MARY LEAKEY'S FOOTPRINTS

[Isis2200]

Michael Cremo is a member of the History of Science Society, the World Archeological Congress, the Philosophy of Science Association, the European Association of Archaeologists and associate member of the Bhaktivedanta Institute specializing in history and philosophy of science. He has written in my opinion one of the most important books of our time. That book is Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race

This book shows that archaeologists and anthropologists, over the past one hundred and fifty years, have accumulated vast amounts of evidence showing that humans like ourselves have existed on this planet for tens of millions of years. In his book he shows how this evidence has been suppressed, ignored, and forgotten because it contradicts generally-held ideas about human evolution.

I listened to a radio interview in which Michael Cremo described the following excellent example of our “forbidden archaeology”:

Mary Leakey’s Footprints

In 1979 Mary Leakey, famous archaeologist, announced the find of some footprints she and her co-workers found at a place called Laetoli in Tanzania in East Africa. There were dozens of footprints arranged in three trails so that it showed there were three individuals each making several footprints. When Mary Leakey examined these footprints she concluded they were absolutely identical and were indistinguishable from anatomically modern human footprints. They were found in layers of solidified volcanic ash that were dated using the potassium argon method as being 3,700,000 years old. But how could this be since most scientists believe that hominids capable of making those kinds of footprints didn’t come into existence until millions of years later?

Mary Leakey thought there must have been some type of ape man that had feet like modern humans but there are no scientific remains that prove that idea. Even the footprints of Australopithecus are quite ape-like in appearance. Michael Cremo believes that human antiquity can be staring humans in the face, and they will brush it aside and try to explain it as something else which is why he wrote Forbidden Archaelogy: The Hidden History of the Human Race. With this publication he has tried to web a tapestry that will help us gain some understanding into our past and states the following:

"In lecture presentations on Forbidden Archeology to scientific and lay audiences around the world I see a new consciousness emerging that integrates science and religion into a cohesive paradigm of reality."

I've now added this very important book to my library. In my next post on this thread, I'll describe what Michael Cremo encountered at a convention he attended.

http://ashiana.conforums.com/index.cgi

~ Isis

http://www.mcremo.com/cremo.htm

[kraftman]

Very interesting .

[Shaftsbury]

Interesting Yes, but I don't think there is much science involved in his work.

"After carefully studying the Bhagavad-gita, a gift of some Hare Krishna people at a Grateful Dead concert, I decided that I should absorb myself in the yoga of devotion to the mysterious Lord Krishna. Later I moved to Los Angeles to join the staff of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, and to write for the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust (BBT). By 1980 I was regarded as an accomplished writer. To date, the books written and edited by myself and other BBT staff have sold more than ten million copies and have been translated into many languages.

"With Dr. Richard L. Thompson, a founding member of the Bhaktivedanta Institute, I began a series of books aimed at both scholarly and popular audiences. The first to be published was Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race. This book shows that archaeologists and anthropologists, over the past one hundred and fifty years, have accumulated vast amounts of evidence showing that humans like ourselves have existed on this planet for tens of millions of years. We show how this evidence has been suppressed, ignored, and forgotten because it contradicts generally-held ideas about human evolution."

"In lecture presentations on Forbidden Archeology to scientific and lay audiences around the world I see a new consciousness emerging that integrates science and religion into a cohesive paradigm of reality."

Michael Cremo is a writer, Dr. Richard L. Thompson has a Ph.D. in mathmatics. I really question how they can have accumulated all this "suppressed evidence" of a 2 billion year old human history.

Source: http://www.mcremo.com/cremo.htm

Source: http://www.afn.org/~bvi/people.html

Source: http://www.bvinst.edu/

[Isis2200]

Interesting Yes, but I don't think there is much science involved in his work.

Michael Cremo is a writer, Dr. Richard L. Thompson has a Ph.D. in mathmatics. I really question how they can have accumulated all this "suppressed evidence" of a 2 billion year old human history.

Source: http://www.mcremo.com/cremo.htm

Source: http://www.afn.org/~bvi/people.html

Source: http://www.bvinst.edu/

If I read a book and someone in the book makes a statement without backing his statements with quotes, links to websites, references to other people's works, I don't usually think much of the book or its writer. But this is one that is filled with such references. I could be a circus clown, but I could write a credible book based on years of research into the subject. And I think this is what they've done.

http://ashiana.conforums.com/index.cgi

~ Isis

[Shaftsbury]

If I read a book and someone in the book makes a statement without backing his statements with quotes, links to websites, references to other people's works, I don't usually think much of the book or its writer. But this is one that is filled with such references. I could be a circus clown, but I could write a credible book based on years of research into the subject. And I think this is what they've done.

http://ashiana.conforums.com/index.cgi

~ Isis

I think you missed my point, If the evidence is "suppressed" or hidden and they themselves are not scientists how did they get the inside information?

However, just skimming through some of the reviews on the book it looks like at least some of it is a collection of non related archaeological mysteries, linked together to try and back their theories. Where is the scandal there?

Edited November 11, 2006 by Shaftsbury

[aquatus1]

I can't help but think that everytime I hear about "suppressed" or "hidden" information, it inevitably ends up being data that is readily available, but not considered valid or credible by scientists. In other words, it isn't part of a theory because it can't be supported, not because it doesn't support.

[fantazum]

I can't help but think that everytime I hear about "suppressed" or "hidden" information, it inevitably ends up being data that is readily available, but not considered valid or credible by scientists. In other words, it isn't part of a theory because it can't be supported, not because it doesn't support.

I got this off just one of thousands of websites:

"There have been many findings demonstrating that Homo sapiens dates back even earlier than 800,000 years. One of them is a discovery by Louis Leakey in the early 1970s in Olduvai Gorge. Here, in the Bed II layer, Leakey discovered that Australopithecus, Homo habilis and Homo erectus species had co-existed at the same time. What is even more interesting was a structure Leakey found in the same layer (Bed II). Here, he found the remains of a stone hut. The unusual aspect of the event was that this construction, which is still used in some parts of Africa, could only have been built by Homo sapiens! So, according to Leakey's findings, Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus and modern man must have co-existed approximately 1.7 million years ago.219 This discovery must surely invalidate the evolutionary theory that claims that modern man evolved from ape-like species such as Australopithecus.

Indeed, some other discoveries trace the origins of modern man back to 1.7 million years ago. One of these important finds is the footprints found in Laetoli, Tanzania, by Mary Leakey in 1977. These footprints were found in a layer that was calculated to be 3.6 million years old, and more importantly, they were no different from the footprints that a contemporary man would leave. "

Source: http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_11.html

Yes I know but one must bear in mind that we now know for certain that Neanderthal man co-existed with modern man or Homo Sapiens so could not humanoid type creatures in various forms have evolved alongside each other in the dim and distant past? After all there are numerous species of Ape. Why could not Man in his various forms have evolved, lived and then declined or become extinct throughout the 3 billion years this planet has been capable of supporting complex organic life-forms?

[Isis2200]

I can't help but think that everytime I hear about "suppressed" or "hidden" information, it inevitably ends up being data that is readily available, but not considered valid or credible by scientists. In other words, it isn't part of a theory because it can't be supported, not because it doesn't support.

Hi Aquatus :-)

Yes, exactly. and Cremo's book is also filled with this.....scientists ignoring facts that point to something different than what they learned. Michael Cremo stated that the problem is that everyone in the fields of archaeology and anthropology wants to maintain the status quo. Far be it for them to say that all the textbooks were wrong. Anyone want to lose their job? this is a quick way to do it.

So I know what you mean. This is true in some cases that the date is readily available, as Cremo also points out, but it is considered invalid by saying it couldn't be that, or you're reading the findings the wrong way. Bottom line is they don't want to admit they were wrong, wrong about when we appeared on the Earth, wrong about who was on the Earth during a certain period of Time, and other things.

Aquatus, I heard it stated on a radio show last night that because they supposedly never found "the missing link", now they're saying a primate that was here on Earth during ancient times mated with Neanderthals to create Homo Sapiens. This is another thing they're famous for, "gee, we dont' know the answer so....let's just fill in the gaps."

http://ashiana.conforums.com/index.cgi

~ Isis

Edited November 11, 2006 by Isis2200

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Michael Cremo stated that the problem is that everyone in the field of archaeology wants to maintain the status quo. Far be it for them to say that all the textbooks were wrong. Anyone want to lose their job? this is a quick way to do it.

This is the classic claim of the conspiracy theorist when confronted by the fact that the real experts in the field do not back up their case. It is applied to all sciences, not just archaeology and in all cases it is wrong. In science the surest way to immortality is to overthrow the status quo. Einstein overthrew Newton and in doing so is considered by many the greatest mind of the 20th century.

It is true that scientists are only human and are reluctant to let go of cherished ideas but they do when the evidence is strong enough. This is particularly true of the young scientists in any fields. They are not so set in their ways and are more open to new ideas. They have not yet risen to high positions so have little to lose in embracing new ideas. Those that resort to the "they don't want to lose their jobs" are those who don't actually have the evidence to overthrow the status quo or indeed to attract anyone with expertise at all.

[Isis2200]

This is the classic claim of the conspiracy theorist when confronted by the fact that the real experts in the field do not back up their case. It is applied to all sciences, not just archaeology and in all cases it is wrong. In science the surest way to immortality is to overthrow the status quo. Einstein overthrew Newton and in doing so is considered by many the greatest mind of the 20th century.

It is true that scientists are only human and are reluctant to let go of cherished ideas but they do when the evidence is strong enough. This is particularly true of the young scientists in any fields. They are not so set in their ways and are more open to new ideas. They have not yet risen to high positions so have little to lose in embracing new ideas. Those that resort to the "they don't want to lose their jobs" are those who don't actually have the evidence to overthrow the status quo or indeed to attract anyone with expertise at all.

I very much disagree, but I respect your opinion, Waspie. I tell people it's ok to disagree as long as it's done in a respectful manner. :-)

http://ashiana.conforums.com/index.cgi

~ Isis

[aquatus1]

Yes, exactly. and Cremo's book is also filled with this.....scientists ignoring facts that point to something different than what they learned. Michael Cremo stated that the problem is that everyone in the fields of archaeology and anthropology wants to maintain the status quo. Far be it for them to say that all the textbooks were wrong. Anyone want to lose their job? this is a quick way to do it.

Ahh...no. There isn't a single scientists out there who wouldn't love to have solid evidence that overturned everything that we know. That's intellectual immortality right there! That's the brass ring, the holy grail! Status quo? Hah! Every scientist out there wants to redefine the status quo, with them at the top, and something like this would certainly do it!

So I know what you mean. This is true in some cases that the date is readily available, as Cremo also points out, but it is considered invalid by saying it couldn't be that, or you're reading the findings the wrong way. Bottom line is they don't want to admit they were wrong, wrong about when we appeared on the Earth, wrong about who was on the Earth during a certain period of Time, and other things.

Alternatively, it could also mean the evidence is not credible or false.

Aquatus, I heard it stated on a radio show last night that because they supposedly never found "the missing link", now they're saying a primate that was here on Earth during ancient times mated with Neanderthals to create Homo Sapiens. This is another thing they're famous for, "gee, we dont' know the answer so....let's just fill in the gaps."

~ Isis

Anytime you hear anyone talking about not having a "missing link", that is you red flag that they are just repeating arguments and don't actually understand the field of evolutionary studies. The term "missing link" hasn't referred to a specific creature for several decades; it originally did, back in Darwinian days when evolution was thought to be a very specifically deliniated tree of species. Nowadays, that theory has long been overturned, and the term merely refers to any creature that stand in the evolutionary line between two others. The idea of a single missing link waiting to be found is obsolete, and has been for a long time.

[Leonardo]

I got this off just one of thousands of websites:

"There have been many findings demonstrating that Homo sapiens dates back even earlier than 800,000 years. One of them is a discovery by Louis Leakey in the early 1970s in Olduvai Gorge. Here, in the Bed II layer, Leakey discovered that Australopithecus, Homo habilis and Homo erectus species had co-existed at the same time. What is even more interesting was a structure Leakey found in the same layer (Bed II). Here, he found the remains of a stone hut. The unusual aspect of the event was that this construction, which is still used in some parts of Africa, could only have been built by Homo sapiens! So, according to Leakey's findings, Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus and modern man must have co-existed approximately 1.7 million years ago.219 This discovery must surely invalidate the evolutionary theory that claims that modern man evolved from ape-like species such as Australopithecus.

Indeed, some other discoveries trace the origins of modern man back to 1.7 million years ago. One of these important finds is the footprints found in Laetoli, Tanzania, by Mary Leakey in 1977. These footprints were found in a layer that was calculated to be 3.6 million years old, and more importantly, they were no different from the footprints that a contemporary man would leave. "

Source: http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_11.html

The 'hut' Mary Leakey discovered is described in this document as probably a wind break structure, not a fully enclosed accommodation. No mention is made of what species of homo constructed it. Of course if you are talking of a different structure I'd appreciate a link to your other source. Dr Lovtrup has every right to disagree with current evolutionary thinking. This is how progress is made. He may end up being correct but he has yet to prove either Darwin wrong or himself correct.

Many 'revelations of hidden knowledge' turn out to be rehashes of old hypotheses, sometimes using evidence that has already been discredited. The document I linked to provides instruction for joining an archaeology dig at Olduvai Gorge if anyone feels like trying to dig up any controversial evidence.

[Isis2200]

I'd like to preface this post by saying that in speaking about the scientific community, I am in no way suggesting that every scientist is part of this malevolent faction which has worked to maintain secrecy about our true origins on this planet, nor am I suggesting that any scientist on this forum is part of that malevolent faction. There are some darn good scientists out there who are working hard to fight for justice and truth. There just always has to be a few bad apples in the bunch, and they happen to be at the top of the hierarchy.

I just read a report by Will Hart. Will has written several books and articles and has appeared on numerous radio shows. He is a journalist, researcher, book author, and documentary filmmaker. One of his articles is titled "Archaeological Coverups: A Plot to Control History?". Following is an excerpt of that article:

"The case of author Michael Cremo is well documented, and it also demonstrates how the scientific establishment openly uses pressure tactics on the media and government. His book Forbidden Archeology examines many previously ignored examples of artifacts that prove modern man's antiquity far exceeds the age given in accepted chronologies."

"The examples which he and his co-author present are controversial, but the book became far more controversial than the contents when it was used in a documentary."

"In 1996, NBC broadcast a special called The Mysterious Origins of Man, which featured material from Cremo's book. The reaction from the scientific community went off the Richter scale. NBC was deluged with letters from irate scientists who called the producer "a fraud" and the whole program 'a hoax'."

"But the scientists went further than this--a lot further. In an extremely unconscionable sequence of bizarre moves, they tried to force NBC not to rebroadcast the popular program, but that effort failed. Then they took the most radical step of all: they presented their case to the federal government and requested the Federal Communications Commission to step in and bar NBC from airing the program again."

"This was not only an apparent infringement of free speech and a blatant attempt to thwart commerce, it was an unprecedented effort to censor intellectual discourse. If the public or any government agency made an attempt to handcuff the scientific establishment, the public would never hear the end of it."

"The letter to the FCC written by Dr Allison Palmer, President of the Institute for Cambrian Studies, is revealing:"

'At the very least, NBC should be required to make substantial prime-time apologies to their viewing audience for a sufficient period of time so that the audience clearly gets the message that they were duped. In addition, NBC should perhaps be fined sufficiently so that a major fund for public science education can be established.'

"I think we have some good leads on who "the Brain Police" are. And I really do not think "conspiracy" is too strong a word--because for every case of this kind of attempted suppression that is exposed, 10 others are going on successfully. We have no idea how many enigmatic artifacts or dates have been labelled "error" and tucked away in storage warehouses or circular files, never to see the light of day."

The part that was really disturbing was the statement by Louis Leakey included in the following excerpt:

"Scientists do not hesitate to launch the most outrageous personal attacks against those they perceive to be the enemy. Eminent palaeontologist Louis Leakey penned this acid one-liner about Forbidden Archeology: 'Your book is pure humbug and does not deserve to be taken seriously by anyone but a fool.' Once again, we see the thrust of a personal attack; the merits of the evidence presented in the book are not examined or debated. It is a blunt, authoritarian pronouncement."

This behavior is typical of a faction of scientists and/or other people working for the government

http://ashiana.conforums.com/index.cgi

~ Isis

http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_wh1.htm#Archaeological

Edited November 11, 2006 by Isis2200

[aquatus1]

Sounds like what pretty much every special interest group does when they encounter something they don't like.

[Leonardo]

Any person is entitled to their views, scientists are no exception. Any person is entitled to believe their opinion correct, scientists are no exception. Most people do not like having their opinion challenged, scientists are no exception.

I cannot refute that, when challenged, a scientist promoting a hypothesis or theory will defend their position. However most scientists also believe in the scientific process and try to act within this (of course there is politicking and the like - this is unavoidable). As for conspiracy theories, why believe it is the scientists defending a position who are the conspiracy, why not believe it is the attackers?

I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories - I accept that ego and politics sometimes gets in the way of scientific advance. However, what cannot be refuted is that, over the hundreds of years of humanity's scientific endeavour, science has changed a great deal. It is not always quick but, when the evidence presents the case for change, that change is inevitable.

Quantity of work has never held as much value to a scientist as quality of work. I'm sure this is the same in many walks of life. If the quality of evidence calls for a change, that will happen. If there is a large quantity of poor evidence, change will probably not occur.

To the best of my knowledge there is not a small cabal of scientists actively repressing scientific advance. I could be wrong but that is my opinion.

We all may have issues with some of the scientific knowledge underlying currently accepted theories, but the only way this will change is if we, or someone who has similar issue, presents quality evidence to the contrary of current scientific opinion. I hope to do my small bit towards that, this is why I am studying as a scientist, but I know it will be difficult. Change always is.

Isis2200, this wasn't an attack on you or your post. I accept you feel frustrated that some of the things you and others believe aren't accepted by the scientific community. I did feel, however, that I had to explain somewhat in defence of the scientific position.

We all depend on science to some degree. Science can't afford to be 'high-risk', with very few exceptions. The scientific community is naturally conservative and thus resists change. Don't blame scientists for this, caution is necessary because there can be some very unpleasant, even dangerous, consequences if it isn't.

[Isis2200]

I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories - I accept that ego and politics sometimes gets in the way of scientific advance. However, what cannot be refuted is that, over the hundreds of years of humanity's scientific endeavour, science has changed a great deal. It is not always quick but, when the evidence presents the case for change, that change is inevitable.

To the best of my knowledge there is not a small cabal of scientists actively repressing scientific advance. I could be wrong but that is my opinion.

Yes, I agree; you could be wrong. I very much disagree with your comments but I respect your opnions. It's ok to disagree as long as it's done in a respectful way.

http://ashiana.conforums.com/index.cgi

~ Isis

[Leonardo]

Cheers, Isis

The world would be very dull if we all agreed on everything, wouldn't it.

Edited November 11, 2006 by Leonardo

[fantazum]

Any person is entitled to their views, scientists are no exception. Any person is entitled to believe their opinion correct, scientists are no exception. Most people do not like having their opinion challenged, scientists are no exception.

I cannot refute that, when challenged, a scientist promoting a hypothesis or theory will defend their position. However most scientists also believe in the scientific process and try to act within this (of course there is politicking and the like - this is unavoidable). As for conspiracy theories, why believe it is the scientists defending a position who are the conspiracy, why not believe it is the attackers?

I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories - I accept that ego and politics sometimes gets in the way of scientific advance. However, what cannot be refuted is that, over the hundreds of years of humanity's scientific endeavour, science has changed a great deal. It is not always quick but, when the evidence presents the case for change, that change is inevitable.

Quantity of work has never held as much value to a scientist as quality of work. I'm sure this is the same in many walks of life. If the quality of evidence calls for a change, that will happen. If there is a large quantity of poor evidence, change will probably not occur.

To the best of my knowledge there is not a small cabal of scientists actively repressing scientific advance. I could be wrong but that is my opinion.

We all may have issues with some of the scientific knowledge underlying currently accepted theories, but the only way this will change is if we, or someone who has similar issue, presents quality evidence to the contrary of current scientific opinion. I hope to do my small bit towards that, this is why I am studying as a scientist, but I know it will be difficult. Change always is.

Isis2200, this wasn't an attack on you or your post. I accept you feel frustrated that some of the things you and others believe aren't accepted by the scientific community. I did feel, however, that I had to explain somewhat in defence of the scientific position.

We all depend on science to some degree. Science can't afford to be 'high-risk', with very few exceptions. The scientific community is naturally conservative and thus resists change. Don't blame scientists for this, caution is necessary because there can be some very unpleasant, even dangerous, consequences if it isn't.

I once met a person in Israel at the temple of the Holy Sepulchre and was impressed by her devotion to her God. I asked her, "don't you think that mankind has reached a stage in his development where he can believe in himself rather than a supernatural entity"?

She replied, "If we have reached the stage where God has given us control of our own destiny ,then his work is done"

[Leonardo]

fantazum,

I don't see why we can't believe in both, and I do believe we are in control of our own destiny (within the limits of our capability for control). But that is a discussion for another thread.

[Isis2200]

The strange thing about the Mary Leakey story is that Michael Cremo attended a conference where they had a speaker(archaelogist) discussing those same footprints, HOWEVER, the speaker showed a picture of the footprints and he made them look ape-like!

When Michael Cremo raised his hand to ask why they weren't the ones that Mary Leakey actually found, he commented something to the effect of the following statement

"Oh, these are like the Mary Leakey footprints, except the Mary Leakey footprints show that the hominid was walking with its toes curled under and walking on the side so it appeared like they were humanoid footprints, which they actually were not."

I couldn't believe this guy said that! This is a prime example of the knowledge filtration that Michael Cremo was talking about and precisely why he decided to write his book.

http://ashiana.conforums.com/index.cgi

~ Isis

[Leonardo]

Like a moth to the flame, Isis, I am drawn back to debate the point again.

So, Mr Cremo is allowed to speculate on these matters but other scientists are not?

Why would the speculation of other scientists be less valid than Mr Cremo's?

Here is a little story for you to consider.

"Some 3 and a bit million years ago I was walking across a plain of volcanic ash. The ash was still warm. Warm enough, in fact, to be uncomfortable to walk on but I had no choice but to press on.

Due to the discomfort I walked on the side of my feet and curled my toes in a little. This reduced the discomfort somewhat as I was protecting the sensitive area under my toes from the heat."

Now this is just a bit of speculative imagination, but it can explain the thinking behind the hypothesis put forward. You might think it's less likely then the 'human footprint' but why? Is it possible others simply have not used imagination to reason this possibility before?

I'm not denying the possibility Mr Cremo is correct, however it would seem to me to be the less likely explanation given the other evidence about the hominidae of that time. In science the less likely explanation will generally be dismissed. Sometimes this has been proven wrong but in the majority of cases it was the correct decision.

As I have said before, in science you have to accept the possibility you may be wrong. Should this not be the case for those who try to refute accepted science?

I admire and respect your conviction and tenacity. Science needs to be questioned otherwise this conspiracy you imagine ( ) may indeed become reality.

[Isis2200]

Like a moth to the flame, Isis, I am drawn back to debate the point again.

Ahh....a nice healthy debate. lol

So, Mr Cremo is allowed to speculate on these matters but other scientists are not?Why would the speculation of other scientists be less valid than Mr Cremo's?

Oh they definitely have the right to speculate, but in all fairness not only to Mary Leakey, but also to the world, what they should have done is provide the original footprints that were found by Mary, but should have stated that they disagree that the footprints were like those of modern day man and then provided the reasons why they believed the way they did.

Anything short of this is, in my opinion, deliberate outright disinformation.

Leonardo, may I ask, are you an archaeologist or other scientist? I'm just curious. ;-)

http://ashiana.conforums.com/index.cgi

~ Isis

[Leonardo]

I agree it was unethical to use manipulated images in the presentation. I would have been offended if they were images I had originally produced and would probably have not allowed the tampering to be associated with them.

I am studying to be a physicist, so I acknowledge my tendency leans towards the scientific process. I have some issues with some of the science that is being taught and accepted today, however I do believe this is down to the recognition and reward scientists garner from their popular theories as individuals rather than some grand conspiracy.

Oh, I've no doubt some scientists use their 'followers' to emphasise their views and try to discredit others, while others simply suffer from a lack of imagination or reasoning. I try to be as open-minded as possible, but you also have to be aware there is a 'system' in science (not a cabal ) and you do have to learn to play the system.

Mr Cremo and others like him may be right (although I personally think it is unlikely) however massaging egos before quietly driving the dagger home is often more effective than an outright assault.

[Isis2200]

I agree it was unethical to use manipulated images in the presentation. I would have been offended if they were images I had originally produced and would probably have not allowed the tampering to be associated with them.

I am studying to be a physicist, so I acknowledge my tendency leans towards the scientific process. I have some issues with some of the science that is being taught and accepted today, however I do believe this is down to the recognition and reward scientists garner from their popular theories as individuals rather than some grand conspiracy.

Oh, I've no doubt some scientists use their 'followers' to emphasise their views and try to discredit others, while others simply suffer from a lack of imagination or reasoning. I try to be as open-minded as possible, but you also have to be aware there is a 'system' in science (not a cabal ) and you do have to learn to play the system.

Mr Cremo and others like him may be right (although I personally think it is unlikely) however massaging egos before quietly driving the dagger home is often more effective than an outright assault.

Good Morning, Leonardo. I wanted to reply sooner but I have been in California(USA) and just got back recently. Oh how nice; I had no idea you were studying to be a physicist. It's not very often I get to meet a future physicist. I know a real laid back kind of guy(physicist) who is from the older generation and was a hippy from the 60's; however, he is very openminded about the kinds of things I talk to him about. I'm an anomalist and he is a physicist(and I'm right brained and he's left brained), we have had some very interesting conversations. I feel positive about our discussions because he is at least willing to consider the possibility of some of the topics we've discussed. I made him laugh one day when I told him "Hey, man, it's all about frequencies; it's all about frequencies." Lol

Leonardo, I have had this feeling for a while now that there has been a slow merging of ideas among the scientific, religious, and metaphysical communities. What is your take on this? Or do you feel there will always be a strong separation of these?

"Mr Cremo and others like him may be right (although I personally think it is unlikely) however massaging egos before quietly driving the dagger home is often more effective than an outright assault."

Yes, I learned that very quickly when I took a class in college called "Business Composition." Lol

http://ashiana.conforums.com/index.cgi

~ Isis

[Leonardo]

Leonardo, I have had this feeling for a while now that there has been a slow merging of ideas among the scientific, religious, and metaphysical communities. What is your take on this? Or do you feel there will always be a strong separation of these?

Afternoon Isis (it's 3:40 pm here), nice to speak again.

I am a very open-minded person - I think this helps when studying physics as some of the theories knocking about in that are pretty out there. I don't knock ideas etc just because there is no current scientific basis for them. I fervently believe that there are many things we do not have a scientific explanation for that will become accepted into the scientific community given a little time, a bit of experimentation and evidence gathering and a lot of patience.

As for your question above. I think it's more that the religions/metaphysical communities are trying to align themselves with current scientific theory to lend more credence to their beliefs rather than science approaching them (although I can see where some peoples miscomprehension of Quantum Theory could lead them to conclude otherwise). As people all over the world become more educated science is taking on a greater role in what people think they should believe. I happen to think we should use science only as the tool it is for the describing of our universe (and all science does that in whatever field of study you undertake), however it is limited by the extent of our knowledge so those who use science to discredit unknown phenomena are doing science and whatever they are attempting to discredit a disservice in doing so.

It's fine to speculate on such things - using science to determine a possible explanation for the phenomena - but some things just cannot be explained with our current understanding of various sciences. We should accept that and move to seek the knowledge that would allow such understanding. There are also other things (like god etc) that are likely to be forever beyond the understanding of scientifically, so why bother trying to rationalise these things? (Still love to debate these subjects though )

If you don't mind me asking - what is an 'anomalist'? It sounds mathematical but I don't want to assume.