should von daniken sue?

Originally posted by Kryties
OOPArt - Out-Of-Place Artifact

Objects alleged to come from recognized cultures, recovered in unexpected places

While I'm not going to state that every artifact has a neat explanation, or that none may cause consternation, I will refer to the following:

* The Maine Penny, found in Blue Hill, Maine. An 11th century Norse coin found in an American Indian shell midden. Over 20,000 objects were found over a 15-year period at the Goddard site in Blue Hill. The sole non-Native artifact was the coin. One hypothesis is that it may have been brought to the site from a Viking settlement in Newfoundland by seagoing Native Americans.

The coin was found in a sealed context also containing aboriginal artifacts from Labrador. The accepted story is that it was brought down by an Indian from northern Labrador, where there was acknowledged Norse contact even before the settlement at Lans aux Meadows. It's only one example, but it demonstrates once more...think horses, not zebras.

You wanna get a taste of the current train of thought...no spaceships, but bound to be interesting just the same, get in line for the following publication: www.ucpress.edu...
I've got mine on order.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Jurand I don't see how a scroll jar would benefit from the addition of an iron rod and a copper cylinder.

Why would you put copper in a scroll jar? Just off of the top of my head, I seem to recall that copper is used as a wood preservative. Think horses...not zebras.

Sure. You have an iron rod around which a scroll was wrapped. You then cover the rolled scroll with a relatively flexible metal (copper), then put it in a pot and seal it to keep it from rotting. Then, unfortunately, the pot gets cracked and wet, and the scroll rots or is eaten away. What you have left is an essentially empty pot with a copper cylinder and a partially decayed iron rod in it.

It would have been interesting to see what scroll was so important to deserve such an attempt to preserve it.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
reply to post by Kandinsky

 

If the Kensington Runestone is of interest, you might want to check out the following article: "Goodbye Columbus? The Pseudohistory of Who Discovered America" by Ronald Fritze www.hallofmaat.com... Have fun!

Duly read I thought that there was still some debate out the KR based on differing interpretations of the 'runes' and some dating analysis. Between the Hall of Maat and Pharyngula it's been consigned to the 'hoax' pile

The bowl with the Sumerian script has probably been tackled on HoM too. I'll go and check. Even if real, I'd assume it landed in S America in the past hundred+ years...

reply to post by Nohup

Don't forget that these Baghdad containers are only 5" in height, but I think it sounds a very reasonable idea


[edit on 16-4-2009 by Kandinsky]

Originally posted by Kandinsky

 

Don't forget that these Baghdad containers are only 5" in height, but I think it sounds a very reasonable idea

Mind you, I couldn't tell you the size of a scroll...it was simply a quick thought. Fact remains, even though it does something, doesn't mean that dictates its purpose.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Maybe the copper was the scroll? And anything on it was corroded away? Just a thought. And a few more letters.

Originally posted by Harte
Another load of crap.

No "Metal Library" has ever been found.

Armstrong accompanied Hall on an exploration of an ordinary cave. He agreed to do so because of supposed family ties and as an honorary citizen of Scotland.

No metal Library was found, lthough a few artifacts were found:

Correction: As far as the public is concerned, no metal library was found.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Harte
Another load of crap.
No metal Library was found, though a few artifacts were found:

Correction: As far as the public is concerned, no metal library was found.

Ya know, I don't think that's a response that holds very much water, if you hear what I'm saying. This has become a discussion of science versus fancy. You oughtta know, Skyfloating...cite your sources.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
This has become a discussion of science versus fancy. You oughtta know, Skyfloating...cite your sources.

Two pages back...

[edit on 17-4-2009 by Skyfloating]

reply to post by Nohup

It would have been interesting to see what scroll was so important to deserve such an attempt to preserve it.

It seems they resemble the jars used to store sacred texts, so it stands to reason that it may have been covering sacred texts, or something of equal worth.

reply to post by Gawdzilla

Hello Gawdilla,

Gawdilla: von D. is a criminal and a con man. His books are filled with fantasies and they cater to people with a weak grip on reality.

SC: Whilst I think EVD makes some interesting points, I do think his past abberations have presented him with some problems. But EVD's credibility is not really the issue here, is it? There is a much wider, more fundamental question at stake and it has every bit as much to do with the "professionals" i.e. geologists, archaeologists, Egyptologists as it has to do with those of a more unorthodox view such as EVD.

Over hundreds of years our civilisation has built up for itself a particular historical narrative - a paradigm or model into which every artefact found on this planet must fit into. Occasionaly science will discover that it made a mistake along the way and revise the model to say that, for example, the Earth goes round the sun and is not at the centre of the universe or that the Earth's continents are not fixed.

Whenever such a radical change is proposed it is usually met with stiff and even hostile resistance by the custodians of the Old Guard, the old school of thinking. And it is resisted often in spite of the overwhelming evidence being held in support of the new theory. Even today we see this happening by the present custodians of the prevailing historical paradigm who cling onto "Clovis First" as if their very lives depended on it, ignoring all the science that proves it just plain wrong. So, who are these people and how are they allowed to exert undue influence that stifles progress? They are the old guard and they know not when their time is up.

So, let us not kid ourselves here that these so-called professionals are themselves beyond reproach. The lengths some of these individuals will go to and the underhanded methods they deploy to ensure the existing paradigm prevails, makes any alleged wrong-doing on the part of EVD seem quite trivial by comparison. And what makes it worse is that these are the very people that are supposedly meant to be working on our behalf to help us better understand our history and origins - they are the "establishment". And they have the badge to prove it.

The vast majority of people know when they pick up one of EVD's books that his writings do not carry the badge of the "establishment" and, as such, know that the opinions expressed by him in his books carry little, if indeed any, "authority". What people do not expect, however, is that when they pick up a professional book that the apparent authority expressed in its pages has ofttimes been based on a process of fudging, distorting and filtering of evidence with the singular intent of maintaining the prevailing historical paradigm.

So, who is the real culprit in all of this - the real "criminal and conmen"? Who is it that endangers the "truth" of our history and origins more? Here's a clue - it's not EVD 'cause he ain't got the badge that allows him to do it.

Scott Creighton

PS: Should you require an example of what I am tallking about here, read up on Virginia Steen-McIntyre and her research at Hueyatlaco. This is just one example of the "knowledge filter" in operation - there are many others.


[edit on 18/4/2009 by Scott Creighton]

reply to post by Scott Creighton


"But EVD's credibility is not really the issue here, is it? "

It most certainly is. The subject line is "Should that idiot sue" (paraphrased).

reply to post by Gawdzilla

Hello Gawdilla,

Well then - since EVD's books are not actually on the curriculum of any College/University I know of then perhaps the students listening to the good professor slating EVD should consider taking a law suit against the professor for not explaining to them how the books he asserts is the "truth" are ofttimes a distortion of the truth.

With EVD's books the students can take them or leave them - they are not part of the required, mandatory curriculum reading. The good professor's books, on the other hand, ARE manadatory reading and ARE held up as the "truth" and beyond reproach.

So, given what I have explained in my previous post, who really should the students be bringing the law suit against?

Regards,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 18/4/2009 by Scott Creighton]

reply to post by Scott Creighton


"Well then - since EVD's books are not actually on the curriculum of any College/University I know of then perhaps the students listening to the good professor slating EVD should consider taking a law suit against the professor for not explaining to them how the books he asserts is the "truth" are ofttimes a distortion of the truth. "

The profs only have to state the theory, then point out how it is blatantly false. And I'm willing to bet that things like the Piltdown Man would also be included in the lecture.

I'd love to see him try a Dover in court. Unfortunately, like Hitler after the Beer Hall Putsch, von D. would just have another chance to spread his nonsense.

reply to post by Gawdzilla

Hello Gawdzilla,

Gawdzilla: The profs only have to state the theory, then point out how it is blatantly false.

SC: Perhaps then the Profs might begin by explaining Hueyatlaco and how the research of Virginia Steen-McIntyre shows how the theory stated in their own books of our history and origins is blatantly wrong.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

Hello Gawdzilla,

Gawdzilla: The profs only have to state the theory, then point out how it is blatantly false.

SC: Perhaps then the Profs might begin by explaining Hueyatlaco and how the research of Virginia Steen-McIntyre shows how the theory stated in their own books of our history and origins is blatantly wrong.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

Never heard of them. I'll check my back issues of Atlantis Rising.

reply to post by Gawdzilla

Hello Gawdilla,

Gawdzilla: Never heard of them. I'll check my back issues of Atlantis Rising.

SC: I doubt you'll find much about this in Atlantis Rising Magazine.

Here's a Wiki link that's a good start point: en.wikipedia.org...

Hope that's of some use.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

reply to post by Scott Creighton
I think people should stop using Steen-McIntyre as a buttress to support ideas of 'forbidden archaeology.' The Valsequillo site and findings were being discussed last year (Source page 5) The evidence, as it stands, indicates a pre-Clovis population dating from 80 000 - 250 000ya. The findings included artificial blades and a mastodon bone with possible signs of butchery. Whilst these don't represent any signs of advanced technology or alien visitors, they put humans in the Americas a lot earlier than thought.

The findings will be further discussed, debated and peer-reviewed (sooner rather than later!) and if found to be explained by other means, then so be it. If they are found to be accurate, the results will become mainstream. There seems little doubt that the Valsequillo site is neglected. Still, none of this will elevate Daniken's speculations of space visitors and ancient tech beyond the fiction section of the local library.

reply to post by Scott Creighton


Thank you for the information on the other authors. I will definitely look them up and read their materials. The idea should be to read all other ideas instead of keeping them peer to peer, and then letting certain ideas out in the public.

reply to post by Kandinsky


Hello Kandinsky,

Thank you for your reply.

Kandinsky: I think people should stop using Steen-McIntyre as a buttress to support ideas of 'forbidden archaeology.'

SC: No one is using Steen-McIntyre's research as a buttress for anything other than to demonstrate how information that has been known for many decades is effectively suppressed and the proponents of such controversial findings are marginalised, vilified and discredited by the academic mafia in order to maintain the status quo. That such is allowed to occur within so-called "professional" circles is a complete disgrace and is tantamount to intellectual dishonesty; a dishonesty that threatens to undermine the very truth of our history and origins. And, in my opinion, this is a far worse and more dangerous situation than anything EVD has ever been accused of. The academic books are in my children's classroom - EVD's books are not. Many academic books are prescribed reading in schools, universities and colleges - EVD's books are not and most likely never will be. If the academic books then are not presenting the full facts, or are presenting only those selected facts that support the prevailing historical paradigm, then they are more dangerous by far than any book EVD has ever written.

Kandinsky: The Valsequillo site and findings were being discussed last year (Source page 5) The evidence, as it stands, indicates a pre-Clovis population dating from 80 000 - 250 000ya. The findings included artificial blades and a mastodon bone with possible signs of butchery. Whilst these don't represent any signs of advanced technology or alien visitors, they put humans in the Americas a lot earlier than thought.

SC: This is not a question about "advanced technology" or "alien visitors" - it's about facts and how some facts are sometimes suppressed, thereby giving a false impression of our history.

It seems that whenever the academic mafia feel threatened, they go on the offensive but they do not limit their attacks to people like EVD - they attack anyone that has the temerity to question their "authority" and that can often include fellow academics like Steen-McIntyre. Scientific truth, it would seem, is of less importance to these people than is maintaining the status quo, not to mention their own self-interests. Where is the integrity in that? On the basis of this example of how the academic mafia operate when threatened, one would easily be forgiven for thinking that if any evidence of "advanced technology" or "alien visitors" was "known" it will have been suppressed or discredited in a similar manner and you or I will never get to see it let alone discuss it.

Kandinsky: The findings will be further discussed, debated and peer-reviewed (sooner rather than later!) and if found to be explained by other means, then so be it. If they are found to be accurate, the results will become mainstream. There seems little doubt that the Valsequillo site is neglected. Still, none of this will elevate Daniken's speculations of space visitors and ancient tech beyond the fiction section of the local library.

SC: I suggest "later" - it's been over three decades afterall. And if Steen-McIntyre's results are verified (and I see little reason why they should not be) will Steen-McIntyre then receive an apology from the establishment? Will all those people who have been arguing that the origins of man is not as simple as the current paradigm procalaims be told that they are not in fact carckpots, nutjobs or numpties? No - they will receive nothing of the sort. The academic mafia will simply proclaim that they knew this all along. And no one is arguing that such an admission will elevate EVD's writings anywhere. One would hope, however, that it might elevate the truth of our history and origins to the place it belongs - in our history books. And they should do it before we sue them!

Regards,

Scott Creighton

The books are interesting,even if not always accurate.Once attended one of his lectures which was ok but I also understand that he has to make a living and just supplies what will sell.Nevertheless his idea of extraterrestrial visitors was groundbreaking at that time and opened up a lot of doors.