China: Ancient Pyramids + Explosions: "Underground Forests in Mystery Holes of Guangxi"

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Why?

Because of all the things you have said.

Because… you don’t understand that Buddhism isn’t based on ideas of gods?

You do like to jump to conclusions, don't you?

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Why?

Because of all the things you have said.

Because… you don’t understand that Buddhism isn’t based on ideas of gods?

You do like to jump to conclusions, don't you?

^No, I'm referring to the last handful of posts. I've been repeatedly mentioning that I love Buddhism, and it's common-knowledge that Buddhism is nontheistic.

So for you to then ask me about my thoughts on gods, that sounds like you don't understand that Buddhism is nontheistic, or else why would you ask about my perspective on gods.

Then when I answered you, I gave you the obvious answer that I'm not concerned about gods, as per Buddhism NOT being based on gods, and not considering it a valuable thing to fixate on.

So for you to THEN respond with obnoxious, vague remarks, you've clearly lost track of the conversation, and apparently you are really confused about about Buddhism being nontheistic, for you to respond with the vapid obnoxiousness, to my really obvious answers, that could have been the same answers from any Buddhist in the world.

Buddhism is NOT based on gods and does NOT value fixating on gods. "I'm not surprised." "Because of all the things you said." "You do like to jump to conclusions, don't you?" Unfortunately, you just don't seem to understand the conversation, or Buddhism.

Now what you can do is convince me otherwise, that you actually DO understand that Buddhism is nontheistic, so you can tell me what answer you'd like, when you're asking Buddhists about your own concepts of gods, that we're not interested in, and we don't deem meaningful. What answer do you think is appropriate for you?





...Also, to take myself out of the question (as you asked me MY thoughts on gods), if you just want to discuss religions in general, well I reject your premise that it's important to fixate on gods anyway, even when reading the Vedas etc.

It resembles detailed descriptions of ancient war, that I believe really did happen. This does not obligate me to fixate on gods or on reconciling monotheism with polytheism, it's not my obligation or my interest, sir.

Besides, the ancient war accounts seem to be describing physical beings anyway, who are fighting in the war. I don't agree that this has anything to do with whatever creation-myths there may be in Hinduism, thayt seems quite a separate topic from describing ancient physical battles on Earth.

op video link is dead

originally posted by: JamesChessman
^No, I'm referring to the last handful of posts. I've been repeatedly mentioning that I love Buddhism, and it's common-knowledge that Buddhism is nontheistic.

So for you to then ask me about my thoughts on gods, that sounds like you don't understand that Buddhism is nontheistic, or else why would you ask about my perspective on gods.

I didn't ask you your thoughts on gods, I asked you, regarding the discussion we were having about the Mahabharata being a historical description of events or not and being based on Hinduism, how do you conciliate ancient texts based on one religion with ancient texts based on other religions.
That's because if the weapons used on the Mahabharata were real and were weapons from the gods, which implies that the Hindu gods were real, then all other ancient texts from other religions that do not have those gods cannot be true descriptions of historic events.

I wasn't (and I'm still not) interested in a discussion about religions, only on this subtopic about the Mahabharata of the original discussion.

Buddhism is NOT based on gods and does NOT value fixating on gods. "I'm not surprised." "Because of all the things you said." "You do like to jump to conclusions, don't you?" Unfortunately, you just don't seem to understand the conversation, or Buddhism.

No, I just wasn't having a conversation about Buddhism, in which I don't have the slightest interest, I was still talking about the Mahabharata.

Besides, the ancient war accounts seem to be describing physical beings anyway, who are fighting in the war. I don't agree that this has anything to do with whatever creation-myths there may be in Hinduism, thayt seems quite a separate topic from describing ancient physical battles on Earth.

The weapons used in the Mahabharata were weapons from the gods, some of the involved were directly related to gods, if we accept all of the Mahabharata as true then we are accepting the existence of the Hindu gods and, as a consequence, not accepting all other ancient texts from all other religions that mention different gods.
That's what I have been talking about.

a reply to: Spacespider

I see only a notice saying "The uploader has not made this video available in your country".

I hate when they do that.

originally posted by: Spacespider
op video link is dead

Thanks but I can still see that in the OP, both embedded videos are still there. But it took a moment for my phone to load everything, so the embedded vids did look dead for a moment, before they loaded.

There could also possibly be a regional limitation with “Our World” vid, maybe? But my own video should not have any regional limits though.

Maybe just try OP again and give it a minute to load everything?

Well. I never read the last post from ArMaP because really the thread hit a dead-end for me, once there was demanding me to reconcile monotheism with polytheism, and the quippy remarks, oh well.

However, the thread had seemed to be encompassing all the most basic, general ideas of ancient, advanced civilizations, and that's a topic that's never-ending, and I'd be happy to keep discussing that.

I'm back with a nice new desk/computer set-up that I was lacking, the last few months (I was keeping my desktop computer in my car; now the car is in the shop, and my Mac is on my desk again, looking better than ever). Funny enough I always kept plastic over the screen, for years, then I put it in my car without the plastic, but the screen was always a few feet away. So this seems the 1st time ever just having my beautiful iMac up close to my face without extra plastic covering it. Funny but it's only now the best display I've ever seen in my life, lol.






So I'm happy to get back into discussing ancient lost civilizations, especially that I just saw it mentioned recently, how the idea of water damage on the Sphinx... came from 1991 if I recall correctly, there was apparently one guy who was researching it, and made a popular documentary, that year.

I could link to the video that mentioned it, but it was kind of an annoying video, and plus I think that it's a pretty well-known idea by now (that the Sphinx has water-damage on its body, FROM FALLING RAIN).

From there, the Sphinx rain-damage is said to place it back to 12,000 years ago, the end of the last Ice Age, which as the last time that there was falling-rain.




So if we were looking for tangible evidence of lost advanced civilization, that's possible the ONE BEST evidence. The Sphinx has rain-damage, from 12,000 yrs ago.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Well. I never read the last post from ArMaP because really the thread hit a dead-end for me, once there was demanding me to reconcile monotheism with polytheism, and the quippy remarks, oh well.

No, that was your wrong perception of what I was saying.

So I'm happy to get back into discussing ancient lost civilizations, especially that I just saw it mentioned recently, how the idea of water damage on the Sphinx... came from 1991 if I recall correctly, there was apparently one guy who was researching it, and made a popular documentary, that year.

I read something about it some years ago.
If you want to talk about it, the best is to create a new thread.

PS: Nice to see you back.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Well. I never read the last post from ArMaP because really the thread hit a dead-end for me, once there was demanding me to reconcile monotheism with polytheism, and the quippy remarks, oh well.

No, that was your wrong perception of what I was saying.

So I'm happy to get back into discussing ancient lost civilizations, especially that I just saw it mentioned recently, how the idea of water damage on the Sphinx... came from 1991 if I recall correctly, there was apparently one guy who was researching it, and made a popular documentary, that year.

I read something about it some years ago.
If you want to talk about it, the best is to create a new thread.

PS: Nice to see you back.

Thanks, well sure, either way. I thought this thread had basically become a catch-all discussion, of evidence of ancient advanced civilization.

So that topic could be discussed for forever, and I had just heard about the possible BEST evidence of advanced lost civilization. The Sphinx rain marks are apparently a strong, clear marker of 12,000 years ago.

It's the end of the Ice Age. That's what the rain is from.








So really this ties in with absolutely everything we were discussing, lol. I just didn't think of this particular thing, the Sphinx rain-marks, a few months ago.

...But at some point of the thread, you were asking for tangible evidence of ancient advanced civilization. Mainly we were discussing pyramids and pyramid-shaped-mountains, etc.

So for THAT discussion, whatever request for evidence, my BEST answer probably would have been the Sphinx rain-marks.

It's probably the BEST, clearest time-marker of ancient, advanced civ., because it's pretty ADVANCED... that the giant statue was carved from the bedrock, presumably carved at some point BEFORE the heavy rains, 12000 yrs ago.





So I think the Sphinx rain-damage def. belongs in the thread because it's the best answer that I didn't think of, during the conversation, a few months.

However, myself, I don't know if it's convincing or not. It's not obvious to me, if it's from rain:



Wiki mainly describes it as a fringe theory that mainstream science disagrees with:

en.wikipedia.org...#:~:text=The%20Sphinx%20water%20erosion%20hypothesis,Atlantis%20over%2011%2C500%20years%2 0ago.

But I would imagine that long-term sand erosion might be hard to distinguish from long-term rain erosion, maybe?

originally posted by: JamesChessman
But I would imagine that long-term sand erosion might be hard to distinguish from long-term rain erosion, maybe?

No, they are quite different.

Also, different types of rock erode in different ways.

PS: as far as I remember, the theory about water erosion didn't specifically said it was rain water erosion, only water, but I may wrong. Or there are two different theories.

^Thanks, well I made a new thread about the specific question of whether anyone can tell FOR SURE, if the Sphinx really has water marks, or not:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Water erosion and sand-blast erosion are "quite different" processes, obviously, and sure different rocks erode differently:

But my point was that I'm doubtful that anyone seems capable of giving a definite answer about the Sphinx actually having water marks, or not.

The body of the Sphinx is obviously eroded from something, but it's not clear to my eyes if the Sphinx is sand-blasted or water-blasted.

I don't really see vertical lines / streaks, that I'd expect to probably see, if we were looking at rain damage.

My new thread links to another thread that proposes that the Sphinx was a giant water fountain, which would explain water damage, but without it being a time-marker of the end of the Ice Age, necessarily.

Also the walls around the Sphinx are very strange, they look like melted mud or rock, so maybe the real question is trying to reconcile the Sphinx weathering with the walls' very-different weathering:

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: JamesChessman
But I would imagine that long-term sand erosion might be hard to distinguish from long-term rain erosion, maybe?

PS: as far as I remember, the theory about water erosion didn't specifically said it was rain water erosion, only water, but I may wrong. Or there are two different theories.

Actually, I should answer this better. My Wiki link above is for the"Sphinx Water Erosion Hypothesis" which is basically proposing that the Sphinx shows TORRENTIAL RAIN weathering, which would make it a time-marker of the END OF THE LAST ICE AGE, 12000 YEARS AGO.

But it also does mention FLOODING, which could maybe be argued to be something completely different.





...Or, maybe the Sphinx doesn't even show water weathering. That seems the heart of the issue, and that's why I was focusing on that specific question.


Here is the first text from the Wiki article:

The Sphinx water erosion hypothesis is a fringe claim, contending that the Great Sphinx of Giza and its enclosing walls eroded primarily due to ancient floods or rainfalls, attributing their creation to Plato's lost civilization of Atlantis over 11,500 years ago.[1][2]

Egyptologists, geologists and others have rejected the water erosion hypothesis and the idea of an older Sphinx, pointing to archaeological, climatological and geological evidence to the contrary.

a reply to: JamesChessman

One thing we must remember is that the Sphinx was buried most of the time we have known it, so any kind of erosion would be different from the normal erosion of unburied objects.

Fascinating videos to be sure. It seems to me if they could figure out the rate limestone dissolves in water they could get some age estimates. The piles of fallen rock at the bottom seem to verify his hypothesis of uplift, diagonal fractures and collapses enlarging the caves. They need underwater drones to explore the river systems. As for the surface geology the similarity in angles resembling pyramids is bizarre but not 100% proof man had anything to do with the shaping. The diagonal fracturing could indeed leave such peaks as the most likely explanation but I'd have to defer to the experts on a question like that.

Ok this might be another conclusion for a dead thread, but I recently saw this and it definitely relates to the thread, and some open questions in the thread.

Here is an entire video about ancient advanced weapons in ancient India.

I could take screenshots maybe, I’ve been having trouble with Uploads, but it’s an amazing video with many ancient carvings of GUNS and GRENADES, carved in the ancient stone temples.

There’s a guy aiming a rifle and squinting one eye to aim the gun, just like today.

There’s a guy carved as loading an old musket type gun, where you push a stick into the gun first, to load the powder and bullets.

Then later he goes through ancient texts describing such weapons, factions destroying other people with flying fire weapons.

I guess I can’t EMBED the video on my phone but here’s a link:

youtu.be...