Why Historically Known cultures hid information about the Ice Age

a reply to: Hanslune

Yes that is one of the opinions held by the fringe community but the truth of the matter is these are theories and just about every theory in fringe is at some time proven to be wrong.

That is incorrect. It is the standard view held by old cultures across the world. It is our theories are continually proven wrong.

and thats the truth.!

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Hanslune

Yes that is one of the opinions held by the fringe community but the truth of the matter is these are theories and just about every theory in fringe is at some time proven to be wrong.

That is incorrect. It is the standard view held by old cultures across the world. It is our theories are continually proven wrong.

and thats the truth.!

Care to cite some examples? Or are we just making blanket statements as though they are fact today?

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Hanslune

I mean come on there are even other world's in our solar system and in the case of a nuclear physicist called Dr Brandburg went public with evidence that he could no longer deny to himself that nuclear explosions may have caused the death of a past civilization there.

He didn't go public with evidence, he wrote a book. Going public with evidence would have been to publish it in an appropriate peer reviewed journal so that others can see how he arrived at his results. Writing a book with the goal of making money isn't remotely the same thing as "going public" with anything resembling evidence. That's not the hallmark of a "real" scientist/ He's worse that a back seat driver

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Hanslune

You may disagree with me but you know I have a good point even if you will attack it and claim it is not.

What good point was that?

As for not washing, tell that to Paulina Zelitsky whom backed off her discovery (and some utter imbecile on another thread was claiming he knew her and stooping to outright lies to deny the discovery of the city), McIntire despite Hearts claim it is a very long standing story so if it was wrong then why the hell did it take so very - very - very long to come up with a refute to it.

Okay let make believe that the city in Cuba was real - why would anyone care if it was found? Did they stop Machu Picchu or Norte Chico from being found?

And oh so many others that have broken rank's, take former NASA scientist whom people whom work at NASA today often claim never worked there such as Maurice Chatelain whom wrote (his own conclusion and theory) book's that were either later plagiarised or else inspired the likes of Von Daniken (the lest said about him the better the guy - Daniken- was caught out making stuff up apparently - something to do with platinum records in a cave but to be fair I have never read his book's so have no right to pass judgement upon Daniken except he is a cult figure to many).

Sorry Lab didn't quite understand your point here.

Then there are other whistle-blowers that have been tarred and feathered and that is what it is at the end of the day - unless they are the daniken's of this world - whistle blowing.

Let's imagine my view of the world works then people who make up silly stuff will not be accepted and made fun of.

I mean come on there are even other world's in our solar system and in the case of a nuclear physicist called Dr Brandburg went public with evidence that he could no longer deny to himself that nuclear explosions may have caused the death of a past civilization there.

He was challenged by two people criticizing him so he asked them to debate with him and neither had the gut's to face him in a public debate because he is a REAL scientist not a back seat driver and critique.

Ah, no civilizations were destroyed if he says Indus valley cities - hope. The evidence simply isn't there.

Is it such a long stretch that if someone had technology when this happened then just maybe they also visited or even lived on earth and perhaps even a past cooler Venus, perhaps our solar system was even visited by a predator civilization.

Its possible we just don't have evidence that it happened.

And if you watch that video you will also understand why we need to know the truth, not some persons game of secrets but the truth, we need to know not only if there were previous high technology civilizations but what destroyed them and how they were destroyed, as Brandburg say's God, Gun's and Gut's we need to learn and know the truth and we need to get out there NOW, we are not walking into a friendly universe but a very dangerous one.

I don't need to watch a video to know that the current evidence we have shows no sign of nuclear attacks on ancient civilizations. Got archaeologica, radiologicall or sedimentation documentation? Now later this morning I'll watch it.

So I put it to you that those suppressing the secrets and hiding evidence of a more advanced past spanning much greater breadth of time and perhaps having come and gone several times on our world is actually harming humanity, very severely harming by hampering the search for the truth, you can not protect children from a wolf by hiding there eye's with your hand.

Again WHO are they? Explain how they influence anything if no one knows who they are?

This is not about your Ego or Mine or Harte's it is about the human race, out kid's the future and there world that we will not even see (in our current life) but God willing they shall survive and the better we equip them now the more chance they will have then.

A very emotional appear that falls flat. The evidence says no such thing is happening and since you cannot identify who these evils folks are - and cannot provide evidence for any of this - where does that leave us?

a reply to: Hanslune

So we will have to agree to disagree, you have your religious interpretation of science and I keep an open mind and am a Christian (which does not preclude - except for some interpretations and not all by any means past civilizations or even other races of man "There is nothing NEW under the sun").

There will always be two sides to any debate but it is a low trick and not one that truly win's debates except with the eclectic and idiotic crowd to simply ignore the other side or pretend they don't have a point.

As for Mars sorry but you are definitely wrong there too, I would dearly love to see you try to debate Bandburg on his facts and inescapable interpretations of the Data which FORCED him to make this conclusion despite a long attempt by himself to try to avoid it for fear of his reputation.

You know it is easy to be a sceptic, you don't need evidence you just claim that evidence for is not evidence for, you place your opinion above the interpretation of others but in fact no one gave you any form of superiority over them either mental faculty wise or physical, I am not criticizing you I just take your opinion as a symptom of a greater problem that also affects established science and has created a pseudo religious dogma like atmosphere, we have well and truly left the - so called - age of reason behind now or so it would seem to me.

Lets see I viewed the video link provided by LabTech and put out by John Brandenburg.

In the first part he demonstrates that while a well educated man (he went to a University in Oregon I'm associated with) he has fallen into the endless rabbit hole of conspiracy theories demonstrated by thinking (Jade Helm) was some sort of evil plan - that was not a good indication for his future output.

Harte you'll just LOVE this guy.

His summary



First point

'It appears' no it doesn't it should say, in my opinion based on fantastical believe I imagine....

Second point

Fanciful at best ridiculous in the extreme

Third point

Actually correct we not hearing any other civilizations at this time

Fourth point

I agree completely that we should got to Mars and become spacefaring but not for the reasons he states

Fifth point

'Guts and gun'. Ah, if somebody has the technology to move across interstellar space it might be prudent to not shoot at them.

rationalwiki.org...

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Hanslune

So we will have to agree to disagree, you have your religious interpretation of science and I keep an open mind and am a Christian (which does not preclude - except for some interpretations and not all by any means past civilizations or even other races of man "There is nothing NEW under the sun").

What is a 'religious interpretation of science'? I'm an atheist.

There will always be two sides to any debate but it is a low trick and not one that truly win's debates except with the eclectic and idiotic crowd to simply ignore the other side or pretend they don't have a point.

What point is that?

As for Mars sorry but you are definitely wrong there too, I would dearly love to see you try to debate Bandburg on his facts and inescapable interpretations of the Data which FORCED him to make this conclusion despite a long attempt by himself to try to avoid it for fear of his reputation.

I'm not a planetary scientist but trained in Archaeology - his 'evidence' for a civilization on Mars is woefully inaccurate and just his opinion.

You know it is easy to be a sceptic, you don't need evidence

Very false I base my opinion on evidence you base yours on possibility and belief - isn't that true?

you just claim that evidence for is not evidence for,

It would be very helpful to quote what you are referring to - I cannot reply as I have no idea what you are referring to.

you place your opinion above the interpretation of others but in fact no one gave you any form of superiority over them either mental faculty wise or physical, I am not criticizing you I just take your opinion as a symptom of a greater problem that also affects established science and has created a pseudo religious dogma like atmosphere, we have well and truly left the - so called - age of reason behind now or so it would seem to me.

Sorry LabtechI again I have no idea what you are referring too.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Hanslune


As for Mars sorry but you are definitely wrong there too, I would dearly love to see you try to debate Bandburg on his facts and inescapable interpretations of the Data which FORCED him to make this conclusion despite a long attempt by himself to try to avoid it for fear of his reputation.

Which inescapable conclusions would those be/ Perhaps where he cites a paper by Horgan and Bell Link but lied about what the cited paper claims? Their paper talks about volcanism on Mars but never once mentions the Trinitite that he then claims is the deciding factor in supporting his hypothesis? Sorry, but I always find it suspicious when someone with his background has to resort to a nom de plume for writing Sci-Fi books. Books whose sales jumped considerably once he hitched himself tightly to the conspiracy train.

Is it not possible that your poersonal disdain for modern academia colors your own views as you claim of others?

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Hanslune


As for Mars sorry but you are definitely wrong there too, I would dearly love to see you try to debate Bandburg on his facts and inescapable interpretations of the Data which FORCED him to make this conclusion despite a long attempt by himself to try to avoid it for fear of his reputation.

Which inescapable conclusions would those be/ Perhaps where he cites a paper by Horgan and Bell Link but lied about what the cited paper claims? Their paper talks about volcanism on Mars but never once mentions the Trinitite that he then claims is the deciding factor in supporting his hypothesis? Sorry, but I always find it suspicious when someone with his background has to resort to a nom de plume for writing Sci-Fi books. Books whose sales jumped considerably once he hitched himself tightly to the conspiracy train.

Is it not possible that your poersonal disdain for modern academia colors your own views as you claim of others?

Good one on the Trinitite.

Academicians: I worked in that field intensely for the last 25 or so and off on on before that:

1% are assholes
5% have no imagination or capability they were fantastic students but cannot create anything new
15% cannot teach but know the subject
15% can teach but don't know the subject (out of date or just bought the degree a not uncommon problem in the ME)
60% can teach and know the subjects well
4% can teach and know the subject but just refuse to do so or are so socially awkward cannot do either well. Often very clever

Those 5% and the 4% are problem as they tend to migrate into management positions that most academic hate to do (I certainly did), as they want to do field work, research or teach.

Good old Lab has a common challenge: he believes in what he talks about but is puzzled by why the knowledgeable people don't support it - it cannot be that his beliefs are wrong no, it must be a conspiracy......

originally posted by: Hanslune
Lets see I viewed the video link provided by LabTech and put out by John Brandenburg.

In the first part he demonstrates that while a well educated man (he went to a University in Oregon I'm associated with) he has fallen into the endless rabbit hole of conspiracy theories demonstrated by thinking (Jade Helm) was some sort of evil plan - that was not a good indication for his future output.

Harte you'll just LOVE this guy.

This claim is not new to me Hans.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

If you don't mind, I'd like to piggy back this:

One issue here is that people in academics that knowingly are wrong about a theory, but still want to try and push it for financial gains will often use the talking point that they are being told to quiet their "facts" in order to preserve the paradigm. When in fact it's just bad scientific practice on their part. Then they'll attack other by calling new evidence that doesn't fit their model as a "conspiracy theory" in an attempt to discreated it without having to prove that it's false.

A good scientist will have some hits and misses. That's how they develop new ideas. The same goes for theories about historical events. Come up with an idea based on stories, find evidence that backs up the claim, if no evidence can be found change the theory based off of the evidence found/if evidence is found that backs up the claim then further research the evidence for proof. I mean if we just removed a person from researching something because of a few bad ideas that didn't pan out, we would have to remove most of the researchers in the world. This being said if a researcher keeps creating bad ideas and theories then maybe that researcher needs to do something else instead.

originally posted by: BelowLowAnnouncement
a reply to: SLAYER69

You're actually the person who sent me down the forgotten history rabbit hole many, many years ago, I never got around to thanking you for that. You sparked an intrigue in me that's still with me to this day.

Thanks.

Peace be with you

originally posted by: Guyfriday
a reply to: Harte

If you don't mind, I'd like to piggy back this:

One issue here is that people in academics that knowingly are wrong about a theory, but still want to try and push it for financial gains will often use the talking point that they are being told to quiet their "facts" in order to preserve the paradigm. When in fact it's just bad scientific practice on their part. Then they'll attack other by calling new evidence that doesn't fit their model as a "conspiracy theory" in an attempt to discreated it without having to prove that it's false.

A good scientist will have some hits and misses. That's how they develop new ideas. The same goes for theories about historical events. Come up with an idea based on stories, find evidence that backs up the claim, if no evidence can be found change the theory based off of the evidence found/if evidence is found that backs up the claim then further research the evidence for proof. I mean if we just removed a person from researching something because of a few bad ideas that didn't pan out, we would have to remove most of the researchers in the world. This being said if a researcher keeps creating bad ideas and theories then maybe that researcher needs to do something else instead.

Then you don't find it odd that this guy never published his findings?

I mean, that's actually what science does, you know.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Sorry you misunderstood me. I was agreeing with you about the fact that this guy hasn't put his research forward for peer review.

It's just speculation if other can't look at the evidence presented and the points made in the research.

I tend to go along with Randall Carlson and see where the post Ice Age people did leave accounts of the time before, but without a recognizable written language they had to rely on symbols like the zodiac and annual rituals on specific dates to remember the stories. They built it into the calendar. The stories became legends and religions. How many old mythologies talk about ages or emergences of mankind happening one after another? All of them?

So going by them, in general, the world before the last Ice Age was temperate and warm. It was ruled by powerful kingdoms in various regions. The people often appeared to interact with various kinds of humanoid super beings. These super beings would war with each other, and while it meant human casualties, it was fearful and glorious to behold.

And then the comet hit. Unfortunately, the way the myths were told it makes it seem like the comet was a punishment for hubris or whatever, even though it was simply random.

originally posted by: Guyfriday
a reply to: Harte

Sorry you misunderstood me. I was agreeing with you about the fact that this guy hasn't put his research forward for peer review.

It's just speculation if other can't look at the evidence presented and the points made in the research.

In my opinion, it's WAY too far into the stupid range for even polite consideration.

Harte

originally posted by: Blue Shift
I tend to go along with Randall Carlson and see where the post Ice Age people did leave accounts of the time before, but without a recognizable written language they had to rely on symbols like the zodiac and annual rituals on specific dates to remember the stories. They built it into the calendar. The stories became legends and religions. How many old mythologies talk about ages or emergences of mankind happening one after another? All of them?

So going by them, in general, the world before the last Ice Age was temperate and warm. It was ruled by powerful kingdoms in various regions. The people often appeared to interact with various kinds of humanoid super beings. These super beings would war with each other, and while it meant human casualties, it was fearful and glorious to behold.

And then the comet hit. Unfortunately, the way the myths were told it makes it seem like the comet was a punishment for hubris or whatever, even though it was simply random.

There's no evidence for ANY zodiac prior to the Akkadians.

Harte

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Hanslune

So we will have to agree to disagree, you have your religious interpretation of science and I keep an open mind and am a Christian (which does not preclude - except for some interpretations and not all by any means past civilizations or even other races of man "There is nothing NEW under the sun").

What is a 'religious interpretation of science'? I'm an atheist.

There will always be two sides to any debate but it is a low trick and not one that truly win's debates except with the eclectic and idiotic crowd to simply ignore the other side or pretend they don't have a point.

What point is that?

As for Mars sorry but you are definitely wrong there too, I would dearly love to see you try to debate Bandburg on his facts and inescapable interpretations of the Data which FORCED him to make this conclusion despite a long attempt by himself to try to avoid it for fear of his reputation.

I'm not a planetary scientist but trained in Archaeology - his 'evidence' for a civilization on Mars is woefully inaccurate and just his opinion.

Nobody actually believes the word of God. Because nobody has ever heard the word of god. They have only heard/read the words written down by that god's priests.

Religious belief is belief in experts over evidence.

If you go directly off of evidence, then only the select few who have had genuine hallucinations about god (or for all I know : true revelations from god), can claim to be following god directly.

Science, in its raw form, is about believing evidence, not people. (Although believing people is the next best thing, if you don't want to have to learn the whole subject for yourself.)

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Blue Shift
I tend to go along with Randall Carlson and see where the post Ice Age people did leave accounts of the time before, but without a recognizable written language they had to rely on symbols like the zodiac and annual rituals on specific dates to remember the stories. They built it into the calendar. The stories became legends and religions. How many old mythologies talk about ages or emergences of mankind happening one after another? All of them?

So going by them, in general, the world before the last Ice Age was temperate and warm. It was ruled by powerful kingdoms in various regions. The people often appeared to interact with various kinds of humanoid super beings. These super beings would war with each other, and while it meant human casualties, it was fearful and glorious to behold.

And then the comet hit. Unfortunately, the way the myths were told it makes it seem like the comet was a punishment for hubris or whatever, even though it was simply random.

There's no evidence for ANY zodiac prior to the Akkadians.

Harte

You mean other than the fact Ursa, "the bear" has a tail?

Bears in the ice age had tails. Bears after the ice age did not. So why does Ursa have a tail if the zodiac was devised later than the ice age?

originally posted by: LABTECH767


And oh so many others that have broken rank's, take former NASA scientist whom people whom work at NASA today often claim never worked there such as Maurice Chatelain whom wrote (his own conclusion and theory) book's that were either later plagiarised or else inspired the likes of Von Daniken (the lest said about him the better the guy - Daniken- was caught out making stuff up apparently - something to do with platinum records in a cave but to be fair I have never read his book's so have no right to pass judgement upon Daniken except he is a cult figure to many).

I have a copy of the book where he made that assertion. And he made sure the claim was unrefutable by any sensible means.

Claimed it was in a cave only this one friend of his knew about. Claimed he didn't take pictures because he was afraid something bad would happen. (And given that the guy is a bit crazy, he might have genuinely believed something like that if he had found odd artifacts.)

But I don't see how he could have been "caught". There are simply too many caves in that region of Peru/Ecuador. Nobody has seen them all.

I'm not saying I believe he was telling the truth either, mind you. And even if he was, it's not like he could read the records and thereby determine what they contained.

originally posted by: Hanslune
Lets see I viewed the video link provided by LabTech and put out by John Brandenburg.

In the first part he demonstrates that while a well educated man (he went to a University in Oregon I'm associated with) he has fallen into the endless rabbit hole of conspiracy theories demonstrated by thinking (Jade Helm) was some sort of evil plan - that was not a good indication for his future output.

Harte you'll just LOVE this guy.

His summary



First point

'It appears' no it doesn't it should say, in my opinion based on fantastical believe I imagine....

Second point

Fanciful at best ridiculous in the extreme

Third point

Actually correct we not hearing any other civilizations at this time

Fourth point

I agree completely that we should got to Mars and become spacefaring but not for the reasons he states

Fifth point

'Guts and gun'. Ah, if somebody has the technology to move across interstellar space it might be prudent to not shoot at them.

rationalwiki.org...

The thing about his theory is : even if an artificial nuke had been detonated on the planet, it doesn't therefore follow that the planet was once habitable.

Maybe a group of aliens were space-mining there, using an artificial habitat/station of some sort, and another group of aliens decided to attack them over it?

If aliens exist, I see no reason why they wouldn't got space mining in our solar system. They know we're not using it for anything.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Bears in the ice age had tails. Bears after the ice age did not. So why does Ursa have a tail if the zodiac was devised later than the ice age?

Ursa (Major or Minor) are not part of the zodiac.
The zodiac is a series of constellations (12 of them) which lie on (or very near) the ecliptic.

a reply to: Phage
perpiyusl ignorance