Debunked: Secrets of the Great Stone Spheres

It is also built according to precise atrological alignments.
That rock is built to precise astrological alignments?

I bet you could pilot the Space Shuttle with it.

And Science certainly doesn't get much more precise than astrology.

By the way we were talking about Great Stone Spheres - i.e. spherical objects. Their symmetry of shape is what makes them interesting.

Not rock shaped objects.

Because they often turn out to be just random rocks.

Like that one.
 
Kilik said:
How were they supposedly debunked?

There are similar stones placed in a very similar way at the Yonaguni underwater megalith. It is also built according to precise atrological alignments.


http://www.grahamhancock.com/gallery/underwater/yonaguni.htm
http://www.grahamhancock.com/gallery/underwater/yonaguni2.htm

http://www.grahamhancock.com/images/gallery/yonaguni/1-17.jpg


http://www.grahamhancock.com/images/gallery/yonaguni/1-11.jpg

We've been over the Yonaguni "megalith":

http://www.internationalskeptics.co...41&perpage=40&highlight=yonaguni&pagenumber=1

yonaguni_map1.gif


If you step back and look at the big picture, the "structure" looks much less megalithy, and much more like the natural geological formations that can be found scattered all over the nearby island.

As far as the "astrolgical alignments" of these things...

Graham Hancock could find precise astronomical alignment in a ham sandwich sitting on a plate.
 
Kilik said:
How were they supposedly debunked?

There are similar stones placed in a very similar way at the Yonaguni underwater megalith. It is also built according to precise atrological alignments.


http://www.grahamhancock.com/gallery/underwater/yonaguni.htm
http://www.grahamhancock.com/gallery/underwater/yonaguni2.htm

http://www.grahamhancock.com/images/gallery/yonaguni/1-17.jpg
1-17.jpg


http://www.grahamhancock.com/images/gallery/yonaguni/1-11.jpg
1-11.jpg
Far more impressive, though no less naturally formed:
Giants_causeway_steps_Ireland.jpg
 
Or maybe it was built by stair fetishists.

I mean how many ways do you need to get to a level 5 feet higher than your current one?
 
Yonaguni is considered a man made structure, or at the very least carved and manipulated by humans. Even by the scientists. Dr. Kimura is considered an authority in the areas of history and geology.

http://www.morien-institute.org/interview1_MK.html

The giant turtle image facing certain constelations is pretty convincing.
http://www.grahamhancock.com/images/gallery/yonaguni/1-16.jpg

Learning in a specific field, in like a school, and then becoming a researcher in a specific field, is never going to gain you the knowledge and experience of someone like graham hancock. You would never find correlations between different cultures because you only understand one to a good degree.

Why do archaeologists ignore the possiblity of underwater archaeology so much? Probably because it doesn't fit with there narrow understanding of history. THere are huge amounts of now-submerged land, and what we don't know is way, way greater than what we do know of history.

But with real experience all over the world, you can discover and know things others won't be able to. Gain knowledge and expertise that no conventional "scientist" can. You may take comfort in your double blin studies and peer review, but they are only tools for a certain purpose, they can't gain you experience or make you knowledgable like someone like Mr. Hancock.

Graham Hancock has raised many issues ignored by conventional scientists. He has done a good job of challenging the commonly held beliefs, and has withstood and answered scrutiny. You can't just claim his work has no basis, it definitley does.

I remember a show where he showed that the bimini road blocks, are all raised above the sea floor about 6 inches, by almost cone shaped( but stable, not pointed on the end) pillars at each corner. That doesn't look natural. He pointed out that the geologists who claimed it was natural did not even probably look underneath the blocks, or completely ignored that part.

Another issue I read brought up here is where did the prehistoic monument building knowledge go? Is it not possible the people are all gone now? Or are all dead now? If not, in like 10,000 years a lot of things are going to just simply disappear, or perhaps be only known in a few small traditions.

We know ancient cultures were very concerned with Feng Shui and astronomy, Grahan Hancock I'm sure is correct in his theories, as they are quite detailed and clearly documented with evidence, and the fact I just said, Feng Shui is a big part of ancient knowledge in many cultures.
 
Kilik said:
Yonaguni is considered a man made structure, or at the very least carved and manipulated by humans. Even by the scientists. Dr. Kimura is considered an authority in the areas of history and geology.

http://www.morien-institute.org/interview1_MK.html

The giant turtle image facing certain constelations is pretty convincing.
http://www.grahamhancock.com/images/gallery/yonaguni/1-16.jpg

I would never have seen that as a turtle.
It is not even slightly convincing. Because it doesn't look like a turtle.

I assume you are saying that that bit off rock that has fallen off is a bit like an eye socket?

How much of a stretch will people attempt?

And is this guy implying that this is a geologically dead area of seabed? These structures have not moved one jot for thousands of years?


We know ancient cultures were very concerned with Feng Shui and astronomy, Grahan Hancock I'm sure is correct in his theories, as they are quite detailed and clearly documented with evidence, and the fact I just said, Feng Shui is a big part of ancient knowledge in many cultures.
Feng Shui????

Oh hang on... I see. You're joking.

Phew. Had me going there for a moment.

Feng Shui. Hehe. Very amusing. Well done.
 
I saw on many shows and read many things showing that geologists and scientists are saying it is definitely carved or made by man. Apparently pretty authoritive Japanese scientists.
 
Kilik said:
I saw on many shows and read many things showing that geologists and scientists are saying it is definitely carved or made by man. Apparently pretty authoritive Japanese scientists.
Well I can't argue with that.

Scientific authority doesn't come much higher than unnamed Japanese Scientists who appeared on unnamed TV shows that you remember seeing at some point.

Presumably their great auhority is why these things are now so widely accepted as fact.
 
Kilik said:
Yonaguni is considered a man made structure, or at the very least carved and manipulated by humans. Even by the scientists. Dr. Kimura is considered an authority in the areas of history and geology.

http://www.morien-institute.org/interview1_MK.html

The giant turtle image facing certain constelations is pretty convincing.
http://www.grahamhancock.com/images/gallery/yonaguni/1-16.jpg

Learning in a specific field, in like a school, and then becoming a researcher in a specific field, is never going to gain you the knowledge and experience of someone like graham hancock. You would never find correlations between different cultures because you only understand one to a good degree.

Why do archaeologists ignore the possiblity of underwater archaeology so much? Probably because it doesn't fit with there narrow understanding of history. THere are huge amounts of now-submerged land, and what we don't know is way, way greater than what we do know of history.

But with real experience all over the world, you can discover and know things others won't be able to. Gain knowledge and expertise that no conventional "scientist" can. You may take comfort in your double blin studies and peer review, but they are only tools for a certain purpose, they can't gain you experience or make you knowledgable like someone like Mr. Hancock.

Graham Hancock has raised many issues ignored by conventional scientists. He has done a good job of challenging the commonly held beliefs, and has withstood and answered scrutiny. You can't just claim his work has no basis, it definitley does.

I remember a show where he showed that the bimini road blocks, are all raised above the sea floor about 6 inches, by almost cone shaped( but stable, not pointed on the end) pillars at each corner. That doesn't look natural. He pointed out that the geologists who claimed it was natural did not even probably look underneath the blocks, or completely ignored that part.

Another issue I read brought up here is where did the prehistoic monument building knowledge go? Is it not possible the people are all gone now? Or are all dead now? If not, in like 10,000 years a lot of things are going to just simply disappear, or perhaps be only known in a few small traditions.

We know ancient cultures were very concerned with Feng Shui and astronomy, Grahan Hancock I'm sure is correct in his theories, as they are quite detailed and clearly documented with evidence, and the fact I just said, Feng Shui is a big part of ancient knowledge in many cultures.
Regarding the Bimini "Road"...

http://www.intersurf.com/~chalcedony/Bimini1.html

6. In areas of the seaward feature where blocks rest directlyon the bedrock surface, no evidence was found of regularor symmetrical supports beneath any of the blocks.

Their laboratory analysis found overwhelming evidence thatthe slabs that composed the three linear features studiedabove consist of natural beachrock of local origin. First,the shells and other grains that compose the slabs areidentical to the grains in the loose sediment underlying
the slabs. Second, the carbonate cements are typical of
cements found in modern beachrock. Third, oxygen and
carbon isotope composition of the cements that form the
beachrock are consistent with the composition of modern
beachrock cements. Finally, the radiocarbon dates obtainedfrom the slabs of beachrock ranged in age from about 2300to 3200 B.P. for the shoreward line of beachrock and asingle date of about 6800 B.P. for the seawardline of beachrock (Gifford 1973; Ball and Gifford 1980).

McKusick and Shinn (1980) obtained some oriented cores
from one of the linear features. X-radiographs of 17
oriented cores showed that the slope, particle size, dip
direction, of the bedding is consistent from one block to
another within two areas studied. If the blocks had been
quarried from one place and laid out as a road, the original
stratigraphy of the beachrock would not have been preserved. Clearly, these slabs represent beachrock that developed in situ along three shorelines. They also dated 7 samples from the slabs and obtained dates ranging from about 2750 to 3500 B.P. (Shinn 1978; McKusick and Shinn 1980).

Results

The results of the studies by Gifford (1973), Ball and
Gifford (1980), McKusick and Shinn (1980) clearly
demonstrated that so-called "Bimini Roads" are not man-made features. Rather, they represent beachrock that formed along the shore of North Bimini Island at three different shoreline during the Holocene when sea level was lower than present. Also, the photomosaics demonstrate that the lines of slabs are not well founded or continuous enough to have served as any kind of road.

Has Graham Hancock offered rebuttals to these findings? Please provide a reference to them if he has. After these examples of the extent of scientific research which has been devoted to studying the Bimini "Road", would you care to withdrawl your claim that the subject has been ignored by conventional scientists? It would seem foolish not to.
 
Kilik said:
I saw on many shows and read many things showing that geologists and scientists are saying it is definitely carved or made by man. Apparently pretty authoritive Japanese scientists.
Pssst...

I'll let you in on a little-known, closely-gaurded secret. TV networks are in the business of entertainment first, education second... or third... or also ran... or not at all.

Sensationalism sells. Enlightenment, you can barely give it away.

Shut off the idiot box and try cracking a few books... and not just the fantasy docudramas the likes of which the Hancocks, Von Danikens and Berlitzs of the world churn out.

Two to get you started: Jared Diamond and Carl Sagan.
 
I recall reading a review of "Fingerprints of the Gods" and the reviewer stated that "If Hancock were submit these ideas in a highschool geology class, he'd get a D-", I am paraphrasing here since I read the review ages ago.
 
Another thing I saw on TV that isn't shown on the internet sites about the turle is that it is facing another turtle according to astrologic alignment, and that some buildings on those japanese islands today use the pattern of two statues facing each other to indicate a gate or entrance. That's what it was, an entrance.

There are also some interesting above water sites around the bimini area. Ones that were not first discovered by archaeologists, but by the ARE( association of research and enlightenment) organization.


http://edgarcayce.org/am/biminiexpedition.html


Maybe it's possible though that the last survivors of prehistoric times in that area died out. Or, it's also possible they just left totally.

The fact that Mr. Hancock and Discovery channel make money off books and stuff, doesn't invalidate the program or suggest a conspiracy to alter the truth.

I think most everyone agrees that the Bimini blocks are beachrock. But I saw on, I think, the Underworld program, that some are indeed raised off the ground, and that the researchers who had studied it after it was found by the ARE, ignored this.
 
Kilik said:
Another thing I saw on TV that isn't shown on the internet sites about the turle is that it is facing another turtle according to astrologic alignment, and that some buildings on those japanese islands today use the pattern of two statues facing each other to indicate a gate or entrance. That's what it was, an entrance.

There are also some interesting above water sites around the bimini area. Ones that were not first discovered by archaeologists, but by the ARE( association of research and enlightenment) organization.


http://edgarcayce.org/am/biminiexpedition.html


Maybe it's possible though that the last survivors of prehistoric times in that area died out. Or, it's also possible they just left totally.

The fact that Mr. Hancock and Discovery channel make money off books and stuff, doesn't invalidate the program or suggest a conspiracy to alter the truth.

I think most everyone agrees that the Bimini blocks are beachrock. But I saw on, I think, the Underworld program, that some are indeed raised off the ground, and that the researchers who had studied it after it was found by the ARE, ignored this.
True, there is no disagreement as to the composition of the Bimini "Road". It's beachrock. The disagreement lies in the theory of it's creation. The A.R.E. was of the opinion that the beach rock had been quarried, shaped, and laid by human hands to fashion a road, or a structure. There is scant evidence to support this conclusion.

The propoderence of evidence points to the "road" as being a natural geological formation that formed in situ.

The A.R.E. seems have accepted this conclusion, because, as is seen at the link you posted, the A.R.E. team seems to have given up on "The Road" altogether after the geological findings were published in Nature in 1980. It seems they opted to look elswhere in the area for their "anomolies". The totality of their findings resulting in various "inconclusives" and "unusuals".

I think most everyone agrees that the Bimini blocks are beachrock. But I saw on, I think, the Underworld program, that some are indeed raised off the ground,

1) Are you sure you mean to say they are raised off the ground? Are you sure you don't mean to say that they were raised... as in, at one time they were, but they're not now?

2) What the heck would be the point of sticking supports beneath a few random corners of a naturally-formed beachrock slab? If you were trying to construct a structure, surely you'd need to prop up all of the corners of every slab. No?
 
The Underworld show showed, that at least some of them, are still propped above the ground by stones at the corners. WHy? Well, it would be a mystery then, like stonehenge
 
Kilik said:
Yonaguni is considered a man made structure, or at the very least carved and manipulated by humans. Even by the scientists.
...snip...
Eh, you are pulling our legs here, aren't you?
 
"Secrets of the Great Stone Spheres" was on again last night, on the Science Channel. To answer kilik's question, they debunked them by looking at well-known myths about stones one by one, then examining the stones scientifically, or researching historical facts to see if the myths stood up to scrutiny. None of them did. The myths include:
* They were naturally formed
* They are perfectly spherical
* Their placement (when originally discovered) created alignments to other megalithic artifacts in other parts of the world, such as Stonehenge, Easter Island, and the pyramids.
* They were made by refugees from Atlantis
* They were made from non-native stone

The National Geographic Channel has been airing a series of programs called "Is it real?" which have a decidedly skeptical bent. The one on SHC was especially good. Perhaps skepticism in documentaries is a new trend! We can hope.
 
Another thing that shows Graham Hancock's knowledge, the Yonaguni megalith. 10 years ago several scientist who examined it thought it was natural, or maybe only altered by humans. Dr. Robert Schoch and John Anthony West thought it was natural upon first examination. However, even higher level scientists like Dr. Kimura who had examined in more detail stated, and risked their reputatiopn in stating it was man-made. Graham Hanock also thought it was man made. Now, with the new discoveries of the giant statue and stadium in another area nearby, I don't think many people think it's natural anymore


Vidoes about the Yonaguni Megalith
http://www.wonder-okinawa.jp/024/english/hilight/024_0016.wvx
this next one's pretty cool-
http://www.wonder-okinawa.jp/024/english/hilight/024_0016_1.wvx

Here's a short video showing the similarities between Sout American sites and teh Yonaguni site
http://www.wonder-okinawa.jp/024/english/hilight/024_0022.ram

Here's a really good article on it-
http://www.pureinsight.org/pi/articles/2003/6/30/1678.html


Here's a site with a lot of info an various underwater meagaliths including the "Bimini Road"
http://www.altarcheologie.nl/index.html?connections/characters_01.htm
 
Kilik said:
How were they supposedly debunked?

There are similar stones placed in a very similar way at the Yonaguni underwater megalith. It is also built according to precise atrological alignments.


http://www.grahamhancock.com/gallery/underwater/yonaguni.htm
http://www.grahamhancock.com/gallery/underwater/yonaguni2.htm

http://www.grahamhancock.com/images/gallery/yonaguni/1-17.jpg
1-17.jpg


http://www.grahamhancock.com/images/gallery/yonaguni/1-11.jpg
1-11.jpg

What? Those aren't similar! The Brazilian stones are clearly spheres, and these things are clearly lumpy jellybean-ish shapes. These things look like naturally eroded boulders on some rock formation.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom