image search for the actual bones they found) and yet they draw such drastic conclusions from it. It all seems very "convenient."

Thanks to all for your contributions to this discussion. I'm glad I sparked some interest with this thread.

reply to post by undo


Nanotechnology is like the new alchemy, it is this amazing technology that can supposedly do anything, but no one has yet to succeed in getting it to do anything. The thing is, that it takes tremendous resources to get to the point where something like nanotechnology can be developed. You are talking about very sophisticated equipment that requires tremendous resources to produce. Basically, you are back to the same situation, even if nanotechnology had been used to develop the sites we know about, absent any evidence of modern technology, somewhere the infrastructure would have had to exist. Even if some nanobot technology came along and wiped out past civilizations, aka "The Day the Earth Stood Still" 2008, there would still be these areas with very strange dispersal of large amounts of metal used in construction. Before any civilization could get to Nanotech, they would have to go though all the processes of refining metal, generating power, advanced electronics and chemistry, clean rooms, power grids, all sorts of stuff.

If man had reached some advanced level of civilization in the past, either we have massively overlooked the evidence, or the advancement was of a completely different type, which is the direction I would go. Maybe humans succeeded in tapping into higher powers through a type of spiritual awareness that gave them more control than we have achieved through science. Anyone familiar with the "Mabinogion"? These are tales of Welsh mythology, or more accurately, the ancient Britons, who are closely related to the Basque, who are the only RH negative people on the planet. I would have to say these are the most advanced tales of mythology that I have read.

reply to post by poet1b


guess it's real. let's not engage in falsifying information ...again.

reply to post by undo


Um, your video only confirms my earlier statement, Nanotechnology has yet to be developed. You posted a video about a product that is still in development, and is no where near what you would need for the capabilities you imply. All this lab is doing is continuing on with the same concepts on which the first integrated circuit was developed, making smaller microprocessors. This is a huge way from what would be necessary for nano bots to build cities.

You are the one presenting dis-information, and there is no reason to go down that path.

reply to post by poet1b


did i say anything about nanobots building cities? i said the tech might look mundane and not be mundane at all. it could be right under our noses, and to clarify what i meant, i gave the nanobot example. now considering the theory is that these were advanced beings and we don't know how advanced they were, but anything we might be able to come up with is surely within their purview as well. this is the point. and it's obvious one.

[edit on 3-4-2009 by undo]

p.s. i'm pretty sure i read somewhere that they had succeeded in making a little nano car, that actually runs. so to call it alchemy (which is saying it's pie in the sky and has no working models) is not a correct analogy.

here's one saying it's already being used in clothes, computer monitors and sunscreen, to name a few.

Thru visual archeology the missing links of the Mysterious Origins of Man has

been discovered here in The United States of America. This is a monumental

massive find and will answer many of the questions from where did humanity

come from in our galaxy.

This will rewrite the history books and the elite do not want this information out

to the public. The compilation of these findings will be released in 2012. ^Y^

I've always toyed with the idea of civilizations before ours. Whether they were advanced or not is a completely different subject, but mathematically speaking, the possibility of several intelligent civilizations prior to ours is is pretty good. According to modern science, humanity has been around for 100-200k years, and our beloved planet for around 4 billion years, right? Even if you say that the first 2 billion years the planet was too unstable to maintain life long enough for it to evolve into a more advanced stage, there's still 2 billion years to account for. If we made it this far in 200k years, that means there's possibily 10,000 civilizations before us that became as advanced as ours.

Of course, if they were so close together we'd likely find evidence, but cutting the number down by even 99% leaves plenty of room for the planet to destroy evidence of long-dead civs, and allows for at least 100 civs that lived for 200k years. Likely less than that, but the point stands. We won't find much in terms of archaeological evidence from beyond 1 billion years ago since it would be covered with eons worth of sediment and driven deep into the earth, so proving such a hypothesis is unlikely. Kinda like the "too many galaxies for there to NOT be other intelligent life out there" statements, the planet has been around far too long to have never held other civilizations before our lineage.

In short, it's not impossible for other civilizations - even advanced ones - to have existed millions, or even a billion or 2 years ago. In fact, it's pretty likely that some sort of primitive intelligent species created their own societies long before we evolved, even if they never made it to a space age or the equivalent of our modern technology.