forbidden archeology - Historum

**kbear** · November 23rd, 2010, 02:48 PM

YouTube - Forbidden Archeology (Part 1)

has anyone watched these videos? michael cremo claims archeologists have found human remains (not all bodies, i'm talking about tools, weapons etc...) that are far older than what modern science says is plausable. they have been dated with several different methods and some are hundreds of thousands of years old. there are grooved spheres from africa that are over 2 billion years old. if humans have only been here for around 100,000, then how can they explain these artifacts??
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/archaeology.htm i found this site also that says archeologists have found many artifacts that were covered up because they didn't fit into mainstream thinking. some of these archeologists were ridiculed and their careers ruined when they tried to publish their findings. is this BS or have artifacts been covered up?

Sillyduffa · November 23rd, 2010, 04:22 PM

I have to say I am a bit over the archaeologist bashing that some of these people do. From the second link:

Quote:

"Conrad believes his discovery has frightened members of the archeological/ paleontological establishment out of their wits. They dread the truth, he says, because they know their cozy little clique will be gone with the eons. No longer will they be able to sup at the trough of Darwinism, enjoying soft jobs with huge salaries."

Lol! I'm looking forward to my huge salary of 40k, granted I can actually get a job. I think the poor guy's a bit bitter.

As for the Forbidden Archaeology video, it's true that there have been spears found dating to 400 000 years ago. The spears and other evidence such as the Florisbad cranium have pushed back the date for archaic homo sapiens to around 300 000 years, with modern homo sapiens at around 160 000.

All of these dates are debated and even the difference between archaic and modern homo sapiens is debated by anthropologists. Nothing is absolute and there is still so much that we don't know. Our ideas about human evolution are constantly changing as new evidence comes to light. When it comes to Darwin and evolution, archaeologists generally recognise evolution only as a theory and not fact.

Not so long ago the idea of hobbit people was laughable, until they actually found Homo floresiensis. But it wasn't covered up; information was released to the public. Even though it went against the thinking of the time. Before this in 1999, a skeleton that appeared to be an admixture of neanderthal and homo sapien was found, resulting in a big debate among the scientific community. It was not resolved until the neanderthal genome was mapped. It has now been proven that homo sapiens and neanderthals mixed to some degree and none of this stuff was hidden from the public at all.

I don't believe that there are any conspiracies to keep people in the dark. If artefacts were suppressed it is more likely due to the actions of an individual rather than the discipline, or it could be because there is not enough information or evidence to interpret them. That's just my opinion though.

Fluffybunny · November 23rd, 2010, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sillyduffa

I have to say I am a bit over the archaeologist bashing that some of these people do. From the second link:
Lol! I'm looking forward to my huge salary of 40k, granted I can actually get a job. I think the poor guy's a bit bitter.

As for the Forbidden Archaeology video, it's true that there have been spears found dating to 400 000 years ago. The spears and other evidence such as the Florisbad cranium have pushed back the date for archaic homo sapiens to around 300 000 years, with modern homo sapiens at around 160 000.

All of these dates are debated and even the difference between archaic and modern homo sapiens is debated by anthropologists. Nothing is absolute and there is still so much that we don't know. Our ideas about human evolution are constantly changing as new evidence comes to light. When it comes to Darwin and evolution, archaeologists generally recognise evolution only as a theory and not fact.

Not so long ago the idea of hobbit people was laughable, until they actually found Homo floresiensis. But it wasn't covered up; information was released to the public. Even though it went against the thinking of the time. Before this in 1999, a skeleton that appeared to be an admixture of neanderthal and homo sapien was found, resulting in a big debate among the scientific community. It was not resolved until the neanderthal genome was mapped. It has now been proven that homo sapiens and neanderthals mixed to some degree and none of this stuff was hidden from the public at all.

I don't believe that there are any conspiracies to keep people in the dark. If artefacts were suppressed it is more likely due to the actions of an individual rather than the discipline, or it could be because there is not enough information or evidence to interpret them. That's just my opinion though.

Seens all perfectly plausible and rational to me.

Recusant · November 23rd, 2010, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbear

...there are grooved spheres from africa that are over 2 billion years old. if humans have only been here for around 100,000, then how can they explain these artifacts??
...is this BS or have artifacts been covered up?

I'm just going to address the "grooved sphere." The book Forbidden Archeology actually cites a story from the "Weekly World News" as a source in describing the spheres. In case anybody isn't aware of it, the "Weekly World News" is essentially a fiction tabloid. It's the paper that follows the adventures of the "Bat Boy" and regularly includes "photographs" of world leaders talking with aliens. Hardly the sort of source which a reputable scientist would be willing to cite. As for the composition and origin of the grooved sphere itself, there is a fine article which goes into quite a bit of detail which I'll quote below, including a link:

Quote:

From

The Mysterious Origins of Man:
The South African Grooved Sphere Controversy
by Paul Heinrich at TalkOrigins.org:

There is no chain-of-evidence that clearly proves that this sphere with the three grooves had them when found in place. If artificial, the grooves could have been carved innocently just as folkart and later mistakenly thought to have been present when it was found. Since the spheres are metamorphic nodules from the pyrophyllite, then they could not have been carved before the sediment was buried and metamorphosed, because the nodule would not have existed at the time that the sediments were deposited. Thus, If these grooves are artificial, than they were created after the nodule was extracted from the pyrophyllite and they are considerably younger than the age assigned to them.

Of course, the three-grooved sphere could be a sphere of a different origin than the metamorphic nodules found in the pyrophyllite. However, if this sphere is composed of a different material then the nodules present in the pyrophyllite, then there is no evidence linking this sphere to the nodules found within the pyrophyllite. Also, had the sphere been buried in the sediment about 2.8 billion years age, their subsequent metamorphism would have severely defaced the grooves exhibited by the sphere and have deformed the sphere itself. Thus, if the sphere is composed of something other than pyrite or goethite, there is no evidence connecting it to the pyrophyllite deposits. In that case, it would be impossible to assign any sort of age, significance, or origin to it without additional study of the three-grooved sphere itself.

I'll have to say that I have some difficulty taking this whole theory seriously if it's based on such evidence as the "South African Grooved Sphere."

**Toltec** · November 24th, 2010, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sillyduffa

I have to say I am a bit over the archaeologist bashing that some of these people do. From the second link:
Lol! I'm looking forward to my huge salary of 40k, granted I can actually get a job. I think the poor guy's a bit bitter.

As for the Forbidden Archaeology video, it's true that there have been spears found dating to 400 000 years ago. The spears and other evidence such as the Florisbad cranium have pushed back the date for archaic homo sapiens to around 300 000 years, with modern homo sapiens at around 160 000.

All of these dates are debated and even the difference between archaic and modern homo sapiens is debated by anthropologists. Nothing is absolute and there is still so much that we don't know. Our ideas about human evolution are constantly changing as new evidence comes to light. When it comes to Darwin and evolution, archaeologists generally recognise evolution only as a theory and not fact.

Not so long ago the idea of hobbit people was laughable, until they actually found Homo floresiensis. But it wasn't covered up; information was released to the public. Even though it went against the thinking of the time. Before this in 1999, a skeleton that appeared to be an admixture of neanderthal and homo sapien was found, resulting in a big debate among the scientific community. It was not resolved until the neanderthal genome was mapped. It has now been proven that homo sapiens and neanderthals mixed to some degree and none of this stuff was hidden from the public at all.

I don't believe that there are any conspiracies to keep people in the dark. If artefacts were suppressed it is more likely due to the actions of an individual rather than the discipline, or it could be because there is not enough information or evidence to interpret them. That's just my opinion though.

It's a standard pseudo archaeologic conspiracy theory. The site below covers many of them, unfortuanately this guys not there but plenty similar, there's a good essay on the subject in the links of the righhand side.

http://www.badarchaeology.net/bad/index.php

All archaeologocial cons of this pattern follow a standard 3 stage pattern. Take complex problem that doesn't necessary have a single answer.

Stage one - Claim it has been answered, but a groups of people (archaeologists) are conspiring to hide this answer from you, because the answer is so mindblowing.

Stage Two - Claim you uniquely have somehow gained knowledge of what that answer is.

Stage Three - It a single simplistic answer that answers not only this questions, but all unanswered questions from around the world and different era and peoples.

Any Graham Chapman fans?

LegioXIII · November 29th, 2010, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Recusant

The book Forbidden Archeology actually cites a story from the "Weekly World News" as a source in describing the spheres.

Weekly World News?! Whhhyyyyy?!?! You can only damage with credibility with a source like that. I remember seeing the covers many times on magazine stands at grocery stores. They are meant to be satirical. I remember one cover that said Dick Chainey was Sasquatch's Sex Slave and that they had found Jesus' sandal in Central Park.

corrocamino · November 29th, 2010, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sillyduffa

When it comes to Darwin and evolution, archaeologists generally recognise evolution only as a theory and not fact.

Come, come!

corrocamino · November 29th, 2010, 12:58 PM

"Artifacts" 2 billion years old? Maybe in comic books.