Latest Shouts In The Shoutbox -- View The Shoutbox
The shoutbox is currently offline!

[ Smilies | BBCodes ]

     
 
Click Here and visit PuPPs FREE StuFF

This website contains controversial information that may be disturbing to some viewers.
The theories, conclusions and commentaries are presented in an attempt to reveal the hidden truths.
It is up to the viewer to determine what they choose to believe after evaluating all available sources of information.

 
     

NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION
Does your government represent your best interests?


     
 
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."
~ Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.



POLITICAL ART GALLERY



IMPORTANT TOPICS

1. U.S. NEWS MEDIA CAN LEGALLY LIE TO YOU
There is no law preventing the U.S. news media from intentionally lying to the public. Whistle blowers and honest reporters are fired for telling the truth.

2. FLUORIDE IS A TOXIN/POISON
Read the Poison Warning label on your toothpaste, then call the 800# and ask;
"Why do you put poison in my toothpaste?"

3. NEW FLU VACCINE IS LOADED WITH MERCURY
by Dr. Joseph Mercola

4. PEDOPHILES IN HIGH PLACES
Also: Conspiracy of Silence Video

5. ASPARTAME IS HARMFUL
Equal, Nutra-Sweet and over 6000 food and beverage products contain Aspartame

6. On September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld held a press conference to disclose that over $2,000,000,000,000 (2 Trillion) in Pentagon funds could not be accounted for.
Such a disclosure normally would have sparked a huge scandal. However, the commencement of the [9/11] attack on the World Trade Center and The Pentagon the following morning would assure that the story remained buried.


http://drinkingwaterlosangeles.com
Serving the greater Los Angeles area,
Los Angeles Drinking Water is proud to offer Reverse Osmosis filtration systems
that remove trace elements such as arsenic, mercury, lead and fluoride
which are known to be in Los Angeles tap water according to
the 2013 DWP Water Quality report.
POLITICAL ART GALLERY









"If our nation is ever taken over, it will be taken over from within."
~ James Madison, President of the United States

Pages: (3) 1 [2] 3  ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> 3-Billion Year Old Manufactured Spheroids?


Anarchaeologist
****
Group: Members
Posts: 489
Member No.: 303
Mood: 



Posted: Mar 2 2005, 02:35 PM
Quote Post
Paul Heinrich just posted a preliminary analysis of the South African spheres. They are not all round. They are hematite concretions of pyrite pseudomorphs. NASA did examine one but made no statement of spherical perfection. The spheres are in a glass case and do not roll around on their own. He sawed some of the five examples in his possession and confirmed they are pretty much what we have seen in the Moqui Marble information. Scratch this one as an OOOPART.


PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top


Freedom Fighter
*****
Group: Members
Posts: 583
Member No.: 223
Mood: 



Posted: Mar 3 2005, 12:10 AM
Quote Post
Speaking of Moqui marbles... rolleyesNEW.gif I was playing with mine yesterday and you might be right about moisture having an effect on them because after holding them for a while, the palms of my hands started to itch as if some kind of chemical reaction was taking place.

One of my friends noticed them and asked me if they came out of a mold because of the way they were shaped. chinscratch.gif

My two would make pretty good projectiles but I really wouldn't want to damage them too much. whistlingNEW2.gif They do almost resemble cannon or musket balls and I bet if they were heated up and launched with a significant amount of velocity that they could flatten out a bit.

Soft core surrounded by a metallic substance with some of them having an indentation in them like one of mine does have. I wonder what would happen if they crashed into something.

atombomb.gif

"Natural sulpher". chinscratch.gif Interesting.

Hey! - Who turned out the lights? laughspin.gif


PMEmail Poster
Top


Anarchaeologist
****
Group: Members
Posts: 489
Member No.: 303
Mood: 



Posted: Mar 3 2005, 06:22 AM
Quote Post
Many I showed mine to thought they were musket balls too, but musket balls are made of lead and have no central ring. DO NOT APPLY HEAT TO THEM!!!!!!! The result woud be similar to heating up a live cartridge. Anyone who's thrown a pyrite in a campfire knows what I mean. bouncefire.gif

BTW I just obtained a cubed pyrite with a lignite inclusion which I would have mistaken for a piece of charcoal a few years ago before I wised up.


PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top


Minister Of Information
****
Group: Members
Posts: 240
Member No.: 352
Mood: 



Posted: Mar 4 2005, 09:47 PM
Quote Post
Tex...
You and Heinrick may well be correct...

on the other hand googling Paul V Heinrick:

One find a similar dismissal of Graham Hancock's finds in the Gulf of Cambay.
Which again may be correct...

And yet The recent tsunami just exposed what Hancock was trying to prove in the first place...

From:
http://www.hvk.org/articles/0702/81.html

"The recent find of a submerged city in the Gulf of Cambay, perhaps as old as 7500 BC, serves to highlight the existence of southern sources for the civilisation of ancient India. The Gulf of Cambay find is only the latest in a series that includes Lothal (S.R. Rao), Dholavira (R.S Bisht) and others in Gujarat' These discoveries have been pushing the seats of ancient Indian civilisation deeper into the southern peninsula. We should not be surprised if more such sites are discovered in South- India, especially the coastal regions, for the south has always played a significant if neglected role in ancient India going back to Vedic times"

Another peliminary assessment from an assesment of "photographs"
by PV Heinrick
http://www.intersurf.com/~chalcedony/geofact.shtml

On April 23, 2002, there was posted to the Graham Hancock web a set of pictures titled "Artefacts from the Gulf of Cambay". In the introduction to this set of pictures, Graham Hancock stated;

"Artefacts brought up by dredge from 40 metres depth from the suspected city structures in the Gulf of Cambay, north-west India."
Without the benefit of any detailed peer-review or publications in scientific journals, much has been made about the significance of these alleged artifacts from the bottom of the Gulf of Cambay. The significant problem with both press releases and web pages that describe these items is that they provide little, if any, hard data that authenticates the identification of these items as valid artifacts or bones. Despite the giddy claims of either a "Lost" or an ancient Indian civilizations as described in Vedic literature, some caution needs to taken by the various parties in the making the claims being made about these items.

TEX healthy skeptisizm IS something I respect.
I like to dig till I'm certain too.









PMEmail Poster
Top


Freedom Fighter
*****
Group: Members
Posts: 783
Member No.: 114
Mood: 



Posted: Mar 4 2005, 11:33 PM
Quote Post
They are not all round. They are hematite concretions of pyrite pseudomorphs."

zzzzz.gif

Old Hat.

3 billion year old manufactured spheres is ludicrous.

the cities off of India were presented in another thread here.

The interesting aspect is that about 12000 years ago I think it was,
the persian gulf was empty along with areas west of the middle east in the mediterranean.


PMEmail Poster
Top


Anarchaeologist
****
Group: Members
Posts: 489
Member No.: 303
Mood: 



Posted: Mar 5 2005, 04:08 PM
Quote Post
Danbones, the article by Heinrich on the Cambay Pendants(a term I coined) contains feruginous sandstone geofacts which I provided when he asked members of the Texas Archaeological Society to help him find other examples of perforated geofacts similar to the ones he had from High Island. I did so and also offered to concoct an imagiinative misidentification for him, as he seemed creatively challenged to me. He declined the literary assist but used the photos. At the time I was considerably peeved with Hancock for rushing these obvious natural objects into print touting them as artifacts. His act of doing so diluted the actual archaeological acceptance of the site far better than an army of disinformationalists could have done. I would have warned him of this had he tentatively presented these objects for opinion as would countless rockhounds and avocational archaeologists sympathetic to his LC hypothesis. Nobody spares any us who make such error, and Heinrich will be the first to tell you that even professionals make such misidentifications routinely as there is little cross discipline communication in the sciences despite what they would have you believe. That situation is slowly changing.

BTW I just returned from an archaeological conference in which I met one of the proponents of a 40,000 year old site in western Oklahoma, who confirmed the origin of some questionablly ancient artifacts I have excavated. I am no debunker by any means but it is a waste of time to pursue what are dead ends unless you have some good reason to do so. The Gulf of Cambay is an important archaeological site and possibly a remote date will be vindicated but Hancock did nobody any service by presenting those Cambay Pendants to support his LC hypothesis. All of us wind up with egg on our face from time to time, it goes with being an anomalist.


PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top


Freedom Fighter
*****
Group: Members
Posts: 583
Member No.: 223
Mood: 



Posted: Mar 6 2005, 01:49 AM
Quote Post
QUOTE
DO NOT APPLY HEAT TO THEM!!!!!!! The result woud be similar to heating up a live cartridge. Anyone who's thrown a pyrite in a campfire knows what I mean. 


Thanx for the warning Tex. I haven't blown anything up in a while and wouldn't of expected one of my marbles to explode on me. I think I have a piece of pyrite somewhere. whistlingNEW2.gif

QUOTE
3 billion year old manufactured spheres is ludicrous.


I wouldn't exactly call it ludicrous Vianova. No one can say for certain how old the universe is or when the first intelligent life came into existence or when that life became capable of interstellar flight. The spheres and the Moqui marbles are very unusual things and are only found in two locations which makes me question how such things could have formed naturally and only in two places on earth. Since they are not all perfectly round and my two marbles not being perfectly formed, makes me tend to wonder if they were rejects that were discarded.

Those geofacts are quite interesting BTW and I can see how easily that they could be mistaken for artifacts. I'll have to do some more reading about them.

http://www.intersurf.com/~chalcedony/geofact.shtml


PMEmail Poster
Top


Minister Of Information
****
Group: Members
Posts: 240
Member No.: 352
Mood: 



Posted: Mar 6 2005, 04:56 PM
Quote Post
Hey Tex:

I was not in the least meaning to slight you or your opinions.
On the contrary I read your posts carefully.

My post was meant to illustrate the tricky path down the center, and how one has to really be careful of sources, and to avoid assumptions made from generalizations.
to whit :
Heinrick likely being correct about those select artifacts, didn't make Hapgood's theory incorrect. Both sides may have shown unscientific tendencies in their "publicizing" of the site I mentioned, but it's Hapgood's direction that gets taken.

There is an actual True History. There are real reasons why we don't know what it is.

Thats the pit I've got my shovel in.


PMEmail Poster
Top


Anarchaeologist
****
Group: Members
Posts: 489
Member No.: 303
Mood: 



Posted: Mar 6 2005, 07:30 PM
Quote Post
Dan I didn't feel slighted by what you wrote, I just wanted to explain why I sided with what I usually consider the opposition on the Cambay "artifacts". I don't have any problem with a 7,500 BC city or civilization but Hancock tends to "gild the lily" from time to time. Another example being, his adding three thousand years to Schoch's estimate for the age of the Sphinx. The Aftrican Neolithic had already been established as a megalithic period with the Nabta Playa discoveries and the European megalithic period such as exemplified at Malta had already established fairly sophisticated monument building at a period nearly twice as old as the accepted dates of the Giza plateau. Hancock should have emphasized such as these because the skeptics themselves already agree on that and it's always most effective to hang them with their own ropes after they've dug their own graves. I don't think Hancock needed to publish in a peer reviewed journal as defined by Heinrich, which would mean Heinrich's peers, who would take years to publish anything if they did at all. However, he could have at least presented them to a few professionals such as Schoch and some others who would have given him a fair chance and warned him of the pitfall into which he was about to step. As Hancock admits, he approaches his subject like a trial lawyer showing his client in the most favorable light while omitting any negative facts which would weaken his case.

Hapgood is a different matter altogether. I have not read "Path of the Poles" and "Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings" and cannot really comment on them. The arguments against the map of the ice free Antarctica that I have seen seem to rest upon interpretation and I have not seen anything conclusive against Hapgood's interpretation yet.


PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top


Minister Of Information
****
Group: Members
Posts: 240
Member No.: 352
Mood: 



Posted: Mar 6 2005, 08:46 PM
Quote Post
Tex
oops my dyslexic bad,
Hap/ Han
Thanks for pointing that out.

I agree; On one hand you get gilded lilies, on the other ridicule, both usually connect to a paycheck at the expense of the truth.

I have only read about the old maps, but taken with some of the connected legends, linguistic, and mathematical clues, I don't see them as being imposible...
When I compare the vested interests' reasons for suppressing any history that disturbs the status quo...

The truth usually pops up places like this 'cause money isn't the issue here.



PMEmail Poster
Top


Anarchaeologist
****
Group: Members
Posts: 489
Member No.: 303
Mood: 



Posted: Mar 7 2005, 05:28 AM
Quote Post
While I was viewing an early moundbuilder skeleton in a Texas creek bottom yesterday, one of the archaeologists walked up and told everyone there that CNN had just announced that some scientists had just stated that the Earth was 14 billion years old rather than the 4 or 5 previously thought. Did anybody catch that report? I'm sure being third down the line I've probably garbled the message beyond recognition.


PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top


Minister Of Information
****
Group: Members
Posts: 240
Member No.: 352
Mood: 



Posted: Mar 7 2005, 11:18 AM
Quote Post
Yeah, I know
( LOL) telephone, telegraph, teleforum...

I'll bite:

Searching Cnn - nothing on their science show over the weekend,
and the web :
well tonnes of this:
(And all the reference Books I got from p2p, don't say any different...)

I should put this guy at the end of the post for the punchline cause he has a PhD:
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dp-age-bible.htm
SCRIPTURAL AGE OF EARTH
By Don Patton Ph.D. (March 2000) ) He says 10,000 years

or over the weekend...
UPI
03/04/05 8:27 AM PT

"By capturing this ancient, 9-billion-year-old light, we have a snapshot of the universe at a youthful age of less than 5 billion years, which is about one-third of the present age," said project leader Christopher Mullis, a research fellow in the University of Michigan's Department of Astronomy.

or from:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

Most of the other measurements for the age of the Earth rest upon calculating an age for the solar system by dating objects which are expected to have formed with the planets but are not geologically active (and therefore cannot erase evidence of their formation), such as meteorites. Below is a table of radiometric ages derived from groups of meteorites:

Type Number
Dated Method Age (billions
of years)

Chondrites (CM, CV, H, L, LL, E) 13 Sm-Nd 4.21 +/- 0.76
Carbonaceous chondrites 4 Rb-Sr 4.37 +/- 0.34
Chondrites (undisturbed H, LL, E) 38 Rb-Sr 4.50 +/- 0.02
Chondrites (H, L, LL, E) 50 Rb-Sr 4.43 +/- 0.04
H Chondrites (undisturbed) 17 Rb-Sr 4.52 +/- 0.04
H Chondrites 15 Rb-Sr 4.59 +/- 0.06
L Chondrites (relatively undisturbed) 6 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.12
L Chondrites 5 Rb-Sr 4.38 +/- 0.12
LL Chondrites (undisturbed) 13 Rb-Sr 4.49 +/- 0.02
LL Chondrites 10 Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.06
E Chondrites (undisturbed) 8 Rb-Sr 4.51 +/- 0.04
E Chondrites 8 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.13
Eucrites (polymict) 23 Rb-Sr 4.53 +/- 0.19
Eucrites 11 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.30
Eucrites 13 Lu-Hf 4.57 +/- 0.19
Diogenites 5 Rb-Sr 4.45 +/- 0.18
Iron (plus iron from St. Severin) 8 Re-Os 4.57 +/- 0.21

Dalrymple (1991, p. 291); duplicate studies on identical meteorite types omitted.

As shown in the table, there is excellent agreement on about 4.5 billion years, between several meteorites and by several different dating methods. Note that young-Earthers cannot accuse us of selective use of data -- the above table includes a significant fraction of all meteorites on which isotope dating has been attempted. According to Dalrymple (1991, p. 286) , less than 100 meteorites have been subjected to isotope dating, and of those about 70 yield ages with low analytical error.

Further, the oldest age determinations of individual meteorites generally give concordant ages by multiple radiometric means, or multiple tests across different samples. For example:

Meteorite Dated Method Age (billions
of years)

Allende whole rock Ar-Ar 4.52 +/- 0.02

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.53 +/- 0.02

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.48 +/- 0.02

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.55 +/- 0.03

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.55 +/- 0.03

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.57 +/- 0.03

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.50 +/- 0.02

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.56 +/- 0.05

Guarena whole rock Ar-Ar 4.44 +/- 0.06

13 samples Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.08

Shaw whole rock Ar-Ar 4.43 +/- 0.06

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.40 +/- 0.06

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.29 +/- 0.06


Olivenza 18 samples Rb-Sr 4.53 +/- 0.16

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.49 +/- 0.06


Saint Severin 4 samples Sm-Nd 4.55 +/- 0.33

10 samples Rb-Sr 4.51 +/- 0.15

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.43 +/- 0.04

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.38 +/- 0.04

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.42 +/- 0.04


Indarch 9 samples Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.08

12 samples Rb-Sr 4.39 +/- 0.04


Juvinas 5 samples Sm-Nd 4.56 +/- 0.08

5 samples Rb-Sr 4.50 +/- 0.07


Moama 3 samples Sm-Nd 4.46 +/- 0.03

4 samples Sm-Nd 4.52 +/- 0.05


Y-75011 9 samples Rb-Sr 4.50 +/- 0.05

7 samples Sm-Nd 4.52 +/- 0.16

5 samples Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.06

4 samples Sm-Nd 4.52 +/- 0.33


Angra dos Reis 7 samples Sm-Nd 4.55 +/- 0.04

3 samples Sm-Nd 4.56 +/- 0.04


Mundrabrilla silicates Ar-Ar 4.50 +/- 0.06

silicates Ar-Ar 4.57 +/- 0.06

olivine Ar-Ar 4.54 +/- 0.04

plagioclase Ar-Ar 4.50 +/- 0.04


Weekeroo Station 4 samples Rb-Sr 4.39 +/- 0.07

silicates Ar-Ar 4.54 +/- 0.03

-


PMEmail Poster
Top


Minister Of Information
****
Group: Members
Posts: 240
Member No.: 352
Mood: 



Posted: Mar 7 2005, 11:28 AM
Quote Post
Oh...
Since Albert's theory of time dilation has been proven by flying atomic clocks around (or so I read in time life science books).

I guess that would affect the relative age of meteor(ite)s too, wouldn't it?


PMEmail Poster
Top


Freedom Fighter
*****
Group: Members
Posts: 583
Member No.: 223
Mood: 



Posted: Mar 9 2005, 12:10 AM
Quote Post
QUOTE (Tex Arcana @ Mar 7 2005, 05:28 AM)
While I was viewing an early moundbuilder skeleton in a Texas creek bottom yesterday, one of the archaeologists walked up and told everyone there that CNN had just announced that some scientists had just stated that the Earth was 14 billion years old rather than the 4 or 5 previously thought. Did anybody catch that report? I'm sure being third down the line I've probably garbled the message beyond recognition.

huhNEW.gif You viewed an early moundbuilder skeleton Tex?

That is just so awesome!!! thumbsup2.gif

As for the age of the earth and universe... chinscratch.gif I keep hearing all kinds of numbers but the closest estimate of the age of the earth and the rest of our solar system was 4.55 billion... scratchinghead.gif The oldest rocks found on earth are said to be between 3.8 and 3.9 billion years... turnipsmack.gif Of course the earth could be older but I doubt that it could be 14 billion years old.


PMEmail Poster
Top


Anarchaeologist
****
Group: Members
Posts: 489
Member No.: 303
Mood: 



Posted: Mar 9 2005, 10:59 AM
Quote Post
You viewed an early moundbuilder skeleton Tex?

Yes, and it was, ahem, a bit taller than its 5'4" compadres. HULK_STANCE.GIF tinkerbellemoticon.gif


PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top

Topic OptionsPages: (3) 1 [2] 3  Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 



[ Script Execution time: 0.0643 ]   [ 17 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]

"Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce."
~ James A. Garfield, President of the United States


MORE POLITICAL ART

"Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws."
~ Amschel Mayer Rothschild