The Sykes / Sartori Report - Oxford-Lausanne Collateral Hominid Project

[Guest]

link us to an example of one artifact please

Wildman look at California gold rush days . Hundreds of artifacts dozens of locations in rock thousands of feet deep. Then someone explain to me the water errosion on the sphinx.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphinx_water_erosion_hypothesis

The wiki page provides very reasonable alternate ideas from qualified scientists for what it's worth.

Edited September 28, 2013 by mbh

[Guest]

Standards DEFINED by "Science", and REFEREED by "Science" (and often reinterpreted on the fly), with ZERO outside auditing or oversight, and no means of appeal.

 

That's not an impartial process.  That's a rigged game.

 

Still thinking Ketchum didn't get a fair shake?   That Nature "rigged" the game?

[MIB]

I have to deliberately separate two parts ... the paper was bad, but so was the way part of the reviewers handled themselves.    Reading some of the reviews replicated in the Ketchum report thread, it seems some of them could not take the topic seriously enough to do a review of the substance presented, instead, just deliver their sneers and snark.    I'm not trying to defend the paper in this case, I'm saying that sort of unprofessional treatment is a disservice to all involved and a discredit to Nature and the peer review process.

 

Regardless of how I felt about the topic or presentation, I'd be ashamed of behaving as some of the reviewers seem to have.   If I couldn't treat it with more respect and seriousness, I'd have excused myself from the process.

 

MIB

Edited September 29, 2013 by MIB

[Branco]

You got a hole in one! Good shot.

[Cotter]

Regarding 'Science' turning an eye to the truth.

Anyone here still think that Columbus was the first European to hit North America's coast?

[Guest Darrell]

^That doesnt have anything to do with science, thats history. Kinda different things.

[Cotter]

Well, except that Science could dispute it, but they don't.  So in the meantime, we're still being fed the innacurate 'fact' that Columbus was the first European to 'discover' America, no?

Doesn't history, along with science, deal with facts?

[dmaker]

History deals with the interpretation of facts. History is not science in the sense that theories can be tested and proven wrong with very little margin for error. History is constantly being rewritten as new theories develop or new facts are revealed. 

 

I don't think modern texts are claiming Columbus, are they?  Columbus marks the beginning of the colonization of America. Canada seems to recognize that the first European contact was in the 10th century by the Norse.  The Norse settlement in Labrador may be down played in text books while focusing on the beginning of mass colonization and using Columbus as a starting point.  Dunno really...would be interesting to talk to someone taking history in public school right now I suppose...

Edited September 30, 2013 by dmaker

[Cotter]

Well dmaker, I've been out of school for a long while, so, y'know, I'm not really sure.  I've got an e-mail out to a school teacher pal of mine (history teacher).  We'll see what he says.

 

"Science" has known for many years that there has been very strong evidence that there were other non-indigenous peoples visiting the Americas a thousand + years before Columbus......yet I'm not certain there has been any scientific push to get that addressed.

 

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe that's not Science's role in the world......

[dmaker]

About 500 years, not 1,000.  Columbus was 1492. Norse settlers arrived late 10 th century. What you are saying would put explorers here circa 500 AD, and I do not believe anyone is claiming that.  Fun to muse about though. Who would it have been circa 500 AD? Celts? Byzantines?  Western Roman empire was just freshly dead and buried with the last emperor in 476 AD. So we can fairly safely rule out Western Rome as we knew it. Maybe the Norse still...?

Edited September 30, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest]

Well dmaker, I've been out of school for a long while, so, y'know, I'm not really sure. I've got an e-mail out to a school teacher pal of mine (history teacher). We'll see what he says.

"Science" has known for many years that there has been very strong evidence that there were other non-indigenous peoples visiting the Americas a thousand + years before Columbus......yet I'm not certain there has been any scientific push to get that addressed.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe that's not Science's role in the world......

I can speak for the north east (at least some of it)

you are wrong about the Columbus thing by a mile. Maybe that's true for a simplified elementary school curriculum but not for upper grades. I even learned he was not the first years ago when I was in elementary school. So at least one part of the country is not feeding incorrect facts about the discovery of America.

Any more details about the 1000 years before Columbus? I've never seen anything convincing but I woud be interested.

Edited September 30, 2013 by mbh

[JDL]

Can anyone post anything other than stories of the Lovelock giants? I never found anything solid about this story. Maybe just that he skeletons were slightly larger is all that I've found.

It also seems that some of the skeletons were destroyed by nonscientists.

In fact, it seems that there is no physical evidence of giant skeletons from any of the numerous stories. They always seem to find the giants but they end up being lost or destroyed.

 

I posted quite a bit about this a while back.  The Mark Twain Museum in Virginia City had three large skeletons on display in the 60's and 70's.  Also, the son of a guy who'd made his fortune mining uranium was in my dad's geology program at the UNR school of mines.  This guy had inherited a Lovelock skull from his father.  He used it as an ashtray, trotting it out at parties to amaze his guests.

 

I went so far as to do a little research on where the Mark Twain Museum skeletons had disappeared to.  With the help of another member we learned that BLM had taken possession of them.  It also turned out that they had originated in a cave between Virginia City and Carson City.  Not the Lovelock Cave.  My father tells me that there were at least three caves in which the large skeletons were found.  The historical geo-exploration of Nevada was part of his curriculum at UNR, so I don't have any reason to doubt him and it makes sense that a race of large people would be more widely distributed than a single cave, or perhaps a single state.

 

The Paiute legend of how they trapped and killed the last of the "Stick Thrower" Indians in the Lovelock Cave was consistent with what they found in the cave.  Layers upon layers containing atlatls and atlatl darts, and only the surface layer containing arrows, but no bows.  The surface layer also had evidence of the fire that been used to asphyxiate the Stick Throwers. 

 

There are those that claim the initial reports upon excavation of the cave were exaggerated.  I have to ask, though, why the stick throwers were still using atlatls when the Paiutes were using bows.  Either they were too dumb (unlikely), or the atlatls continued to provide some advantage for them over the bows.  I'd suggest that an atlatl, in the hands of a seven foot tall person was likely a more effective hunting and defensive weapon that the bows and arrows used by the Paiutes.  A longer fulcrum (arm) would be able to propel an atlatl dart further than a short bow could fire, and likely with greater penetrating power at the end of its flight.

 

The adult skeletons at the Mark Twain Museum were large and still had both mummified skin and hair attached.  The hair on the limbs, where they were not covered by tattered clothing, was red and several inches long, but sparse.  The color of the hair could have been due to chemical degradation from the soil in which they were found.  There were a number of artifacts on display that were reported to also come from the cave in which these were found.  Typical, though crude, stuff.

[Guest]

how big were the mark twain museum skeletons?

[JDL]

The male was about 7.5' and the female 7'. 

[Guest]

interesting