[PookztA]

Mysterious Origins of Man (Documentary | 47 minutes): http://krishnatube.com/video/269/The-Mysterious-Origins-of-Man

(Hosted by Charlton Heston, aired by NBC in 1996.)

• Radiocarbon dating suggesting some human fossils are older than our current understanding of man's history?
• Numerous fossilized human foot prints, in stride, found along side of dinosaur foot prints, within the same layer of rock?
• People losing their careers for simply wanting to share the evidence they have found with the scientific community?

[/list]

How much of this is true? How much of it is false?  You decide.

(I will not be partaking in much discussion about this video, for it is very controversial within the scientific community. If you search Wikipedia or Google about it, you will find both positive and negative reviews. For this reason, I encourage you to make up your own mind about this video, and not simply adopt the views of any small number of sources.)

I hope you find it as interesting as I did,

-Abe

[HARDKORNATE]

Sounds like it should at least be humorous 🙂

[Nameless One]

Obvious bullshit. You don't need to watch the show or read the supporting literature to figure that one out. It's based on the work of Hindu creationists and features Graham Hancock. Enough said.

TalkOrigins FAQ:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/mom.html

Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mysterious_Origins_of_Man

Some reviews:

“Most of the ideas presented…were so ludicrous as to not even warrant a rebuttal by any honest investigator.” (L.W. Mt. Wilson Observatory)

“I think you should apologize publicly for this show. It was appalling… Frankly, you are either morons or liars.” (D.L. Colorado. Edu)

“…the non-scientific public watching this drivel may be inclined to actually believe it and to vote for politicians who also believe it.” (J.K. New Mexico State University)

“It's all a bunch of hooey, and my recommendation is to stay away.” (B.D. Yale University)

“I recommend people write NBC and protest the presentation of this show as a documentary… Thanks largely to the efforts of people like yourself, the American public is generally not capable of evaluating the “arguments” and “evidence” you present.” (A.D. University of Texas at Austin)

“Any person who would trot out the old canard about “evolution is still a theory, not a fact” cannot be a serious producer. You people should be ashamed of yourselves.” (R.S. Geology Department, Gettysburg College)

“…the American public will soon be reduced to a gaggle of conspiracy theorists that will not trust a single thing they are told.” (T.H. Astronomy Dept. New Mexico State University)

“You should be banned from the airwaves.” (J. J. ALCI)

[PookztA]

I agree the film does have a “creationist” feel to it, but I found the evidence they presented interesting. I tried to focus on the evidence, not on religion (no religion in this documentary as I remember). I am not talking about evidence for creation, because the documentary is not about creation, but about evidence which suggests that our current understanding of when homo sapiens first evolved might be incorrect.

It is just information, and I found it to be interesting, and not a waste of time.

Feel free to watch it or not, I just wanted to share it because I enjoyed it.

-Abe

[Pauldo]

Hi Abe…how goes?  Would you care to share where or how you found this docu?  From 1996?  Just a suggestion but did you forward search from that time period and see what new scholarly work has been completed on this topic?  Especially when using such an old source from 1996.  Surely new studies and evidence have been completed on the origins of man since 1996?  Perhaps if you had viewed that new evidence it would show you that the info you presented in this post is old, outdated, wrong or false.  Forward checking could save you from having to make an unnecessary post.  Try this post for the latest info about human origins:

http://chilluminatiforum.org/index.php/topic,4738.0.html

• Radiocarbon dating suggesting some human fossils are older than our current understanding of man's history?
• Numerous fossilized human foot prints, in stride, found along side of dinosaur foot prints, within the same layer of rock?

[/list]

These are not even possibly close to having any scientific merit.  These are completely false.

• People losing their careers for simply wanting to share the evidence they have found with the scientific community?

[/list]

Speaking about people losing their careers Abe…  I would go back and delete some of these posts you have presented in the past year or so.  Especially your anti-Jewish/conspiracy posts.  That kind of stuff can get you fired from a job if future employers run across those posts. 

>How much of this is true? How much of it is false?  You decide.

>for it is very controversial within the scientific community

>I encourage you to make up your own mind about this video

All of it is false.  None of this info is considered remotely true by the modern scientific community.

There is nothing to decide or make up my mind about this video.  I like how you make it seem like there's even a plausibility of “true” being even possibly credible.

I hope you find it as interesting as I did

What exactly about this video did you find interesting?  I am frightened that a future brain surgeon would find this docu interesting.  This topic is intellectually beneath a 1st year med student.  I'm not just being a dick by saying this but honestly Abe (honest Abe!) I think a majority of your posts on here are intellectually beneath you.  You could be doing so much better.  The pit of my gut churned when I read this post…like a lot of your posts.  Seriously, you're killing my ulcer with some of this stuff.  I expect much more out of you.

Abe, when you make a post and present information don't you feel a responsibility for the correctness of the information?  Don't you feel the post is a presentation of yourself?  Even though you say you are just putting the info out there and others can decide for themselves don't you feel the least bit responsible for presenting true facts on either side of an argument?  Don't you worry that the very act of repeating falsehoods can give the appearance of credibility?  This is the very thing I meant by the irresponsibility of psychedelic “elders”…how they pass info onto others as things are true when they are not, lack of critical reading, etc.

 

[aktif]

“Hey everyone I wanted to share this amazing new scientific discovery with everyone”

“This is AWESOME, it's this thing called gravity, it's really cool, you psytrancers are going to love it.  You guys like science right?  Let me AMAZE you.”

[Nameless One]

Gravity is ONLY A THEORY!

[Robyo]

Duh. Everyone knows the Earth is only 10,000 years old. And Beelzebub put dinosaur fossils in the rocks to fool us!

[emilybobemily]

Duh. Everyone knows the Earth is only 10,000 years old. And Beelzebub put dinosaur fossils in the rocks to fool us!

lol

[esmokah]

Gravity is ONLY A THEORY!

It's an outdated theory. It has been replaced with a new understanding called Grabbity. It reaches up and grabs you and pulls you down. Yup, Grabbity.

[PookztA]

One thing I find interesting is the discussion about the city of Tihuanaco.

Here is a short clip from the original documentary that I found very interesting. The clip briefly discusses the city of Tihuanaco, which they claim is by far the oldest city known to mankind, even though it is not yet recognized by mainstream science.

Here is the 2.5 minute clip from Mysterious Origins of Man: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3eQeGLcKsU

and here is a more detailed, skeptical clip from a BBC documentary discussing Tihuanaco: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9K3DeRS83A

and here is a History Channel clip discussing Tihuanaco: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKuE9bVqe8M

Please keep in mind this is just one topic discussed in the documentary. The topic of Tihuanaco is just one thing I found to be very interesting and enjoyable to learn about.

I find this stuff very interesting, because Science is always revealing new truths. To think that Science has it all figured out is illogical, because we should always be using science to investigate new claims and uncover new evidence. I am simply viewing evidence, and because I found it interesting, I am sharing it with you all.

Watch it or don't, bash it or thank me for posting it, it doesn't matter, because the only thing that matters is that I found it interesting, and that is why I am sharing it with this community that I care about.

Go ahead and insult me for sharing this information if you want, but it will be a waste of your time and not mine. I am just sharing intriguing information, so watch it or don't, I truly do not care.

Hope those of you that watch it enjoy it as much as I did!

-Abe

[PookztA]

oh and another thing I found interesting is the extreme precision with which the blocks of the city were cut.

They were so accurately cut and fit together, that the scientists could not even insert a playing card or a needle between two blocks. They were so precisely cut and fit together that they literally could not even wedge a playing card from a deck of cards between two of the stones! Very amazing stuff.

Another thing is how they cut a groove between two adjacent stones, and then poured metal into the groove and let it cool to create a “staple” between two of these building blocks. These ancient builders were even using molten metal to help staple adjacent stones together, in addition to how precise the blocks were cut and fitted together.

very fascinating stuff!

[Nameless One]

Tihuanaco is an interesting archaeological site all right… not sure what is so controversial or unusual about it though. Some Wiki reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tihuanaco

[esmokah]

They were so accurately cut and fit together, that the scientists could not even insert a playing card or a needle between two blocks. They were so precisely cut and fit together that they literally could not even wedge a playing card from a deck of cards between two of the stones! Very amazing stuff.

This is a prime example of old world craftsmanship. the ancients knew that by using mortar their buildings would crumble so building them perfect they would last forever. This was done on old sites the world over. I watched the first twenty minutes and the only part that didn't smell like krazy-glu was when they were walking about charles darwin's evolultion.  I am fine with the missing link staying missing fwiw. I look forward to the Tihuanaco section once i get back from the lake. Ancient cities are always fascinating

[PookztA]

Tihuanaco is an interesting archaeological site all right… not sure what is so controversial or unusual about it though. Some Wiki reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tihuanaco

man i sure wish I would have quoted that insulting picture you had posted before you completely changed your post to this…

haha

wait, here it is:

ahh the insults… 🙂

anyway,

one of the controversial things about that city is the fact that radiocarbon dating can only date organic materials within rocks, not the rocks themselves, from what I understand.

so, the controversy arises because the construction of the buildings are very similar to the great pyramids, using similar precision and the “molten metal staple” technique, but radiocarbon dating suggests that the city is much younger than the pyramids. so, some argue that this city must have had technology passed down from Egypt and possibly from an older civilization, while other more mainstream scientists argue that the radiocarbon dating of the materials within the rocks suggest that the city is not that old. of course there is more evidence to be discussed, such as astronomical alignments that suggest that the city is much older than radiocarbon dating suggests, but that is just my basic understanding of the controversy.

p.s. Wikipedia is a biased source of information, just like NBC, FOX, CBS, CNN, etc. I won't go into details, but there is a small group of moderators that heavily censor information they do not like. Without going into details, they promote Dr. Steven Jones (physicist) and David Ray Griffin (theologan) and their 9/11 theories, but they will not allow Dr. Judy Wood's name to be mentioned even ONCE, even though she is the only 9/11 researcher to have filed evidence with a court of law. I tried to add her name and create a page to discuss her, and I was censored and given invalid reasons. Of course, they have no problem giving less qualified 9/11 researchers their own pages, such as David Ray Griffin who's not even a scientist, just not Dr. Judy Wood. They will not even allow her name to appear one time on the 9/11 Truth Movement page (9/11 Researchers section) It is a long story with lots of details, but I won't go into it here. This has been an ongoing thing from the same small group of Wikipedia admins that recruit other admis to support their decisions even if they are not in line with Wikipedia's “openness” policies. Oh well, Wikipedia is still a good source of information, but like all other mainstream media companies, I am very skeptical of them when it comes to reporting on controversial issues.

[Author]

Posts