Forum Monk wrote:I consider myself an open minded individual even if from time to time my world-view does interfere with my perception of evidence. I am not a conspiracy theorist, however. The internet is a wonderful media for expression but it makes the job of sorting truth from fantasy all the more difficult. It is EXTREMELY difficult at times. Clubs, you have brought up an interesting example. Hebrew script in north america. In fact if you do a google search for 'hebrews in ancient america' you find no less than 955,000 articles and practically none are originated from a .edu or other source with impeccible credentials. This is extremely telling. Why is all the evidence ALWAYS in the hands of book writers or special interest groups? Joseph Smith built an entire religion which thrives today based on ancient hebrews in america, on the strength of engraved plates which no one but he has ever seen.
I am not inclined to believe there is a massive conspiracy among scientists to suppress or hide evidence which doesn't fit a particular model or point of view. I think quite the opposite. Scientists are so anxious to make the next big discovery they are often in danger of being sloppy in their methods and premature in their reporting. Everyone wants to be Time Magazine's man of the year. And lets face it, big discoveries mean big funding and job security. Then you have the laymen authors and film makers clamouring to present half-baked ideas which are recapitulations of someone elses half-baked ideas and many take on a life of their own. i.e. UFOS, world trade center demolition, the government did it, etc. I personally don't believe anyone in the government is smart enough to plan and execute such elaborate operations which involve many people over years of time and cover it up to perfectly.
There are dozens of examples of what are dubbed OOPART. Out of place artifacts. Many can not be adequately explained, but this is true with many anomalies. Its impossible to evaluate an anomaly without putting it into a context and that usually requires other evidence which most of the time never seems to exist.
In general, Clubs, I agree with much of what you say especially about the ideas of persistent and common myths and traditions which indicate something must have been real: i.e. the flood, giants, etc. (whether the flood was local or global or whether giants were 6'5" or 8'0 is not the issue). But I am still waiting for evidence. Believe me, I would love to find out that Noah's ark was found, or Moses grave was found, or even *sigh* we have UFOs in a hangar in Dayton. But I am like the skeptical apostle: unless I 'touch it' I will remain skeptical of the claims.
EDIT: *****
As a follow up I did a search for 'hebrews in ancient america' using Google Scholar which filters much of the dross for you. There were only 9000 articles and a quick survey of the listings actually showed no reports confirming the idea. One report even discussed that fact there was no genetic connection between any ancient indian triabes and hebrews ever found.
Ah Joseph Smith
who was a well-known con artist prior to creating his own religion
Sort of like L. Ron Hubbard, the science fiction writer turned religious founder. He, like Smith, found a great way to make some $$, not unlike the Catholics of their day charging peasants to pray their deceased loved ones out of purgatory into heaven.
What I've often wondered is if the out-of-place art wasn't put there not by a large group of re-settled persons, but perhaps some travelers lost. We're assuming that just because the art is there, those who left it were a large group of people from whom the AIs are descended. That's a big assumption. If we "guess" that it was in fact not large groups of people, but rather smaller groups who did NOT mix with indiginous populations or if they did, it was in small amounts, then we would not expect to see DNA traces showing up in large populations, rather they would have to test every single AI living in the U.S. today in order to state for a fact, that there is no semetic DNA traces. After having read that lady's work I'd have to say the small group concept is not out of the realm of possibility.
Speaking of which, I was watching some nonsense MTV show this morning of which I cannot recall the name, but a comic was on there that struck me as a perfect example of a HE/Neanderthal mix. He looked so much like the cave men featured in the Geiko commercials sans scruffy hair and whiskers, that it gave me pause once again to think.....man+woman=??? (not that the cave men in the Geiko commercials are a good representative of Neanderthal....I realize it's just TV
)
MONK, I agree with your statement about what comprises a giant. I recently experienced gianthood. It was quite pleasant. In my own country I am not considered a big person, average??? However I recently visited a country in which I literally towered over a good portion of the the people I came into contact with. They considered me enourmous.
Another example might arise from merely visiting the Smithsonian museum in which clothes of our American forefathers are held, in which their small size is more than evident, or, if anyone has had the chance to view suits of armor which look big enough for the average american 8th grader...but which were worn by grown men in their day.
