More Articles from Toptenz

132 Responses

  1. Drew at |

    While I don't know for certain whether or not th story behind number 3 is real I do know the photo is not real Worth1000 is a website dedicated to photoshop

    1. TopTenz Master at |

      The photo was just used as fun shot. We didn't mean to imply that photo was real.

      1. Tanya Bennett at |

        Oops I didn't think anyone would think that was a real picture, sorry! I didn't write this list, but I did add the images: I also included a link to the site you mention (at the end of the paragraph). The link goes straight to a whole bunch of photoshopped giant skeletons…

        1. Drew at |

          I'm just glad no body was trying to pass that off as a real picture. This is one of the few sites that my works internet filter doesn't block and I would be a bit annoyed to find out you are putting up such obvious decceptions.

          1. TopTenz Master at |

            Glad your faith in us has been restored. And glad your work lets you visit.

    2. kevin at |

      he states in the article the picture doesnt belong.

    3. rick at |

      no, there has never been any giants (beings over 9′ tall) found, anywhere on earth.

      1. Demona Galt at |

        Numerous skeletal remains have been found which appear to make ur statement false. The Giant king of Bashan was just one of them, not to mention the dozens of redhaired giants found in the American SW, and if u actually wanted documented scientific precedent look at meganthropus or Giaganthopithicus.

  2. Forthac at |

    If one did even the slightest bit of research into these they would find that they lack even the slightest shred of credible evidence.

    Specifically to number 10, and taken from Wikipedia (just like the author of this site has done but not attributed)

    "Archaeologist Charles C. Di Peso was working for the Amerind Foundation, an anthropological organization dedicated to preserving Native American culture. Di Peso examined the figures and determined that they were not authentic, and had instead been produced by local modern-day farmers, publishing his results in the journal American Antiquity.

    'He concluded that the figurines were indeed fakes: their surfaces displayed no signs of age; no dirt was packed into their crevices; and though some figurines were broken, no pieces were missing and no broken surfaces were worn. Furthermore, the excavation’s stratigraphy clearly showed that the artifacts were placed in a recently dug hole filled with a mixture of the surrounding archaeological layers. DiPeso also learned that a local family had been making and selling these figurines to Julsrud for a peso apiece since 1944, presumably inspired by films shown at Acámbaro’s cinema, locally available comic books and newspapers, and accessible day trips to Mexico City’s Museo Nacional.'"

    1. Bryan at |

      In regards to the Acámbaro figures, I used many resources when creating this article, including Wikipedia. I usually don’t bother to post the sources unless asked. Personally, I tend to agree with you that the Acámbaro figures are fabricated and the article clearly states that no credible scholars of archaeology or paleontology accept the discovery as valid. It also says that every entry on the list has been accused of being an elaborate hoax.

      Here are some resources I used for this particular entry. Many of these articles are older, as the Acámbaro topic was more heated in the 1960s and 70s.

      1. Mystery at Acámbaro, Mexico: Did Dinosaurs Co-exist With Humans by Alex Pezzati.

      “Professional Mexican archaeologists immediately pronounced these artifacts to be fakes, observers outside the archaeological community were intrigued, and a number of popular articles soon appeared questioning the archaeologists.” Between 1969 and 1972 the Museum’s Applied Science Center for Archaeology (MASCA) reignited the debate when it tried to date some of the figurines using a relatively new technique known as Thermoluminescence, or TL dating. The results produced a date around 2500 BC, and Rainey eagerly proclaimed it to be correct, much to the chagrin of other archaeologists.”

      The Acámbaro figures are listed as valid on many creationists’ web pages, including the Wikipedia article titled Category: Creationism. It is an argument that has been going on since 1944 when they were discovered.

      2. Charles Hapgood. “Mystery in Acambaro: An Account of the Ceramic Collection of the Late Waldemar Julsrud in Acambaro.” GTU. (Self Published: Mexico, 1972).

      3.World Explorer Magazine, Vol. 1 Number 9. Lost Civilizations of Central America, David Hatcher Childress.

      1. TopTenz Master at |

        And that is why you are one of my favorite writers for, Bryan. Thanks for the followup.

      2. Beth at |

        I think it’s interesting that scientists continue to consider evolution a theory. A theory can be tested repeatedly, so by definition, it is more of a belief, or, at best, a hypothesis. Even Darwin had more doubts about evolution that the scientists who push it. There is no evidence whatsoever for macroevolution, because no examples of genetic material being added have ever been found to create any new species. (Mutations always result in genetic material being subtracted.)

        If the common person, who has little understanding of evolution beyond school books which have presented it as solid fact, realized how much of the evolutionary ideas were created by hypothesis and conjecture, I don’t think they would be so quick to accept them.

  3. Kennypo65 at |

    Should have called this list "Top Ten Archeological Hoaxes" because that is what they all are.

    1. TopTenz Master at |

      Even a hoax has to be discovered. But your comment is duly noted. Thanks for reading.

    2. KL at |

      The first is not a hoax; at least not a modern one. Read on the Shroud of Turin. There was a documentary about it and it's authenticity. Leonardo Da Vinci was the one who 'faked' the Shroud of Turin to make it look like it belonged to that of Jesus. This was on Nat Geo about 3 months ago. Heck, you can even find the story through wikipedia:

      And yes, it is in line with the documentary.

  4. skeptic_dude at |

    This was entertaining stuff to read, and it sure does appeal to my inner child's sense of wonder and mystery. I don't actually believe that any of this is true though. You mention a few times that some of these things have been researched and debated about by scientist and reputable people. However, you never offer any factual evidence to support any of that. I think it would be really cool to check up on the research behind some of these mysteries, so if you do have any links or references (though I highly doubt you do) i would highly appreciate it if you posted them

    1. Bryan at |

      I agree that the article could have been named 10 Controversial Archeological Discoveries. When creating the list I was looking for items that tell a bizarre story. Many Internet pages include information on these objects and I would suggest doing a Google search if you are interested in learning more.

    2. kevin at |

      the sad truth is that we live in a time where professors and scholars wont admit or even study some of these items. If it were to be proven that some of these things are real, it would re-write our history books and change the history that these people have dedicated their lives learning and teaching. The Hopi indians of the american southwest have stories of their decendants fighting with a race of “giant humans” and forcing them into caves where they lit fires at the entrance to suffocate them. We know so little about our past and the past of this planet but we (people as a whole) think were so smart. Chew on this. The little gold plane found in central america that is from roughly 1000 to 1200 years ago can actually fly. the wings are underneath the body and not on top like all birds and insects through history. MIT made a scale model of the item and it flew flawlessly. A full understanding of aerodynamics was needed for this to happen. Just south, in Peru, are the Nazca lines that can only be seen by air and have never been explained. they leveled the tops of MOUNTAINS with no evidence of the excavation anywhere and created what look like runways miles long. Im sure all of that is a hoax also, right?

      1. johnny at |

        Everything you said is info shown on the phony TV show Ancient Aliens. Do you do your own research?

  5. Alf at |

    You forgot the ica stones

  6. Curious at |

    Hey TopTenz. Have you ever heard of Puma Punku. It was featured on the History Channel special "Ancient Aliens"

    Skip ahead to 7:00. I found this to be the most interesting portion of the program. You should check it out. Its pretty cool.

  7. John McDonnell at |

    Some of these have been proven to be hoaxes, but the Piri Reis map is not. It has a lot of detail for a map made in its time.

  8. Phil E. Drifter at |

    The shroud of Turin is an obvious fraud. If a cloth were laid over a dead body (and left a lasting image on the cloth, possibly from chemical reactions over time between the biological matter of the rotting body and the …different biological matter of plant matter that was woven into cloth) the image left on the cloth would be grossly stretched horizontally. Since the shroud displays no distortion it's an obvious hoax.

    1. george at |

      um, its said to be radiation from when jesus resurrected.

    2. Mediumheadboy at |

      It's an obvious fraud for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that the person who made it confessed.

      1. blackrabbit at |

        Can you please offer a source for that information? I'm no Shroud of Turin buff, but I think it would be all over the world in seconds if there had been some sort of confession, and I can't find it anywhere on the internet.

      2. LugNut at |

        The only thing obvious is your lack of knowledge. Go to:

    3. LugNut at |

      Sorry but you are WRONG. If you bother to go to the Official Site of The Shroud of Turin, you will see that there is anything but fraud involved. The scientist who runs the site is an Orthodox Jew who has been studying it for over twenty years. He tells you that the the more they study it with more of the latest technology, the more it is inexplicable. Here is the link:

      1. SJL at |

        Thanks, but I'm going to base my opinion on what the vast majority of the scientific and historical community has said, rather than what one guy who owns a website says. Anybody can start a website and claim to be whoever they want to be. This is why you should always cross check your facts between various sources. It's very easy on the internet to find a website that supports any given opinion, but it usually isn't an accurate indicator of what the actual truth of the matter is.

        1. LugNut at |

          You obviously did not read my comment. The man who runs the web-site is part of the scientific team who has studied the shroud for over twenty years. HIS CREDENTIALS ARE IMPECCABLE. He was recently featured in a new two hour special shown on the History Channel about new findings on the authenticity of The Shroud. The vast majority of the scientific community CANNOT make an objective opinion on The Shroud because they have not studied it. The only various sources worth checking are those who have studied it.


          Remember, all things such as this are subject to the scientific method.

          The Scientific Method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

          1. SJL at |

            You seem to misunderstand me. What I am saying is that anybody can make a claim to their credentials on the internet. Even if his credentials are accurate, he is still in a very small minority among scientists.

            As I said, there are a vast majority of people in the scientific community who believe that it is a hoax. They believe this because they have evidence that has been objectively tested by many, many people over a period of many, many years. There will always be a few people on the fringe of any community who believe things that are completely rejected by everyone else. Just because you find one person who makes a claim supposedly on behalf of science doesn't mean it is true in any way.

            Also, I know what the scientific method is and I don't really understand why you have cut pasted a definition here, seeing as you haven't integrated it into your argument in any way.

        2. LugNut at |

          Once again, you have not addressed my main points.

          1. Rhonda at |

            Who freaking cares? Seriously, how many of us here have actually examined any of the artifacts here ourselves? How many of us have conducted scientific experiments on the artifacts to determine if they were real or fake? How many of us have conducted scientific experiments and studies (other then text book studies) on evolution? I would guess that the vast majority that have commented on this site have not conducted scientific experiments outside of experiments required to pass a high school or college science course. I would also guess that the vast support for given arguments is based on someone else's work or opinion. As far as the Shroud itself, though I am Roman Catholic myself, I do not need any type of artifact to prove the existance of Christ anymore then I need an innocent child sacrificed by being entombed in up in a newly built building so that the building would be protected from the devil and therefore, wouldn't collaspe. Superstition does not belong in matters of science or faith. Religion and science themselves are two separate entities and should never be mixed together. I do not know if the Shroud is fake or authentic and I really don't care even though for the record that it's my opinion that the shroud is a fake. Scienctists have other issues in the world that they need to be worried about other than a piece of fabric or involving themselves in a religious debate. As far as faith, how strong can faith really be if it has to be based on some type of artifact? I really don't like to judge and I do my best to respect the beliefs and opinions of others but I would consider myself pathetic if I had to rely on a piece of fabric to justify my belief in God.

          2. SJL at |

            Sorry, what points have I not addressed? I have explained why you shouldn't believe one person when the majority of scientific opinion is against them, I have explained that the evidence is almost universally accepted in the scientific field to mean that the Shroud was a hoax from the 14th century. I'm honestly not sure what other points you want me to address.

            But if you want I will add another. The fact remains that even if the Shroud is not a hoax, even if they did find that it came from the right time period (which all evidence is against), there is absolutely no indication, let alone evidence, that it is in any way a sacred artifact. The religious association with the artifact is all based on speculation and there is simply no way of ever proving that it is anything other than an old sheet. There is no record of any shroud in first century Christian texts.

            And the fact remains that through years of testing using that scientific method that you apparently love to define have concluded that it is a hoax. All analysis points to hoax. Here:

            Further examinations were conducted in 1978 by the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), a group whose leaders were on the Executive Council of the Holy Shroud guild, a Catholic organisation that advocated the cause of the supposed relic.

            STURP pathologist Robert Bucklin claimed the images were anatomically correct, yet a footprint on the cloth is inconsistent with the position of the leg, the hair falls as for a person standing rather lying down, and the physique is unnaturally elongated (similar to figures in Gothic art).

            Microanalyst Walter C. McCrone examined tape-lifted samples from the shroud and identified the supposed blood as tempera paint containing red ochre and vermilion along with traces of rose madder.

            In 1988, three laboratories (at Oxford, Zurich, and the University of Arizona) used accelerator mass spectrometry to carbon-date samples of the linen. The results all stated that the linen was produced around 1250-1390 CE.

            If there are any more points I have yet to address, please have the foresight to actually make them first.

        3. Areaofeffect at |

          uhm, the problem here is you obviously aren’t paying attention to the fact that you in no way replyed to any of his/her points. The shroud of turin by the majority of scientists has not been proven to be either hoax nor real. the sample they used to carbon test it turned out to be a piece that had been patched to fix it after it had been burned. They retested it ,and found it to be in the time period (sometime back in BC) it was claimed to have come from. though that said they can not prove someone from that time period did not forge it.

  9. Bryan at |

    Yes, but many things surrounding God and Jesus are miraculous.

    1. Steve at |

      No, that's just the stock answer given by the uninquiring minds of people who would dismiss all contradictory evidence before they gave up their primitive beliefs.

      1. TopTenz Master at |


        And that is a stock answer of all those who don't respect the religious beliefs of others. Just because you don't understand the idea of religious faith doesn't mean you can insult others. It's called respect, look into it.

        1. stuart at |

          Of course he can. And I think he well understands the idea of religious faith. You do not. Understanding and faith do not co-exist.

          Faith is a magician who says 'just trust me its magic'. Try asking some questions and watch your religion unravel. There are answers you've ignored.

          Only the ignorant can be insulted.

          1. TopTenz Master at |

            Stuart, we will obviously disagree on many things, we will only find out who is right after we die. Best of luck to you.

            But I don't allow religious insults on my site, although I have been far too lenient of late, I believe.

            And you last statement is preposterous. Only the ignorant can be insulted? So you are saying you have never been insulted as I assume you don't consider yourself ignorant and anyone who has ever been insulted is ignorant? Rethink your statement.

            This is the end of this comment thread. Feel free to move over the the post Top 10 Arguments that Can't be Won and continue to argue it there:

            1. Billy Wilson at |

              We won’t find out anything when we die. The human body and mind functions the same way every other animal does. Blow out a candle. Unplug a computer. That’s death. There’s nothing to learn when the lights are out.

            2. TopTenz Master at |

              How sad for you to go through this life believing that.

            3. Billy Wilson at |

              Why is that sad? People aren’t supernatural. There’s no man in the sky dictating what we do and don’t do. Believing in it doesn’t make it true. Following a chain of discoveries set forth by curious men starting thousands of years ago and leading up to today is the route to an enlightened mind. Asking questions, figuring it all out.

              We’ve been to the moon, do you have to pass Heaven to get there? The Earth isn’t flat and isn’t resting on four pillars. Do you really think a horned man and his goblins live deep inside the earth? Can a man live inside a fish? And if an almighty god exists, why doesn’t he make his presence known, end all the fighting and bickering now? Just one peak over the clouds, a little “Hey, guys, I’m right here!” would do it.

  10. morikahn at |

    dropa stones are fake:

    even the chinese professor is fake

    1. Bryan at |

      I read that article Sungods in Exile when creating the list and I realized that the Dropa Stones were a highly skepticized artifact. In response to the the claim, I read some webpages that suggested a Chinese cover-up, which isn't that hard to imagine when it comes to the Internet and Chinese censorship.

    2. Fabio at |

      And a pretty bad one at that. We are supposed to believe that this man translated unknown hieroglyphs into a full language from nothing in four years? Someone should have called him to get to translate the Linear A tablets from Crete and various other untranslated scripts from antiquity if he were real.

  11. kuki_munstr at |

    If #10 were real, it would be the most important artifact of all time. Scary…

  12. Evan at |

    I recall hearing in a history channel program that the Shroud of Turin had take damage from a fire and had been repaired with a different material, and that what had been dated was from that new material.

  13. LinLin at |

    Yes, actually, History Channel made a recent episode on the Shroud of Turin

  14. Sarah at |

    From your intro: "Many of these archeological discoveries challenge the scientific theory of evolution…" No, they really don't. Unless, of course you already don't believe in evolution, which, from the pro-religion biased slant of this list, looks to be the case.

    1. Bryan at |

      The most highly suspect items on the list are the ones that would disprove parts of the theory of evolution, such as the Acámbaro Figures and the existence of an ancient civilization of giant people. When writing articles, I always attempt to show both sides of an issue and usually don’t include my personal beliefs. That is what I was trying to accomplish with the statement “Many of these archeological discoveries challenge the scientific theory of evolution, as well as many religious beliefs.”

      Ironically, I have also written another list for titled Top 10 Recent Signs Evolution is Real. That list should give you more of an insight into my personal beliefs. Here is a link:

      1. SJL at |

        There is a difference between giving 'both sides of an argument' and disseminating information that has been solidly proven to be false. There are more actual scientists who deny that the holocaust happened than deny that evolution is real. There's very little debate about it in the scientific community, because there is simply enough evidence that has been through enough rigorous examination.

        This whole 'both sides of the argument' thing is a ridiculous idea, simply because it suggests that this is an argument with two distinct sides. In the scientific community, that second side barely exists. If we take this concept outside of the scientific community, then there are quite a lot more than two sides of the argument. There is just as much evidence for creationism as there is for humans being planted on earth by alien overlords. Are we supposed to teach that as well?

        I have no problem with parents teaching their children what they believe. As long as there is no overt lying. But putting forward evidence that has been proven to be falsified is not 'teaching both sides'. It is lying.

  15. Jon at |

    Actually I don't believe any of these challenge the the theory of evolution or natural selection. Take into account the over sized people, if they died out that is a clear case of natural selection. That's just my opinion.

    1. Bryan at |

      Yes I agree with you, none of these artifacts have anything to do with natural selection. Modern day creationists point out the fact that the theory of evolution talks about the extinction of the dinosaurs occurring 75 million years ago and if evidence was discovered that dinosaurs co-existed with humans than scientists would have to explain this. Some people have websites that claim this fact hurts the credibility of the theory of evolution, but only a very small aspect of it.

  16. zeke at |

    there is no evidence of the 11 foot giants found in west virginia,
    this site shows that they were found in wheeling, im from wheeling and have done a lot of research for the area and never heard of this before,

    1. Bryan at |

      I took the reference about Wheeling from a book that was written by Robert Lyman. In the book he claims that “a decayed human skeleton claimed by eyewitnesses to measure around 3.28 meters (10 feet 9 inches tall), was unearthed by laborers while plowing a vineyard in November 1856 in East Wheeling, now in West Virginia.” West Virginia officially became a state 1863, so the discovery would have been before it was officially a state, but it does seem that Wheeling has a long and storied history before West Virginia was named a state. It was interesting to read about the Wheeling Conventions.

      Lyman, Robert R., Sr. (1971). Forbidden Land: Strange Events in the Black Forest. Vol. 1. Coudersport, PA: Potter Enterprise.

  17. Bill at |

    Hey great article! Very interesting read!

  18. zeke at |

    interesting bryan,
    do you have any links that you could post in relation to this, im always looking for new info, thanks

    1. Bryan at |

      Sure, in regards to the giant bones I took the reference from the Wikipedia article titled Giants (Mythology). I know that the majority of this article is about mythological giants, but one section is titled â??Giant Human Remainsâ?? (about halfway down the page). This section is about historical reports of the discovery of giant bones.

      There was only the one sentence about Wheeling, WV, but many other discoveries are mentioned. As for the book that is referenced on the page Forbidden Land by Robert Lyman (1971). I couldnâ??t find it anywhere on the web, not even e-bay. I will include a link to the Wikipedia page and to another interesting article I used on the discovery of giant bones around the world.

      1. Keith Taylor at |

        This site is one of my personal favourites when it comes to anomalies:

  19. Kris at |

    The Piri Reis map depicting antartica is another way of people interpreting things with our current knowledge.

    I does not depict the south pole in great detail, it doesn't even show South America correctly and on top of that it shows a landbridge between the tip of south america and terra australis which is a bit strange for a supposedly accurate chart.

    Moreover most of the places and names on the map are in Portuguese suggesting the map is actually a copy of portuguese maps …

  20. Doug at |

    How about the antikythera mechanism? This one IS accepted by the scientific community.

  21. Ather at |

    10 Or maybe ancient humans fund dino bones, and guessed what they looked like, like we do today. Why must primitive humans be clueless morons all the time?

    9. So, what did they say?

    5. Jews always were highly educated. Not too unlikely they'd be able to reach the Americas way before the Europeans did.

    4. Why couldn't others have found the Americas? Just because ti wasn't widely published doesn't mean it never happened. We know early man took tot eh seas earlier than thought, we know the vikings found the Americas before the Europeans. Why not people earlier still? Maybe we don't know when Antarctica got iced. Some say it's Atlantis, and it was destroyed when it migrated south.

    3. If the "Hobbit" is really a different breed of man, proving little humans existed, why not giants as well? Our stories might be based off of fact. Both types intermingled with humans, and why we still have big and small people today.

    None of these things disprove evolution. Just that we need to rework our time tables. Also, disproving evolution does not automatically prove Creationism. Just because we only acknowledge two possibilities doesn't mean there's only two possibilities .

    1. Archie at |

      The Vikings were Europeans.
      It is widely accepted that the Vikings reached North America sometime in the 12th century from the Norse settlement in Greenland.
      The Danes, Norwegians, Icelanders and Greenlanders continued to visit the eastern coast of North America (in today’s Canada) throughout the 12th, 13th and 14th centuries.
      Nordic runestones could be found in Canada dating from the 12th and 13th centuries, but the Latin alphabet was adopted in early 13th century, so it is strange why a Norse expedition in 1362 would use the runic scripture.

      Also in order for a continent to be “discovered”, someone must return back home and publish the discovery in wide circles, something that the Vikings never did. The Spanish and Portuguese on the other hand, did.

  22. Sledge at |

    One of the most interesting articles I have ever read! Well done.

  23. Rob at |

    Wow, this is awesome!

    This is the first Internet article that I've read all the way though.

  24. Rhonda at |

    Great article. Though I really didn't understand the reasons for all the attacks. I thought it was a fair presentation. One thing though I would like to mention is that Evolution is a theory and nothing more. It has not been proven to be scientific law (though I do believe in evolution to a certain extent). However, a key contribution to the theory of evolution that is scientific law was discovered by an Austrian monk by the name of Gregor Mendel. Mendel was a man of God and someone who obviously wasn't an ignorant idiot. Some people appear just as retarded as those that ridiculed Darwin's work when it first came out. Finally, when I was a student of Anthropology, we were taught that all myths were considered to be real. They were not dismissed as imaginations of a primitive people. Finally, everyone has a way of understanding and relating to the world that we live in and has the right to believe in whatever we want. It doesn't make one ignorant; just human.

    1. Sarah at |


      Evolution is a theory the same way gravity is a theory.

      1. Brianna Braun at |

        You idiot

        we all know nutella is made from cow poop

  25. Mekkin at |

    The word theory is often used incorrectly instead of the more correct "hypothesis". There is no difference between the amount of evidence needed, instead a law defines that something does indeed happen whilst a theory defines why it happens. Theories require large amounts of evidence to support them and the majority of scientist must agree that with it before it can become a scientific theory.

    I would advise you to check your facts in that regard.


    1. Bryan at |

      Yes, scientific theories may be more supported then a hypothesis, but that doesn't make them a fact. I would suggest you check out the wikipedia page titled "theory." Here is a quote.

      “In modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" refers to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with the scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand, verify, and challenge (or "falsify") it.”

  26. vicky at |

    This is one of the most awesome articles i have ever read, i read all the way through and there arent many articles i do read.oh yeh i almost forgot, the shroud of turin is in display unrolled now in that chapel, which is really cool if you have the money to go over to italy and see it.

  27. Rhonda at |….
    "Truth. Note that you cannot prove any theory to be true. You might think up a thousand totally different tests to try to disprove the theory, and it might pass every one. Does that mean it is "true"? No, because the 1,001st test could prove it false. While scientific theories are never supposed to be considered to be absolute truth, some have passed so many tests that they are called "laws." For example, we will learn Kepler's laws, and Newton's laws. A scientific law is like a theory that has been inducted into the "Science Hall of Fame." But even then it might have to be modified. Einstein found some corrections even for Newton's laws, but they are normally far too tiny to even be able to measure." -�©1998 by John P. Pratt. All rights Reserved.
    Subject: What is the difference between a theory and a law?

    Date: Fri Oct 22 14:59:28 1999

    Posted by John C. Hall

    Grade level: teacher/prof School: Fitzgerald High School

    City: Fitzgerald State/Province: GA Country: USA

    Area of science: Science History

    ID: 940618768.Sh

    A post I recently read a journal article* that spurred my curiosity. The

    author stated, "Individuals often hold a simplistic, hierarchical view of

    the relationship between theories and laws whereby theories become laws

    depending on the availibility of supporting evidence." He added, "theories

    and laws are different kinds of knowledge and one can not develop or be

    transformed into the other" and, "theories are as legitimate a product of

    science as laws."

    Throughout my years of undergraduate and graduate education, I have

    been taught this "hierarchical view" of theories and laws. As a former

    biology professor and current teacher of secondary education, I need to

    know, "What is the difference between a theory and a law?" and more

    importantly, CAN a theory eventually become a law based on supporting

    evidence? I need these questions answered in order to produce

    "scientifically literate" citizens, I would surley hate to continue

    misleading my students.

    *Lederman, N.G. 1998. The state of science education: subject matter

    without context. The Electronic Journal of Science. 3(2).

    Now, I am sure that a very heated debate could unfold to what was originally taught to be scientific law and scientific theory. I was taught the "simplistic" view of what a scientific theory and that leaves me in complete disagreement to the way a scientific theory that is now currently taught as a complete scientific truth. It is my opinion that some scientists have become so biased in their efforts to prove the theory of evolution as undisputable scientific truth that they actually almost eliminated the difference between scientific theory and scientific law and in doing so have attempted to discredit their peers that do believe in creationism. Nor does it end there because it's just not enough to attempt to discredit those that don't accept evolution as undisputed scientific evidence but further insult is layed by labeling anyone that doesn't agree that evolution is undisputed scientific evidence as "simple-minded", unscientific individuals that just can't accept "real" science. On the other end of the spectrum, just because there are those that do not believe in evolution doesn't mean that the theory of evolution has been disproven. It has passed tests conducted through the scientific method and to completely refute the theory of evolution is just as biased as those individuals that try to pass it off as an absolute truth. An open mind is what is needed when one studies science and should be excluded from both egotism and superstition. This is my opinion and everybody is entittled to one. If someone else's opinion differs from mine, then I accept it even if I don't agree with it. I have no need to bolster my self-esteem by making an idiot of myself through a self-delusion of "superiorty" over individuals that do not have the same interpretation of what is considered to be scientific or having a different interpretation of the meaning of a scientific theory. Did I base my first statement on facts? Yes I did, as taught to me by teachers and professors of science. Just because some scientists have changed their opinion of the meaning of the scientific method does not mean the way I was taught what the scientific method meant is wrong. It's just a difference of opinion.

    1. Bryan at |

      Interesting thoughts

      1. Rhonda at |

        Fascinating article, not just because of the content but because of the unbiased manner in which it was written. Thank you for writing it and I look foward to reading more of your work.

  28. amy at |

    regarding #2: never mind that Christopher Columbus never set foot in North America, ever.

  29. James at |

    Great article. I'd heard of most of them before but there were a few new ones (at least to me).

  30. Ha ha ha at |

    Shroud of Turin is absolutely fake of XIV century

    1. LugNut at |

      Go to: The only thing obvious about it is that it still cannot be explained by the top scientists in the world; one of whom runs the official web site listed above.

      1. Becky Kleitz at |

        My goodness…the Shroud of Turin was made by Da Vinci, not Jesus.

        And to all the religious people, please post PROOF of your “god”.
        There is none, so I guess that makes your “idea’s” theory, and not fact.

        I’m neither a scientist, nor a scholar, but I’m smart enough to know that if you can’t see it, feel it, hear it, or taste it, IT’S PROBABLY NOT REAL. Stop trying to bend true science to your will…
        While it is indeed a “miracle” that our Earth is here, and that WE are here, it is not a miracle of some deity. It is one of millions and billions of miracles occurring across the Universe.

        1. TopTenz Master at |

          But who created that first miracle. You may not choose to believe in a Christian God, which I do, but you must believe in some intelligent design.

          1. Billy Wilson at |

            Why must someone believe in an intelligent design? Unless you consider the laws of physics, which yield to chemistry, which leads to life, all explained through its language of mathematics.

        2. LugNut at |

          Please show your proof Da Vinci made it. Since you won’t be able to find any credible proof of that; please visit this website that so far will show you that the Shroud of Turin is inexplicable:
          The site is run by one of the scientists who worked on the shroud; who was very skeptical of its authenticity, and is now a believer.

          1. Billy Wilson at |

            Please show your evidence that the shroud depicts Jesus, perhaps explaining the process in which it was done using scientific, reasonable explanations without any hocus pocus.

      2. Billy Wilson at |

        Turin Shroud confirmed as a fake
        June 21, 2005
        by Richard Ingham

        PARIS, June 21 (AFP) – A French magazine said on Tuesday it had carried out experiments that proved the Shroud of Turin, believed by some Christians to be their religion’s holiest relic, was a fake.

        “A mediaeval technique helped us to make a Shroud,” Science & Vie (Science and Life) said in its July issue. The Shroud is claimed by its defenders to be the cloth in which the body of
        Jesus Christ was wrapped after his crucifixion.

        It bears the faint image of a blood-covered man with holes in his hand and wounds in his body and head, the apparent result of being crucified, stabbed by a Roman spear and forced to wear a crown of thorns.

        In 1988, scientists carried out carbon-14 dating of the delicate linen cloth and concluded that the material was made some time between 1260 and 1390. Their study prompted the then archbishop of Turin, where the Shroud is stored, to admit that the garment was a hoax. But the debate sharply revived in January this year.

        Drawing on a method previously used by skeptics to attack authenticity claims about the Shroud, Science & Vie got an artist to do a bas-relief — a sculpture that stands out from the surrounding background — of a Christ-like face.

        A scientist then laid out a damp linen sheet over the bas-relief and let it dry, so that the thin cloth was moulded onto the face. Using cotton wool, he then carefully dabbed ferric oxide, mixed with gelatine, onto the cloth to make blood-like marks. When the cloth was turned inside-out, the reversed marks resulted in the famous image of the crucified Christ.
        Gelatine, an animal by-product rich in collagen, was frequently used by Middle Age painters as a fixative to bind pigments to canvas or wood.

        The imprinted image turned out to be wash-resistant, impervious to temperatures of 250 C (482 F) and was undamaged by exposure to a range of harsh chemicals, including bisulphite which, without the help of the gelatine, would normally have degraded ferric oxide to the compound ferrous oxide.

        The experiments, said Science & Vie, answer several claims made by the pro-Shroud camp, which says the marks could not have been painted onto the cloth.

        For one thing, the Shroud’s defenders argue, photographic negatives and scanners show that the image could only have derived from a three-dimensional object, given the width of the face, the prominent cheekbones and nose.

        In addition, they say, there are no signs of any brushmarks. And, they argue, no pigments could have endured centuries of exposure to heat, light and smoke.

        For Jacques di Costanzo, of Marseille University Hospital, southern France, who carried out the experiments, the mediaeval forger must have also used a bas-relief, a sculpture or cadaver to get the 3-D imprint.

        The faker used a cloth rather than a brush to make the marks, and used gelatine to keep the rusty blood-like images permanently fixed and bright for selling in the booming market for religious relics.

        To test his hypothesis, di Costanzo used ferric oxide, but no gelatine, to make other imprints, but the marks all disappeared when the cloth was washed or exposed to the test chemicals.
        He also daubed the bas-relief with an ammoniac compound designed to represent human sweat and also with cream of aloe, a plant that was used as an embalming aid by Jews at the time of Christ.

        He then placed the cloth over it for 36 hours — the approximate time that Christ was buried before rising again — but this time, there was not a single mark on it.

        “It’s obviously easier to make a fake shroud than a real one,” Science & Vie report drily.
        The first documented evidence of the Shroud dates back to 1357, when it surfaced at a church at Lirey, near the eastern French town of Troyes. In 1390, Pope Clement VII declared that it was not the true shroud but could be used as a representation of it, provided the faithful be told that it was not genuine.

        In January this year, a US chemist, Raymond Rogers, said the radiocarbon samples for the 1988 study were taken from a piece that had been sewn into the fabric by nuns who repaired the Shroud after it was damaged in a church blaze in 1532.

        Rogers said that his analysis of other samples, based on levels of a chemical called vanillin that results from the decomposition of flax and other plants, showed the Shroud could be “between 1,300 and 3,000 years old.”

        Now, I understand that you may WANT the shroud to be authentic, but it’s not. The very idea of a body imprinting a seemingly burnt indention or impression into cloth is irrational. Magic doesn’t exist. If you’d like to believe, good deal. When you try to throw faith against science, don’t get your knickers in a twist should you get owned by sound logic, evidence, and cold reality.

        1. ROBrien at |

          Thank you Billy for posting clear, concise scientific evidence…I was really getting tired of LugNut (emphasis on “nut”) repeating the URL of that obviously biased shroud site like a fanatical parrot….great job.

  31. Moey at |

    If you wrote the lengths in both feet/inches and centimeter/meter, it would be nice. Then everyone non-English/American/Australian wouldn't have to recalculate it to our measurement system :)

    1. Bryan at |

      Good point, I will keep that in mind for future articles.

  32. SJL at |

    I have so far only read the first one, but I need to comment before people go around putting forward that bullcrap as evidence for creationism.

    All you need to do is visit the wikipedia page of the Acambaro figurines to see how absurd this is. There is much more evidence that this is a hoax than simply 'there was too many of them':

    "According to Di Peso, the surface of the figures was practically brand new and they showed no characteristic evidence of having been in the ground for at least 1500 years. If they were authentic artifacts, they should be scratched and marred from the rocky soil, which is characteristic of artifacts found in that area of Mexico. Also, while people were digging up the artifacts, Di Peso observed them crush through authentic artifacts to reach the figures, yet none of the figures themselves displayed any marks of damage. Other evidence includes fresh manure and fingerprints found under the ground, and black fill from other strata which was discovered in sterile red earth, all of which is evidence of tampering with the site"

    It was a hoax. No scientist accepts it as anything more than one misguided creationist's attempt at propaganda.

    Even if the figurines were real, this isn't evidence for humans and dinosaurs living together. We have dinosaur figurines. Why? Because we dug up their bones and made guesses as to what they would have looked like. The Incans were advanced enough to build pyramids, it would seem logical if they dug up a few bones and made some figurines to try and make sense of them.

    But that's irrelevant, because the odds are overwhelmingly in favour of a hoax.

    For the record, I have no problem with creationism itself. But the minute you try to manipulate facts to push your own idealogy, that's when it starts to get dangerous.

    1. tv at |

      "For the record, I have no problem with creationism itself. But the minute you try to manipulate facts to push your own idealogy, that’s when it starts to get dangerous."

      I agree with your comment.

      However, evolutionists have also tried to manipulate facts to push their own ideology. One example is Piltdown Man.

      1. SJL at |

        This is true, however the difference is that once the Piltdown Man was discovered to be a hoax (which unfortunately wasn't for many years after it was 'discovered'), not a single respectable scientist or supporter of evolution would present it as fact. One reason being that there is enough non-hoax evidence to support the theory (evolution is only a theory in the scientific sense of the word rather than the colloquial sense, a semantic mistake a lot of creationists seem to make) that they can throw the whole thing out without it having any effect on the likelihood that evolution is correct. But more importantly, respectable scientists will never refer to any evidence that they know is false because it is the aim of science to further INFORMATION rather than simply to prove evolution. I have heard many, many scientists in the field of evolutionary biology say to creationists that if they can provide any evidence for their claims that stands up to the scientific method, they would love to see it because it would be extremely important to their work.

        Above all, scientists want to understand life by evaluating the evidence and clinging to any falsified evidence is completely contrary to that aim. The Piltdown Man was a terrible hoax, but it was perpetrated by an individual with a history for hoaxing his way through his entire career. It was completely disowned by the scientific community when they discovered the truth, I actually learned about it in high school as an example of how harmful falsified information can be.

      2. Jewpower at |

        Its not just any group of humans that do that. We all do.

  33. Rhonda at |

    Right. Especially because no misguided scientist has ever produced a false aritfact in order to produce propaganda for their own purpose. Anyway, why is it when some of these false out of place artifacts is discovered it appears to be blamed on a creationist? Wouldn't it make more sense that it was fabricated by someone who is just looking to make a little bit of a fortune and maybe a little bit of fame?

    I agree that the Acamboro figurines are a hoax. I also agree that it would seem logical that the Incas could have made them if they weren't a hoax and in no way could ever prove that Homo Sapiens walked with Dinasours (because, duh, in reality Homo Sapiens never walked with dinasours). Not everyone that believes in creationism accepts these artifacts to be authentic, nor would push them as proof that God exists.

    The last point that was made, I firmly agree with except that there are some scientists that have done the same. A valid argument should be a fair one and pointing a finger at one side without acknowledging that the other side is guilty of the same could be perceived as biased (though I would concede that it probably wasn't the intent behind that statement). It's really sad that both sides are so blinded that they fail to be logical and just stick to facts. Creationists cannot prove that God exists using the Scientific Method but neither can scientists prove that God doesn't exist. Yet a battlefield exists and a line is drawn between the two.

    If someone that believes in God accepts science differently than how a creationist accepts science, then that person is considered a non-believer. If a scientist believes in God, then the scientist is considered to be brainwashed and unreasonable because it is claimed that the majority of scientists are atheists, believe God is nothing but a myth, and therefore, those that do believe are unscientific. What about those that stand in the middle? Those that do believe in God but are open-minded enough to embrace science as a wonderful never-ending mystery and accept that scientists are sincere, hard-working individuals that have contributed greatly to mankind (and in some cases might prove to be the downfall of mankind)?

    I fail to see how someone that is open-minded is brainwashed. I have read supporting arguments on both sides. Everything that I have read so far appears to be nothing more than an attack from both sides though I would have to admit that scientists seem to have the upper hand in this argument and have very impressively countered just about every pro-creationist arguement I have read (seriously, there are some pro-creationists that need to get their facts in order). Still, I don't believe in magic, ghosts, vampires or other superstitious nonsense but I do believe in God. I don't judge others if they choose to believe in God or not to believe in God and I am tired of science, in all it's beauty and glory, being used as a weapon in order to look down upon, degrade, and taunt those seemingly ignorant and small-minded individuals that do believe in God.

    1. SJL at |

      The reason why I suggest creationists is not because of my own assumptions but because from looking further into this hoax, there is suggestions that it was perpetrated by people wishing to push a young-earth creationist agenda. As well as the fact that these figurines appear on numerous creationist websites as fact, despite having been pretty conclusively determined to be a hoax. Regardless of the ideology, it is completely irresponsible to put information out there that is misleading to this degree. It takes away the right of the individual to make an informed choice for themselves.

      I have looked over my comment, and I never once implied anything about brainwashing. All I was seeking to do is point out how irresponsible it is to use false evidence to suggest that a scientific theory has no merit, when this is something that people have dedicated their lives to, furthering the concrete knowledge of mankind.

      I never criticised anyone for having an 'open mind'. I actively encourage people to have an open mind, it's just that the kind of open mind I encourage is one where people question what they hear, think of the motives someone would have to fabricate a notion, and check their sources. Every idea is given the same weight until other information suggests otherwise. I see this as much more responsible than simply believing something because a book passed through multiple edits and translations over thousands of years said so.

      I never said I looked down on people who believe in God. I think faith can be a beautiful thing. And I agree that science and religion both have sociological merits when kept separate. The reason that there is such a battlefield between religious faith and science is simply because there are religious people going out there and actively manipulating facts, ignoring studies that hard-working scientists have dedicated their lives too. These specific religious figures, the likes of Ray Comfort and so on, purposefully seek to undo what people have gone through years of education, years of lab-work and years of research to figure out. These people decry science as 'anti-religion', try to get creationism taught in science classes, yet take full advantage of scientific advances such as modern medicine.

      Faith, God and Christianity CAN EXIST without having to try and falsify evidence and downplay the work of scientists, and that is all I ask. I am in no way trying to villify the average Christian – my own family are devout Anglicans. All I ask is that people, whether they be religious or not, stop disseminating false information as fact. It's insulting to the people who have worked hard to find the real answers.

      1. Rhonda at |

        I did not intend to indicate that you in anyway implied anything about brainwashing, that you were critical of any individuals lack of ability to have an open mind or that you in particular looked down upon those that do believe in God. That part of my argument was not directed toward you and I apologize for any perception that I might have given that led you to believe otherwise. I think that we both have the same conclusion on this subject and I could not have stated better than you did.

  34. Charles at |

    I think Rhonda and SJL are the only two sane people on the internet.

    On a side note, this is the first article I've read on this site, and I can't stress enough how nice it is that the author of the article posts (more than once!) in the comments to defend/elaborate on what he wrote. Thank you.

  35. The actual guy that at |

    "I see the learned man in what you say!

    What you don't touch, for you lies miles away;

    What you don't grasp, is wholly lost to you;

    What you don't reckon, you believe not true;

    What you don't weigh, that has for you no weight;

    What you don't coin, you're sure is counterfeit." – Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

  36. dean at |

    the shroud of turin has been found to be the burial vestiges of Jacques De Molay, the last grandmaster of the Knights Templar. circa early 1300's CE

    the piri reis map is far from a hoax. there are many maps in existance some of them portolans from portugal, copied from earlier sources that depict antarctica without ice, and which clearly depict the main island separations and mountain-ranges that were only surveyed through satellite imagery in modern times. charles hapgood has a great source of information on this subject in his book "map of the ancient sea kings".

  37. mapmaker at |

    thanks for the round up of mysteries. i appreciate your research and interest. for those with an anterest in following up on the piri reis maps, graham hancock's 'fingerprints of the gods' starts off with a pretty good summary of the numerous mystery maps. perhaps the most remarkable shows the antartic continent with open water across the center–go to that book for the details. there is some controversy on the topic but i would recommend you start there. as a surveyor i find his comments very compelling.

    the subject of giants and their remains found buried in the earth seems fantastic on the surface. but, through the 1800's as america's indian burial mounds were being carefully excavated by the reputable scientists of the day, many 8-12 foot tall remains were documented. over time, inconvient data that didn't fit the agreed upon history disappeared through ridicule and loss of evidence. it seems the founders of the national geographic society played a role. the true, lost history of our past is out there–but mainstream archeology shunts it to the side in the same way corporate mainstream media control the news of the day.

    a few highly recommended items:

    weird america, by jim brandon **all time classic, out of print but available

    book of the damned, etc by charles fort **again, all time classic. check out

    forbidden archaeology, michael cremo

    underground! the disinformation guide to Ancient Civilizations, Astonishing Archaeology and Hidden History ***highly recommended group of essays that will bring the topic of lost history to life.

    thanks, please share any other good information~

  38. Marc K at |

    This is some realy intresting stuff, will this page be updateing current Information and Keep adding these most crazy discovery.

    I realy like History, just crazy how littel we konw of our past!

  39. kervinc at |

    On the note of #2: There’s a similar runestone of claimed viking origin a town over here in Oklahoma, but nobody really agrees on the time-frame it came from. A few others have been found scattered around the area, but it still has not been decided who really made them or when.

    Just a rock with shapes scratched on it, but interesting never-the-less. The wiki-pic doesn’t really do it justice, the runes are about 2-3 inches and 3-4cm deep. The stone itself is massive, and now enclosed in a shack for element protection. If you’re coming through this part of the country, worth a looksie, if nothing else, the view from the top of the hill is epic.

  40. Pat at |

    With the Kensington Runestone, its already widely accepted that Columbus DIDN’T discover the Americas and actually that Leif Ericksson born in Iceland discovered North America 500 years before Columbus. In a region of Eastern Canada, and was called New Found Land. Just wanted to clear that up.

  41. Ptah at |

    What is regarding Dashka Stone the age of the stone is considered by Alexander Chuvyrov as 65-80 mln years as there were couple of fossils were found within stone which lived approx. at that time.
    Found in russian article where there was interview with him.

  42. sandsman1 at |

    well it gave me what i was looking for (true or untrue) alittle bit of excitement — great read thanks

  43. Jewpower at |

    I believe many of these are real. Including the shroud.
    Jesus definitely existed even if his message to be excellent to each other was destroyed by his explosive, unthinking fan club.

  44. Jewpower at |

    I want to believe.

  45. TheSaneSceptic at |

    Lets assume for a moment that the Pyramid of Giza, Puma Punku and many other wonders have been destroyed in the past and we could read about them only in ancient records. Would we believe then that these wonders ever existed? Definitely archaeologists and sceptics would not believe it.
    Some religious people and most evolutionists have an axe to grind. Often it is these people who are discrediting the authenticity of old artefacts.

  46. fred at |

    sadly, the first set of pictures made me question the authenticity. the third column middle picture looks more like a pangolin, a scaly anteater (thus a mammal and not a repyile) native to africa and asia. in honesty, they looked more like a grade three art class’s version of dragons other than that.

  47. Cameron at |

    I recommend that all of the skeptics read the book, (the shroud), and see the overwhelming evidence that this was in fact the shroud that covered the body of Jesus.

  48. Galen2900 at |

    Why do these always turn into religious debates?

    1. Billy Wilson at |

      Because some people see their faith backed up by something, from the past, and cling to it, as it solidifies their view of life and nature. “Everything’s going to be ok, God’s watching over me. I’m special, because I was made in God’s image. Your religion is wrong and mine is right because I have faith.” That kind of thing.

  49. jeff at |

    look why most people are skeptical about new information is they dont want to be wrong themselves,the giants bones have been found all over the world,the alluminum landing gear and the dropa stones are evidence of life in the beginning of human and maybe some other alien form of life on are planetthe earth may definately have been here for a few million years before that for all we know.I’m glad we get to see new things like this,it makes more sense to me, i like to link everything i know to new information thanx for your insight.

    1. Billy Wilson at |

      Why does the aluminum wedge have to be landing gear? The idea that ancient humans were so adept in metallurgy is a fascinating thought, but couldn’t the answer to its use be much more simpler than “aliens did it”?

  50. JackWebster6 at |

    (I wish I could sign Harrison Ford for another Indiana Jones chapter. Or at least two years of In search of. This for me is another set of proofs for our “lost”legacy. OK the shroud isn’t real. OK the figurines were made for a peso a piece. The rest and many, many others are anomalies. If the story of us is a collection of lies we owe it to the kids to get it right now.
    Giants, Aliens, Templars in pre columbian America? Who killed KENNEDY? What is Area 51. Where are all of.the missing children? What is on the other side of the moon? Finally in the midst of these questions & all others where is The Smithsonian Institution, where are the scientists?

  51. Bippy123 at |

    now I don’t know about the other 9 but outside lugnut it’s amazing the amount of ignorance that skeptics show on the shroud of Turin. The c-14 dating of the shroud was debunked a long time back, and it wasn’t debunked by armchair skeptics but by an agnostic of all people, the late ray Rogers the famed Los Alamos chemist, who was originally a skeptic of the shroud but towards the end of his life started to believe in the authenticity of the shroud.

    If you want to see an atheist look silly and unscientific just have him talk about the shroud. The funniest comment here is that it was created by divinci lol. Any serious shroud researcher could debunk this silly theory in a minute. The Hungarian pray codex pic which depicts the shroud complete with it’s unique herringbone weave and the poker holes is undisputedly dated to the late 1000’s which by itself blows away the divinci theory, but the coup de GRAS is the sudarium of Oviedo which forensic experts have determined that both it and the shroud touched the same body at very close time intervals.

    This fact alone blows away the c-14 test because the history of the sudarium is indisputable going back to the late 6th century.

    there are mountains of scientific peer reviewed research available on the shroud that points towards authenticity and the only scientist on the sturp team that said it was a painting was walter (couldn’t get one peer reviewed research article passed) mccrone and he was (you guessed it) an atheist.

    Lugnut was correct in saying that is the leading authority on shroud research and has all of the peer reviewed research articles available on the shroud and they present both sides very well.

    The enea 5 year research that came out is especially exciting since it shows that some of the properties of the image can be created only by an ultra violet laser and to creat the full head and body image you would need a laser the size of a building with the power of 33000 billion watts of energy.

    This doesn’t even come close to producing the other amazing effects of the shroud image including the xray qualities of the hand and parts of the skull.

    a good starter book on the shroud , even though it’s a bit outdated is the resurrection of the shroud by mark antonacci who is a lawyer that was an agnostic 20 years ago that got into an argument with his then Christian girlfriend and was determined to show her that Christianity was a fairy tale and he decided he would start with the shroud. To make a long story short 20 years of research later he came to believe in the authentic of the shroud and converted to Christianity.

    This is a great starter book also for open minded agnostics and seekers, not for dogmatic atheists because as I said, research what atheists say about the shroud and you will see how quickly they become unscientific I their statements and resort to looney conspiracy theories.

    1. Jägermeister at |

      This Hungarian pray codex, the one with NO herring bone pattern, NO image of Jesus, NO mention of an image of Jesus in the text, but unlike the shroud of Turin, has 4 interlocking pyramids on one side, and crosses on the other?

      The c14 dates were NOT debunked, Rogers just came up with different results. This is hardly surprising, as he used samples obtained in an unscientific manner; he used an inaccurate test based on an experiment using constant temperatures (emphasis on the ‘constant’); neglects that the shroud was tested by boiling in oil and water (which would skew Roger’s results); he presumed the shroud stayed ‘cool’ in the 1532 fire; and he referenced a none peer reviewed paper.

      Rogers may have got his paper peer reviewed, but there is a good reason why no one uses it instead of c14 tests. Perhaps if you had actually read Rogers paper instead of just blathering on in an ‘unscientific’ manner.

      The rest of your blather is just looney conspiracy theories.

  52. SemiProBBQ at |

    You should’ve included the Baigong Pipes on this list

  53. Chris Redmond at |

    Interesting list, with predictable comments by some of your readers.

    Interesting how many seem able to dismiss every one of the provided discoveries as being a hoax, because doubt has been cast on certain aspects by other members of the scientific community, as if the mainstream scientific community are some all knowing entity when history has proved this to be be incontrovertibly true.

    I’ve no doubt the vast majority of such discoveries are indeed hoaxes, but am under no illusion that when something goes against accepted mainstream science, those on the side of mainstream science are not the objective, critical collective they purport to be in many cases.

    Very entertaining site however so thanks for providing the list.

  54. Marty at |

    I hate religion! it just slows down research! and rewrites a false history!

  55. Michael at |

    Some of those weren’t real dinos. This is in no way evidence of the co-existence of humans and dinos, as least no more than it is proof of the co-existence of people and dragons.

  56. Marty at |

    Bippy123 ,, The Shroud is a fake made in the Middle ages. As you can clearly see showing a white Jesus! Jesus would of looked similar to Osama Bin Ladin (no offence) The secrets of Christian technology to cover up there long lasting lie! the Bible! stealing inventors technology and then creating the Shroud.

  57. 169 at |

    The Shroud was indeed made in the medieval dates! to say it was made by a billion watts of energy is a laugh! and to convert to Christianity would not be due to the research of the Shroud
    that is closely guarded and research by local Scientists (payed off, monitored, threatened by the church)

    According to the art historian Nicholas Allen the image on the shroud was formed by a photographic technique in the 13th century.[138] Allen maintains that techniques already available before the 14th century—e.g., as described in the Book of Optics, which was at just that time translated from Arabic to Latin—were sufficient to produce primitive photographs, and that people familiar with these techniques would have been able to produce an image as found on the shroud. To demonstrate this, he successfully produced photographic images similar to the shroud using only techniques and materials available at the time the shroud was made. He described his results in his PhD thesis,[139] in papers published in several science journals,[140][141] and in a book.[142]
    Lynn Picknett has written a book proposing that Leonardo da Vinci had faked the Shroud.[143][144] Picknett and Larissa Tracy appeared on a Channel 5 (UK) TV program that claimed the Shroud to be the oldest known surviving photograph.[144] The program claimed that da Vinci used a real corpse, treated it with chemicals and then exposed it in an early form of camera obscura to obtain the image.[144] However John Jackson, director of the Turin Shroud Centre of Colorado dismissed these hypotheses.[144] Jackson et al. have argued that a double photographic exposure, needed in that case, should have considered the distances and in this case there would be areas of photographic superimposition with different lights and shades. The distances on Shroud instead correspond to the body position.[145]

    1. 169 at |

      “””””””””John Jackson””””
      Corrupted by Church – FACT!

  58. Skeptiktank at |

    Holy mackeral guys did you see the info on that Turin website, all of the scientists are now having to take back all claims that the shroud was a medieval forgery! And that any and all ideas saying it was a forgery are now outdated and useless! Wow! The experts went on to state that the image itself was not produced by any form of art and by any they mean any of a list containing every kind, like think of one and it wasn’t used, now think of all and none were used. Also the cloth of the shroud itself was from Jerusalem, even particles of pollen on the cloth were found to also come from Jerusalem. Kinda fishy though, how would they (these scientists) know where pollen or a 2k old cloth came from. Also if they are such experts how would they know that it wasn’t some form of art. Just because carbon dating has been supposedly proven wrong since they did the dating tests in 1988 doesn’t mean the shroud is not some kind of fake, even the archbishop of Turin said the carbon dating proved it was a fake! If the archbishop of Turin from 1988 the same place the shroud is named for (Turin!) agrees with 1988 carbon dating means he knows more about the cloth than he is letting on he knew it was a fake before they ever showed up and was now confirmed on what he alreay knew!

  59. Vincenzo Giovanni Ruello at |

    I am an experimental film scientist who is published in the New World Encyclopedia article Veil Of Veronica. In 2011 I discovered the positive photographic image of an alive Jesus Christ about to be crucified in the Vatican St Peters Veronica Veil which looks like the face in the Shroud of Turin. You may be interested in including the photograph. I authorise permission to your site to copy it from my web site and include it here thanks Vincenzo Giovanni Ruello

    1. andrea at |

      yeah. i am not convinced of the truths on your page.

  60. arkofthecovenants at |

    Hi I was in Panama recently and the ark of the covenant was discovered. The lost city of El Dorado is discovered in Chiriqui Panama. It is quiet interesting to see who is now taking responsibility for the exciting news.

  61. koo look at |

    Yesterday, I spoke to an alien. He was from the constellation of Virgo. He says that his people have been planting such artifacts for the last 100 million years

  62. esther kezia at |

    All of you does not know anything. I knows very very much. Aliens coming now.

  63. murali don at |

    Yesterday, an alien artifact was discovered in the HinduKush mountains. It clearly proves that Hinduism is the oldest and the only genuine religion in the world.

  64. JustaReader at |

    Though I am not sure of the authenticity of any of these discoveries I do find number five to be personally intriguing as my personal religion, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints(yes the Mormon Church), believes that a Hebrew family came to the Americas and that the Book of Mormon is a record of their history. Once more I am not sure of the authenticity andI merely stastating the interesting coincidence.

  65. mike may at |

    i graduated from sayre area high school never hearing of the ‘horned skulls’ dicovery, of course, in a conservative small borough as it was, i shouldn’t wonder why. interesting topic though, i would love to find the area they made the discovery. if i were to guess i would say the discovery was made on or around ‘spanish hill’. the hill was supposedly created to bury the gold brought with spanish explorers with the dirt from sayre pond area, cool story, but other stories are told that sayre itself was barely existant above water between the rivers


Leave a Reply