Was there a civilization that existed 13 000 years ago?

"Carl R. Osterwald" wrote in message
...
In article , DrPostman
wrote:

On 10 Oct 2003 07:06:28 -0700, (Jack) wrote:


the same glaciers that flash froze all those mammoths?


Devious fiends!

I demand an FBI investigation into this stonewalling!


-=-=-=-=-

Yes... we must find that second spear chucker ... that
damage can not be explained by the "single spear" theory

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
...


Paul R. Mays wrote:

I'm not the expert and I make no claims.. I have read and considered
many areas of studies and I have found reasonable evidence provided
by many writers that actually got off their asses ( unlike you) and
researched the possibilities...

Where is the physical evidence? Can you cite it. Is it vetted by
independent researchers. A simple yes or no will do. If yes, cite it. I
want stuff that appears in reputable refereed journals (Velikovsky types
are not wanted). I wan't stuff that is vetted and verified by at least
two independent researchers or groups of researchers. Findings with
physical measurements and chemical analysis are particularly welcome.
Findings made by reputable archeologists, paleontologist and geoligsts
are welcome. Findings by crackpots looking for Noah's Ark is not welcome.

If there is isn't a carbon dating protocol buried in the evidence, then
it is probably bogus.

Bob Kolker





Oh I see.. Your just not up to the task of research and want
every one to do all the studies and find all the absolute proofs
before you can be bothered with educating yourself... Poor
guy.. sad to have such a limited mental ability to fill in the dots...

Get off your lazy ass and research.. there is physical evidence ..
you can go and touch, measure, take pictures, match astronomical
positions, find big stones, find maps of constellations where the
dates of positions match positions long past, there's lots of
it out there.. and many argue both sides... and its not a absolute
proven fact.. Its evidence... You want someone to prove it before
you are willing to even consider the evidence.. That's the dumb part...

You rant.... Give me evidence of X... But make sure you prove beyond
doubt that X is true before I will even study the evidence attempting
to prove X.... Dooh.....


http://www.guardians.net/hawass/remnants.htm
http://www.grahamhancock.com/news/index.php
http://www.grahamhancock.com/library/bookshop.php
http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/nation/2962443.htm
http://archives.mundoacuatico.com/oc...iousstones.pdf
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...kencities.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1923794.stm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in522626.shtml
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/detail.asp?ID=32604&GRP=A
http://www.morien-institute.org/yonaguni.html
http://www.atlantisrising.com/issue1...apanunder.html

Paul R. Mays wrote:


Here's a few items you might read ... but I kinda doubt it...

Do your references cite -physical evidence-? Yes or no. I won't bother
to look at anything but physical evidences who provenence is vetted by
reputable scientific workers. Cite physical evdidence only, which has an
unambiguous interpretation. Can you do that. Yes or No?

We don't want ancient writings and heresay. We don't want artifacts
whose place and depth have not been properly recorded. Salted digs need
not apply.

Bob Kolker

Paul R. Mays wrote:


Get off your lazy ass and research..

Why should I? The burden of proof is on those who claim Atlantis or
somesuch ancient magikal kindom exists. Let the evidence be made plain.
Let them do the digging.



there is physical evidence ..
you can go and touch, measure, take pictures, match astronomical
positions, find big stones, find maps of constellations where the
dates of positions match positions long past, there's lots of
it out there.. and many argue both sides... and its not a absolute
proven fact.. Its evidence... You want someone to prove it before
you are willing to even consider the evidence.. That's the dumb part...

I want someone to prove his outreageous claim. It is his burden to prove
it, not mine to believe it.


You rant.... Give me evidence of X... But make sure you prove beyond
doubt that X is true before I will even study the evidence attempting
to prove X....

That is exactly what I want.

Bob Kolker

"Jack" wrote in message
m...
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
...
Paul R. Mays wrote:


Thats a start but theres a much longer list....

Where is solid measureable evidence to which a carbon dataing protocol
can be applied? Speculations which support your speculations are not
evidence. Quotations from ancient scraps are not evidence. Ancient
writing could be bull****, fairytales or the truth. In the absence of
solid evidence you have nothing.

Bob Kolker

someone from one of the science newsgroups ought to weigh in here with
some authority, but isn't correlated carbon dating extremely accurate
for this time period? edkookradian speculations are way off the mark
here.

carbon dating has a potential range back to somewhere around 60,000 years.
however, dates over 50,000 are generally thrown out unless they have
exceptionally strong stratagraphic context to support them. otherwise 40,000 is
the general limit to consider with any great deal of accuracy. anything within
12-15,000 years the technique is quite accurate and quite cheep. making it the
bread and butter method for paleo & archaic contexts. as the dates get older
there is a greater range of error which is where you get the +/- X amount of
years.

as for weighing in here with some authority,... i think some of us are actually
getting a kick out of watching how far off they can be with some of their claims
and counter arguments. "2+2=3" "no, you're stupid! it equals 5!",... and so on.
(or maybe they just like to argue) :-)

Paul R. Mays wrote:

http://www.guardians.net/hawass/remnants.htm
http://www.grahamhancock.com/news/index.php
http://www.grahamhancock.com/library/bookshop.php
http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/nation/2962443.htm
http://archives.mundoacuatico.com/oc...iousstones.pdf
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...kencities.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1923794.stm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in522626.shtml
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/detail.asp?ID=32604&GRP=A
http://www.morien-institute.org/yonaguni.html
http://www.atlantisrising.com/issue1...apanunder.html

I looked at them all. I am underwhelmed. Aside from some signs of
habitations that have been submerged, what can you say about the people
who used to live there? Nothing specific. Nothing definite. In short
you have evidence of human habitations that have been flood by rising
seas. So what? When they find Venice underwater 10,000 years from now,
will they say Venice is Atlantis?

Bob Kolker

Tedd wrote:

as for weighing in here with some authority,... i think some of us are actually
getting a kick out of watching how far off they can be with some of their claims
and counter arguments. "2+2=3" "no, you're stupid! it equals 5!",... and so on.
(or maybe they just like to argue) :-)

How about ? + ? = ? therefore Atlantis exists?

Asking for hard evidence is very reasonable. The more outrageous the
claim, the better should be the evidence that supports it. The world is
filled with assholes who see Atlantis in every "mysterious" archeologic
al discovery. So far I have seen Atlantis near Japan, near Cuba, near
Egypt. Where else will Atlantis be next year?

Bob Kolker

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
...

snip

So what? When they find Venice underwater 10,000 years from now,
will they say Venice is Atlantis?

Bob Kolker



depends on which of three approaches they subscribe to;

1.) prove it! prove it! prove it! i want evidence! i want evidence! prove it!

2.) sorry, the idea doesnt fit with the evidence of what we do know.

and 3.) wont say a word, just sit back and laugh that someone is actually
arguing about it.

i fall somewhere between 2. and 3. which 1. are you?

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
...


Paul R. Mays wrote:


Here's a few items you might read ... but I kinda doubt it...

Do your references cite -physical evidence-? Yes or no. I won't bother
to look at anything but physical evidences who provenence is vetted by
reputable scientific workers.

Personally... I don't give a **** what you want....

Cite physical evdidence only, which has an
unambiguous interpretation. Can you do that. Yes or No?

Now that just plain stupid....... Bet you don't even
understand why its stupid do you.......


We don't want ancient writings and heresay. We don't want artifacts
whose place and depth have not been properly recorded. Salted digs need
not apply.


We.. got a mouse in your pocket or are ya just glad to see me....

I don't care if you have not the mental ability to read of the
evidence and make up your own mind based on physical ,
touchable, measurable, repeatable, verifiable evidence...

Now might there be argument on interpretation... of course..
as in all of science... but you seem to need a committee to
tell you what to study and you want it all handed to you
up front so your lazy ass don't have to research...

I gave you links to the evidence that a great number of
people agrees has merit... You do your own home work...



Bob Kolker

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
...


Paul R. Mays wrote:


Get off your lazy ass and research..

Why should I? The burden of proof is on those who claim Atlantis or
somesuch ancient magikal kindom exists. Let the evidence be made plain.
Let them do the digging.



there is physical evidence ..
you can go and touch, measure, take pictures, match astronomical
positions, find big stones, find maps of constellations where the
dates of positions match positions long past, there's lots of
it out there.. and many argue both sides... and its not a absolute
proven fact.. Its evidence... You want someone to prove it before
you are willing to even consider the evidence.. That's the dumb part...

I want someone to prove his outreageous claim. It is his burden to prove
it, not mine to believe it.


You rant.... Give me evidence of X... But make sure you prove beyond
doubt that X is true before I will even study the evidence attempting
to prove X....

That is exactly what I want.

Then your an Idiot.....


Bob Kolker