There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

sjastro · Dec 19, 2025

stevevw said:
And I disagreed that it was reasonable by the simple fact that it is these social threads that are a pooer representation of what is actually going on.

The simple fact is we are subjected to your self opiniated dishonest drivel as these ‘social threads’ have referred to peer reviewed or scholarly papers which debunk the use of softened stones and geopolymers, and "Experiments in Egyptian Archaeology" debunking high tech tools since rudimentary tools discovered were able to explain the works.

The inanity of your remark is not only your engagement in this constant lying by omission but even if the references did not exist does not constitute evidence of a higher technology.
To use your fondness of referring to logical fallacies, which incidentally you have no understanding of their application, involves proving the negative fallacy, the false dilemma and shifting the burden of proof.

stevevw · Dec 21, 2025

BCP1928 said:
We've been through all of this before. Yes, it's possible that Egyptians used some alternative technologies not learned in the usual way by trial and error. So what?

This is primarily the same dogma. When you claim this knowledge came from trial and error this is mor eor less using the same dogma of material science. Trial and error is the paradigm of material science where knowledge is gained gradually from simple to primitive. From empiricle science.

Whereas it may be as I mentioned that the direct conscious experiences of being immersed in nature and reality may have been a completely different paradigm altogether in gaining knowledge.

Like a revelation or insight that could only come from a completely different worldview. Like a different set of eyes that sees how nature works or experiences how nature works which brings knowledge of nature.

Like the example of colorblind Mark. When she woke up one morning and could see the color red for the first time and had her first experience of the color red such as seeing red sunset or sports car. Did she learn this through trial and error. No it happen as she experienced colors. There was no trial and error or gradual evolution of the knowledge. It came with the direct experience.

The same with the direct experiences of the ancients. Because everything about that time was immersed in a transcedent paradigm and not an enlightened one of rational material science. The knowledge came to those who were able to completely immerse themseves. Thats why the elders, sharman, pharoahs ect were seen as like gods.

BCP1928 said:
All you are actually trying to prove is that scientists are really atheists in drag because they don't buy in to your weird take on Christian theology. Nobody cares any more.

Who said it was about Christian theology. I literally just spoke of sharman and other ancient spiritualist. I mention atheists because along with material science this is a definite worldview that denies any transcedent knowledge let alone the Christian God.

When material sciences are used to deny transcedent rknowledge then this is atheism. The two are often linked. Any scientists who accepts that there may be transcedent knowledge would not be denying the ancientists may have had transcedent knowledge.

So its a general worldview of those who are dogmatic enough to deny the possibility of advanced and alternative knowledge and not about Christians or science itself as a methodology.

stevevw · Dec 21, 2025

Stopped_lurking said:
But that particular one is a blog post is it not? From an ancient ruins blog.

I found it when I searched your earlier quote. I didn't use your link when I asked about if Protzen thought it could be made from polishing, but I went from memory. That's why I formulated it as a question.

Asking how they excluded polishing is not saying that it was done by polishing.

This is still referring to Protzens opinion to question that the stones were vitrified. You still pulled out a researcher that was mentioned in my article. That you then done your own search and then still used it makes no difference.

It doesn't matter now. All I am asking is the same level of criteria applied to everyone. When all my references are deemed unreliable and lacking credibility and then someone uses one of them against me without the same level of credibility demanded of mt I find it double standards.

Stopped_lurking · Dec 22, 2025

stevevw said:
This is still referring to Protzens opinion to question that the stones were vitrified. You still pulled out a researcher that was mentioned in my article. That you then done your own search and then still used it makes no difference.

It doesn't matter now. All I am asking is the same level of criteria applied to everyone. When all my references are deemed unreliable and lacking credibility and then someone uses one of them against me without the same level of credibility demanded of mt I find it double standards.

It is not double standards. Protzen's work about shaping the stones is not reliable because you presented him, but because they did experimental archeology. They also published it in a journal, and presented it to the archeological community at large. Opening up the discussion for other experts in the field. That is all I want from your purported experts as well.

sjastro · Dec 22, 2025

stevevw said:
This is still referring to Protzens opinion to question that the stones were vitrified. You still pulled out a researcher that was mentioned in my article. That you then done your own search and then still used it makes no difference.

This (as usual) is confusing.
Protzen is an orthodox experimental archaeologist.

Google Search

stevevw said:
It doesn't matter now. All I am asking is the same level of criteria applied to everyone. When all my references are deemed unreliable and lacking credibility and then someone uses one of them against me without the same level of credibility demanded of mt I find it double standards.

This totally ridiculous, the standards that have been used are peer reviewed which debunk your nonsense which you pathologically lie as being non existent.

Being peer reviewed their methodologies were subjected to examination beforehand and when published are cited, leading to further independent testing.
This why there are multiple tests by done by different researchers which leads to the same conclusions and supports the mainstream position.

By comparison your sources are generally YouTube videos based on sensationalism appealing to an ignorant audience like yourself.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Dec 22, 2025

sjastro said:
This (as usual) is confusing.
Protzen is an orthodox experimental archaeologist.

Google Search

This totally ridiculous, the standards that have been used are peer reviewed which debunk your nonsense which you pathologically lie as being non existent.

Being peer reviewed their methodologies were subjected to examination beforehand and when published are cited, leading to further independent testing.
This why there are multiple tests by done by different researchers which leads to the same conclusions and supports the mainstream position.

By comparison your sources are generally YouTube videos based on sensationalism appealing to an ignorant audience like yourself.

I think it should be clear by now that Steve has no idea what peer-review means. Like... what it actually means outside of his seeming view that it's just other scientists going "Yup. I agree with this."

stevevw · Dec 22, 2025

I can't post at the moment. At least in reply to others

stevevw · Dec 22, 2025

sjastro said:
This (as usual) is confusing.
Protzen is an orthodox experimental archaeologist.

Google Search

This totally ridiculous, the standards that have been used are peer reviewed which debunk your nonsense which you pathologically lie as being non existent.

I must have missed your link to the peer review for the claim about the pyramid blocks being split and the basalt block being ground by hand. Oh and the small ponders on the unfinished obelisk. I am pretty sure I have not seen any peer reviews that went along with these claims.

sjastro said:
Being peer reviewed their methodologies were subjected to examination beforehand and when published are cited, leading to further independent testing.
This why there are multiple tests by done by different researchers which leads to the same conclusions and supports the mainstream position.

So where are the multiple tests and peer reviw for the claims you made. I at least provided testing and scientific reports. I don't think you linked anything for those claims.

sjastro said:
By comparison your sources are generally YouTube videos based on sensationalism appealing to an ignorant audience like yourself.

Well its better than none at all. Like I said where is the peer review for the pyramid blocks, basalt paver and the scoop marks made by small dolerite pounders. We have to be fair and apply the same level of support including the claims that are refuting my links.

stevevw · Dec 22, 2025

Stopped_lurking said:
It is not double standards. Protzen's work about shaping the stones is not reliable because you presented him, but because they did experimental archeology. They also published it in a journal, and presented it to the archeological community at large. Opening up the discussion for other experts in the field. That is all I want from your purported experts as well.

Then why can't the same be applied to the other links to experimental science and reports that are in those links. Do they stand. Within those links were experimental archeology and papers that showed the shine was not the result of polishing. Why does this not also stand.

Hans Blaster · Dec 22, 2025

stevevw said:
Another fallacy. Spending a long time on something must mean its whacko. It does not follow.

Not what I said Steve. What I said is that this thread has gone on so long that I know the sources you are using are in your own words "wacko."

This thread has been filled with your failures to respond to what was actually written. If you can't be bothered to read carefully, accurately, and honestly, just stop. You look the fool.

Stopped_lurking · Dec 22, 2025

stevevw said:
Then why can't the same be applied to the other links to experimental science and reports that are in those links. Do they stand. Within those links were experimental archeology and papers that showed the shine was not the result of polishing. Why does this not also stand.

What journal? Are they interacting with archeological community at large? I don't think that Protzen actually showed that it was polishing, he speculated on it (and said that he had observed pumice close by) in the article I read ( https://www.jstor.org/stable/27977765 ). That's it.

Perhaps he wrote something about it in a later article.

sjastro · Dec 22, 2025

stevevw said:
I must have missed your link to the peer review for the claim about the pyramid blocks being split and the basalt block being ground by hand. Oh and the small ponders on the unfinished obelisk. I am pretty sure I have not seen any peer reviews that went along with these claims.

So where are the multiple tests and peer reviw for the claims you made. I at least provided testing and scientific reports. I don't think you linked anything for those claims.

Well its better than none at all. Like I said where is the peer review for the pyramid blocks, basalt paver and the scoop marks made by small dolerite pounders. We have to be fair and apply the same level of support including the claims that are refuting my links.

We have gone through this routine in posts 1467, 1468 etc.

Your links fail to address the contradictory evidence found in peer reviewed papers such as copper corrosion and quartz found by SEMs in striations claimed to be machined surfaces. Why worn and shattered dolerite pounders are found in the trench of the unfinished obelisk when the scoop marks are supposedly the result of softened granite eliminated the need for dolerite pounders.

How many times do you want to engage in this idiot tactic of regurgitating the same queries which have been addressed on multiple occasions.

BCP1928 · Dec 22, 2025

stevevw said:
This is primarily the same dogma. When you claim this knowledge came from trial and error this is mor eor less using the same dogma of material science. Trial and error is the paradigm of material science where knowledge is gained gradually from simple to primitive. From empiricle science.

Whereas it may be as I mentioned that the direct conscious experiences of being immersed in nature and reality may have been a completely different paradigm altogether in gaining knowledge.

Like a revelation or insight that could only come from a completely different worldview. Like a different set of eyes that sees how nature works or experiences how nature works which brings knowledge of nature.

Like the example of colorblind Mark. When she woke up one morning and could see the color red for the first time and had her first experience of the color red such as seeing red sunset or sports car. Did she learn this through trial and error. No it happen as she experienced colors. There was no trial and error or gradual evolution of the knowledge. It came with the direct experience.

The same with the direct experiences of the ancients. Because everything about that time was immersed in a transcedent paradigm and not an enlightened one of rational material science. The knowledge came to those who were able to completely immerse themseves. Thats why the elders, sharman, pharoahs ect were seen as like gods.

When you were learning the carpenter's trade did you do it by actually using tools and finding out what they could do or did you immerse yourself in nature to wait for "transcendent knowledge?"

stevevw said:
Who said it was about Christian theology. I literally just spoke of sharman and other ancient spiritualist. I mention atheists because along with material science this is a definite worldview that denies any transcedent knowledge let alone the Christian God.

When material sciences are used to deny transcedent rknowledge then this is atheism. The two are often linked. Any scientists who accepts that there may be transcedent knowledge would not be denying the ancientists may have had transcedent knowledge.

No, as far as I can tell about what you mean by "transcendent knowledge" it is not necessary to theism or even Christianity.

stevevw said:
So its a general worldview of those who are dogmatic enough to deny the possibility of advanced and alternative knowledge and not about Christians or science itself as a methodology.

I see you have switched from "transcendent knowledge" to "advanced and alternative knowledge." Are you trying to make a point by doing that? Or are you just being careless with terminology?

sjastro · Dec 22, 2025

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
I think it should be clear by now that Steve has no idea what peer-review means. Like... what it actually means outside of his seeming view that it's just other scientists going "Yup. I agree with this."

It doesn't help when he is also being wilfully ignorant.

stevevw · Dec 22, 2025

Hans Blaster said:
Not what I said Steve. What I said is that this thread has gone on so long that I know the sources you are using are in your own words "wacko."

This thread has been filled with your failures to respond to what was actually written. If you can't be bothered to read carefully, accurately, and honestly, just stop. You look the fool.

I have responded to enough to know that its not foolish to point out obvious fallacies. Despite clarifying this is still a fallacy that the sources I have linked are whacko.

I am disputing your labelling them whacko in the first place. That is the fallacy I am saying you are making. That you assume the evidence I have provided is whacko. Its a misrepresentation of the links.

Hans Blaster · Dec 22, 2025

stevevw said:
I have responded to enough to know that its not foolish to point out obvious fallacies. Despite clarifying this is still a fallacy that the sources I have linked are whacko.

You have demonstrated *REPEATEDLY* that you don't understand what the fallacies you mention mean.

I am disputing your labelling them whacko in the first place. That is the fallacy I am saying you are making. That you assume the evidence I have provided is whacko. Its a misrepresentation of the links.

You are absolutely the first of us to use the term "whacko" in this thread. (As was the case with "woo" and I believe "conspiracy".)

You keep projecting your assumptions onto things we did not write. The sloppiness of your posts is appalling and we can't put that all down on you issues with spelling/typing. (Dislexia or what ever was the underlying cause.)

BCP1928 · Dec 22, 2025

stevevw said:
I have responded to enough to know that its not foolish to point out obvious fallacies. Despite clarifying this is still a fallacy that the sources I have linked are whacko.

I am disputing your labelling them whacko in the first place. That is the fallacy I am saying you are making. That you assume the evidence I have provided is whacko. Its a misrepresentation of the links.

Professor Harold Hill's "Think System" doesn't really work for brass bands. Trying to apply it to the skilled trades is definitely whacko.

stevevw · Dec 22, 2025

Hans Blaster said:
You have demonstrated *REPEATEDLY* that you don't understand what the fallacies you mention mean.

Then give me an example. Are you saying none of which I have mentioned as being a fallacy is a fallacy. I can go back and show you if you want.

Hans Blaster said:
You are absolutely the first of us to use the term "whacko" in this thread. (As was the case with "woo" and I believe "conspiracy".)

Actually I am not. I could go back to the first few pages of this thread and show that from the beginning some classed what was said as whacko. You don't have to say the word whacko or Woo or conspiracy to mean those things. Again do you want me to show you.

Hans Blaster said:
You keep projecting your assumptions onto things we did not write. The sloppiness of your posts is appalling and we can't put that all down on you issues with spelling/typing. (Dislexia or what ever was the underlying cause.)

What assumption. What sloppiness. Its a simple statement. I disagree with your claim that what has been presented is invalid. Or is conspiracy as you have so often labelled it with you likening everything to "Hancock" type conspiracies. Is that not you have claimed. You did so from your first posts.

stevevw · Dec 22, 2025

BCP1928 said:
Professor Harold Hill's "Think System" doesn't really work for brass bands. Trying to apply it to the skilled trades is definitely whacko.

I don't understand what you are saying.

Hans Blaster · Dec 22, 2025

stevevw said:
Then give me an example. Are you saying none of which I have mentioned as being a fallacy is a fallacy. I can go back and show you if you want.

It's been discussed before. I'm not going to show you again where your "fallacies" are not fallacies just for you to ignore it and accuse us of fallacies again and again and again.

Actually I am not. I could go back to the first few pages of this thread and show that from the beginning some classed what was said as whacko. You don't have to say the word whacko or Woo or conspiracy to mean those things. Again do you want me to show you.

I'm not talking about "some". I'm talking about *you* and *me*. I'm not interested in your arguments with the other posters.

What assumption. What sloppiness. Its a simple statement. I disagree with your claim that what has been presented is invalid. Or is conspiracy as you have so often labelled it with you likening everything to "Hancock" type conspiracies. Is that not you have claimed. You did so from your first posts.

I have told you more times that I am *NOT* invoking conspiracy after you claim unprovoked than I have actually invoked a conspiracy. My complaint about Hancock is that he is clown and conman selling nonsense pseudoscience to rubes and suckers. Hancock's fantasies *ARE* at the base of so many websites, blog posts, and YT channels that you use as "sources". I don't know what the "conspiracy" could be in Hancock's grifter pile of nonsense. The same goes for the other pseudoscience grifters in the ancient tech "space".

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

Newbie

inquisitive

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

inquisitive

inquisitive

Area Meathead

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

inquisitive

Area Meathead

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

inquisitive

Area Meathead

Similar threads