View Full Version : Something for the G v D crew to chew on

Jack Heinlen
12-04-2004, 07:22 PM

Andrew Craig-Bennett
12-04-2004, 07:25 PM
Jack, that's more Erich von Danniken territory.. ;)

Jack Heinlen
12-04-2004, 07:44 PM
So, I guess you read through that interview, looked at the entire site, and formed an opinion in three minutes? You're good, you're very good. smile.gif

You demonstrate one of Cremo's main points, that of an intellectual filter which doesn't allow anything but orthodoxy through.

If one of his pieces of evidence(I spent an hour this afternoon looking at some of it) were to prove out, then all bets as to the orthodox view of humans on the planet are off. BTW Cremo, unlike Von Dannikan, has been peer reviewed, and remains a speaker at legitimate scientific conferences. Not many, I'll grant you. ;)

Andrew Craig-Bennett
12-04-2004, 07:55 PM
No, not many. On the one hand, Richard Leakey, and on the other, the Hare Krishnas. But years of expensive education funded by a grateful taxpayer has trained me to deal with this sort of stuff:

Forbidden Archeology's Impact reprints a multitude of negative reviews of the first book, followed by a reprint of a personal letter from Michael Cremo to each reviewer addressing the deceptive disclaimers therein with gracious but pointed sophistication. Cremo's unruffled confidence in response to the openly boorish and arrogant comments of these defunct fur-covered die-hards is a wonder to behold. His professional finesse makes me feel a little ashamed of my joy in watching this pathetic group go extinct. In truth, the supremacy and authority of the Darwinists is in trouble. This slipshod paradigm doesn't hold up to the scrutiny of those leading the emerging paradigm of mankind's genesis. Cremo is one of those leaders.


Harry Miller
12-04-2004, 08:01 PM
Well I'm glad I didn't read those 17 pages for nothing.

Jack Heinlen
12-04-2004, 08:10 PM
So you didn't get past the interviewer's introductory remarks Andrew. I didn't think so.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
12-04-2004, 08:24 PM
I know who Richard Leakey is, Jack.

12-04-2004, 08:26 PM
I think this goes beyond Erich V.I don't see anything approaching scientific evidence in his beliefs.I'm always intrigued by alternate theories of our past but I do need to see more proof than "It was written".

Jack Heinlen
12-04-2004, 08:52 PM
I wonder if Richard Leakey has ever been asked to explain his mother, Mary, finding modern human footprints in 3.7 million year old volcanic ash? ;)

I think this is fun stuff. There are all kinds of anomaly, and the mainstream of evolutionary science dismisses it as hoaxes. Lots of hoaxes.

Those amongst the lay folk who believe in evolution hook line and sinker don't have a clue, so they buy what the authorities say.

I don't think they are all hoaxes. Y'all are welcome to think whatever you want, it's no skin off my nose--most days.

12-04-2004, 09:05 PM
Oh Jack! Have a Cremo and get a dog! :D :D :D

Andrew Craig-Bennett
12-04-2004, 09:10 PM
They are not "modern human footprints", Jack, unless modern humans are four feet tall. Nobody can be sure, but they are very likely to be footprints of australopithecus afarensis.

Jack Heinlen
12-04-2004, 09:16 PM
The Laetoli footprints are still quite interesting. According to Mary Leakey, and other scientists, the footprints are exactly like those of modern human beings. This is unusual, because according to most scientists today, human beings capable of making these footprints did not come into existence until about 100,000 years ago. Mary Leakey did not believe, of course, that humans of our type existed 3.7 million years ago in Africa.

So how did she explain the footprints?

She and others proposed that there must have existed at that time some kind of hominid, some kind of ape-man, who had feet exactly like ours. That is possible. Unfortunately, there is no physical evidence to support that idea. We have many hominid skeletons from that period, and none of them have feet exactly like modern human feet. Their feet are all more or less apelike, with toes longer than modern human toes, and a first toe that can extend out to the side, like a human thumb. At present the only creature known to science with a foot exactly like that of a modern human being is a modern human being.
So the man is either lying(doesn't strike me as the type) or...?

12-04-2004, 10:15 PM
I haven't read that article yet Jack, I'll print it out tomorrow. I like this kind of stuff as much as you do. 2 billion years, huh? I just keep saying, nobody knows nothin bout nothin what happened before 10001 BC. They coulda been drivin Porsches for all we know. By the way, did you know the Inca predict the end of the world on December 12, 2012? That's according to whathisname, Hancock.

12-04-2004, 10:28 PM
Donn,,when one is saturated with information the lazy dilletantes solution to "not knowing" is to subscribe to anothers belief. A better solution is to accept that something is not known, and sit with not knowing.
This is different than believing in the significance of unknown knowns,,er,,delusion.

Jack Heinlen
12-04-2004, 10:37 PM
It's the Mayan calendar that ends in 2012. The Mayan's created a highly accurate, astronomical calendar, more accurate than anything our modern science has contrived until the advent of atomic clocks and such.

It's ending in 2012 get's a lot of play in various circles - some respectable, many not. It is a curiosity to me.

The end of an age is prophesied in many mythologies. I haven't a clue, except to say that I think many people, many, many people, sense that something is up. Of course, many Christians thought the world was going to end at the turn of the millenium before last yet, here we are. :D

Andrew Craig-Bennett
12-05-2004, 06:08 AM
Jack, the passage you cite really is making bricks without straw. If you are interested in the work of the Leakeys, why not read them at first hand?

Jack Heinlen
12-05-2004, 09:58 AM
If you are interested in the work of the Leakeys, why not read them at first hand? I have, quite extensively, in Louis' work especially. I took a batchelor degree in evolutionary biology, with strong geology and anthropology components, and he was required reading.

Look, all I'm saying is that if the anomolies pointed out by Cremo have any credence then a re-evaluation of human pre-history is in order. I also know that academic science can become ensnared by its own theories. If you go against them you are often ostracized.

It took half a century for a maverick German scientist named Wegner to begin to get a fair hearing, and now his theory of continental drift is orthodoxy. All he did was look at maps and notice how neatly the continents fit together. He proposed no mechanism(which is still being argued in its details) he simply looked at what was as plain as paint.

As much as I admire science, it, often, isn't very good at the new. It's part and parcel of the discipline. This is especially true the farther one gets from the laboratory.

Keith Wilson
12-05-2004, 07:55 PM
As much as I admire science, it, often, isn't very good at the new. It's part and parcel of the discipline. For science to work effectively, there should be resistance to new ideas, and the resistance should be proportional to how radical the idea is. A minor revision is one thing, but if a new theory completely invalidates 100+ years of work by tens of thousands of people, there better be resistance to it. Not so much that it's dismissed completely if the evidence is good, but enough that a radical new idea better have damned good data to back it up. This discourages fads and half-baked theorizing. For every theory of continental drift that is first ridiculed and later proved correct, there are at least 1000 wackos. I strongly suspect that this guy is one of the latter, although I could be wrong.

12-07-2004, 07:29 AM
So there is evidence of moadern humans going much further back than 100,000 years? OK. But this guy would have a lot more credibility if he'd leave his hare krishna BS out of it. Once he starts in on his trillion-year Hindu cycles, whose only basis is his desire to believe, it blows the whole thing.