solderjunkie
Junior Member
Please, share with us your sources, what you found, I'm sincerely curious.
-
Human History Hypothesis
- Thread starter solderjunkie
- Start date
Please, share with us your sources, what you found, I'm sincerely curious.solderjunkie
Junior Member
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend your religious sentiments, I myself do not attend church.
Harte
Senior Member
Read a few white nationalist websites and you'll have your answer.
In general, claims that aliens helped, that Aryans did it, that Atlanteans (or other imaginary ancient advanced civilization) helped, etc. are all statements that these poor brown people couldn't possibly have achieved what we see. Similar to the philosophy of the Nazis, in fact.
Such statements are almost universally made by people ignorant of what we know and why we know it.
I already implied why it is that people (such as yourself) don't know.
Hartesolderjunkie
Junior Member
I'm sorry, I dont reference white nationalist website content when doing my research into megalithic structures. Since you admit to doing that, I'll keep you mind as a reference for future crypto-nazi research however.
Harte
Senior Member
Are you aware of Foerster's claims concerning the Paracas skulls? His bit about the cranial capacity being 30% larger than humans, the mysterious openings in the skulls and the lack of a sagittal suture? His DNA claims?
His 30% claim comes from him calculating the percentage using the LOW end of the range for human cranial capacity. In fact, the cranial capacities of these skulls is barely above the average for the entire human race, and well below the maximum end of the normal range.
His mysterious openings in the back of the skull - tiny easily visible holes - are the parietal formens and you'd be very hard pressed to find a human skull without them.
Many of the skulls that he has displayed online actually have a visible sagittal suture, others probably do but no photos are taken with the correct angle to even see if they do. On top of that, it's not uncommon at all for skull sutures to fuse and eventually disappear over time if the individual lived long enough. They would still be detectable, but not in a photograph or video posted online, you'd have to examine them very closely to find them.
Foerster claims to have sent samples to a geneticist - but those were contaminated. He sent more then came back with his results of unknown mDNA lineage. However, he refuses to disclose who did the analysis. In the past he (and Pye) have used a lab that "verified" bigfoot DNA in different incidences. In no case has he (or did Pye) release the actual analytical report he (they) claimed to have.
Pye was a thief, but Foerster is worse considering what he's done here is glom on to the death of Lloyd Pye and steal a dead man's cash cow.
All of the above can be verified by yourself. I've spent 20 years providing these facts to people, and thousands of other facts about the ancient past. I'm handing them to you now not caring if you believe me. I've stopped providing evidence for people who themselves provide none.
If ancient history was the meaning of life for you, then you would already know this. If you are even a slight bit curious about the ancient past, you will verify for yourself what I stated here.
Harte
Harte
Senior Member
LOL
It's a byproduct of my investigations into these claims.
The claims certainly are racist. The claimants (other than on those websites I mentioned) are just ignorant, as far as I know.
Harte
Harte
Senior Member
Me either. Last time I was even inside one was when my Dad died a decade or so ago. Before that, it was my first wedding - back in 1981.
Hartesolderjunkie
Junior Member
Forester may well be an outright con artist, the DNA evidence - and I use that term very loosely - needs to be repeated by multiple labs and sources in order to be considered credible by anyone with integrity of course. Anyone associated with Pye is someone I distrust outright since he was obviously a charlatan - starchild skull, ridiculous case. I myself have no sources for any of this I would consider legitimate verifying his claims - thats on him/them to present compelling evidence.
Thats the problem I have with all of this writ large, I have studied it, there ARE REAL questions outstanding and very poor mainstream explanations with gaping holes in them, however those that purport to fill those holes are represent a gaggle of con artists, delusional nutjobs and profit seeking sleaze - a shame really.
Things that make me question the mainstream narrative include the vitrification of stone, the consistent asymmetrical building style seen worldwide contemporaneous and in association with mummification, the voluminous size and weight of stones, the hardness of minerals paired with the precision of cutting and the lack of consistency in fit and finish over time, the lack of consistency in building style, sites like gobekli tepe which exist in opposition to the conventional narrative. I'm not a religious nutter who thinks the heavens parted and vengeful santa shat on the earth for lack of a sacrifice, but I do question things, especially as a person of science when I recognize the infancy and relative ignorance of science.
Parroting what I've read might be helpful, but it doesn't make it right.
Harte
Senior Member
The mainstream creates hypotheses based on the evidence on hand. There are VERY few real questions that aren't answered by those hypotheses. Obviously, that doesn't mean the hypotheses are the actual answers, just that they are possible answers. There are exactly zero cases where the mainstream's hypothesis can't explain the evidence (but once again, that doesn't make the explanation the correct one.)
I agree. If any of these shysters happed to accidentally stumble across anything real that isn't explained, who do they expect to investigate it? What Archaeologist wants to be associated with Erik Von Daniken?
The only actual evidence of purposeful vitrication of stone is a handful of forts in Scotland, and not even that old.
No other vitrified stone has ever been established - though admittedly crooks make the claim all the time. But for them, shiny=vitrified so they make sure there's a glare on the surfaces they photograph so they can make these claims.
There ARE cases of glazes being applied to stone though. But these aren't fired glazes, they are air cured. The precise recipe for them isn't entirely known, but heat does things to glazes and to stone that leaves evidence, which is not found in the case of these glazes.
A corpse will mummify on it's own if the environment is right. Ancient procedures for mummification are all wildly different.
Large stones were used in the very ancient past because, though both are difficult, it still was easier and faster to move them than to carve the equivalent volume of smaller ones. In the more recent past, large stones were only used when necessary because the ease of quarrying overtook the ease of transporting.
Hardness of stone isn't a good indicator of ease of quarrying or shaping. For example, you can actually carve granite with a piece of flint.
It's not as if hard stones were shaped using chisels anyway. Hard stones like granite, diorite and andesite were quarried by literally poiunding out the blocks in the quarry, and shaped by the same process only more delicately (called "pecking.") Then smoothed and finally polished (when required) by rubbing stones then rubbing stones with an abrasive, like cushed quartz (sand.)
The only narrative Gobekli Tepe is in opposition to is the former narrative that assumed hunter-gatherers didn't do things like that. The stones themselves were very easily quarried, they practically fall out of the quarry by themselves even today because they are vertically cracked in the bed. "Carvings" on the stones were made by pecking - which leaves visible marks that are easy to identify and are apparent all over the stones since they were never polished out.
There is no evidence that Gobekli Tepe was ever used as a long-term area of residence. There's no dwellings there that have ever been found and the litter in the soil that was used to bury the site (which actually occurred every 15 to 20 years with new stones built on top) indicates nothing but seasonal gatherings so, still hunter-gatherers. The "new" part of this find is that clans not only gathered for trade and to swap DNA, but also erected ritual structures marking the spots where they did so.
Your opinion of the science is biased by the fact you don't know the science. Find out WHY the mainstream says what it says first before you brush it off with this sort of hand-wave statement. The mainstream - when it comes to things that aren't known, actually says "we don't know."
Harte