Guest Stan Norton Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 But my conscience steps in when I see people getting into trouble. There's a big orange rubber ring with 'reality' on it. The deep world of academics hiding secret knowledge from the masses? Was Nicholas Cage in that one? You're really there just to check out the moms, aren't you? And...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 Goodness only knows how we got from the OP to a discussion of putative giant bones and some Smithsonian conspiracy to cover up links to prehistoric contact between native Amerindians and Europeans. All the links to do with the giant bones lead into some murky theory about red-haired brings purportedly found all over the world. Once you start believing this stuff it's a short leap to ancient aliens, Atlantis and the rest. Then onward happily into David Icke territory and a global conspiracy of baby-eating banking lizard overlords from ancient Mesopotamia. Please. Stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 (edited) 8. Thomas Powell, the head of the Smithsonian's Bureau of Ethnology is on record setting a policy "On Limitations to the Use of Some Anthropologic Data". This is the actual title he gave it and is in direct contradiction to the stated objective of the Smithsonian to broaden the diffusion of knowledge among men. 9. Thomas Powell was concerned that Native American anthropological finds would be used "unwisely", in his view, to connect Native American culture to "...so-called races of antiquity in other portions of the world". Powell's words again. 10. Powell was specifically concerned about anything that might link Native Americans to popular theological origins, which might engender positive public perception. Evidence of "giants in the earth" in America, qualified, and worse, the commonly accepted theological origin of such giants was also problematic to him. From what I gathered from reading it, he seems to be saying that the methodology being used is inadequate in coming to migratory conclusions. He suggests to find the common source of mankind, and then gain complete knowledge of the geography and changes of the globe, and then working from the source up through the tree rather than in a backwards fashion. He claims that you cannot come to an accurate conclusion of the migration of man and it's connections without having that knowledge. He then states that accepting conclusions using the "present status of the science" will only result in futility because all of those things were not yet fully known. Without some sort of substantiation, this would appear to be opinion. Very true. Truer words were never spoken on a Bigfoot site. Everybody please take note. Hey JDL, I have not been to NV. but saw in the newspaper this morning the BLM used a stun gun on Cliven Bundy's(a cattle rancher) son in a "range showdown" that has widened into a debate about states rights and federal land use policy. BLM says Bundy owes $1.1 million in grazing fees. There's actually a lot more to it than that involving a certain well known figure and his son selling that land to a certain country- http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_301_35234.php But that talk isn't allowed here, so the official word is 'endangered turtles'. Edited April 12, 2014 by roguefooter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 (edited) Right on, thanks for the link. Edited April 12, 2014 by chelefoot To remover political content Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 Yet again, this book. It is very well documented http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Giants-Who-Ruled-America-ebook/dp/B00HDGKYS2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1397312622&sr=8-1&keywords=giants+America Sounds very conspiratorial, and that's just not for me. Just curious but how does he explain the Smithsonian covering up evidence supposedly found in other countries? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted April 12, 2014 Moderator Share Posted April 12, 2014 Very true. Truer words were never spoken on a Bigfoot site. Everybody please take note. I say true stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 Goodness only knows how we got from the OP to a discussion of putative giant bones and some Smithsonian conspiracy to cover up links to prehistoric contact between native Amerindians and Europeans. All the links to do with the giant bones lead into some murky theory about red-haired brings purportedly found all over the world. It's only a "conspiracy" because you want it to be, Stan. Once you start believing this stuff it's a short leap to ancient aliens, Atlantis and the rest. You really consider that to be a "short" leap? I would define that as a huge reach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 I just happen to consider that the world is a lot less complicated than you seem to believe. I'm questioning your questioning of everything. As entitled to your opinion as you are, once you or any else starts believing a giant race of creatures from the remote past whose existence would prove some kind of Solutrean origin for the human occupation of the Americas, or are possibly bigfoot, was and is still being covered up (for no apparent reason whatsoever) by the Smithsonian, I'd say all bets are off. One small step and all that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 I'm also unsure why so much weight (in the conspiracy stakes) is being placed upon a 130 year-old treatise. Science has moved on somewhat from the Victorian age, as have attitudes. Does the Powell Doctrine still pervade all science in relation to Amerindian origins? Ethnographers? Anthropologists? Cultural historians? Geneticists? Archaeologists? Are all of them since Powell in on it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelefoot Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 MODERATOR STATEMENT Remember to keep all discussions away from Politics or Religion in the General Forum. Thanks! These conversations are welcome in the Premium Areas and are only 20$. And it pays our bills!Join! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 I just happen to consider that the world is a lot less complicated than you seem to believe. I'm questioning your questioning of everything. If there's anything I've learned over the past 57 years, it's that life and the "world" are very complicated, Stan. But if you choose to stay in the shallow end of the pool, it's definitely far less complicated. Materialists love simplicity. But I'm a Vitalist. You can call it "Woo", but I call it knowledge. To each his own, Brother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 (edited) Wow. Deep. You got all that about me from my responses on a Bigfoot forum? Please, save the cod psychology. I've wasted too many years with silly notions about the world and I see too many people floundering at the deep end cos they thought that was where the truth was. I just think it is vital for someone suggesting what you are suggesting to back it up with something other than a century and a half old essay by a Victorian with seriously outdated views and allusions to some massive conspiracy, man. It's known as healthy scepticism, not materialism. Rogue, That link you posted to the liberty news leads to the website which itself contains some pretty unsavoury stuff. Seems to have a very noticeable agenda...the UK stories are the very worst kind of tabloid conservative muck. Pinch of salt necessary I reckon. Edited April 13, 2014 by Stan Norton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 (edited) ^Stan- here is the original Reuters article detailing the land sale in Clark County that these websites are referencing- http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/31/us-usa-china-reid-solar-idUSBRE87U06D20120831 Grain of salt sure, but at least in this instance there is some substance to the claim. They're certainly not trying to push his cows off the land over some turtles. Edited April 13, 2014 by roguefooter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 OK, guys - Let's drop the Clark County, NV stuff. It can only lead to political discussion. Thanks, See Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alex MW Posted April 13, 2014 Share Posted April 13, 2014 (edited) If there's anything I've learned over the past 57 years, it's that life and the "world" are very complicated, Stan. But if you choose to stay in the shallow end of the pool, it's definitely far less complicated. Materialists love simplicity. But I'm a Vitalist. You can call it "Woo", but I call it knowledge. To each his own, Brother. That's right Larry. Capitalists love for people to think things are straight forward and that everything on television is the truth. "This is dern America and we is free." ********, they've managed to keep you using gasoline vehicles all these years and to keep you thinking that you're being taken care of. The fact is that this world is full of a bunch of friggin crooks that monopolize technology and hide history from our eyes. If you don't know that, then you're still voting every year and thinking your man is going to make the difference. LOL Called brainwashed naivety. BACK TO THE TOPIC...IF YOU HAVE 10,000 TO 20,000 ACCOUNTS IN AGGREGATE EVERYWHERE, HOW THE HELL CAN YOU SAY THIS POPULATION IS ONLY 5000...YOU DIDN'T DO VERY WELL IN MATH OR STATISTICS IF YOU SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT. PRETTY BASIC MAN. I'D BE INTERESTED TO KNOW HOW MANY ACCOUNT IN AGGREGATE THERE REALLY ARE. Edited April 13, 2014 by Alex MW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts