Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Skeleton Fragments of a Giant Found?

ancient fossil giant giants

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
288 replies to this topic

#271    Dr_Acula

Dr_Acula

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 150 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 November 2013 - 03:19 AM

View Poststereologist, on 21 November 2013 - 02:36 AM, said:

NO. I don't have to drop it. It is such a trivial argument that it is not a cast of a fossil that I see no reason to point out the extremely obvious.

Lol, well I see no reason to accept an argument that you see no reason to explain.  I'll take your lack of explanation as you dropping it.

View Poststereologist, on 21 November 2013 - 02:36 AM, said:

You tend to be quite vague as in your vague claims of these fluctuations as being important. You suggest that there have been major solar events in the past. So what? What does that have to do with anything being discussed?

I wasn't vague.  I said that if there was, for example, a huge solar flare (which there is supporting evidence for - see my previous link), it may have affected the rate of radioactive decay.  That is if the radioactive decay rate can be affected by an outside source (which there is supporting evidence for - see my previous link).  What does that have to do with anything?  The radiometric dating of the rock may have been off.  Why else would we be talking about it?

View Poststereologist, on 21 November 2013 - 02:36 AM, said:

Your speculations in general are so off the wall that they are not worth being discussed. There is no need to discuss allof the wacko ideas that are tossed out that have no merit. If you don't like it that they are dismissed as easily as you spew them then too bad.

The problem with this statement is that you haven't dismissed anything besides bringing up that the fluctuations in radioactive decay are "slight", yet you didn't understand what it had to do with anyway, and the fact that sedimentary rock would leave trace evidence in granite.  That dismisses nothing.

View Poststereologist, on 21 November 2013 - 02:36 AM, said:

The fossil record is not as weak as you assert. That is just your wishful thinking.

The fossil record IS as weak as I assert IF someone is trying to use it to say that an organism never existed.  

View Poststereologist, on 21 November 2013 - 02:36 AM, said:

You can believe all you want about the fluctuations, but your math shows us that your understanding of the issue is limited.

My calculation was quick and simple and I didn't care to create a flawless mathematical equation.  I just wanted to quickly demonstrate how a small percentage could grow over such a long period of time. Take it how you want to, I really don't care.  Your understanding the issue of decay fluctuation must be limited or you wouldn't have challenged the fact that there is evidence that it is influenced by an outside event.

Edited by Dr_Acula, 21 November 2013 - 03:23 AM.


#272    stereologist

stereologist

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,009 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 November 2013 - 01:47 PM

Once again, it's not a cast of a fossil. The reason is so trivial that I know you have made no effort to figure out why. You really need to do this for yourself and you will be embarrassed now that you have spent more time balking that thinking about it. You might want to get out some clay and test the notion of it being a cast and you will almost immediately figure this out.

The notion that solar flares are the cause of the fluctuations comes from where? Have you looked up the fluctuations to see which digit of precision is affected? Until then please don't make a claim of drastic.

The idea that sedimentary rock would survive in a granitic melt for any length of time is ludicrous.

As far as the fossil record is concerned, you are confusing species with order. The evidence on orders is quite strong.

Your math is weak. No excuses for pointing out something which has no relevance to the issue. The issue is the uncertainty in the results. That is well known and posted in dating methods. Fluctuations are considered in that issue.

The big issue for you is to figure out why that so-called footprint cannot be a cast of a fossil.


#273    stereologist

stereologist

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,009 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 November 2013 - 01:49 PM

BTW, the reason I won't tell you why this cannot be a cast of a fossil is because you've spent so much time speculating that you've turned off your thinking process. I've seen you make some very good posts, but this geology and dating ideas are just full of unwarranted, unsubstantiated, and false ideas.


#274    Dr_Acula

Dr_Acula

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 150 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 November 2013 - 02:13 AM

View Poststereologist, on 21 November 2013 - 01:47 PM, said:

Once again, it's not a cast of a fossil. The reason is so trivial that I know you have made no effort to figure out why. You really need to do this for yourself and you will be embarrassed now that you have spent more time balking that thinking about it. You might want to get out some clay and test the notion of it being a cast and you will almost immediately figure this out.

If you are right and there is a flaw in my suggestion of the granite taking the form of some other rock that is within it, I won't be embarrassed.  I will be wrong and I will accept that I am wrong, but so far I don't see what's so obviously wrong with the idea.  It may not be true that that is what happened here, but I don't see how it is impossible.

View Poststereologist, on 21 November 2013 - 01:47 PM, said:

The notion that solar flares are the cause of the fluctuations comes from where? Have you looked up the fluctuations to see which digit of precision is affected? Until then please don't make a claim of drastic.

I provided you a link earlier.  But I think you are having trouble with understanding that I am not making a claim.  I am speculating.  I am not trying to say that any of this is fact; I am exploring the possibilities.  There is nothing wrong with doing this.

View Poststereologist, on 21 November 2013 - 01:47 PM, said:

As far as the fossil record is concerned, you are confusing species with order. The evidence on orders is quite strong.

I'm not confusing anything.  The fossil record is nowhere near complete enough to be used as evidence of an organism's non-existence based on the fact that we haven't found the fossils.  This is not only a result of the fossil record being incomplete but also because of how rare fossilization is.

View Poststereologist, on 21 November 2013 - 01:47 PM, said:

The idea that sedimentary rock would survive in a granitic melt for any length of time is ludicrous.

That's fine.  Fossils have been found in xenoliths in granite on rare occasions.  It doesn't matter if the rock is sedimentary or not.

View Poststereologist, on 21 November 2013 - 01:47 PM, said:

Your math is weak. No excuses for pointing out something which has no relevance to the issue. The issue is the uncertainty in the results. That is well known and posted in dating methods. Fluctuations are considered in that issue.

There's no need to be blatantly insulting.  I know you enjoy it but last time a mod had to remind us of the forum rules.  Let's try not to get carried away.  Lol.  Back to the topic:

The problem is that we assumed that radioactive decay was constant and unchanging.  Then we found fluctuations.  Now we are assuming that those fluctuations are constant and unchanging.  We also used to believe that the universe was constant and unchanging but now we all pretty much agree that the universe is an expanding and ever changing phenomena.  What have we ever observed in nature that is constant and unchanging?  Nature isn't a mathematical equation.  It changes, morphs, explodes, implodes, grows, shrinks, lives, dies, the list could go on forever.  It is infinitely random and that randomness allows for unlimited possibilities.  That randomness makes it real.  You can tell me that the fluctuations are always and have always been constant and unchanging, but I think I understand nature and life enough to safely conclude that you are wrong.


#275    stereologist

stereologist

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,009 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 November 2013 - 03:44 AM

View PostDr_Acula, on 22 November 2013 - 02:13 AM, said:

If you are right and there is a flaw in my suggestion of the granite taking the form of some other rock that is within it, I won't be embarrassed.  I will be wrong and I will accept that I am wrong, but so far I don't see what's so obviously wrong with the idea.  It may not be true that that is what happened here, but I don't see how it is impossible.

I provided you a link earlier.  But I think you are having trouble with understanding that I am not making a claim.  I am speculating.  I am not trying to say that any of this is fact; I am exploring the possibilities.  There is nothing wrong with doing this.

I'm not confusing anything.  The fossil record is nowhere near complete enough to be used as evidence of an organism's non-existence based on the fact that we haven't found the fossils.  This is not only a result of the fossil record being incomplete but also because of how rare fossilization is.

That's fine.  Fossils have been found in xenoliths in granite on rare occasions.  It doesn't matter if the rock is sedimentary or not.

There's no need to be blatantly insulting.  I know you enjoy it but last time a mod had to remind us of the forum rules.  Let's try not to get carried away.  Lol.  Back to the topic:

The problem is that we assumed that radioactive decay was constant and unchanging.  Then we found fluctuations.  Now we are assuming that those fluctuations are constant and unchanging.  We also used to believe that the universe was constant and unchanging but now we all pretty much agree that the universe is an expanding and ever changing phenomena.  What have we ever observed in nature that is constant and unchanging?  Nature isn't a mathematical equation.  It changes, morphs, explodes, implodes, grows, shrinks, lives, dies, the list could go on forever.  It is infinitely random and that randomness allows for unlimited possibilities.  That randomness makes it real.  You can tell me that the fluctuations are always and have always been constant and unchanging, but I think I understand nature and life enough to safely conclude that you are wrong.

I see the problem with this not possibly being a cast of a fossil. You are looking in the wrong direction. To form a track the object it must have come into contact with was a cast of a cast, not a cast. Had the granite come into contact with the fossilized track as you suggested, then the granite would have been a cast. Do you see the problem with what you have claimed?

I know you are making unwarranted speculations. You should also understand by now how bad those speculations are.

You are mistaken about the fossil record.

Please tell us about these fossils in xenoliths in granite. I am calling your bluff. I know you are wrong, but you will just point out non-granitic rocks and say something dubious such as it shows it might be possible. Well that is simply wrong. You need to show a fossil in a xenolith in a granite filled with phenocrysts.

Your claim that fluctuations are constant and unchanging means they are not fluctuations. What are you talking about?

You ask what have we ever observed that is constant and unchanging?
1. Conservation of energy
2. Conservation of momentum
3. Gravitational constant
4. Electron charge
etc.

You are wrong that the universe is infinitely random. That is the sort of expression used by people that do not understand the term random. The inference about unlimited possibilities is a non sequitur. Your claims about "understand nature and life" are just your opinion and so far very few people here share your opinion.

Let's go over your very bad ideas on these fluctuations.
1. You speculate about solar flares. Had you read anything or understood anything about the fluctuations you would not have made this silly speculation.
2. The fluctuations affect the third digit or greater of precision. Thus your claims about the uncertainty of dates are rubbish.


#276    Dr_Acula

Dr_Acula

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 150 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 November 2013 - 03:29 AM

View Poststereologist, on 22 November 2013 - 03:44 AM, said:

I see the problem with this not possibly being a cast of a fossil. You are looking in the wrong direction. To form a track the object it must have come into contact with was a cast of a cast, not a cast. Had the granite come into contact with the fossilized track as you suggested, then the granite would have been a cast. Do you see the problem with what you have claimed?

That's not what I claimed and I was not the one who started labeling what I was trying to explain as a cast.  I said that the magma covered the original stone and formed around it, creating basically a granite copy of it.  Not a reverse cast.  

View Poststereologist, on 22 November 2013 - 03:44 AM, said:

I know you are making unwarranted speculations. You should also understand by now how bad those speculations are.

I can discuss and speculate about whatever I want and you don't have the authority to tell me it is unwarranted or bad.  Have you convinced yourself that you have some sort of jurisdiction or that your opinions and statements are more credible than others'?  You are an anonymous poster on an internet forum; you have no more credibility or authority than anyone else here.

View Poststereologist, on 22 November 2013 - 03:44 AM, said:

You are mistaken about the fossil record.

No, I am not.

View Poststereologist, on 22 November 2013 - 03:44 AM, said:

Your claim that fluctuations are constant and unchanging means they are not fluctuations. What are you talking about?

The only way we can compensate for the fluctuations is if we predict them.  That means that we must assume that the fluctuations have a predictable pattern and always have, and that nothing else has interfered with the rate of decay.  Ever.  I do not think that these are logical assumptions.

View Poststereologist, on 22 November 2013 - 03:44 AM, said:

You ask what have we ever observed that is constant and unchanging?
1. Conservation of energy
2. Conservation of momentum
3. Gravitational constant
4. Electron charge
etc.

1. Conservation of energy theorizes that energy can't be created or destroyed.  However, energy is constantly changing form.

2. Many objects have a different momentum and when objects collide, one object can take momentum from another, meaning the momentum of BOTH individual objects has changed.  Their combined momentum hasn't changed but their individual momentum has.

3. The gravitational constant is an equation used to calculate the gravitational force between two bodies.  The numbers involved in the calculation vary because they are not constant in nature.  What I'm saying is, basically, a mathematical equation is not a natural occurrence; it's something we created to explain the things around us.  Sometimes we can do that very accurately using mathematics but that doesn't make anything in nature constant.  It's like if I have five dogs each a different breed.  Mathematically I have five dogs, yes, that will never change - but each dog has a different personality and a different breed, a different owner, a different life, etc...  The natural side of things always vary.

4. The electron charge is an approximation, suggesting that the charge isn't exactly the same from electron to electron.  Very very very close, but exactly to the T?  Probably not, otherwise it wouldn't be an approximate number. The difference in charge is probably so very slight that we can barely notice it, so there is nothing wrong with calling it a constant and deciding what the charge is, approximately.

View Poststereologist, on 22 November 2013 - 03:44 AM, said:

You are wrong that the universe is infinitely random. That is the sort of expression used by people that do not understand the term random. The inference about unlimited possibilities is a non sequitur. Your claims about "understand nature and life" are just your opinion and so far very few people here share your opinion.

We observe randomness everywhere in the universe.  We also observe order, but even order has a dash of randomness in nature.  That's what makes it real and natural.  I'm sorry that you have trouble grasping this concept but I don't think I can spell it out any more clearly for you.  Your claim that I am "wrong that the universe is infinitely random" is just your opinion.

View Poststereologist, on 22 November 2013 - 03:44 AM, said:

Let's go over your very bad ideas on these fluctuations.
1. You speculate about solar flares. Had you read anything or understood anything about the fluctuations you would not have made this silly speculation.
2. The fluctuations affect the third digit or greater of precision. Thus your claims about the uncertainty of dates are rubbish.

Let's go over why you are completely wrong in your accusation that my ideas on fluctuations are "bad"
1. Leading scientists don't understand everything about the fluctuations, yet we are all supposed to believe that you do?  I really wish you would read the link I provided to you earlier.  It is apparent that you have not.  Here is a short quote from my link.

http://news.stanford...sun-082310.html

Quote

On Dec 13, 2006, the sun itself provided a crucial clue, when a solar flare sent a stream of particles and radiation toward Earth. Purdue nuclear engineer Jere Jenkins, while measuring the decay rate of manganese-54, a short-lived isotope used in medical diagnostics, noticed that the rate dropped slightly during the flare, a decrease that started about a day and a half before the flare.

If this apparent relationship between flares and decay rates proves true, it could lead to a method of predicting solar flares prior to their occurrence, which could help prevent damage to satellites and electric grids, as well as save the lives of astronauts in space.

2. My claims are not "rubbish".  You are just too argumentative and thick headed to let yourself understand what I am saying.  What digits of precision the fluctuations affect are not that important when you actually understand what I am trying to explain to you.

If you are going to continue to insult me without provocation (I have been biting my tongue and trying very hard to be civil with you) you are only displaying how weak and cowardly you are.  You must have aspects of your life that you are unhappy with.  I really couldn't care less.  Go cry in the shower or eat ice cream and watch an old movie or something  Ask someone who cares about you for a hug; I don't care.  But don't express your dissatisfaction with your life by insulting me and hiding behind the anonymity of the internet.  If you want to continue the debate, show me some respect.

That being said, you are going to love this last part...

View Poststereologist, on 22 November 2013 - 03:44 AM, said:

Please tell us about these fossils in xenoliths in granite. I am calling your bluff. I know you are wrong, but you will just point out non-granitic rocks and say something dubious such as it shows it might be possible. Well that is simply wrong. You need to show a fossil in a xenolith in a granite filled with phenocrysts.

Here is the deal (and the reason that this reply has taken so long to be posted)... I read about fossils being found in granite being made into tabletops.  I found the article by accident and by chance a couple of weeks ago.  I don't remember how long ago exactly.  The point is, I read the article and it also included photos.  I can't find the actual article I read.  But, I also knew that igneous rocks could contain xenolithic fossils so I thought nothing more of it and I didn't research it any more because I assumed that granite could contain xenolithic fossils like other igneous rocks (because of the article about the tabletops).  After you posted this comment I have done extensive searching... Sadly, I can't find the original article I read and I also can't find any documented evidence of fossils in xenoliths in granite.

I know when I am wrong and I apologize for making that statement without investigating more.  I was not intentionally bluffing, as you suggested.

Furthermore, I feel that the complete absence of fossils of any kind being found in association with granite pretty much debunks this being a footprint.  I believe it must be a hoax - or a natural anomaly (though that is very unlikely).


BUT I still stand behind what I have said about radioactive decay, what I have said about the fossil record and what I have said about the universe.


Edited by Dr_Acula, 24 November 2013 - 03:38 AM.


#277    Harte

Harte

    Supremely Educated Knower of Everything in Existence

  • Member
  • 8,968 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis

  • Skeptic

Posted 24 November 2013 - 03:42 AM

Microfossils are occasionally found in xenoliths.

Per your granite footprint, how can the magma form "arouind" a fossil footprint?

Surely you realize that a footprint would be concave, right?  Hence magma would fill the print, creating a reverse cast in granite (if such a thing were possible and it's not - note that the print is not a xenolith in any case.)

Yet the footprint in the granite is concave, isn't it?

So, care to edit your explanation?

The rest of your responses expose you as a person that either has no idea of what is meant in physics by the term conservatiopn of energy or momentum, or prefers to pretend it means something it doesn't..

Additionally, you fail to consider that the charge on an electron has to be measured and we are limited by our measuring devices to a specific number of decimal places regarding accuracy (I believe in the case of charge it's 8 places, but I might be misremembering.)

Nevertheless, every time the charge is measured, it is measured to be precisely the same.  IOW, there is no variation.

If there were, we wouldn't have a quantum theory.

Harte

I've consulted all the sages I could find in yellow pages but there aren't many of them. - The Alan Parsons Project
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. - Thomas Jefferson
Giorgio's dying Ancient Aliens internet forum

#278    Dr_Acula

Dr_Acula

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 150 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 November 2013 - 04:32 AM

View PostHarte, on 24 November 2013 - 03:42 AM, said:

Microfossils are occasionally found in xenoliths.

Per your granite footprint, how can the magma form "arouind" a fossil footprint?

Surely you realize that a footprint would be concave, right?  Hence magma would fill the print, creating a reverse cast in granite (if such a thing were possible and it's not - note that the print is not a xenolith in any case.)

Yet the footprint in the granite is concave, isn't it?

So, care to edit your explanation?
From the information I have been able to find, no fossils have been found in granitic xenoliths.

When saying the magma forms around the footprint, I don't mean form as in manifests itself, I mean it covers it and takes the shape of it.  If that isn't possible, then I have simply made a mistake and I am wrong.

View PostHarte, on 24 November 2013 - 03:42 AM, said:

The rest of your responses expose you as a person that either has no idea of what is meant in physics by the term conservatiopn of energy or momentum, or prefers to pretend it means something it doesn't..

I would be happy to respond to this if you would elaborate a little more on how you brought yourself to this conclusion about me.

View PostHarte, on 24 November 2013 - 03:42 AM, said:

Additionally, you fail to consider that the charge on an electron has to be measured and we are limited by our measuring devices to a specific number of decimal places regarding accuracy (I believe in the case of charge it's 8 places, but I might be misremembering.)

Nevertheless, every time the charge is measured, it is measured to be precisely the same.  IOW, there is no variation.

If there were, we wouldn't have a quantum theory.

I suppose it is me speculating that if we were able to measure it precisely, we may find a very slight fluctuation that is otherwise hidden by our current restrictions.  An approximate number is not necessarily 100% precise.  I do understand that we do not find a variation present within the decimal places that are measurable.


#279    stereologist

stereologist

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,009 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 November 2013 - 04:36 AM

Quote

That's not what I claimed and I was not the one who started labeling what I was trying to explain as a cast.  I said that the magma covered the original stone and formed around it, creating basically a granite copy of it.  Not a reverse cast.  
Sorry, this involves an intrusive so this can't happen. A cast is always a reverse. No need to say 'reverse cast'.

Again, this is a failure.


#280    stereologist

stereologist

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,009 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 November 2013 - 04:38 AM

Quote

I can discuss and speculate about whatever I want and you don't have the authority to tell me it is unwarranted or bad.  Have you convinced yourself that you have some sort of jurisdiction or that your opinions and statements are more credible than others'?  You are an anonymous poster on an internet forum; you have no more credibility or authority than anyone else here.

You are free to speculate all you want. Others will simply point out when those speculations make no sense at all such as your notion that granite can form around something.

Quote

No, I am not.
You are mistaken about the fossil record. Just as you are mistaken about intrusives such as granite.


#281    stereologist

stereologist

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,009 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 November 2013 - 04:41 AM

Quote

The only way we can compensate for the fluctuations is if we predict them.  That means that we must assume that the fluctuations have a predictable pattern and always have, and that nothing else has interfered with the rate of decay.  Ever.  I do not think that these are logical assumptions.
False. You do not need to be able to predict fluctuations. There are many things that can't be predicted yet they can be dealt with.


#282    stereologist

stereologist

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,009 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 November 2013 - 04:58 AM

Quote

Here is the deal (and the reason that this reply has taken so long to be posted)... I read about fossils being found in granite being made into tabletops.  I found the article by accident and by chance a couple of weeks ago.  I don't remember how long ago exactly.  The point is, I read the article and it also included photos.  I can't find the actual article I read.  But, I also knew that igneous rocks could contain xenolithic fossils so I thought nothing more of it and I didn't research it any more because I assumed that granite could contain xenolithic fossils like other igneous rocks (because of the article about the tabletops).  After you posted this comment I have done extensive searching... Sadly, I can't find the original article I read and I also can't find any documented evidence of fossils in xenoliths in granite.

I know when I am wrong and I apologize for making that statement without investigating more.  I was not intentionally bluffing, as you suggested.

Furthermore, I feel that the complete absence of fossils of any kind being found in association with granite pretty much debunks this being a footprint.  I believe it must be a hoax - or a natural anomaly (though that is very unlikely).


BUT I still stand behind what I have said about radioactive decay, what I have said about the fossil record and what I have said about the universe.

What I wanted you to do is find out on your own that very small objects might be somewhat preserved in xenoliths. Large objects are not.

The problem with your radioactive decay comments is that you are spending so much time speculating that you do not understand how issues such as this are dealt with. I have tried to tell you that such issues are expressed as part of the uncertainty of the measurements. All measurements have uncertainty. Dating methods are no different. Your interpretation of the fossil record and randomness is way off the mark.


#283    stereologist

stereologist

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,009 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 November 2013 - 05:07 AM

View PostDr_Acula, on 24 November 2013 - 04:32 AM, said:

From the information I have been able to find, no fossils have been found in granitic xenoliths.

I suppose it is me speculating that if we were able to measure it precisely, we may find a very slight fluctuation that is otherwise hidden by our current restrictions.  An approximate number is not necessarily 100% precise.  I do understand that we do not find a variation present within the decimal places that are measurable.

The charge of the electron is exactly the same magnitude as the charge of the proton, but opposite sign. If electrons and protons had varying charges, then there would be effects that are detectable because theory states that certain behaviors happen because of they are identical.

If electrons and protons did not exactly match and offset themselves, then there would be net EM forces that would be observable. But they are not observed suggesting that if there is a difference it must be so small that even when the number of particles such as in a galaxy come together the charges cancel out.


#284    skyknightk

skyknightk

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Joined:19 Jun 2014

Posted 19 June 2014 - 10:47 PM

**SNIP**
  • 1a. Advertising: Do not use the forum to advertise a product, site or service.
  • 1e. Participation requests: Do not ask members to take part in offsite surveys, petitions, contests, campaigns or fundraisers.
**Also, don't necropost.  It's bad nettiquette.**

Genesis Quest is a global network of over 40 scientists and explorers. We’re trying to solve the world’s greatest ancient enigmas, even if that means overturning cherished academic, scientific, and religious doctrines. We’ll deploy powerful sensors and robotic search assets that may soon be the envy of archaeologists everywhere; we’ve lined up several university labs to analyze evidence in a scientifically rigorous way; and we intend to achieve unassailable findings based on undeniable and repeatable scientific results.
But first, a caveat: WE ARE NOT LOOKING FOR ANCIENT ALIENS. We’re conducting our research in a balanced way, and scrupulously in accordance with archaeological best practices, ethical standards of professional conduct, and international laws. We have no ax to grind; no preconceived ideas to “prove” by manipulating or creatively interpreting or selectively considering evidence to suit our preconceived views; and no bent for cheap sensationalism just to make a buck. Rather, we will apply robust scientific testing and analysis of evidence that has thus far defied explanation according to mainstream views, while digging up new evidence and analyzing that, in a relentless effort to uncover the real truth about humanity’s forgotten past.
We believe that extraordinary phenomena from prehistory—particularly the megaliths, or gigantic stone structures ringing the globe, as well as the pyramids—were erected not by aliens, but by humans. The thing is, these ancient wizards may well have been giant humans, who wielded astoundingly advanced ancient technologies, including powered circular saws, fantastically efficacious drills, and even more amazing things.
These giants, we believe, were part of a prehistoric supercivilization that circumnavigated the globe in remote prehistory, laying the foundations of civilization before being wiped out in worldwide catastrophe. After that event, they were almost completely forgotten, relegated to little more than scripture and legend. They became the Nephilim of the Bible, and the Titans and frost giants of Greek and Norse myth. Most traces of their former existence (including, we believe, their ancient machines) were wiped clean off the Earth by none other than the biblical Flood.
We call these ancient giants and their associated cultures the Global Maritime Empire. If we can prove that they did exist, our findings will prompt a total rewrite of the history of civilization.
And here’s the kicker: We have some of their bones. Will you help us test them?
We’ll publicize the results of our collaborative research in books, on TV, and eventually in movies. If we succeed, our efforts may ignite a global firestorm of interest, catalyzing a movement that could culminate in a deeper understanding of the catastrophist reality in which we live and a more balanced appreciation of our fragile place in a wondrous but fearsomely dangerous world.
In the process, our endeavors—far from being anti-academic, anti-scientific, or (God forbid) anti-religious—could help to unite science, religion, and myth, bringing humanity together while enabling us, at long last, to face the full truth about our forgotten, tragic, but ultimately triumphant past.

Edited by aquatus1, 20 June 2014 - 01:41 AM.
TOS violations.


#285    CuriousRey

CuriousRey

    Jedi Master

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,092 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2014
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

  • "Do or do not, there is no try." -Yoda

Posted 19 June 2014 - 11:04 PM

View Postskyknightk, on 19 June 2014 - 10:47 PM, said:

**SNIP**
Genesis Quest is a global network of over 40 scientists and explorers. We’re trying to solve the world’s greatest ancient enigmas, even if that means overturning cherished academic, scientific, and religious doctrines. We’ll deploy powerful sensors and robotic search assets that may soon be the envy of archaeologists everywhere; we’ve lined up several university labs to analyze evidence in a scientifically rigorous way; and we intend to achieve unassailable findings based on undeniable and repeatable scientific results.
But first, a caveat: WE ARE NOT LOOKING FOR ANCIENT ALIENS. We’re conducting our research in a balanced way, and scrupulously in accordance with archaeological best practices, ethical standards of professional conduct, and international laws. We have no ax to grind; no preconceived ideas to “prove” by manipulating or creatively interpreting or selectively considering evidence to suit our preconceived views; and no bent for cheap sensationalism just to make a buck. Rather, we will apply robust scientific testing and analysis of evidence that has thus far defied explanation according to mainstream views, while digging up new evidence and analyzing that, in a relentless effort to uncover the real truth about humanity’s forgotten past.
We believe that extraordinary phenomena from prehistory—particularly the megaliths, or gigantic stone structures ringing the globe, as well as the pyramids—were erected not by aliens, but by humans. The thing is, these ancient wizards may well have been giant humans, who wielded astoundingly advanced ancient technologies, including powered circular saws, fantastically efficacious drills, and even more amazing things.
These giants, we believe, were part of a prehistoric supercivilization that circumnavigated the globe in remote prehistory, laying the foundations of civilization before being wiped out in worldwide catastrophe. After that event, they were almost completely forgotten, relegated to little more than scripture and legend. They became the Nephilim of the Bible, and the Titans and frost giants of Greek and Norse myth. Most traces of their former existence (including, we believe, their ancient machines) were wiped clean off the Earth by none other than the biblical Flood.
We call these ancient giants and their associated cultures the Global Maritime Empire. If we can prove that they did exist, our findings will prompt a total rewrite of the history of civilization.
And here’s the kicker: We have some of their bones. Will you help us test them?
We’ll publicize the results of our collaborative research in books, on TV, and eventually in movies. If we succeed, our efforts may ignite a global firestorm of interest, catalyzing a movement that could culminate in a deeper understanding of the catastrophist reality in which we live and a more balanced appreciation of our fragile place in a wondrous but fearsomely dangerous world.
In the process, our endeavors—far from being anti-academic, anti-scientific, or (God forbid) anti-religious—could help to unite science, religion, and myth, bringing humanity together while enabling us, at long last, to face the full truth about our forgotten, tragic, but ultimately triumphant past.

You have some of their bones? Pics or it didn't happen.

Edited by aquatus1, 20 June 2014 - 01:42 AM.
Edited Quote






Also tagged with ancient, fossil, giant, giants

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users