Banned TEDx Talk About Giants and Mounds!

Super Moderator
User avatar
Posts: 15836
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 7:12 pm

PostSun Dec 29, 2013 10:02 pm » by Spock


Tor man, really - you're going to tear down TED over cases of gigantism? I'm not saying that giants didn't live in the past, I believe they did, but not as recently as proposed by these findings.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2114
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 10:08 pm
Location: The outlet by the light switch

PostSun Dec 29, 2013 10:06 pm » by Thebluecanary


Chipmunk5 wrote:To be fair, I believe this has been a respected idea within academic archaeology for quite some time.

EDIT: by that I mean the possible European origins of the Clovis culture.


Yes, Chipmunk, you are correct. They've been postulating the theory since 1998. And while others who have advocated for diffusionism have been laughed at, these guys are serious enough (and have done concrete research enough) that they are taken more seriously. The theory still isn't 100% part of the canon. But it's encouraging to see someone with such high academic standing continuing to advocate his theory without backing down.

(The idea that the Solutrians were the ancestors of Clovis was not included in my archaeology textbooks seven years ago, but it is discussed in "serious" books on the subject that I currently own. So that's something.)
Remember, in a real conspiracy, all players are pawns regardless of their rank.
-----Christopher Hyatt

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2114
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 10:08 pm
Location: The outlet by the light switch

PostSun Dec 29, 2013 10:18 pm » by Thebluecanary


Spock wrote:
Phoenix rising wrote:Its fair enough to challenge his view of the truth but Ted took it upon themselves to deny the public the right to decide for themselves, are Ted now doing our thinking/reasoning for us? its a slippery slope and from other accounts this is not the first time Ted have banned talks :bang; :censored:



No - Ted took his stuff off their channel because they refuted his claims. You were able to watch the video, if you choose to believe him, that is your CHOICE, regardless of the cold hard facts TED listed as a reason to take his pseudoscience of their you-tube page.

The guy comes across as a Mormon attempting to raise conspiracy suspicion in order to present the false history of Mormonism to people.

The guy had an interesting presentation, but after reading TED's explanation, I agree with them - they want to present true science, not pseudo.


The problem is, Spock, that his claims can't be 100% refuted. There are literally 100s of reports of giant skeletons from the historical past. The idea that all of them are elaborate fakes kinda stretches credulity. I have yet to see 100% proof that the structures he's talking about in New England are colonial. Barry Fell has done extensive research on them; America BC is an interesting book, and Fell is a "real" scientist, and his critics have yet to convincingly refute his work. The Smithsonian has zero credibility on the subject. They have a gross history of misdirection and concealment when it comes to the mound builders. Most of that stems from J.P. Morgan and his contemporaries, sweeping the complexity of mound builder culture under the rug to facilitate the removal of the Indians, but the fact remains that the Smithsonian actively suppressed adequate study of the mounds and mound builder culture to the point that they even knowingly let many mounds be destroyed in the name of "progress" without even attempting to study their construction or the burials within them. I don't care what they say…I do not doubt for one second that they have anomalous skeletal remains in their possession.

I agree that the small minority of "fringe" archaeologists who are trying to prove the book of Mormon is a true document tend to hurt the rest of us as far as credibility goes. I just finished a book I ordered about the lost civilizations of America and was really disappointed to find out that the author was one of those "Mormon scientists". There was still lots of interesting information in the book…but his agenda did muddy it some.

I understand TED's perspective…but I do feel like they should let the information stand and allow people to research and come to their own conclusions rather than censor the information. The "facts" in their rebuttal are contentious and represent the larger debate about the subject.
Remember, in a real conspiracy, all players are pawns regardless of their rank.
-----Christopher Hyatt

Initiate
Posts: 912
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:51 am

PostSun Dec 29, 2013 10:25 pm » by Rahkriga


TorJohnson wrote:You know what else is fake? All of these.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image


Image

Image

Image

None of this is real because Ted proved you can't carbon date stone. Logic!


Can you give a link or something that shows where "Ted" proves that stone cant be carbon dated? Other than "Ted" saying it in that letter?

From what I understand, "ted talks" is basically a panel of anonymous "scientists"..but since theyre anonymous...how do we even know they are actual scientists? What have they studied and for long? What are their credentials??? When "Ted" made the statement ''You cannot carbon-date stone."...it threw me off because stone CAN be carbon dated IF if has organic material in it. "You cannot carbon-date stone." is not the answer you would expect from a so called think tank of elite scientists. So if you take that statement as is...its false. So here we have faceless scientists without any credentials to speak of...and people believe what they say without questioning. Thats not good...not good at all

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2114
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 10:08 pm
Location: The outlet by the light switch

PostSun Dec 29, 2013 10:37 pm » by Thebluecanary


It's hard to carbon date stone. The carbon 14 dating will reveal the age of the stone itself…it can't reveal when the stone might have been "worked". It is my understanding from reading about the structures in the video from other sources, that carbon dating was done on organic matter within the site. This is typical; carbon dating on material in situ can reveal a date for a site. This is always contentious, though, and whenever isotopic dating reveals a site to be older than supported by canon they usually try to claim it's a mistake, or contamination of the site, or that the researchers tried to "carbon date stone."
Remember, in a real conspiracy, all players are pawns regardless of their rank.
-----Christopher Hyatt

Initiate
Posts: 912
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:51 am

PostSun Dec 29, 2013 10:41 pm » by Rahkriga


Also...heres my problem with "ted talks". Take a look when you have time at some these "banned videos". The banning of these videos seems a bit...nefarious. These vids just happen to talk about the very things we KNOW tptb dont want us thinking or talking about. Is it just a coincidence???


Dr. Rupert Sheldrake talks about his banned TED talk


Upload to Disclose.tv



Graham Hancock - The War on Consciousness BANNED TED TALK


Upload to Disclose.tv



I mean come onnnnn...Depak Chopra banned as well?


Upload to Disclose.tv



Banned TED Talk on Income Inequality by Nick Hanauer (Banned for being "too political)


Upload to Disclose.tv



Young turks speaking on the banned Nick Hanauer video


Upload to Disclose.tv


Initiate
Posts: 912
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:51 am

PostSun Dec 29, 2013 10:50 pm » by Rahkriga


Thebluecanary wrote:It's hard to carbon date stone. The carbon 14 dating will reveal the age of the stone itself…it can't reveal when the stone might have been "worked". It is my understanding from reading about the structures in the video from other sources, that carbon dating was done on organic matter within the site. This is typical; carbon dating on material in situ can reveal a date for a site. This is always contentious, though, and whenever isotopic dating reveals a site to be older than supported by canon they usually try to claim it's a mistake, or contamination of the site, or that the researchers tried to "carbon date stone."



"For radiocarbon dating to be possible, the material must once have been part of a living organism. This means that things like stone, metal and pottery cannot usually be directly dated by this means unless there is some organic material embedded or left as a residue."

University of Oxford http://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/embed.php?File=dating.html

If organic matter is embedded in the stone (there are some sites where this is the case and carbon dating can and does give an accurate reading) it can be dated...but there are without a doubt better ways to get an accurate reading. With that said..carbon dating stone is possible. It just depends if the stone has organic matter that can be traced.

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 3:39 am

PostSun Dec 29, 2013 10:56 pm » by TorJohnson


Spock wrote:Tor man, really - you're going to tear down TED over cases of gigantism? I'm not saying that giants didn't live in the past, I believe they did, but not as recently as proposed by these findings.


As long as we're on the same page, because giants bloody well do and have existed in the past, no matter what the anonymous "scientists" over at Ted say. It's like there's this cut off point at 9 feet (Robert Wadlow's height) where anything under 9 feet is real but anything over is fantasy. As long as the biology is possible, why not believe that 10-14 foot giants may have existed and practiced mummification and built mounds a long-ass time ago?

This whole subject is endlessly fascinating to me and suppression of this kind of knowledge only serves to intrigue me further. :think:
The Lost Book of Enki as narrated and commentated by Josh Reeves:
http://www.disclose.tv/forum/the-lost-book-of-enki-annunaki-and-the-origins-of-man-t94767.html


Upload to Disclose.tv


Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 8101
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 9:19 pm

PostSun Dec 29, 2013 11:07 pm » by Harbin


If you look at the town histories of eastern Massachusetts towns, you will often find details of the native populations there. This includes their stationary settlements and the farming areas and practices...
Image
Antiwar.com

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 375
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2012 3:34 am
Location: Fredericton, New Brunswick -Atlantic Canada

PostSun Dec 29, 2013 11:23 pm » by DmoniX_The_Destroyer


TorJohnson wrote:You know what else is fake? All of these.

None of this is real because Ted proved you can't carbon date stone. Logic!



i think the problem here is, that these people surely existed, but they are anomalies, they are not like a whole society all from the same area of the planet.
I do not doubt that "giants" did exist.
Oh I know I'm goin to Hell, I'm just working on how deep.


PreviousNext

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook