Thursday, June 21, 2012

Adventures In Scienmajistics : If the facts don't fit the theory, the facts must have it wrong

UPDATE : You know when the mid-tier academics start to give up and throw in the towel, this battle is over. Here there are broad concessions that science has been nearly 180 degrees of the truth for over a century.

Fully formed Neanderthals at least 600,000 years old

What has these fakes sh*tting their pants is the possibility that the "red ochre" they are finding is simply rust left over from iron weapons smelted in their famous kilns.

When you hear that "Africans" used "red ochre" you should know that such use continues in Africa today. Africans see some red dust falling out of a cliff face. They rub it in the mud and make blood colored paint they smear on their bodies. This is how they were "using" red ochre 200,000 years ago and this is how they will be "using" it 200,000 years from now, I assure you.

When they find it in Neanderthal camps, they are sweating bullets and trying to come up with all kinds of wild explanations for it because they don't want to mention this "red ochre" might also be rust.

More importantly, this "red ochre" is a common find at monolithic structures all over the world, which suggests that melonheads might have either learned how to forge iron tools from the Neanderthal or vice versa. Either way, the "iron age" may have begun a million years ago (or more), not 1200 years ago. It is entirely plausible that Neanderthals may have been smelting iron without knowing exactly how to cast bronze. This happened in South and North America where people went straight from stone tools to iron with no bronze age at all.

The evidence says that Neanderthals liked to do things with kilns. They liked to stick different stuff in there, cook it and compress it at different temperatures and then see what they could make out of it. If you imagine all the kinds of things you can discover playing around with sealed ovens you will realize that iron casting is only one of several things you might stumble onto. The Neanderthals were different in that they had a powerful curiosity and enthusiasm for the world that is largely lacking in Homo Sapiens. They would have discovered many things out of simple playfulness and pure nerd inquisitiveness. It appears they did a lot of things for no other reason than a burning desire to find out what would happen. This is probably what drove the Solutreans to North America. Each year when seal hunting it is possible they just ached to see what was beyond the previous point they had attained, wandering along the edge of the ice pack. What they did with a bunch of guys on a regular basis by the seat of their pants, took a huge infrastructure project funded by the Spanish government backing Columbus and an armada of three gigantic ships in 1492. That may or may not explain why the entire continent is covered with mounds of indeterminate origin.

Illustrates the great difference between the two races. Neanderthals were full of courage both as a group and as individuals. They had a certain happy-go-lucky quality driven by a deep need to understand. We call them "rodeo clowns" to paint them as reckless because human vanity is insufficient to concede these guys were gutsy in a way Homo Sapiens will never be.

P.S. If Neanderthals were descended from Homo Heidelbergensis then why did they specialize in kicking the crap out of these ape-like creatures? Why would Neanderthals do Grandpa like that? Whenever the two species ran into each other, the Neanderthals folded them up like accordions for easy storage, in some cases shoving their heads into their own ribcages. Anthropologists who have found these battle sites have always pointed out that Neanderthals hated Bigfoot and treated them with less respect than animals they hunted. The great irony is that Heidelbergensis would turn out to be the superior race and beat all the others 400,000 years later, when immigration would provide them with free housing, medical care and jobs all at taxpayer expense after importing them into their own living space as a new and specially protected social class. That means Heidelbergensis is the true, final winnarz over Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens. Hahahahaha! Bruddas be gettin' over like a muttafudda! Even melonheads never be livin' dis large'n shheeeeeeiiiiitttttttttt! Hahahaha! Pass de crack pipe! Whatnot and what-have-you! Yassum.


njartist said...

Quick question: if Neanderthals used iron implements, didn't they have to mine it; and if they mined iron, then why not gold or silver; what about precious stones?

njartist said...

fta:"things were happening: hunting and butchering (red deer and rhinoceros), hide-working, fire-making and flint-knapping, all your usual early-man stuff."

I left a comment a few months ago asking why do we assume Neanderthals were merely cave dwellers and not able to build hide structures: well there is my answer: they were able to do so: tents or yurts anyone?

njartist said...

Another problem is dating: an item found in the rocks is given a date range based on the age of the rocks; the date of the age of the rocks is determined by the items found in the rocks: this is circular dating.

Also, the atheist needs and creates Evolution and therefore he needs great spans of time to describe how things came to be.

njartist said...

More fossil/dating conundrums:
fta:"Creation-Evolution Headlines muses over what most news media laughed over: The fact that turtles sometimes get fossilized while mating:

A more obvious question reporters seem to be skipping over is, how quickly would an animal have to be buried to be preserved in the sex act? The BBC News article showed a photograph of the exquisite preservation of one of the pairs of fossils claimed to be 47 million years old. About nine pairs have been found at the Messel Pit in Germany, most of them apparently in mating positions. (Mating Turtles Fossilized Instantly, June 19, 2012)"

Texas Arcane said...

njartist -

I think they were too xenophobic to have much need for a barter market currency. On the other hand, the value of iron molded gadgets would have been obvious. They would have found it much easier to chip raw iron ore off of layers in river beds and inside of caves.

For all we know, Neanderthals could have made millions of tools, knives and axes from iron and what is significant is that none of them would be preserved like stone tools, they would all have long ago rusted away.

Given their fascination with kilns, I think we can assume that they also knew you could cook clay to make simple pots and containers. On three occasions pottery fragments have been found in Neanderthal camps and have triggered huge controversies.

The "nya nya nya can't be true because they didn't know how to do that" camp is losing ground day by day to the evidence.

njartist said...

The gold and silver would have been for ornaments and jewelry. If they had kilns and iron metallurgy, then they could have cast jewelry. If they were able to find iron in river bed or chip jewelry from caves, then they would have found at least gold.

FrankNorman said...

"Heidelbergensis" = Negroid race? Is this your own interpretation?

Being the "winnarz" by mooching off others is not a long-term winning strategy. Because it actually means that you need them, and they do not need you.

What happens to all the welfare-dependent "brothers" in the inner cities when the economy and social order collapses?

Texas Arcane said...

The Heidelbergensis link is politically incorrect and therefore does not exist.

Texas Arcane said...

Frank Norman, you do not seem to grasp sarcasm and hyperbole. You should keep in mind when reading Vault-Co that we often make our point by arguing the opposing view with ridiculous and specious points to illustrate how nonsensical it is.

Of course, any success that is parasitic is no success at all. We were just trying to have fun with it.

Texas Arcane said...

You should also keep in mind that here on Vault-Co we argue that Homo Sapiens himself is parasitic in that he depends largely on his residual Neanderthals to do all his thinking for him.

FrankNorman said...

Hello Tex
Actually it was obvious to me that you were satirizing a value-system that was not your own, and yes, I've read enough of your and your friend Koanic's websites to pick up the main features of your world-picture. :-)

People with "Aspie" traits do tend to take everything very literally, and assume other people always seriously mean exactly what they say. Its a mistake I've learned to guard against in myself.

One other point though: you and everyone else should be calling Neanderthals Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, not Homo neanderthalensis. Two different species cannot interbreed to produce fertile offspring, two subspecies can.