caucasian olmecs

[puff]

I found the following in Graham Hancocks finger prints of the gods , it seems to depict an ancient endowment in south america , read on

The same went for two other caucasian figures i was able to identify among the surviving monuments of la venta .

one was carved in low relief on a heavy and roughly circular slab of stone about three feet in diameter .

dressed in what looked like tight fitting leggings , his features were those of an anglo saxon .

he had a full pointed beard and wore a curious floopy cap on his head .

in his left hand he exstended a flag , or perhaps a weapon of some kind .

his right hand which he held across the middle of his chest appeared to be empty .

around his slim waist was tied a flamboyant sash .

the other caucasian figure was simarly attired


i found the simalarity in dress to mormon and masonic temple ritual fascinating .

these ruuins are dated about 1500 bc , this account can be found on page 146 of grahams most interesting book

[admin]

I found the following in Graham Hancocks finger prints of the gods , it seems to depict an ancient endowment in south america , read on

The same went for two other caucasian figures i was able to identify among the surviving monuments of la venta .

one was carved in low relief on a heavy and roughly circular slab of stone about three feet in diameter .

dressed in what looked like tight fitting leggings , his features were those of an anglo saxon .

he had a full pointed beard and wore a curious floopy cap on his head .

in his left hand he exstended a flag , or perhaps a weapon of some kind .

his right hand which he held across the middle of his chest appeared to be empty .

around his slim waist was tied a flamboyant sash .

the other caucasian figure was simarly attired


i found the simalarity in dress to mormon and masonic temple ritual fascinating .

these ruuins are dated about 1500 bc , this account can be found on page 146 of grahams most interesting bookWhile eating lunch today I read through some the Amazon.com reviews of Graham's book and found this one that made me chuckle:

If you are LDS, the 20 plus chapters devoted to Central and South america will be almost excruciating. I found myself reading every other paragraph knowing that the conclusion he came to was wrong, which in turn led to the next wrong paragraph. I even tried to look up his address to see if I could send him a Book of Mormon. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Jeff

[helemon]

While eating lunch today I read through some the Amazon.com reviews of Graham's book and found this one that made me chuckle:

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Jeff
LOL! You would think that Mormons would be overjoyed that some one other than a Farms researcher was claiming that there were caucasian Native Americans.

[helemon]

Does this look Caucasian to you? It looks more like an African or Pacific Islander
http://www.cosmopolis.ch/images/art/the_olmecs.jpg
http://www.cosmopolis.ch/images/art/the_olmecs.jpg
Is this what you are talking about?
http://www.differentworld.com/mexico/common/pages/history_notes/olmec_man.jpg
http://www.differentworld.com/mexico/common/pages/history_notes/olmec_man.jpg
I think this guy looks more Chinese than Caucasian.

[puff]

LOL! You would think that Mormons would be overjoyed that some one other than a Farms researcher was claiming that there were caucasian Native Americans.theres no pic in his book of the figure so i,m not sure the one you have put on is it , hancock describes to figures together on a 3ft round cirle of stone , seems to be missing the floppy hat as well ...????

the negro pic id the same as in his book and is assesed by hancock to be negroid .

Hancock also makes interesting statements about how egyptian and olmec civilisation appears suddenly stating quote .

remains from the pre dynastic period around 3500 bc show no trace of writing .


soon after this date , quite suddenly and inexplicably , the hieroglyphs familiar to so many of the ruins of ancient egypt , begin to appear in perfect state , far from being mere pictures of objects or actions , this written langauge was complex and structured at the outset ..

i do think the negro looks more like a tongan , see , more b,o. m evidence

[lunaverse]

Yeah, I've read some Hancock, and he has theories about famous Olmec heads you've posted, Helamon.

As you know, you can't carbon date stone, so to date stones, they usually have to date material around the stone that can somehow be linked to the stone. (For instance, if a temple has some stone and some unrotted wood components as part of the basic construction, it's safe to conjecture the stone was cut at around the same time.)

The problem with the Olmec heads is that there is nothing to prove they were actually made by the Olmecs. They could have been around long before the Olmecs, and they just used them. Sort of the same way modern Salsburians use the Stonehenge (as a tourist attraction) and modern Egyptians use the Pyramids.

Hancock has side-by-side comparisons of some giant heads in Cambodia that look strikingly similar to the Olmec heads, as well as vastly-deterioriated underwater objects of roughly the same size and shape.

Of course, Hancock's overall theory is that a civilization existed prior to the end of the last ice age (10,000 BC). This civilization was fairly advanced, capable of global communication and trade. He doesn't go so far as to say they had technology comparible to ours, but something more comparible to perhaps the 1700's. This civilization was wiped out when the ice age ended and sea levels rose more than 400 ft.

Olmec heads and Native American art and history of "white" people are just several points from a mass of evidence that awareness of other places and peoples would have been in the New World long, long ago. But much further back in time that JS claimed. We're talking about 11,000 - 9,000 BC.

Luna

[puff]

Yeah, I've read some Hancock, and he has theories about famous Olmec heads you've posted, Helamon.

As you know, you can't carbon date stone, so to date stones, they usually have to date material around the stone that can somehow be linked to the stone. (For instance, if a temple has some stone and some unrotted wood components as part of the basic construction, it's safe to conjecture the stone was cut at around the same time.)

The problem with the Olmec heads is that there is nothing to prove they were actually made by the Olmecs. They could have been around long before the Olmecs, and they just used them. Sort of the same way modern Salsburians use the Stonehenge (as a tourist attraction) and modern Egyptians use the Pyramids.

Hancock has side-by-side comparisons of some giant heads in Cambodia that look strikingly similar to the Olmec heads, as well as vastly-deterioriated underwater objects of roughly the same size and shape.

Of course, Hancock's overall theory is that a civilization existed prior to the end of the last ice age (10,000 BC). This civilization was fairly advanced, capable of global communication and trade. He doesn't go so far as to say they had technology comparible to ours, but something more comparible to perhaps the 1700's. This civilization was wiped out when the ice age ended and sea levels rose more than 400 ft.

Olmec heads and Native American art and history of "white" people are just several points from a mass of evidence that awareness of other places and peoples would have been in the New World long, long ago. But much further back in time that JS claimed. We're talking about 11,000 - 9,000 BC.

LunaThanx for posting this , as always your comments are helpfull and to the point .
you must be reading other works of hancocks that i have not read which sound also interesting .
another thing i found interesting in this present book i am reading is the maps , how did somebody in turkey have a map of antartica with no ice on it 500 years ago , also a map showing outlines of south america .
its funny how science can be very predudiced against new ideas just like religion .
i do believe hancocks views that the pyramids are much older than 3500 bc , there also seems to be a link between egyptian an and ancient south america as they both built pyramids .
did you read how the incas believed that this was the age of the 5 th sun and were busily sacrificing people to prevent the end of the world ,
they believed the end of the world would happen in 2012 two days before xmas ,
well we wait with bated breath , thanx luna

[helemon]

its funny how science can be very predudiced against new ideas just like religion .

Science's prejudice is that it requires evidence, the more the better, before it will support a particular theory. Religion's prejudice is that it no amount of evidence can ever change their theories since their "truth" came from GOD! Personally I'll take the prejudices of science over those of religion any day.

[helemon]

there also seems to be a link between egyptian an and ancient south america as they both built pyramids .

Puff, have you ever noticed how mountains are sort of triangular in shape? Why is it so unbelievable that two separate cultures could have hit upon the pyramidal shape? Start stacking enough blocks or stones in a pile and they start to take on a pyramidal shape. Are we to assume that all the cultures that built rectangular buildings are also culturally connected? One big difference between the Egyptian pyramids and the Egyptian ones is that the Egyptian pyramids tend to have only one tomb inside them and were built away from the city center. South American pyramids are built in layers with each new ruler adding to the old temple and they are built in the city centers and they had a religious building on top of them that was actively used during cultural celebrations.

[puff]

Puff, have you ever noticed how mountains are sort of triangular in shape? Why is it so unbelievable that two separate cultures could have hit upon the pyramidal shape? Start stacking enough blocks or stones in a pile and they start to take on a pyramidal shape. Are we to assume that all the cultures that built rectangular buildings are also culturally connected? One big difference between the Egyptian pyramids and the Egyptian ones is that the Egyptian pyramids tend to have only one tomb inside them and were built away from the city center. South American pyramids are built in layers with each new ruler adding to the old temple and they are built in the city centers and they had a religious building on top of them that was actively used during cultural celebrations.I have found a picture in hancocks book of the supposed saxon and it is not the pic you have posted , does actually look like a eurasian .

some temples in america also had tombs within , such as the burial tomb of lord pacal ruler of palenque .

my understanding of pyramid builders is that they went to great trouble to build to exact specifications for spiritual or cosmic purposes ,
anybody who studies the pyramids at giza would soon realize that there was intricate designs in place , hardly a bunch of primitives imitating a mountain .
i have to wonder how you can oversimplify a topic which has held millions in awe so severly as to see it it as primitive work .
more likely both cultures had traditions and legends dating back to a common ancestry , long since lost .for instance

The maya knew where their advanced learning originated , it was handed down to them , they said , from the first men , the creatures of quetzacoatal , whose names had been Balam quitze (jaguar with the sweet smile ) Balam Acab (jaguar of the night ) ect ,
according to the popol vuh these forefathers were endowed with intelligence and could see things which were hidden , they were able to know all , they saw the four corners of the earth , the four points of the arch of the sky and the round face of the earth ,

the story goes on to relate how mist was blown into their eyes and the great knowledge of the ancients was lost .
this story seems common to many ancient cultures , that there was an atlantean age .
the predudice of science is that when conflicting views appear they can be as intolerable to each other as religious views .
however as in most cases there is something tangible to examine , in due course of time the difference may be resolved , which in religion is not the case as the beliefs become deeper and deeper entrenched until the entire fabric of belief has to sustain itself on some ancient vision which has long out lived its use by date .

for instance when i first went to the hare krsna sect , i was being taught that the moon was larger than the sun , when questioned about this the teacher ( so called ) exsplained that nobody could really prove that the sun was smaller than the moon , all mans knowlegde was after all faulty .
another interesting part of mythology is that we keep finding reference to flying machines and weapons that emit fire and can destroy large areas .

the map of ancient antartica i refered to earlier is called the Orenteus Finaeus map ,
ancient caucasians in america were called according to legend Viracochas ( white foam from the sea )
a pier built at Puma Punku used some stones which weiged 440 tons , how did primitive people move those around .
many of these stones had been joined together by metal clamps .
many monuments have been marked by ancient pre christian crosses , also found on egyptian monuments

[helemon]

I have found a picture in hancocks book of the supposed saxon and it is not the pic you have posted , does actually look like a eurasian .

some temples in america also had tombs within , such as the burial tomb of lord pacal ruler of palenque .

This is true, but they were used repeatedly as tombs as each ruler died and a new ruler came to power. Layer upon layer not one big tomb.

my understanding of pyramid builders is that they went to great trouble to build to exact specifications for spiritual or cosmic purposes ,
anybody who studies the pyramids at giza would soon realize that there was intricate designs in place , hardly a bunch of primitives imitating a mountain .
i have to wonder how you can oversimplify a topic which has held millions in awe so severly as to see it it as primitive work .
more likely both cultures had traditions and legends dating back to a common ancestry , long since lost .for instance

I didn't say that building them was easy. I was just pointing out that the inspiration for the shape is prevelant throughout the world and that any culture who had achieved a certain level of skill with stone work could have hit on creating similar structures without needing to be clued in by a civilization that was thousands of miles away across vast oceans. Ocam's razor Puff. What is the simplest explanation.


The maya knew where their advanced learning originated , it was handed down to them , they said , from the first men , the creatures of quetzacoatal , whose names had been Balam quitze (jaguar with the sweet smile ) Balam Acab (jaguar of the night ) ect ,
according to the popol vuh these forefathers were endowed with intelligence and could see things which were hidden , they were able to know all , they saw the four corners of the earth , the four points of the arch of the sky and the round face of the earth ,

Many cultures immortalized the great thinkers of their society as gods with mystical powers. This doesn't mean they were gods.

the story goes on to relate how mist was blown into their eyes and the great knowledge of the ancients was lost .
this story seems common to many ancient cultures , that there was an atlantean age .
the predudice of science is that when conflicting views appear they can be as intolerable to each other as religious views .

When conflicting views appear in science they look at which view is best supported by the evidence. If a new story doesn't have a lot of evidence to back it up then science should rightfully discount it. Just because someone comes up with some new story about prehistory doesn't mean every researcher of ancient history must herald it as the only truth. If the story has merit then there will be a growing body of evidence to support it. If it doesn't then we are better off focusing on stories with more verifiable evidence. This is still far better than religion where no amount of proof can ever change what a religion believes or settle religious debates about whose religion has the "truth."


the map of ancient antartica i refered to earlier is called the Orenteus Finaeus map ,
ancient caucasians in america were called according to legend Viracochas ( white foam from the sea )
a pier built at Puma Punku used some stones which weiged 440 tons , how did primitive people move those around .
many of these stones had been joined together by metal clamps .
many monuments have been marked by ancient pre christian crosses , also found on egyptian monuments

That's great! And as more research looks into these things then we may in fact learn that there was more communication between the old and new world than we had thought. I read that the Clovis arrow heads are believed have originated with Prehistoric French who hunted seal following the glaciers all the way around to N. America. It is very possible that the ancients were more capable seafarers than we give them credit for. I think Mexico used canals to move people and goods around their city. I have often wondered if these cultures didn't also figure out a way to use water to float some of these massive stones into place.

[lunaverse]

I didn't say that building them was easy. I was just pointing out that the inspiration for the shape is prevelant throughout the world and that any culture who had achieved a certain level of skill with stone work could have hit on creating similar structures without needing to be clued in by a civilization that was thousands of miles away across vast oceans. Ocam's razor Puff. What is the simplest explanation.

Actually, for me the easist explanation for why there are pyramids everywhere has to do with architecture. It's easy to build a really tall building when each rising layer is smaller than the last. :)

I don't think Hancock makes the point that pyramids are proof of a global civilization.. or if he did, I thought it was so silly I dismissed it. :) He does use astrological alignments of buildings to date them, however. For example, Osiris was Egypt's most important God. The constalation for Osiris was the modern day Orion. The three Pyramids at Giza just happen to be the exact angle and placement of Orion's belt.. but not at 3500BCE when they were supposedly build -- instead at 10500BC. Many ancient buildings around the world similarly point to this year, using alignments that are important to that culture.

Many cultures immortalized the great thinkers of their society as gods with mystical powers. This doesn't mean they were gods.

I think Hancock's point is that the people were trying to give an oral history of the people who had come before, who "had more"... had more technology, more knowledge, more wealth. If any of us went back in time, we would be seen as gods, too. As Asimov said... what was it he said? Sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic.

When conflicting views appear in science they look at which view is best supported by the evidence. If a new story doesn't have a lot of evidence to back it up then science should rightfully discount it. Just because someone comes up with some new story about prehistory doesn't mean every researcher of ancient history must herald it as the only truth. If the story has merit then there will be a growing body of evidence to support it. If it doesn't then we are better off focusing on stories with more verifiable evidence. This is still far better than religion where no amount of proof can ever change what a religion believes or settle religious debates about whose religion has the "truth."

I agree that science accepts the best evidence more often than religion, and faster than religion, but scientists are people too. Often once an idea or theory has been around long enough, people become very invested in it, and cognitive dissonance is just as powerful as ever. Hancock has found a lot of violent resistance among egyptoligists, who tend to be very cliquish, and who frequently use Ad Hominem attacks. The BBC had to make a public apology to Hancock for how they presented Hancocks material and filled it full of egyptologists making fun of him.

Hancock isn't the only one who has faced this. A young egyptologist (with all the proper doctorates and papers, and totally unassociated with any crackpots), discovered mummies had traces of cocaine and tabacco in the hair. Neither of these two plants are known to be native to the Old World, and not imported until the 1500s.

At first, they called her a liar, until someone confirmed the evidence. Now, instead of accepting the Ocam's Razor theory, that Egypt must have had sea-based trade with the New World, they have concocted several complicated trade routes WESTWARD, through the polynesian islands, China, the Middle East, to Egypt.

This, in spite of the fact that several people have proven that Egyptian boats can sail to the New World by actually doing it.

So scientists can certainly get into places where they can't budge, won't budge in the face of new evidence. The good thing, though, is that scientists, being people, eventually die, and the new generation of impressionable young minds tend to question things a little more frequently.

The thing that really gets me about Hancock's work, the one massive unanswered question is the one Puff pointed out -- how does a map made in the 1500's have a detailed and accurate drawing of a conteninent not discovered until the 1800s? Not only that, but it doesn't map the Ice Shelf... that might be easy to explain. No, it maps the land. Land we were unable to see until radar technology and satelites in the 1950s.

This map is known to be a copy of a copy. The original map is long lost. Ocam's Razor would offer the simplist explanation -- at one point in history, people had somehow been able to map the land mass of Antarctica, and those copies of copies somehow made it to Italy (Puff, it was an Italian map, right?) in the 1500s.

Luna

[puff]

yes may have been italian origins for the map which seems a complete mystery .

my mind was dwelling on this last night and i was thinking of the book of genisis itself.

i believe in evolution , but i also believe the account of genisis is of a real people who existed , the adamites we may call them .

Adam as we know was not the first man on earth but that does not mean to say they never existed , this is peculiar ,
the genisis account talks of a snake having legs , which then is cursed and goes on its belly ,

this in actual fact is the true evolutionary history of the snake , it did indeed at one time have legs and some breeds of snake still have them as hidden stumps . .

somebody in the distant passed must have known this and was teaching it , then it ended up as a god mythology , but how would they know , perhaps the same way we know , by digging in the crust and finding fossils .

another impressive story is the tree of life , somebody back then had the idea that it could be possible for the human body to become immortal if given the correct chemistry .

this idea is gaining ground as being a possibilty , when science has gained enough genetic know how , it may well be possible to alter genetic structures to last a very long time ,
as these people are recorded as living a 1000 years it may be that they had already advanced a long way toward this goal of exstending life spans , however this knowlege was seen as being forbidden for whatever purpose , so cherubim and a flaming sword is placed in the way of the tree of life .

if we believe in evolution , why would we believe that we are the highest form of intelligence to evolve on this planet thus far .

would it not be possible that a far more advanced group of people had evolved 10, 000 years ago , mapping the stars , seeing constelations not visible to the naked eye , making maps of the world using advanced techniques . the story of genisis records the demise of these people and the survival of a small group who survived a deluge catastrophy of some sort .

after the deluge they interbred with inferior races and the powers they once had were lost along with inheriting inferior gene structures , this all seems to fit in place for me , i have a strong inner conviction that the account of adam and eve refers to real events of a lost people , the account of the coming out of the garden of eden could be refering to a type of apostacy from a higher form of learning .

if these people did exist there should be some trace of them , unless their homeland was swept under the sea .

i believe it would be these people that have brought farming , metalurgy and many sciences into the world in which we now live .
as Hancock states , this knowlege seems to appear suddenly,
theres no evolutionary past to it because the race who gave it have been lost ,

as theres maps of antartica with no ice on it showing trees mountains and rivers , perhaps thats where they originaly lived :)