Giant skeletons in North America/Grand Canyon

[Abramelin]

Heck, I was just worried you'd end up with a mess of sticky keys!

And to be honest, do you think you can drink enough to reach the level of some? Chuckle!

No, for that I will need some magic shrooms.

[Hocus]

Yeah and the comment indicates you have no clue what a scientific theory is.

Scientific order of relevance

fact<hypothesis<law<theory.

Theories are the top end of science. They always stay theories, they never become anything else. You simply are not distinguishing between the colloquial use of the term theory and the scientific theory. Gravity is just a theory too you. So is partial theory, germ theory, cell theory, atomic theory, quantum theory and many, many more.

Theory is the pinnacle in science.

Sorry but the statement is an extremely ignorant one

Scientific_theory

Educate yourself.

The Klerksdorp spheres are considered natural not man made.

The wiki site links to the related articles and shows why the claims made are baseless.

Sorry for not being the scientist you are, Mattshark.

I never claimed i was, and all this talk of being ignorant. It's good coming from someone who thinks or has to think for the sake of modern science, that the klerksdorp spheres are natural. They are not natural, that's clear to any unbiast mind, and that's definitely not your mind. Here comes the sciene filter i spoke of, they must be natural, they must! Because if these are man made, which they clearly are, they blow nearly everything we claim we know about human history and Earth's history right out of the water.

The filter at work.

I suppose the Underwater ruins of a pyramid off the coast of Japan are also made by nature?

What a joke.

[Ikki]

Sorry for not being the scientist you are, Mattshark.

I never claimed i was, and all this talk of being ignorant. It's good coming from someone who thinks or has to think for the sake of modern science, that the klerksdorp spheres are natural. They are not natural, that's clear to any unbiast mind, and that's definitely not your mind. Here comes the sciene filter i spoke of, they must be natural, they must! Because if these are man made, which they clearly are, they blow nearly everything we claim we know about human history and Earth's history right out of the water.

The filter at work.

I suppose the Underwater ruins of a pyramid off the coast of Japan are also made by nature?

What a joke.

More like "science can show how things like these are able to form naturally and how they are a fairly common occurence, so there's no need to invoke man-made-ness."

I'm curious what your background is since you're able to say with such confidence that nature can not make things like these?

[Swede]

So what was it you found, and just exactly how anomalous was the find?

Without going into great detail..... First, you need to understand a bit about this particular science. An object, by itself, is often of little research value. It is the provenience and association of the artifact that allows one to derive valid inferences. This is the problem with much fringe history. Artifacts that have not been formally excavated are presented without location,stratigraphy, associated cultural components, etc. This then allows for rampant erroneous speculation. Numerous authors besides Cremo have made a career of disseminating this spurious information.

In the case of our work, the artifacts were of lithic nature. Interesting, but it was the provenience that was the issue. It would appear that the site predates known human presence in the region by some 3,000 yrs., occurs in an area previously thought (by some) uninhabitable during the time period in question, and could be one of the oldest sites in North America. Trust me, that can stir some kettles!

Edited August 15, 2009 by Swede

[Abramelin]

I suppose the Underwater ruins of a pyramid off the coast of Japan are also made by nature?

What a joke.

No, they are very possible natural formations reshaped by man, but not as old as previously thought; just like a 2000 years or something.

[panthera]

i cannot believe the amount of ludicrous stuff i am hearing...

Just because the photograph i used was from Crystalinks, does that mean i have to agree with the theories given by them? That's all they are... theories.

Not to mention the capacity of the skull and many others like it have a BIGGER capacity than a human skull, you can bash and mishape your head as much as you wish, but you can't change the capacity. That's a fact. And the capacity of these such skulls were over twice that for a human skull. That's also a fact. So either this skull goes against an obvious scientific fact or...... it didn't belong to a human being.

a large skull means nothing no brain capacity, look at dinosaur skulls, we human's only use about 13 (or 7, idk i think its one of the two) percent, PERCENT, of our entire brain capacity, its not how large the CAPACITY is, its how well u can use the amount of "brain" u have. Monkeys do not have large brains yet they can use tools and work in groups.

Are you actually serious?

I'm sure college professors don't scheme about what to tell us behind close doors, that's already been decided. Most of the time they will be none the wiser that what they are teaching is heavily edited or a total fabrication. I never said they were the ones who scheme. As for this scientifc cover-up, i'm not saying all scientists and ayone in the field is part of it, in fact many are oblivious to it, but there are those who are part of it, some don't report anomalous objects and artifacts and keep them to themselves, because they know full well if they do it will be the last artifact they document, as they'll know longer be in a job. This is a fact, has happen multiple times. Read the book "Forbidden Archaeology" by Michael Cremo. There are case documented in that book.

Though there is a blatant scientific filter that exists and still goes on to this very day, if an object doesn't fit right in with the so called accpeted hypothesis of history, it's violently rejected. This is also a fact.

Don't see the argument here Jayle, to be honest.

Can you show me some proof that those examples i posted up are a hoax? Shouldn't be hard, if there such a well known hoax, like is claimed.

i am in school, and before they teach evolution they constantly tell us that this is nothing but a theory, to take it as fact OR theory is nothing but your choice, they also tell us that fact is nothing rlly, becuase we can never be sure of what we know, such as the theory of gravity, but the theory of evolution and darwinism, is nothing but theory and strictly theory, u r biased for taking this as being taught as fact

No, not really big brains, just the natural space for really big brains. Bigger than human brains, in fact twice the capacity of a human skull.

If it was only a deformed skull with some abnormalities then why do we not hear about in text books or in any lessons and lectures? Why when you mention it to the so called experts, do they call it a hoax or tell you, you must be mistaken? Why do they refuse to examined them properly? Might it be that they're afraid of what the results might spell?

Never fear though....just turn on the filter.

As far as i'm aware, there have been attempts to get them tested, but proper testing has been refused many times? WHY? Apparently the skulls are so clearly a hoax, there not worth testing. Ha, yeah right... if they were so sure it was a hoax they would have them tested long ago to make us look like fools and mainly to clear up the whole mystery, but instead they refuse to. Hmmmmm, i smell a certain filter.

Speaking for why the Africans did it, i'm not sure, but that explanation sounds feasible. Though the Egyptians did it because that's what the Sun God's looked like, and these Sun God's were intelligent and wise. And so the egyptians wanted to be like these Sun gods and hence bashed their skull into the shapes seen on certain skeletons and in certain wall carvings. Though my theory is that there's a common link somewhere, that goes way back in time, between all the skull mishaping from different cultures and religons

Who were these Sun God's? They certainly weren't human... that's for sure.

And i doubt they were making it up... it's totally absurd saying they just made it up, that that's the filter at work again, just because modern science is at a loss to explain it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

again, large capacity or room for brain means nothing for how well u use the brain

Jaylemurph, i'm not saying that you are involved or ever have been or even knows someone who has been. And i'm not saying that everything taught in a history college class are all total lies. The facts get twisted, manipulated and erased at a much higher level before it even reaches you guys. So, like i said, for the most part know one suspects a thing... why should they?

Why is Darwins theory of evolution taught in schools as fact, it's not a fact it's a theory. There's something seriously wrong with that straight away.

There clearly is a filter and people have lost jobs over making anomalous artifacts public knowledge. These are both facts.

Ok, that's fair enough..Cremo's a liar. Everyones entitled to their own opinions. Could you tell me how Cremo's a liar or prove to me how Cremo's a liar?

Or is he just a liar because what he believes is radically different to what you believe?

ok, cremo is largely shown by ALOT of people and well known scientists as not credible......, and again evolution is taught as theory not fact

[Abramelin]

a large skull means nothing no brain capacity, look at dinosaur skulls, we human's only use about 13 (or 7, idk i think its one of the two) percent, PERCENT, of our entire brain capacity

I am getting really tired of repeating this, but this is false. People use only that amount of their brain capacity AT THE SAME TIME, ok?

Of we used all of our brains at the same time , we would experience an epileptic fit.

[KRS-One]

I suppose the Underwater ruins of a pyramid off the coast of Japan are also made by nature?

What a joke.

Well, given that they are formed by nature, yea? You've got a long row to hoe.

Edited August 15, 2009 by KRS-One

[panthera]

o haha shulda looked up the 10 percent theory thing first haha my badddd

[Mattshark]

Sorry for not being the scientist you are, Mattshark.

I never claimed i was, and all this talk of being ignorant. It's good coming from someone who thinks or has to think for the sake of modern science, that the klerksdorp spheres are natural. They are not natural, that's clear to any unbiast mind, and that's definitely not your mind. Here comes the sciene filter i spoke of, they must be natural, they must! Because if these are man made, which they clearly are, they blow nearly everything we claim we know about human history and Earth's history right out of the water.

The filter at work.

I suppose the Underwater ruins of a pyramid off the coast of Japan are also made by nature?

What a joke.

There is no filter, the people who this research work for universities. But you are just not willing learn how it works. I'm do work in science and guess what, I have no one telling me what to put in and not put in my results, no one from any government is involved in data collection (which happens world wide) you are simply offering a baseless CT after you have displayed your general ignorance to the whole field.

Have you even read any scientific papers? Looked at journals (which are not government run).

[Mattshark]

More like "science can show how things like these are able to form naturally and how they are a fairly common occurence, so there's no need to invoke man-made-ness."

I'm curious what your background is since you're able to say with such confidence that nature can not make things like these?

Well it definitely isn't science. His "only a theory" comment is clear evidence of this.

[Abramelin]

A natural formation:

The Giant's Causeway in Ireland.

[jaylemurph]

And I ask YOU: why do people all over the world tattoo their bodies?

To make ourselves pretty!

Also -- Hocus -- being called ignorant is not an insult, all the less so if it's true. If you don't people to think you are, don't say things that a) are just not true clearly reveal the fact you don't know what you're talking about and c) directly contradicted by the every-day experience of multiple participants in this thread. Until you figure out how historians and scientists actually work, you may want to hold off pontificating on that subject. Especially if you don't want to be corrected.

--Jaylemurph

[Mattshark]

A natural formation:

The Giant's Causeway in Ireland.

Not in Ireland, in Northern Ireland.

Really, really disappointing is that place.

[Abramelin]

Not in Ireland, in Northern Ireland.

Really, really disappointing is that place.

But it looks cool, depending from what angle you take the shot, right?

[Mattshark]

But it looks cool, depending from what angle you take the shot, right?

Yeah but it is just very small.

[jaylemurph]

Yeah but it is just very small.

...I thought size didn't matter.

--Jaylemurph

[Oniomancer]

Sorry for not being the scientist you are, Mattshark.

I never claimed i was, and all this talk of being ignorant. It's good coming from someone who thinks or has to think for the sake of modern science, that the klerksdorp spheres are natural. They are not natural, that's clear to any unbiast mind, and that's definitely not your mind. Here comes the sciene filter i spoke of, they must be natural, they must! Because if these are man made, which they clearly are, they blow nearly everything we claim we know about human history and Earth's history right out of the water.

The filter at work.

Bias works both ways, and observation trumps opinion. The klerksdorp spheres are quite consistant with fairly common known natural metallic concretions, like the moqui marbles and their Martian counterparts:

http://web.utah.edu/unews/releases/04/jun/marsmarbles.html

We even have experimental evidence ably demonstrating how such things could be created naturally by other forces than water:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arc...blueberries.htm

I suppose the Underwater ruins of a pyramid off the coast of Japan are also made by nature?

What a joke.

Indubitably, as it's non-artificiality should be painfully clear to anyone who's actually familiar with sedimentary rock with similar fracture properties. Other than the scale, There's nothing there I havn't seen reasonably similar examples of in nature.

[Oniomancer]

Cranial binding occurs during the early stages of a child's life when the skeletal tissue is comparatively soft and subject to deformation. The bindings are applied with moderate pressure and reapplied and adjusted regularly as the cranial structure is shaped. There is nothing particularly painful or unpleasant in the process. And certainly nothing equating to "bashing".

Yep, they naturally take the shape of the binding, just like bonsai kittens.

[ShadowSot]

Yep, they naturally take the shape of the binding, just like bonsai kittens.

Bonsai kittens was a internet hoax.

Head binding is still a flourishing practice, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are groups in the States that practice it, seeing as how trepanation has been making a come back as well.

Cranial Binding

This, to me at least, isn't the most extreme body shaping I've seen. The elongated necks would be worse, seeing as how removing the rings would kill or incapacitate them.

If you wonder why this practice is common... look at a play boy today. Beauty marks, whatever they may be, get exaggerated within the culture, and can go to incredible lengths.

As for the klerpdorff spheres... they are basically fools gold, and there are a number of similar objects.

[Oniomancer]

*Sigh* Hundreds if not thousands of years from now, valiant data miners excavating the crumbling ruins of ancient online archives are going to encounter emoticons and wonder at what strange and mystical purpose they may have served. Obviously it's a dying form.

[+DieChecker]

, that the klerksdorp spheres are natural. They are not natural, that's clear to any unbiast mind, and that's definitely not your mind. Here comes the sciene filter i spoke of, they must be natural, they must! Because if these are man made, which they clearly are, they blow nearly everything we claim we know about human history and Earth's history right out of the water.

These "spheres" have the preponderance of evidence that they are natural. Many are found lumped into a solid mass and their crystals intergrown together. The only mystery is why these natural minerals have such straight lines in parallel.

I suppose the Underwater ruins of a pyramid off the coast of Japan are also made by nature?

The entire island that the "pyramids" are next to exibits the same kind of fracturing and squared corners. It is a characteristic of the native stone. Does that mean people did not use it for a temple or whatnot? No. But, does it make it a man made pyramid or structure? No.

i am in school, and before they teach evolution they constantly tell us that this is nothing but a theory, to take it as fact OR theory is nothing but your choice, they also tell us that fact is nothing rlly, becuase we can never be sure of what we know, such as the theory of gravity, but the theory of evolution and darwinism, is nothing but theory and strictly theory, u r biased for taking this as being taught as fact

Though I agree that evolution is a theory. It is a theory that has the preponderance of the evidence. When 90%, or 99% of the evidence points to something being real, then we can assume it is the most likely theory.

[TheSearcher]

Without going into great detail..... First, you need to understand a bit about this particular science. An object, by itself, is often of little research value. It is the provenience and association of the artifact that allows one to derive valid inferences. This is the problem with much fringe history. Artifacts that have not been formally excavated are presented without location,stratigraphy, associated cultural components, etc. This then allows for rampant erroneous speculation. Numerous authors besides Cremo have made a career of disseminating this spurious information.

In the case of our work, the artifacts were of lithic nature. Interesting, but it was the provenience that was the issue. It would appear that the site predates known human presence in the region by some 3,000 yrs., occurs in an area previously thought (by some) uninhabitable during the time period in question, and could be one of the oldest sites in North America. Trust me, that can stir some kettles!

Anywhere we could actually read the article or even the paper? I'm very interrested in seeing what you found. I might not be a schooled archeologist nor historian, but I am as well versed as any self thought person can be, certainly not a ninkenpoop when it comes to science. And no worries, if there's something I don't get I'll ask, I allways do.

[Swede]

Anywhere we could actually read the article or even the paper? I'm very interrested in seeing what you found. I might not be a schooled archeologist nor historian, but I am as well versed as any self thought person can be, certainly not a ninkenpoop when it comes to science. And no worries, if there's something I don't get I'll ask, I allways do.

TheSearcher - Did you get a chance to view my reply before the system crash? If not, let me know and I can repeat.

Swede

[TheSearcher]

TheSearcher - Did you get a chance to view my reply before the system crash? If not, let me know and I can repeat.

Swede

Nope I missed it Swede, so if you don't mind.... thanks