Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Artifacts & History
Human History Hypothesis
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Harte" data-source="post: 206388" data-attributes="member: 443"><p>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.)</p><p></p><p> 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?</p><p></p><p></p><p>The only actual evidence of purposeful vitrication of stone is a handful of forts in Scotland, and not even that old.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>A corpse will mummify on it's own if the environment is right. Ancient procedures for mummification are all wildly different. </p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p> 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.)</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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."</p><p></p><p>Harte</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Harte, post: 206388, member: 443"] 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 [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Artifacts & History
Human History Hypothesis
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top