Huge ancient city found in the Amazon.

a reply to: rickymouse

If I were still a betting man I would wager quite a bit.

there is no telling how many anomalies were disposed of for the sake of scientific "consensus."

a reply to: Irishhaf

I'm not sure who in todays world says these thing, but what they do argue is that people need to stop discrediting parst societies as needing some advanced uber civilization to get to such levels of technology and social mobility to build cities and large settlements.

a reply to: strongfp

Open minded visionaries like Graham Hancock have been telling the world about how unknown, ancient civilizations had to exist given some of the evidence found years ago, let alone now, thus vindicating them for all of the hate they received from close minded public and scientists.

Our new technology is going to uncover so much of it now, that the old school had better go back to school to keep up.

a reply to: charlyv

Hancock doesn't give any credit to our ancient ancestors, he believes Atlantis and aliens or something gifted us dumb dumb humans technology and knowledge to build things.

a reply to: strongfp

me personally I think there have been cycles of civilizations that were much more advanced than given credit, but all you have to do is look at someone trying to question the official narrative of history and it always looks like a concerted effort to destroy anyone pushing an alternate narrative.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Hmm not really. There's lots of literature out there that offers new looks at history. A good recent one came out a few years ago called The Dawn of everything, by David Greaber and David Wengrow.
You have to remember that most recorded history and archeology is centered mostly around Europe and where Europeans decided to stick there nose in the most.
There's a whole world out there to discover, like this Amazonian city.

There's not much evidence to suggest there were 'advanced' civilizations before our Neolithic ancestors were banding together.

originally posted by: Enduro
Amazing the way the earth can just eat up a city of such size. I could only imagine what’s buried under the sand in places like Egypt.

They think they have only discovered perhaps 8-10% of what there is to find in Eygpt, which is a bit astonishing really. The Amazon could hold a 1000 cities we know nothing about. Our history certainly isn’t complete and vast chunks are missing for many reasons, including deliberate hiding of the truth. Whoever built the vast stone walls that so carefully and oddly fit together we’re none of the peoples we know of, Inca, Aztec, Olmec etc. they were built way before using methods no one knows.

a reply to: YourFaceAgain

all it had to be was in an area that had glaciers slide across it then any evidence would be ground into nothing.

Whats the belief right now a decade after people were gone and little to nothing would remain of our cities, now throw in 2 mile high glaciers.

*shrugs* we will most likely never know.

a reply to: strongfp

There's not much evidence to suggest there were 'advanced' civilizations before our Neolithic ancestors were banding together.

Define advanced I am not talking about space faring civilizations, or black magic using ones... just people (general term) that developed in a way different from us that found different ways to accomplish things. far beyond the simple hunter gather societies the main stream try and paint for accepted pre-agriculture.

a reply to: Irishhaf

What technology, or knowledge do these past societies have that we don't?

a reply to: strongfp

*yawns* oldest gotcha out there.

If thats all you got ill move on.

Ask an actual answerable question and id be happy to continue.

a reply to: Irishhaf

No, I'm curious, because if we modern humans had the will we could go to the Amazon and uncover this new site in probably a year. We've sent people to the moon and built entire shipping lanes between continents, and have unreal modern medicine, whT technology or knowledge did pre Neolithic people have that we don't.

a reply to: strongfp

the assumption is there is no way a precursor civilization could have developed differently than us but also possibly been more advanced in some ways than us, or at least more advanced than we think.

its incredibly arrogant to think the way modern civilization developed is the only way things could be done.

I am not smart enough to say how they could have been different; I am just open to the idea that other ways could have been developed to get things done. (like the theory that magnetism, or sound could have bene used to move the megalithic blocks)

What is the truth *shrugs* I dont know, I just believe we dont have anywhere close to the truth for history beyond a very short period of time in modern history. We just have fragments.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: charlyv

Hancock doesn't give any credit to our ancient ancestors, he believes Atlantis and aliens or something gifted us dumb dumb humans technology and knowledge to build things.

This shows you obviously know nothing of Graham Hancock, or what he believes in. He NEVER cited aliens as being responsible for human technology and believes that ancient ancestors had much more sophisticated technologies than what mainstream science today gives them credit for. He also believes that some of the ancients that survived the YD cataclysm helped the rest of the world to rebuild, which is being proven more and more lately, as we uncover corelated relationships between places in the world which were once thought so isolated, that no travel or trade with other countries were possible.

As far as Atlantis, most historians in the world today acknowledge that it most likely existed, but no one knows where it really was. Best possibilities in Moratoria, Azores Cuba and Bahama.

a reply to: Irishhaf

the assumption is there is no way a precursor civilization could have developed differently than us but also possibly been more advanced in some ways than us, or at least more advanced than we think.

its incredibly arrogant to think the way modern civilization developed is the only way things could be done.

Human civilization has evolved into what we are today, I'd imagine you're suggesting a civilization like our global one may have existed before?

I mean, China ad a whole region is quite old, and continuous, there's not much evidence there to suggest a global civilization ever had contact with that region of the world, they developed quite independently until the silk road era.
Rome knew of China, and China knew of Rome, but they never made contact, that's just an example.

I am not smart enough to say how they could have been different; I am just open to the idea that other ways could have been developed to get things done. (like the theory that magnetism, or sound could have bene used to move the megalithic blocks)

You don't need to be a super smart person to look at evidence and tie together patterns between older human populations. And if you did some basic research we know what technologies, techniques, and such on how our ancestors built megalithic structures. You have to remember the peak of stone working was in Gothic Europe, all that knowledge came from somewhere and it was from past societies. Take a look at this amazing picture down below you'll see the evolution sort of and influence from closely connected regions of the world, and influences on one another.

What is the truth *shrugs* I dont know, I just believe we dont have anywhere close to the truth for history beyond a very short period of time in modern history. We just have fragments

I'm not sure what "truth" you're looking for, archeologists, anthropologists and such are seeking the truth, always, they don't get into the field to make things up, the days of old rich European white dudes trying to make up a story based around eurocentric history is over.

a reply to: charlyv

Our ancestors were sophisticated, and very smart people. The issue wirh Hancock is that he clings onto the Jean-Jacques Rousseau model of human development, that we went thorugh set in stone stages to get to where we are.
Different parts of the world developed in different ways in their own ways, but the basic principles behind hunting and gathering, stone working, farming, forming hierarchies, etc, etc are generally similar.
And there's more and more evidence coming out suggesting that even if some old super global civilization did exist it goes agaisnt the notion that for thousands of years humans spent a good chunk of their lives trying to not be like one another, let alone trying to live in cohesion. Globalization and shared interests is a rather new thing in human civilization.

a reply to: strongfp

All I am saying is that modern humans have been on the planet about 200,000 years + or - a bunch depending on the source.

We have no clue what went on more than 12k years ago, outside of assorted teeth and bones found in remote locations.

Who knows what they used to do, we have our best guesses based on the information we have since the last ice age and there is a big assumption that prior to that everyone was hunter gatherers without exception.

The argument being we would have found evidence if there was anything different, yet if societies typically developed along water front's toss in the ocean level rising and odds are we never looked where the evidence would be. Under water archeology is still sparsely practiced due to the cost (my guess) and the extra expertise needed to do it.

Which is why I say I think a precursor civilization existed and was lost during (insert natural disaster here) followed by an ice age, or the flooding after an ice age.

(heck it wasnt that long ago that the idea of something like gobekli tepe being built that long ago would have gotten you laughed out of academic circles)

a reply to: alldaylong

Hmmm interesting found in Ecuador

I hope that the recent tensions in Ecuador between the government/military and the drug cartels doesnt somehow end up destroying any of these sites

a reply to: Irishhaf

We have the fossil record, and basic geological records and a lot of information to suggest otherwise ... there's plenty of pre Neolithic sites that have more than just teeth and arrow heads. In Eastern europe we have found full on settlements with structures made with mammoth bones.

The thing about what you're suggesting is that the burden of proof is on you, when new finds come out it only proves the "official narrative" (the one in suggesting i guess) more and more, and I'm not sure why you are hell bent on trying to belittle our past ancestors to try and prove some fringe theory.