Of Things That Shouldn’t Exist

There is a large amount of skeptisism, concerning a number of the Ica
stones.
Do you believe there are some that are counterfiet, most, any?

Some of the things that are depicted on the stones, speak for themselves.

When you counterfiet, you don't want it to be sopmething no one will
believe.

reply to post by freebourn

The bible says "And there were worlds upon worlds upon worlds before this one" This refers to atlantis in my opinion. And we did have similar techonlogy to todays time.

Where and in what Bible have you taken this from? If you don't mind. That caught my attention because I never heard of that one. S+F great thread!

[edit on 1-2-2010 by jackflap]

WOW!! Big ol' S&F for this one OP!! IMO this is just more proof that 'we' (humans currently occupying earth) have little to no idea of our ancient past, there's snippets of information from stories passed down from generation to generation and the occasional artifact that we can theorize where and when it came from.. But when it really boils down to it... We have no idea! I love that mystery most of all.

Kudos OP great thread.

Originally posted by serbsta

Originally posted by dereks

all either a hoax, wrongly interpreted or no proof that they ever actually existed.

Fantastic, you got any proof to back that up?

reply to post by Hellas

 

It's not a statistic, its a sensationalized heading. The exact date is obviously unknown.

the burden of proof isnt on him, its on the peopl who insist stuff liek this is real, and not jsut people projecting waht they want to see into an unrelated cooincidence.

First off, if you can find me a chameleon with those proportions I would love to see it. Don't forget that this is not the only picture of ancient dinosaurs uncovered by archeologists.

ancient dinosaur depictions

Secondly, if anyone knows of an animal that had limb resembling a hand from 100 million years ago, please enlighten me. Please make sure that the limb also has a "fingernail".

as far there being no direct physical proof of ancient civilization, which would completely rewrite the textbooks and very likely our understanding of evolution itself, just look for scientific scandals and misinformation in the scientific establishment since FOREVER.

Open your minds brothers and sisters, these are all evidences that are very difficult to conceal once there known by a certain amount of people. Just think of all the evidences that might exist that can easily be concealed.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
An interesting thread...but is it not more reasonable to assume that the rock looks like a sandle, than to re-write science based upon a fluke?

I don't think ancient history "science" (you mean archaeology) was much of a science to begin with.

Like others have pointed out, scientists are just guessing with their dating system.


Take carbon dating for example. They assume they know how carbon decays over huge periods of time, but how could they actually know when carbon dating hasn't even been around for even a few hundred years yet? Have they even been watching carbon decay for that long? (No, of course not.)

They take a very limited extrapolation of data and try to apply it to vast epochs of time under the assumption that the rate of decay would hold constant the whole time. Pure assumption. We have no idea what all has happened on this planet over the course of however much time we are actually dealing with.

[edit on 1-2-2010 by bsbray11]

reply to post by RuneSpider

The hieroglyphs are the result of the Egyptians carving over existing glyphs, and then us reinterpreting them based on what we perceive them as today, remember that hieroglyphs were the Egyptian's writing system, and that on stone, you don't really have the option for an eraser.

This is absolute crap right here. Oh they carved over other carvings and they just all happened to end up looking like future aviation craft.
I'm gonna have to ask you to leave the planet if you come off with any more skeptical B.S.
I'm telling you, that one stunk to high heaven.
What about the egyptian model airplane. They have made models of it
and the amulets from peru. They all glide thru the air perfectly.

Skepticism is fine but should never include crap cmon.

[edit on 1-2-2010 by randyvs]

reply to post by freebourn


Just curious, why cant you light a fire in the pyramids? Im too lazy to go look it up

By the way, I dont care how many excuses people may try to come up with to explain away the evidence, there is just too much of it.

S & F for a facinating thread

reply to post by serbsta

As you see my friend, there are many who disbelieve.
Most think that science is the answer. But, if the world is 5 billion years old, and man only 500,000, why can there not be many other, older civilisations?

If you keep digging you will find many more such strange things. Such as the gold chain in 250 million year old coal in Oklahoma. Or the walls found in several coal mines, in Oklahoma, and in the eastern coal fields.

It is nothing more than arrogance to think that WE are the apex of mankind. We have not yet reached the level of adolecent.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


*facepalm*

Sorry, I can't believe I didn't see that, yet I sat here trying to prove otherwise. You're correct, it is indeed a split rock, apologies.

reply to post by bsbray11


Because they know that it decays at a predictable rate. if it decays by Y amount in an hour, then you know it decays by Y24 amount in a day, and by Y(24x356) amount in a year.

Additionally if you know that there is a fixed amount of whatever's decaying (say, Carbon 14) then you can calibrate with that and achieve a very accurate age of something (in the case of Carbon dating, that something is dead organic material)

You'd have to be an idiot to assume that because we don't have people spending centuries watching carbon 14 isotopes decay into Carbon 13 that we don't know it happens. We damn sure do know it happens, and then we apply the math that results to dating.

[edit on 1-2-2010 by TheWalkingFox]

reply to post by Hatcookie


Not enought oxygen to support a flame.
No sut records on the celings of the pyramids.
Mirror theory also been debunked due to the fact after a few turns the light fades.

To the question as to where does the quote comes from... I cant seem to find the direct quote, and it is not exact word to word so I cannot find it in google also.
But i think it was somewhere in revelations.

You probably already know about it but if you dont know then the out of place artifact pipes in china are puzzling, and of course have yet to be explained.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Because they know that it decays at a predictable rate.

Come on, I'm an engineering student. I know how they try to extrapolate data. Science is supposed to be based on direct measurement, and consistent repetition. Have they actually been watching carbon decay for hundreds of years? Hell no!

Then what data are they basing these predictions on? Very, very limited data.

I would be surprised if they watched carbon decay over a period of even a decade (10 years). You know relationships between two variables are very often NOT linear even undergo dynamic changes, right? Carbon could decay at such and such a rate for a few hundred years, or even a few thousand, then there could be an abrupt change in the pattern we are using to make our guesses. Hell, physical conditions could have been much different on the Earth that long ago that could have had some effect. The room for other possibilities is enormous.

You'd have to be an idiot to assume that because we don't have people spending centuries watching carbon 14 isotopes decay into Carbon 13 that we don't know it happens. We damn sure do know it happens, and then we apply the math that results to dating.

There is no way around the fact that you are making an assumption when you try to extrapolate carbon decay over very small periods of time, to carbon decay over relatively astronomical spans of time.

If science is based on observation, repetition, prediction, etc., there has been no one around for long enough in any case to say with certainty carbon always decays at the same rate, forever.



Look at all the things archaeology has found that "don't make sense." I have seen them find evidence of glaciers where/when the land mass should have been at the equator, and jungles under tundra when/where they should have just been tundra. These people don't know what in the hell they are talking about at least half the time. There are even ancient maps that show the land mass underneath Antarctica, which "should have been" impossible because Antarctica was supposed to be covered by a mile of ice at that point. Not to mention all the hundreds of bizarre cases like those presented in the OP. It is not at all uncommon to completely contradict conventional archaeological theories, because they are very, very weak theories to begin with.

[edit on 1-2-2010 by bsbray11]

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Wow, your telling me you know under no shadow of a doubt that carbon decays in same way no matter what type of infinite different environmental factors might be at play? You must be very very smart. You also probably know a lot of stuff that is in all those textbooks at collage.

reply to post by freebourn


Facinating, thanks for replying I think I will do some research about this on my own.

Here is a link that discusses problems with carbon dating.

Used to estimate the age of ancient artifacts and human and animal remains, radiocarbon dating is regarded by many as one of the miracles of modern science. Some, however, have serious doubts about the credibility of this technique.

Radiocarbon dating works by comparing the amount of normal carbon that is found in a sample with the amount of radioactive carbon. Both carbon and radioactive carbon are found in every living organism. While carbon is quite prevalent in these organisms, radioactive carbon is present only in tiny amounts. Some contend that the relative ratios of carbon and radioactive carbon that are found on the earth have remained constant over time and that, using known rates of decay; we can estimate age on the basis of changes in this ratio in a particular artifact or remains.

Radioactive carbon is absorbed by living organisms throughout their entire life. When the organism dies that absorption stops and the radioactive carbon begins to break down. Because this break down occurs at a known rate it is theoretically possible to compare the amount of regular carbon and the amount of radioactive carbon and estimate just how long an organism has been dead.

Although the theory of radiocarbon dating is interesting, there are several inherent problems with the process. The first of these problems is the fact that the original ratio of carbon and radioactive carbon is unknown. The second problem is that the possibility of contamination of the sample over time is quite high. The older the sample the higher the probability of contamination, in fact! What this means is that using carbon dating to date very old samples is really quite impractical given our current level of knowledge and technological capabilities.

While carbon dating continues to be considered by many as a viable way of obtaining authoritative dates for a wide range of artifacts and remains, there is much room for error in the process. Even the use of accelerator mass spectrometry to analyze the relative levels of carbon and radioactive carbon has resulted in flawed determinations. It is not uncommon for different laboratories to determine quite different ages for the same artifact! While some of this deviation could possibly be explained by contamination or erred methodology in the labs themselves, it is apparent that the problems with carbon dating are much more complex than that.

Very simply put, too many things are unknown to allow the carbon dating process to be as accurate as many proclaim it to be. Factors as diverse as changes in the earth’s magnetic field and changes in the amount of carbon available to organisms in times past could translate into perceivable differences in the carbon ratios in artifacts and remains from ancient times. Even changes in the atmosphere itself could impact this carbon ratio. We know that changes such as these have occurred over time. They are still occurring today in fact.

The fact that carbon and radioactive carbon are independently formed means that their ratios to one another could have changed substantially from ancient times to today. To base our knowledge on the age of the earth and its various constituents on information gleaned from a technique that depends on carbon and radioactive carbon ratios is very simply unrealistic.

www.essortment.com...

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Because they know that it decays at a predictable rate.

Come on, I'm an engineering student. I know how they try to extrapolate data. Have they actually been watching carbon decay for hundreds of years? Hell no.

Well, if you were an archaeology student, you'd know that C14 is recognised as being good to about 60kya. that's why other methods are used as well...and let's not forget the old maxim "one date is no date".

I'm calling upon a Wiki page to explain dating to you...hope that source doesn't offend your professional sensibilities...
en.wikipedia.org...

and Serbstra...no problem.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
I'm calling upon a Wiki page to explain dating to you...hope that source doesn't offend your professional sensibilities...

en.wikipedia.org...

I like how you automatically assume my problem with carbon dating stems from a lack of understanding. That's cute.


I think we cross-posted, so I'll let you read the website I just posted above. It explains a couple of things as well.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
I'm calling upon a Wiki page to explain dating to you...hope that source doesn't offend your professional sensibilities...

en.wikipedia.org...

I like how you automatically assume my problem with carbon dating stems from a lack of understanding. That's cute.

Well then, that's where the premise "one date is no date' factors in. It has to be corroborated with other means if it's going to hold up to challenge...unlike most of ATS.

Self edit to say:
You are indeed fortunate that, as a student, you have access to an institute of higher learning. Howzabout you consult with an Anthro prof once you get back to Skule and run your thesis past him/her. I trust you will get back to us with the results of that conversation.

[edit on 1-2-2010 by JohnnyCanuck]