there is a real need to overthrow the current mainstream media, science and especially school textbooks that teaches darwin evolution bs, fake history, not teaching about ET's, etc.
we must choose which path to take, circle or spiral.
Oh... and I was correcting the number from my comment... not the number from the article... When I wrote my original comment I accidentally wrote 300,000 rather than 700,000 (in reference to the skull) and that was simply a typo. Hence why I wrote it as a reply to my own comment because apparently we can't edit our posts once they've been posted.
I'm not questioning the numbers lol... I'm questioning the interpretations made thereof! The 700,000 year old date has no relevance for the Out of Africa hypothesis... The Out of Africa hypothesis concerns Homo Sapiens (evolved IN AFRICA circa. 250,000 years ago) and this skull is that of a Homo Erectus (or a variant thereof), which evolved first in Africa and left 1.8 million years ago. Prior to Erectus, the fossil record shows that no hominin had ever left Africa. There are many finds of Homo Erectus all throughout Eurasia, some with dates far earlier than this one. For instance see Dminisi Georgia. There is nothing surprising about this find at all. What I am saying is that It has 0 bearing on the Out of Africa Hypothesis. That's what I'm pointing out... I say again, the Out of Africa Hypothesis concerns the evolution and the subsequent exodus of Homo Sapiens from Africa, which did not occur until after 250,000 years ago... much after the date proposed for this skull. The difference between the Out of Africa hypothesis and the Multi-Regional hypothesis concerns the evolution of Homo Sapien. No one doubts that Erectus left Africa 1.8 million years ago. What people question is if Homo Sapien evolved from homo Erectus directly and all over the place, or if it evolved from a specific variant of Homo Erectus found solely in Africa. Erectus evolved into several forms, both in Africa and elsewhere, such as Neanderthalensis, Denisovan, Floresiensis, Heidelbergensis, Antecessor, etc. etc. etc as is consistent with their different environments... but none of these evolved into Sapien. Sapien evolved first in Africa from another Erectus variant (possibly Sediba) and then spread to replace these other forms of archaic hominins (including the one from this article) either through competition or interbreeding. Nonetheless, the FACT remains that Sapiens evolved first on the Southern Coast of Africa, as the genetic sequence and the fossil record clearly demonstrate. Either way you look at it... Erectus left Africa 1.8 million years ago, followed by Sapien much later at post-250,000 years ago... Conclusion: Out of Africa no matter what.
A woman did her thesis on the differences of foot bones in various "tribes" of Briton. It was called "Foot Loose in Great Britain". She actually found that one could distinguish between Anglo and Saxon skeletons by the bones of the foot! I wonder if that information could be applied to these casts?
I totally agree with your comment and personally believe they actually are much older than 3,000 years. The only thing I really wonder about is if the media will, in fact, ever report the news. As I'm sure you and many others know, anything out of what the "mainstream" believes is either dismissed, kept in a secret room somewhere, or disputed by the collective of mainstream scientists.
"never retract them when found to be wrong.". Perhaps you should notice more the way "scientists" and "skeptics" and "debunkers" Never admit THEY were wrong when the reality of some suppressed idea becomes mainstream.
I am reminded of the ridicule heaped upon people who claimed that rocks had fallen from the sky - obviously stupid nonsense - until the reality of Metorites became established. Or the totally crazy people who claimed to notice how the shapes of continents fitted together - until Contental Drift and plate tectonics were discovered.
It's not just that people of this (ridgid and fearful) mindset reject evidence, it's that they use suppression and ridicule as if they were valid that pisses me off.
People of the past did not have a sense of technological progress as it was happening much slower. Stories were passing Orally for hundreds of years before they were put into writing. If we use this context and someone would write the story of Columbus discovery of America today, he will probably assume that Columbus crossed the Atlantic ocean with steam ships. That However will not make the story fabricated.
Do a little homework! While it is cool that a skull so old has been found in Greece, it in no way disproves or is even related to the Out of Africa hypothesis. For starters, the Out of Africa hypothesis relates to ANATOMICALLY MODERN HUMANS (aka Homo Sapiens) for which the oldest known record is 250,000 year old and from the Southern Coast of Africa. For one, you would note that the skull found in Greece is older than those of homo sapiens, and has even been classified as a Homo Erectus. Meaning there is absolutely no relevance between this find and the Out of Africa hypothesis. What is laughable are the amount of people on this thread who are commenting on something that they very clearly are not well informed about. A simple google search would set you straight even. Secondly, if one is referring to the Exodus of Homo Erectus from Africa as the "Out of Africa" hypothesis, you not only would be wrong for calling it that but also for thinking that this skull bears any relevance to it because we have dates going back as far as 1.8 million years for this exodus! Quite a big jump from 1.8 million years to 300,000 don't you think? The confusion here (I think) is what people mean when they use the word human! Do they mean the genus Homo in general? or are they talking about the species Homo Sapien? and yes there is a difference... If referring to Homo in general, yes there are dates going back to 1.8 million years all over Eurasia, but the oldest of which are from AFRICA! And as for Sapien, well I've already covered that, but to refresh your memory, Sapien evolved 250,000 years ago on the Southern Coast of Africa. This article makes no attempt to suggest that the skull is that of a Sapien and actually confirms its relation to Erectus instead which is not at all a surprising find. Yell Scream Conspiracy all you want, what's clear to me is that this article is framed in misinformation and intentional misdirection...
try reading or wathing a video of loyd pye his video is everything you know is wrong its quite lenghty some ware around in the middle of it he explains pretty well i think you might be pleased
I would imagine it was done thru trial and error as the need arose. Good question though, makes me stop and think....I found myself asking what did they use for diapers or clothing and when did it become apparent the hemp would work as a blend. Very interesting...
me myself like to keep an open mind if you ever listen to loyd pye and the starchild skull and what he reports on youll understand that not everything is soo cut and dry he gives you a no bullcrud point of view that i love to see and here when things are being discoverd and talked about especialy when it seems to be that not all is being said by mainstream scientists and archeologists itll be interesting to see what comes next in thier findings
I'm from Peru too!
I have no reason to object the likelyhood of the preliminary results, around the globe we are finding new evidences linked to more developed ancient cultures that might rewrite the text books. At this point everything is possible.
Hi Rusty, no, Dr Melba Ketchum is working on some other samples from the skulls and she is trying to get some labs in the US to agree to doing a complete genome test. But the geneticist who undertook the first DNA analysis is not her. He will be addressing the public once all stages of analysis have been complete. This is only phase one.
Here you can navigate quickly through all comments made in any article sorted by date/time.
there is a real need to overthrow the current mainstream media, science and especially school textbooks that teaches darwin evolution bs, fake history, not teaching about ET's, etc.
we must choose which path to take, circle or spiral.
Oh... and I was correcting the number from my comment... not the number from the article... When I wrote my original comment I accidentally wrote 300,000 rather than 700,000 (in reference to the skull) and that was simply a typo. Hence why I wrote it as a reply to my own comment because apparently we can't edit our posts once they've been posted.
I'm not questioning the numbers lol... I'm questioning the interpretations made thereof! The 700,000 year old date has no relevance for the Out of Africa hypothesis... The Out of Africa hypothesis concerns Homo Sapiens (evolved IN AFRICA circa. 250,000 years ago) and this skull is that of a Homo Erectus (or a variant thereof), which evolved first in Africa and left 1.8 million years ago. Prior to Erectus, the fossil record shows that no hominin had ever left Africa. There are many finds of Homo Erectus all throughout Eurasia, some with dates far earlier than this one. For instance see Dminisi Georgia. There is nothing surprising about this find at all. What I am saying is that It has 0 bearing on the Out of Africa Hypothesis. That's what I'm pointing out... I say again, the Out of Africa Hypothesis concerns the evolution and the subsequent exodus of Homo Sapiens from Africa, which did not occur until after 250,000 years ago... much after the date proposed for this skull. The difference between the Out of Africa hypothesis and the Multi-Regional hypothesis concerns the evolution of Homo Sapien. No one doubts that Erectus left Africa 1.8 million years ago. What people question is if Homo Sapien evolved from homo Erectus directly and all over the place, or if it evolved from a specific variant of Homo Erectus found solely in Africa. Erectus evolved into several forms, both in Africa and elsewhere, such as Neanderthalensis, Denisovan, Floresiensis, Heidelbergensis, Antecessor, etc. etc. etc as is consistent with their different environments... but none of these evolved into Sapien. Sapien evolved first in Africa from another Erectus variant (possibly Sediba) and then spread to replace these other forms of archaic hominins (including the one from this article) either through competition or interbreeding. Nonetheless, the FACT remains that Sapiens evolved first on the Southern Coast of Africa, as the genetic sequence and the fossil record clearly demonstrate. Either way you look at it... Erectus left Africa 1.8 million years ago, followed by Sapien much later at post-250,000 years ago... Conclusion: Out of Africa no matter what.
A woman did her thesis on the differences of foot bones in various "tribes" of Briton. It was called "Foot Loose in Great Britain". She actually found that one could distinguish between Anglo and Saxon skeletons by the bones of the foot! I wonder if that information could be applied to these casts?
I totally agree with your comment and personally believe they actually are much older than 3,000 years. The only thing I really wonder about is if the media will, in fact, ever report the news. As I'm sure you and many others know, anything out of what the "mainstream" believes is either dismissed, kept in a secret room somewhere, or disputed by the collective of mainstream scientists.
Hi Anthropos323. The article has been reviewed by Dr Poulianos himself - which means that the numbers are correct.
Why do you think that a non-split skul plate indicates a non-split brain?
"never retract them when found to be wrong.". Perhaps you should notice more the way "scientists" and "skeptics" and "debunkers" Never admit THEY were wrong when the reality of some suppressed idea becomes mainstream.
I am reminded of the ridicule heaped upon people who claimed that rocks had fallen from the sky - obviously stupid nonsense - until the reality of Metorites became established. Or the totally crazy people who claimed to notice how the shapes of continents fitted together - until Contental Drift and plate tectonics were discovered.
It's not just that people of this (ridgid and fearful) mindset reject evidence, it's that they use suppression and ridicule as if they were valid that pisses me off.
Peer-review does not require giving up original evidence. Samples are sufficient and an explanation of the methodology used in the analysis.
People of the past did not have a sense of technological progress as it was happening much slower. Stories were passing Orally for hundreds of years before they were put into writing. If we use this context and someone would write the story of Columbus discovery of America today, he will probably assume that Columbus crossed the Atlantic ocean with steam ships. That However will not make the story fabricated.
They are the Nephilim.
A 4000 year old recorded account of {3} natural calendar vibrational cycles. 5/7*Eridug = Alaljar.
700,000 years old... not 300,000... Either way the argument stands.
Do a little homework! While it is cool that a skull so old has been found in Greece, it in no way disproves or is even related to the Out of Africa hypothesis. For starters, the Out of Africa hypothesis relates to ANATOMICALLY MODERN HUMANS (aka Homo Sapiens) for which the oldest known record is 250,000 year old and from the Southern Coast of Africa. For one, you would note that the skull found in Greece is older than those of homo sapiens, and has even been classified as a Homo Erectus. Meaning there is absolutely no relevance between this find and the Out of Africa hypothesis. What is laughable are the amount of people on this thread who are commenting on something that they very clearly are not well informed about. A simple google search would set you straight even. Secondly, if one is referring to the Exodus of Homo Erectus from Africa as the "Out of Africa" hypothesis, you not only would be wrong for calling it that but also for thinking that this skull bears any relevance to it because we have dates going back as far as 1.8 million years for this exodus! Quite a big jump from 1.8 million years to 300,000 don't you think? The confusion here (I think) is what people mean when they use the word human! Do they mean the genus Homo in general? or are they talking about the species Homo Sapien? and yes there is a difference... If referring to Homo in general, yes there are dates going back to 1.8 million years all over Eurasia, but the oldest of which are from AFRICA! And as for Sapien, well I've already covered that, but to refresh your memory, Sapien evolved 250,000 years ago on the Southern Coast of Africa. This article makes no attempt to suggest that the skull is that of a Sapien and actually confirms its relation to Erectus instead which is not at all a surprising find. Yell Scream Conspiracy all you want, what's clear to me is that this article is framed in misinformation and intentional misdirection...
try reading or wathing a video of loyd pye his video is everything you know is wrong its quite lenghty some ware around in the middle of it he explains pretty well i think you might be pleased
I would imagine it was done thru trial and error as the need arose. Good question though, makes me stop and think....I found myself asking what did they use for diapers or clothing and when did it become apparent the hemp would work as a blend. Very interesting...
me myself like to keep an open mind if you ever listen to loyd pye and the starchild skull and what he reports on youll understand that not everything is soo cut and dry he gives you a no bullcrud point of view that i love to see and here when things are being discoverd and talked about especialy when it seems to be that not all is being said by mainstream scientists and archeologists itll be interesting to see what comes next in thier findings
I'm from Peru too!
I have no reason to object the likelyhood of the preliminary results, around the globe we are finding new evidences linked to more developed ancient cultures that might rewrite the text books. At this point everything is possible.
I interviewed him yesterday and the video will be uploaded in just a couple of hours.
Hi Rusty, no, Dr Melba Ketchum is working on some other samples from the skulls and she is trying to get some labs in the US to agree to doing a complete genome test. But the geneticist who undertook the first DNA analysis is not her. He will be addressing the public once all stages of analysis have been complete. This is only phase one.
Pages