Massive 1,100yr Maya site discovered in Georgia's mountians

[Burnt Hill]

Theres is an awful lot of circumstantial evidence supporting this claim, particularly the language correlations.
I look foward to the book, thanks for the posts slad.

[utopiate]

http://boingboing.net/2011/12/23/no-nob ... ins-i.html

I hate to lend any dignity to this story by commenting on it, but it's making the rounds, so here goes. Two things:

1. Nobody found Mayan ruins in the U.S. state of Georgia. An article posted on The Examiner claimed this was the case. That article is full of it. So full of it that even the scientist cited in the article is (in a more polite way) publicly calling out The Examiner for being full of it. Mark Williams of the University of Georgia does do research on North American archaeology. He has spent 20 years excavating sites in Georgia's Oconee River valley. But these sites are not Mayan. Instead, they're part of what are broadly known as "Mississippian cultures," a conglomeration of ancient North American peoples who built a lot of earth mound structures and whose cultures are distinct from those of the Mayans and other Central Americans.

2. Do not automatically trust anything you read on The Examiner website. The Examiner is a content farm that allows anybody to write whatever they want about anything with absolutely zero oversight or fact-checking. The guy who wrote the bogus story on Mayan artifacts in Georgia appears to have just made up the entire Mississippian/Mayan connection out of his own imagination. As archaeologist Mark Williams told ArtInfo, "No archaeologist would defend this flight of fancy." (Again, this is polite scientist speak for, "Oh, my god. That guy is full of it.") While you're at it, apply the same level of skepticism to anything that comes from Hubpages, which has a similar model to The Examiner and was the source of that bogus "There's a secret cure for cancer!" story earlier this year. In general, remember that just because it's formatted like a newspaper story, with a dateline at the beginning, does not mean it has been written according to any kind of standard of quality. Check the sources of the article. Check what you read against what Wikipedia and other people have written on the same subject.

[seemslikeadream]

Some people believe the main stream archeologists theory that the pyramids were built around 2350 BC....I don't

Sometimes things are not what they appear to be








Sometimes it takes awhile to get to the truth

can't keep your head in the sand

or above water

or taking the word of some "archeologists" as fact

when looking for the truth

just as MSM does not tell the truth.... so goes mainstream archeology

do you believe this guy? better think again


Sailing heart-ships
thru broken harbors
Out on the waves in the night
Still the searcher
must ride the dark horse
Racing alone in his fright.
Tell me why, tell me why

[Nordic]

My respect for you, SLAD, is immense, but I'm not buying this particular story. I have a solid distrust of anything that only appears under "the Examiner" byline. They'll hire anyone to write anything. Unfortunately.

[seemslikeadream]

My respect for you, SLAD, is immense, but I'm not buying this particular story. I have a solid distrust of anything that only appears under "the Examiner" byline. They'll hire anyone to write anything. Unfortunately.

could you think about giving it some time Nordic? This is new stuff....like I have been trying to say it takes TIME....

and how many MSMs run stories that we talk about here....if that is your only criteria for not giving this a shot then I ask why.....do you trust the MSM? I don't think so ....so why do you hold up MSM for the truth about this and not anything else?

I believe in Graham Hancock....you don't see him in the MSM

[Nordic]

I don't! Not one bit. But HMW could write for the Examiner and get "published".

Yes I'm admitting a prejudice to the Examiner. But also, in looking over the evidence presented here, I'm not seeing it. I'm definitely no archaelogist though.

The premise is tantalizing of course.

Honestly I'm much more interested in those postcards you posted above, that show the pyramids missing from the renditions of the Sphinx!

[seemslikeadream]

I don't! Not one bit. But HMW could write for the Examiner and get "published".

Yes I'm admitting a prejudice to the Examiner. But also, in looking over the evidence presented here, I'm not seeing it. I'm definitely no archaelogist though.

The premise is tantalizing of course.

Honestly I'm much more interested in those postcards you posted above, that show the pyramids missing from the renditions of the Sphinx!

I'm not here to defend the Examiner...... but if it is the only place I've seen to read about Román Piña Chan....then I'll read it and am waiting to read the book...which I would have known nothing about if I hadn't read it there

and the pyramids are there....look again





again I am waiting to see the pictures and read the book before making a judgement

[Stephen Morgan]

How does he smell?

[crikkett]

^^^like sweat & suntan lotion, is my guess