World's Oldest Pyramids Found in Alaska Shocks Scientific Community

[Skywizard]

Submitted by Need2Know on May 25th, 2013 

Could it be possible that Alaska has the world's oldest man made pyramids? And, if true, is the recent snow and ice melting going to reveal even more ancient structures in the future? Amazingly, a small team of explorers has just announced that they have indeed found at least two ancient pyramids. Currently, only the upper portions of the pyramids are exposed but the general shape is obvious. The team was able to find the outer rock edges of one pyramid and the stones were obviously stacked one on top of the other (comparable to Egypt pyramids). The team actually made the discovery by accident while on a hiking expedition. They were able to take some pictures of the pyramids which are shown below.

So if these pyramids are indeed man-made then we have to ask the question of Who built them and why? Historians tell us that the first humans to enter North America settled during the end of the last ice age (approx 12-10,000 years ago). The Clovis culture generally are considered to be the first culture to develop during this time period but no evidence has ever been found that they constructed any pyramids or even any megalithic monuments. So, are we looking at a completely different culture, here? One that has been lost to history until now?

2160321604
Not original photo________ Don't know about the other one

The team that made the discovery is currently planning another expedition to further research and investigate these ancient monuments. They are currently searching for additional people such as archaeologists, engineers and geologists to add to the team. They hope to return to the pyramids next summer season to confirm their findings. 

Several pictures are shown above of the pyramids that the team found. Take a look and see what you think. 

An additional piece of interesting news with this discovery is that this is not the first pyramid to have been found in Alaska. A large underground pyramid is supposed to lie between Nome and Mt. Mckinley that dates back many thousands of years ago. This was discovered in the early 1990's.

Source: http://www.bubblews.com/news/563071-world039s-oldest-pyramids-found-in-alaska-shocks-scientific-community

peace
skywizard

[Cidersomerset]

There was a Coast to coast programme about this a couple of years ago,
the military have known for decades............


A1oXGXevRZg

[RMorgan]

Hey brother,

Well, we need to verify if this discovery is genuine, through a better source.

Some pictures would be awesome as a start, since the one posted in the OP is from an apparently natural rock formation, probably uploaded to the article just to illustrate.

The original article was published on earthfiles.com, which belongs to Linda Moulton Howe. She´s a very suspicious character and the US representative of a well known Brazilian charlatan and criminal, Urandir Fernandes de Oliveira. She´s been involved with several ufology scandals in the past, in one of them she had falsified evidence to support Urandir, as an attempt to boost his credibility in the USA.

More info about her:

http://ufoupdateslist.com/2003/jun/m13-019.shtml

http://www.colinandrews.net/Carrots-and-Crop-Circles_Linda-Howe_ByGeorge-Wingfield.html

http://www.ufowatchdog.com/linda_moulton_howe.htm

So, don´t get too much excited yet; Let´s try to find a better source.

Raf.

[GoodETxSG]

Well Raff,
Time to dazzle us with your Research and Debunking skills again... ;)

This would be MAJOR, but like the Bosnian Pyramid even if "Verified" it will not be "Officially Verified" or "Accepted". Science is the most closed minded "Religion" that there has EVER been!

[Cidersomerset]

This is an account from a different witness.....told to Linda.

I must admit I have always enjoyed Lindas reports on coast
especially about Rendlesham Forrest, Cattle mutilation ,
Abductions , Gobekli Tepe and other reports. Are they
accurate ? I don't know but at least she reports them.
Raf is right we always needs corroborative information
if possible. She has not come across as ungenuine to me
but who knows........


6l_ya-_LCFg

Now, something even more extraordinary, even more impossible
and even more incredible has been discovered: a pyramid twice
the size of Cheops—buried near Mount McKinley in Alaska. Listen
to the eerie cloak-and-dagger story that emerges as Linda
interviews a US Army counterintelligence agent who has a
remarkable reason for believing it. as he tells of its brief public
announcement on a radio program, and the years-long coverup
that has haunted him for the rest of his life.


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qESLwiM99L4/UT85C9TsHrI/AAAAAAAATjk/sR_2wIHC_Io/s640/alaska+bermuda+triangle.JPG

http://ancientstuff.maxforum.org/2012/07/30/1992-alaska-pyramid-discovery-and-cover-up/

[Billy]

My 2G dongle internet connection is so slow, Google Earth does not open for me. As far as i have learned pyramids were built in many different locations around the planet, So it would not surprise me, Has the longitude and latitude been given? Is the area blurred out?

One day surely the truth will reveal itself.

[Skywizard]

Well, we need to verify if this discovery is genuine, through a better source.

Welllll... busted again... :). I ran this thru google and seen it on other sites so I thought it was true (and it might be, I kind of believe it). Maybe you can give us some sample sites we can trust or debunk something we find.

peace...
skywizard

ps - fixed the photos

[RMorgan]

Well, we need to verify if this discovery is genuine, through a better source.

Welllll... busted again... :). I ran this thru google and seen it on other sites so I thought it was true (and it might be, I kind of believe it). Maybe you can give us some sample sites we can trust or debunk something we find.

peace...
skywizard

ps - fixed the photos

Hey brother,

Well, I simply don´t trust any website.

Whenever I find some piece of data, specially the incredible ones, I try to cross reference different sources providing equivalent information.

Anyway, I have a rule: Fake information always lacks data.

In this specific case, regarding those pyramids, the minimum we should do is try to find the name of the persons involved in the discovery and then check out their background and reputation.

Cheers,

Raf.

[Sidney]

Me now thinks, there are other twists and turns, with the haarp facility . Hum.?????

[ghostrider]

earth scientist, hmmm ... the pyramids are much much older than they know...you better multiply by 7 ... 70,063 years ago was the age of pyramid building ... these alaska pyramids could be older than that ...

[lakewatcher]

Anyway, I have a rule: Fake information always lacks data.



Do you mean that one can always identify fake information by an attendant lack of data? If so, it seems to me that this would be equivalent to the logical fallacy: Lack of evidence constitutes evidence of lack.

Or perhaps, do you mean that fake information, in the end, always lacks genuine supporting data? That, I think, would be true.

[RMorgan]

Anyway, I have a rule: Fake information always lacks data.



Do you mean that one can always identify fake information by an attendant lack of data? If so, it seems to me that this would be equivalent to the logical fallacy: Lack of evidence constitutes evidence of lack.

Or perhaps, do you mean that fake information, in the end, always lacks genuine supporting data? That, I think, would be true.

Hey mate,

Well, the most basic kind of fake information is the one which end up depending on the faith of the reader other than on verifiable evidence.

Other kinds of fake information may seem compelling at first look, overwhelming the reader with technical-scientific jargon and terminology, while ultimately, none of it can be verified or substantiated.

Anyway, there are several kinds of techniques for producing fake information, but all of them, like you say, ultimately lacks genuine supportive data that can be verified by the reader.

In this case, about these alleged pyramids, all you have to do is ask a few questions; Who discovered them? When? What institution they represent? Was it published somewhere else other than a website with a suspicious reputation? By trying to answer such questions, you start having an overall idea about the quality of the information.

Personally, since I´m a kind of veteran truth-seeker who takes it all very seriously, I always try to trace back the original source and then determine its credibility; This is very important. You would be surprised about how many fake articles that end all over the web, can be traced back to a single dubious source, like, as an example, known disinfo agents such as Sorcha Faal.

To sum up, there are several ways a reader can relatively quickly verify the quality of a piece of data. It´s always necessary to analyze any piece of information very carefully before re-publishing it anywhere, otherwise you end up contributing to spread disinformation...I´ll make a more detailed thread about it one of these days.

Cheers,

Raf.

[Cidersomerset]

I'm listening to Richard Dolan who was on Veritas recently ( so much to listen to ..LOL)
which I put on another thread yesterday and from arpox.15mins to 30mins they
are discussing about fake u'tube UFO vids...


DTHYzoIYwuE

[RMorgan]

I'm listening to Richard Dolan who was on Veritas recently ( so much to listen to ..LOL)
which I put on another thread yesterday and from arpox.15mins to 30mins they
are discussing about fake u'tube UFO vids...

That´s really really good mate. Thanks!

Everyone here should listen to those 15 minutes (00:15 to 00:30 more or less).

You know, sometimes people here get a little bit angry with me, because they think I´m a debunker; Well, I´m not.

Like Mr.Dolan said, any serious investigator must be skeptical. Every piece of information must be intensively verified before jumping to precipitated conclusions.

I do believe in many extraordinary things; I just don´t let my beliefs interfere with my judgment.

We, as truth seekers, have the duty to verify any piece of potentially interesting information before re-publishing it on the web; Whenever we don´t do that, we take the serious risk of unintentionally becoming disinformation agents.

People must realize that disinformation sources rely on naive people to spread their lies around the web. If more people start to practice their truth seeking investigative skills, we´ll be able to dramatically reduce all the misleading noise and consequently perceive the big picture with much more clarity.

Cheers,

Raf.

[Cidersomerset]

Raf as soon as I heard them just now I thought of you that's why I
posted it.The tracing the image back to the Jpeg etc did it ...LOL..

Your doing a great job mate, its getting even more difficult sorting
the wheat from the chaff with all this digital stuff etc...

Cheers Steve..

[lakewatcher]

Well, the most basic kind of fake information is the one which end up depending on the faith of the reader other than on verifiable evidence.

Other kinds of fake information may seem compelling at first look, overwhelming the reader with technical-scientific jargon and terminology, while ultimately, none of it can be verified or substantiated.

When we can't verify, either positively or negatively, the evidence supporting a hypothesis, then the hypothesis remains unknown one way or the other -- in other words, all we're left with is a suggestion.



Anyway, there are several kinds of techniques for producing fake information, but all of them, like you say, ultimately lacks genuine supportive data that can be verified by the reader.

Unfortunately, in the case of the web, I would think that few of us have the resources to do a full verification of any of the claims we are exposed to. There are some exceptions to this, like verifying a definition, quote, or stated research reference, but I think that this is generally the case.



In this case, about these alleged pyramids, all you have to do is ask a few questions; Who discovered them? When? What institution they represent? Was it published somewhere else other than a website with a suspicious reputation? By trying to answer such questions, you start having an overall idea about the quality of the information.

Your questions address the question of the quality of the claim maker. This is an important question to ask, but ad hominem considerations ultimately have little confirmation value with regard to the issues of fact in a case. A known liar may be telling the truth in a given case, or a reporter of integrity may be making an honest mistake in a given case.

In the case of these alleged pyramids, to do a genuine verification of the actual facts in the case, we would have to mount a fully equipped expedition to the sites with qualified geologic and archaeological investigators and determine the facts for ourselves.



...I always try to trace back the original source and then determine its credibility; This is very important.

To sum up, there are several ways a reader can relatively quickly verify the quality of a piece of data.

I agree with you that identifying and analyzing original sources is an important step in researching a claim. But this step can only affect our suspicion index, for lack of a better term, in a case. It cannot answer the questions of fact in a case like this. Yes, if we were to have multiple reports from verified credible sources that agree on a given set of facts or data, then the probability of the facts being actually correct increases, but that still doesn't constitute an ultimate confirmation of those facts. To finally fully answer the questions of fact in a case like this, you would have to do direct observation and/or experimentation yourself.

In other words, a questionable source is simply not identically equal to questionable data. Questionable sources can only imply the probability of questionable data, because questionable sources have often produced questionable data in the past.

Regards and best wishes for your research,
Eugene

[RMorgan]

I agree with you that identifying and analyzing original sources is an important step in researching a claim. But this step can only affect our suspicion index, for lack of a better term, in a case. It cannot answer the questions of fact in a case like this. Yes, if we were to have multiple reports from verified credible sources that agree on a given set of facts or data, then the probability of the facts being actually correct increases, but that still doesn't constitute an ultimate confirmation of those facts. To finally fully answer the questions of fact in a case like this, you would have to do direct observation and/or experimentation yourself.

In other words, a questionable source is simply not identically equal to questionable data. Questionable sources can only imply the probability of questionable data, because questionable sources have often produced questionable data in the past.

Regards and best wishes for your research,
Eugene

Well, my friend, it´s hard to find absolute numbers when dealing with any kind of intel.

What we can do is try to determine the quality of the information, using the variables we have available.

There is a well known intelligence source and information reliability table, used by intelligence agencies from all around the globe, which certainly can be used as a guide; I certainly use it a lot.

Source reliability

Rating / Description
A Reliable / No doubt about the source's authenticity, trustworthiness, or competency[disambiguation needed]. History of complete reliability.
B Usually reliable / Minor doubts. History of mostly valid information.
C Fairly reliable / Doubts. Provided valid information in the past.
D Not usually reliable / Significant doubts. Provided valid information in the past.
E Unreliable /Lacks authenticity, trustworthiness, and competency. History of invalid information.
F Cannot be judged / Insufficient information to evaluate reliability. May or may not be reliable.

Information reliability

Rating / Description
1 Confirmed / Logical, consistent with other relevant information, confirmed by independent sources.
2 Probably true / Logical, consistent with other relevant information, not confirmed.
3 Possibly true / Reasonably logical, agrees with some relevant information, not confirmed.
4 Doubtfully true / Not logical but possible, no other information on the subject, not confirmed.
5 Improbable / Not logical, contradicted by other relevant information.
6 Cannot be judged / The validity of the information can not be determined.

So, as an example, the most reliable information cross referencing the source and information reliability wold be A1, a non-reliable piece of information would be E5 and an unknown-validity information from a new source without reputation is rated F6.

I would classify the OP´s information as E4.

I hope this table can help you in the process of judging information.

Cheers,

Raf.

[lakewatcher]

Well, my friend, it´s hard to find absolute numbers when dealing with any kind of intel.

What we can do is try to determine the quality of the information, using the variables we have available.

There is a well known intelligence source and information reliability table, used by intelligence agencies from all around the globe, which certainly can be used as a guide; I certainly use it a lot.


Raf, I am already aware of the table you quote. You may see the issue of the pyramid report as an "intel" matter. I do not. To me the issue is a simple question of whether the pyramids actually exist or not? That question lends itself best, I think, to standard scientific method. And no, I don't think that the procedures used in the intelligence agencies and the scientific method are quite equivalent methods.

Source reliability and information reliability are ultimately separate considerations that have to be addressed through independent verification procedures. You seem to be saying in your previous posts in this thread that source reliability verification is sufficient to determine information reliability as well, in any given case. It is not IMO.

I don't see some of your statements in this thread to having a really sound scientific or logical basis, at least as you stated them above. For all I know, you may actually proceed with your research flawlessly. And actually, your basic recommendations about how to proceed with checking out the story, I am in agreement with, as far as those recommendations go as first steps. I think more would probably be needed, though, if a conclusive answer to the question of the pyramids is wished.

However, you seem to be approaching the rest of us here as a sort of instructor of how we should do research. By presuming that stance, I feel that you thereby give me permission to comment on what I see as a few flaws in your instruction. Fair is fair, as we say. If you made the unnecessary quote of the source and reliability evaluation table in order to tell me that you know what you are doing and don't need me to correct you, then I apologize for my unwanted instruction to you. Let us conclude our contest then.

Go in peace brother,
Eugene

[RMorgan]

Raf, I am already aware of the table you quote. You may see the issue of the pyramid report as an "intel" matter. I do not. To me the issue is a simple question of whether the pyramids actually exist or not? That question lends itself best, I think, to standard scientific method. And no, I don't think that the procedures used in the intelligence agencies and the scientific method are quite equivalent methods.

Source reliability and information reliability are ultimately separate considerations that have to be addressed through independent verification procedures. You seem to be saying in your previous posts in this thread that source reliability verification is sufficient to determine information reliability as well, in any given case. It is not IMO.

I don't see some of your statements in this thread to having a really sound scientific or logical basis, at least as you stated them above. For all I know, you may actually proceed with your research flawlessly. And actually, your basic recommendations about how to proceed with checking out the story, I am in agreement with, as far as those recommendations go as first steps. I think more would probably be needed, though, if a conclusive answer to the question of the pyramids is wished.

However, you seem to be approaching the rest of us here as a sort of instructor of how we should do research. By presuming that stance, I feel that you thereby give me permission to comment on what I see as a few flaws in your instruction. Fair is fair, as we say. If you made the unnecessary quote of the source and reliability evaluation table in order to tell me that you know what you are doing and don't need me to correct you, then I apologize for my unwanted instruction to you. Let us conclude our contest then.

Go in peace brother,
Eugene


Hey Eugene,

Brother, you have misinterpreted me; I´m not here, by any means, to instruct anyone about anything. Far from it!

I´m here to learn and teach; The information and investigative methods posted in the previous posts were not directed at you, but to the community as a whole. A lot of people here get a bit lost while investigating the torrential amount of information available in the alternative media.

Anyway, to sum up. I´m not saying that the pyramids don´t exist.

I´m just saying that apart from the source being very suspicious, the information itself is vague and incomplete.

I mean, all the article says is that a small team of explorers (who?) has just announced (when?) that they have indeed found at least two ancient pyramids in Alaska (where in Alaska?); Nothing else.

There´s simply not enough information about the alleged discovery to know if the article is genuine or not. The content of the article, so far, is simply unverifiable.

Anyone could have invented such story, and given the history of the source, this could very well be the case.

As far as I understand, it isn´t even possible to discuss such discovery scientifically, because we don´t have any debatable information about it at all.

I´m sorry if I offended you; This isn´t my intention. If you speak a second language, you know how hard it is to translate thoughts to it, while keeping them faithful to your native tongue.

Raf.

[lakewatcher]

Hey Eugene,

Brother, you have misinterpreted me; I´m not here, by any means, to instruct anyone about anything. Far from it!

I´m here to learn and teach; The information and investigative methods posted in the previous posts were not directed at you, but to the community as a whole. A lot of people here get a bit lost while investigating the torrential amount of information available in the alternative media.

[Snip]


I´m sorry if I offended you; This isn´t my intention. If you speak a second language, you know how hard it is to translate thoughts to it, while keeping them faithful to your native tongue.

Raf.


Raf,

I am very happy to find out that I have misinterpreted you! I much prefer to be brothers and friends, than brothers who are at odds with one another. And I wish to learn all that I can from you regarding research of web based information, because you have a lot to give in this area, I believe.

So, please forgive me for misinterpreting your intentions. Probably, I was projecting my own weaknesses in the matter. I'm afraid that I do make that kind of mistake, from time to time. Just ask my wife! LOL

I think we can all benefit by sharing with each other what we each have learned about critical thinking skills. And yes, I can relate to the problems of trying to communicate in a second language. The main difference between you and I, in this particular regard, is that you write English a great deal better than I ever learned to write my second language, German.

Now regarding your summary statements:


Anyway, to sum up. I´m not saying that the pyramids don´t exist.

I´m just saying that apart from the source being very suspicious, the information itself is vague and incomplete.

I mean, all the article says is that a small team of explorers (who?) has just announced (when?) that they have indeed found at least two ancient pyramids in Alaska (where in Alaska?); Nothing else.

There´s simply not enough information about the alleged discovery to know if the article is genuine or not. The content of the article, so far, is simply unverifiable.

Anyone could have invented such story, and given the history of the source, this could very well be the case.

I agree with all your above statements. I think you have summarized what we actually know about this report and the problems with assessing it very well.


As far as I understand, it isn´t even possible to discuss such discovery scientifically, because we don´t have any debatable information about it at all.

I do seem to feel that there is more room, at this point, for a scientific approach to the basic question of the reality of the pyramids, than you seem to feel. The issues I raised are mainly procedural and logical, not issues of fact, since, as you pointed out, we don't have the significant facts of the case yet. But, perhaps I've just been splitting procedural hairs here, since you and I seem to be coming to the same conclusions so far. So, I'm not entirely sure now, whether we actually disagree on the procedural issues.

I suppose we will sort that out, as time goes on. In any case, thank you for your considerate response.

Sincerely,
Eugene Earle
(aka lakewatcher)

[LahTera]

That top photo looks like King Mountain. We drove by it every time we went to the homestead. It's said to have caves. I've always wanted to hike up there ... it really does have quite a look to it. Not so sure it's a pyramid, though. Lots and lots of mountains in Alaska and this one is right off the Matanuska River, the headwaters of which contain the Matanuska Glacier, which is right across from our family homestead.