The Ancient Knowledge was a Computer Database!!!!

Another possible connection can be found on the back of the US one dollar bill. Center stage presents three letters: ONE. Which I associate with NEO and the matrix.

reply to post by Antoniastar


Oops haha multitasking over here, forgot to make mention of the neocortex and, if I get it right, the NC is at the front of the brain, a part of the celebral cortex, where the brain`s processor is located. And I think somewhere around there is where labotamies are performed. Anyway, the NC is where critical thought is processed, or something to that effect. Sooo maybe the NC is where the brain is wired and wirelessly connected to the ancient alien DB? That could possibly be how telepathy works? Ive read somewhere that thoughts enter from top of our heads. Hmmn. Dreams are another biggie, but those are claimed to come from the back of the brain. Guess I could do with more digging into the technomachanical procedure of robot and AI brain design. Might find answers there to support your theory? After all, art imitates life.

reply to post by jjf3rd77


It is... a coincidence that your favorite explanation in science is "It just happened." considering the haphazard nature of the OP. For example, you just happened to mix apples and orangatangs by mentioning two subjects and one time period in the same breath. But for sanity's sake, please name one instance where "science's explanation" has been "It just happened."

In addition, your claim of stifling of the sciences by the Catholic Church, while they it might have been valid in the past, is weak because the Catholic Church's strength in scientific interference today is nowhere near comparible to that of the past.

Scientists refuse to look at other facts because they are scared of what the mainstream public and the church will do? I don't doubt that there might be a handful of scientists whose work places them on a path where these obstacles exist, but, because your claims have been as weak as they've been, might you give an example of these scientists who ignore "other facts" and maybe a non-conventional author who was "cast out of society"?

Please clarify your statement regarding cavemen and the Sumerian civilization. Did you mean to say evidence is piling up which disproves the existence of cavemen and points to an advanced civilization that lived in Europe? What advanced ideas are you talking about and why would the human civilization have to be older for advanced ideas to exist?

We have advanced ideas that spawned in the last decade, or fifty years, or hundred years. Please expand on your idea.

Also, note Hanslune's post which outlines the lengthy timeline during which the Sumerian civilization rose.

Even still, what do you define as a mistake? Apparently the timeline from Hanslune's post shows several instances in which the Sumerian's lacked unity. Isn't internal dissonance a mistake? Also, please address the claim that the Amorites and Babylonians absorbed the civilization of Sumer.

What evidence points to this ancient knowledge? That one group of people knew more than another? If I know more than another the only explanation is that I was in direct contact with ancient knowledge? Consider what you're saying for a moment. Why can't an alternate explanation be that Pharoahs, having so much power, money, and time, were able to study and learn while cattle hearders had to simply work? To make the absolute statement that a computer control panel is the only way Pharoahs could no more than cattle herders is incredibly narrow minded.

The Antikythera mechanism was made in 100 BC, thousands of years after the fall of Sumer. Are you saying this mechanism is evidence of advanced exposure to computer technology by Sumerians?

Analyzing the OP is beyond tedious. Virtually every statement is fallacious, irrational, flawed in some manner. Those who originally discredited this thread because of the OP's reliance on Fox News as a source were right.

reply to post by jjf3rd77

This amazing little calculator was used for simple basic mathematics, and complex astronomical readings including the creation of the calendar, measuring solar eclipses and ship navigation. However this calculator seems like the graphic calculator of today. Wouldn't a more simpler version of the calculator had to have come first?

Yes, it is an amazing calculator, and yes, it seems quite possible that a series of simpler devices were created first. Ok so far. You go on to say:

Whoever created this machine, had to have taken knowledge possibly not belonging to them and going against society create the first computer!

"Taken knowledge possibly not belonging to them", ok, we all learn from other people's experience and creations. (Unless you're implying thievery?) But "going against society"? How did you infer that? And no, this can't be the "first computer", you already pointed out that simpler devices were likely created first.

Also, how did you make the deductive leap in your post from an ancient someone creating an amazing calculator to an ancient someone creating a database? Are you saying that if they made an amazing calculator they possibly made a database? That's quite a leap there.