Michael Cremo & Forbidden Archaeology

[schticknz]

Just thought I would start a thread on Forbidden Archaeology. Its definitely a seminal book on strange artifacts and alternative history. Michael Cremo's website is here:

http://www.mcremo.com

I think this is where I first heard about the Baghdad batteries and the balls with strange grooves running around their diameter.

Any thoughts on Forbidden Archaeology and/or artifacts that may be from ancient civilisations unknown to us at this time???

 

[BrandonD]

Just thought I would start a thread on Forbidden Archaeology. Its definitely a seminal book on strange artifacts and alternative history. Michael Cremo's website is here:

http://www.mcremo.com

I think this is where I first heard about the Baghdad batteries and the balls with strange grooves running around their diameter.

Any thoughts on Forbidden Archaeology and/or artifacts that may be from ancient civilisations unknown to us at this time???

Yes I think he'd be a great guest.

As a side note, Forbidden Archaeology is a huuuge book that was written more for scholars. There's a condensed version written for laymen (which is the one I own) entitled "The Hidden History of the Human Race". It's a very interesting book.

 

[Michael L.]

I first found Hidden History and then ended up reading the larger book. I have to say that I am always quite intrigued with Mr. Cremo's work as well as that of his writing partner (Richard Thompson, is it?). If you enjoy reading Cremo you may want to check out some of Graham Hancock's stuff, such as Underworld.

 

[Poi]

I got a real kick out of Hidden Archaeology, but the ringed balls are rather mundane despite the popularity of the book. Any geologist worth his salt can tell you how they are formed, but Cremo didn't bother to go very far with his research. Half to take his stuff with a grain of salt for that reason alone. Still great reading.

 

[BrandonD]

I got a real kick out of Hidden Archaeology, but the ringed balls are rather mundane despite the popularity of the book. Any geologist worth his salt can tell you how they are formed, but Cremo didn't bother to go very far with his research. Half to take his stuff with a grain of salt for that reason alone. Still great reading.

I've not heard this mundane explanation for the ringed spheres. What is it?

 

[schticknz]

I got a real kick out of Hidden Archaeology, but the ringed balls are rather mundane despite the popularity of the book. Any geologist worth his salt can tell you how they are formed, but Cremo didn't bother to go very far with his research. Half to take his stuff with a grain of salt for that reason alone. Still great reading.

I've not heard this mundane explanation for the ringed spheres. What is it?

Yeah I'd like to know that too. I know a bit about Geology/Geophysics and I couldn't figure out any way that that was do-able ... or am I missing something really really simple here??

(schtick ... who apparently, one year in the mid 1980s, was the only 16/17yr old in a secondary school in Scotland to be studying Geology ... all on his own ... with no teacher ... sitting at the back of a Geography class all alone ... teaching himself ... boo hoo boo hoo )

 

[Poi]

Oops. Had two geologists explain it to me on the net, but I'm going to have a time tracking it down. Will get back to you on it as soon as I find it.

 

[Poi]

I thought it would be easy to find, but the explanation is buried in archives or has disappeared.

Basically, they said the spheres are an accretion of minerals, depending on the makeup of each sphere. They had to have been made quite long ago when tectonic forces acted on minerals in such a way as to make them rather round. Because many of them are made up of different mineral components, they were probably formed during different geologic periods but in similar tectonic conditions. So some may come from the same area and be quite different in make up. They are fairly rare, but probably because they just haven't been uncovered.

Have a friend who found a couple of them in southeastern Oklahoma, in what used to be a volcanic area.

If I come across the more technical geological explanation, I'll post it. Just can't do that quickly.

 

[Poi]

Here's what Paul Heinrich has to say on the matter of the spheres.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/spheres.html

Oops again. I guess they're nodules.

He would probably debunk everything in Hidden Archaeology and I think that would be a mistake. But this looks to be a legitimate geological artifact to me.

 

[BrandonD]

Here's what Paul Heinrich has to say on the matter of the spheres.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/spheres.html

Oops again. I guess they're nodules.

He would probably debunk everything in Hidden Archaeology and I think that would be a mistake. But this looks to be a legitimate geological artifact to me.

Yea I can also disprove any piece of evidence that contradicts the reigning cultural mythology, as long as I use alot of tehcnical jargon and remain as abtract and far from personally verifiable information as possible.

There's no reason to just "buy into" the spheres, but there's also no reason to buy into these abstruse debunking explanations, simply because they come from someone who fancies himself an authority.

 

[Poi]

True, Brandon. That's why I asked some geologists. They didn't necessarily agree with the author at the link because they understand that spherical concretions have been found elsewhere and are of different composition. They knew relatively little about any from Africa.

But if you want more, this is a difficult read for me, but the spheres are no mystery to experts either. I googled on "small spherical geologic concretions." This brief summary deals with some in Africa so they are not unknown.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6X-4KRY3VD-1&_user=10&_coverDate=02%2F01%2F2007&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=41710310a0b9ef06c0135926c4891ce4

This from the Handbook of Geological Terms, Geology and Physical Geography, I couldn't find the term pyrophylitte, but I did find this. I bring it up to make a point.

Pisolite, ...

These calcareous spherules are composed of concentric laminae, which commonly have a particle of sand, a fragment of shell or other organic substance as a nucleus. They owe their formation to the deposit of successive concretions around the included body while subjected to the action of water in which a rotary motion is induced; and the spheroids continue to increase until they become too heavy for further transport, and then subside, and are consolidated by subsequent infiltration . The springs near Carlsbad deposit,a beautiful pearly-looking pisolite, some portions of which are sufficiently compact to admit of being polished and manufactured into boxes and other ornaments.

Nature has a way of making things round or roundish if given time and the right conditions. These in particular have hollow centers. Different process, but from nature nonetheless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moeraki_Boulders

Then there's my Oklahoma pal who found one similar to that in Cremo's book. His old site is http://oklahomaproject.50megs.com/
If you click on page 1 of his Colbert Creek link to the right, scroll to the bottom photos, you'll see his. He calls his a Moqui Marble, found here at Wikipedia. Have to scroll down a bit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concretion

Point is, there are lots of things we don't know. Cremo makes some fascinating points in his book, but he obviously didn't do enough research on that particular set of rocks.

 

[schticknz]

Its not the concretions that bothers me about the grooved spheres. I've seen concretions in the wild. Here in New Zealand we have a beach with large round concretions slowly falling out of the sea-eroded cliffs onto the sand below.

See here:

http://home.xtra.co.nz/hosts/oamaru/7MoerakiBoulders.html

My problem with the spheres is the grooves. How can a natural process create grooves that encircle the spheres? I would love to see a proper explanation of this but so far I've not seen anyone even broach this problem.

Loved this from that website though:

There are natural processes that can account for single, possibly multiple, grooves. However, until actual specimens can be acquired for study, it is rather pointless to speculate on such a matter.

Cop out or what??? Sheesh ... the arrogance of your human scientists beggars belief sometimes

 

[Poi]

Yeah, that's why Heinrich is pretty worthless himself. If he makes a claim to disprove another claim, he ought to back it up.

Same goes for Cremo though. All the speculation should be spelled out rather well on both sides. That's all either is really doing, speculating. We should demand as much proof from both sides. That's all I'm saying. The only part of Heinrich's paper I agree with is that the lab technicians should have been named so that his story could be verified. Whether or not the grooves were cut isn't really the issue in my opinion. It's the claim that they couldn't be cut. My BS meter wants proof and Cremo has never bothered.

 

[schticknz]

Yeah ... it's all rather infuriating really.

It kind of makes me think of all the "ghosthunters" out there who are investigating 'ghosts'. They go to places for ... ooo ... a night and take some readings, either come back with nothing or some spooky orb photos ... and then??? Nothing ... not a sausage. If it was up to me I would go back to the "haunted place" with a truck load of equipment and continually take data of one sort or another for an extended period of time. But nope ... a few pictures of "orbs" is enough for some people apparently. I understand that money would be an issue to set something like that up but blimey ... you could at least spend more than a flamin night taking readings.

schtick being a bit miffed with the whole unscientific process that goes on in the paranormal field at the moment.

 

[Poi]

Yes, it is silly to call a one-night-stand an investigation.

I still think Cremo would be a good interview though. Wonder what he's doing now anyway.

 

[Cabal]

Michael Cremo & Forbidden Archaeology

I found this critique of Cremo that might be worthwhile. Similar to how the "Alien Interview" author was possibly tainted by "religious" leanings, Cremo might have similar bias.
http://www.antiquityofman.com/Bauval_Hancock_Cremo.html

 

[Schuyler]

Michael Cremo & Forbidden Archaeology

Right. Cremo belongs to an Indian religion. I can see how some would call that a bias, but there's another way of looking at it. The Indian tradition holds that humans have been around a lot longer than modern science supports (though they keep pushing it back, don't they? See other thread here). If a belief in ancient origins got him thinking and wanting to do verify what his religion told him, I'm not sure that nullifies his research. His religion just encouraged him.

The sheer number of anomolies is what is intriguing about that book. I found the 'human remains' issue to be more compelling than strange rocks. If these are verified and not 'I heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy' type evidence, then the volume is amazing. The book is quite heavily footnoted (I have it) so someone could tear into this stuff if they wanted. It would be a huge job.