Comment: I have not seen that film for

(See in situ)


I have not seen that film for

I have not seen that film for many years so can't comment specifically on that, but I do agree that there are many found anomalies that fall outside of conventional archeological theory. Like any other field, consensus of opinion is usually what is used as the guideline when analyzing data on archeological finds. I, personally, know a woman who dated the remains of a human being in S. America to be much further back then what is accepted within the field. She lost all credibility with mainstream archeology after that. Basically, if you defend the anomalies you lose any chance of continuing your work in the field.

Now with that said, I can tell you that if these 'artifacts' are indeed ancient, then they should be considered. Yet there is no way to know that by the "artifacts" alone. However, I can tell you without a doubt that they are not Mayan. They follow absolutely none of the rules of Mayan iconography, there is no provenance associated with them so we have no clue where they were found or by whom. Until this physicist comes up with some real data to go with them, I will continue to believe they are a hoax. Artifacts alone prove nothing, its the data that goes with where they were found, at what depth, in association with what other artifacts, or no other artifacts, etc, that gives the real information.

Blessings )o(