There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

[Stopped_lurking]

We would be asking the Egyptians and the ancients themselves directly. How else. If its based on direct conscious experience. Then just like any experience of nature and reality we ask the experiencer. We don't deny their experiences. Their beliefs and their own stories about their experiences.

This is the very thing I am talking about in how western scientific materialism denied and destroyed indigenous knowledge. They did not believe them and dismissed it as superstition or make believe.

So now we are left with a dilemma. The truth of indigenous and ancient knowledge by way of direct experiences. Or the material sciences who demand evidence because they believe the only true knowledge is empiricle.

Yes and the context has been verified. It was always existing and part of the original works. Now one in 1934 went around melting stones all over Peru lol. Just like no one went around in the mid 20th century putting machine cuts in the stones all over Egypt.

So what do you say now. Was this a natural event or was this human made.

Not necessarily. If for example we establish that the stones in the Temple example in Peru are verified as vitrified and human made. Then if we verify another in say Egypt or say Turkey with similar features and signatures.

We can then begin to see a pattern in other vitrified alters, or monuments in other places around the world from around that same time. Even though we have not specifically checked each work the building evidence of similarities lends weight to it being the same thing. That there was common knowledge around the world in how to soften and melt stone.

The same wwith the Fortress melted stones. They have a unique signature to them. We can immediately tell the difference between naturally forming and man made. They have a specific signature that is unusual to the man made as opposed to natural. You could identify them without having to test them.

I am not talking about what they may show later. I am talking about the first step which is observational science. You have to acknowledge whats before your eyes before you can investigate what it is lol.

If the observation looks like a machine cut then you first have to acknowledge it looks like a machine cut. If you said it looked like something else that it did not look like then your biasing the entire investigation by denying the observations. That is why I spend so much time on images and allow people to be the scientists initially. To see if they first even acknowledge the clear and obvious observations.

It doesn't look like a machine cut to me.

You even alluded to this observation when you said that maybe someone from 1934 made the vitrified stones. You acknowledged the observations that it looked like vitrified stones.

Or very well polished stone.

So that is all I am first saying. Then we can establish whether or not this is the case.

You are skeptical and say it may be a forgery. This is similar to the provenance of the vases. Another poster implied a machine cut example was a 20th century forgery.

Why not, how did they exclude that possibility?

But this is where the overall evidence comes in. If we can acknowledge that we see a common signature of vitrified and softened stones around the world. Then it begins to look like more than nature and more man made without having to check everyone.

Everyone needs to be checked.

I can't remember the context I said this. But its usually a general statement of what has been happening in the thread and not just you or you in particular. That its taken all these pages to even get people to acknowledge the images shows it has been resisted.

If people did acknowledge the images for what they are then we would have been well down the track to establishing whether this was man made or natural. Referring back to my point. If it was acknowledge that there are common vitrified and softened stones in ancient works around the world. Then we would not bneed peer review lol. Thats good enough to say its vitrified, and man made for obvious reasons because its been acknowledged lol. Its self evident.

Unless you want to claim the rediculous idea that it was a big coincident that these vitrified stones just happen to be on the works and not the surrounding areas around them and they just happened to occur specifically in these Temples and works by accident lol.

The only vitrified stone supported by an article that you have presented have been made without any appeals to ancient technology or lost knowledge.

Ah then tell me or explain to me how they don't look like machine marks and look more like the traditional method. But don't just say, "no they are not or nothing and dismiss them.

My limited experience (just hobby cutting of small figurines) is that you cut quite well with abrasive means in stone.

Because if you did then I could say what about this and that. Then you come back and we work it out as to what is the most reasonable explanation according to the evidence. For example this is one I linked as obvious to see what people say. Mostly its ignore, some say a modern forgery thus acknowledging it looks like machining. But lets see what you say now we are allowing such discussion.

Tell me how this does not look like machining and how it looks like it was made by the orthodox method or pounding, grinding and using a big straight edged copper saw.

THis is from around the Giza pyramid and I linked the video earlier showing it onsite. There are many like this so please don't dismiss it because you think there is not fact to its existence as part of ancient Egypt. As it is and I am not going to go through the whole thing of reciting references.

If it is not in peer-reviewed journals, but something without context it is of little value.

View attachment 374526 View attachment 374527

Do you understand or have investigated the difference in the signatures abrasive sawing has to machine cutting. Like the example above. Can a hand saw with abrasion leave such a sharp and fine lip.

Can it? I think so. Also there is no sense of scale in these pictures.

If its abrasion then its grinding out the stone and not cutting it sharply.

Its so basic that this is why I question that anyone has actually stopped to carefully look at the images and see what is before their eyes lol. I don't think they have. Otherwise they would not be claiming a copper saw and abrasive grinding because they look nothing like that.

Look heres others which I have linked before with their sources. All from around the pyramids. Tell me how a copper saw at least 4 or 5 mm thick and straight could leave a fine arc edge thats thinner than the thickness of the saw. Let alone the extra stone ground out by the abrasive cutting method.

View attachment 374529 View attachment 374528

View attachment 374531 View attachment 374532

Its not a case of stopping them. Its shooting down the investigation as nothing, as just conspiracy that is the issue. I have had to fight to even have this acknowledged lol.

Then they keep building their case with good methods and keep trying to get it published, are their rejection rate actually high?

The tests and experiments I linked were dismissed as nothing that lends support for advanced knowledge and tech. Rather than acknowledge they could be the preliminary evidence that leads to supporting such advanced knowledge.


The determination was already made that this was nothing that lends support. Otherwise it would be acknowledged that what is being claimed could potentially be correct lol. Thus my case is supported.

This is just some convoluted thinking, either the data supports the hypothesis or not.

Ok I can see you are more reasonable and open which is good. You do ask basic questions and the fact that we are able to get to a point where we can look at images and be honest with what we see in front of us is a good start as this is step one to acknowledge the observations.

You mistakenly think that I agree with you on what the images show.

Yes but when someone says that and they don't provide any explanation or evidence that this is the case. They are more or less fobbing off the issue. Then demanding that I provide peer reviwed science lol. Its an impossible predicament as only one side is having to account for their claims.

This have to be a misunderstanding, if you claim that it is a machine cut then it is you that have to prove it. I am not an experimental archaeologist, I am perfectly clear that my personal view is nothing else than my personal view.

Thats ok provided the same rules apply and the pushback honestly acknowledges what we are looking at. Then gives an explanation for their claim with the same level of evidence demanded of me. Then yes this is good.

No, I give you my personal view. If all you are saying is that they look like machine cuts to you, then I'm ok with that but you seem to imply that your view is supported by the evidence. Then the normal way is to publish it in an appropriate journal and get it into the orbit of the subject matter specialists. That is the arena where the ideas will get vetted and discussed by experts.

Not sure what you mean.

See you even admit that this is a subjective feeling and belief. You cannot be sure or confident of your own position.

I don't think you should be confident in your position because I don't think you have provided evidence for it. I'm not confident in my position on archaeological matters, because I normally do medical genetics and statistics. There is more than a small lack of actual statistical tests in what you have presented so far, so it is very difficult to determine how likely or unlikely something is.

Which to me sort of supports my point that skeptics are not really looking at things and dealing with what is right before their eyes to begin with.

How does this support your point?

The resistence is not based on objective facts or science but a feeling and belief. Ironically skeptics accuse those who support the idea of advanced knowledge as having some unfounded belief and no factual evidence. Which shows its all about a persons belief in how they see the evidence.


No ancients are alive form the Old and New Testiment but todays Christians accept their testimony and experiences in the stories they have passed down.

Yes, but written stories are not testimony without any means to corroborate who wrote them down.

Yes I think its about their thinking. The way they gained knowledge. This was obtained differently to how material science gains knowledge as a 3rd party measure. The ancients gained their knowledge from direct conscious experiences.

In contrast to sub- or non-conscious experience? Or non-direct conscious experience?

Perhaps a shortcut to the same knowledge material science is just getting to know.

This is the big question lol. The important thing is to be open to whatever. That material science is not the sole truth as to knowledge. Thus we all should be open to transcedent knowledge and truths because we actually believe and live that in reality.

I don't believe I have ever gained any transcendent knowledge or truth.

On the one hand we have empiricle facts and on the other we have lived reality.

Lived reality is inherently empirical.

Do you think our lived experiences, beliefs and reality are also a kind of fact or truth in the world. But just measured in a different way such as qualitatively. Rather than quantatively. Why cannot direct experiences be something real.

Of course it is, all experiences are real. Whether or not they correspond to something objective varies.

Yes and I think some have been doing this. Looking at the cultural aspect. The beliefs and stories in more detail to try and learn how they thought. How this related to their practices and lived reality.

I see it a bit like understanding the stories in the bible and how they were lived out in reality. The stories were not just myths but had knowledge that transcends the material sciences. Yet is still real knowledge as it has had a real affect on the world. It influences peoples behaviour.

Psychology and sociology studies how peoples thoughts and experiences influence their behaviour, these subjects are by now well established scientific fields (not strictly appropriate in this sub-forum though).

I wasn't just talking about those. But the whole stone softening, melting and weakening topic. There was a paper from a uni presented. Can;t remember if peer reviewed. But that is irrelevant as this was academic level testing from a university. I think referenced by peer reviewed papers. They tested the vitrified surfaces and found unnatural minerals.

I'm going to need peer-reviewed articles or at least something in academic press at this point.

Another found unnatural minerals in the facia stones on the pyramid.

 

[stevevw]

It doesn't look like a machine cut to me.

OK so what does it look like. Does it look like a straight edged copper saw did this. How did the orthodox method cut this.

Or very well polished stone.

Ok so your saying someone came along in 1934 and polished all the stones. This is what I mean in how every other explanation that will conform with the orthodoxy is believed except the most likely one. In fact I gave you the tests which showed it was a thin glassy type covering that contain unnatural chemistry.

You admit that it looks vitrified. But your explanation is polished. Where is the evidence. Where is the peer review lol.

Why not, how did they exclude that possibility?

Because there is no record or evidence of someone going around in the 1930s or any modern time and it would have to be post industrial age. Thats if massive machines could have been secretly brought in to Giza. Or some polishing at an industrial level missed being recorded in modern times.

Archeologist acknowledge this is ancient and not a forgery. But I can understand how the provenance cop out is used as you cannot account for the fact that it is genuine. So forgery is the next best counter.

Everyone needs to be checked.

And its been checked and its genuine. See this is where the rubber hits the road and we begin to pin down exactly what evidence skeptics have. It looks like all these have is exactly what they accuse myself and others of doing. Making claims without any evidence. Avoiding the obvious facts so that the orthodoxy is maintained.

The only vitrified stone supported by an article that you have presented have been made without any appeals to ancient technology or lost knowledge.

You don't have to make an appeal. The works and signatures are the witness marks that are making that appeal. It then comes down to whether they are from the ancients. You claim it could be a forgery and the expert archeologists say its not. That its as old as the works. There is absolutely no evidence of modern forgeries so don't use that as an excuse to avoid the facts.

My limited experience (just hobby cutting of small figurines) is that you cut quite well with abrasive means in stone.

This is just another way of dismissing the obvious evidence right before your eyes. First your admitting that you don't know and are appealing to a subjective experience according to you. That could mean anything. You may not have the experience of an expert. So its meaningless. Especially considering the demands place on me to provide such a high level of evidence.

But none of this explains how a straight edged copper saw and abrasion can cut an arc. Or how the thin edge left at the ebnd of the cut against the uncut rock is thinner than the copper blade let alone the extra stone ground out from abrasion. Nor how a hand held straight edged copper saw could cut a 20 foot long and narrow cut across the stone wall while also cutting curves in the stone at the same time.

These are the signatures that tell us that a hand held copper saw was impossible. Unless you can create some unreal explanation of how straight saws cut arcsand can cut around bends and along curved surfaces.

If it is not in peer-reviewed journals, but something without context it is of little value.

Yet you can make all these claims without peer review. Therefore everything that you or anyone says that disputes what I am saying is also of little value and the claims that there is no advanced and lost knowledge is of little value and a conspiracy just as much as those they accuse.

Can it? I think so. Also there is no sense of scale in these pictures.

The scale is there. The cut or what looks like a thin layer was shaved off the surface (don't you think so). As it runs along the top of what looks like a rock wall. Its around 12 inches wide and 20 foot long. How on earth could a hand saw cut that. Remembering that the surface is not flat but moves up and down and has no evidence of restarting. Rather a long continious cut.

Explain how this can happen. This is where the rubber hits the road and we don't need peer review as its right there before our eyes.

Then they keep building their case with good methods and keep trying to get it published, are their rejection rate actually high?

I am saying this does not even get into the traditional journals lol. Imagine trying to present the idea that there was advanced knowledge with some sort of machining.

We don't need peer review. People already acknowledge that they looked machined or softened. Even skeptics accidently admit this when they then try to explain this away as forgeries. They are admitting they look too modern lol.

So we already have the evidence right before our eyes. Experts I presented with knowledge of machining explain how this is like machining and could not be the traditional methods. As far as I and many others are concern the case is closed. We have clear evidence of an alternative and advanced knowledge that contradicts the orthodoxy.

Or at the very least enough evidence to suggest this is the case and warrants further investigation. Rather than being fobbed off as conspiracy or psuedoscience.

This is just some convoluted thinking, either the data supports the hypothesis or not.

I disagree. There was complete resistence at first that this was all conspiract like Hancock has been made out to be. Now we can say at least some of the evidence supports that there was alternative and even advanced methods if the findings and clear observations hold up. So its not conoluted but a reality.

You mistakenly think that I agree with you on what the images show.

Yup claimed that someone may have come along in 1934 and created the vitrified stones. To me thats more or less admitting that the stones look like they must have had some sort of modern intervention.

Its strange how you have completely ignored explaining how exactly in your opinion that this was created by a hand saw and abrasion. But just appeal to experience which to me says nothing. Especially if people are demanding peer review or scientific support. Its a double standard I think.

If you disagree then why don't you explain why. Explain how this does not look like machining and was created by the traditional method. Even the fact there is an obvious arc cut in the stone is just ignored.

Anyone would immediately recognise this initially as something a planer or router or circular saw would leave and not a straight edged saw. So I fail to see that you have even looked at this proerly or just skipped over parts to really have a clear position to disgree with me in the first place.

This have to be a misunderstanding, if you claim that it is a machine cut then it is you that have to prove it. I am not an experimental archaeologist, I am perfectly clear that my personal view is nothing else than my personal view.

Like I said the first step is to admit what is before your eyes. What it looks like and not what you think may have caused it to make it look like that. For example the arc cut. You may assume it was created by hand. Making a precise arc in the stone for some reason.

But what do arcs, super thin and straight line cuts, cuts super flat and around bends or over undulating surfaces leaving a thin and smooth finish like it was shaved. What do those signatures usually represent when we see them. The obvious answer that just about everyone will admit is that they look exactly like what machining leaves. Not what hand held small tools leave.

Then you get into the rediculous idea that the ancients someone wanted to creatye signatures that look like maching by hand. In rocks that are never used like they were testing the cuts. Somehow they made router cuts by hand to make them look like planers and routers. Thats more unreal that having advanced knowledge lol. It also dumbs down the ancients.

No, I give you my personal view. If all you are saying is that they look like machine cuts to you, then I'm ok with that but you seem to imply that your view is supported by the evidence.

Only because I explain and reason why the images and signatures look like machining and how this clear and obvious evidence is not even admitted. When you just say "in my experience or opinion" and then don't give any explanation that is the same as fobbing off the images and signatures. Not not just disagree but also not engaging to explain why.

Then the normal way is to publish it in an appropriate journal and get it into the orbit of the subject matter specialists. That is the arena where the ideas will get vetted and discussed by experts.

I don't care about the journals and peer review to determine what an image with obvious witness marks looks like. If you cannot even admit this and engage in explain why you think it does not look like its machined then what is the use lol. We cannot even get past step 1 let along peer review.

I don't think you should be confident in your position because I don't think you have provided evidence for it. I'm not confident in my position on archaeological matters, because I normally do medical genetics and statistics.

I agree and thats a good approach. I am not saying I am 100% confident and as we have seen if this is partly a matter of subjective opinion then how could anyone be confident. You claim the images don't even look like machining and I and many others do. I eman thats the first step in science in acknowledging the observations.

I think there is clear and obvious evidence for some sort of advanced and alternative methods that produced these lookalike machine marks. We have done experiments with machining and hand cutting and the nand cutting looks completely different.

But not just that you don't need peer review or experients to know that for example a straight edged nad saw cannot cut an arc, around bends or along undulating surfaces taking off a super thin layer. But you cannot even see this so whats the use.

There is more than a small lack of actual statistical tests in what you have presented so far, so it is very difficult to determine how likely or unlikely something is.

Thats why I am going back to the basics. To the first step of simple observational science. First acknowledging exactly what we see. You say it does not look like machining and more like the orthodoxy.

So lets go from there. You need to explain why the signatures fit the orthodoxy. I just explained some difficult if not impossible cuts and signatures the orthodoxy could do.

How does this support your point?

Because you make a claim that its caused by the orthodoxy when I see obvious marks that are not the case and you don't give any explanation or address the obvious marks.

Until you can explain this my point stands. Until you can explain for example how the orthodoxy can make arc, planing and router marks with the crisp, sharp and fine edges like machining. Which grinding cannot do. Then I have to assume you have no answer.

Yes, but written stories are not testimony without any means to corroborate who wrote them down.

Yes they are. Can the stories of miracles, and supernatural events and knowledge by corroborated. Same thing. If the ancients knowledge exists within the realm of the spiritual or conscious experiences that transcedent material science. How can they be corroborated.

Therefore we know that knowledge does come from this realm and has changed the world and reality. So we have to at the very least be open to listening and investigating this knowledge through the experiences, beliefs and stories. You cannot say because this cannot be corroborated by a certain methology (material/naturalism science). That it must be dismissed.

In contrast to sub- or non-conscious experience? Or non-direct conscious experience?

Yes, where the subject or observer has to step back, remove themselves and their experiences from the equation. Two comeletely different ways to knowledge. But they could end up at the same place. In fact the direct experiences may be the real knowledge.

I don't believe I have ever gained any transcendent knowledge or truth.

Ok but do you think others can. Like Christians or any spiritual or conscious experience of the world and reality. Or are you saying all the belief and stories and experiences expressed for millenia from all cultures around the world has or never brings knowledge that transcends what we see in the material sense and the scientific method.

Lived reality is inherently empirical.

Well there you go, we have evidence of knowledge that transcends the material world through lived reality.

Of course it is, all experiences are real. Whether or not they correspond to something objective varies.

Its the conforming to something objective I disagree with. Yes when it comes to measuring that which falls within the material and can be objectively (outside the observer) established.

But what about all the experiences that don't have an objective basis. I mean you can do meta analysis to find common cognitions and behaviour that may show its a real phenomena. That belief in gods or spirituality is a real natural human condition.

But how do you prove subjective conscious experiences. Like I showed with the thought experiment of 'Colorblind Mary'. No amount of knowledge about the material processes could explain or bring Mary the experience of Red for the first time. She gained new transcedent knowledge .

Psychology and sociology studies how peoples thoughts and experiences influence their behaviour, these subjects are by now well established scientific fields (not strictly appropriate in this sub-forum though).

They are exactly appropriate for this thread. As you say they are well established sciences. As mentioned above they can show that religion, belief in gods, the supernatural, the transcedent aspects are as natural to humans as any material aspect.

So already we have evidence that its natural that humans exist within this realm and its real and it brings real knowledge of reality and can change the world. Its just a case of then researching what exactly it is within this domain that is the knowledge. How it fits into the bigger picture.

I'm going to need peer-reviewed articles or at least something in academic press at this point.

Have not I already linked these. I know I did on this thread. Maybe not to you. I can't remeber. Man How many times do I have to keep doing this lol.

Let me check. Actually they are within the articles I linked. The articles reference them as part of their support. I did not just link magazine or blog sites without the links to the papers.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I am saying this does not even get into the traditional journals lol. Imagine trying to present the idea that there was advanced knowledge with some sort of machining.

There is a fundamental error in your assumptions. The problem with getting this stuff in to the "traditional journals" is not peer review, or the conclusions reached -- it is specifically the lack of evidence and testing.

We don't need peer review.

If you want us to take this stuff seriously, you do.

People already acknowledge that they looked machined or softened. Even skeptics accidently admit this when they then try to explain this away as forgeries. They are admitting they look too modern lol.

"Looks like" is not evidence. That's now how this works.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

OK so what does it look like. Does it look like a straight edged copper saw did this. How did the orthodox method cut this.

Ok so your saying someone came along in 1934 and polished all the stones. This is what I mean in how every other explanation that will conform with the orthodoxy is believed except the most likely one. In fact I gave you the tests which showed it was a thin glassy type covering that contain unnatural chemistry.

You admit that it looks vitrified. But your explanation is polished. Where is the evidence. Where is the peer review lol.

You don't seem to get it, I didn't say that they were polished. I pointed out a possible alternative explanation that the researchers have to show is less likely than their own explanation.

Because there is no record or evidence of someone going around in the 1930s or any modern time and it would have to be post industrial age. Thats if massive machines could have been secretly brought in to Giza. Or some polishing at an industrial level missed being recorded in modern times.

Archeologist acknowledge this is ancient and not a forgery. But I can understand how the provenance cop out is used as you cannot account for the fact that it is genuine. So forgery is the next best counter.

And its been checked and its genuine. See this is where the rubber hits the road and we begin to pin down exactly what evidence skeptics have. It looks like all these have is exactly what they accuse myself and others of doing. Making claims without any evidence. Avoiding the obvious facts so that the orthodoxy is maintained.

You don't have to make an appeal. The works and signatures are the witness marks that are making that appeal.

They haven't shown that the most likely explanation is that the ancients had an lost technology or knowledge. That is the researchers job.

It then comes down to whether they are from the ancients. You claim it could be a forgery and the expert archeologists say its not. That its as old as the works. There is absolutely no evidence of modern forgeries so don't use that as an excuse to avoid the facts.

This is just another way of dismissing the obvious evidence right before your eyes. First your admitting that you don't know and are appealing to a subjective experience according to you. That could mean anything. You may not have the experience of an expert. So its meaningless. Especially considering the demands place on me to provide such a high level of evidence.

If they want to be convincing they need to get it into the journals after peer-review.

But none of this explains how a straight edged copper saw and abrasion can cut an arc. Or how the thin edge left at the ebnd of the cut against the uncut rock is thinner than the copper blade let alone the extra stone ground out from abrasion. Nor how a hand held straight edged copper saw could cut a 20 foot long and narrow cut across the stone wall while also cutting curves in the stone at the same time.

These are the signatures that tell us that a hand held copper saw was impossible. Unless you can create some unreal explanation of how straight saws cut arcsand can cut around bends and along curved surfaces.

Yet you can make all these claims without peer review. Therefore everything that you or anyone says that disputes what I am saying is also of little value and the claims that there is no advanced and lost knowledge is of little value and a conspiracy just as much as those they accuse.

Of course, it is the actual archeological field that needs to be convinced for widespread acceptance.

The scale is there. The cut or what looks like a thin layer was shaved off the surface (don't you think so). As it runs along the top of what looks like a rock wall. Its around 12 inches wide and 20 foot long. How on earth could a hand saw cut that. Remembering that the surface is not flat but moves up and down and has no evidence of restarting. Rather a long continious cut.

Explain how this can happen. This is where the rubber hits the road and we don't need peer review as its right there before our eyes.

I am saying this does not even get into the traditional journals lol. Imagine trying to present the idea that there was advanced knowledge with some sort of machining.

So don't say that they are being kept out if they haven't even tried to get it published.

We don't need peer review. People already acknowledge that they looked machined or softened. Even skeptics accidently admit this when they then try to explain this away as forgeries. They are admitting they look too modern lol.

No, that is an overinterpretation on your part. Presenting alternative hypothesis is not the same as saying they look to modern.

So we already have the evidence right before our eyes. Experts I presented with knowledge of machining explain how this is like machining and could not be the traditional methods. As far as I and many others are concern the case is closed. We have clear evidence of an alternative and advanced knowledge that contradicts the orthodoxy.

Or at the very least enough evidence to suggest this is the case and warrants further investigation. Rather than being fobbed off as conspiracy or psuedoscience.

I disagree. There was complete resistence at first that this was all conspiract like Hancock has been made out to be. Now we can say at least some of the evidence supports that there was alternative and even advanced methods if the findings and clear observations hold up. So its not conoluted but a reality.

There are no clear observations.

Yup claimed that someone may have come along in 1934 and created the vitrified stones. To me thats more or less admitting that the stones look like they must have had some sort of modern intervention.

Or have been struck by lighting, or scared in a accidental fires or....

Its strange how you have completely ignored explaining how exactly in your opinion that this was created by a hand saw and abrasion. But just appeal to experience which to me says nothing. Especially if people are demanding peer review or scientific support. Its a double standard I think.

You obviously think what you want in any case.

If you disagree then why don't you explain why. Explain how this does not look like machining and was created by the traditional method. Even the fact there is an obvious arc cut in the stone is just ignored.

Anyone would immediately recognise this initially as something a planer or router or circular saw would leave and not a straight edged saw. So I fail to see that you have even looked at this proerly or just skipped over parts to really have a clear position to disgree with me in the first place.

Ok. You can believe what you want.

Like I said the first step is to admit what is before your eyes. What it looks like and not what you think may have caused it to make it look like that. For example the arc cut. You may assume it was created by hand. Making a precise arc in the stone for some reason.

But what do arcs, super thin and straight line cuts, cuts super flat and around bends or over undulating surfaces leaving a thin and smooth finish like it was shaved. What do those signatures usually represent when we see them. The obvious answer that just about everyone will admit is that they look exactly like what machining leaves. Not what hand held small tools leave.

Then you get into the rediculous idea that the ancients someone wanted to creatye signatures that look like maching by hand. In rocks that are never used like they were testing the cuts. Somehow they made router cuts by hand to make them look like planers and routers. Thats more unreal that having advanced knowledge lol. It also dumbs down the ancients.

Who has argued this?

Only because I explain and reason why the images and signatures look like machining and how this clear and obvious evidence is not even admitted. When you just say "in my experience or opinion" and then don't give any explanation that is the same as fobbing off the images and signatures. Not not just disagree but also not engaging to explain why.

I don't care about the journals and peer review to determine what an image with obvious witness marks looks like. If you cannot even admit this and engage in explain why you think it does not look like its machined then what is the use lol. We cannot even get past step 1 let along peer review.

Normally you don't present the data to non-experts before you write the article and send it to the journal. Upon acceptance they can ask you to put a link on social media.

I agree and thats a good approach. I am not saying I am 100% confident and as we have seen if this is partly a matter of subjective opinion then how could anyone be confident. You claim the images don't even look like machining and I and many others do. I eman thats the first step in science in acknowledging the observations.

I think there is clear and obvious evidence for some sort of advanced and alternative methods that produced these lookalike machine marks. We have done experiments with machining and hand cutting and the nand cutting looks completely different.

But not just that you don't need peer review or experients to know that for example a straight edged nad saw cannot cut an arc, around bends or along undulating surfaces taking off a super thin layer. But you cannot even see this so whats the use.

Thats why I am going back to the basics. To the first step of simple observational science. First acknowledging exactly what we see. You say it does not look like machining and more like the orthodoxy.

I don't know if it is done by the ortodox methods. I'm just not convinced that machining is a better fit for the data.

So lets go from there. You need to explain why the signatures fit the orthodoxy. I just explained some difficult if not impossible cuts and signatures the orthodoxy could do.

I really don't need to.

Because you make a claim that its caused by the orthodoxy when I see obvious marks that are not the case and you don't give any explanation or address the obvious marks.

I don't make that claim.

Until you can explain this my point stands. Until you can explain for example how the orthodoxy can make arc, planing and router marks with the crisp, sharp and fine edges like machining. Which grinding cannot do. Then I have to assume you have no answer.

No it doesn't.

Yes they are. Can the stories of miracles, and supernatural events and knowledge by corroborated. Same thing. If the ancients knowledge exists within the realm of the spiritual or conscious experiences that transcedent material science. How can they be corroborated.

So how do you purpose to differentiate between stories that depict what actually happened from those that had a some different function?

Therefore we know that knowledge does come from this realm and has changed the world and reality. So we have to at the very least be open to listening and investigating this knowledge through the experiences, beliefs and stories. You cannot say because this cannot be corroborated by a certain methology (material/naturalism science). That it must be dismissed.

Yes, where the subject or observer has to step back, remove themselves and their experiences from the equation. Two comeletely different ways to knowledge. But they could end up at the same place. In fact the direct experiences may be the real knowledge.

Ok but do you think others can. Like Christians or any spiritual or conscious experience of the world and reality. Or are you saying all the belief and stories and experiences expressed for millenia from all cultures around the world has or never brings knowledge that transcends what we see in the material sense and the scientific method.

Well there you go, we have evidence of knowledge that transcends the material world through lived reality.

What? There is nothing transcendental with lived reality, it is like all other knowledge.

Its the conforming to something objective I disagree with. Yes when it comes to measuring that which falls within the material and can be objectively (outside the observer) established.

But what about all the experiences that don't have an objective basis. I mean you can do meta analysis to find common cognitions and behaviour that may show its a real phenomena. That belief in gods or spirituality is a real natural human condition.

But how do you prove subjective conscious experiences. Like I showed with the thought experiment of 'Colorblind Mary'. No amount of knowledge about the material processes could explain or bring Mary the experience of Red for the first time. She gained new transcedent knowledge .

That philosophical argument is not seen as slam dunk among philosophers, so how you think that it proves anything is really strange.

They are exactly appropriate for this thread. As you say they are well established sciences. As mentioned above they can show that religion, belief in gods, the supernatural, the transcedent aspects are as natural to humans as any material aspect.

The name of the sub forum is physical and life sciences.

So already we have evidence that its natural that humans exist within this realm and its real and it brings real knowledge of reality and can change the world. Its just a case of then researching what exactly it is within this domain that is the knowledge. How it fits into the bigger picture.

Have not I already linked these. I know I did on this thread. Maybe not to you. I can't remeber. Man How many times do I have to keep doing this lol.

Let me check. Actually they are within the articles I linked. The articles reference them as part of their support. I did not just link magazine or blog sites without the links to the papers.

For vitrified stone? Give the post number if you don't wish to link them again.

 

[stevevw]

You don't seem to get it, I didn't say that they were polished. I pointed out a possible alternative explanation that the researchers have to show is less likely than their own explanation.

I get it. But the point is I don't think anyone who has even looked at this based on fairly common knowledge. Do you think from your knowledge that someone polishing the works was more likely. What basis did you use to suggest that this was a possibility in the first place. Was there anything or was it just something you threw out there.

They haven't shown that the most likely explanation is that the ancients had an lost technology or knowledge. That is the researchers job.

So if they show that the ancient alters and stones were vitrified and/or softened by human intervention would that count as advanced knowledge.

If they want to be convincing they need to get it into the journals after peer-review.

You know I sort of believe the unknown independents who actually go out on site and show the evidence first hand. Its good that there are independents who can bypass all that gatekeeping now and show us the truth.

Of course, it is the actual archeological field that needs to be convinced for widespread acceptance.

Lol yeah I know. Thats the problem. Like Hawass who gatekeeps a lot of evidence he does not want released.

The very fact that independents can show obvious evidence that is claimed to not exist or show obvious contradictions in the narrative is the evidence that theres no convincing some.

So don't say that they are being kept out if they haven't even tried to get it published.

They have lol. Some of these issues and discoveries that are being discussed in recent times have already been submitted in journals years ago. Look at GT. Its only resurfaced recently due to a reinvestigation.

But thats part of the issue. The evidence was dismissed and assumed as nothing in the first place.

No, that is an overinterpretation on your part. Presenting alternative hypothesis is not the same as saying they look to modern.

Its self evidence and logically follows. If they claim its a modern forgery then they can't claim that unless they believe it looks modern lol. Otherwise its not a forgery and theres nothing to compare it to.

There are no clear observations.

So you don't see any arcs in the cuts. You don't see a fine, sharp and thin lip along the edge where the cut meets the uncut stone. You don't see a cut bending or moving up and down with the surface of the stone its cutting.

You don't have difficulty reconciling how a 20 foot cut in the stone could even happen. That there is no such thing as a hand held saw that could possibly cut that.

You keep saying its not clear and in your experience that this is not the case. Yet you never explain exactly how you think its not clear.

Or have been struck by lighting, or scared in a accidental fires or....

Yes everything is an act of nature or an accident. This is the scientific materialist go to explanation. Everything except the agency of the people and their ability to do it themselves.

So your saying that either a lightening bolt just happen to hit specific works and never the untouched stones around them. Or they just happened to keep having accidental fires when they made these works and never any accidental fires of the untouched rocks around the works.

Maybe they controlled lightening as well lol. Actually thats not a bad idea. I think there was suggestion of solar heat was used. You may be onto something.

You obviously think what you want in any case.

No I just admit what I see in front of my eyes. Sure there may be a logical explanation. But you can't work out whats going on if you pretend that a circle is a square in the first place.

I think 9 times out of 10 when people see a arc cut they don't think a straight edged handsaw can create that. But if you pretend it can then how do we even work out whats going on when the simple observation is denied.

Ok. You can believe what you want.

They say that proper belief is the repeated and persist same belief despite whether it makes sense or conforms to a preset idea. Whenever I look at these images I immediate think of machining. I don't see any evidence of rough grinding and hand held tools that go off line or never machine flat and sharp.

I don't think its my belief alone but a persistent and nagging thought of linking these signatures with machining by the similarities they have with how machines cut into stuff with uniformity and precision.

But I think its even more interesting that two people can see a completely different thing in the first place. If this was true then this would be evidence that there is no objective reality and that two different subjects can see completely different observations in the object world.

Which sort of supports the idea that there is no objective knowledge and its all in the mind of the observer. Fascinating stuff.

Who has argued this?

Like I said when you dispute that these are machine, planer or routing cuts and give not explanation then who knows. You said they don't look like machine marks and have implied the orthodoxy.

What else is left if its not one of these. If you propose anything but the orthodoxy then your advocating an alternative and possibly advanced method. But you have never explained yourself lol.

Normally you don't present the data to non-experts before you write the article and send it to the journal. Upon acceptance they can ask you to put a link on social media.

Nah I don't trust that. I trust the smaller independents without the gatekeeping. They are more likely to tell the truth and not be biased or dismiss ideas out of hand. I have learnt this from this thread actually lol.

I don't know if it is done by the ortodox methods. I'm just not convinced that machining is a better fit for the data.

I am not asking you "if its machining". I am asking the first step. Just acknowledging whats in front of you. What it looks like. You don't have to be an expert or have peer review to tell the difference between a circle and a square. In this case the difference between a straight edged saw and an arc cut lol.

You don't have to be an expert to know that this cannot produce an arc cut. That an arc cut is usually acknowledged as the result of some fixed and guided cutter like a circular saw or planer ect. Or that a straight edged saw cannot cut around bends lol.

I really don't need to.

Why, because you know you cannot. That if you do you will have to come to the realisation that there is contradicting evidence for the orthodoxy.

If we cannot even engage in discussing what the examples look like as observational science. To determine what it is we are dealing with. Then no science at all can be done.

I don't make that claim.

You sort of have when the only stock standard explanation you keep giving as the possibility is the orthodoxy. You mention it could be abrasion, and then grinding and then polishing which are all within the orthodoxy.

Along with offering no support this seems like dismissing everything in favor of the orthodoxy.

No it doesn't.

So far you have not given anything. You have not explained how this does not look like machining and that the marks look more like the result of of what you claimed (abrasion, grinding and polishing).

I say the signatures look more like machining that the orthodoxy and gave the reasoning along with at least some preliminary evidence. You have given nothing but your experience and opinion.

So how do you purpose to differentiate between stories that depict what actually happened from those that had a some different function?

Like anything. You dedicate time and effort to get to understand and perhaps come to know or gain some insight into what that knowledge was. Or how it was obtained.

The first thing we know is that the whole paradigm and the epistemics is a reality. There is such a thing as spiritual and transcedent knowledge expressed in the beliefs of the ancients and people today.

So that tells us its there. It now a case of trying to work this out. But this is not easy as remember that we cannot measure this in the conventional way of material science. You can't put experiences in a test tube.

So like all transcedent domains it comes down to collecting data on the experiences and lots of it. The more the better as this helps to identify patterns and behaviours and mindsets.

I see the frontier of consciousness and quantum physics studies closely linked. So imagine the "Hard Problem of Consciousness' and science overcoming this.

This is the difficultly now in more or reinvention how we can measure this aspect. More or less a complete paradigm shift. Not just within science as like the deterministic mechanical schema of classical physics to the inderminent one of Quantum physics. BUt even a completely different dimension that is more like Mind than Matter.

What? There is nothing transcendental with lived reality, it is like all other knowledge.

So is the belief in say God when someone experiences the awe and majesty of the universes noght sky. Or the astronaught who comes to believe in God from his experience of outerspace. How is that not transcedent.

The knowledge came that there was a creator God who was a reality. It was spoken through HIs creation and reveals as real knowledge.

The same with the ancients. If they are living within an experiential realm with nature then they are at one and see how nature works more clearly. Animals have this built in connection as well. Its not just what the physical world represents. There are as many superficial perspectives as there are species.

There is a deeper connection and nature has certain designs and fundemental aspects that humans can connect with on a more fundemental relationship as the ancients did and we have lost or are losing.

See this is the point. You just claimed there is nothing transcedental with lived reality and no knowledge besides empiricle knowledge. Yet we have the majority of the world for the majority of history in reality believing and declaring there is this knowledge.

So according to you your metaphysical belief that the only real knowledge is material and naturalistic or is measured as such/ Thus dismissing the majority as make believe. The very point I was making about how material sciences position comes down to a belief and not science itself.

That philosophical argument is not seen as slam dunk among philosophers, so how you think that it proves anything is really strange.

Thats not the only evidence for something beyond. We have the 'Hard Problem of Consciousness' and other philosophical arguements that stand up.

But most of all we have the majority of people for the majority of history believing such. That belief in such is as normal as love or music or even the need for food. Thats the lived reality. How we actually live and declare it truth over our long lived and real history. Its not spurstition afterall. Now we can finally begin to understand instead of fobbing it all off as make believe.

The name of the sub forum is physical and life sciences.

What is Life Sciences. It covers both. There has been aspects like the vases and rock softening that requaire the hard sciences like physics and chemistry or engineering.

But as some have acknoledges as with archeology this requires a cultural understand, anthropology and sociology. They are also sciences and you can;t have one without the other when it comes to alternative ways of knowing.

Its not really about the end results of the works. But what sort of knowledge led to the end results. If its transcedent knowledge such as direct conscious experiences that helps the ancients understand say how rocks work and change through mixing potions associated with their beliefs. Then its an alternative way of knowing.

For vitrified stone? Give the post number if you don't wish to link them again.

Gee, ok let me find it. The trouble is they are hard to find. Heres one

Evidence of Vitrified Stonework in the Inca Vestiges of Peru

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Evidence-of-Vitrified-Stonework-in-the-Inca-of-Peru-Jong-Jordan/1136a71a5e32917a3004107dc964ee03c82e1848

Heres another

Ancient Geopolymers in South America and Easter Island

Ancient Geopolymers in South America and Easter Island

This book presents the study on Ancient Geopolymers in South America and Easter Island regions, exploring the artificial nature of the volcanic rocks

link.springer.com

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Gee, ok let me find it. The trouble is they are hard to find. Heres one

Evidence of Vitrified Stonework in the Inca Vestiges of Peru

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Evidence-of-Vitrified-Stonework-in-the-Inca-of-Peru-Jong-Jordan/1136a71a5e32917a3004107dc964ee03c82e1848

Not peer-reviewed. Self-published. This is their reference list:

Heres another

Ancient Geopolymers in South America and Easter Island

Ancient Geopolymers in South America and Easter Island

This book presents the study on Ancient Geopolymers in South America and Easter Island regions, exploring the artificial nature of the volcanic rocks

link.springer.com

Do you have the page or chapter that talks about vitrification? I can access it from my job, but what do you want me to read?

 

[Hans Blaster]

You know I sort of believe the unknown independents who actually go out on site and show the evidence first hand. Its good that there are independents who can bypass all that gatekeeping now and show us the truth.
Lol yeah I know. Thats the problem. Like Hawass who gatekeeps a lot of evidence he does not want released.

The very fact that independents can show obvious evidence that is claimed to not exist or show obvious contradictions in the narrative is the evidence that theres no convincing some.

I don't know if you could describe your wrong-headed thinking and poor understanding of science anymore clearly.

The *POINT* of peer review (and gatekeeping) is to check ones thinking. To challenge claims. It has nothing to do with protecting the orthodoxy.

Your "independents" aren't credible because they *don't* challenge their own claims, methods, etc. They are the ones who are afraid to have their work checked, not Hawass.

 

[stevevw]

I don't know if you could describe your wrong-headed thinking and poor understanding of science anymore clearly.

The *POINT* of peer review (and gatekeeping) is to check ones thinking. To challenge claims. It has nothing to do with protecting the orthodoxy.

What is ideal and what pans out in reality are two different things. There is plenty of evidence showing the Peer Review process is flawed and bias. Especially in something like Archeology.

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals - PMC

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Bias in the Peer Review Process: Can We Do Better?

Bias in the Peer Review Process: Can We Do Better? - PubMed

Peer review is the major method used by the scientific community to evaluate manuscripts and decide what is suitable for publication. However, this process in its current design is not bulletproof and is prone to reviewer and editorial bias. Its lack of objectivity and transparency raise...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Your "independents" aren't credible because they *don't* challenge their own claims, methods, etc. They are the ones who are afraid to have their work checked, not Hawass.

Actually the independents are not proposing anything and thats why I like them. They just take you to places the mainstream don't bother telling people about.

In fact its good fundemental science in that we are not getting part of the picture but a more complete picture. More information to make determinations. Rather than being fed part info and then forming assumptions based on part of the facts. Which will lead to false narratives.

I reckon the info I have linked in this thread most people would have never heard. So its good to get as many different takes including non experts and independents so we can be better informed.

Hawass has been caught hiding stuff. I would not trust him. But I find it funny how anyone I present is immediately assumed as suspect. But a controversial figure like Hawass with known bias is perfectly ok when he represents the orthodoxy.

Another little red flag of double standards.

 

[sjastro]

What is ideal and what pans out in reality are two different things. There is plenty of evidence showing the Peer Review process is flawed and bias. Especially in something like Archeology.

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals - PMC

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Bias in the Peer Review Process: Can We Do Better?

Bias in the Peer Review Process: Can We Do Better? - PubMed

Peer review is the major method used by the scientific community to evaluate manuscripts and decide what is suitable for publication. However, this process in its current design is not bulletproof and is prone to reviewer and editorial bias. Its lack of objectivity and transparency raise...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

So the peer review process in archaeology is flawed so true to form you provide two examples relating to medicine.

Just in case you didn't know.
Definition of Medicine
General meaning: Medicine refers to the science and art of maintaining health and preventing, alleviating, or curing disease.
Definition of Archaeology
General meaning: Archaeology is the study of human activity through the recovery and analysis of material culture

Actually the independents are not proposing anything and thats why I like them. They just take you to places the mainstream don't bother telling people about.

In fact its good fundemental science in that we are not getting part of the picture but a more complete picture. More information to make determinations. Rather than being fed part info and then forming assumptions based on part of the facts. Which will lead to false narratives.

I reckon the info I have linked in this thread most people would have never heard. So its good to get as many different takes including non experts and independents so we can be better informed.

I bet many of the respondents to your posts have been exposed this nonsense beforehand such as being familiar with Erik Von Daniken's Chariots of the Gods.
The book follows the same procedures; argument from personal incredulity, argument from ignorance, cherry picking while ignoring the entire range of evidence, and the ancients were too dumb to make things to name a few.

Yet despite the parallel 'methodologies' the conclusions which are assumed to be true despite the zero and contradictory evidence are starkly different, according to Von Daniken it's not about the use of transcendental knowledge but the involvement of extraterrestrial aliens.
This not surprising as in science the evidence leads to the conclusion, in pseudoscience the conclusion is the starting point and the evidence is either made up or ignored if it contradicts the conclusion which you are clear proponent of.

Hawass has been caught hiding stuff. I would not trust him. But I find it funny how anyone I present is immediately assumed as suspect. But a controversial figure like Hawass with known bias is perfectly ok when he represents the orthodoxy.

Another little red flag of double standards.

The only suspect person is yourself having been caught out lying, I think your so called experts are ignorant and driven by faith but I wouldn't question their ethical behaviour.
The comment about Hawass even if true is clearly anti-intellectual because of your non too subtle associating this with the orthodoxy.
This is an other issue with pseudoscience when all else fails turn it into an attack on science as being unethical.