I Have A Question

[FAX]

Well, actually, I have a lot of questions, but this one here is the one that's bothering me right now and I thought I'd ask you guys about it and stuff.

I've been listening to a documentary about the book Dead Men's Secrets by Johnathan Grey. Now, it is my humble opinion that Johnathan Grey is a possibly insane, certainly dumbass, inveterate headline seeker of the first order, so let's get that part out of the way. However, as we all know, even a blind squirrel can run the football up the center's ass once in awhile.

Grey, along with dudes like Ivan Sanderson, Michael Cremo, and Richard Thompson have apparently gone full-on nuts with this idea of "out of place artifacts", or strange objects seemingly belonging to an advanced civilization found in geologic strata where it doesn't belong.

Many of these artifacts have been overstated or debunked right out the dig. But, what is beginning to bother me is this notion that most, if not all, of these artifacts are almost immediately discounted by traditional science without either discussion or investigation.

Items like the Dorchester Pot, or the Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca head, or the Goddard coin, and Antikythera mechanism are all examples of items that were initially discounted by "science" only to be ultimately listed as "partially validated" at best. Often, when all else fails, somebody will concoct a claim of "hoax" regardless of the truth. That's happened pretty often, in fact.

Still, writings like the Mahabharata, Sumerian texts and even some ancient Egyptian and Mayan hieroglyphs speak of some pretty amazing technologies that are written off as myth or fantasy or legend.

It seems to me that the field of traditional science and, more specifically, archaeology is too quick to discount the idea that prior civilizations might have been very different from the stone-age, nose-boned, knuckle-draggers we've been led to believe they were.

I'm curious. What do you guys think?

FAX

[Chief Pote]

I want to be like FAX....a well rounded, worldly individual.

[Rain Man]

What did you find? You found something. You aren't just reading about this stuff.

[C-Mac]

Seems they are always finding more information on the supposedly "evolving" ignorant humans from past generations, in that they were actually quite advanced and intelligent.

Coarse I believe that humans that were relatively intelligent from the git-go. So new findings supporting this, doesn't really surprise me, but do find it fascinating.

[Rain Man]

Something I find interesting is how much of modern civilization actually existed in Rome. I read an article a while back that discussed how similar Roman life was to modern life in terms of basic infrastructure - roads, laws, culture, business, etc. - and it seems like their life was not that dissimilar to modern lives, albeit with a lower level of technology.

[Jenson71]

Originally Posted by C-Mac

Seems they are always finding more information on the supposedly "evolving" ignorant humans from past generations, in that they were actually quite advanced and intelligent.

Coarse I believe that humans that were relatively intelligent from the git-go. So new findings supporting this, doesn't really surprise me, but do find it fascinating.

Pretty much my sentiment. Human beings are an amazing creature. We have an insatiable curiosity that drives us to adapt, achieve goals, think long term, advance towards those goals, and in doing so, coming up with various tools to get us there.

[FAX]

Originally Posted by C-Mac

Seems they are always finding more information on the supposedly "evolving" ignorant humans from past generations, in that they were actually quite advanced and intelligent.

Coarse I believe that humans that were relatively intelligent from the git-go. So new findings supporting this, doesn't really surprise me, but do find it fascinating.

My real trouble is this; whenever an archaeological find is made that appears to be outside the "traditional and generally accepted views", those discoveries are treated like pseudoarchaeology right off the bat.

There are established cases, for example, (wish I had the links handy) of digs that have turned up ceramic artifacts whose rehydroxylation and thermoluminescence dating have placed them at well over 200,000 years old. That's, of course, impossible according to the accepted timeline of human cultural development. Every time this has happened (so far as I can tell), those results are deemed erroneous and peer-reviewed journals refuse to publish.

It appears to me that there is almost a conspiracy or something ... if the shoe don't fit, chop off their legs kind of deal.

FAX

[keg in kc]

42

[Hydrae]

Personally, I believe humans had a pretty advanced civilization in the ancient (pre-written record) past. I think this is the basis for things like the story of Atlantis. I also think things like the ruins found off various coasts around the world support this idea.

[keg in kc]

Gray was on Coast to Coast am a couple of weeks ago, and while some of what he said was interesting, he didn't sound like a scientist, he sounded like a guy who was looking for evidence to support beliefs he already had. He spoke with a clear anti-evolution agenda and he went on and on in no uncertain terms about how he believes in the book of genesis as a valid source for determining the age of the planet. So essentially he appears to believe that all of science is a lie, whether it's cosmology or physics or archaelogy or any other discipline that deals in any way with the dating of the universe and/or the planet. It's a grand conspiracy apparently, in his mind.

I love 'alternative history' and 'forbidden archaeology'. I love the idea of history we're unaware of, and I even love the idea of tenured academics with a vested interest in censoring discoveries. But the guy came off like a complete crackpot.

[C-Mac]

Originally Posted by FAX

My real trouble is this; whenever an archaeological find is made that appears to be outside the "traditional and generally accepted views", those discoveries are treated like pseudoarchaeology right off the bat.

There are established cases, for example, (wish I had the links handy) of digs that have turned up ceramic artifacts whose rehydroxylation and thermoluminescence dating have placed them at well over 200,000 years old. That's, of course, impossible according to the accepted timeline of human cultural development. Every time this has happened (so far as I can tell), those results are deemed erroneous and peer-reviewed journals refuse to publish.

It appears to me that there is almost a conspiracy or something ... if the shoe don't fit, chop off their legs kind of deal.

FAX

Sometimes, its obviously a battle between biblical beliefs and modern science, and all the politics in between.

Some go to quite the extreme, as you mention, to continue to support "their" beliefs and/or theories. Some reputable scientists have presented bogus or misguided information to bolster more support for their beliefs and this applies to misguided religious beliefs also, but at some point though, a rational person will have to call a spade a spade and ask for a better explanation, or come to an acceptable logical conclusion on their own.

My only debate might be the accuracy of the artifact dating process, but certainly not the findings.

[HonestChieffan]

Happened in Illinois. Those Indian Mounds. Found non indian stuff. And rocks from way off places.

Now its all covered back up in hopes whoever put it there comes back. Its like a huge trap they set.

And that arch in St Louis. Now whats up with that too?

[Baby Lee]

What had interested me, was talk of a lost Archimedes text that contained math more complex and refined than we've developed to date.

[Saccopoo]

[Saccopoo]