Featured Title: Free book with orders of £10 or over in our shop
Dolmen, the stones hide dark secrets. A new novel by Jiro Olcott
Login
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like your own home page, fewer ads, and your contributions link to your page.
Posted 31-08-2012 at 21:56
[I've not had the chance to watch all but looks pretty well made - thoughts welcome]
From the award winning Producers of "The Mystery of the Sphinx" and the Producers of "The Mysterious Origins of Man" comes a new ground breaking film about "New Evidence of Early Man: SUPPRESSED." What happens when scientific evidence conflicts with theory?
In the early sixties, discoveries were made in Central Mexico, which were the handiwork of early man. Exquisitely carved animal bones and advanced spear points caused much excitement, including a Life Magazine article, until the dates came in. 5 mutually exclusive geological tests revealed they were over 250,000 years old.
In spite of the geochronology, archaeologists insisted the dates were too ridiculously old. This world-class archaeological region became off-limits for official research, a "professional forbidden zone."
This is the story of the shocking events that occurred, told first-hand by many of the actual participants. It reveals how one field of science can conflict with another and how new discoveries must battle evidence vs. belief, exposing what some have called "the dark side of archaeology."
Posted 31-08-2012 at 23:16
I've just flicked through but picked up enough to see that the team were stonewalled for years about the excavation permit, then when they were finally okayed and ready to proceed they discovered a house with perimeter wall and landscaped grounds had been built on their dig-site, destroying any hope of further finds and proof of the age of mankind in that area. And the bit about the unnamed and inaccessible 'Indiana Jones Warehouse' is pure conspiracy theory stuff.
We run articles weekly saying new evidence shows X is much older than previously thought. Can someone please explain why, if this evidence is legit, that someone would go to such extraordinary lengths to suppress it? What effect would it have on the world if this was validated? Why does it matter so much?
I'm certain if 'Irrefutable proof has been found that Mankind has existed for 400,000 years in the Western Hemisphere' was the headline on News at Ten, it would be greeted with a blank stare and a Gallic shrug by 99.999recurring percent of the population.
Posted 01-09-2012 at 06:34
"I'm certain if 'Irrefutable proof has been found that Mankind has existed for 400,000 years in the Western Hemisphere' was the headline on News at Ten, it would be greeted with a blank stare and a Gallic shrug by 99.999recurring percent of the population. "
It is a "secret" that would have absolutely no impact on the public at large. The population of academics who would benefit by a cover up is truly tiny.
However, there are loads of people who have a vested interest in arguing that majority scientific opinion is untrustworthy in general. If you can make that argument to the general public, you cast doubt on other issues such as the regulation of the food and drug industry, human evolution, climate change, the impact of pollution and over-population, and the non-existence of God.
However, it's hard to argue that the data has been suppressed, because it was published. The "Clovis first" theory is well and truly in shambles - well on its way out, but mysterious outliers like Calico and Valsequillo remain mysterious because they are outliers. It's not as if half the archaeological sites in the Americas are dating to 250,000 years old. The vast majority support a time frame of 12000 years ago.
Posted 01-09-2012 at 17:02 However, there are loads of people who have a vested interest in arguing that majority scientific opinion is untrustworthy in general. If you can make that argument to the general public, you cast doubt on other issues such as the regulation of the food and drug industry, human evolution, climate change, the impact of pollution and over-population, and the non-existence of God.
We don't tend to have that here so much, probably because we have a different approach from the top. e.g. I believe there's had to be a campaign about GM food being labelled as such in the US, whereas here it's mandatory to state the ingredients of every food and quite a lot of other products on the label, so consumers have free choice to buy or reject anything. Much the same with vaccines, they are recommended here, not compulsory although most parents do have their kids vaccinated for several childhood diseases and certainly no child would be excluded from school for not having them. Annual flu shots are recommended for at-risk groups like asthmatics and the elderly, but again, they are not compulsory. The swine and bird flu pandemics that never happened had about zero take-up and the same degree of public support.
Climate change is another of the Gallic shrug subjects because the people leading the information distribution about it were found to have falsified their data and deliberately misled everyone. Anyone who mentions God, the Christian one that is, will be shot down in flames by the very vocal Richard Dawkins. There appears to be quite a strong anti-Christian sentiment in the UK lately, although not by any specific group. Most scientists and people who consider themselves critical thinkers would not admit to a belief in the Christian God and often voice their opposition with phrases like 'imaginary friend' etc. People don't mention the other popular one as his followers take offence so easily and we are all bound by the Political Correctness laws. Pollution-wise we are individually and as compelled by the Government probably the most intense recyclers and eco friendly humans on the planet. All our appliances are energy-efficiency rated etc. and our vehicles are adapted to not emit noxious substances.
In short, there are no organisations as far as I'm aware with any vested financial interests that pose an opposition to science in this country. It seems to come from a very few individuals who are always ridiculed in the press as the tinfoil hat brigade, alien believers, conspiracy theorists etc. Considering the content of some newspapers in this country, it appears the readers are more concerned about what Kim Kardashian is wearing (or not) as opposed to anything of national interest
Posted 02-09-2012 at 06:56
I wouldn't get too certain, Rune.
I think you've got about as much of a problem with "complementary and Alternative Medicine as we do (although the infatuation with homeopathic seems to be on the wane),
and someone is buying all those occult and spirituality books, even if the churches are emptying (don't you still have compulsory religious education in the UK? Or is that not what it sounds like?)
Posted 02-09-2012 at 15:12
Quick summary - I think the subjects you raised are treated very differently in each country.
Expanded version
The complementary and alternative medicine (cam) market here receives a tiny, tiny fraction of the money spent on healthcare in this country, GSK, J+J et al are probably laughing their heads off at the thought that it could make any impact on their businesses.
From what I've read and from the very few Americans I've discussed this with, please correct me if I'm wrong, the US market for supplements e.g. vitamins etc. which are classed as cam in the US is absolutely vast whereas here, I don't know anyone that takes anything like that on a regular basis. Also, we don't class that as cam, so comparisons of the effect of cam on the US and UK medicines markets aren't balanced. Recently we've had the Codex passed as law which will eventually eradicate all untried and untested supplements and some herbal products from being sold within the EU.
Oh, the H word, guaranteed to bring strong emotions from both sides on internet fora Personally I wish the placebo and nocebo effects could be studied in depth as we do need to understand how these common reactions happen. I'm very interested in the field of vibrational therapies, the effects of emotions on physical health and the concept that the body can heal itself, sometimes with a kick-start from an outside source. Caveat, I've studied Reiki and EFT to practitioner level and am interested in all ancient systems like the Trad Chinese meridians, Ayurveda, yoga, chakras, herbalism, aromatherapy and many others. NB, I don't see this as an either/or philosophy and believe there's room for both, that's why I prefer the term complementary, one system should complement the other, not be a fight about either/or, right and wrong. Meditation is a case in point, it was scoffed at for decades by Westerners and now studies are lauding it for its health benefits. Slow yoga-type breathing for a few minutes a day can have a lasting effect and lower high blood-pressure, now there's a machine to help you do just that. http://www.resperate.co.uk/welcome/index.aspx Also, there are different breathing techniques to alleviate stress that were once the realm of advanced yogis, now they are available in books and online.
and someone is buying all those occult and spirituality books Probably me! Again, I'm just interested in different viewpoints and different cultures. How people perceive the world around them and their interaction with it, why they believe what they do and how it influences the life choices they make. When The Secret came out, I was amazed to find that all it promoted was focused will and intention. That's what spells are, the practise is ancient. All of the 'eye of newt' ritual stuff is just to get your mind completely focused.
(don't you still have compulsory religious education in the UK? Or is that not what it sounds like?) It's nothing like study of the Bible, more an overview of all the major religions. A GCSE qualification in religious studies taken at age 16 if the pupil hasn't already opted for a different subject, is useful to show a prospective University, FE College or employer that you have good reasoning skills and can present two or more sides of an argument. It's not to show a good knowledge of Christianity alone.
Here are some of last year's GCSE exam papers from the Examination Board's website to give you an idea of the level of knowledge expected. I was rather surprised that the instruction on several questions said something like 'remember to include Christianity in the answer' or 'refer to religious arguments in your answer.
A papers http://web.aqa.org.uk/qual/newgcses/his_rel/new/rel_studies_a_materials.php B papers http://web.aqa.org.uk/qual/newgcses/his_rel/new/rel_studies_b_materials.php
Apologies for the length of this post, Feanor's loquaciousness must be in the ether today
Posted 02-09-2012 at 15:59 Apologies for the length of this post, Feanor's loquaciousness must be in the ether today ____________
US President Harry Truman was long known as a man of few words, and frequently cast confusion into the Broadcast Media caught scrambling to fill remaining air-time after one of his notoriously brief statements.
A man wrote a letter to Mr Truman explaining a wager he'd made with a friend; that he could get Harry to say more than two words.
Posted 05-09-2012 at 22:43
Having watched the full video, it all seems more of a case that modern scientific theories often conflict with each other, as opposed to a conspiracy. And if you then throw in the human propensity to disagree and argue ....
For anyone who hasn't watched the video, it's well worth two hours of your time.
Posted 07-09-2012 at 09:58
Hi Guys
Just caught the Forbidden Archeaology video about the “supressed” dating of the Valsequillo Puebla site.
Now I am not an expert in any of the techniques used to date the finds so I can only see this as a straight “them, Clovis First, and Us, the site excavators” disagreement. It does look to be that on the balance of the evidence, as presented, that there is an excellent case for the early date and that some high flying reputations could have been seriously compromised if the findings had been accepted.
What I find baffling is the total derision that greets the work of some highly respected geologists and petrogeologists without any sensible reasoning to accompany it. Even more inexplicable is the fact that the non-archeological experts simply shrug their shoulders and say “Look at the results” they appear to inhabit a world equally rarified to the archeologists in that they fail to see the harm that this does to their profession by giving the appearance that they do not actualy care what the rest of the human race thinks.
I tend to side with the geologists and petrogeologists as their work is in constant use to provide results for various industries which are about to invest eye watering sums on the basis of them and their track record is excellent.
On the other hand archeaologists are continuously revising and re-interpreting their findings and so the discipline must be considered a mutable one unlike the geologists and petrogeologists discipline.
However what is truly interesting is the source using the video. It is a “creationist” organisation. They stand to gain because the evidence can, and I admit that it takes LESS torturous arguments than the Clovis first one, be used to justify their belief that the Bible is absolutely accurate and that God created the world in seven days. My question to them is that since God is omnicognisant and infallible, how come he didn’t spot the OOPA?
Me? I have no vested interest any of the camps. What fascinates me is the reasoning behind constructions like Stonehenge and why, given that they have the same brain as us, prehistoric man is normally depicted as a moronic brute without the ability to think constructively. Let’s face it, a prehistoric man could live quite happily in our current society but would you survive in his?
Yes there is a lot more to say but for a first post I thought I had better not go completely overboard
Posted 08-09-2012 at 18:12
caveat; i studied geology.
i concur, with the last poster...i'd much rather trust the word of a geo scientist than an archaeologist anytime...one is a science with its' methods being refined and improved, the other involves the same but much more speculation and interpretation...we've only got to watch one episode of time team to see the geo physicists present their data and for the archaeologists to then change their minds any number of times before they finally agree that a pile of bricks was once a watermill or some other such thing.
Posted 08-09-2012 at 19:48
Depends on the hardness of your science innit .
Physicists probably see geologists in much the same light as you do archaeologists and mathematicians being the queens are simply unassailable but tend to be less efficient chefs ,vicars , and non techno archaeos .
George
Quote:
On 2012-09-08 18:12, aknifethatfellfromthesky wrote:
caveat; i studied geology.
i concur, with the last poster...i'd much rather trust the word of a geo scientist than an archaeologist anytime...one is a science with its' methods being refined and improved, the other involves the same but much more speculation and interpretation...we've only got to watch one episode of time team to see the geo physicists present their data and for the archaeologists to then change their minds any number of times before they finally agree that a pile of bricks was once a watermill or some other such thing.
Posted 09-09-2012 at 19:30
Steady guys
Maths and physics can lead to predictable and repeatable results.
If you ask a physicist for a theory of, say neutrino emmision from the sun the reply will start with "Well the current theory is.. And you will get the same result from a mathematician about, for example prime number prediction. Both will cite a referable and fully recorded set of data and admit that there are unsolved or anomalous data to be reconciled and that this is being worked on.
The big difference is that whilst a lot of archaeological data is recorded and referable most archaeologists will start a reply with "In my opinion" or similar statement and when presented with contrary data or artefacts will simply resort to saying that this does not fit with current thinking/researc/results and is therfore wrong. In other words the mindset is a reversal of a scientific approach.
Now before I get inundated with rebuttals from archaeologists who do not think like this let me say that there are currently, and have been in the past, many who have sought the truth and many who want the correct interpretation. Watch the video to see who they WERE and where they are now.
Accept that Archaeology is an imprecise science and keep refining it and please remember that an opinion is not a fact and a theory is only a best guess untill proven.
Posted 09-09-2012 at 19:58
Jim , have you seen any comments here that suggest otherwise ?
Quote:
On 2012-09-09 19:30, Dragonsinger wrote:
Accept that Archaeology is an imprecise science and keep refining it and please remember that an opinion is not a fact and a theory is only a best guess untill proven.
Jim , have you seen any comments here that suggest otherwise ?
NO!
But the section you have quoted is not meant to imply that this is indicative of the vast majority of subscribers to this site. Or, indeed, that it is a bad thing. By it's nature archaeology must remain a dicipline of interpretationand revision of those interpretations. It is the last bit thar seems to wear away as the individual archaeologist gets further and further up career the path or in the accepted heirarchy. Also, it does not inevitably happen to every archaeologist.
So if I have offended you I apologise.
Also this tendancy to a belief of infalibility (a God complex?) is not confined to archaeology or even academia, polititians are good examples. No I will not give speciffic examples everyone will have their own pet nominee.
However this detracts from the intent of my original post which was to say "Look guys I do not have an answer to this or any other eratta." but can we start some serious investigaion into them? All we are doing if we ignore them is continue to build a database which is flawed and narrowed by ommision.
A serious problem is that most, if not all, of the current eratta are not in situ or available for study. We believe the "Leakys" dates and finds so why not expand the search for verification and understanding. OH yes, and please, please, please, debunk the fakes.
Jim
[ This message was edited by: Dragonsinger on 2012-09-11 10:50 ]
Posted 11-09-2012 at 22:13
No not offended . Puzzled .
Which section did I quote from .?
George
Quote:
On 2012-09-11 10:46, Dragonsinger wrote:
Quote:
Jim , have you seen any comments here that suggest otherwise ?
NO!
But the section you have quoted is not meant to imply that this is indicative of the vast majority of subscribers to this site. Or, indeed, that it is a bad thing. By it's nature archaeology must remain a dicipline of interpretationand revision of those interpretations. It is the last bit thar seems to wear away as the individual archaeologist gets further and further up career the path or in the accepted heirarchy. Also, it does not inevitably happen to every archaeologist.
So if I have offended you I apologise.
Also this tendancy to a belief of infalibility (a God complex?) is not confined to archaeology or even academia, polititians are good examples. No I will not give speciffic examples everyone will have their own pet nominee.
However this detracts from the intent of my original post which was to say "Look guys I do not have an answer to this or any other eratta." but can we start some serious investigaion into them? All we are doing if we ignore them is continue to build a database which is flawed and narrowed by ommision.
A serious problem is that most, if not all, of the current eratta are not in situ or available for study. We believe the "Leakys" dates and finds so why not expand the search for verification and understanding. OH yes, and please, please, please, debunk the fakes.
Jim
[ This message was edited by: Dragonsinger on 2012-09-11 10:50 ]
Now before I get inundated with rebuttals from archaeologists who do not think like this let me say that there are currently, and have been in the past, many who have sought the truth and many who want the correct interpretation. Watch the video to see who they WERE and where they are now.
Accept that Archaeology is an imprecise science and keep refining it and please remember that an opinion is not a fact and a theory is only a best guess untill proven.
You quoted the portion in italics and asked have I seen any indication that this was the case on this site. It was not aimed at any particular individual hence my reply.
Hope this makes it clear.
Posted 12-09-2012 at 10:50 Yes Jim perfectly clear , dunno why I didn't understand it at the time .
George
Quote:
On 2012-09-12 10:27, Dragonsinger wrote:
Hi George
Last paragraph of my second post where I said:
Quote:
Now before I get inundated with rebuttals from archaeologists who do not think like this let me say that there are currently, and have been in the past, many who have sought the truth and many who want the correct interpretation. Watch the video to see who they WERE and where they are now.
Accept that Archaeology is an imprecise science and keep refining it and please remember that an opinion is not a fact and a theory is only a best guess untill proven.
You quoted the portion in italics and asked have I seen any indication that this was the case on this site. It was not aimed at any particular individual hence my reply.
Hope this makes it clear.
Posted 13-09-2012 at 19:05
geology is a science that uses physics, chemistry and maths to describe the universe. a physicist wouldn't regard a geologist as anything other than a scientist.
Posted 13-09-2012 at 19:21
But not as hard a scientist as a physicist or mathematician .
I think cosmologists/astrophysicists might have a bit more claim to describing the universe than the more geocentric geologists .
George
Quote:
On 2012-09-13 19:05, aknifethatfellfromthesky wrote:
geology is a science that uses physics, chemistry and maths to describe the universe. a physicist wouldn't regard a geologist as anything other than a scientist.
Posted 13-09-2012 at 19:38
geologists study matter...i have studied moon rocks, mars rocks, meteorites pre solar grains, the formation of proto planetery discs. if we believe that men went to the moon the only civilian of the bunch was a geologist
.
IMPORTANT NOTES: This site uses COOKIES. Please do not use this web site if you do not agree to our Terms and Conditions of use. If you plan to visit ancient sites in person, please make sure you follow our Charter.
OFF-Line
Posted 31-08-2012 at 21:56 
Personally I wish the placebo and nocebo effects could be studied in depth as we do need to understand how these common reactions happen. I'm very interested in the field of vibrational therapies, the effects of emotions on physical health and the concept that the body can heal itself, sometimes with a kick-start from an outside source. Caveat, I've studied Reiki and EFT to practitioner level and am interested in all ancient systems like the Trad Chinese meridians, Ayurveda, yoga, chakras, herbalism, aromatherapy and many others. NB, I don't see this as an either/or philosophy and believe there's room for both, that's why I prefer the term complementary, one system should complement the other, not be a fight about either/or, right and wrong. Meditation is a case in point, it was scoffed at for decades by Westerners and now studies are lauding it for its health benefits. Slow yoga-type breathing for a few minutes a day can have a lasting effect and lower high blood-pressure, now there's a machine to help you do just that. 
Posted 07-09-2012 at 09:58 
Main News