Ancient megalithic structures and sites.

[andnowweknow]

Isn't the sphinx head recarved out of the original head?

Clearly, it is a Nubian face. The head is disproportionately small suggesting original stone has been removed and it is FAR less weathered than the rest of the body.

 

[ShinkanPo]

The Graham Hancock shit never ceases to amaze me. Supposedly there was a super intelligent civilization living on Antarctic continent when Earth was in a different position, Antarctica was a lush paradise while North America was on the South Pole and a frozen wasteland. I think maybe these people had some Nichola Tesla shit going on with all these structures, wireless power grid and some technology that was completely lost when the poles shifted and their home continent became frozen under hundreds of miles of ice.

I read that there was once a super Earthquake at Yellowstone, it was so bad that entire mountain ranges disappeared into lakes of volcanic lava, just gone forever, entire fucking mountain ranges vanished without a trace. So just think about what all would be lost without a trace if there was some super global catastrophe like a pole shift. I think it's possible that people were once smarter than what we are today, maybe they had electricity, internet(or something like it), other technologies that would go beyond our comprehension, the whole works, then it all came tumbling down and the whole species had to start over from scratch and we have amnesia.

I hope we can someday retriev their porn!

 

[ShinkanPo]

They use the power of the moonlight to melt steel! @ShadBo @hillelslovak87 @Jopious Extronimous @jgarner

 

[ShinkanPo]

I'm pretty sure stupid people in the future will think the Empire State Building and Burj Kalifa were built by aliens, considering the average human of these times lives in a crappy little 2 story building.

Specially the Burr Kalifa because to them Moslem countriew are suposed to be backwards

 

[hillelslovak87]

They use the power of the moonlight to melt steel! @ShadBo @hillelslovak87 @Jopious Extronimous @jgarner

Enough cold steel, and you can melt anything. Or make a Zoolander face.

 

[miaou]

There is no consensus on how they were built Khufu using the known toolset of the time because a.) It's impossible b.) every theory has obvious, admitted and major holes in them. They found non meteoritic iron in the great pyramid, perhaps instead of assuming they only had copper chisels ideas should be expanded. The tools used aren't there because of the time that has passed. Metal gets reappropriated or disappears.

Climate change is the reason for the Holocene extinction and is also part of the extinction associated with the megafaunal collapse at the end of the pleistocene. You're sticking to your guns on the wrong topic, but suit yourself.

Last

You wrote (regarding the younger-dryas):
“the greatest extinction event on planet earth in the last several million years”

When I pointed out this was false because the Holocene extinction is actually greater, you wrote:
“it isn't even worth mentioning in comparison to the Younger Dryas”

Then I tried to shrug this away to focus on more important issues, you wrote:
“you don't have to sidestep anything regarding the extinction thing”, and then posted 3 links that have nothing to do with any extinctions.

Then, when I pointed out that the links are unrelated and that the Holocene extinction is classified as one of the 6 major mass extinctions (which the younger dryas is not), you reply:
“You're sticking to your guns on the wrong topic, but suit yourself.”



The problem here is that you start from a pre-conceived conclusion and try to make the evidence fit it (by cherry-picking, by trusting unreliable sources, by jumping to conclusions with enadequate evidence, etc), rather than start from a null-hypothesis and try to objectively assess the evidence.

 

[andnowweknow]

You wrote (regarding the younger-dryas):
“the greatest extinction event on planet earth in the last several million years”

When I pointed out this was false because the Holocene extinction is actually greater, you wrote:
“it isn't even worth mentioning in comparison to the Younger Dryas”

Then I tried to shrug this away to focus on more important issues, you wrote:
“you don't have to sidestep anything regarding the extinction thing”, and then posted 3 links that have nothing to do with any extinctions.

Then, when I pointed out that the links are unrelated and that the Holocene extinction is classified as one of the 6 major mass extinctions (which the younger dryas is not), you reply:
“You're sticking to your guns on the wrong topic, but suit yourself.”



The problem here is that you start from a pre-conceived conclusion and try to make the evidence fit it (by cherry-picking, by trusting unreliable sources, by jumping to conclusions with enadequate evidence, etc), rather than start from a null-hypothesis and try to objectively assess the evidence.

Ok. Is it better if I digress this from the word "greatest" and shift it to "severe"? You're just playing with the word "greatest" and appealing to a wiki article using that word. Furthermore, the Holocene extinction hadn't happened at the time we're debating, again, speaking to the semantics of this.

Why do you think it's the greatest mass extinction event? The YD was clearly much more severe climatically than anything going on today. There are about 125 land mammals over 125 lbs in body weight (including us) today on planet earth. There were double that prior to the YD event which caused the collapse. You would have had failures on every fault line in the world due to isostatic rebound and depression from the incredibly rapid weight transfer of water from land to sea. The salt content in the ocean would have changed significantly.

It was objectively a MUCH more severe and catastrophic event. If it what happened then appened again today, our civilization is over. Period.

That was the point of relevance to the thread, it turned into a definition of greatest. I have no problem looking at things objectively. This has turned a bit dickish and I'll take the majority of the blame there.

 

[miaou]

Ok. Is it better if I digress this from the word "greatest" and shift it to "severe"? You're just playing with the word "greatest" and appealing to a wiki article using that word. Furthermore, the Holocene extinction hadn't happened at the time we're debating, again, speaking to the semantics of this.

Bro, you compared the two (for example, you said the Holocene extinction “it isn't even worth mentioning in comparison to the Younger Dryas”).

You made a very specific claim and were demonstrably wrong about it. It happens to all of us. You can twist the facts around and try to make it sound like I'm disingenuous and playing with words, or you could just admit to being wrong and move on with your life.

 

[andnowweknow]

Bro, you compared the two (for example, you said the Holocene extinction “it isn't even worth mentioning in comparison to the Younger Dryas”).

You made a very specific claim and were demonstrably wrong about it. It happens to all of us. You can twist the facts around and try to make it sound like I'm disingenuous and playing with words, or you could just admit to being wrong and move on with your life.

Happy to admit being wrong. For my own knowledge, explain to me why you think the holocene extinction was "Greater". In your words will suffice. I've clearly explained why the YD event was much more severe for planet earth in literally every way possible, from climate change to directed loss of species.

As a caveat, we know way more about the holocene extinction for obvious reasons, not to mention those same wiki articles will suggest things like the over importance of human beings in the extinctions.

 

[miaou]

Happy to admit being wrong. For my own knowledge, explain to me why you think the holocene extinction was "Greater". In your words will suffice. I've clearly explained why the YD event was much more severe for planet earth in literally every way possible, from climate change to directed loss of species.

According to scientists who have devoted their lives to studying this field, who know far more about it than you or me, the Holocene extinction is classified as one of the 6 major mass extinction events.

The Quaternary extinction (form 130,000 to 8,000 BCE, part of which was the Younger Dryas extinction - link) is not.


Therefore, the position that the Younger Dryas extinction (which was only part of the Quaternary extinction) is greater or more significant than the Holocene extinction, is clearly false according to current evidence.


And I don't even want to get into the discussion that the reason for the Quaternary (and the Younger Dryas) extinctions is unclear (the wiki page describes the arguments for/against the various hypotheses - including the climate change hypothesis, which you present as fact - and states that "recent studies have tended to favor the human-overkill theory").

As a caveat, we know way more about the holocene extinction for obvious reasons, not to mention those same wiki articles will suggest things like the over importance of human beings in the extinctions.

Arguing that the reason we think the Holocene extinction is greater (or cause by humans) is that "we know way more about it for obvious reasons" is a prime example motivated reasoning. For one, you are disagreeing with the scientists who know infinitely more about the field than you do. And for another, if there isn't enough evidence, then how can you argue that your position is anything more than a hypothesis that is unsupported by existing evidence?

 

[andnowweknow]

According to scientists who have devoted their lives to studying this field, who know far more about it than you or me, the Holocene extinction is classified as one of the 6 major mass extinction events.

The Quaternary extinction (form 130,000 to 8,000 BCE, part of which was the Younger Dryas extinction - link) is not.


Therefore, the position that the Younger Dryas extinction (which was only part of the Quaternary extinction) is greater or more significant than the Holocene extinction, is clearly false according to current evidence.


And I don't even want to get into the discussion that the reason for the Quaternary (and the Younger Dryas) extinctions is unclear (the wiki page describes the arguments for/against the various hypotheses - including the climate change hypothesis, which you present as fact - and states that "recent studies have tended to favor the human-overkill theory").





Arguing that the reason we think the Holocene extinction is greater (or cause by humans) is that "we know way more about it for obvious reasons" is a prime example motivated reasoning. For one, you are disagreeing with the scientists who know infinitely more about the field than you do. And for another, if there isn't enough evidence, then how can you argue that your position is anything more than a hypothesis that is unsupported by existing evidence?

Overkill is one of the single dumbest vestiges of earth science still in circulation. Another example of human beings trying to overemphasize their importance...also and extremely old theory developed without the understandings of climate we currently have.

We don't have to argue about it though, it's hilarious someone can take a stance, by logic or expertise, that "well, we're not sure if it was humans killing 6 million mamoths (which is more than the estimated human population of earth at the time) so fast they couldn't reproduce along over 100 other large mammals (including non game predators) had to do with overhunting OR the fact that we KNOW FOR A FACT that the temperture changed from 18 degree F in 10 years OR LESS due to an event we cannot determine.

Let's see, humans mass murdering literally millions of multi ton animals across two continents all at the same time, or a well known catastrophic plunge in global temperatures that makes the current climate change debate pale in comparison. The arguments for overkill are antiquated and stupid.

Last, I never said their wasn't enough evidence to draw conclusions about the YD.

 

[andnowweknow]

Whoever made this wall was on a different level...it's almost as if it was easy to do this for someone and this is just fucking around. This is at Cusco at the Coricancha.

This is the Coricancha...the Spanish work above is lovely but compared to the wall in front, it's not nearly as difficult.

 

[MusterX]

This one fucks with my brain more than the pyramids or anything else. How? How in the world could humans manage to move that with anything less than a modern ultra advanced/strong crane?

I'm not sure we could move those even with modern equipment man. The stones at the bottom of the temple at Baalbek weigh 1,000 tons.

There are even bigger ones at the quarry though, this one weighs 1,240 tons.

Now here is the thing, The LTM 11200-9.1 is both the the strongest and tallest telescopic crane in the world, lifting up to 1,200 tons. Needless to say, there aren't very many of those and the largest stones would strain that crane to the limit, with some stones exceeding its capacity. I guess we could do it but man, it would take the most advanced machinery on Earth and a very talented team to pull it off. Very difficult, yet ancient man did it with no machinery.

The other thing is we use steel cable and super strong straps to make heavy lifts. What were these people going to move 1,000-1,200 tons with? Ropes? No...fucking.....way any rope could stand up to a test like that.

 

[Brodels]

It's an amazing topic. Just watched the ancient aliens episode on this again last week. Experts of today struggle to understand how they could replicate similar structures.

 

[Brodels]

Look into it more.

These structures are found all over the world. They were all destroyed.

You will also find the same strange rock cuts as well ie. Stairs leading to nowhere. There are also strange knobs found on the stones. This isn't isolated.

Sometimes you have to realize others don't think they way you and I do, and leave it alone. Some minds aren't changing

 

[andnowweknow]

I'm not sure we could move those even with modern equipment man. The stones at the bottom of the temple at Baalbek weigh 1,000 tons.

There are even bigger ones at the quarry though, this one weighs 1,240 tons.

Now here is the thing, The LTM 11200-9.1 is both the the strongest and tallest telescopic crane in the world, lifting up to 1,200 tons. Needless to say, there aren't very many of those and the largest stones would strain that crane to the limit, with some stones exceeding its capacity. I guess we could do it but man, it would take the most advanced machinery on Earth and a very talented team to pull it off. Very difficult, yet ancient man did it with no machinery.

The other thing is we use steel cable and super strong straps to make heavy lifts. What were these people going to move 1,000-1,200 tons with? Ropes? No...fucking.....way any rope could stand up to a test like that.

I think it's pretty clear to anyone with a brain (who can imagine beyond material evidence) that the U shaped platform at Baalbek was there already and the Romans built on top of it.

 

[RawHawg]

 

[MusterX]

Everyone interested in this topic should check out this doc when they've got the time. It's excellent.

Looks like we are due a cataclysm.

 

[90 50]

Clearly, it is a Nubian face. The head is disproportionately small suggesting original stone has been removed and it is FAR less weathered than the rest of the body.

It was more than likely a dog suggested by the way it sits

 

[90 50]

Whoever made this wall was on a different level...it's almost as if it was easy to do this for someone and this is just fucking around. This is at Cusco at the Coricancha.

This is the Coricancha...the Spanish work above is lovely but compared to the wall in front, it's not nearly as difficult.

Tetris master on that first pic