Atlantis Online
May 09, 2021, 09:19:49 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Comet theory collides with Clovis research, may explain disappearance of ancient people
http://uscnews.sc.edu/ARCH190.html
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

Forbidden Archaeology : masterpiece of science

Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Forbidden Archaeology : masterpiece of science  (Read 2089 times)
Mark of Australia
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 703



« on: March 17, 2007, 05:03:06 pm »

I suggest you READ the book ,

 most of those 900 odd pages deal with the finds and sites that are mainly of stone tools ,many that are primitive ,and how the interpretation of those finds were severely influenced by the new theory of the time called evolution (you may have heard of it)  . Also most of the material the book uses are from sites and finds of the late 19th century .

Basically it shows that our current views about human antiquity were moulded at that crucial early stage in evolutionary theory and archaeological interpretation .And so since then ,for most of the 20th century and up to today, the anomolus finds have been forced into the accepted view so that they simply dont appear to be anomolous.

I am not good at explaining it ,so I can not strongly recommend enough the importance of reading the book for yourself (Essan) .  It sounds like you have read it Desiree,I'm not sure if it was the full version though,you might wanna check the appendices that give a critique of C14 and other types of hi-tech testing..  also the Appendix concerning the dating of the Castenedolo skeletons is very interesting.The Castenedolo find is one of the best pieces of evidence presented in the book.   http://www.calarts.edu/~shockley/castenedolo.html

It would be astounding to me if you had actually read the full version Essan and still made that comment below.  So I am sure that you have not read it..Oh and Essan ,they ONLY worked with the empirical evidence .That was silly of you to say..("Little, if any, empirical evidence.") I'm not trying to be nasty to you but that was a sloppy comment ,much like the standard response of those in the 'orthodoxy'.

Desiree ,they explained in the book that they did not lean on radio carbon dating due to it's inaccuracies but that they did consider the C14 evidence . They explained why stratigraphic dating  of geological layers in many cases was considered to be more important evidence  than the C14 dates .. C14 has a limit of about 40000 years  ...

 I could try to defend the book as best I could but it would be nowhere near as eloquent as the book itself ,so again , I beseech anyone who sets eyes on these words ...read the book .

 
« Last Edit: March 17, 2007, 05:17:08 pm by Mark Ponta » Report Spam   Logged


Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy