Atlantis Online
May 09, 2021, 09:11:29 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: USA showered by a watery comet ~11,000 years ago, ending the Golden Age of man in America
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20050926/mammoth_02.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 16, 2007, 08:52:21 pm »

Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race by Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson quickly became a best selling underground classic, with over 200,000 copies sold and translations in more than 13 languages.   This massive work spawned waves of resistance and wonder amongst the scientific community, with over 900 pages of well-documented evidence suggesting that modern man did not evolve from ape man, but instead has co-existed with apes for millions of years!

Michael Cremo lectures to academic, popular, and scientific audiences around the world in a continuing challenge to Darwinian evolution


From its initial release in 1993 to the present, Forbidden Archeology has shocked and delighted readers around the globe with a veritable encyclopedia of anomalous scientific evidence challenging the standard views on human evolution
http://www.mcremo.com/ 
                     
                                                         




 Now...
         I don't wanna  sound like one of those people with 20/20 vision in hindsight ,like, "Columbus didn't do much ,all he had to do was sail west til he hit land ,*scoff*)."    ...,but it is true that I had been leaning heavily towards similar conclusions as those found in Forbidden Archaeology before I'd even read it .
  Those conclusions are that the anatomically modern human race could be millions upon millions of years old ,but more importantly that the methods that the scientists have been using to piece together their view of antiquity has been hypocritical ,rife with double standards and plain unscientific.
 People who have not read the book will naturally find this hard to believe .Surely professional scientists can't be incompetent, can they ?    (naturally hard to believe?, yeah because our culture instills in us that scientists are smart ..err ..*scough*)

   When I  read in that book how the circus of academic opinion 'brutally' goes about forming the dogma, I marvelled at how the standards managed to get so low and how the fundamentals of scientific method could be mauled in such a blatant way. Despite this,Cremo and Thompson managed to restrain themselves and remain polite ;maybe a little too polite?.No ,they were perfect ,the way Cremo and Thompson maintained there composure to produce a masterpiece of dispassionate scholarship . They beat the incompetent bastards at their own etiquette.!    ( I dont have to be polite here do I ??  Tongue)

  The view I was leaning toward before I read Forbidden Archaeology was confirmed much more forcefully than I had hoped for upon starting out,  and I liken the intellectual journey on which it guided me, to a trailblazing adventure that is still pioneering ever expanding vistas of possibility concerning our own antiquity.It's such a contrast to the straight-jacket of 'their' orthodoxy.

  Ok Ok ,so I got a bit carried away with the last couple of sentences but it gives you an idea of how highly I rate the book . I seriously think that if you are a student of human antiquity and have not read Forbidden Archaeology then you can't really claim to be up to date with the knowledge on the subject at all .
 
 It is ESSENTIAL reading ..  get the abridged version if you must, but JUST GET IT !   lol

« Last Edit: March 16, 2007, 09:36:15 pm by Mark Ponta » Report Spam   Logged

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Desiree
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3882



« Reply #1 on: March 17, 2007, 06:29:30 am »

Good book, long book! It's about as thick as some of my college textbooks.

It also got a lot of critcsm when it came out for it's archaeological method.  As I recall, most items weren't radiocarbon dated but were simply judged to be old because they were buried in deeper layers of earth?  If you have any other info on how they deated all that stuff, let me know.
Report Spam   Logged

This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean. But afterwards there occurred violent earthquakes and floods; and in a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea.
Essan
Full Member
***
Posts: 29



WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 17, 2007, 09:06:19 am »

Many stories.  Little, if any, empirical evidence.

Science works on the basis that just saying something happened doesn't actually prove it happened.  And let's face it, if you have 100,000 stories and 100 of those suggest orthodox views are wrong, then publishing a book with just those 100 stories in it presents a distorted view of reality Wink   
Report Spam   Logged

Andy
Mark of Australia
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 703



« Reply #3 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
Rebecca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 5201



« Reply #4 on: March 18, 2007, 05:09:53 am »

Carbon 14 dating has it's share of errors, but radiometric dating does not, and it's perfect for dating rock.  In fact, radiometric dating of rock is what helped establish the date of the earth, the oldest rocks dating to nearly 4.6 billion years old.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark of Australia
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 703



« Reply #5 on: March 18, 2007, 05:38:03 am »

Hi Rebecca

i have read some arguments against radiometric dating ,,its pretty technical so i couldnt really follow the details ,, but basically they say there are too many assumptions of constancy .have you studied this sort of thing .?
Report Spam   Logged
Rebecca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 5201



« Reply #6 on: March 18, 2007, 05:56:29 am »

Yes, I have, it's actually accurate so long as the iostopes of the specimen don't get contaminated, and care has to be taken with any sample in a lab. Also, tests need to be performed on several different areas of the rock.  So long as there isn't an a reading that is an anomaly, the results can be averaged out.

No question the earth is very old, but I think we need more scientific evidence before we decide that modern man appeared earlier on it.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark of Australia
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 703



« Reply #7 on: March 18, 2007, 06:10:55 am »

yeah we do need more evidence to prove that man is millions of years older than thought..  but I dont actually assume that man is millions of years old . Forbidden Archaeology does lean that way but they don't actually say it is enough evidence to draw a conclusion yet either .

The main revelation of that book is that the scientific standards of archaeologists in the late 19th century and up to the present have not been so dispassionate or logical as they would have us believe and that the standard view may well be wrong .Personally I do think the standard view of our antiquity is wrong but cant say how old we really are or fill in any of the details .. We simply dont know .

The academics are too hasty by insisting on an answer now .... a bit like the climatologists concerning global warming ,, but dont get me started on that . Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: March 20, 2007, 02:20:12 am by Mark Ponta » Report Spam   Logged
Tom Hebert
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1370


« Reply #8 on: March 18, 2007, 06:29:34 am »

yeah we do need more evidence to prove that man is millions of years older than thought..  but I dont actually assume that man is millions of years old . Forbidden Archaeology does lean that way but they don't actually say it is enough evidence to draw a conclusion yet either .

The main revelation of that book is that the scietific standards of archaeologists in the late 19th century and up to the present have not been so dispassionate or logical as they would like to believe and that the standard view may well be wrong .Personally I do think the standard view of our antiquity is wrong but cant say how old we really are or fill in any of the details .. We simply dont know .

The academics are too hasty by insisting on an answer now .... a bit like the climatologists concerning global warming ,, but dont get me started on that . Roll Eyes

Hi Mark,

I came to a similar conclusion when I read the book.  Either man is older than we thought OR perhaps the world is younger than we thought.  Or maybe we just don't know how stable our planet has been over the past eons.

I know that when they carbon dated the Great Pyramid, they found that the upper part was older than the lower part!  This was, of course, explained away, but shouldn't that send up a red flag somewhere?  This would be an example of what Cremo calls "filtered knowledge."  If something looks impossible according to our current theory, it must be impossible!

Report Spam   Logged
Mark of Australia
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 703



« Reply #9 on: March 18, 2007, 07:15:49 am »

Yes ,you have mentioned something Tom , that I think is the way forward .  I hadnt said anything about it before but now's the time i guess...

In Forbidden Archaeology near its beginning , the authors  mention that they will be working with the 'standard' geological chrononlogy in their identification of the artefacts ages and context. They also hint that maybe geological history as it now stands may also need to be investigated in a similar way to the method they will be using in their book and therefore may not be a reliable dating method..but they basically decided that they would nevertheless continue ...and that criticism of geology is for some future work.. they were very brief about that part.

I do think that is the way forward. I notice how the geological ages are totally unquestioned ,even amongst the sort of theorist you'd find around here... there is some sort of taboo about questioning geological doctrine .It should be thoroughly scrutinized ,right back to the original assumptions of Lyell. That is where the errors started I believe... Gradualism is enemy number one..because it is considered a principle of Geology.. I never heard anything so stupid as to claim that there are Principles of Geology. As Lyells epoch making book is called.  We need an epoch breaking book ....another 'Forbidden Archaeology'.

« Last Edit: March 18, 2007, 07:18:49 am by Mark Ponta » Report Spam   Logged
Tom Hebert
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1370


« Reply #10 on: March 18, 2007, 12:21:50 pm »

Yes, I would love to see "Forbidden Geology" published.  There are some Creation scientists who have done research on this already, but what we need is a comprehensive book like Cremo's.

Cremo used traditional geology in order to have a stable reference point.  Otherwise things would really have been confused, and the anomolies would not have shown up so clearly.  But this methodology allowed him to refute traditional scientists using their own "standards."
Report Spam   Logged
Mark of Australia
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 703



« Reply #11 on: March 18, 2007, 06:07:05 pm »

Yep ,I think the 'deeper' readers noticed that. I wonder if Cremo has any plans on that front. I would have thought that was logically the next step to take.
    Instead, Cremo wrote "Human Devolution" . Putting forward a theory to kind of fill the vacuum caused by the potential implications of Forbidden Archaeology .And because it matched his Born-Again Hindu (for want of a better description) beliefs.

Here's a thought...Maybe Cremo and Thompson are not so different from the establishment scientists as it may appear.They launched into the massive undertaking that was "Forbidden Archaeology" initially because their own beliefs didn't match establishment views about human antiquity.(A bit of an over-simplification,but that is the gist of it).
  And I remember they pointed out that their belief for the age of the Earth just happens to match the scientific establishments view ie. 4.32 billion years. That is some Hindu cycle of time for the Earth or the regeneration of the Earth.  The academics say Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

 So maybe that is why they feel no urgency to investigate geological history ,it doesn't conflict with their belief . "If it ain't broke ,don't try to fix it "

 That said, Cremo and Thompson were led by their belief to conduct some great science so I think that's all that matters.

The problem is when your beliefs lead you to ignore clear scientific data.

I remember writing something to someone here that basically goes  ... at the end of the day it is healthy ,actually vital , that their be scientists with varied beliefs looking at the data from their respective points of view and being able to be heard in the halls of acadaemia.That would only do any good if acadaemia was not dominated by a single point of view.

Despite that ,I think it is a healthy little underground we've got going around and I dont think that I would change very much about the system even if I could. Any one of us here has the chance to make a name for themselves by making an important discovery of a "fact" that has been overlooked by professional scientists.It's just very hard to do it from the 'outside' though.

That's another thing that's so good about Forbidden Archaeology to my mind. The idea that two independant scholars from way out of left-field could shake to their foundations the sciences of Anthropology and Archaeology in their entirety.

« Last Edit: March 18, 2007, 11:32:36 pm by Mark Ponta » Report Spam   Logged
Tom Hebert
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1370


« Reply #12 on: March 18, 2007, 09:12:24 pm »

Yes, Mark, you hit the nail on the head.  I didn't want to bring up their religion because their work should be judged on its own merit.  But you can see how these authors would not be motivated to challenge the geological assumptions of modern science.  Now on the other hand, a creation scientist would be eager to show the fallacies of the geological ages, thus bolstering the idea of a young earth and recent appearance of man.

Maybe the truth lies somewhere in between.  At any rate, it is obvious to me that we are missing many pieces of the puzzle, and when we find them, we may discover that our picture is upside down!
Report Spam   Logged
starlight1946
Full Member
***
Posts: 6


« Reply #13 on: April 04, 2007, 06:48:29 am »

I have not read the book but I saw somewhere photos in caves of drawings made by prehistorical human beings along with animals that no longer exist. That to me would be convincing enough. How did people way back then draw on the caves those creatures if they were not around then? The book is too expensive for me to buy but I do have interests in our past.

Report Spam   Logged
Mark of Australia
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 703



« Reply #14 on: April 06, 2007, 10:09:17 am »

Hi Starlight

Forbidden Archaeology does not really consider the evidence of human paintings .It does deal with legends of bigfoot and things like that in one chapter.  I have heard how some tribes have legends about their ancestors being attacked by giant flying lizards.That would seem to be a memory of life alongside dinosaurs . Hard to say .
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