Why do finds of ancient evidence get buried totally while ridiculously impossible histories get play

real believable, legit site man
LOL JK IT WASN'T

I noticed another anomoly missing from that site which it does in itself mention about the robot exploring the shafts inside the Great Pyramid.
It found a small ball and a piece of wood at the top of the shaft near the copper electrode type things protruding from the "door".
As we all know now there is a great possibility that the pyramids were built some 4000 years before we are told what to believe.
Rather conviniently the piece of wood which can be carbon dated has been mis-placed and nobody knows where it is... CONVINIENTLY.

What an excellent post, F and S. The forgottenageresearch site was absolutely brilliant. I had heard of a couple of things on it but there was many many many things that I had never heard of.

Peace,

Seq

Originally posted by Danbones
the list is a list of claimed anomolies
you have several hundered left to debunk
I only need one that you don't

Instead, why don't you tell us which one is the true claim? As you say, you only need one. As it is, you have none. Zero.

Why should we play some ridiculous, endless game of historical whack-a-mole? I mean, when does it stop? These idiots can invent new stories quicker than anyone can debunk them - it's up to you to provide the evidence of your claims.

time is a wastin.

Certainly is. I wasted 5 minutes wading through a bunch of well know hoaxes.

After looking at the linked site I am sure that some of these events/anomilies might be hoaxes but ..... If mankind does figure out how to time travel there will be evidence left of their visits and their failures at time travel.

OK, let's go down the list...

Originally posted by Danbones
no where in your link JC does it say people were not there before the glaciers
the glacial line is south of manitoulin
duh
people would have to leave while the place was covered in ice

But if you look at the archaeology of Siberia, you'll find the earliest site at about 35kya, and continuous colonization at about 18kya. It's all very well to plunk people down on a landscape, but they have to come from somewhere.(Meltzer, 2009)

yes order his book JC
Instead of IMAGINING what it says then you might actually quote it.

Well, thanks to the miracle of Google, I had noted where his report was cited and saw the following words...

The site was studied later by other teams of specialists. In 1992 the archeologist Peter L. Storck and geologist Patrick Julig led a team doing additional excavations. Drawing as well on new material from botany and related disciplines, they concluded that a more conservative estimate was justified. They estimated the site was almost certainly occupied 9 500 years BP by Paleo-Indians, making it significant in North American and especially the archaeology of Ontario. They also said that more research needed to be done.[3]

That final '3' led me to the bottom of the wiki page, which provided the following information:

3 ^ Patrick Julig and Peter Storck, Chapters 4 and 5, The Sheguiandah Site: Archaeological, geological and paleobotanical studies at a Paleoindian site on Manitoulin Island, Ontario, ed. Patrick Julig (2002), Toronto: Canadian Museum of Civilization. ISBN 0-660-18755-8

Now given that this isn't an academic paper, I thought I was ok in not directly citing those sources...guess I won't make that mistake again. BTW, that came from Wiki.en.wikipedia.org...

oh Jonnhy
as to the copper mine....

Evidence of mining an ancient quartzite quarry, Manitoulin Island, Ontario.
A Chronology of
Minerals Development in Canada
dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca...

The copper occurs as chalcocite, bornite, covellite, cuprite, and malachite, in quartzite

en.wikipedia.org...

Yes, I'm quite aware of that. I'm referring to your statement:

Originally posted by Danbones There was a copper mine on Manitoulin Island in the Great Lakes When the Archaeologist who supervised the original dig judged the age to be up to 120 thousand years or so, both he and the head of the Department that hired him, were fired and the whole story has been buried. This story was difficult to find on the net a few years ago, now it is impossible to find other then passing references like this.

abovetopsecret.com...

(note the citation, eh?)

Looks to me like you've confused the copper source with Sheguiandah and puffed it out a bit. Sorry, that's not good enough and if you're going to attack the status quo you'd better have a better set of facts under your belt or you'll get beat up every time. Or worse...ignored.

What you are missing in the OOPART debate is that just because there is no immediate answer to a problem doesn't mean that any ol' thing will do. It has to be provable, it ought to be logical, and it should stand up to research. Mark Lehner went to Egypt to explore Edgar Cayce's prophesies, but discovered, instead, the joy of archaeology and is now a prominent Egyptologist en.wikipedia.org....

By all means...consider the OOPARTs, but do your own research. And in the words of the Prophet...
Don't step in that, Wilbur...

Originally posted by BuzzCory
One of the problems with Archeology, IMO, is that there seems to be no room for an interdisciplinary approach, to the point that archeologists will scoff at contrary evidence which their own training & experience leaves them ill-prepared to evaluate. Off the top of my head, Linguistics & Epigraphy (the study of stone inscriptions) are 2 such areas.

If you add up the info from Archaeology, Epigraphy, Linguistics, & Anthropology, you get a very different picture of the past history of the North American continent.

Read Metzler's "First Peoples in a New World" for the interdisciplinary study you are asking for.
Oh, and Barry Fell? He was once described to me by a prominent Iroquoin Archaeologist..."As an epigrapher, Barry was one heck of a marine biologist"

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by Danbones
This incident is mentioned on the list,
which is a good list of supposed anomolies

When you think about it;
Only one of the items on the list needs to turn out to be true.

And how many need to turn out to be blatant lies before you decide to turn your "research" in a different direction?

Harte

Let me answer that: All of them! Because the point is that if one of them are true that changes everything.

Originally posted by CayceFan

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by Danbones
This incident is mentioned on the list,
which is a good list of supposed anomolies
When you think about it;
Only one of the items on the list needs to turn out to be true.

And how many need to turn out to be blatant lies before you decide to turn your "research" in a different direction?
Harte

Let me answer that: All of them! Because the point is that if one of them are true that changes everything.

So prove one...just one.

Originally posted by Nicorette

Originally posted by Danbones

the list is a list of claimed anomoliesyou have several hundered left to debunk
I only need one that you don't
get on it
time is a wastin.

What gives you the right to adopt such a snarky tone, and demand that other posters go do work for you? You are the one making extraordinary claims, so maybe it should be you that should do some work and prove convincingly that just one of these so-called anomalies actually is what it claims it to be, rather than linking to a long list of dubious claims and demanding other people debunk it.

However if your scientific research skills resemble your typing ability, I won't be holding my breath, waiting for your remarkable discoveries.

I believe the difference here is that he (as am I) is already of the opinion that history as we know it is written incorrectly.

That being said, just a text from you or Harte or the others here that seem to be so convinced with the accuracy of our history books (makes ya wonder why you frequent such "ridiculous" threads as these) doesn't really change our minds. And since changing our opinions is seemingly your goal prepare for the "snarky tones" and the demands of "other posters do work" to change our minds.

Hope that helps!

reply to post by Danbones


Why do finds of ancient evidence get buried totally...
while ridiculously impossible histories get play,



totally buried ? by the scientific community or buried by the pop-culture media ?
there's a real difference between to two sides.



whats totally ridiculous is the crud like Ghost Hunters International and a lot of other
Ghost Searcher programs taking over the ScyFy channel...
those shows at best... are only Pseudo Science that exploits fears, curiosity and the mystical
part of ones' brain...its all about attracting gullible minds & has little to do with objective science


evidence of ancient civilizations will not draw interest or the advertisers other than those already
following media outlets such as National Geographic or The History Channel, Discovery Channel,
or Scientific American (one of many magazines)

all the 'new' or 'fringe' coverage that is not modeled in the discovery of factual knowledge camp
that historical scientific investigation has built upon for decades and centuries... which includes
Universities, peer reviewed outlets, funding by Trusts or Foundations and the like.


the pop culture science & discoveries is just entertainment and is designed/edited to make
the viewer return for more...and to get more in Ads to go along with a smattering of titilating
stuff...

Stuffed shirts perfer the old paradigm
wigged out dreamers perfer the fringe theories and fantastic voyage paradigm


Once upon a time, 'Troy' was considered a fantasy/legend until old style science actually
unearthed the city...

.(troi) TROY

also Il·i·on (ĭl'ē-ən, -ŏn') or Il·i·um (-ē-əm) An ancient city of northwest Asia Minor near the Dardanelles. Originally a Phrygian city dating from the Bronze Age, it is the legendary site of the Trojan War and was captured and destroyed by Greek forces c. 1200 B.C. The ruins of Troy were discovered by Heinrich Schliemann in 1871.

www.answers.com...

So, the process of knowledge is a combining of the dichotomy your thread is about.

Originally posted by Danbones
There was a copper mine on Manitoulin Island in the Great Lakes
When the Archaeologist who supervised the original dig judged the age to be up to 120 thousand years or so,
both he and the head of the Department that hired him, were fired and the whole story has been buried.
This story was difficult to find on the net a few years ago, now it is impossible to find other then passing references like this.
(But because it happened locally, I know of how the dig was quashed and buried at least.)
www.forgottenagesresearch.com...
This incident is mentioned on the list,
which is a good list of supposed anomolies

When you think about it;
Only one of the items on the list needs to turn out to be true.

edit on 11-12-2010 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

is this the location you are referring to?

www.magma.ca...

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by CayceFan

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by Danbones
This incident is mentioned on the list,
which is a good list of supposed anomolies
When you think about it;
Only one of the items on the list needs to turn out to be true.

And how many need to turn out to be blatant lies before you decide to turn your "research" in a different direction?
Harte

Let me answer that: All of them! Because the point is that if one of them are true that changes everything.

So prove one...just one.

I am not in the business of proving out of place artifacts. However, how would you purpose one prove something to you via the internet?

As for me, I don't read here because I expect proof of anything. If you are use to finding prove of subjects of this nature I would be curious to learn how that works. I come here to read about things that interest me and to keep an open mind. Sometimes I form opinions based on things I read here, sometimes my existing opinions are changed from information here. Never have I witnessed proof of anything.

I believe the point of the OP remains that not all of the anomalies need be true, only one. That's the point of the statement. Dont spin or divert from that by saying prove one of them to be true but rather acknowledge that if one were true that it may open your mind to be more ready to accept that your idea of human history as you've read it (without proof interestingly enough) may not follow the course you've been taught to believe.

Originally posted by CayceFan
I believe the point of the OP remains that not all of the anomalies need be true, only one. That's the point of the statement.

Would it not then be helpful if the OP's example in support of his central thesis was correct? Instead, it provides one more fuzzy meme to be trotted out in support of the burdensome nature of science.

Or is being wrong merely incidental?

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by CayceFan
I believe the point of the OP remains that not all of the anomalies need be true, only one. That's the point of the statement.

Would it not then be helpful if the OP's example in support of his central thesis was correct? Instead, it provides one more fuzzy meme to be trotted out in support of the burden of science.

Or is being wrong merely incidental?

I believe we are diverting again....

I got an idea...

Let's continue to ask questions of one another and when we reply instead of answering them lets divert and ask another question of our own.

Oppsie...that's not my idea...its yours!

Nice page, thanks for the link. For me, this is what ATS is all about.

I've been saying for years that there is a strong possibility that we're not the first human civilization on this planet.

If there were civilizations millions of years ago, most traces of them would have been eradicated by time by now.

It's interesting that every single time there is an archaeological find that disputes the current theories, it's debunked by mainstream archaeology.

It's time that they fessed up that there are just too many anomalies that don't fit the current model to ignore.

Originally posted by CayceFan

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by CayceFan
I believe the point of the OP remains that not all of the anomalies need be true, only one. That's the point of the statement.

Would it not then be helpful if the OP's example in support of his central thesis was correct? Instead, it provides one more fuzzy meme to be trotted out in support of the burden of science.

Or is being wrong merely incidental?

I believe we are diverting again....

I got an idea...

Let's continue to ask questions of one another and when we reply instead of answering them lets divert and ask another question of our own.

Oppsie...that's not my idea...its yours!

You'll note that the actual subject of the original post was the copper mine and it's alleged suppression as an anomaly.(rather inconveniently wrong) The web site is provided to support the theme of academic suppression and the line: "Only one of the items on the list needs to turn out to be true" is presented as an afterthought...so who is committing the diversion?

Now, if you want to address that particular statement..."Only one of the items on the list needs to turn out to be true.", I'm fully in agreement, and that should be the end of the discussion. If you want to provide the website as a list of potential proofs, then please, pick one as your star candidate and convince us of it's veracity, in order that the paradigm may shift. Sorry, in this discussion the onus is on you guys to prove anything beyond the fact that "Only one of the items on the list needs to turn out to be true."

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Or is being wrong merely incidental?

Although I realize you are being sarcastic and failed to answer any direct questions that appeared in my post I'll be the better poster for the sake of two sided conversation.

Actually being right (if whatever you're referring to is indeed wrong) would be considered a luxury in this case and not a necessity.

From my point of view there are enough out of place artifacts to deem our history books suspect. If the OP listed one or several explainable such artifacts so be it.

A lot of de-bunkers are quick to point out that extraordinary claims require extraordinary prove and said prove is the responsibility of said claimant. Sometimes this is a good point but sometimes what we are led to believe is even more extraordinary then what might be purposed. Beings I am already of the opinion that history has it wrong then I proclaim the burden of proof to be those that support it least if your goal be that as it seems is to sway my opinion.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by BuzzCory
One of the problems with Archeology, IMO, is that there seems to be no room for an interdisciplinary approach, to the point that archeologists will scoff at contrary evidence which their own training & experience leaves them ill-prepared to evaluate. Off the top of my head, Linguistics & Epigraphy (the study of stone inscriptions) are 2 such areas.

If you add up the info from Archaeology, Epigraphy, Linguistics, & Anthropology, you get a very different picture of the past history of the North American continent.

Read Metzler's "First Peoples in a New World" for the interdisciplinary study you are asking for.
Oh, and Barry Fell? He was once described to me by a prominent Iroquoin Archaeologist..."As an epigrapher, Barry was one heck of a marine biologist"

Thanks, but I wasn't asking for an interdisciplinary study, I was recommending it as a way to better understand North American prehistory. Yeah, Fell was described that way... by an archeologist. Case in point...

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by CayceFan

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by CayceFan
I believe the point of the OP remains that not all of the anomalies need be true, only one. That's the point of the statement.

Would it not then be helpful if the OP's example in support of his central thesis was correct? Instead, it provides one more fuzzy meme to be trotted out in support of the burden of science.

Or is being wrong merely incidental?

I believe we are diverting again....

I got an idea...

Let's continue to ask questions of one another and when we reply instead of answering them lets divert and ask another question of our own.

Oppsie...that's not my idea...its yours!

You'll note that the actual subject of the original post was the copper mine and it's alleged suppression as an anomaly.(rather inconveniently wrong) The web site is provided to support the theme of academic suppression and the line: "Only one of the items on the list needs to turn out to be true" is presented as an afterthought...so who is committing the diversion?




Now, if you want to address that particular statement..."Only one of the items on the list needs to turn out to be true.", I'm fully in agreement, and that should be the end of the discussion. If you want to provide the website as a list of potential proofs, then please, pick one as your star candidate and convince us of it's veracity, in order that the paradigm may shift. Sorry, in this discussion the onus is on you guys to prove anything beyond the fact that "Only one of the items on the list needs to turn out to be true."

Wrong. No diversion on my part. I made ZERO comments regarding the copper mine, I only chimed in in support of the statement of "only one item needing to be true." Any replies to my direct response not related to said response is a diversion from my response. Had your intent been to debate the copper mine a reply to that comment may have garnered more attention.

Kudos. I commend you for fessing up that you're in agreement.

I'm not here for yours or any others benefit therefore I don't have any intentions of looking for your proof. I'll say again that for me the burden of proof lies on the party trying to convince the other party to change their opinion. Your opinion obviously differs from mine therefore using my logic the proof is on you if you looking to sway my opinion. You don't have to acknowledge that you understand and agree with my logic as I know that you do.

Let me be pro-active in saying I assume you are here to change my opinion because I don't see another reason why you would be reading a thread that you consider to be "wrong." Unless of course you get enjoyment out of asking people for proof of their believes when you really have no proof for your own.

Originally posted by CayceFan
Although I realize you are being sarcastic and failed to answer any direct questions that appeared in my post I'll be the better poster for the sake of two sided conversation.

Ok, I've reviewed your posts and this is what I have found as direct questions of me (and I quote):
"...how would you purpose one prove something to you via the internet? "

"If you are use to finding prove of subjects of this nature I would be curious to learn how that works."

Both questions, same answer...direct me to a professional or academic assessment in a peer-reviewed publication. Happens all the time. I've done it on this thread. Others provide me with direction and info. Or one may deal directly with experts of all stripes. Did a live forum with Tom Dillehay once...all on the web.

...and a request of me: "...acknowledge that if one were true that it may open your mind to be more ready to accept that your idea of human history as you've read it (without proof interestingly enough) may not follow the course you've been taught to believe."

Surely. In fact I walk the walk. I've studied archaeology and practice it on a limited basis. I have also worked and walked on the fringes and talked to its practitioners. All this as a layman.

My mind is already open...but not enough for my brains to fall out.