Atlantis and Lumeria - Ancient and advanced civilization

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

...
But you find theories about aliens being involved with man's technological development to be credible, that is a relevant aspect of where you are truly coming from. And the underlying psychology, logic, and worldview is very much connected.
Unless the goal is to play games on the surface while avoiding the heart of things, I think she was on topic. (Though I didn't follow the link, so I'm just guessing from your response.)
....

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Shadowofwind - I never did say aliens were necessary to explain this. Not once.
The link debunks aliens, which is a hypothesis I never brought up.

This is something I'm having a problem with. My position is being made for me by virtue of the fact that I bring up these questions.


If I were to ask "Why is there something instead of nothing?" Would it be considered feasible to respond "Not because of aliens?" This is not a thread where I try to prove a claim, the intention was made very clearly that this thread is here in order to discuss ancient mysteries, not argue whether or not they came from aliens.


If someone wants to provide evidence they came from aliens and another person wants to then respond why it's improbable that falls in line with the thread, but StephL's link was non-sequitur.

---

You are not entirely correct here - this is how the article starts:

Quote:

---

Today we're going to climb high into the Andes and take a look at an ancient structure that has been cloaked with as much pop-culture mystery as just about any other on Earth: Pumapunku, a stone structure that's part of the larger Tiwanaku. Pumapunku, which translates to the Doorway of the Puma, is best known for its massive stones and for the extraordinary precision of their cutting and placement. It's one of those places where you've heard, probably many times, that the stones are so closely fitted that a knife blade cannot be inserted between them. Due to these features,
Pumapunku is often cited as evidence that Earth was visited by aliens, Atlanteans, or some other mythical people who are presumably better at stonemasonry than humans.

---

By asking your questions, you basically deny "normal" human development of skills, and natural means standing behind certain monuments.
In especially when it comes to them supposedly being arranged in a global pattern
There is no meaning in invoking normal humans, who used to be more advanced in regular arts than those humans, to whom the monuments are usually ascribed to, if you don't want to invoke the supernatural.
We have the evidence of most wonderful and precise building activities of our ancestors - so why would it be more exciting, if it were a bit older?
And what shadowofwind said confirms it.
You can't expect to open a thread like this, and do as if that aspect of the whole topic wouldn't exist.
Or how do you account for the presumed miraculous abilities of these ancient people in actual fact?
What's the point of the argumentation?

I was about to just cite the last passage, but was curious as to what would happen, were I to throw it in without comment.
He does discuss the precision work by the way - basically in the same way as in here.


If you don't mention, where you believe this supposed superiority came from, it really looks like wanting to play games on the surface.
This "non-sequitur" of mine has pointed directly at the heart of the issue.



Just an aside:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

When I said originally that we couldn't recreate these structure with modern technology I was mirroring this claim as laid out by many of the sources I'm picking this information from. I agree that this is not provable based on one failed attempt. However, there is a very short timeline Egyptologists argue that the Pyramid of Khufu was erected in, and I remain very doubtful even with today's tools we could accomplish that level of precision in such a short time. Even if you agree that it was erected less around the era it's assumed, you still seem to have as much trouble with the proposed timeline that I do. And even Alric, apparently.

---

What exact time-frame are you talking about?
I can't see a time-line or Alric and shadowofwind having trouble explaining one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

If you can make a straight even block two inches long then you can do it 1000 miles long. All it takes is you doing it two inches at a time.

---

The errors accumulate. If you have a 0.01 inch error each time, after a few hundred inches you have quite a large error. You need some way to measure the error over the long distance, otherwise your line will wander all over the place, and as you try to straighten it with local adjustments it will just make other parts worse. That's why I suggested a lamp in a box with a slit it in. If the blocks are all the same width, if they're not placed correctly they'll eclipse the lamp on one side or the other. The main problem that I see is that the small slit gets hard to see if you're too far away, but it seems to me that it would work for a fairly large distance at night, in the absence of other nearby light sources.

In any case, if there's a flaw in my idea I would find out when trying it, and refine accordingly. It would be vain and silly for me to say "someone else with decades of experience building things did a better job than I did, so it seems likely they had help."

This is actually a great idea with the lamp in the box - how did you come to it - never heard it before, I believe?! Is it yours?
The use of light is ingenious - won't deviate, you can be sure of that.
And I could imagine a huge variety of methods, small other ingenious devices by which - lacking other equipment - a great deal of sophistication in masonry, and also precision could have been achieved.
Things we can't even easily think up today, because there is no need for them - and nobody imaginative is seriously and furiously trying to invent something to please a deadly despot.

You could just put a ball on top of the stone, if it isn't level it will start rolling. You could also pour water on it, and the water will flow downwards it is uneven.

My point - many, many physical phenomena follow observable rules, which can be used as measures, with often surprisingly simple contraptions - and how you go about it large scale - pressure put upon a genius. Or several.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

The errors accumulate. If you have a 0.01 inch error each time, after a few hundred inches you have quite a large error. You need some way to measure the error over the long distance, otherwise your line will wander all over the place, and as you try to straighten it with local adjustments it will just make other parts worse. That's why I suggested a lamp in a box with a slit it in. If the blocks are all the same width, if they're not placed correctly they'll eclipse the lamp on one side or the other. The main problem that I see is that the small slit gets hard to see if you're too far away, but it seems to me that it would work for a fairly large distance at night, in the absence of other nearby light sources.

In any case, if there's a flaw in my idea I would find out when trying it, and refine accordingly. It would be vain and silly for me to say "someone else with decades of experience building things did a better job than I did, so it seems likely they had help."

---

However applicable this suggestion might be. I don't see how they could have possibly used it to make the pyramids. For one it means they could only cut stones at night. Now that doesn't seem like that much of a problem if you have a good schedule. But, there seems to be loads of room for human error using this method. Constant rechecking and adjusting the angle because it eclipses the light does not seem like a viable working method to me.

If they cut the stones it seems likely to me that they cut the stones after they arrived on their assigned spot. It just seems like a good method. And i can see how they did this at night using light. As a layman ofcourse this makes sense.

Then we still have the issue of how they got the stones there in the first place. I used to like the idea that the stones have been liquidified for transport solidified at the spot. They could have maybe somehow floated them from all over egypt to the river nile and then placed a construct to transport them to the pyramid in their liquid form.. (the biggest hole in my theory is probably my ignorance in geography and pretty much everything else ^^)

I believe in an electromagnetic purpose for the Great Pyramid of Giza, atleast. I believe it was Nikola Tesla who proposed (or maybe even just explained) how the form of pyramids and material they used (Granite? Shadow, you work with Granite. I heared it has oscillating properties or something) causes weather changes in the surrounding area by changing the Ions in the atmosphere to change the Weather to more favorable conditions. (No drought in that part of Egypt). I believe it was this realization that spurred Tesla to make a weather control device and work with oscillating towers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dthoughts

However applicable this suggestion might be. I don't see how they could have possibly used it to make the pyramids. For one it means they could only cut stones at night.

---

The light is used to assist with the placement of stones, not with the cutting of them. So although the placement would have to be refined at night, almost all of the work and placement would be done during the day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dthoughts

I believe in an electromagnetic purpose for the Great Pyramid of Giza

---

I think that if we dig down through this structure of beliefs, we find that these kinds of arguments about stone placement are not driving it. You have the belief mostly for other reasons, and fit the arguments around the belief. Otherwise you'd understand ideas like the lamp suggestion better before deciding why they can't work. Likewise for Original Poster. Sorry for leaving this statement hanging without better justification. I must work, more on this later.

I still feel like my position is being made for me in order to be argued against. Why the fuck is the supernatural a required element in any of this? The only claim I made made was that these monuments are older than archeologists are currently claiming. It is currently claimed it took 14-20 years to build the pyramid of Khufu. The reason this is claimed is because of the lineage of Pharaohs and the theory that pyramids are built as funeral monuments so they have a deadline to bury the pharaoh. This claim doesn't add up. That doesn't mean I think anything supernatural is necessarily afoot. Cataclysm, after all, is not a supernatural idea, nor is the idea of reusing structures left behind.

That being said, mysticism was a heavy part of Egyptian society. They combined math, science, music and architecture with their religion and believed they could make structure as music frozen in time according to certain Egyptologists. It's been shown that building a pyramid with the same properties as Khufu that also faces direct north has healing properties. This isn't supernatural, this is science we haven't understood yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

I still feel like my position is being made for me in order to be argued against. Why the fuck is the supernatural a required element in any of this?

---

You change your position almost every post. To the limited extent that we're making up a position for you, we're just trying to find the real position that's motivating the more temporary positions, in hopes of having a real conversation.

You called for an explanation for why ruins are under water. I spoke to that. You called for an explanation for how pyramids are built with a higher degree of precision than is possible even with current technology. I spoke to that. But it seems you're not really basing anything on these points, you just move on to something else. I can speak to the ideas about magnetic fields too, because I know a lot about magnetic fields, and a little bit about Egyptian iron working. But it seems it may be a futile exercise. Now you're saying "why the fuck is the supernatural a required element?" Who says its a required element? I never said anything like that, and nobody's arguments have been based on anything like that. You also repeated a couple times that you haven't said that aliens aren't necessary to explain this. But we didn't say that you did. What we are saying is that 'aliens' and 'mysterious elder civilizations' are very nearly the same kind of explanation, and the arguments for and motivations for both are almost exactly the same. One comes from 'outside' of known history temporally, and another spatially. From my standpoint the two ideas are almost interchangeable. Moreover, you do believe it highly likely that aliens have been involved with human history, unless you've recently changed your mind and are being coy about that also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

The only claim I made made was that these monuments are older than archeologists are currently claiming.

---

No that is most definitely not the only claim you made. What about the magnetic field alignment, for example? I agree that archeologists likely have some of their dates wrong, they do some amount of guessing and making stuff up without always admitting they're doing that. But for you to believe the monuments are a lot older, that must be based on something. Its hard to engage in whatever that is though when you keep contradicting yourself about what you're arguing. I could speculate, and would have tossed out a few ideas already, to see if anything seems to touch a nerve, but haven't mostly due to a lack of time. I leave for China and Japan tomorrow, maybe I'll have more time at the hotel.

I'm not even trying to argue, dude. I just want a friendly discussion. I'm not changing my stance, I'm whisking through evidence and theories made by other people so that this thread can be a brainstorm of ideas about these monuments, not the antagonistic bickering match you seem intent on having.

Compelling ideas were presented to me through various documentaries and other sources such as "Revelation of the Pyramids" because I have a thirst for knowledge, but I remained skeptical and continued inquiring on my own. What I discovered only enhanced the mysterious properties of the Pyramids and other ancient sites, such as learning the healing properties, ley lines, underwater monuments, etc. I decided to compile all of this information on one thread, not because I believe it, but because it's fucking fascinating. The claim made by Revelations of the Pyramids is that these sites are much older than believed and more or less inherited by later civilizations, just as the nation of Egypt has inherited them from the Egyptian Empire. I do not necessarily believe in this claim but based on the evidence I've seen, I found it viable. I'm not changing goal posts or anything, since then all I've done is shrug off the strawmen positions being attacked and reassert the evidence in their regard to speak to how amazing these sites are, perhaps because I feel like they're being underrated and marginalized to a degree. The intricacy of what the ancients understood does not have to mean that they had laser cutting tools or something, that's simply one of the theories proposed I decided to bring attention to. We don't have to bicker about it, in particular. And me bringing up their harmonization with the EM field was not an attempt to argue a mysterious elder civilization, it's me bringing up another unique and amazing quality about these monuments.

Original Poster:

These 'fascinating theories' you're exploring overtly attack and attempt to discredit other ideas which they wish to replace. And you've been doing that in your presentation of them.

When someone expresses agreement with an idea you've been attacking, even by doing something as simple as posting a link, you say they're not being constructive. You say their criticism failed to address the actual arguments behind the ideas you presented. Then when someone does address those arguments, you say that by doing that they're intent on bickering. And when your arguments are shown to be bogus and unserious, you say you're just brainstorming and exploring ideas.

From my perspective, you show no signs of having a 'thirst for knowledge': all indications are that your self image in this regard is a fraud and a farce. If you cared about knowledge, you'd think and engage honestly in pursuit of that knowledge, rather than playing these bizarre games where you fling bullshit at other people's views, while claiming they're being argumentative if they disagree with you.

I've 'made this personal' by attempting to cut through the crap, and I'm more aggressive than you in that regard. I think the ideas you express are intrinsically antagonistic, they attempt to destroy both the fruit and the tree of real understanding. But whatever. If you forget about me for a moment, and look objectively at what Steph said, and compare it to what you said to her and in support of your speculations, I think you will see that your criticism of her post is remarkably hypocritical. You've been debunking theories left and right, but only see it as debunking when other people do it to claims that you find compelling.

You also appear to confound sincerity with aggression, and insincerity with open mindedness. What I'm doing looks more tenacious to you than what you're doing, but from my perspective, you seem less attached to your arguments primarily in the sense that you're making them in jest more than in earnest. You are indeed a bullshitter, you're right about that. But you're attached to your faith in elder civilizations as if your life depends on it. To me the reason for that is a more interesting question. But it doesn't seem to be interesting to you. So if you're done with this conversation too, I'll let it go now and let you have your fake brainstorming thread the way you want it.

I don't actually have attachment to elder civilizations, in fact if you'll note the time of the OP since then I've drifted quite a bit from the original argument. A lot of time has passed, this thread was sort of rezzed and I decided to add the piece of data about how no more people disappear in the Bermuda Triangle than the rest of the ocean, which is critical of theory surrounding the grid system.

But the author of that link rubbed me the wrong way. I don't feel like he was giving the data fair respect. He debunked two little aspects of one particular site and then went on to marginalize the entirety of alternate theory on these ancient sites. I draw offense to that kind of well poisoning. You're free to criticize all the evidence in the OP but I don't like it when people ridicule theorists who draw different conclusions. I think it hurts the scientific process.

The only claim I still hold onto that actually disagrees with Egyptologists at this point is the timespan they claim Khufu was built in and with it, the original purpose of the pyramids. I also feel like they're mostly considered glorified tombstones when they are much, much more than that. But you've admitted to that, you only draw issue on something I didn't even disagree with you on. And then you claimed I was changing goal posts when I was just trying to find my footing, mostly just from attempting to defend my criticism of StephL's link. If it's hypocritical, then it's hypocritical and I'm capable of much greater hypocrisy than that without noticing it, either. I realized now that if I had just stopped trying to defend my criticism I could have prevented the entirety of what occurred afterward. But frankly, I still don't like that article, I still think it skims over major questions and then acts as if it addressed them and the mystery is solved.

To digress, here's a fascinating little article I just found: Swedish Divers Discover A “Stone Age Atlantis”: 11,000 Year Old Ancient Settlement Under The Baltic Sea | Spirit Science and Metaphysics

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

I don't actually have attachment to elder civilizations....
....
I still don't like that article, I still think it skims over major questions and then acts as if it addressed them and the mystery is solved.

---

OK. Attachment wasn't the right word for what I was trying to get at, so I take that back.

I agree that skeptics in general do what you just said they do. But I think that applies at least as much to proponents of alternative histories. So it appears we're both trying to defend the same principle.

My last post came off as more aggressive than what I'd intended. I apologize for that.

I'm in Hong Kong for my job. It's a remarkable city. Have to go catch a flight now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

I realized now that if I had just stopped trying to defend my criticism I could have prevented the entirety of what occurred afterward.

---

I was nodding, when I read this - sometimes your defending seems to run away with you.
So it does with most of us some of the time.
:)

Found another 10 minutes....Here's what I meant by attachment, which was the wrong word: We feel a need for, and in some sense we feel the presence of, a reality that we can't find in our immediate physical circumstances. This need colors what we perceive as interesting and plausible. Understand or answer that need in a different way, and what seemed stimulating or fascinating before shows its weakness and moral ugliness a lot more easily. I find just about everything on History or Discovery Channel, or the bookstore and Internet equivalent, to be an affront to honest reason. Exploring the reasons for our different perceptions about that, to the extent that they differ, is more interesting to me than the details of the arguments, which are important but not as primary. It's not just a matter of differing starting assumptions. We're attempting to solve or spiritual 'problem' in slightly different ways, and these clashes of perspective are a symptom. As I see it.