At first i was captivated and convince. Upon further investigation, i realized some claims were a little, "forced." So i decided to do my own.
I am now of the position that there must have been older civilizations on earth. I do not doubt this at all. But the alien aspect of it, i now question.
Just as plausible, or maybe even more plausible, is that humans have been around for so long, that we have achieved a higher understanding of the universe way back when, more so than we do now. This makes fewer assumptions, imo, and explains everything that claims of aliens would. Thus, i put more belief into this line.
But i still do not discredit alien visitation in ancient times, mind you. I jist feel thst a terrestrial species, maybe not human, makes more sense than an extraterrestrial species.
As for cover-ups, do a little diggin with the scientists called egyptologists. They are arrogsntly secretive, and dont "share" their pyramids. For instance, not too long ago there was a shaft found in the great pyramid, so the resesrch team built a robot to go check it out. At the end of the shaft was a door, a small door, with metal dustings on the "floor" of the shaft. After testing, they know there is a chamber on the other side. But the egyptologists closed thst section down before further investigstion could be found, and for several weeks no one was allowed to go into that area of the pyramid. We still dont know if anything was found.
I definately believe in cover ups of ancieng civilization, be it of alien origins or human origins. For some reason mainstream archaeologists do not want to admit thst civilization is much older than they cirrently believe.
Another egyptian example: there has been a lot of erosion testing done on the sphynx. The erosion that is prevalent on it heavily suggests a precipital type of erosion, i.e. rain.
Not sandblasting as the egyptologists clsim. This puts its construction at least back to the last time it had a climate thst produced enough precipitation conducive to such erosion. Thst was at the end of the last ice age, about ten thousand yrs ago. But, egyptologists claim that thir ancestors, the ancient egyptians, built it so it is impossibke to have been built during that time (a few thousand yrs earlier than the firsg ancient egyptian dynasties.) Since they are the only entity that claims authority on these monuments, the mainstream archaeologists go with it, despite the evidence.
Call it pride, call it control, call it whatever you want. They dont wsnt the world to know how old humans have been building civilizations.
Well he argues hyperdiffusionism, and uses evidence such as how we find pyramids throughout the world, but ignores that we can trace the development of each culture's pyramids to find that they were developed independently of each other. Basically, he just takes evidence out of context and uses it as justification. So again, no offence, but he does have a lot of dubious clams that may not be apparent at first glance.
Well, there is actually evidence of the great flood. I think some huge, terribly magnificent natural disaster wiped almost all humans and their traces from the planet, with only the monuments we see today remaining...
Im not too sure about that, honestly. Particularily in ancient times.
But even today, i fear putting my faith in anthropogenic climate change. Mainly because the current arguments tend to omit the role of water vapor, which takes 95% responsibility for earths greenhouse effect.
0.28% of the total greenhouse effect can be said to be contributed by humans. Three quarters of which is carbon dioxide. So we are talking about 0.21% of total greenhouse effect gases that our governments say is about to tip us over the edge?
Why target something so seemingly frivolous as CO2 and omit the massive 95% contribution of water vapor? And why, then, set up carbon credits and exchanges thst then lead to billions of dollars of profit for those who own and regulate the exchsnges? Because we are warming the earth? By contributing 0.28%?
Maybe. Maybe 0.28% is enough. But they better find some good evidence to prove this. The charts they often show thst illustrate the rise in global tempersture vs human industrial activities seem to suggest such a thing, but correlation does not mean causation. Scientifically, they must come up with much more evidence before going full willy with their conclusions and the pursuant legislations and regulations, imo.
Do you have a source that would explain why thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers are wrong, and why a couple of blogs by people working for oil companies are right?
Nice. Discount the points i have suggested and return with the usual argument.
Again, i am still on the fence. I have yet to see one of these thousands of peer reviewed studies that take into acciunt natural and preexisting water vapor. Instead, they conveniently leave that part out, and focus on the 0.28% of global greenhouse gases that humans are supposedly accountable for.
Again, i am on the fence, as i have yet to find out exactly how CO2 contributes so massively despite its much lower presence. Maybe a small amount of CO2 causes certsin cycles to produce more water vapor? I do not know, as i have not looked deep enough, yet, to figure it out.
I speak from a perspective of 2013, the last time i researched this topic. A brief google search came up with a study from miami.edu that said in july of last year (2014) scientists claim they have proven CO2 has had a direct impact on water vapor. But, i struggle to find a verifiable source thst explains how.
So, please, read my posts closely. I never said they were wrong. I only said they need to come up with concrete evidence that suggests beyond a doubt that human made CO2 directly affects our climate, and in doing so, they must address the issue with water vapor and the cooperative actions of both to really be able to convincingly conclude anthropogenic climate change.
Until they do, and have it confirmed by independent scientific peers who are not on the same payroll, i will not be 100% convinced. To add, the suspiciousness of jumping the gun on highly suggestive and seemingly convincing yet innately speculative claims to pass legislation and regulstions thst make for profits for a small group of people (who also, coincidentally, have much influence on these "thousands of peer reviewed studies"). Its suspicious all around. It would be foolish to imbibe this nectar without truely knowing whats in it.
With that said, and my admitting of ignorance, do you, sir, have any sources thst dirdctly explains the relationship between CO2 and increased water vapor that does not depend on correlation/causation fallacies?
Water is a major greenhouse gas too, but its level in the atmosphere depends on temperature. Excess water vapour rains out in days. Excess CO2 accumulates, warming the atmosphere, which raises water vapour levels and causes further warming.
AGW is a pretty obvious scam. The first and most glaring clue should've been in all of the obviously fraudulent and outright false claims that "97% of scientists agree". And then there's the fact that the terminology has gone from "global warming" to "climate change", why is that? Could it be because none of the global warming predictions have come true for two decades and the climate is and has always been changing, thus making this unfalsifiable?
And none of this is even acknowledging the most obvious fact that the Sun is, has been, and always will be by far the most significant factor when it comes to global temperatures.
I am now of the position that there must have been older civilizations on earth. I do not doubt this at all.
Perhaps slightly older, but nowhere near as ancient as I get the feeling you're thinking about.
As for cover-ups, do a little diggin with the scientists called egyptologists. They are arrogsntly secretive, and dont "share" their pyramids. For instance, not too long ago there was a shaft found in the great pyramid, so the resesrch team built a robot to go check it out. At the end of the shaft was a door, a small door, with metal dustings on the "floor" of the shaft. After testing, they know there is a chamber on the other side. But the egyptologists closed thst section down before further investigstion could be found, and for several weeks no one was allowed to go into that area of the pyramid. We still dont know if anything was found.
After a bit of searching, that does not seem to be what happened.
The shafts in the Queen's Chamber were explored in 1992 by the German engineer Rudolf Gantenbrink using a crawler robot he designed, Upuaut 2. After a climb of 65 m (213 ft), he discovered that one of the shafts was blocked by limestone "doors" with two eroded copper "handles". Some years later the National Geographic Society created a similar robot which drilled a small hole in the southern door, only to find another door behind it. The northern passage, which was difficult to navigate because of twists and turns, was also found to be blocked by a door. Research continued in 2011 with the Djedi Project. Realizing the problem was that the National Geographic Society's camera was only able to see straight ahead of it, they instead used a fiber-optic "micro snake camera" that could see around corners. With this they were able to penetrate the first door of the southern shaft through the hole drilled in 2002, and view all the sides of the small chamber behind it. They discovered hieroglyphs written in red paint. They were also able to scrutinize the inside of the two copper "handles" embedded in the door, and they now believe them to be for decorative purposes. They also found the reverse side of the "door" to be finished and polished, which suggests that it was not put there just to block the shaft from debris, but rather for a more specific reason.
I definately believe in cover ups of ancieng civilization, be it of alien origins or human origins. For some reason mainstream archaeologists do not want to admit thst civilization is much older than they cirrently believe.
Can you give an example of something that has been covered up intentionally?
Another egyptian example: there has been a lot of erosion testing done on the sphynx. The erosion that is prevalent on it heavily suggests a precipital type of erosion, i.e. rain.
Actually, the explanation that fits even better is the theory of haloclasty
But, egyptologists claim that thir ancestors, the ancient egyptians, built it so it is impossibke to have been built during that time (a few thousand yrs earlier than the firsg ancient egyptian dynasties.)
Well first of all, not all Egyptologists are Egyptian. Secondly, we actually have a decent amount of evidence that would imply it was built at around the same time of the pyramids (and no, the pyramids were not built 12,000 years ago, despite what Graham Hancock may claim).
Since they are the only entity that claims authority on these monuments, the mainstream archaeologists go with it, despite the evidence.
But that's the thing. There is no evidence of many of these ancient alien claims. Most of them rely on artefacts taken out of context (such as the "Palenque astronaut")
Curious, how much do you know about the controversial character known as Dr. Zahi Hawass? And how much are you aware of his contradicting reports? And about his dictatorial stranglehold on all information that is allowed to come out to the public, as well as whether or not certain findings are allowed to be presented to the public?
There are egyptologists who heavily dislike Hawass for the way he keeps the lid shut tight. There are many reports about scandals involving Hawass as well as the SCA. What is "accepted" as fact concerning the giza plateau is merely what Hawass and the SCA allow to be accepted. Egyptologists have been prosecuted for reporting their findings directly to the public rather than through the authorities which are set up to literally decide what info gets out, and how it gets out.
That halocasty thing, this is the first ive heard of it, so i cant comment on it just yet. Ill have to do some researching on it, but to be honest, at face value, i do not understand how crystalizing degradation of rocks can be mistaken for precipital erosion. There would certsinly be differences, and geologists certainly would be able to tell the difference. Again, ill look into this first before reaching a conclusion.
As for that report about the chamber, when the researchers found that door, the egyptologist that took hawasss position during a brief period where he was removed (like i said, there were scandals), said there was nothing behind it. After a few yrs, in 1996 when Hawass was reinststed, Hawass said it was an interesting find, and they will investigate it and report their findings in september of thst year. It wasnt until september of 2002 (the televised show on nat geo) when they reported that they found another door down the shaft passed thst first door, and thst they will, again, investigste and report their findings soon.
As far as i know, we havent heard of anything since then.
For the rest of the world, we have found monuments built with precision thousands of yesrs before we thought we had civilization. Gobekli Tepe is one example. I feel thst it is foolish to believe thst civilization began in sumer, when we have structures, massive structures, thst were built thousands of years prior. How do we expect hunter gatherers to organize and build these awesome structures? With conventional wisdom and copper chisels, it woukdve taken a long time to do, much longer. This means that the people who built it must have set up shop near the sites, as a nomadic people would have taken much much longer to build these pyramids than what is allowed by currently accepted construction dates.
There must have been very ancient civilizations, imo. And it doesnt take too long for all traces to be wiped out by nsture. Have you ever seen the show called "life after people"? Ten thousand years is more thsn enough time to completrly rid thd earth of all traces of our current civikization, with the exception of massive stone structures and underground facikities. Im talking about cars, wires, skyscrapers, etc.
Add in a mammoth flood, and you can see why i dont take absence of evidence as evidence of absence, as it concerns ancient civilizations.
I understand your position about the aliens, i do. Thsts a tough one, as, like you said, things are taken out of context or highly speculative in nature. Hence my esrlier comment that it coukdve been humans or some other terrestrial species.
Oh, and all this without even considering the ancient texts. If there are billions of people who believe in the abrahamic texts, why is it so farfetched to believe in the predescessor texts of Sumer, which contain the earliest know stories of the very same context believed by so many people? And then consider the rotten cortuption organized religion has influenced through erasure of history and ancient cultures, which, all things considered, altogether suggest a very long, and a very perserverent effort to conceal actual human history in favor of a predetermind storyline condusive to a more pliable populace...
Aliens or no aliens, i dont really care just yet. Although im fascinated with the idea of ancient aliens, i am more concerned with prehistoric human civilization.
What is "accepted" as fact concerning the giza plateau is merely what Hawass and the SCA allow to be accepted.
Well not really actually. Like I said, we have a lot of information that is clearly visible to anyone visiting the plateau, that all but proves the date for the construction of the pyramids was not 12,000 years ago, but actually around the accepted time period. This also makes sense when you account for the evolution of pyramids in Egypt, and the fact that we have direct records about who built the pyramids and why.
As for that report about the chamber, when the researchers found that door, the egyptologist that took hawasss position during a brief period where he was removed (like i said, there were scandals), said there was nothing behind it. After a few yrs, in 1996 when Hawass was reinststed, Hawass said it was an interesting find, and they will investigate it and report their findings in september of thst year. It wasnt until september of 2002 (the televised show on nat geo) when they reported that they found another door down the shaft passed thst first door, and thst they will, again, investigste and report their findings soon. As far as i know, we havent heard of anything since then.
Probably because it's not very easy to drill past all that to get the robot through. And no, they very quickly released the results (in this case that there was a door blocking the shaft). As for the 1996 expedition, that was solely done by National Geographic, and they released the information when they put out the documentary. That's not very surprising. There really is not anywhere near the amount of suppression as you seem to think.
For the rest of the world, we have found monuments built with precision thousands of yesrs before we thought we had civilization. Gobekli Tepe is onethe only example.
FTFY. That's on of the main issues with the super-ancient civilization theory.
How do we expect hunter gatherers to organize and build these awesome structures?
No offence, but you're essentially saying that prehistoric civilizations were not advanced enough to build anything like this, which does not seem to be the case. As for how they organized, the most likely reasons are either religion or their leader.
With conventional wisdom and copper chisels, it woukdve taken a long time to do, much longer. This means that the people who built it must have set up shop near the sites, as a nomadic people would have taken much much longer to build these pyramids than what is allowed by currently accepted construction dates.
Gobekli Tepe is not a pyramid. And as for the construction of Gobekli Tepe, it is without a doubt quite interesting, but far from impossible, especially if they felt there was an important reason to construct it (i.e. religious purposes).
Ten thousand years is more thsn enough time to completrly rid thd earth of all traces of our current civikization, with the exception of massive stone structures and underground facikities. Im talking about cars, wires, skyscrapers, etc.
Actually no, just due to plastics alone degrading extremely slowly. And not only this, but you've proved my point that we'd still have most of our massive structures, which aside from Gobekli Tepe, is not something we've found as of yet from that time period.
There must have been very ancient civilizations, imo.
But we do not have evidence of said civilization, and I might add that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Add in a mammoth flood, and you can see why i dont take absence of evidence as evidence of absence, as it concerns ancient civilizations.
But like I said, not only would the flood not be anywhere near enough to destroy a civilization, but even if it did, we'd still expect to find evidence of this culture, especially considering people like Hancock claim that they are responsible for all the other civilizations afterwards (which is easily disproven).
Oh, and all this without even considering the ancient texts. If there are billions of people who believe in the abrahamic texts, why is it so farfetched to believe in the predescessor texts of Sumer, which contain the earliest know stories of the very same context believed by so many people?
But the Sumerians did not exist 12,000 years ago. And as for similarities with the abrahamaic religions, that doesn't particularly surprise me, since they originated in the same general area. You see similar things when comparing mesoamerican religions (i.e. the Maya and Aztec have fairly similar religions and religious practices, although they are not identical)
And then consider the rotten cortuption organized religion has influenced through erasure of history and ancient cultures, which, all things considered, altogether suggest a very long, and a very perserverent effort to conceal actual human history in favor of a predetermind storyline condusive to a more pliable populace...
This still does not really prove an ancient civilization, it just proves religion is a very powerful tool.
Aliens or no aliens, i dont really care just yet. Although im fascinated with the idea of ancient aliens, i am more concerned with prehistoric human civilization.
It's certainly a fun topic to think about, but we do not really have any evidence of it, which is why among most historians and archaeologists, it's not accepted.
I enjoy it. I think it's entertaining and some great stories are made from the anchient stories. Really fun stuff. Did it go down like that? I don't think anyone can say with certainity one way or the other, with the fog of history clouding everything. But there is alot of evidence of some pretty advanced civies back in the day. Gear works in anchient incan cities long abandoned before the spanish arrive, with no sign, rhyme, or reason as the place seemed to be a perfect fortress strong with resources to substain against a siege, even a gunpowder one, indefinately.
it's amazing man. they found gears, gears that moved a machine that most ppl bet was used for caculations. that means they built a stone computer for all intensive purposes. That's some sharps.
The other guy i as talking to last night was right, i got my wires crossed, and was mixing two tales. spent all night trying to prove to myself i wasn't doing that, then i realized i'm out to prove my theory, not prove the truth, and smh at myself. machu piccu is awesome, and it was more than just a palace, i stand by that. but yeah, the gear works were another culture that was in the same book. either way, anchient machines are awesome, they built some wild things back in the day, so when you hear ppl say, "we have no idea how they built it, so aliens", you'd be surprised just what our ancestors could build, with incredable precision i might add.
I assume you're referring to Machu Picchu? It's without a doubt a very interesting site, but I cannot find a single person mentioning gears works of any sort, nor have I ever heard of this discovery. And as for why it was abandoned, the most likely reason is because it was not really a city, but more likely a royal retreat for the Incan emperors. Also, it was abandoned around the time of the conquest, not long before as you said.
That is some intresting versions of history ya got there. =) but yeah, i suppose it wasn't long long before the spanish showed up, but that's what makes it all the more a mystery. There were alot of ppl in that city, it wasn't some castle on the hill, and you know that. It's hardly some summer retreat, it's a massive city on a mountain. An achievement designed to be able to withstand seige, or else, why make it so self sustaining. As for evidence of the gear works, i suppose i could hit up the old google, as I got the info the 90s, but there were clear pictures of stone and soft metal gears, that most who have seen it and know of these things believe it to be a computation device. It was concidered an oddity, because the americas wern't known so much for thier machine tools, but simple ones.
but yeah, i suppose it wasn't long long before the spanish showed up, but that's what makes it all the more a mystery
It seems that the exact date is somewhere around 1572, which would actually coincide with the end of the conquests.
There were alot of ppl in that city, it wasn't some castle on the hill, and you know that.
Actually, it's pretty small. The maximum population was around 750-1000 people, which fits in decently with the average size of the emperors court. Not only this, but assuming this is the way it was used, then you can account for the extra space being due to there having been the higher classes there, and as such they would warrant such space.
An achievement designed to be able to withstand seige, or else, why make it so self sustaining.
Well by definition anything built there no matter how defended would be able to withstand a siege. The Incas had a habit of building at an altitude. As for the self-sustaining part, that's actually one of the most impressive feats of Inca engineering, their use of terraces along mountainsides, which was their main source of food.
As for evidence of the gear works, i suppose i could hit up the old google, as I got the info the 90s, but there were clear pictures of stone and soft metal gears, that most who have seen it and know of these things believe it to be a computation device.
I get the feeling you might be confusing it with the Antikythera Mechanism. But either way, I'd be interested to know what you find.
I have to go with... Maybe. I strongly believe things today that I'd have thought ridiculous just a couple years ago, so I've come to keep an open mind about such things.
I like this video about the Ancient Aliens series on Youtube. It shows how they basically lie about everything on the show or misconstrue facts to support their "theory"
That's because Darwin forged evidence to fit his theory, and there's alot of it. Start with Haeckel, and that lil rabbit hole leads to a point to prove Darwin was the beginning of what was wrong with science. He set out to prove his theories, not test them.
It's adaptation that Darwin dresses in the guise of evolution. If we define adaptation as a creature's transformation to better suit the enviroment in which it inhabits. Where as evolution suggests that a whole new creature is formed, distinctly diffrent (though perhaps still sharing some) charactrists.
I have yet to see proof of the second. For those that point to animals like the dog, it didn't so much "evolve" as was "selectfully bred".
Darwnism, imo, is wrong, but right at the same time. It depends on what youre looking at.
Micro-evolution: An example woukd be the finches beak on galapagos island. Yes, a species can evolve to change small characteristics of itself to better suite its environment, mostly through natursl selection. I fully believe this.
Macro-evolution: An example is Humans from Apes. Take one species, and have it turn into a completrly, new species. No, i dont exactly follow this as the darwinists put it down. We talk about the missing link of human evokution, but in fsct, there are missing links for every species we know of. Sure, fossil records suggest "transition" species, but its not proven. There is no conclusive evidence of this. Ill admit, it is convincing, but it is not accurate. Its incomplete, at best, and completely wrong at worst. Im on the fence on this aspect of darwinism, tbh.
Macro evolution is just an accumulation of micro evolution changes over time. There really is just 'evolution' - changes in allele frequency over time.
The fossil record, phylogenetic trees and things like endogenous retroviral insertion provide extremely strong evidence - so much that it's not disputed in main biology sciences.
Most grumbles come from unimaginative theists and lay people who think it's too incredible. The universe doesn't have an issue with things being incredible.
i do not believe a structure as complex and capable as our brains supposedly came about by chance 100,000 years ago. so either the 100,000 is way off and we have been this smart for perhaps millions of years. in which case many many cultures must have arisen and collapsed or been destroyed. or we had help, outside help, around 100,000years ago, or my favorite, we are the aliens. but in any case there is huge scope for (and evidence of) pre-existing civilizations. the megalithic structures all over the planet, the pyramids all over the planet... egypt, the middle east in general, south-america, india, south-east asia, even ireland all have great mysteries on display and more to be discovered.
alas we cannot accurately date stone-works. carbon-dating a chicken bone, or some other material from on or near the site proves absolutely nothing and saying it does is an insult to the intelligence of the reader. the dates for all stonework's all over the planet are mostly guesswork. giza i am sure is much much older than we are told. erosion of the great pyramids cannot be judged, since they were covered in (missing) casing stones for we don't-know-how-long, and possibly had gold or another metal over the top of that. and in any case, getting an accurate assessment of rainfall for tomorrow is hard enough, let alone the last 10-20,000years, or more.
i do not believe a structure as complex and capable as our brains supposedly came about by chance 100,000 years ago.
Well it didn't just appear out of nowhere. There's actually a pretty clear trend of the brain's development.
the pyramids all over the planet...
We can trace the development of pyramids in all of these areas, and see that they all happened independently or each other, this makes sense when you consider that for massive structures in ancient times, a pyramid is the easiest structure to produce.
the dates for all stonework's all over the planet are mostly guesswork.
Actually, they are surprisingly accurate. We can use both optical and thermoluminescence dating on these stone works to give us a pretty accurate date.
giza i am sure is much much older than we are told.
Nope, since we have records of who built it, not to mention why it was built, and the fact that it is filled with hieroglyphs saying the same thing.
I believe he is referring to the pharoah who had his scholars scribe down that the pyramid was his, and then the (only) hieroglyphs that were found inside the great pyramid that alluded to that same pharoah, though the ink was found to be of a much more recent date (i.e. fraudulent).
I suspect he will counter these claims by mentioning what the egyptologists say about the matter. Dont get me wrong, i applaud this guys logic, and he makes good points, some of which i am still looking into.
Well we have records of who built each of the pyramids (Khufu, Khafre, etc...) and also why (as tombs, and also as a show of power). Because we know who built them, we can trace the dates of their reign to find out the time they were built. If you want to learn more about the Giza necropolis, this article, and this article are a pretty good start.
The Giza pyramids do contain hieroglyphs that say who was buried in them (Khufu, Khafre and Menkaure), and in doing so also explains who commissioned them (Khufu, Khafre and Menkaure). We also have other records from ancient Egypt that confirm this.
The government wouldn't be able to cover up an ancient advanced human civilisations. They're not omnipotent. Not even close.
Also, it's odd how so many sites that promise faithfully that they've found astounding sites of items, and give a wealth of tantalising details mysteriously lack the ability to post any photos.
But nobody did anything about it. That just goes to show that they don't really need to cover anything up anymore. At least not that well. A lot of statements have been made by politicians about needing a war on US soil. It feels like it's getting pretty close.
That's true, they wouldn't. Plenty of scrabbling to cover their rank incompetency though.
I think the thing about 9/11 is that it amazes me it didn't happen sooner. America has been bullying little countries for decades, and in some cases centuries.
Sooner or later, someone was going to take a pop at the US in their backyard.
I never got the 2 building, three plane argument, since the third building; WTC 7 was hit by a fuckton of debris from the other towers. So it's not like it just magically fell without a single piece of dust touching it.
I would post video or pics of skyscrapers collapsing due to office fire, but it has never, ever happened in the history of the world. Until 9/11, when it "happened" 3 times.
My bad, I din't see that. And you still have not really responded to my point. I'm not trying to argue about 9/11 (since that inevitably becomes a shitstorm), but I'm saying that the 3 buildings, 2 planes argument doesn't really make sense, since it implies building 7 was untouched by the first two impacts, which is absolutely not the case.
Again, you have yet to respond to my original point, but seeing as we're heading this way, I'd point out that none of the buildings fell at freefall speeds. And how else are they supposed to fall? Do you expect them to fall directly on their side, despite the planes hitting the upper floors?
Falling at near-freefall speed can only occur if the structural elements below have been eliminated. I'd wave my master's degree in mechanical engineering in your face, but again: A retarded 6yo could see this.
I've been discussing 9/11 since it happened, and I'll be discussing it long after the current conspiracy theories have been discarded and replaced with others.
I see "You're adorable" a lot from people who dismiss critical thinking talk in threads. A ton on the Gawker sites, but elsewhere too. Is "You're adorable" considered a particularly annoying thing to say?
Not only is calling me a shill inaccurate, since the views I put here are my own and I'm not paid by anyone to express them, but it is also against the rules of this subreddit, so kindly desist from saying it.
Good thing Norad was on a coffee break for those few hours, no? How can anyone believe the "offical story"? Did the air traffic control guy know? was he in on it? no. were the passengers? no. I think it's amazing ppl think it would take so many resources to commit this act. That it would take a huge web of silence. All it takes a is a few ppl in the right places in the pyramid. And when you see who all made money that day, it's alot clear that money talks, while your "i've been debunking since it happened" bullshit walks.
i think if aliens helped build out ancient world our elders would have done a better job at telling us, than writing vague esoteric and cryptic messages. also, why wouldnt the aliens just come back and say "hi need more help??"
Ever consider the book burnings in history? E.g. the burning of the library of alexandria, the erasing of culture of the south americans by the conquistadores, and the crusades of the middle ages whose aim was to wipe out all the pagans and their "blasphemous" cultures?
I sometimes wonder if all of that was actually destroyed or if that was just the convenient cover story to prevent future people from looking for it. Cortez, for example, was working for the Spanish/European aristocracy, is it sensible that he would burn and destroy potentially invaluable ancient texts without keeping any sort of record of them? Would those funding his expeditions have wanted him to do that? Stretches plausibility to me, although of course it's possible.
But I am 100% sure that we would find some very interesting things in the Vatican library...
The point your bring up is valid. And, i have always suspected that secret groups of people (the freemasons come to mind, here, but there are others) could have been charged with the safekeeping of those records. I would presume their value to be so great that wars would be worth waging to keep them a secret, if this meant their control over the People would be maintained.
There are no aliens. There's certainly civilizations that discovered free energy and inevitably collapsed and were shrouded from modern history, but no ETs were involved.
Have you looked into the theories surrounding the end of the last ice age and the Great Flood? (Im not trying to be snarky, im just trying to gauge the span of your research)
Secondly, free energy is all but impossible due to thermodynamics.
Maybe we have a different definition of "free" in regards to this. For instancd, i consider Tesla's work in wireless energy transmission and tapping into the earths ionosphere for a source of power as "free." And with the right development and application, i consider piezoelectricity to be "free" energy. Hell, hydroelectric energy csn be considered "free," if it wasnt made into a lucrative business due to competition with Big Oil.
I get the position of the strict definition of "free," as everything must be ptovided maitenance, and maintenance requires invested man-work-hours, which certainly isnt free. But like i said, with the right applications, i would define "free energy" as one which the only cost is for the labor involved in building and maintaining the infrastructure thereof, unlike oil where we must pay for the infrastructure construction, maintainence, as well as research (investigsting other oil fields for future use) as well as paying for the actual process of extraction and then refinement.
Have you looked into the theories surrounding the end of the last ice age and the Great Flood? (Im not trying to be snarky, im just trying to gauge the span of your research)
Yes, and the flood hypothesis is essentially impossible. In fact, I had a long argument with another user about the flood hypothesis. I can see the end of the ice age being the possible origin of the flood myth, but the actual change in sea level was nowhere near enough to wipe an entire civilization out of existence, and nowhere near biblical proportions (as that would actually require more water than exists on the entire earth in any form).
Maybe we have a different definition of "free" in regards to this. For instancd, i consider Tesla's work in wireless energy transmission and tapping into the earths ionosphere for a source of power as "free."
Well wireless transmission isn't really energy generation (and it also tends to be pretty inefficient compared to non-wireless methods). That's why we often use it for smaller things like phone chargers. As for the ionosphere thing, we still have yet to prove such a thing is even possible, not to mention in his later years, tesla made some pretty outlandish claims (such as his earthquake machine or death ray).
And with the right development and application, i consider piezoelectricity to be "free" energy.
Except that you'd need a ridiculous amount of whatever your source is, since it accumulates very little if any charge, not to mention it still requires energy to be added, thereby making it not free.
Hell, hydroelectric energy csn be considered "free," if it wasnt made into a lucrative business due to competition with Big Oil.
This is about the closest we'll likely ever get to free energy, and despite this, it is still nowhere near free. It's cheap (hence why places like Quebec that generate most of their electricity through hydroelectric power have such low electricity costs), but we'll never find an energy source that is actually free since those tend to involve perpetual motion, which is not physically possible.
I get the position of the strict definition of "free," as everything must be ptovided maitenance, and maintenance requires invested man-work-hours, which certainly isnt free. But like i said, with the right applications, i would define "free energy" as one which the only cost is for the labor involved in building and maintaining the infrastructure thereof, unlike oil where we must pay for the infrastructure construction, maintainence, as well as research (investigsting other oil fields for future use) as well as paying for the actual process of extraction and then refinement.
By that definition, any renewable energy source could be considered free.
Im sure you know his papers were confiscated by the government when he died. Dont you see a connection to that and the "active denial system" thst the military now uses to disperse crowds?
Flood
There are many theories that describe the deluge. I dont buy the melting ice cals, either. However, there was one theory thst suggested a comet had broken up jist before reaching earth (similar to the one thst hit jupiter not too long ago). It broke into about seven different pieces and each chunk fell in different places on earth. (That was the part thst seemed a little off to me). But, a large enough object slamming into just two or three places (the theory claimed seven, which is plausibke, but i dont think its very likely at all) would cast enough water onto the shores to really devastate the human populations. Not to mention the pursuant climate change as a result (which, per this theory, ended the last ice age).
They have some pretty cool things to think about with this theory. For instance, there are sea horses in lake titicaca. But even more interesting to me is (alledgedly) salt lake in utah has a salinity 8 times (IIRC) greater thsn sea wster, and if you fill in the volume of its basin until it overflows, youll have to add 8 times more water to it. Essentislly, if you took all the water out of salt lake and replaced the entire thing with sea water and then let it evaporste over millenia, youll get the same salinity.
I wish i can sound out many other examples, however circumstsntial they may be, butbi just csnt from memory at the moment. The great deluge is one of my favorites...
Im sure you know his papers were confiscated by the government when he died. Dont you see a connection to that and the "active denial system" thst the military now uses to disperse crowds?
No, since they function quite differently. His was claimed to work through "teleforce", and was able to, and I quote:
send concentrated beams of particles through the free air, of such tremendous energy that they will bring down a fleet of 10,000 enemy airplanes at a distance of 200 miles from a defending nation's border and will cause armies to drop dead in their tracks.
So not that similar to the ADS.
However, there was one theory thst suggested a comet had broken up jist before reaching earth (similar to the one thst hit jupiter not too long ago). It broke into about seven different pieces and each chunk fell in different places on earth. (That was the part thst seemed a little off to me). But, a large enough object slamming into just two or three places (the theory claimed seven, which is plausibke, but i dont think its very likely at all) would cast enough water onto the shores to really devastate the human populations.
But again we run into the problem of there not being any evidence of this civilization remaining, and also the side issue of us not finding evidence of this impact, which we should find considering how big it would have to be to produce waves of such a scale.
Not to mention the pursuant climate change as a result (which, per this theory, ended the last ice age).
Well the actual reason for the end of the ice age is that our climate cycles between hot and cold over millions of years.
They have some pretty cool things to think about with this theory. For instance, there are sea horses in lake titicaca. But even more interesting to me is (alledgedly) salt lake in utah has a salinity 8 times (IIRC) greater thsn sea wster, and if you fill in the volume of its basin until it overflows, youll have to add 8 times more water to it. Essentislly, if you took all the water out of salt lake and replaced the entire thing with sea water and then let it evaporste over millenia, youll get the same salinity.
The more likely explanation for both of these is probably plate tectonics, since the shape of the continents has changed over time, so it's entirely possible there was a species of seahorse that was separated, and evolved into a separate species over time.
The great deluge is one of my favorites...
It's cool to imagine, but we really don't have any evidence for it.
There's some force from the earth, the sun and the stars. Monuments, built from rock, and sometimes coated with metal, are placed in strategic and symbolic locations. I don't claim to understand the whole expanse of meaning and science behind it, but there's definitely too many instances of "monoliths" to be ignored or dismissed as equinox alignments.
I'm talking mythology, concealed technology and history, and psychic energy and you want credible websites for reference?!
Yes, this really should not be to much to ask if it has legitimate evidence behind it. Although I was more referring to specific sites/monuments that have this claimed energy and the proof of it.
Guess what? Half the "claims" here are accepted as "truth", without a Wikipedia page to confirm...
That's really not a good reason for me to believe you. If anything, that would make this sub far less trustworthy.
Sigh, you're waiting for academia to confirm anything read here?
I'm waiting for any form of proof whatsoever. I can't believe you're advocating believing things without thinking critically about them, on the sub that claims to be all about critical thinking.
We plebs don't get access to Masters material, regardless of what we pay to read
We have far more than enough information freely available, you just need to know what to look for. This is especially true with scientific or archaeological theories on this sub, that we often have direct evidence against. For example: the moon landing conspiracy, flood hypothesis, geocentrism, flat earth (or skycentrism since there was that user here that posted only about how the earth was apparently a bowl), etc...
I'm not going to discuss this further. Regardless of what information I provided you, (y'know, cuz you've demanded proof, instead of doing what the truly inquisitive do: INDEPENDENT RESEARCH!) you would find a way to refute it. I'm not saying that you're an arrogant, demanding, narrowminded asshole, but you're sure acting like one... Go look for what I need to look for. I'm so stupid, all uncritical with my thoughts and shit...
I'm not going to discuss this further. Regardless of what information I provided you, (y'know, cuz you've demanded proof, instead of doing what the truly inquisitive do: INDEPENDENT RESEARCH!)
It's not that I'm unwilling to research, but at the same time, you can't just hand-wave away any questions with what boils down to "it's not my job to educate you". I expect that even if I search it up myself (which I often do to see what the overall theories are) that you'd still be willing to even so much as try and back up your claims.
you would find a way to refute it
That usually means there is a problem with the information.
I'm not saying that you're an arrogant, demanding, narrowminded asshole, but you're sure acting like one... Go look for what I need to look for. I'm so stupid, all uncritical with my thoughts and shit...
All I asked was for literally any example of a megalithic site that fits your claim and why it fits. That's literally all I asked for. You are getting surprisingly defensive for something that shouldn't take more than 10 seconds to link.
Mostly because I tend to get into long threads about things, kinda like we're doing now (not saying this is bad, just that it's mostly why I end up with so many comments).
No, it's because you come here to argue "logic" in a sub that is about theory. You can't even admit that you're close minded and antagonistic. You think because you're demanding validation of your prejudice without resorting to curse words or direct insults that you're justified. I'm not defensive. I'm just not going to engage with you any further. If this is how you get your internet kicks, I feel sorry for you. I'm here to connect ideas, emotions and experiences with others. I don't have to be correct or upvoted.
How in any way am I being antagonistic for asking for a single thing? To be honest, I originally might not have cared if you'd declined to name place, but still given me a link or something. But the fact that you became so hostile by telling me that it's not your job to explain anything and whatnot, just made this into more of an issue then it normally would have been.
Subtle deflection there, bro. Think any links I provided wouldn't be dismissed as "pseudoscience"? Think if you were generally open-minded, you wouldn't just open another tab and search for yourself? You're not here to explore, you're here to disprove and toe the party line.
Think any links I provided wouldn't be dismissed as "pseudoscience"?
I have no idea how I'd respond to them, because I still have yet to fully understand your claims. And again, I did in fact try to look up what you said, and I could not find anything.
You're not here to explore, you're here to disprove and toe the party line.
I will freely admit to not being a fan of pseudoarchaeological theories, but again, what is so bad about explaining the issues with a theory? Are you claiming that you'd rather stay ignorant?
Right? I mean, it's not like you refuse to back anything up become extremely defensive when people point out the massive holes in your theories... oh wait.
Have fun, w your "facts", buddy.
You really are not helping your argument right now. Seriously, you are acting proud that you don't have facts or evidence for anything. That's really not something to be proud of.
But you would dismiss blogs, alternative sites and non-accredited journals. So what's the damn point? You can read all you want. I'll be feeling Truth.
You're the one who was on the high horse about not responding, not me.
This literally took me 20 seconds to locate
There we go. That's literally all I originally asked for.
But you would dismiss blogs, alternative sites and non-accredited journals.
I don't dismiss those sites immediately (except beforeitsnews, but that is a site I have yet to be proven wrong about). I just tend to find that they are full of half-baked info. Also, quick thing to add, they said Chichen Itza and then the Mayan pyramids, except that El Castillo (what they were likely referring to) is a Mayan pyramid. If you want, I could explain the issues with the link, but I get the feeling you don't as that way you can stay ignorant of actual truth.
I'll be feeling Truth.
Truth isn't something you feel. Truth is something that can actually be backed up with hard evidence.
No, you're talking about truth and facts. I'm talking about Truth. One is recorded, edited and generally accepted as measurable events. The other is perceived and irrefutable, as it relates to the individual and humanity, as a whole. If you cannot understand that something can be felt and understood by many, but still only definable to one's soul, then, yeah, we're speaking of two different terms of defined reality. You can analyze with your brain, but feel w your mind. You can measure the beats of your heart, but how do you define the movements of your soul?
You may look at rocks and see minerals, sediment and glacial movement. But can you feel the stone and listen?
I agree. While I don't think it's impossible that there are aliens from other planets, I think their visitation, if it occurred, probably went unnoticed. Considering the incredibly life-supporting nature of earth, its millions of years of unrecorded history, and near certainty that advanced civilizations have come and gone from its surface, I would say that everything we find on earth is of earthly origin, but not necessarily human. It's less of a stretch to imagine that even other species; e.g., dinosaurs, evolved sufficient intelligence for civilization and intelligence.
Considering the ancient monolithic monuments must have coexisted with an extensive and advanced global civilization at the time, yet all evidence for its existence besides that carved from giant stones cannot be found, it's not that much of a stretch to consider that anything could have existed here and we'd be none the wiser.
I completely disagree with the ancient alien theory, as it doesn't have a single shred of evidence. It's considered pseudoarchaeology for a good reason.
Even then, we actually have evidence that goes directly against the ancient aliens theory, so it's surprisingly not as game changing as you might think.
What if the evidence was an 8 foot tall lizard person that in plain english said, "Hi, I come from Draco, and we've been ruling you for millinia"
Without knowing what the evidence being withheld is, there is no way to know for certain that the evidence in which we are provided, truely does disprove aliens.
Personally, i don't believe in aliens from other planets coming and visiting us. But, to suggest that it's impossible? I can't see any reasoning for that.
What I'm saying is there isn't even an issue of if we're having info hidden from us, since we already have a lot of evidence that directly contradicts the ancient aliens theory, which would imply that there is no "game changing evidence" being hidden from us.
My bad, I din't see that. And you still have not really responded to my point. I'm not trying to argue about 9/11 (since that inevitably becomes a shitstorm), but I'm saying that the 3 buildings, 2 planes argument doesn't really make sense, since it implies building 7 was untouched by the first two impacts, which is absolutely not the case.
Falling at near-freefall speed can only occur if the structural elements below have been eliminated. I'd wave my master's degree in mechanical engineering in your face, but again: A retarded 6yo could see this.
Sigh, you're waiting for academia to confirm anything read here?
I'm waiting for any form of proof whatsoever. I can't believe you're advocating believing things without thinking critically about them, on the sub that claims to be all about critical thinking.
We plebs don't get access to Masters material, regardless of what we pay to read
We have far more than enough information freely available, you just need to know what to look for. This is especially true with scientific or archaeological theories on this sub, that we often have direct evidence against. For example: the moon landing conspiracy, flood hypothesis, geocentrism, flat earth (or skycentrism since there was that user here that posted only about how the earth was apparently a bowl), etc...
I sometimes wonder if all of that was actually destroyed or if that was just the convenient cover story to prevent future people from looking for it. Cortez, for example, was working for the Spanish/European aristocracy, is it sensible that he would burn and destroy potentially invaluable ancient texts without keeping any sort of record of them? Would those funding his expeditions have wanted him to do that? Stretches plausibility to me, although of course it's possible.
But I am 100% sure that we would find some very interesting things in the Vatican library...
Right? I mean, it's not like you refuse to back anything up become extremely defensive when people point out the massive holes in your theories... oh wait.
Have fun, w your "facts", buddy.
You really are not helping your argument right now. Seriously, you are acting proud that you don't have facts or evidence for anything. That's really not something to be proud of.
119 comments
11 strokethekitty 2015-01-20
At first i was captivated and convince. Upon further investigation, i realized some claims were a little, "forced." So i decided to do my own.
I am now of the position that there must have been older civilizations on earth. I do not doubt this at all. But the alien aspect of it, i now question.
Just as plausible, or maybe even more plausible, is that humans have been around for so long, that we have achieved a higher understanding of the universe way back when, more so than we do now. This makes fewer assumptions, imo, and explains everything that claims of aliens would. Thus, i put more belief into this line.
But i still do not discredit alien visitation in ancient times, mind you. I jist feel thst a terrestrial species, maybe not human, makes more sense than an extraterrestrial species.
As for cover-ups, do a little diggin with the scientists called egyptologists. They are arrogsntly secretive, and dont "share" their pyramids. For instance, not too long ago there was a shaft found in the great pyramid, so the resesrch team built a robot to go check it out. At the end of the shaft was a door, a small door, with metal dustings on the "floor" of the shaft. After testing, they know there is a chamber on the other side. But the egyptologists closed thst section down before further investigstion could be found, and for several weeks no one was allowed to go into that area of the pyramid. We still dont know if anything was found.
I definately believe in cover ups of ancieng civilization, be it of alien origins or human origins. For some reason mainstream archaeologists do not want to admit thst civilization is much older than they cirrently believe.
Another egyptian example: there has been a lot of erosion testing done on the sphynx. The erosion that is prevalent on it heavily suggests a precipital type of erosion, i.e. rain.
Not sandblasting as the egyptologists clsim. This puts its construction at least back to the last time it had a climate thst produced enough precipitation conducive to such erosion. Thst was at the end of the last ice age, about ten thousand yrs ago. But, egyptologists claim that thir ancestors, the ancient egyptians, built it so it is impossibke to have been built during that time (a few thousand yrs earlier than the firsg ancient egyptian dynasties.) Since they are the only entity that claims authority on these monuments, the mainstream archaeologists go with it, despite the evidence.
Call it pride, call it control, call it whatever you want. They dont wsnt the world to know how old humans have been building civilizations.
7 Onyyyyy 2015-01-20
If you don't know who Graham Hancock is you should check him out. I think you would enjoy Fingerprints of the Gods.
2 strokethekitty 2015-01-20
Ive actually read it before. Its very interesting! Ive read one other book by hancock. I really like his books..
-1 PersonMcName 2015-01-20
No offence, but Fingerprints of the Gods is full of very dubious claims.
5 Onyyyyy 2015-01-20
No offense taken. I didn't find it full of dubious claims. To each their own.
-1 PersonMcName 2015-01-20
Well he argues hyperdiffusionism, and uses evidence such as how we find pyramids throughout the world, but ignores that we can trace the development of each culture's pyramids to find that they were developed independently of each other. Basically, he just takes evidence out of context and uses it as justification. So again, no offence, but he does have a lot of dubious clams that may not be apparent at first glance.
1 Onyyyyy 2015-01-20
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
2 PersonMcName 2015-01-20
Fair enough.
6 holocauster-ride 2015-01-20
We might start asking awkward questions about how such an advanced society could collapse and if we were on a similar path.
2 strokethekitty 2015-01-20
Well, there is actually evidence of the great flood. I think some huge, terribly magnificent natural disaster wiped almost all humans and their traces from the planet, with only the monuments we see today remaining...
2 holocauster-ride 2015-01-20
I think it was anthropogenic climate change.
1 strokethekitty 2015-01-20
Im not too sure about that, honestly. Particularily in ancient times.
But even today, i fear putting my faith in anthropogenic climate change. Mainly because the current arguments tend to omit the role of water vapor, which takes 95% responsibility for earths greenhouse effect.
0.28% of the total greenhouse effect can be said to be contributed by humans. Three quarters of which is carbon dioxide. So we are talking about 0.21% of total greenhouse effect gases that our governments say is about to tip us over the edge?
Why target something so seemingly frivolous as CO2 and omit the massive 95% contribution of water vapor? And why, then, set up carbon credits and exchanges thst then lead to billions of dollars of profit for those who own and regulate the exchsnges? Because we are warming the earth? By contributing 0.28%?
Maybe. Maybe 0.28% is enough. But they better find some good evidence to prove this. The charts they often show thst illustrate the rise in global tempersture vs human industrial activities seem to suggest such a thing, but correlation does not mean causation. Scientifically, they must come up with much more evidence before going full willy with their conclusions and the pursuant legislations and regulations, imo.
2 holocauster-ride 2015-01-20
Do you have a source that would explain why thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers are wrong, and why a couple of blogs by people working for oil companies are right?
1 strokethekitty 2015-01-20
Nice. Discount the points i have suggested and return with the usual argument.
Again, i am still on the fence. I have yet to see one of these thousands of peer reviewed studies that take into acciunt natural and preexisting water vapor. Instead, they conveniently leave that part out, and focus on the 0.28% of global greenhouse gases that humans are supposedly accountable for.
Again, i am on the fence, as i have yet to find out exactly how CO2 contributes so massively despite its much lower presence. Maybe a small amount of CO2 causes certsin cycles to produce more water vapor? I do not know, as i have not looked deep enough, yet, to figure it out.
I speak from a perspective of 2013, the last time i researched this topic. A brief google search came up with a study from miami.edu that said in july of last year (2014) scientists claim they have proven CO2 has had a direct impact on water vapor. But, i struggle to find a verifiable source thst explains how.
So, please, read my posts closely. I never said they were wrong. I only said they need to come up with concrete evidence that suggests beyond a doubt that human made CO2 directly affects our climate, and in doing so, they must address the issue with water vapor and the cooperative actions of both to really be able to convincingly conclude anthropogenic climate change.
Until they do, and have it confirmed by independent scientific peers who are not on the same payroll, i will not be 100% convinced. To add, the suspiciousness of jumping the gun on highly suggestive and seemingly convincing yet innately speculative claims to pass legislation and regulstions thst make for profits for a small group of people (who also, coincidentally, have much influence on these "thousands of peer reviewed studies"). Its suspicious all around. It would be foolish to imbibe this nectar without truely knowing whats in it.
With that said, and my admitting of ignorance, do you, sir, have any sources thst dirdctly explains the relationship between CO2 and increased water vapor that does not depend on correlation/causation fallacies?
3 holocauster-ride 2015-01-20
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11652-climate-myths-co2-isnt-the-most-important-greenhouse-gas.html#.VL_TzUfF98E
1 Ambiguously_Ironic 2015-01-20
AGW is a pretty obvious scam. The first and most glaring clue should've been in all of the obviously fraudulent and outright false claims that "97% of scientists agree". And then there's the fact that the terminology has gone from "global warming" to "climate change", why is that? Could it be because none of the global warming predictions have come true for two decades and the climate is and has always been changing, thus making this unfalsifiable?
And none of this is even acknowledging the most obvious fact that the Sun is, has been, and always will be by far the most significant factor when it comes to global temperatures.
Check out this .pdf if you haven't seen it before.
1 PersonMcName 2015-01-20
Perhaps slightly older, but nowhere near as ancient as I get the feeling you're thinking about.
After a bit of searching, that does not seem to be what happened.
Can you give an example of something that has been covered up intentionally?
Actually, the explanation that fits even better is the theory of haloclasty
Well first of all, not all Egyptologists are Egyptian. Secondly, we actually have a decent amount of evidence that would imply it was built at around the same time of the pyramids (and no, the pyramids were not built 12,000 years ago, despite what Graham Hancock may claim).
But that's the thing. There is no evidence of many of these ancient alien claims. Most of them rely on artefacts taken out of context (such as the "Palenque astronaut")
1 strokethekitty 2015-01-20
Curious, how much do you know about the controversial character known as Dr. Zahi Hawass? And how much are you aware of his contradicting reports? And about his dictatorial stranglehold on all information that is allowed to come out to the public, as well as whether or not certain findings are allowed to be presented to the public?
There are egyptologists who heavily dislike Hawass for the way he keeps the lid shut tight. There are many reports about scandals involving Hawass as well as the SCA. What is "accepted" as fact concerning the giza plateau is merely what Hawass and the SCA allow to be accepted. Egyptologists have been prosecuted for reporting their findings directly to the public rather than through the authorities which are set up to literally decide what info gets out, and how it gets out.
That halocasty thing, this is the first ive heard of it, so i cant comment on it just yet. Ill have to do some researching on it, but to be honest, at face value, i do not understand how crystalizing degradation of rocks can be mistaken for precipital erosion. There would certsinly be differences, and geologists certainly would be able to tell the difference. Again, ill look into this first before reaching a conclusion.
As for that report about the chamber, when the researchers found that door, the egyptologist that took hawasss position during a brief period where he was removed (like i said, there were scandals), said there was nothing behind it. After a few yrs, in 1996 when Hawass was reinststed, Hawass said it was an interesting find, and they will investigate it and report their findings in september of thst year. It wasnt until september of 2002 (the televised show on nat geo) when they reported that they found another door down the shaft passed thst first door, and thst they will, again, investigste and report their findings soon.
As far as i know, we havent heard of anything since then.
For the rest of the world, we have found monuments built with precision thousands of yesrs before we thought we had civilization. Gobekli Tepe is one example. I feel thst it is foolish to believe thst civilization began in sumer, when we have structures, massive structures, thst were built thousands of years prior. How do we expect hunter gatherers to organize and build these awesome structures? With conventional wisdom and copper chisels, it woukdve taken a long time to do, much longer. This means that the people who built it must have set up shop near the sites, as a nomadic people would have taken much much longer to build these pyramids than what is allowed by currently accepted construction dates.
There must have been very ancient civilizations, imo. And it doesnt take too long for all traces to be wiped out by nsture. Have you ever seen the show called "life after people"? Ten thousand years is more thsn enough time to completrly rid thd earth of all traces of our current civikization, with the exception of massive stone structures and underground facikities. Im talking about cars, wires, skyscrapers, etc.
Add in a mammoth flood, and you can see why i dont take absence of evidence as evidence of absence, as it concerns ancient civilizations.
I understand your position about the aliens, i do. Thsts a tough one, as, like you said, things are taken out of context or highly speculative in nature. Hence my esrlier comment that it coukdve been humans or some other terrestrial species.
Oh, and all this without even considering the ancient texts. If there are billions of people who believe in the abrahamic texts, why is it so farfetched to believe in the predescessor texts of Sumer, which contain the earliest know stories of the very same context believed by so many people? And then consider the rotten cortuption organized religion has influenced through erasure of history and ancient cultures, which, all things considered, altogether suggest a very long, and a very perserverent effort to conceal actual human history in favor of a predetermind storyline condusive to a more pliable populace...
Aliens or no aliens, i dont really care just yet. Although im fascinated with the idea of ancient aliens, i am more concerned with prehistoric human civilization.
1 PersonMcName 2015-01-20
Well not really actually. Like I said, we have a lot of information that is clearly visible to anyone visiting the plateau, that all but proves the date for the construction of the pyramids was not 12,000 years ago, but actually around the accepted time period. This also makes sense when you account for the evolution of pyramids in Egypt, and the fact that we have direct records about who built the pyramids and why.
Probably because it's not very easy to drill past all that to get the robot through. And no, they very quickly released the results (in this case that there was a door blocking the shaft). As for the 1996 expedition, that was solely done by National Geographic, and they released the information when they put out the documentary. That's not very surprising. There really is not anywhere near the amount of suppression as you seem to think.
FTFY. That's on of the main issues with the super-ancient civilization theory.
No offence, but you're essentially saying that prehistoric civilizations were not advanced enough to build anything like this, which does not seem to be the case. As for how they organized, the most likely reasons are either religion or their leader.
Gobekli Tepe is not a pyramid. And as for the construction of Gobekli Tepe, it is without a doubt quite interesting, but far from impossible, especially if they felt there was an important reason to construct it (i.e. religious purposes).
Actually no, just due to plastics alone degrading extremely slowly. And not only this, but you've proved my point that we'd still have most of our massive structures, which aside from Gobekli Tepe, is not something we've found as of yet from that time period.
But we do not have evidence of said civilization, and I might add that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
But like I said, not only would the flood not be anywhere near enough to destroy a civilization, but even if it did, we'd still expect to find evidence of this culture, especially considering people like Hancock claim that they are responsible for all the other civilizations afterwards (which is easily disproven).
But the Sumerians did not exist 12,000 years ago. And as for similarities with the abrahamaic religions, that doesn't particularly surprise me, since they originated in the same general area. You see similar things when comparing mesoamerican religions (i.e. the Maya and Aztec have fairly similar religions and religious practices, although they are not identical)
This still does not really prove an ancient civilization, it just proves religion is a very powerful tool.
It's certainly a fun topic to think about, but we do not really have any evidence of it, which is why among most historians and archaeologists, it's not accepted.
6 last1ofthejedi 2015-01-20
I enjoy it. I think it's entertaining and some great stories are made from the anchient stories. Really fun stuff. Did it go down like that? I don't think anyone can say with certainity one way or the other, with the fog of history clouding everything. But there is alot of evidence of some pretty advanced civies back in the day. Gear works in anchient incan cities long abandoned before the spanish arrive, with no sign, rhyme, or reason as the place seemed to be a perfect fortress strong with resources to substain against a siege, even a gunpowder one, indefinately.
2 strokethekitty 2015-01-20
Whats this place called?
7 last1ofthejedi 2015-01-20
Machu Pichu. The name also gives you an excellent minecraft file if you're into that kinda thing.
1 strokethekitty 2015-01-20
Oh, i know that place. Although its one of the ones i have invested less time in, honestly.
3 last1ofthejedi 2015-01-20
it's amazing man. they found gears, gears that moved a machine that most ppl bet was used for caculations. that means they built a stone computer for all intensive purposes. That's some sharps.
6 l2izwan 2015-01-20
Sorry but just had to correct...all intents and purposes*
2 last1ofthejedi 2015-01-20
don't apologize, i need all the help i can get when it comes to articulating my thoughts. =)
1 redditeditard 2015-01-20
WORD NERDS UNITE!
highfives
1 ThisNewName 2015-01-20
Can I get a link? Sounds interesting
1 last1ofthejedi 2015-01-20
The other guy i as talking to last night was right, i got my wires crossed, and was mixing two tales. spent all night trying to prove to myself i wasn't doing that, then i realized i'm out to prove my theory, not prove the truth, and smh at myself. machu piccu is awesome, and it was more than just a palace, i stand by that. but yeah, the gear works were another culture that was in the same book. either way, anchient machines are awesome, they built some wild things back in the day, so when you hear ppl say, "we have no idea how they built it, so aliens", you'd be surprised just what our ancestors could build, with incredable precision i might add.
0 PersonMcName 2015-01-20
I assume you're referring to Machu Picchu? It's without a doubt a very interesting site, but I cannot find a single person mentioning gears works of any sort, nor have I ever heard of this discovery. And as for why it was abandoned, the most likely reason is because it was not really a city, but more likely a royal retreat for the Incan emperors. Also, it was abandoned around the time of the conquest, not long before as you said.
2 last1ofthejedi 2015-01-20
That is some intresting versions of history ya got there. =) but yeah, i suppose it wasn't long long before the spanish showed up, but that's what makes it all the more a mystery. There were alot of ppl in that city, it wasn't some castle on the hill, and you know that. It's hardly some summer retreat, it's a massive city on a mountain. An achievement designed to be able to withstand seige, or else, why make it so self sustaining. As for evidence of the gear works, i suppose i could hit up the old google, as I got the info the 90s, but there were clear pictures of stone and soft metal gears, that most who have seen it and know of these things believe it to be a computation device. It was concidered an oddity, because the americas wern't known so much for thier machine tools, but simple ones.
2 PersonMcName 2015-01-20
It seems that the exact date is somewhere around 1572, which would actually coincide with the end of the conquests.
Actually, it's pretty small. The maximum population was around 750-1000 people, which fits in decently with the average size of the emperors court. Not only this, but assuming this is the way it was used, then you can account for the extra space being due to there having been the higher classes there, and as such they would warrant such space.
Well by definition anything built there no matter how defended would be able to withstand a siege. The Incas had a habit of building at an altitude. As for the self-sustaining part, that's actually one of the most impressive feats of Inca engineering, their use of terraces along mountainsides, which was their main source of food.
I get the feeling you might be confusing it with the Antikythera Mechanism. But either way, I'd be interested to know what you find.
5 [deleted] 2015-01-20
The universe is old, and a lot of it much older than our piece of it.
5 LetsHackReality 2015-01-20
I have to go with... Maybe. I strongly believe things today that I'd have thought ridiculous just a couple years ago, so I've come to keep an open mind about such things.
4 Flatwoods 2015-01-20
Ancient Alien theory is inherently prejudiced against earlier peoples and inherently dismissive of their achievements.
2 currentlylurking-brb 2015-01-20
I like this video about the Ancient Aliens series on Youtube. It shows how they basically lie about everything on the show or misconstrue facts to support their "theory"
1 Poiluv 2015-01-20
Plausible but unlikely.
1 anarchopotato 2015-01-20
its either that or creationism.
i believe in evolution but the man from apes story's timeline doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
1 last1ofthejedi 2015-01-20
That's because Darwin forged evidence to fit his theory, and there's alot of it. Start with Haeckel, and that lil rabbit hole leads to a point to prove Darwin was the beginning of what was wrong with science. He set out to prove his theories, not test them.
It's adaptation that Darwin dresses in the guise of evolution. If we define adaptation as a creature's transformation to better suit the enviroment in which it inhabits. Where as evolution suggests that a whole new creature is formed, distinctly diffrent (though perhaps still sharing some) charactrists.
I have yet to see proof of the second. For those that point to animals like the dog, it didn't so much "evolve" as was "selectfully bred".
1 strokethekitty 2015-01-20
Darwnism, imo, is wrong, but right at the same time. It depends on what youre looking at.
Micro-evolution: An example woukd be the finches beak on galapagos island. Yes, a species can evolve to change small characteristics of itself to better suite its environment, mostly through natursl selection. I fully believe this.
Macro-evolution: An example is Humans from Apes. Take one species, and have it turn into a completrly, new species. No, i dont exactly follow this as the darwinists put it down. We talk about the missing link of human evokution, but in fsct, there are missing links for every species we know of. Sure, fossil records suggest "transition" species, but its not proven. There is no conclusive evidence of this. Ill admit, it is convincing, but it is not accurate. Its incomplete, at best, and completely wrong at worst. Im on the fence on this aspect of darwinism, tbh.
2 nitsuj 2015-01-20
Macro evolution is just an accumulation of micro evolution changes over time. There really is just 'evolution' - changes in allele frequency over time.
The fossil record, phylogenetic trees and things like endogenous retroviral insertion provide extremely strong evidence - so much that it's not disputed in main biology sciences.
Most grumbles come from unimaginative theists and lay people who think it's too incredible. The universe doesn't have an issue with things being incredible.
1 Qwertyact 2015-01-20
I don't know what we gain by thinking that far out of the box without hard evidence.
But the secret government people would sure love you to be thinking about aliens instead of them.
1 DronePuppet 2015-01-20
We are not alone and if others make you think that, they need more education!
1 panemetkirkinses 2015-01-20
i do not believe a structure as complex and capable as our brains supposedly came about by chance 100,000 years ago. so either the 100,000 is way off and we have been this smart for perhaps millions of years. in which case many many cultures must have arisen and collapsed or been destroyed. or we had help, outside help, around 100,000years ago, or my favorite, we are the aliens. but in any case there is huge scope for (and evidence of) pre-existing civilizations. the megalithic structures all over the planet, the pyramids all over the planet... egypt, the middle east in general, south-america, india, south-east asia, even ireland all have great mysteries on display and more to be discovered.
alas we cannot accurately date stone-works. carbon-dating a chicken bone, or some other material from on or near the site proves absolutely nothing and saying it does is an insult to the intelligence of the reader. the dates for all stonework's all over the planet are mostly guesswork. giza i am sure is much much older than we are told. erosion of the great pyramids cannot be judged, since they were covered in (missing) casing stones for we don't-know-how-long, and possibly had gold or another metal over the top of that. and in any case, getting an accurate assessment of rainfall for tomorrow is hard enough, let alone the last 10-20,000years, or more.
-2 PersonMcName 2015-01-20
Well it didn't just appear out of nowhere. There's actually a pretty clear trend of the brain's development.
We can trace the development of pyramids in all of these areas, and see that they all happened independently or each other, this makes sense when you consider that for massive structures in ancient times, a pyramid is the easiest structure to produce.
Actually, they are surprisingly accurate. We can use both optical and thermoluminescence dating on these stone works to give us a pretty accurate date.
Nope, since we have records of who built it, not to mention why it was built, and the fact that it is filled with hieroglyphs saying the same thing.
3 thickbanana 2015-01-20
That is interesting. Do you have a link I could read up on?
1 strokethekitty 2015-01-20
I believe he is referring to the pharoah who had his scholars scribe down that the pyramid was his, and then the (only) hieroglyphs that were found inside the great pyramid that alluded to that same pharoah, though the ink was found to be of a much more recent date (i.e. fraudulent).
I suspect he will counter these claims by mentioning what the egyptologists say about the matter. Dont get me wrong, i applaud this guys logic, and he makes good points, some of which i am still looking into.
1 PersonMcName 2015-01-20
Well we have records of who built each of the pyramids (Khufu, Khafre, etc...) and also why (as tombs, and also as a show of power). Because we know who built them, we can trace the dates of their reign to find out the time they were built. If you want to learn more about the Giza necropolis, this article, and this article are a pretty good start.
1 thickbanana 2015-01-20
Haven't read those articles yet, but I was mostly interested in
Maybe you would answer that with information within one of the articles.
1 PersonMcName 2015-01-20
The Giza pyramids do contain hieroglyphs that say who was buried in them (Khufu, Khafre and Menkaure), and in doing so also explains who commissioned them (Khufu, Khafre and Menkaure). We also have other records from ancient Egypt that confirm this.
0 ct_warlock 2015-01-20
The government wouldn't be able to cover up an ancient advanced human civilisations. They're not omnipotent. Not even close.
Also, it's odd how so many sites that promise faithfully that they've found astounding sites of items, and give a wealth of tantalising details mysteriously lack the ability to post any photos.
4 LetsHackReality 2015-01-20
The government wouldn't be able to cover up
an ancient advanced human civilisations9/11. They're not omnipotent. Not even close.1 ih8peoplemorethanyou 2015-01-20
But nobody did anything about it. That just goes to show that they don't really need to cover anything up anymore. At least not that well. A lot of statements have been made by politicians about needing a war on US soil. It feels like it's getting pretty close.
-3 ct_warlock 2015-01-20
That's true, they wouldn't. Plenty of scrabbling to cover their rank incompetency though.
I think the thing about 9/11 is that it amazes me it didn't happen sooner. America has been bullying little countries for decades, and in some cases centuries.
Sooner or later, someone was going to take a pop at the US in their backyard.
3 LetsHackReality 2015-01-20
Really dude? You think 2 planes knocked down 3 buildings? To paraphrase Joe Rogan, a retarded 6yo could see through that story.
0 PersonMcName 2015-01-20
I never got the 2 building, three plane argument, since the third building; WTC 7 was hit by a fuckton of debris from the other towers. So it's not like it just magically fell without a single piece of dust touching it.
3 LetsHackReality 2015-01-20
That's 3 buildings, 2 planes.
See the difference?
Here's a compilation of successful controlled demolitions
pics of what engulfing office fires can do to a skyscraper -- hint: no symmetric collapse
I would post video or pics of skyscrapers collapsing due to office fire, but it has never, ever happened in the history of the world. Until 9/11, when it "happened" 3 times.
A retarded 6yo could tell. Can you?
-2 PersonMcName 2015-01-20
My bad, I din't see that. And you still have not really responded to my point. I'm not trying to argue about 9/11 (since that inevitably becomes a shitstorm), but I'm saying that the 3 buildings, 2 planes argument doesn't really make sense, since it implies building 7 was untouched by the first two impacts, which is absolutely not the case.
2 LetsHackReality 2015-01-20
It was hit by debris and there were office fires so therefore it collapsed symmetrically into its own footprint at freefall speed, much like WTC1 & 2.
lolwut??
1 PersonMcName 2015-01-20
Again, you have yet to respond to my original point, but seeing as we're heading this way, I'd point out that none of the buildings fell at freefall speeds. And how else are they supposed to fall? Do you expect them to fall directly on their side, despite the planes hitting the upper floors?
1 LetsHackReality 2015-01-20
How?
Falling at near-freefall speed can only occur if the structural elements below have been eliminated. I'd wave my master's degree in mechanical engineering in your face, but again: A retarded 6yo could see this.
-7 ct_warlock 2015-01-20
I've been discussing 9/11 since it happened, and I'll be discussing it long after the current conspiracy theories have been discarded and replaced with others.
5 LetsHackReality 2015-01-20
Take a break from discussing, and take an afternoon to research it. That is, if your traitorous bosses will give you a break from your shill job.
-4 ct_warlock 2015-01-20
You're adorable. I've probably researched as much about it as any 9/11 truther after all this time.
The rest of your comment is too laughable for words.
3 LetsHackReality 2015-01-20
Good luck in court.
0 ct_warlock 2015-01-20
Would this be the court you'll have "after the revolution comes"?
2 LetsHackReality 2015-01-20
Yes.
1 ct_warlock 2015-01-20
I wouldn't hold your breath.
2 IanPhlegming 2015-01-20
I see "You're adorable" a lot from people who dismiss critical thinking talk in threads. A ton on the Gawker sites, but elsewhere too. Is "You're adorable" considered a particularly annoying thing to say?
If so: "You're adorable, shill."
0 ct_warlock 2015-01-20
Not only is calling me a shill inaccurate, since the views I put here are my own and I'm not paid by anyone to express them, but it is also against the rules of this subreddit, so kindly desist from saying it.
5 last1ofthejedi 2015-01-20
Good thing Norad was on a coffee break for those few hours, no? How can anyone believe the "offical story"? Did the air traffic control guy know? was he in on it? no. were the passengers? no. I think it's amazing ppl think it would take so many resources to commit this act. That it would take a huge web of silence. All it takes a is a few ppl in the right places in the pyramid. And when you see who all made money that day, it's alot clear that money talks, while your "i've been debunking since it happened" bullshit walks.
0 zyklonbeast 2015-01-20
i think if aliens helped build out ancient world our elders would have done a better job at telling us, than writing vague esoteric and cryptic messages. also, why wouldnt the aliens just come back and say "hi need more help??"
4 strokethekitty 2015-01-20
Ever consider the book burnings in history? E.g. the burning of the library of alexandria, the erasing of culture of the south americans by the conquistadores, and the crusades of the middle ages whose aim was to wipe out all the pagans and their "blasphemous" cultures?
Just one book could have changed everything.
2 Ambiguously_Ironic 2015-01-20
I sometimes wonder if all of that was actually destroyed or if that was just the convenient cover story to prevent future people from looking for it. Cortez, for example, was working for the Spanish/European aristocracy, is it sensible that he would burn and destroy potentially invaluable ancient texts without keeping any sort of record of them? Would those funding his expeditions have wanted him to do that? Stretches plausibility to me, although of course it's possible.
But I am 100% sure that we would find some very interesting things in the Vatican library...
1 strokethekitty 2015-01-20
The point your bring up is valid. And, i have always suspected that secret groups of people (the freemasons come to mind, here, but there are others) could have been charged with the safekeeping of those records. I would presume their value to be so great that wars would be worth waging to keep them a secret, if this meant their control over the People would be maintained.
0 Just_us_trees_here 2015-01-20
Seems a little silly to me
-2 redditeditard 2015-01-20
There are no aliens. There's certainly civilizations that discovered free energy and inevitably collapsed and were shrouded from modern history, but no ETs were involved.
2 PersonMcName 2015-01-20
First of all, why would these civilizations have collapsed. Secondly, free energy is all but impossible due to thermodynamics.
2 strokethekitty 2015-01-20
Have you looked into the theories surrounding the end of the last ice age and the Great Flood? (Im not trying to be snarky, im just trying to gauge the span of your research)
Maybe we have a different definition of "free" in regards to this. For instancd, i consider Tesla's work in wireless energy transmission and tapping into the earths ionosphere for a source of power as "free." And with the right development and application, i consider piezoelectricity to be "free" energy. Hell, hydroelectric energy csn be considered "free," if it wasnt made into a lucrative business due to competition with Big Oil.
I get the position of the strict definition of "free," as everything must be ptovided maitenance, and maintenance requires invested man-work-hours, which certainly isnt free. But like i said, with the right applications, i would define "free energy" as one which the only cost is for the labor involved in building and maintaining the infrastructure thereof, unlike oil where we must pay for the infrastructure construction, maintainence, as well as research (investigsting other oil fields for future use) as well as paying for the actual process of extraction and then refinement.
(...Does that make sense?)
2 PersonMcName 2015-01-20
Yes, and the flood hypothesis is essentially impossible. In fact, I had a long argument with another user about the flood hypothesis. I can see the end of the ice age being the possible origin of the flood myth, but the actual change in sea level was nowhere near enough to wipe an entire civilization out of existence, and nowhere near biblical proportions (as that would actually require more water than exists on the entire earth in any form).
Well wireless transmission isn't really energy generation (and it also tends to be pretty inefficient compared to non-wireless methods). That's why we often use it for smaller things like phone chargers. As for the ionosphere thing, we still have yet to prove such a thing is even possible, not to mention in his later years, tesla made some pretty outlandish claims (such as his earthquake machine or death ray).
Except that you'd need a ridiculous amount of whatever your source is, since it accumulates very little if any charge, not to mention it still requires energy to be added, thereby making it not free.
This is about the closest we'll likely ever get to free energy, and despite this, it is still nowhere near free. It's cheap (hence why places like Quebec that generate most of their electricity through hydroelectric power have such low electricity costs), but we'll never find an energy source that is actually free since those tend to involve perpetual motion, which is not physically possible.
By that definition, any renewable energy source could be considered free.
1 strokethekitty 2015-01-20
Im sure you know his papers were confiscated by the government when he died. Dont you see a connection to that and the "active denial system" thst the military now uses to disperse crowds?
There are many theories that describe the deluge. I dont buy the melting ice cals, either. However, there was one theory thst suggested a comet had broken up jist before reaching earth (similar to the one thst hit jupiter not too long ago). It broke into about seven different pieces and each chunk fell in different places on earth. (That was the part thst seemed a little off to me). But, a large enough object slamming into just two or three places (the theory claimed seven, which is plausibke, but i dont think its very likely at all) would cast enough water onto the shores to really devastate the human populations. Not to mention the pursuant climate change as a result (which, per this theory, ended the last ice age).
They have some pretty cool things to think about with this theory. For instance, there are sea horses in lake titicaca. But even more interesting to me is (alledgedly) salt lake in utah has a salinity 8 times (IIRC) greater thsn sea wster, and if you fill in the volume of its basin until it overflows, youll have to add 8 times more water to it. Essentislly, if you took all the water out of salt lake and replaced the entire thing with sea water and then let it evaporste over millenia, youll get the same salinity.
I wish i can sound out many other examples, however circumstsntial they may be, butbi just csnt from memory at the moment. The great deluge is one of my favorites...
1 PersonMcName 2015-01-20
No, since they function quite differently. His was claimed to work through "teleforce", and was able to, and I quote:
So not that similar to the ADS.
But again we run into the problem of there not being any evidence of this civilization remaining, and also the side issue of us not finding evidence of this impact, which we should find considering how big it would have to be to produce waves of such a scale.
Well the actual reason for the end of the ice age is that our climate cycles between hot and cold over millions of years.
The more likely explanation for both of these is probably plate tectonics, since the shape of the continents has changed over time, so it's entirely possible there was a species of seahorse that was separated, and evolved into a separate species over time.
It's cool to imagine, but we really don't have any evidence for it.
1 redditeditard 2015-01-20
Something something pyramids.
1 PersonMcName 2015-01-20
Could you explain?
1 redditeditard 2015-01-20
There's some force from the earth, the sun and the stars. Monuments, built from rock, and sometimes coated with metal, are placed in strategic and symbolic locations. I don't claim to understand the whole expanse of meaning and science behind it, but there's definitely too many instances of "monoliths" to be ignored or dismissed as equinox alignments.
1 redditeditard 2015-01-20
Not these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monolith_(Space_Odyssey) ;)
Humans build/carve them.
1 PersonMcName 2015-01-20
You're technically correct, since the force is gravity. But I assume you're referring to an actual energy, in which case, no, that's not a thing.
Such as what? Could you give an example?
1 redditeditard 2015-01-20
Fuck no. Go look for yourself. Despite not being the OP, you're "debunking" hella comments in this thread.
Are you open-minded, or do you just like to feel "correct"?
1 PersonMcName 2015-01-20
Nice to know you refuse to even consider defending your claims. And I actually did search it up, and found nothing, which is why I'm asking you.
Yes. Because there are a lot of unfounded claims being made.
I just don't like pseudoarchaeological claims being passed off as legitimate (i.e. claims by people like Graham Hancock or Erich Von Daniken)
1 redditeditard 2015-01-20
I'm talking mythology, concealed technology and history, and psychic energy and you want credible websites for reference?!
Guess what? Half the "claims" here are accepted as "truth", without a Wikipedia page to confirm...
1 PersonMcName 2015-01-20
Yes, this really should not be to much to ask if it has legitimate evidence behind it. Although I was more referring to specific sites/monuments that have this claimed energy and the proof of it.
That's really not a good reason for me to believe you. If anything, that would make this sub far less trustworthy.
1 redditeditard 2015-01-20
Sigh, you're waiting for academia to confirm anything read here? We plebs don't get access to Masters material, regardless of what we pay to read
0 PersonMcName 2015-01-20
I'm waiting for any form of proof whatsoever. I can't believe you're advocating believing things without thinking critically about them, on the sub that claims to be all about critical thinking.
We have far more than enough information freely available, you just need to know what to look for. This is especially true with scientific or archaeological theories on this sub, that we often have direct evidence against. For example: the moon landing conspiracy, flood hypothesis, geocentrism, flat earth (or skycentrism since there was that user here that posted only about how the earth was apparently a bowl), etc...
1 redditeditard 2015-01-20
I'm not going to discuss this further. Regardless of what information I provided you, (y'know, cuz you've demanded proof, instead of doing what the truly inquisitive do: INDEPENDENT RESEARCH!) you would find a way to refute it. I'm not saying that you're an arrogant, demanding, narrowminded asshole, but you're sure acting like one... Go look for what I need to look for. I'm so stupid, all uncritical with my thoughts and shit...
0 PersonMcName 2015-01-20
It's not that I'm unwilling to research, but at the same time, you can't just hand-wave away any questions with what boils down to "it's not my job to educate you". I expect that even if I search it up myself (which I often do to see what the overall theories are) that you'd still be willing to even so much as try and back up your claims.
That usually means there is a problem with the information.
All I asked was for literally any example of a megalithic site that fits your claim and why it fits. That's literally all I asked for. You are getting surprisingly defensive for something that shouldn't take more than 10 seconds to link.
1 redditeditard 2015-01-20
You've commented one fourth of the comments in this thread.
2 PersonMcName 2015-01-20
Mostly because I tend to get into long threads about things, kinda like we're doing now (not saying this is bad, just that it's mostly why I end up with so many comments).
0 redditeditard 2015-01-20
No, it's because you come here to argue "logic" in a sub that is about theory. You can't even admit that you're close minded and antagonistic. You think because you're demanding validation of your prejudice without resorting to curse words or direct insults that you're justified. I'm not defensive. I'm just not going to engage with you any further. If this is how you get your internet kicks, I feel sorry for you. I'm here to connect ideas, emotions and experiences with others. I don't have to be correct or upvoted.
2 PersonMcName 2015-01-20
How in any way am I being antagonistic for asking for a single thing? To be honest, I originally might not have cared if you'd declined to name place, but still given me a link or something. But the fact that you became so hostile by telling me that it's not your job to explain anything and whatnot, just made this into more of an issue then it normally would have been.
1 redditeditard 2015-01-20
Subtle deflection there, bro. Think any links I provided wouldn't be dismissed as "pseudoscience"? Think if you were generally open-minded, you wouldn't just open another tab and search for yourself? You're not here to explore, you're here to disprove and toe the party line.
2 PersonMcName 2015-01-20
I have no idea how I'd respond to them, because I still have yet to fully understand your claims. And again, I did in fact try to look up what you said, and I could not find anything.
I will freely admit to not being a fan of pseudoarchaeological theories, but again, what is so bad about explaining the issues with a theory? Are you claiming that you'd rather stay ignorant?
1 redditeditard 2015-01-20
Ignorant?! Ha! Have fun, w your "facts", buddy.
1 PersonMcName 2015-01-20
Right? I mean, it's not like you refuse to back anything up become extremely defensive when people point out the massive holes in your theories... oh wait.
You really are not helping your argument right now. Seriously, you are acting proud that you don't have facts or evidence for anything. That's really not something to be proud of.
1 redditeditard 2015-01-20
No, I've been baiting you to display all your tactics.
1 PersonMcName 2015-01-20
What tactics? All you've done is act hostile the second I so much as asked for clarification.
1 redditeditard 2015-01-20
Nope, I've been hostile since:
1 PersonMcName 2015-01-20
That was honestly not trying to be hostile. And I might add that
Is pretty hostile.
1 redditeditard 2015-01-20
Boo hoo. Go away, dude. It's been days. And I don't think you've looked yet. This literally took me 20 seconds to locate :http://theawakenedstate.tumblr.com/post/92244807250/hey-can-you-explain-the-different-energies-of-the
But you would dismiss blogs, alternative sites and non-accredited journals. So what's the damn point? You can read all you want. I'll be feeling Truth.
1 PersonMcName 2015-01-20
You're the one who was on the high horse about not responding, not me.
There we go. That's literally all I originally asked for.
I don't dismiss those sites immediately (except beforeitsnews, but that is a site I have yet to be proven wrong about). I just tend to find that they are full of half-baked info. Also, quick thing to add, they said Chichen Itza and then the Mayan pyramids, except that El Castillo (what they were likely referring to) is a Mayan pyramid. If you want, I could explain the issues with the link, but I get the feeling you don't as that way you can stay ignorant of actual truth.
Truth isn't something you feel. Truth is something that can actually be backed up with hard evidence.
1 redditeditard 2015-01-20
No, you're talking about truth and facts. I'm talking about Truth. One is recorded, edited and generally accepted as measurable events. The other is perceived and irrefutable, as it relates to the individual and humanity, as a whole. If you cannot understand that something can be felt and understood by many, but still only definable to one's soul, then, yeah, we're speaking of two different terms of defined reality. You can analyze with your brain, but feel w your mind. You can measure the beats of your heart, but how do you define the movements of your soul?
You may look at rocks and see minerals, sediment and glacial movement. But can you feel the stone and listen?
1 PersonMcName 2015-01-20
No offence, but that just sounded like a ton of new age bullshit.
1 redditeditard 2015-01-20
System of a Down-Science Lyrics: http://youtu.be/B5NUiY_WASM
0 PersonMcName 2015-01-20
A song by "System of a Down" is not actually a source.
1 Irradiance 2015-01-20
I agree. While I don't think it's impossible that there are aliens from other planets, I think their visitation, if it occurred, probably went unnoticed. Considering the incredibly life-supporting nature of earth, its millions of years of unrecorded history, and near certainty that advanced civilizations have come and gone from its surface, I would say that everything we find on earth is of earthly origin, but not necessarily human. It's less of a stretch to imagine that even other species; e.g., dinosaurs, evolved sufficient intelligence for civilization and intelligence.
Considering the ancient monolithic monuments must have coexisted with an extensive and advanced global civilization at the time, yet all evidence for its existence besides that carved from giant stones cannot be found, it's not that much of a stretch to consider that anything could have existed here and we'd be none the wiser.
-2 PersonMcName 2015-01-20
I completely disagree with the ancient alien theory, as it doesn't have a single shred of evidence. It's considered pseudoarchaeology for a good reason.
3 last1ofthejedi 2015-01-20
What if there is evidence, but ppl like you or me don't get to see it?
0 PersonMcName 2015-01-20
Even then, we actually have evidence that goes directly against the ancient aliens theory, so it's surprisingly not as game changing as you might think.
3 last1ofthejedi 2015-01-20
How can you suggest that?
What if the evidence was an 8 foot tall lizard person that in plain english said, "Hi, I come from Draco, and we've been ruling you for millinia"
Without knowing what the evidence being withheld is, there is no way to know for certain that the evidence in which we are provided, truely does disprove aliens.
Personally, i don't believe in aliens from other planets coming and visiting us. But, to suggest that it's impossible? I can't see any reasoning for that.
0 PersonMcName 2015-01-20
What I'm saying is there isn't even an issue of if we're having info hidden from us, since we already have a lot of evidence that directly contradicts the ancient aliens theory, which would imply that there is no "game changing evidence" being hidden from us.
1 strokethekitty 2015-01-20
Oh, i know that place. Although its one of the ones i have invested less time in, honestly.
-2 PersonMcName 2015-01-20
My bad, I din't see that. And you still have not really responded to my point. I'm not trying to argue about 9/11 (since that inevitably becomes a shitstorm), but I'm saying that the 3 buildings, 2 planes argument doesn't really make sense, since it implies building 7 was untouched by the first two impacts, which is absolutely not the case.
1 LetsHackReality 2015-01-20
How?
Falling at near-freefall speed can only occur if the structural elements below have been eliminated. I'd wave my master's degree in mechanical engineering in your face, but again: A retarded 6yo could see this.
1 Onyyyyy 2015-01-20
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
0 PersonMcName 2015-01-20
I'm waiting for any form of proof whatsoever. I can't believe you're advocating believing things without thinking critically about them, on the sub that claims to be all about critical thinking.
We have far more than enough information freely available, you just need to know what to look for. This is especially true with scientific or archaeological theories on this sub, that we often have direct evidence against. For example: the moon landing conspiracy, flood hypothesis, geocentrism, flat earth (or skycentrism since there was that user here that posted only about how the earth was apparently a bowl), etc...
2 Ambiguously_Ironic 2015-01-20
I sometimes wonder if all of that was actually destroyed or if that was just the convenient cover story to prevent future people from looking for it. Cortez, for example, was working for the Spanish/European aristocracy, is it sensible that he would burn and destroy potentially invaluable ancient texts without keeping any sort of record of them? Would those funding his expeditions have wanted him to do that? Stretches plausibility to me, although of course it's possible.
But I am 100% sure that we would find some very interesting things in the Vatican library...
1 PersonMcName 2015-01-20
Right? I mean, it's not like you refuse to back anything up become extremely defensive when people point out the massive holes in your theories... oh wait.
You really are not helping your argument right now. Seriously, you are acting proud that you don't have facts or evidence for anything. That's really not something to be proud of.
1 PersonMcName 2015-01-20
That was honestly not trying to be hostile. And I might add that
Is pretty hostile.