Of Things That Shouldn’t Exist

Amazing. Thank you for the article and the picture. Very interesting.

"In 1971 bulldozers moving earth for mine exploration revealed traces of human remains in soft sandstone said to be 100 million years old. The remains were underneath about 15 feet of material including five or six feet of solid rock and yet there appeared to be no caves or crevices in the overlying strata.

Bits of bone and teeth were first found but then the excavators noted a more significant bone embedded in the rock. Local experts from the University of Utah were brought in and under their direction parts of two skeletons and a mixture of teeth and bone shards were uncovered. They described the skeletons as Homo sapiens. One of the bodies seemed to conform with the burial pattern of some Indian tribes.

Oddly, the academic experts seemed to lose interest, moved on to other establishments and apparently never wrote up the find formally. But the bones were, on the face of it, the same age as the rock matrix.

If the remains really had fossilized and were of an age comparable with the surrounding rocks, as some reports claimed, then this find would have been highly valuable in placing man-like beings in distant geological times."

www.s8int.com...

Don't know how legit this site is, but facinating none the less.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
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.

That's funny because your Wikipedia link lists carbon dating as an "absolute" dating method. So if "absolute" means not really absolute at all, and you have to make relative comparisons based on other data that's even "less" "absolute".... hopefully you can already see where archaeologists are just making crap up as they go along, trying to dress up their ignorance in an authoritative-looking suit. I mean if they're going to get paid lots of money they can't just give us "maybe" and "could be," right?

I have no issue admitting we still don't understand our past that well, and we have made a lot of assumptions that we are not really sure of. People forget that Sumeria, the Indus Valley, and a lot of other major discoveries were all very recent. Even dinosaurs themselves only became widely studied within the past 200 years, which is nothing.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
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.

That's funny because your Wikipedia link lists carbon dating as an "absolute" dating method. So if "absolute" means not really absolute at all, and you have to make relative comparisons based on other data that's even "less" "absolute".... hopefully you can already see where archaeologists are just making crap up as they go along, trying to dress up their ignorance in an authoritative-looking suit. I mean if they're going to get paid lots of money they can't just give us "maybe" and "could be," right?

Two things...see my update on my last post, and second...Absolute is a descriptive, as opposed to Relative. Best read the rest of that entry.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Two things...see my update on my last post

Yes, it was an appeal to authority. Someone already screwed that up when they taught me to think for myself, sorry. I'm cursed I guess. If you want your opinion to mean anything to me, you have to give me actual reasons that make sense, and I'm not seeing any.

and second...Absolute is a descriptive, as opposed to Relative. Best read the rest of that entry.

So you're saying "absolute" doesn't really mean "absolute" but only compared to what they call "relative"?

You would make a great politician.


Btw I read the whole link on the first go round. It wasn't much of a read anyway. I didn't realize there were people who are so zealously biased for our carbon dating system! Is it really that worth it just to feel confident in your beliefs about our past?

[edit on 1-2-2010 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11


You could be a Prince of Corsica, and it's still not going to make the decay of Carbon isotopes randomize when we're not looking.

Save the appeals to authority for people who don't actually know about the subject at hand, kay?

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
You could be a Prince of Corsica, and it's still not going to make the decay of Carbon isotopes randomize when we're not looking.

The levels of carbon present on the surface constantly changes. If you know what you're talking about then you know how they guess how much carbon has actually decayed: by comparing it to non-radioactive carbon levels. Have any sources that can demonstrate that this ratio remains constant throughout history?


Here is some of your classic archaeological guess work regarding the atmospheric carbon levels of past ages:



If you think this stuff is exact then you're only pulling your own leg. Even the scientists themselves know there are huge margins of error here and they really have no way of being certain that any carbon dating is going to be accurate.

Read the website I quoted on the last page. If you still have problems understanding the shortcomings of carbon dating then I would have to say you are just being hard-headed and you have no interest in objectivity. Either that or someone mistakenly convinced you that you knew what you were talking about in the first place. Everything I am posting makes sense.

Save the appeals to authority for people who don't actually know about the subject at hand, kay?

What appeal to authority have I made? You must be talking about your Canadian friend here.

[edit on 1-2-2010 by bsbray11]

I've heard of live animals being incased in million year old stone without any form of entrance. In one such story the animal was identified as a pterodactyle (winged dinosaur) and died upon excavation from the cavern.


In japan there is an ancient underwater city, not fully explored because of it's stagering depth underwater. Any natural explaination has yet to be found because of the expertise demonstrated in the ruin's construction.

Other strange things have also been found in stone such as iron nails, a necklace and even an egyptian model rocket (below).



I get a lot of my information from www.listverse.com , the "mysteries of the unexplained" lists feature out of place objects quite often.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
and second...Absolute is a descriptive, as opposed to Relative. Best read the rest of that entry.

So you're saying "absolute" doesn't really mean "absolute" but only compared to what they call "relative"?

You would make a great politician.

...and if you find that confusing, wait until you are asked to accept the fact that in science, a 'theory' is more than just a theory. Good luck in your studies...

Originally posted by bsbray11
Yes, it was an appeal to authority. Someone already screwed that up when they taught me to think for myself, sorry. I'm cursed I guess. If you want your opinion to mean anything to me, you have to give me actual reasons that make sense, and I'm not seeing any.

If you are actually planning to make a career in engineering, you'll discover very quickly that opinions don't count for much. I suggested that you speak to an expert in the field of archaeology...you skated around that...
which tells me that once your mind is made up, you are reluctant to become encumbered with facts.

You turn down the challenge to talk to a pro and report back on your findings. On that basis, I believe our discussion is over.


[edit on 1-2-2010 by JohnnyCanuck]

Havn't read the entire thread yet, but I will. AWESOME thread!!!! This stuff is right up my alley. I have always been intrigued by such mysteries.

reply to post by freebourn

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 mean Revelation? That particular quote will not be found there. I'm not sure that one is the Bible. Maybe it is from something else.

books.google.com...

Here's a link to the Weekly World News about those metal tubes, a hoax/ruse perhaps?

[edit on 1-2-2010 by BrokenVisage]

I am new here, so forgive me if I mess up a bit.

OP- great thread! Once I figure out how to star and flag, I will do just such.

I have spent the better part of 20+ years researching a lot of this stuff. Having read through the entire thread I feel compelled to point out a few things brought up by other posters...

Freebourn stated that in the Bible it states that G*d created and destroyed mankind and the earth many times before and Jackflap questioned where in the bible it was.

Frebourn- you are mistaken, that statement is not made in the bible,there may be a small reference to it here and there, but it is definitely not made in the Bible. It is, however in the Haggada which is extracts from the Jewish Talmud and the Midrash and most noteably in a book by Louis Ginzberg which can be found here: here, all of which, I might add, are parts of the oral traditions of the Hebrews.

There is also mention of the cycle of earth/mankind birth/rebirth in other ancient texts, most of which we know little about, but similar stories of this cycle can be found among the Maya and the Hopi to mention only two.

Nosred brought up Occam's Razor which states (in brief) that the simplest explanation or strategy tends to be the best one.

So, using what we know, what we can or cannot prove, and all of the evidence before us which includes both ancient religion, philosophy and modern science, (not to mention politics and dare I say it, conspiracies) we can (and should) come to the conclusion that many ancient advanced civilizations existed prior to our known history (which is probably in the vicinity of 6-10k years old), were far more advanced than we are today, and left their remnants scattered about the earth. The problem is that most of the technology that existed then, scummed to the elements. We know that 100 years from now our computers, cd's, tapes, books, clothing and such would not exist, if left to the elements. Who is to say that this is has not happened before. There is, IMHO far more evidence that it has. The problem is that many want to believe so deeply in science or religion, rather than take them as part of each other. We spend so much time trying to disprove the the other, and not using them all to our advantage to expand our knowledge.

Despite his being a very controversial, Zecharia Sitchin has some very valid points. We, all to often, take ancient texts, as well as ancient artifacts in one of two ways, as a literal or an allegory. The truth is more likely both.

reply to post by serbsta


Awesome thread, Serbsta. I always enjoy your posts here, and this one is no disappointment! Lots of cool stuff here... Just makes you wonder. Some of these dino fossils we're all shown could potentially not be as old as first speculated.

Take this fossilized cowboy boot, for example...




This boot is recognized as a 'model' made in the 1950's, I believe...It seems to me that under the proper conditions, perhaps a quicker form of fossilization can occur? Who knows... Not me, but that's my guess!


In response to the "Hundred Million Year Old Hand", I believe I remember reading somewhere about that one, and one of the theories behind it is that it is two 'Dino' footprints overlayed...

I'll very badly highlight on your picture...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/43fda627c17b.png[/atsimg]

It's a possible explanation. I wonder if the Dinos which roamed the land at the time had similar footprints to these, if they are, indeed, Dino prints.

I hope they turn out to be human hands, though... That would just be cool!!

[edit on 1-2-2010 by jephers0n]

Like the thread. All to often it seems we are TOLD things are a certain way and that people have become so advanced that we can poopoo things in history and finds that dont "fit" the hypothesis our "scholars" prefer. Just thought this would fit here as these things aren't suppose to exist.

www.trueauthority.com/dinosaurs/dinosaurhistory.htm

Originally posted by freedomintruth
All to often it seems we are TOLD things are a certain way and that people have become so advanced that we can poopoo things in history and finds that dont "fit" the hypothesis our "scholars" prefer.

I have to disagree with only one word here feedomintruth, and that word is advanced. I think (IMHO) that the word complacent is closer to being appropriate.

Of course, that is just my take on society today.

reply to post by freebourn

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.

I have to call you out on that one Pard. I don't know where you remember this quote from I don't believe it's the Bible.
Get it straight, let us know.

[edit on 1-2-2010 by randyvs]

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by freebourn

 

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.

I have to call you out on that one Pard. I don't know where you remember this quote from I don't believe it's the Bible.
Get it straight, let us know.

[edit on 1-2-2010 by randyvs]

Nor is this world inhabited by man the first of things earthly created by God. He made several worlds before ours, but He destroyed them all, because He was pleased with none until He created ours. But even this last world would have had no permanence, if God had executed His original plan of ruling it according to the principle of strict justice.

The Legends of the Jews

reply to post by ThreeSistersofLoveandLigh


i stand corrected (and for the better i would say) That deserves a big HOORAH

If your interested in artifacts that just should not exist Earths Forbidden Secrets By Maxwell Igan is a must read!

Heres a few things from his book:
Ancient Nanotechnology
A 500,000 year old Spark Plug
Stone Age Modern Hand Tools
A Fossilized Human Handprint
An Ancient Calculator?
An Iron Pot in Coal
Evidence of Advanced Medical Knowledge
A Petrified Human Skull
Ancient Electricity
An Ancient X-Ray Machine
A Fossilized Human Shoeprint
The Dropa Stones
A Fossilized Human Finger
A Brass Bell in Coal
The Rhodesian Man
A Pillar of much too Pure Iron
2.8 Billion year old Metal Spheres

And thats just the tip of the ice berg.

Heres a link to his website
Thecrowhouse.com..