Rediscovery of Technology

The E wrote:But what you're doing is seeing random dots, connecting them, and getting "ancient astronauts".

Indeed, I think it might be a good idea for SMR to read about the "canals on Mars" debacle.
Where people literally connected a bunch of dots and made up a big story about the whole thing which was proven to be based on optical illusions combined with how the human mind interprets visual imagery.

This says nothing at all about the existence of what we would term high technology.

Again, remember that "high tech" 5000 years ago isnt the same as "high tech" today. And when dealing with history, the few sources mentioning some group or anothers great advancements, obviously talks about it in relation to what they think is high tech THEN, and as such you need to stick with high tech according to era, or we get more of those stupid misleading arguments.

Notably though, it doesn't change in ways that would confirm this wild hypothesis of ancient high tech that has been lost over time.

Correction, it doesn´t confirm his wild claims, as we already HAVE confirmed that "ancient high tech that has been lost over time" is something that have happened.

The Antikythera mechanism would have been considered high tech even in the 19th century.

The idea that the official record might be true, or even mostly true, never crosses your mind, does it?

And there´s the big point, that the "mostly true" probably covers everything quite well.

For example, the massive re-evaluation of the Romans over the last 5 or so decades have changed views on history a LOT.
And proven lots of assumptions to be wrong.

However, even with something as markedly wrong as much of that was, the basics of it was still true, just that details had been gotten wrong to an unusually high level.

Assuming, of course, that something is being hidden. Which you have so far not shown any evidence or reason for.

Quite. There is a lot of "they COULDN`T have done that" bullshit included among historians which results in lots of things being ignored or misinterpreted, but there´s no HIDING going on.

If evidence is found tomorrow that the mentions of "flying machines" in the Vedic scriptures actually turns out to be based on something real, like airships or what ever, then i would say "hey, cool", and get on with my life, my appreciation for historical knowledge minimally adjusted.

Because that stuff is reasonably easy to find translated copies off, noone hiding anything, just that since nobody has ever found anything that actually and truly points towards it being a realistic depiction rather than a fictionalised retelling of a real event or even just a popular tall tale from around a campfire, there´s just no reason to expect it to have been real, even if it´s definitely possible on a theoretical basis.

A video that I like is "Ancient Aliens Debunked". It goes through the tricks, lies, and blinders that the Ancient Alien talking heads have to use to sell their books.

Unfortunately, I think Ancient Aliens series has run its course.

For the 200,000 ton stone, The E have you read or download the book Dead Man Secrets. If the answer is no then do not bother me in this discussion. You have made a choice not to read and explore the evidence I have cited. That ends the discussion period. If the answer is "yes", what prompts you to disagree with the evidence. Now, the author makes no conclusions but I do. It's perfectly "Ok!" to disagree with my conclusions. My conclusions could be totally wrong but just a little off.

Lets take the largest stone within Egypt, (I don't remember the size of the stone but it was on the science channel!) this stone was estimated to take 60 of the largest cranes in the world to move. If we throw out the idea that ET's did it, our ancestors had some type of technology that allowed them to move really heavy stones. That means history is wrong and must changed or modified, the Egyptian was more technologically advanced in certain areas than we are today.

smr wrote:
For the ton stone, The E have you read or download the book Dead Man Secrets. If the answer is no then do not bother me in this discussion. You have made a choice not to read and explore the evidence I have cited. That ends the discussion period. If the answer is "yes", what prompts you to disagree with the evidence. Now, the author makes no conclusions but I do. It's perfectly "Ok!" to disagree with my conclusions. My conclusions could be totally wrong but just a little off.

I skimmed it a bit. The author is an idiot who retreads ground already covered by lots of idiots like Däniken et al. He throws out hypotheses without offering any evidence or citations, he draws conclusions out of thin air, and generally does not follow scientific standards. Treating this mess of a book as anything but an attempt to milk money from the gullible is a grave mistake. I'll be posting critiques of the most egregious of crimes against logic later, but let me just start off by saying that any hypothesis that requires a global flood as described in the bible is already on shaky ground to begin with. That he also commits the same error creationism commits by misunderstanding thermodynamics and evolution and how they interact is just icing on the cake.

If you do believe the ancient high technology civilisation theories, then I have a great deal for you. A slightly used second hand bridge, hurry and I'll throw in a set of steak knives.
Every bit of verifiable evidence indicates that we today are at the highest tech level ever achieved on earth, of course come tomorrow it will have moved on to higher again.

If a 200,000 ton rock is interesting then consider Uluru. It was (& still is) the most sacred site for the longest running continuous civilisation on this planet (about 40,000 to 60,000 yrs). At
•348 metres (1141 feet) high
•3.6 km long (2.2 miles)
•1.9 km wide (1.2 miles)
•9.4 km or 5.8 miles around the base
•covers 3.33 km2 (1.29 miles2)
•extends about several km/miles into the ground (no-one knows exactly how far

It is fairly large

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... norama.jpg

Wow! I skimmed a book and I am going to call a person out on the forum. A person wants to know where I got the information. I cite the source...the best you have to say he is an idiot.

In the global geologic record, I personally know of five times that mass extinction events occurred due to some type global cataclysmic event. My company I work for does geologic surveys and determines where the oil fields are and how much oil is there. News flash: the Earth has an atmospheric pressure of 1. That's standard but 65 million years ago, Earth had atmospheric pressure of 2. That allow for increase of oxygen and some nitrogen without poisoning the place. Which allowed bigger animals and plants. A mass extinction event occurred and the Earth lost 7/10 of its ozone letter. The conclusion of this event was some sort asteroid strike. It was largest mass extinction in Earth's history. This event caused a global ice age. The planet was cool for millions of years!

Whatever happened 65 million years ago destroyed the planet. There would be no sign of any civilization from that time period. Now, I am not saying there was a civilization on the planet. If there was a civilization, it was probably not us...read whatever you want into that statement.



I am done trying to discuss anything with you...

The E wrote:

smr wrote:
For the ton stone, The E have you read or download the book Dead Man Secrets. If the answer is no then do not bother me in this discussion. You have made a choice not to read and explore the evidence I have cited. That ends the discussion period. If the answer is "yes", what prompts you to disagree with the evidence. Now, the author makes no conclusions but I do. It's perfectly "Ok!" to disagree with my conclusions. My conclusions could be totally wrong but just a little off.

I skimmed it a bit. The author is an idiot who retreads ground already covered by lots of idiots like Däniken et al. He throws out hypotheses without offering any evidence or citations, he draws conclusions out of thin air, and generally does not follow scientific standards. Treating this mess of a book as anything but an attempt to milk money from the gullible is a grave mistake. I'll be posting critiques of the most egregious of crimes against logic later, but let me just start off by saying that any hypothesis that requires a global flood as described in the bible is already on shaky ground to begin with. That he also commits the same error creationism commits by misunderstanding thermodynamics and evolution and how they interact is just icing on the cake.

Now, everyone bags on me for believing that our history is not totally truthful. This link just totally blew me away. For all the naysayers, please recreate this experiment of what this guy did. Document and explain the results. If the results are the same...some conclusions can be drawn.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5V0U1ZuXIyw

This link is about ancient starmaps.

smr wrote:Now, everyone bags on me for believing that our history is not totally truthful. This link just totally blew me away. For all the naysayers, please recreate this experiment of what this guy did. Document and explain the results. If the results are the same...some conclusions can be drawn.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5V0U1ZuXIyw

This link is about ancient starmaps.

But the "Face on Mars" is just an optical illusion that depends on both viewing angle and angle of illumination. Later, higher resolution pictures taken by successor probes don't look like a "face" at all.

Since the "face" seems to be the focus of his speculation, being able to disprove it would seem to poke a hole in his conclusions.

One reason many people have in taking your posts seriously is:
a: unfounded assumptions, and
b: just wrong information

You suggest in your last post that the Earth had an atmospheric pressure 100% greater than today 65 million years ago. You cite no evidence and make no claims as to how this was possible. We are just supposed to believe this.

You make a vague reference to animals and plants being larger in the past, but the ecosystems that existed 65 million years ago had just a few apex species that were very large (much like today) while most creatures from that time period were about the same size as contemporary creatures filling the same ecological niche. Even Velociraptors were about the size of wolves (the movie Jurrasic Park scaled them up to be much more frightening, although real life 'raptors would be more than scary enough). I once attended an exhibition with reconstructions of dinosaurs and was surprised to find how "small" some creatures like Allosaurus (a real Jurrasic "top predator") were compared to my (and evidently most other people's) expectations. Allosaurus was physically a large creature, but not a "room filling" large creature, being perhaps similar in size to a medium duty truck (perhaps abut 8m long and standing a bit over 2m high).

Now you may be referring to the Carboniferous age, but that was 350+ million years ago, when the global oxygen concentration was apparently higher, allowing for massive increases in the size of insects, but amphibians and early reptiles were still sized according to their ecological niches.

The greatest mass extinction event in global history was the Permian event, about 250 million years ago, which wipes out an estimated 96% of all marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrates becoming extinct. The cause of the event is widely debated, so no one can claim that "x" caused this event.

So if you are going to tell us that the atmospheric pressure was 100% higher 65 million years ago, tell us the source of that information. If you are going to cite an extinction event, or the sizes of animal life at certain periods of time, be specific and use the correct events and dates to support your case. Otherwise, people are not going to take you seriously.

Daryl wrote:...

Every bit of verifiable evidence indicates that we today are at the highest tech level ever achieved on earth, of course come tomorrow it will have moved on to higher again.
...

Please repeat after me, "tech levels are relative to who writes about them, not relative to who reads about them".

And the texts that are the foundation for all the more realistic ideas of "ancient civilisations", they were written when?

Well, certainly not in the last millenia, and their sources are probably not from within the last 2 millenia.

A millenia ago, a viking longship was effectively "high tech".