Evidence of an Ancient Advanced civilization that spanned the Globe

originally posted by: Nihil0
a reply to: XipeTotex

Most likely, it ended with the Younger Dryas catastrophe around 12.000 BCE.

The theory of Plato, which was told to him by Solon

You know Solon was dead for a couple of centuries before Plato was born, right?

originally posted by: Nihil0who in turn was taught by an high Egyptian priest (therefore, it's what ancient Egyptians actually believed),

There is no surviving work by Solon that makes this claim. There is no surviving Egyptian text that says anything at all like this.

originally posted by: Nihil0 was that at the end of each astrological cycle (approx. 25.000 years) a catastrophe occurs.

Interestingly, it's a theory also shared by pre-Columbian, Hindu, and Native Americans in their mythological and sacred accounts.

Um... no, it's not.

Harte

originally posted by: Uberdoubter
a reply to: Akragon

Videos like that highlight what a narrow-minded group of people scientists are.

They prefer if we treat them like deities and not question their knowledge - because then you are "against science".

No, they prefer you quit the ignorant squawking and make some legitimate attempt to learn exactly why they think what they do and what the evidence is for their position.

Harte

originally posted by: Nihil0
a reply to: merka
As I wrote in a previous comment on this thread, French architect Pierre Adams tried to replicate a wooden pulley machine that was able to lift such a block but failed miserably due to proportions (the machine should've been multiple times bigger, which in turn led to the obvious impossibility to maneuver it no matter how many people involved).

Adam's example would work perfectly well, but you personally just refuse to accept that so you HAVE to claim it wouldn't.
Can't let all those sparkles run out of your worldview, can you.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Uberdoubter
a reply to: Akragon

Videos like that highlight what a narrow-minded group of people scientists are.

They prefer if we treat them like deities and not question their knowledge - because then you are "against science".

No, they prefer you quit the ignorant squawking and make some legitimate attempt to learn exactly why they think what they do and what the evidence is for their position.

Harte

They prefer if we treat them like deities and not question their knowledge - because then you are "against science".

Ummmm with that reply you just TOTALLY proved his point and statement.

originally posted by: Buvvy
Why would someone choose to build with megaliths?

Because they could.

Funny part is ... we can't. That this is a hard thing to admit is what has always intrigued me.

a reply to: Harte

But that is not evidence of flint CUTTING granite. It is evidence of flint being used to fracture and break off bits of granite - a quite different thing. This is typical, intellectual sleight-of-hand that debunkers of alternative archaeology try to use to refute the claims of their opponents. It of course never works except for their fellow debunkers because what they triumphantly show as a supposed refutation never actually deals with the claim that was originally made! As here, it was totally irrelevant to the issue at hand! Must try harder, I guess.

BTW.
Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. A predicted effect/phenomenon may be real but have no evidence to support it because scientific instruments have not yet been refined sufficiently to detect the effect. This criterion cannot be used to deny flatly the existence of a phenomenon because it is unscientific to do so. It also requires everyone to agree that no evidence exists before formally denying that the phenomenon itself exists, but this is often not the case with controversial claims even in mainstream science, and so an unscientific decision is made NOT on the strength of the evidence per se but either by majority decision in the scientific community or by influential, widely respected scientists giving their opinions on the reported phenomenon, which the rest of the community then cite as though what these individuals believe is firmly established truth, whereas it was merely biassed opinions that often reflect abysmal ignorance of the subject.
Absence of evidence MAY be evidence of absence. But it is NOT automatic evidence of such. That is YOUR error of logic. This false view is maintained by people of a debunking mentality who will grab the flimsiest excuse to dismiss any claim concerning the reality of paranormal phenomena by creating the illusion that they alone are behaving scientifically, when in reality they are merely resorting to vacuous arguments. Your mantra-like footnote is merely a form of scientific virtue-signalling that should fool no one.

originally posted by: micpsi
a reply to: Harte

But that is not evidence of flint CUTTING granite. It is evidence of flint being used to fracture and break off bits of granite - a quite different thing.

LOL
These two things are EXACTLY the same thing.
Even SAWING stone (which the Egyptians regularly did with granite) amounts to fracturing and breaking of bits.

Not that the AE's carved up all their granite with flint, mind you.

You are not only off your rocker, you don't even HAVE a rocker anymore - and are approaching not even knowing what a rocker is.

Harte

Hey guys!
Good thread thanks!

Here's a video i think relevant and hope some of you will find interesting.
Its about ancient rock cutting and tool marks from different places in the world and she also compares them
to marks made by modern machines. She has got alot of interesting stuff on her channel.
I hope you enjoy!

Thanks!

a reply to: Akragon

In a time, perhaps before time as we know it... there lived a people who had technology that is far beyond anything we have in modern times.

This is my number one favorite topic. So don't misunderstand when I say this. Because I don't want to take away how skilled and advanced those ancient people were....in building and moving crazy heavy objects.

But our time is way more advanced in the use of energy. So even saying we are advanced or they are advanced seems false to me. Truth is all societies have been advanced in their own ways and disciplines. Remember mummies were crazy advanced for their time we just happen to mostly know how it was done. But we still don't know what greek fire was made from. And who knows what tech is lost to history that we wouldn't have understood anyway.

There used to be this girl from turkey who went to all the megalith sites in and around asia. I can't find her on youtube anymore though.
I've seen everything in that video what I'm more interested in now is seeing more of what is in china.

And all the other places that governments never let archaeologists into. I would also like to see a better mapping of the coast lines. I'm sure there are hundreds of undiscovered ruins. And I firmly believe that we will find human ruins under the ice on antarctica.

I believe that humans have been a global society for much longer than anyone thinks. So long that the beginnings are complete dust.
I think those megaliths are just the end part of a long long history of global societies. And that we interacted with each other across the world even long before any of those megaliths were created. Wouldn't it have had to be that way?
Technology doesn't just spring into existence over night. It is the process of building up tools over time. So a world wide prosperous civilization would have had to exist in order for the megaliths to have been possible to build in the first place. The proper tools, the math, the skills that take years to master would have all had to exist long before the megalith.

a reply to: sraven

Or simply because it would last longer. And stand up to any kind of natural disaster.

Bricks would not.

a reply to: cmdrkeenkid

Your right about the precision but your forgetting that these builds are very old. The precision would have declined over time.

And yes that guy lifts a heavy block. But megaliths blocks are sometimes 10 times that size or more. And he didn't cut that block out of the ground with primitive tools and move it miles away. Sometimes those megalith blocks were moved up and down mountains. this one time lifting of a comparably small block doesn't prove much.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

I lean toward some type of chemical reaction that dissolved or soften the stones.

Or in a more out of the box idea. What if these structures are way older than we think like millions of years and back then those stones were naturally softer. A clay like material hardening over millions of years becomes granite somehow?
Maybe it doesn't take millions of years for the granite to harden?

a reply to: vNex92

I believe it was all done by humans. Every block.

a reply to: Zrtst

But remember there is a reason land animals don't get much bigger than an elephant.
Physics wont allow it. And that's also why the elephant has such massive legs. Gravity.

A human can't physical get as large as is depicted and still hold up it's own weight. At a certain height bones would break. Unless that human was very misshapen with thicker bones and limbs.
www.theguardian.com...

But surely there must be a limit to a person's height? John Wass, a specialist in acromegalic gigantism at the University of Oxford, reckons it would be impressive to survive for long if you grew taller than 9ft.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: XipeTotex
a reply to: Akragon

Ancient civilization that spanned the globe?

Only a very stupid human being would fail to see that.

Only a person utterly ignorant of what is known would believe there was any "ancient civilization that spanned the globe."

Harte

Riddle me this.

Why are there silicon dioxide nanoscale sphere in some of the pyramid blocks and none in the stones in the quarries?

Why does some of the blocks spontaneously grow a fine whitish or reddish powder coating?

Its funny how some of the stone items i have created grow that same coating from time to time, depends on air moisture levels i would presume.

a reply to: filthyphilanthropist

You'd have to scale up the logs too.

How big must a log be to lift a 100 tonn block? 200 tonn? 3...4..1000?
At some point the blocks we are talking about are much to large and heavy for this method.

Here is a list of megaliths that do weight 1000 tonns and more.
en.wikipedia.org...#:~:text=%C4%A6a%C4%A1ar%20Qim%2C%20one%20of%20the%20Megalithic%20Temples%20of,temples%20are%20 the%20oldest%20free-standing%20structures%20on%20Earth.

I would say 500 tonns would crush any logs that were under it. But for sure 1000 tonns would.

a reply to: Ravenwatcher

That is my favorite story from the bible. using sound to bring down the walls during a siege is so awesome I'm surprised we don't see it happen in more movies.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Vroomfondel

I lean toward some type of chemical reaction that dissolved or soften the stones.

Or in a more out of the box idea. What if these structures are way older than we think like millions of years and back then those stones were naturally softer. A clay like material hardening over millions of years becomes granite somehow?
Maybe it doesn't take millions of years for the granite to harden?

Granite powder is very reactive, it forms a good geopolymer matrix, when properly measured and applied, it only takes about 24 hours to harden, and a couple of days to reach its final strenght

a reply to: Akragon

the sumerian tablets

makes you dizzy watchin it, but if true, explains many things..
the flood, sodom and gomorra, origin of temple of jupiter
in baalbek lebanon ( rocket/spacecraft platform)....
takes a few days to read.

truthisscary.com...

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Akragon
Btw... i would LOVE to see flint cut granite

Here you go:

Harte

thanks... exactly what i was looking for