Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Big Bad Voodoo

Suppressed knowledge

29 posts in this topic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One and a half hours! I'll come back to that.

Tell us a bit about it, please.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Post 807 of an old thread:

On my way back to the hotel I was staying, I went to the Recoleta, like I had originally planned. It was about to close, but I was allowed to go in. The library wasn't accessible because repairs were going on, so I went to what seemed to be a little museum, formed around the items missionaries/Jesuits had 'collected' after they had converted the 'heathens' living in the Peruvian jungle to the 'True Faith'. What impressed me most of that little museum was a stone containing a more or less flattened fossilized skull of a primitive human. It had large eyebrows and, according to the Xeroxed copy of a newspaper that was lying below it, it was about 100,000 years old! That was unbelievable, because that alone would prove that a large part of the evolution and migration of man was quite different from what science had always theorized.

Years later I even wrote a letter to the Recoleta in my best Spanish - I was in doubt about the age of that skull: had I read 100,000 yrs correctly, or was it 10,000 yrs? And I asked for a copy of that newspaper article that was displayed below the skull - but never received an answer.

http://www.unexplain...95#entry2653304

.

Edited by Abramelin
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to know something about the story before I donate that much time to watching it.

Would be nice to know the age of that skull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to know something about the story before I donate that much time to watching it.

Would be nice to know the age of that skull.

I told you what I know.

And I would like to know the true age of the skull too.

That's why I sent them the letter.

All I can hope for is that someone here visits that monastery in Arequipa.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One and a half hours! I'll come back to that.

Tell us a bit about it, please.

Sure. It was same old story of archaeological cover up.

Armenta case is one of famous cover ups where armed soldiers forced workers at site to sign that they saw how they implant artifacts.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Post 807 of an old thread:

On my way back to the hotel I was staying, I went to the Recoleta, like I had originally planned. It was about to close, but I was allowed to go in. The library wasn't accessible because repairs were going on, so I went to what seemed to be a little museum, formed around the items missionaries/Jesuits had 'collected' after they had converted the 'heathens' living in the Peruvian jungle to the 'True Faith'. What impressed me most of that little museum was a stone containing a more or less flattened fossilized skull of a primitive human. It had large eyebrows and, according to the Xeroxed copy of a newspaper that was lying below it, it was about 100,000 years old! That was unbelievable, because that alone would prove that a large part of the evolution and migration of man was quite different from what science had always theorized.

Years later I even wrote a letter to the Recoleta in my best Spanish - I was in doubt about the age of that skull: had I read 100,000 yrs correctly, or was it 10,000 yrs? And I asked for a copy of that newspaper article that was displayed below the skull - but never received an answer.

http://www.unexplain...95#entry2653304

.

Wait a minute. You saw skull in museum that dates from 100 000 BC from Peru?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to know something about the story before I donate that much time to watching it.

Okay Hilander.

Its kind of boring documentary. Slow for my taste.

It could be pressed in 45 minutes.

Armenta found spearhead ih mamooth jaw which as I said earlier was debunked by forced testemony. Actually they put guns on 60 workers and three sign paper.

Cyntia Irwin artifacts were stolen. Debunkers claim was denuked because Diatom dating method.

In fact they found evidence of man at Hueyatalco in America from 25 000 - 250 000 BC even by some methods 500 000 BC.

In fact as it says in documentary we have evidence vs belief in which belief won.

"Lets stick with old mistake rather then hear new voice." usual stuff.

McIneyere dates site to 250 000 BC and loose her job and start selling flowers because no one want to hire her.

Its possible that missing Cynitas artifacts are in unnamed, unsigned, unadressed warehouse. Fact that crucial eveidnce are lost in warehouse that was itself lost tells more then anything.

Its old story but well put togheter.

Its story that also Michael Cremo developed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If something dosent fit in scientific community- ignore it. :td:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The above is a complete absurdity.

The artifacts found at Hueyatlaco have yet to be dated by any means.

Dates recieved on these samples range over hundreds of thousands of years. For example, the diatom analysis you cite dates the site at somewhere between 80,000 and 220,000 YBP. This sort of spread results in no accepted date, no matter who claims otherwise.

When this sort of thing occurs, no single date can be accepted as correct.

That is where it stands today. Nobody has ever said anything different. Not even Cynthia Irwin - Williamns or Virginia Steen-MacIntyre.

The lesson to take from this is to never let two people with hyphenated names work at the same archaeological site!

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dates recieved on these samples range over hundreds of thousands of years. For example, the diatom analysis you cite dates the site at somewhere between 80,000 and 220,000 YBP. This sort of spread results in no accepted date, no matter who claims otherwise.

80 000 years...And when humans came in America?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw Virginia Steen MacIntyre claimed that site was 250 000 BC. And woman loose her job and start selling flowers. She became outcast.

Edit: @all

And house is build on top of site.

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw Virginia Steen MacIntyre claimed that site was 250 000 BC. And woman loose her job and start selling flowers. She became outcast.

Edit: @all

And house is build on top of site.

Which would make it before Homo sapiens (at 200,000 BP), whose earliest migration out of Africa (into Arabia) isn't seen until c.106,000 BP. And there's no evidence that either Homo neandertalensis or Homo heidelbergensis ever migrated into the Americas. Homo sapiens are the only species known to have done so.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which would make it before Homo sapiens (at 200,000 BP), whose earliest migration out of Africa (into Arabia) isn't seen until c.106,000 BP. And there's no evidence that either Homo neandertalensis or Homo heidelbergensis ever migrated into the Americas. Homo sapiens are the only species known to have done so.

cormac

Yup Cormac. It doesnt fit in todays theory. So if something doesnt fit then is wrong.

Lets stick with old mistake rather then hear new voice.

Edit: I thought that in science evidence change theory...

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup Cormac. It doesnt fit in todays theory. So if something doesnt fit then is wrong.

Lets stick with old mistake rather then hear new voice.

Edit: I thought that in science evidence change theory...

There's no "old mistake". We actually have evidence for modern human origins and their migration out of Africa/Arabia. We also have evidence for where Neandertalensis and Heidelbergensis were, as well. None of which supports the 250,000 BC date.

Verified evidence can change a theory. In the case of the Hueyatlaco dates, not even the people involved can agree on what it means. Which leaves us with three possibilities from what I can see:

1) Anatomically modern humans not only date prior to 200,000 BP but also managed to migrate into Mexico without leaving a trace of their passage anywhere else in the world. Which isn't possible.

2) The site actually has been disturbed, which effectively makes accurately dating it impossible. Which is a possibility.

3) The artifacts are actually geofacts and have been misunderstood as artifacts by overzealous people. Which is also possible.

Until such time as the parties involved, or whoever else gets involved, can agree on what it really is and what it all means then the 250,000 BC date is meaningless.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

80 000 years...And when humans came in America?

No one knows for sure, and no one in the profession is making any claims to knowing the answer to that question.

The point being that the Hueyatlaco site has yet to be reliably dated even to this day. This means that you can't go by the findings there. Regardless of what you want it to mean.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw Virginia Steen MacIntyre claimed that site was 250 000 BC. And woman loose her job and start selling flowers. She became outcast.

Edit: @all

And house is build on top of site.

The site is still there. And Steen-MacIntyre is still working today in the profession. What you've read is simply crap.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, there is no cover up because it makes no sense. if there is a coverup archaeologically then there would be in other sciences too, like physics and fission. there is no reason to cover up pstuff because researchers make money to come up with correct and peer reviewed discoveries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Suppressed Knowledge", I suppose, has been an aspect of civilization from times past to current.

Edited by pallidin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait a minute. You saw skull in museum that dates from 100 000 BC from Peru?

Yes. And not just some skull, but a skull with very protruding eyebrows.

But yeah, like I said I was in doubt whether I had read 100,000 or 10,000. I remember 100,000, but because that seems kind of unlikely, I started doubting what the right number was.

Well, if anyone ever visits Peru (Arequipa), they can check for themselves.

This is how the skulll looked:

o78sbo.jpg

.

I should add that the photo above is not the actual skull I saw. I had made several pics of objects inside the little museum, but I failed to make a shot of the sideways (halfway between 'en face' and 'en profil') flattened fossilized skull because it was too dark for my cheap camera. I was also not able to use flash because the skull with the Xeroxed newspaper article was inside a glass showcase and the flashlight got reflected.

.

Edited by Abramelin
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess studying suppressed knowledge is dangerous for your professional aspirations. Virginia Steen MacIntyre lost her job and is now a hooker? Sounds to be a tough profession!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess studying suppressed knowledge is dangerous for your professional aspirations. Virginia Steen MacIntyre lost her job and is now a hooker? Sounds to be a tough profession!

Today, all that is gone. My last job was as a gardener, caring for flower-beds in a local nursing home a few hours a week.

http://www.s8int.com/wrong-science.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only real basis I see people arguing about in this thread is basically if there isn't a pyramid or some monolithic structure it never happened, whats to say inca/ect. preacessors couldn't possibly do the same thing they did in what we know of recorded history that being making tents from carcasses and living from the land because they never left anything or built mass structures for future newer worlds of society to see, maybe they were busy I don't know like building a civilization and thought they wouldn't need to document because they either didn't have means to do so or they thought their civ would survive forever and at that point didnt see reason to do so, like kingdoms thought and still think similar to this today only we hectically organise and document absolutely everything in the fear that we will parish like the rest of the "lost documents". Maybe it's one of our species biggest lesson learnt over millenea to document everything so we don't become lost like us before. Furthermore whats to say the ocean level was exactly the same and not a mile lower/higher or anything really and they could be just burried under shallow ocean something we don't really excavate enough.

My main point being there isn't enough to just discard it instamatically and tbh there's not enough to start wetting your pants of the possibility that you can dig up your backyard and find a town if you go deep enough. This will more than likely be in my "quite possibly pile" till the end of time because the modern world is too arrogant to admit a fatal mistake if there ever is to be one on this scale proven... sad but true.

Edited by chopmo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today, all that is gone. My last job was as a gardener, caring for flower-beds in a local nursing home a few hours a week.

http://www.s8int.com...ng-science.html

The incident that supposedly ruined her life happened in 1973-74.

Here's a paper she presented to the Geological Society of America in 2008:

Link to site where you can open the pdf.

Didn't know the GSA invited flower vendors to present at their conferences.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.