Re: Bad Archaeology

On Sep 2, 2:26 am, Doug Weller <dwel...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

I was going to say what Tom has said. Your statement had me pretty
confused as I've not heard anyone say that. I don't know what you suggest
as smart. We do know that during the history of our ancestors that was
were periods of hundreds of thousands of years with virtually no change in
lithic technology. But we also know of very ancient well made spears.

Can I get a link to the spears?


Links?

I'm sure you've deemed Han***'s Okinawan structures as fantasy. After
"Supernatural" they had a feeding frenzy trying to discredit him for
them. But upon cross-examination even his biggest critics failed to
explain many of the problems with having it be purely geological.

Of course, when a critic comes out and "disproves" a far fetched idea,
all the archeologists say "see I told you so" and never revisit it
again. So the criticism is remembered but the rebuttal is not.

For instance, I still run into people who say the Kensington stone was
fake. Someone "proved" that it was fake, but later that ruling was
unequivocally overturned. But so few mainstreamers remember that its
reputation has been redeemed; they just remember that someone cried
"fake" a long time ago and have never revisted it since.

Here is a link to Han***'s statements about okinawa. At the bottom
you will find a link to his response to his most respected critic and
skeptic. In my opinion, Han*** makes him look like a liar.

Most of Han***'s theories I find faulty. However, it amazes me how
all mainstream archeology needs is a single critic to totally dismiss
a theory, and when that criticism is in turn proven faulty no one
seems to notice. Read the responses to Flemings criticism and then
tell me how you hang on to the notion that the structures were not at
least altered for dwelling or ceremonial purposes by ancient man.

http://www.grahamhan***.com/underworld/



Do you know the areas where agriculture was supposed to have started? Or
the reasons given for it?

Yes and I don't buy it.

I just think it's illogical to assume that man was idle as long as
they would have it. It only took man 5000 years to build civilization
as we know it, and there's a massivity of ancient writing that leads
me to believe that there were civilizations before the end of the ice
age.
So I start looking for reasons why the evidence was erased. So far I
have the disappearance of coastlines, Sundaland, the British-European
land bridge, the Inquisition, The Crusades, the Chines communist
revolution, the secrecy of the Vatican and the Freemasons, and a whole
bunch of ancient megalithic structures that seem far beyond the
capabilities of mere hunter-gatherers.
herbie brennan got a quote on how long it would take the biggest
quarry in North America to produce enough stone to build Giza and got
an estimate of around 75 years, IF they stopped all other projects and
worked on nothing but that. And they still haven't explained to my
satisfaction how they did the work so precisely without modern tools.

To me, it all points back to an as of yet undiscovered technological
culture or cultures.

Not a "modern culture" mind you, but one that had a technology very
different from ours. Hss had plenty of time to do it, archaic Hs had
even more time, and there's ample reason why it has been erased from
the archeological/historical record. All the best habitats of Ice Age
man are underwater! The nations that be have destroyed all of the
ancient texts!

Is it so insane to believe that Hss might have discovered copper say
30,000 ybp, and then lost it again just like the great lake Native
Americans did? Is it so hard to believe that the technology of the
ancients was more focused on things like Ayur Veda, hypnosis, Huna,
and Tai Chi than materialistic applied science? Could the ancients not
have had a Keeley or a Tesla to steer technological progress in a
direction that is totally alien and unrecognizable to our modern
assumptions about technology?




..

.

Loading