There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

[stevevw]

You claimed it lined certain shafts and chambers because of their electrical properties. I was merely pointing out that the prestige and implied wealth of using granite was a better explanation. It as if you said the pyramid was capped with gold because it was a conductor, when ostentatious display of wealth and power would be better. (I've heard the capped with gold claim before, though I don't think it is still thought to be the case.)

This shows how the same evidence can be seen with two different explanations. It seems to me that many examples are explained away as decoration. Like everything was for looks and no function. Thus relegating the Egyptians to artists rather than knowledgable.

Which I think stems back to the design verses naturalistic worldview. Skeptics resist attributing any agency or design to anything humans do as it suggests design in nature or that there is such a thing as a mind capable of actually changing or creating objective reality.

I'm not sure you've learned it. Batteries, like piezoelectric crystals, can't be a power source unless they are wired together. The trunk-load of batteries and the quartz crystals in granite aren't wired together and you can't make an electrical power source out of them.

From what I understand the power source needs to be connected in the proper sequence and aligned to be able to work in the first place. The piezoelectric crystals have to fall within a certain range or oscilation to generate or enhance the effect.

Thus the pyramid itself being located in a constantly vibrating location and with additional sources of activity such as siezmic activity or the natural subterrainian activities of the waterways and caverns.

With the additional effects of the pyramids internal layout with specific stones layered in ways that enhance the piezoelectric effect when is concentrated into the chambers and especially the Kings chamber.

For all this to happen I don't think it was an accident or coincident that these specific locations, layouts and other evidence of purposeful treatments to the structure such as thermal activity show some sort of experimentation was going on. I know thats a laymans explanations but it is something along these lines.

Your "AI" (artificial idiot)

Its funny how your side uses the same but its ok for them.

is slamming random things together. "quartz has piezoelectric properties" + "granite contains quartz" + your leading question + a dash of your favorite nutters and their "electric pyramid nonsense" in the "training data" and you get responses like this. LLMs (like the "AI chatbots") are useful tools, but they are just that, tools. GIGO or if you don't know how to use it you will get nonsense results.

I did not ask any leading questions. I simply put in your statement and not anything I said and that is exactly what popped out. No mention of pyramid power, Atlantis, aliens. Just the simple question (is Granite is a piezoelectric power source).

Once again it is you who keeps injecting the conspiracies of "electric pyramid nonsense". Your taking the simple question about the piezoelectric effects of granite and how it can generate electrical energy through pressure or other forces and assuming its about some conspiracy about alien power.

I am simply looking at the material involved and how it is structured and the possible activities it was subject to to show that it is ideal for generating such activity. Thats it. Step one. Not some conspiracy down the raod that you think its about.

How?

By the possible methods the articles have been mentioning. The premise being if the pyramid was built in a certain location to maximize potential natural energy. That the specific internal layout and material also being conducive.

That subjecting the pyramid itself and the internal structures such as shafts and chambers through stressses of various sorts such as heat or sound. Will potentially generate certain effects that will produce desired outcomes such as a concentration of energy in the chambers.

If all the setup and materials can potentially achieve this then this is the logical conclusion. If tests can show that these setups and arrangements can produce the effects. Then its a case of whether this was actually being done. That we find evidence of that stress within the pyramid and stones seems to support this premise.

lol

What, lol. Isn't it funny. When I actually link peer review its just laughed at.

lol

What "eyewitness testimony"? Pyramids have been there for millennia.

The testimony from the ancients themselves that tell us they had this knowledge. That it was from the gods or for the gods. You don't believe them like you don't believe the witnesses of Christ who they said came back from the dead. The fundemental skepticism of all things non naturalistic is a belief and not science.

Though this is not on topic, it is also false. Eye witnesses are *not* good sources. Our knowledge of Jesus of Nazareth is not based on eyewitness testimony anyway. I suggest you go read a proper source on the origins of the Gospels. But there is no need to discuss it here as it is not the topic.

So if there is evidence for Christ and the gospels then whats stopping people from then taking up what was claimed as truth.

Or are you just talking about a certain kind of knowledge that can never convince that the supernatural events happened. Or there there can be such alternative knowledge and reality in the first place.

Which is utterly irrelevant to the principle (ancient, unknown civilizations) and secondary claims (lost ancient rock shaping technology) you have made in this thread.

This is a either/or fallacy. Its not just about 'rock shaping' but ancient lost alternative and/or advanced knowledge and the possible tech that came from this.

Fundementally as I said and the OP pointed this out. That this is a epistemic and metaphysical belief and not just the science of specific examples. Though they may show the advanced knowledge.

Part of that is labelling good people by assumption and stereotypes of conspiracies and making up stuff simply because they believe or propose an alternative idea about what knowledge is.

That includes Christian scientists or those who are open to alternative metaphysics who can hold both the scientific causes and the alternative ones that could range from spirituality to consciousness beyond brain.

Some skeptics automatically lump everyone into the conspiracy when its not and don't support the claims about the specific ideas that even Hancock have suggested. Even if I also think some like Hancock can drift into spectualtion. He also holds some pretty well accepted and verified ideas. But you don't seem to have the capacity to be able to entertain both sides at the same time. Its either all your way or the highway.

 

[BCP1928]

But if the knowledge stems from some transcedent source then it is a possible source that science cannot measure that may be involved.

How would you know that the source was transcendent?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Show me which ones and the words coming out of their mouth that they are supporting some unreal conspiracy about aliens or Atlantis.

If we do discuss the Atlantean nonsense and orgins of your ancient advanced tech sources, will you honestly deal with them, or will you deflect?

Also I wish to correct a fallacy thats being snuck in here. That suggesting there might to a real even that sparked the Atlantis legend is not a conspiracy in itself. This is the bait and switch tactic. Falsely make out that if someone mentions the legand of Atlantis and how it may have come about through the sciences is making a conspiract theory.

Please stop quoting fallacies. You don't seem to know what they are.

Plato made up "Atlantis" as a morality tale. Connolly made up most of the modern version whole cloth from his fantastical understanding of prehistoric Ameria. Neither is based on any historical event.

You keep mentioning conspiracy theories. No one is talking about conspiracy theories. There is no "conspiracy" I am claiming is being made about the past. Just a lot of liars, fools, and grifters.

This is false and even mainstream science has had an interest is discovering if there is any truth to legends. Often they find there was a real event that led to the creation of the legend. Like the Flood myths are based on real flood events and not some complete fairy tale. So you are making a conflation of the real science and myths yourself.

I don't find the myths interesting, nor do I think they have any real probative value in understanding the past. The understanding of ancient myths and beliefs are only interesting to the extent that peoples of the time motivated them in the past.

Oooh a Hancock fan, Take him to the dungeon.

If only it were that simple.

You really need to get over this Hancock derangement syndrome lol. You have brought this in dozens of times. Your not making me see anything.

This is becoming clear.

I am completely aware that some of these sites include stuff from Hancock and others.

And you don't see the problem in basing information on the work of a liar?

Its bound too as they all come under 'alternative knowledge and tech'. Like the UAP's this is a natural human intuition and belief. We have been doing it forever lol and never will stop. Because there is something real beyond that we are trying to get at. Its in our DNA so to speak.

This isn't about UFOs or DNA.

But look at the specific people involved. The host of UnchartedX clearly states he is not promoting woo or conspiracy. But supporting what is said with evidence.

He says that, but he is one of the flakiest of them all. Only Dunn has him beaten on that front. When I was trying to view some of the "Michael Button" content, "UnchartedX" kept appearing in the side feed with woo nonsense about a variety of subjects, not just Egyptology.

The guy from the OP clearly states he is treating the investigation academically.

That seems to be his grift or his delusion. I'm not going to take the time to figure out if he is a liar or just a true believer.

Your fixating on this so much that any suggestion or link to Hancok alone wipes out a persons credibility before you even find out what they believe themselves.

Frankly it should. If anyone claims to love ancient history and adores the work of Graham "The Fraud" Hancock, then they are just not credible on ancient history. Again, I don't care if they are just brainwashed members of the Hancock cult, or fellow grifters.

Its classic ad hominem.

It is not an ad hom to note that someone making claims about area X is involved with people doing very unsavory things in area X. It is no different than dismissing a "financial advisor" who professes admiration for propagators of Ponzi schemes.

Like I said show me the words coming out of the people specifically that they are promoting some unreal idea or not supporting what they actually say with at least an attempt at the science. I mean re the signatures they say they don't know. They say its not modern machines or aliens. They just don't know.

You just told me you don't care if they are Hancock acolytes or not. Why should I bother at this point? Are you going to listen?

When they do attempt to explain how its usually by some logical method like a lathe or some way of generating power through hydro or tapping into some form of energy they discovered. Which is certainly not aliens or far fetchs myths and a possibility. We just discovered they created some modern form of cement that looks like the real thing and lasts 5,000 plus years. So why not.
Fair enough.
Thats what I am doing. Like I said you have mentions Hancock and Atlantis and conspiracies more than a conspiracy theorist lol. Enough so to actually create one in this thread.

No one is discussing conspiracies.

 

[Hans Blaster]

This shows how the same evidence can be seen with two different explanations. It seems to me that many examples are explained away as decoration. Like everything was for looks and no function. Thus relegating the Egyptians to artists rather than knowledgable.

The artists were artists. We are talking about the burial chamber. If you go to a tomb like that of "Tut" there are lots of fancy objects, a fancy coffin, and paintings on the walls. The burial chambers of wealthy Egyptians *were* artistic. The rest of the pyramid is structural engineering and made of rough limestone blocks.

Which I think stems back to the design verses naturalistic worldview. Skeptics resist attributing any agency or design to anything humans do as it suggests design in nature or that there is such a thing as a mind capable of actually changing or creating objective reality.

You are reading things into this.

From what I understand the power source needs to be connected in the proper sequence and aligned to be able to work in the first place. The piezoelectric crystals have to fall within a certain range or oscilation to generate or enhance the effect.

The quartz grains in granite *ARE NOT* wired together. That was the whole point.

Thus the pyramid itself being located in a constantly vibrating location and with additional sources of activity such as siezmic activity or the natural subterrainian activities of the waterways and caverns.

With the additional effects of the pyramids internal layout with specific stones layered in ways that enhance the piezoelectric effect when is concentrated into the chambers and especially the Kings chamber.

For all this to happen I don't think it was an accident or coincident that these specific locations, layouts and other evidence of purposeful treatments to the structure such as thermal activity show some sort of experimentation was going on. I know thats a laymans explanations but it is something along these lines.

You are grasping at straws.

Its funny how your side uses the same but its ok for them.

"My side"? I'm not on a side and I HAVE NEVER USED "ai" for ANYTHING, ANYWHERE. (And frankly I don't really think it is "OK".)

I did not ask any leading questions. I simply put in your statement and not anything I said and that is exactly what popped out. No mention of pyramid power, Atlantis, aliens. Just the simple question (is Granite is a piezoelectric power source).

Once again it is you who keeps injecting the conspiracies of "electric pyramid nonsense". Your taking the simple question about the piezoelectric effects of granite and how it can generate electrical energy through pressure or other forces and assuming its about some conspiracy about alien power.

I have no idea what chat bot you used or what it was trained with. This is another good reason to avoid "ai" if you don't know exactly what it is up to.

I am simply looking at the material involved and how it is structured and the possible activities it was subject to to show that it is ideal for generating such activity. Thats it. Step one. Not some conspiracy down the raod that you think its about.

I have never invoked "conspiracy". Not once. Even more so --- I HAVE TOLD YOU A COUPLE DOZEN TIMES THAT THIS ISN'T ABOUT "CONSPIRACY" and I AM NOT MAKING ANY "CONSPIRACY CLAIMS". Are you incapable of understanding this or of telling the truth?

By the possible methods the articles have been mentioning. The premise being if the pyramid was built in a certain location to maximize potential natural energy. That the specific internal layout and material also being conducive.

These fantasy theories are built on things that the Egyptians had no inkling of. We can read what they write. We know what they did and believed. They did not know about electricity. Period.

That subjecting the pyramid itself and the internal structures such as shafts and chambers through stressses of various sorts such as heat or sound. Will potentially generate certain effects that will produce desired outcomes such as a concentration of energy in the chambers.

If all the setup and materials can potentially achieve this then this is the logical conclusion. If tests can show that these setups and arrangements can produce the effects. Then its a case of whether this was actually being done. That we find evidence of that stress within the pyramid and stones seems to support this premise.

We don't need your excuse-making "explanations" for how some fantasy ancient tech worked.

What, lol. Isn't it funny. When I actually link peer review its just laughed at.

At least one of those papers was a joke. Complete nonsense.

The testimony from the ancients themselves that tell us they had this knowledge. That it was from the gods or for the gods.

This is the same reading of ancient supernatural claims into modern discoveries that no one connected until the scientific discovery was made. I don't think you buy the Muslim claim that they knew the Universe was expanding because of some verse about "stretching out the tent of the heavens over the Earth", do you?

You don't believe them like you don't believe the witnesses of Christ who they said came back from the dead. The fundemental skepticism of all things non naturalistic is a belief and not science.

So if there is evidence for Christ and the gospels then whats stopping people from then taking up what was claimed as truth.

The only documents in the NT that are signed by their authors (I, X, wrote this) are the letters of Paul and Paul never met Jesus and did not write about his life, but only the "spiritual aspects" of the gospel and various bits of advice and theology. The Gospels are certainly not written by those whose names are attached to them now, nor by any eyewitness. Whatever information about Jesus made it into them did so indirectly after many decades.

Or are you just talking about a certain kind of knowledge that can never convince that the supernatural events happened. Or there there can be such alternative knowledge and reality in the first place.

This is a either/or fallacy. Its not just about 'rock shaping' but ancient lost alternative and/or advanced knowledge and the possible tech that came from this.

Fundementally as I said and the OP pointed this out. That this is a epistemic and metaphysical belief and not just the science of specific examples. Though they may show the advanced knowledge.

Part of that is labelling good people by assumption and stereotypes of conspiracies and making up stuff simply because they believe or propose an alternative idea about what knowledge is.

That includes Christian scientists or those who are open to alternative metaphysics who can hold both the scientific causes and the alternative ones that could range from spirituality to consciousness beyond brain.

Some skeptics automatically lump everyone into the conspiracy when its not and don't support the claims about the specific ideas that even Hancock have suggested. Even if I also think some like Hancock can drift into spectualtion. He also holds some pretty well accepted and verified ideas. But you don't seem to have the capacity to be able to entertain both sides at the same time. Its either all your way or the highway.

I AM NOT CLAIMING ANY OF THIS IS A CONSPIRACY. Please get this through your skull and into that bit of meat inside that is meant for thinking.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

I am not sure. But that is what the Schumann effect is. A naturally occurring phenomena where there is more electromagnetic waves on the surface and a constant vibration.

Why do you believe that it interacts with the quartz crystal in the granite then?

Until they get access to the pyramids, they can do tests at home.

Why don't you ever try to to connect your claims to the egyptians? What they actually did? Your handwaving disparate guesses and when pressed you reference piezoelectricity in general, the Schumann resonance in general etc. These things would be interesting if you actually tried to connect them with tests that show that the egyptians used them, as it stands now it is just obscurantism.

 

[stevevw]

How would you know that the source was transcendent?

Ah this is the age old question about substance and where is the line between the material and immaterial. The Mind/Body Duality or mind over matter.

Some areas of science are even toying with the idea of an Information or Mind s fundemental. What exactly is transcedent.

What about phenomenal belief. Is that real and transcedent. What about conscious experiences. What if conscious experiences of nature and reality which is a direct experience of what is happening and not a 3rd party measure.

What if these experiences allow a deeper knowledge of reality that allowed ancients to discover how to manipulate it. Is that not how nature is designed. That becoming part of that nature or one with the world you are therefore becoming part of it more fully and able to experience and know it better.

Mary could not know the experience of colors like red. When she did she came to know and understand something about reality that all her academic knowledge could not tell her. This was new knowledge and insight into nature and reality.

By the same logic if the ancients were more immersed in the direct experiences of nature and reality they would also come to know similar knowledge about reality that material science could not rteveal. Which enable them to utilise and manipulate it.

 

[stevevw]

If we do discuss the Atlantean nonsense and orgins of your ancient advanced tech sources, will you honestly deal with them, or will you deflect?

I am not sure what you meran by deflect. Deflect into what lol. Into something like the Atlantis myth. Why would I do that and make it even worse for myself lol. You grossly underestimate those who can understand the difference.

But yes I am able to discuss the Atlantis legend if you want and its context to the difference between the science and the legend.

Please stop quoting fallacies. You don't seem to know what they are.

This was based on the fact that the idea of Atlantis as a conspiracy is being used to dismiss everything any person who may be associated with such conspiracies as wrong in everything they say. A sort of coverall to automatically dismiss the person without actually investigating what they said.

It is a fact that you have dismissed everyone and what they actually have said without knowing what they have said on this by the fact you called them all grifters without any evidence.

Plato made up "Atlantis" as a morality tale.

The bible made up the Flood myth as a moral tale. But it still had a real event as the basis. This is how it works. Moral tales come from real events percieved as from the gods or mother nature. Thats what gives them legs. Otherwise its just some unbelievable tale with no real substance.

Throughout time we see the same theme over and over of a great city or culture or Empire failing or destroyed because of their hubris and pride.

It makes perfect sense that there was such a legend or a number or glocal and local stories floating around that was used in other ways with a similar moral lesson. Which PLato an dothers drew upon. It makes sense that just like the Flood myths are based on real flood events in all cultures. That from those flood myths could come a great city or culture that was destroyed. A moral lesson within a lesson.

Connolly made up most of the modern version whole cloth from his fantastical understanding of prehistoric Ameria. Neither is based on any historical event.

Yeah the same theme is elaborated on over and over. But this stems from a real event sometime in the past. Give enough time and the worldwide tsuami we had a decade ago will become something sent by the gods. The story is probably being laid down within the cultures that directly experienced it. In fact if you listen to their accounts many say it was the gods being angry.

This is a natural inclination of humans.

You keep mentioning conspiracy theories. No one is talking about conspiracy theories. There is no "conspiracy" I am claiming is being made about the past. Just a lot of liars, fools, and grifters.

Yes they are. You started with the idea its all conspiracy suggesting there was alternative or advanced lost knowledge. Full stop.

You labelled it all as conspiracies like Atlantis and aliens and those who are investigating such possibilities are grifters and liars and fools. Without any evidence direct from those you accuse actually promoting such things.

Therefore I have been from the start of this thread having to defend these good people from your stereotypical labels and false accusations.

I don't find the myths interesting, nor do I think they have any real probative value in understanding the past. The understanding of ancient myths and beliefs are only interesting to the extent that peoples of the time motivated them in the past.

So you are more or less dismissing a good chunk of science in how we can understand the ancients and their culture and knowledge. Your more or less saying we should only understand them from a 21st century worldview and not how they believed and thought.

How can you even come to understand them by know knowing their worldview. Or not understand human cognition and behaviour in this context as a behavioural science. They are not machines and this is I think the missing aspect that material sciences dismiss. The agencies and self determinant aspects that come from culture such as belief and spirituality.

This is becoming clear.

Not in the way your making out. Its extreme and narrow minded. As much as any conspiracy.

And you don't see the problem in basing information on the work of a liar?

I am able to take what I think makes sense or is supported and leave that which I think is not. You don't have to throw the baby out with the bath water. Often much of what is said is reasonable and something we should question and consider. Its not that controversial.

But because this entire topic can so easily slip into spectulation the two get conflated. Thus throwing out the legitimate. Unfortunately some people give this whole topic a bad name.

This isn't about UFOs or DNA.

You literally just agree that the whole UAP and advance tech related to this thread.

He says that, but he is one of the flakiest of them all. Only Dunn has him beaten on that front. When I was trying to view some of the "Michael Button" content, "UnchartedX" kept appearing in the side feed with woo nonsense about a variety of subjects, not just Egyptology.

And you did not check it out to actually see what it was about. This only shows you tar people by association. You also don't believe peoples own words. So why should anyone then believe yours. Is this not just personal feelings and beliefs.

That seems to be his grift or his delusion. I'm not going to take the time to figure out if he is a liar or just a true believer.

Your just proving my point.

Frankly it should. If anyone claims to love ancient history and adores the work of Graham "The Fraud" Hancock, then they are just not credible on ancient history. Again, I don't care if they are just brainwashed members of the Hancock cult, or fellow grifters.

Fair enough

It is not an ad hom to note that someone making claims about area X is involved with people doing very unsavory things in area X. It is no different than dismissing a "financial advisor" who professes admiration for propagators of Ponzi schemes.

It is when your not providing evidence. Anyone can make accusations. Its easy. You just say the words enough.

You just told me you don't care if they are Hancock acolytes or not. Why should I bother at this point? Are you going to listen?

Its more the principle that you so easily dismiss people based on heresay and not actually getting to know them or what they actually said. You were dismissing for the beginning of everyone and everything. You had already made your mind up before you walked in the front door lol.

No one is discussing conspiracies.

Hum thats what you have called everything posted lol. You have constantly tied it back to Hancock and Dunn as representing everything said.

 

[BCP1928]

Ah this is the age old question about substance and where is the line between the material and immaterial. The Mind/Body Duality or mind over matter.

Some areas of science are even toying with the idea of an Information or Mind s fundemental. What exactly is transcedent.

What about phenomenal belief. Is that real and transcedent. What about conscious experiences. What if conscious experiences of nature and reality which is a direct experience of what is happening and not a 3rd party measure.

You've mentioned this "third party" before. Who is it?

What if these experiences allow a deeper knowledge of reality that allowed ancients to discover how to manipulate it. Is that not how nature is designed. That becoming part of that nature or one with the world you are therefore becoming part of it more fully and able to experience and know it better.

Mary could not know the experience of colors like red. When she did she came to know and understand something about reality that all her academic knowledge could not tell her. This was new knowledge and insight into nature and reality.

Yes, Mary could gain knowledge of the color red, by observing it--just like a scientist, she increased her knowledge of the natural world by observing it.

By the same logic if the ancients were more immersed in the direct experiences of nature and reality they would also come to know similar knowledge about reality that material science could not rteveal. Which enable them to utilise and manipulate it.

Both craftsmen and scientists are devoted to the direct experience of nature and reality. That's how they learn what the properties of the materials they work with are.

 

[Hans Blaster]

This was based on the fact that the idea of Atlantis as a conspiracy is being used to dismiss everything any person who may be associated with such conspiracies as wrong in everything they say. A sort of coverall to automatically dismiss the person without actually investigating what they said.

WHAT CONSPIRACY?

I have invoked no conpiracies. None. Ever. On this thread. I am not, nor have I ever claimed that Hancock, or Conolly or Dunn et al. are a conspiracy.

They have no secret to conceal nor power to maintain. They simply put are FOOLS, KNAVES, and GRIFTERS.

What [thousand expletives deleted] "conspiracy" do you think I am talking about?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I am not sure what you meran by deflect. Deflect into what lol. Into something like the Atlantis myth. Why would I do that and make it even worse for myself lol. You grossly underestimate those who can understand the difference.

Deflect, as in refuse to look at or deny evidence that the whole cadre of pseudoarcheologists you've been citing are deeply tied to Hancock and his predecessors, personally, or "intellectually". You do it every time it comes up (and you are right now). I see no point in laying out detailed evidence if you are just going to dismiss it.

But yes I am able to discuss the Atlantis legend if you want and its context to the difference between the science and the legend.

This was based on the fact that the idea of Atlantis as a conspiracy is being used to dismiss everything any person who may be associated with such conspiracies as wrong in everything they say. A sort of coverall to automatically dismiss the person without actually investigating what they said.

It is a fact that you have dismissed everyone and what they actually have said without knowing what they have said on this by the fact you called them all grifters without any evidence.

They is what they is, and you are deflecting right now.

The bible made up the Flood myth as a moral tale. But it still had a real event as the basis. This is how it works. Moral tales come from real events percieved as from the gods or mother nature. Thats what gives them legs. Otherwise its just some unbelievable tale with no real substance.

I don't care.

Throughout time we see the same theme over and over of a great city or culture or Empire failing or destroyed because of their hubris and pride.

It makes perfect sense that there was such a legend or a number or glocal and local stories floating around that was used in other ways with a similar moral lesson. Which PLato an dothers drew upon. It makes sense that just like the Flood myths are based on real flood events in all cultures. That from those flood myths could come a great city or culture that was destroyed. A moral lesson within a lesson.

Yeah the same theme is elaborated on over and over. But this stems from a real event sometime in the past. Give enough time and the worldwide tsuami we had a decade ago will become something sent by the gods. The story is probably being laid down within the cultures that directly experienced it. In fact if you listen to their accounts many say it was the gods being angry.

That doesn't make it a good basis for an understanding of history.

This is a natural inclination of humans.

Yes they are. You started with the idea its all conspiracy suggesting there was alternative or advanced lost knowledge. Full stop.

You labelled it all as conspiracies like Atlantis and aliens and those who are investigating such possibilities are grifters and liars and fools. Without any evidence direct from those you accuse actually promoting such things.

I have a separate post calling this out, but stop talking about conspiracies. (or claiming I am talking about them.)

If you want a thread about some paranoid conspiracy fantasy involving the archeological establishment conspiring against the Hancock acolytes to keep them down, go start a thread about that in the conspiracy subforum. This sub-forum ain't the place for that stuff.

Therefore I have been from the start of this thread having to defend these good people from your stereotypical labels and false accusations.

What "good people"?

So you are more or less dismissing a good chunk of science in how we can understand the ancients and their culture and knowledge. Your more or less saying we should only understand them from a 21st century worldview and not how they believed and thought.

How can you even come to understand them by know knowing their worldview. Or not understand human cognition and behaviour in this context as a behavioural science. They are not machines and this is I think the missing aspect that material sciences dismiss. The agencies and self determinant aspects that come from culture such as belief and spirituality.

No they are not machines, they are apes, just like us. The thread has been about the physical evidence for earlier settlements (at first) and the technologies used on certain Egyptian objectss. These are not "worldview" topics, for the ancients or for us. (This also isn't a "worldview" section of CF.) You have not discussed Egyptian culture, you have instead denigrated their stone working skills.

Not in the way your making out. Its extreme and narrow minded. As much as any conspiracy.

I am able to take what I think makes sense or is supported and leave that which I think is not. You don't have to throw the baby out with the bath water. Often much of what is said is reasonable and something we should question and consider. Its not that controversial.

But because this entire topic can so easily slip into spectulation the two get conflated. Thus throwing out the legitimate. Unfortunately some people give this whole topic a bad name.

Your principle sources aren't doing anything but speculation.

You literally just agree that the whole UAP and advance tech related to this thread.

Neither has anything to do with DNA. I'm not discussing UFOs no matter how much connection the material presented here might be tied to ancient astronauts, nothing is to be gained by discussing particular modern sightings.

And of course "lost advanced tech" is somehow (thanks to you and your sources) the subject of this thread. (Karoly even has it as part of his YT channel name, or is it his podcast.) But "UFOs and DNA" are not.

And you did not check it out to actually see what it was about. This only shows you tar people by association. You also don't believe peoples own words. So why should anyone then believe yours. Is this not just personal feelings and beliefs.

I've seen several of their videos, both "unchartedX" and "michael button", to know enough about their "deal".

Your just proving my point.

I'm not. It doesn't matter if a "source" is a fool or a liar. If they are transmitting false information, then they are useless and should be dismissed.

Fair enough

It is when your not providing evidence. Anyone can make accusations. Its easy. You just say the words enough.

Its more the principle that you so easily dismiss people based on heresay and not actually getting to know them or what they actually said. You were dismissing for the beginning of everyone and everything. You had already made your mind up before you walked in the front door lol.

Hum thats what you have called everything posted lol. You have constantly tied it back to Hancock and Dunn as representing everything said.

Nope. Read what I write.

 

[sjastro]

I thought the electromagnetic wave effect at the location of the pyramids has already been established with the Schumann resonance frequency.
Resonating electromagnetic waves with a frequency of around 8 hertz which can be measured in the Earth's atmosphere. This natural phenomenon is called the Schumann resonance frequency.

This causes a constant vibration in the quartz crystals. So any further effects are building on this. The way the stones are located in relation to each other. The granite chambers are under tremendous pressure and the addition of certain acoustics and all sorts of activity can be produced.

Did you make this nonsense up or is there a pseudoscience site you can point me to.
As a reference here again is the peer reviewed science article I referred to which went over your head involving radio waves reaching the King's chamber and amplifying the field through constructive interference.

https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jap/article-abstract/124/3/034903/156109/Electromagnetic-properties-of-the-Great-Pyramid?redirectedFrom=fulltext

The researchers needed to take into consideration the energy loss of >99% as radio waves are scattered and absorbed by the surrounding limestone before reaching the interior chambers, composed of granite.
Theoretically electromagnetic waves can interact with the Great Pyramid in the kHz-MHz range and in the MHz range for the pyramid's internal chambers.

By comparison a Schumann resonance electromagnetic wave of 8 Hz and a wavelength of around 38,000 km has an unimaginably small amplitude with a field strength of round 1 picotesla. It will not penetrate the limestone exterior to reach the granite lined interior chambers of the Great Pyramid.
If on the other hand you are entertaining the even more absurd idea of a Schumann resonance electromagnetic wave interacting with the Great Pyramid causing it to vibrate and everything inside it including quartz crystals in the granite, there is the physics known as the "Long Wavelength Limit" which states if the wavelength of the radiation is very much larger than object in question, the object is essentially transparent and nothing happens. The wavelength of Schumann resonance is enormously larger than the dimensions of the Great Pyramid which cannot support or significantly interact with Schumann modes.

This highlights the difference between science and pseudoscience, the peer reviewed scientific paper is constrained by the physics, whereas the physics shows the pseudoscience is wrong.

 

[BCP1928]

I am not sure what you meran by deflect. Deflect into what lol. Into something like the Atlantis myth. Why would I do that and make it even worse for myself lol. You grossly underestimate those who can understand the difference.

But yes I am able to discuss the Atlantis legend if you want and its context to the difference between the science and the legend.

This was based on the fact that the idea of Atlantis as a conspiracy is being used to dismiss everything any person who may be associated with such conspiracies as wrong in everything they say. A sort of coverall to automatically dismiss the person without actually investigating what they said.

It is a fact that you have dismissed everyone and what they actually have said without knowing what they have said on this by the fact you called them all grifters without any evidence.

The bible made up the Flood myth as a moral tale. But it still had a real event as the basis. This is how it works. Moral tales come from real events percieved as from the gods or mother nature. Thats what gives them legs. Otherwise its just some unbelievable tale with no real substance.

Throughout time we see the same theme over and over of a great city or culture or Empire failing or destroyed because of their hubris and pride.

It makes perfect sense that there was such a legend or a number or glocal and local stories floating around that was used in other ways with a similar moral lesson. Which PLato an dothers drew upon. It makes sense that just like the Flood myths are based on real flood events in all cultures. That from those flood myths could come a great city or culture that was destroyed. A moral lesson within a lesson.

Yeah the same theme is elaborated on over and over. But this stems from a real event sometime in the past. Give enough time and the worldwide tsuami we had a decade ago will become something sent by the gods. The story is probably being laid down within the cultures that directly experienced it. In fact if you listen to their accounts many say it was the gods being angry.

This is a natural inclination of humans.

Yes they are. You started with the idea its all conspiracy suggesting there was alternative or advanced lost knowledge. Full stop.

It's not a conspiracy, just dumbitude. If there's a conspiracy it's the one you are floating, that scientists reject evidence because it interferes with their materialism

You labelled it all as conspiracies like Atlantis and aliens and those who are investigating such possibilities are grifters and liars and fools. Without any evidence direct from those you accuse actually promoting such things.

Therefore I have been from the start of this thread having to defend these good people from your stereotypical labels and false accusations.

So you are more or less dismissing a good chunk of science in how we can understand the ancients and their culture and knowledge. Your more or less saying we should only understand them from a 21st century worldview and not how they believed and thought.

How can you even come to understand them by know knowing their worldview. Or not understand human cognition and behaviour in this context as a behavioural science. They are not machines and this is I think the missing aspect that material sciences dismiss. The agencies and self determinant aspects that come from culture such as belief and spirituality.

Not in the way your making out. Its extreme and narrow minded. As much as any conspiracy.

I am able to take what I think makes sense or is supported and leave that which I think is not. You don't have to throw the baby out with the bath water. Often much of what is said is reasonable and something we should question and consider. Its not that controversial.

But because this entire topic can so easily slip into spectulation the two get conflated. Thus throwing out the legitimate. Unfortunately some people give this whole topic a bad name.

You literally just agree that the whole UAP and advance tech related to this thread.

And you did not check it out to actually see what it was about. This only shows you tar people by association. You also don't believe peoples own words. So why should anyone then believe yours. Is this not just personal feelings and beliefs.

Your just proving my point.

Fair enough

It is when your not providing evidence. Anyone can make accusations. Its easy. You just say the words enough.

Its more the principle that you so easily dismiss people based on heresay and not actually getting to know them or what they actually said. You were dismissing for the beginning of everyone and everything. You had already made your mind up before you walked in the front door lol.

Hum thats what you have called everything posted lol. You have constantly tied it back to Hancock and Dunn as representing everything said.

 

[stevevw]

It's not a conspiracy, just dumbitude. If there's a conspiracy it's the one you are floating, that scientists reject evidence because it interferes with their materialism

Why would not a scientist who believes in materialism as the only basis for reality ever be open to immaterial ideas lol. Its self evident that they could not possibly include such possibilities. Materialism is closely linked to atheism. Its a stronger form of naturalism.

When someone uses material science to refute immaterial possibilities they are imposing a metaphysical belief and not science.

Whether you want to call it conspiracy or dumbitude its still demeaning and dismissing the immaterial worldview of fundemental reality as something unreal or that the person who believes such things is dumb or deluded or easily fooled.

Therefore must be a grifter or conspracy theorist if they dare suggest such things lol..

 

[Hans Blaster]

Why would not a scientist who believes in materialism as the only basis for reality ever be open to immaterial ideas lol. Its self evident that they could not possibly include such possibilities. Materialism is closely linked to atheism. Its a stronger form of naturalism.

When someone uses material science to refute immaterial possibilities they are imposing a metaphysical belief and not science.

Whether you want to call it conspiracy or dumbitude its still demeaning and dismissing the immaterial worldview of fundemental reality as something unreal or that the person who believes such things is dumb or deluded or easily fooled.

Therefore must be a grifter or conspracy theorist if they dare suggest such things lol..

Of what use is "immaterialism" in making vases, pyramidal resonators, or cutting (or pouring) stone blocks?

 

[stevevw]

Deflect, as in refuse to look at or deny evidence that the whole cadre of pseudoarcheologists you've been citing are deeply tied to Hancock and his predecessors, personally, or "intellectually". You do it every time it comes up (and you are right now). I see no point in laying out detailed evidence if you are just going to dismiss it.

Actually this is an assumption that I dismiss the idea that what I am saying could be construed as what you are trying to point out to me. I have said I know the difference and that you underestimate those who may speak of the idea of lost advanced or alternative knowledge.

The topic itself is not a conspiracy theory and those who investigate and propose such an idea are not grifters. That there are some who do does not make everyone the case. This is my objection to your tarring everyone with the same brush.

Even Hancock gets stuff right. I showed you how Dunn was correct in his idea that the pyramid may be some sort of energy generator. This idea is now being proposed by mainstream science.

So a person is able to take what is good and leave the rest even if the person may promote some conspiracy. The very topic is primed for that type of elaboration. But that does not make it all pseudoarcheology.

They is what they is, and you are deflecting right now.

No I am not. I have acknowledged the difference. But you have not. It is you who are deflecting in that you cannot admit that these people are sometimes right and on to som ething in some cases. You reject it all based on assuming ots all bunk.

Whereas you have not actually shown any evidence for this assumption. I can show that some of the stuff they mention is supported by the science.

You seem to be tarring the whole topic or any mention of ancient advanced knowledge as all (hancock grifting) when its clearly not. Its a genuine hypothesis and line of investigation.

I don't care.

Well thats the problem then. You don't care to properly investigate human behaviour as far as culture and belief and creating legends and myths are related to real events.

This is dismissing a good chunk of the evidence and imposing a specific epistemics that we must exclude such considerations from how we can understand the ancients and human behaviour.

That doesn't make it a good basis for an understanding of history.

It depends what history your talking about. We are talking about legends like Atlantis and the Flood. Understanding the cultural aspects of human behaviour such as belief helps understand how legends and myths are based on real events.

It links the two. Thus it lends weight to informing the science ie if the flood myth is based on a real even then there will be geological evidence. Or eveidence of mass destruction in places that match the stories. Thus giving a real basis for the event that became the legend or myth.

That is more or less what some people are doing. Believing the legends and myths have some substances. Not the magical and unreal stuff. But real events that happened that sparked the legend.

So I mentioned the bible events and how archeology is actually finding the real places and events that may have been made into myth or moral tales as a comparison.

I have a separate post calling this out, but stop talking about conspiracies. (or claiming I am talking about them.)

Ok so is anything in this thread so far not a conspiracy. Or not promoting conspiracy and pseudoscience. Because what I am getting is its all unreal and conspiracy.

If you want a thread about some paranoid conspiracy fantasy involving the archeological establishment conspiring against the Hancock acolytes to keep them down, go start a thread about that in the conspiracy subforum. This sub-forum ain't the place for that stuff.

Lol I thought that was already happening in this one. Except its been spread to everyone mentioned. They are all in the Hancock mould. Even the presenter in the OP.

Remembering that this thread was actually about the idea that there was a flaw in the orthodox/mainstream narrative about our history. That it was actually the orthodoxy that was hiding stuff and pushing a particular narrative that conformed to the establishment.

So in reality this thread actually involves issues like Hancock and determining what is conspiracy and what is not. That this thread has decended into arguements about the credibility of the sources is evidence for this.

What "good people"?

There you go, you confirmed what I just said above. If you have to ask that question shows that you have already made your mind up none are good that I have linked. Therefore a blanket ban and tarring.

No they are not machines, they are apes, just like us.

This is interesting that you say this. Considering that the very beliefs and alternative knowledge is beyond just being an ape. This a physical explanation.

That human belief and culture is just a biological byproduct. Its begging the question that the whole idea of human spirituality and culture is an aspect of humans independent of any such physical explanations and a force in itself that can bring knowledge.

The thread has been about the physical evidence for earlier settlements (at first) and the technologies used on certain Egyptian objectss. These are not "worldview" topics, for the ancients or for us. (This also isn't a "worldview" section of CF.) You have not discussed Egyptian culture, you have instead denigrated their stone working skills.

But the thread is about the flaw in the narrative of our history which is more about the epistemics and metaphysics. Which is related to scince and including behavioural sciences. But can include science in the form to determining the level of knowledge and tech in what they made. Which seems an obvious way to work out how knowledgable they were.

But its not restricted to just that and in fact as I mentioned earlier we could argue about the specific micron of difference or marks on one item and make it a threead in itself like the vases. But it still does not help. We would need to do a global assessment of all the works and not just Egypt.

Because its not the specific examples but the overall examples and patterns we see which then relate to the legends and align. Its not just the knowledge of making stuff. Its the overall worldview they had. Its understanding that compared to today and other times. Its a massive topic and restricting it to just measuring objects is narrowing down things and missing the point.

Your principle sources aren't doing anything but speculation.

This is false. The articles on stone softening, casting and weakening and others on the piezoelectric and electromagnetic effects are not spectualtion and warrent further investigation. There are several lines of investigation into the ancients knowledge and tech from mainstream science that is justified and not spectualtion.

There are many archeologists who are proposing and invesigating such possibilities. Are the clear and obvious images I showed you that everyone seems to want to deny spectualtion.

Neither has anything to do with DNA. I'm not discussing UFOs no matter how much connection the material presented here might be tied to ancient astronauts, nothing is to be gained by discussing particular modern sightings.

I don't either. It was merely to point out how even today people testify to alternative and advanced knowledge and its not conspiracy. In this sense its related to the thread in that if the orthodoxy narrative is flawed. Then maybe part of the flaw is pretending there is no alternative and advanced knowledge that is beyond what is suppose to be the case.

And of course "lost advanced tech" is somehow (thanks to you and your sources) the subject of this thread. (Karoly even has it as part of his YT channel name, or is it his podcast.) But "UFOs and DNA" are not.

"Lost advanced tech and knowledge" is the subject of this thread. A flaw in the orthodox narrative is what is being said that denies the lost advanced knowledge. Thats the point. The links I have posted are in support of this.

But you have turned everyone presented into Hancock of the worst types. Even a extreme caricature made of Hancock himself and then presented as the big bad boogy man who is lurking in everyone presented on this thread. As grifters and woo merchants. By doing so you have turned the thread into conspiracies.

Once again guilty by association. You assume that if there are linked sites with spectulative ideas that somehow Karoly is a quack. Without actually finding out what he actually has said on this lol. But then you would not believe him anyway.

Then on top of that you tar me and others by an association of an association lol. Assuming everyone and everything said is all conspiracies.

I've seen several of their videos, both "unchartedX" and "michael button", to know enough about their "deal".

Then show me exactly where they say they support these unreal and alien or Atlantis type fantasies.

I'm not. It doesn't matter if a "source" is a fool or a liar. If they are transmitting false information, then they are useless and should be dismissed.

Then whats the false info they are saying. From memory Button was proposing possibilities. He presented a few unanswered contradictions in the timelines. What is the problem. He is not claiming any Atlantis conspiracies. Show me where he does this.

In fact he actually goes out of his way to state that determining the facts and academic investigation is important. You only notice or even make up what you want to hear. Just because someone is more open in their language does not make them a nutter.

Nope. Read what I write.

So Button in the OP is pushing conspiracies. You have already claimed Hancock even though I have not mentioned him. But Dunn, Ben from UnchartedX, Karoly and I assume everyone they were associated with that helped them.

The peer review and other science articles were dismissed as speculation and fringe science. More or less psuedoscience. I don't know if there is anything left. I think you have classed it all as conspiracy or at least dismissed it as not important enough to take seriously.

 

[stevevw]

Of what use is "immaterialism" in making vases, pyramidal resonators, or cutting (or pouring) stone blocks?

First the thread is not about the science of making stuff. Or a scientific thread on the technical aspects of making stuff. This was merely one example of trying to work out what level of knowledge ancients had.

But knowledge can come from other aspects like belief and conscious experiences.

As mentions like the experience of colors. If conscious experiences or beliefs are a real phenomena that gives the ancients insights into nature and reality that the material sciences cannot give. Then the immaterial experiences of reality is the knowledge that got them there when the material worldview could not.

If belief in God or spirituality can actually alter the material world then that is knowledge beyond the material sciences. If consciousness is beyond brain then that is the knowledge that material sciences cannot tell us and what allowed the ancients to manipulate nature and reality.

If that was a deeper understanding of natural geometry, the material nature of substances that allowed them to manipulate it. Or just the direct experiences of nature and reality that revealed to them experientially something about nature and reality that affected them or their world. Which gave them the knowledge.

 

[BCP1928]

Why would not a scientist who believes in materialism as the only basis for reality ever be open to immaterial ideas lol.

He would if there was any evidence for them.

Its self evident that they could not possibly include such possibilities.

Why not, if there was evidence for them?

Materialism is closely linked to atheism. Its a stronger form of naturalism.

Sure, but those are all religious positions. The methodological materialism of science is as indifferent to them as it is to theism.

When someone uses material science to refute immaterial possibilities they are imposing a metaphysical belief and not science.

Perhaps so, but nobody here is doing that. Mostly what we are doing is pointing out to you how lame your argument is. We don't need to deny "immaterial possibilities" iin order to do that, even if we knew what you thought they were.

Whether you want to call it conspiracy or dumbitude its still demeaning and dismissing the immaterial worldview of fundemental reality as something unreal or that the person who believes such things is dumb or deluded or easily fooled.

Therefore must be a grifter or conspracy theorist if they dare suggest such things lol..

Who knows? It's still kind of murky what it is you are trying to prove. The "immaterial worldviews of fundamental reality???" What does that even mean?

 

[Hans Blaster]

First the thread is not about the science of making stuff. Or a scientific thread on the technical aspects of making stuff.

Then what is it about???

This was merely one example of trying to work out what level of knowledge ancients had.

Which is determined by examining the things they made and the things they wrote.

But knowledge can come from other aspects like belief and conscious experiences.

As mentions like the experience of colors. If conscious experiences or beliefs are a real phenomena that gives the ancients insights into nature and reality that the material sciences cannot give. Then the immaterial experiences of reality is the knowledge that got them there when the material worldview could not.

If belief in God or spirituality can actually alter the material world then that is knowledge beyond the material sciences. If consciousness is beyond brain then that is the knowledge that material sciences cannot tell us and what allowed the ancients to manipulate nature and reality.

What in the Local Group is this? Your OP was about whether there were settled civilizations earlier than claimed in the "mainstream narratives". What about the this whatever it is had a thing to do with if we can find permanent settlements?

(Feel free to not try, as there is none.)

If that was a deeper understanding of natural geometry, the material nature of substances that allowed them to manipulate it. Or just the direct experiences of nature and reality that revealed to them experientially something about nature and reality that affected them or their world. Which gave them the knowledge.

I prefer Euclidean geometry in a spherical coordinate system, but the natural geometry is a bendy spacetime. (Lousy nature.) Clearly I am not in charge of of the natural geometry of reality. Sigh. Not sure what this would have to do with ancient civilizations. It was only "discovered/invented" in the 19th century by Riemann and ID'd with reality in the early 20th.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ok so is anything in this thread so far not a conspiracy. Or not promoting conspiracy and pseudoscience. Because what I am getting is its all unreal and conspiracy.

How can you not get this. I've said it about a dozen times now. Nothing in this thread is a conspiracy. No one is calling anything that you have posted "conspiracy". You keep bringing "conspiracy" up as if the rest of us are accusing you or your principle source of "conspiracy thinking". We have not.

On the other hand, we have definitely called you and them out for pseudoscience. There is pseudoscience (some of it veiled) all over this thread. (And on a similar note, very little of what you bring up could be called "woo woo", but this recent discussion of "alternative knowledge" is getting close. I know how you like to accuse me of demeaning your content as "woo woo".)

 

[Hans Blaster]

Assuming everyone and everything said is all conspiracies.

It seems we need to have a talk about conspiracy.

A conspiracy is a coordinated plan to keep an action or knowledge from the public for a nefarious purpose. A conspiracy theory is the assignation of conspiracy to explain some event or condition.

Believing that the ancients had lost advanced technology -- is not a conspiracy (or conspiracy theory).
Believing the ancients had lost technology from a lost civilization -- is not a conspiracy.
Believing the ancients had assistance from extraterrestrials -- is not a conspiracy.

These are beliefs, they are not conspiracy. The various ideas expressed by the non-professional Egyptology people (from Dunn to Karoly) are not conspiracies, no matter how kooky or implausible.

Believing that 9/11 was an inside job -- *IS* a conspiracy theory.
Believing the CIA and the Mafia killed JFK -- *IS* a conspiracy theory.
Believing the USAAF found and covered up an alien space craft in July 1947 is a conspiracy theory.
Believing that Dr. Faucci worked with the Chinese to create COVID-19 in the lab is a conspiracy theory.

There is no need to invoke "conspiracy" in this thread, so you can stop.