FAIR releases online videos

Post by **_CaliforniaKid** » Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:26 am

I had forgotten that Smac posted the Ray article on MADB. Heck, I had even reposted it here, and I still forgot. That's a little scary. I'm losing it in my old age.

Anyway, I just scanned Hatt. If people send me contact information, I'll send it your way.

Post by **_beastie** » Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:00 am

Old age??? Ha! You can't use that excuse yet, try stress and overwork. ;)

Were you able to order the Schmidt article? I figured that one might not be accessible due to the fact that it's in Spanish.

Post by **_CaliforniaKid** » Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:34 am

beastie wrote:Old age??? Ha! You can't use that excuse yet, try stress and overwork. ;)

Were you able to order the Schmidt article? I figured that one might not be accessible due to the fact that it's in Spanish.

I actually just finished scanning Schmidt and Mercer, as well. I'll happily send them your way. The files are fairly large, however (4, 11, and 33 megabytes), so it may take some creativity to get them to you guys. Runtu's inbox evidently won't take files over 10 megs.

Post by **_beastie** » Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:39 am

I sent you my email address, hopefully that will work.

Thanks a million!!!

Post by **_harmony** » Sat Feb 02, 2008 7:44 am

beastie wrote:
It still amazes and befuddles me that Zak thinks the findings shared on this thread SUPPORT FARMS' position?!?!?!?!??!?!?!? WTF?

In the early days of FAIR, other, more responsible apologists - like Brant - would step up and correct Zak themselves. Looks like that doesn't happen anymore. The inmates now run the asylum, for whatever reason.

Does Brant still post? Or does he just appear on video?

Post by **_Zakuska** » Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:52 am

Hey Beastie... you where making fun of Farms and DCP for postulating that horse bones may not have survived because of acidic soil?

The Skeletal evidence at first seemed a problematic propostion since the corrosive humidity of the soil destroyed the bones in the humid capitals of the Olmec. but in the drier centers-- Tlatilco, Cerro de las Mesas, and Monte Alban-- the Polish craniologist, Andrez Wiercinski, found ample and indisputable evidence of an Africoid presence.

Wiercinski, in 1972, assessed the presence of a negroid pattern of traits on the basis of multivariate distance analysis of a large set of skull traits which differentiate between africoid, Mongloid and Casucasoid varietes. The traits analyzed included "degree of Prog-nathism, prominence of nasal bones, height of nasal roof, width of nasal root, shape of nasal aperture, position of nasal spine, shape of orbit, depth of canina fossa, and depth of maxillary incisure. 35 Wiercinski sees the collossal heads representing individuals with "negroid" traits predominating but with admixture of other racial traits. That is what I have said.

http://books.google.com/books?id=FXFsUySZg...xgQY6NASKkQLka4

Olmec Human bones didn't survive, so why would we expect horse bones to have been able to?

You got some splanin to do on your Horse site... ;)

PS. You also have to explain how the Vikings where able to transport horses to vinland (ie The New World) which number upwards of 80,000 today. Before the Spanish even knew about the new world.

Post by **_Sethbag** » Sat Feb 02, 2008 11:41 am

How does the Vikings being in Vinland before the Spanish "discovered" the New World have anything to do with the Book of Mormon being true? And that's even if they brought some Viking horses. How does the Vikings having horses up in Vinland mean anything whatsoever in terms of proving the plausibility of the Book of Mormon story?

Post by **_beastie** » Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:54 pm

Olmec Human bones didn't survive, so why would we expect horse bones to have been able to?

You got some splanin to do on your Horse site... ;)

PS. You also have to explain how the Vikings where able to transport horses to vinland (ie The New World) which number upwards of 80,000 today. Before the Spanish even knew about the new world.

The fact that you think a single citation from a controversial author who is criticized by Mesoamerican scholars for his wild assertions refutes all the evidence I provided on my essay regarding animal bones that DID survive and WERE discovered in Mesoamerica helps demonstrate why this conversation has, at times, bordered on the insane.

I also never said it is IMPOSSIBLE to bring horses across the ocean, for heaven's sake. Obviously the Spaniards did it, albeit with difficulty. I said that the proposition that the Jaredites brought horses on their submarine boats with plugs at the bottom and top was ridiculous. Remember? That's when you waved your magic God wand with Noah's ark, effectively ending an already borderline insane discussion.

Post by **_beastie** » Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:09 pm

An interesting wiki blurb on the author:

Van Sertima has been criticized by academics. A lengthy 1997 Journal of Current Anthropology article states Van Sertima, who is not an anthropologist or an archaeologist, has ignored the work of Central American researchers who stated they found no evidence of a Black African influence or presence in the New World. The reviewers also wrote that the Olmec heads only superficially appear to be Black African. In addition, in this critique, they accuse Van Sertina's cultural outlook of being disparaging to Native American achievements. Furthermore, in an earlier New York Times review of Van Sertima works, British scholar Glyn Daniel called Van Sertima's work rubbish and ignorant. Van Sertima has sparred with some of his critics but he declined to respond to the 1997 Journal of Current Anthropology criticism.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_van_Sertima

Post by **_CaliforniaKid** » Sat Feb 02, 2008 5:46 pm

beastie wrote:An interesting wiki blurb on the author:

Van Sertima has been criticized by academics. A lengthy 1997 Journal of Current Anthropology article states Van Sertima, who is not an anthropologist or an archaeologist, has ignored the work of Central American researchers who stated they found no evidence of a Black African influence or presence in the New World. The reviewers also wrote that the Olmec heads only superficially appear to be Black African. In addition, in this critique, they accuse Van Sertina's cultural outlook of being disparaging to Native American achievements. Furthermore, in an earlier New York Times review of Van Sertima works, British scholar Glyn Daniel called Van Sertima's work rubbish and ignorant. Van Sertima has sparred with some of his critics but he declined to respond to the 1997 Journal of Current Anthropology criticism.[2]

It says that in drier areas there was ample evidence.

If human bones survived, why wouldn't the bones of horses?