ive always wonderd if Atlantis ever truly existed, i have seen atrifacts from south america from around the time of the genetic boggle appx 100,000 years ago which was apparantly a globe that depicted a land mass in the atlantic.
i guess the q really is did man have the means to contruct the city
Well, we'll just have to keep digging, searching for that evidence that will further our knowledge of the human existence time frame. We just might have been buried beyond reach during the Earth's many upheavals.
I think it is almost arrogance (or ignorance) to say that it isn't possible for Atlantis to have ever existed. I believe if it did exist, one day we will find the clues.
My thoughts too, if something were to happen today that wiped out 90% of the population on the entire globe (okay, that is a little extreme, but whatever) and humanity plunged into a survival mode and back into a dark ages for 2000 years or more. In 20,000 years would an advanced civilization even believe that humans could have been smart enough that here we sit talking on computers all around the world, have flying machines, machines in space....... yadda yadda? What would be left of our skyscrapers in 20,000 years?
Good topic.
My thoughts too, if something were to happen today that wiped out 90% of the population on the entire globe (okay, that is a little extreme, but whatever) and humanity plunged into a survival mode and back into a dark ages for 2000 years or more. In 20,000 years would an advanced civilization even believe that humans could have been smart enough that here we sit talking on computers all around the world, have flying machines, machines in space....... yadda yadda? What would be left of our skyscrapers in 20,000 years?
Good topic.
Atlantis? ..... mythical tosh and no more. 
QUOTE ("THEY"+Jan 31 2008, 05:24 PM)
I think it is almost arrogance (or ignorance) to say that it isn't possible for Atlantis to have ever existed. I believe if it did exist, one day we will find the clues.
My thoughts too, if something were to happen today that wiped out 90% of the population on the entire globe (okay, that is a little extreme, but whatever) and humanity plunged into a survival mode and back into a dark ages for 2000 years or more. In 20,000 years would an advanced civilization even believe that humans could have been smart enough that here we sit talking on computers all around the world, have flying machines, machines in space....... yadda yadda? What would be left of our skyscrapers in 20,000 years?
Good topic.
Well considering if we lost 90% of the population we would still have almost 600 million left I'd say they'd definitely believe it. In fact, I think we'd probably start to recover after a few hundred years.
But if we weren't so dominant as to have the communications we have today, and the population of the world was smaller than yes, I'd say it would be very hard to believe in our previous existence or technological stature.
My thoughts too, if something were to happen today that wiped out 90% of the population on the entire globe (okay, that is a little extreme, but whatever) and humanity plunged into a survival mode and back into a dark ages for 2000 years or more. In 20,000 years would an advanced civilization even believe that humans could have been smart enough that here we sit talking on computers all around the world, have flying machines, machines in space....... yadda yadda? What would be left of our skyscrapers in 20,000 years?
Good topic.
Well considering if we lost 90% of the population we would still have almost 600 million left I'd say they'd definitely believe it. In fact, I think we'd probably start to recover after a few hundred years.
But if we weren't so dominant as to have the communications we have today, and the population of the world was smaller than yes, I'd say it would be very hard to believe in our previous existence or technological stature.
QUOTE (Cecil P Abstract+Jan 31 2008, 05:51 PM)
Atlantis? ..... mythical tosh and no more.
At one time that was said about Troy, too. No doubt there was something that is at the root of the Atlantis story ... although it might have been nothing more than a small fishing village!
At one time that was said about Troy, too. No doubt there was something that is at the root of the Atlantis story ... although it might have been nothing more than a small fishing village!
QUOTE (dougie_fresh_007+Jan 31 2008, 04:13 PM)
ive always wonderd if Atlantis ever truly existed, i have seen atrifacts from south america from around the time of the genetic boggle appx 100,000 years ago which was apparantly a globe that depicted a land mass in the atlantic.
i guess the q really is did man have the means to contruct the city
A 100,000 year old globe? You're full of it.
i guess the q really is did man have the means to contruct the city
A 100,000 year old globe? You're full of it.
QUOTE ("THEY"+Jan 31 2008, 12:24 PM)
I think it is almost arrogance (or ignorance) to say that it isn't possible for Atlantis to have ever existed. I believe if it did exist, one day we will find the clues.
My thoughts too, if something were to happen today that wiped out 90% of the population on the entire globe (okay, that is a little extreme, but whatever) and humanity plunged into a survival mode and back into a dark ages for 2000 years or more. In 20,000 years would an advanced civilization even believe that humans could have been smart enough that here we sit talking on computers all around the world, have flying machines, machines in space....... yadda yadda? What would be left of our skyscrapers in 20,000 years?
Good topic.
It's not ignorance, it's lack of evidence.
Consider the Ramtha-esque view of Atlantis:
An extremely advanced civilization that was wiped out by nuclear war, possessed of technology more advanced than our own based on crystals.
Now first off, if they were so much more advanced than us, why would they engage in a nuclear war to begin with? I mean, it would have been cheaper and easier (and victory more assured) for us to have simply nuked Afghanistan instead of invading, but we didn't because we are civilized enough to know that it's a highly dangerous tactic. While us launching nuclear weapons is not in and of itself dangerous to us, the repercussions would most certainly be. If we launched, our enemies would launch, our allies would launch, and our enemies allies would launch. Result: Nuclear winter and world population of a few thousand mutated humans who likely wouldn't live very long after.
It's just illogical.
Additionally, there would be evidence of such a nuclear war. We'd see high rates of mutation in animals and plants in the years after it occurred and we'd see evidence of mass extinctions around the time it occurred. None of that evidence has ever been found.
Second, even if such were the case, there would be artifacts left over from that time. We would have curious devices with slots for crystals that engineers and archaeologists would eventually have recognized as a form of technology. This clearly hasn't happened in the last 200 years or so that mankind has been digging in the dirt, looking for traces of earlier civilizations.
Third, the continent of Atlantis never existed. Neither did Lemuria. We know with as much assurances as we could possibly have that neither continent could have existed. Additionally, assuming that Atlantis refers to Pangaea is just unsupported by evidence, because Pangaea broke apart long before humans were walking upright. If such were the case, human ancestry would trace back far far further than the 50 million years we currently believe.
So basically, according to the evidence, the following statements are true:
1-There was never a continent which matches the description of Atlantis.
2-There was never a civilization on earth that closely matched or exceeded our current level of technology.
3-There never was a catastrophic nuclear war on this planet.
So that's pretty much it for the Ramtha-esque Atlantis. What about other theories?
Well, it depends. If you want to think that there was a relatively advanced society that lived around the Mediterranean ocean which was destroyed by a natural disaster, then there absolutely was an Atlantis. But the "atlanteans" called it Pompeii.
Or some other name, depending on which area of the Mediterranean ocean you want to look in. I think I read somewhere that there are about 2 dozen cities around the Mediterranean which were known to have been destroyed by natural disasters before the time of Plato.
Perhaps a bit too much "connecting the dots" there but generally sound thinking no doubt. Farming clearly ratchets the civilization-meme to a great degree.
But I can also envision some lucky confluence that existed long enough in antiquity to support something like the Greeks would have called Atlantis. I think it's difficult for us to try to imagine the possible bounty of nature in antiquity. The last great Ice Age was a time of great stability temperature-wise and while we typically shiver at the thought, there were significant ecosystems that would have thrived in ways we don't imagine. How long would it have taken to build something that would have blown the Greeks minds? 1,000 years of stable temps in some "paradise" would seem to be enough to create something along the lines of typical descriptions of "Atlantis".
However...
You have to remember that ancient civilizations traveled extensively. That is something that has been a facet of recent archeology... the fact that ancient people have been massively underestimated in their ability to communicate, travel and trade over long distances. If a high civilization existed that long ago, why didn't their culture, trade goods and artifacts travel to other lands?
However...
You have to remember that ancient civilizations traveled extensively. That is something that has been a facet of recent archeology... the fact that ancient people have been massively underestimated in their ability to communicate, travel and trade over long distances. If a high civilization existed that long ago, why didn't their culture, trade goods and artifacts travel to other lands?
I wouldn't be too quick to discount aboriginal people's ties to their lands. Most if not all primitive cultures had high reverence for the land that provided for them. In the possibility that some sort of "perfect confluence" of factors arose that enabled an actual civilization then it seems to me that they could have been so deeply ingrained in locality that little or no travel took place.
I'm just imagining something that existed during the last ice age in some "magic" pocket. There certainly were plenty of humans around in South America 15,000 years ago.
There are also some interesting satellite surveys that are revealing some interesting possibilities in areas that are now deeply covered by jungle but at one time could have been very temperate. It's tough to guess at but perhaps any travel they did make resulted in them only finding backwards aboriginals so they just went home to "paradise"?
All pure speculation based on not much else but intuition. I'm sure there is much we'll never discover about antiquity (>10,000 years ago) seeing as there are things from just 1500 years ago that were lost and/or remain lost.
So much of who we are today remains unchanged from who we were 10,000 years ago. Language was basically the same in terms of usefulness. Intelligence was limited only by diet so any culture with serious bounty wouldn't have been hampered developmentally. We all tend to think that somehow ancient peoples were backward but in many many ways they were equally sophisticated to 21st century folks.
It doesn't change the fact that many other details do not match... like it's reported position, etc.
Also, the text didn't write the date using numbers.. it would have been written "nine thousand" and not "9000".
However, again like I said..
Plato might have just repeated a legend rather than certain knowledge. That is quite a bit more likely.
My thoughts too, if something were to happen today that wiped out 90% of the population on the entire globe (okay, that is a little extreme, but whatever) and humanity plunged into a survival mode and back into a dark ages for 2000 years or more. In 20,000 years would an advanced civilization even believe that humans could have been smart enough that here we sit talking on computers all around the world, have flying machines, machines in space....... yadda yadda? What would be left of our skyscrapers in 20,000 years?
Good topic.
It's not ignorance, it's lack of evidence.
Consider the Ramtha-esque view of Atlantis:
An extremely advanced civilization that was wiped out by nuclear war, possessed of technology more advanced than our own based on crystals.
Now first off, if they were so much more advanced than us, why would they engage in a nuclear war to begin with? I mean, it would have been cheaper and easier (and victory more assured) for us to have simply nuked Afghanistan instead of invading, but we didn't because we are civilized enough to know that it's a highly dangerous tactic. While us launching nuclear weapons is not in and of itself dangerous to us, the repercussions would most certainly be. If we launched, our enemies would launch, our allies would launch, and our enemies allies would launch. Result: Nuclear winter and world population of a few thousand mutated humans who likely wouldn't live very long after.
It's just illogical.
Additionally, there would be evidence of such a nuclear war. We'd see high rates of mutation in animals and plants in the years after it occurred and we'd see evidence of mass extinctions around the time it occurred. None of that evidence has ever been found.
Second, even if such were the case, there would be artifacts left over from that time. We would have curious devices with slots for crystals that engineers and archaeologists would eventually have recognized as a form of technology. This clearly hasn't happened in the last 200 years or so that mankind has been digging in the dirt, looking for traces of earlier civilizations.
Third, the continent of Atlantis never existed. Neither did Lemuria. We know with as much assurances as we could possibly have that neither continent could have existed. Additionally, assuming that Atlantis refers to Pangaea is just unsupported by evidence, because Pangaea broke apart long before humans were walking upright. If such were the case, human ancestry would trace back far far further than the 50 million years we currently believe.
So basically, according to the evidence, the following statements are true:
1-There was never a continent which matches the description of Atlantis.
2-There was never a civilization on earth that closely matched or exceeded our current level of technology.
3-There never was a catastrophic nuclear war on this planet.
So that's pretty much it for the Ramtha-esque Atlantis. What about other theories?
Well, it depends. If you want to think that there was a relatively advanced society that lived around the Mediterranean ocean which was destroyed by a natural disaster, then there absolutely was an Atlantis. But the "atlanteans" called it Pompeii.
Or some other name, depending on which area of the Mediterranean ocean you want to look in. I think I read somewhere that there are about 2 dozen cities around the Mediterranean which were known to have been destroyed by natural disasters before the time of Plato.
QUOTE (Ashibayai+)
Well considering if we lost 90% of the population we would still have almost 600 million left I'd say they'd definitely believe it. In fact, I think we'd probably start to recover after a few hundred years.
I would say we'd recover in a matter of years or decades, depending on how many citizens of industrialized nations survived. The more Europeans, industrialized Asian citizens, north Americans and Australians survived, the faster we'd recover, especially if you're talking about some event like a plague that spared equipment and goods.
I would say we'd recover in a matter of years or decades, depending on how many citizens of industrialized nations survived. The more Europeans, industrialized Asian citizens, north Americans and Australians survived, the faster we'd recover, especially if you're talking about some event like a plague that spared equipment and goods.
Sure.
I have no doubt about it and last year identified a place for it in Indian Ocean. My reasoning is in my Webpage, which is in my profile here.
So far I have seen just more evidence of it existing, and there, but have not specifically collected it anymore as for me the question is settled.
Most of the extra evidence have come in form of indirect evidence of possibility of relatively simple united picture of world (call it TOE) which would lead to mathematical exactness in definitions of meanings of words and no big need to have alphabetic writing. The simplicity is included in existence of universal exact algorithms that can be applied to right definitions of key ingredients- and that is the most difficult part, but possible just by thinking and observing.
The simplicity means that people could have mastered it without having to perform so many experiments as today, as well as could have had types of technology that extracts all types of energy easily. Which in turn would not leave so much technological artefacts as today.
One of the interesting catastrophes besides volcano would be a thawing of permafrost + polar ice leading to a increase in water so much in Earth upper core that it would percolate and via convection of mud lead to mud slip which can overturn Earths surface with all that is on it. Kind of a muddy disaster. And bring hot dry magma on top, which is then cooled by water making place livable again, though without any soil.
I have no doubt about it and last year identified a place for it in Indian Ocean. My reasoning is in my Webpage, which is in my profile here.
So far I have seen just more evidence of it existing, and there, but have not specifically collected it anymore as for me the question is settled.
Most of the extra evidence have come in form of indirect evidence of possibility of relatively simple united picture of world (call it TOE) which would lead to mathematical exactness in definitions of meanings of words and no big need to have alphabetic writing. The simplicity is included in existence of universal exact algorithms that can be applied to right definitions of key ingredients- and that is the most difficult part, but possible just by thinking and observing.
The simplicity means that people could have mastered it without having to perform so many experiments as today, as well as could have had types of technology that extracts all types of energy easily. Which in turn would not leave so much technological artefacts as today.
One of the interesting catastrophes besides volcano would be a thawing of permafrost + polar ice leading to a increase in water so much in Earth upper core that it would percolate and via convection of mud lead to mud slip which can overturn Earths surface with all that is on it. Kind of a muddy disaster. And bring hot dry magma on top, which is then cooled by water making place livable again, though without any soil.
I thought the best candidate to be the Minoan civilisation. The explosion of Thera caused tsunamis in the Med that wiped out half of Crete as well as providing us with the memories of the flood, the fires from heaven, etc. The Minoans had indoor plumbing and Lord knows what else, in 3500 BCE, if I remember correctly.
Edit: A 90% population loss would have to be calculated from the extant population, not our current one. That might be a tiny number, comparatively.
Edit: A 90% population loss would have to be calculated from the extant population, not our current one. That might be a tiny number, comparatively.
QUOTE (Ivars+Feb 1 2008, 09:34 AM)
Most of the extra evidence have come in form of indirect evidence of possibility of relatively simple united picture of world (call it TOE) which would lead to mathematical exactness in definitions of meanings of words and no big need to have alphabetic writing.
Now would that be your troll friend Paulo Riven's pet theory, that he kept spamming this site with?
Now would that be your troll friend Paulo Riven's pet theory, that he kept spamming this site with?
QUOTE (N O M+Jan 31 2008, 10:35 PM)
Now would that be your troll friend Paulo Riven's pet theory, that he kept spamming this site with?
hej NOM
he was overshooting a little, but he had an interesting idea with the map of Atlantis on pans from Greece.
The rest is unfortunately my own. Did he also mention the possibility to have all knowledge forwarded without the need for alphabet based writing?
hej NOM
he was overshooting a little, but he had an interesting idea with the map of Atlantis on pans from Greece.
The rest is unfortunately my own. Did he also mention the possibility to have all knowledge forwarded without the need for alphabet based writing?
QUOTE (Sapo+Jan 31 2008, 10:29 PM)
I thought the best candidate to be the Minoan civilisation. The explosion of Thera caused tsunamis in the Med that wiped out half of Crete as well as providing us with the memories of the flood, the fires from heaven, etc. The Minoans had indoor plumbing and Lord knows what else, in 3500 BCE, if I remember correctly.
hej Sapo,
In fact, Plato mentioned that Greek civilization was destroyed at the same time in similar way as Atlantis they fought with, and Greeks won (which I think is the same Troy story) , so one of the places must be in Medditerrian.
hej Sapo,
In fact, Plato mentioned that Greek civilization was destroyed at the same time in similar way as Atlantis they fought with, and Greeks won (which I think is the same Troy story) , so one of the places must be in Medditerrian.
That is the good bet. Remember that most of the history was oral, and Plato and some others may have confused old songs' timelines. I surely do...
QUOTE (Sapo+Jan 31 2008, 11:59 PM)
That is the good bet. Remember that most of the history was oral, and Plato and some others may have confused old songs' timelines. I surely do...
hej Sapo
of Course, especially since writing was invented, mistakes persist. In oral tradition, most mistakes are eliminated- I mean, 2 thousand years laters no one will try to analyze Your particular wrong stories-nor Platos- especially after all the persecutions and destruction of Greek legacy - of course, if they would not be spelling some eternal truth or a hint of that;)
Oral communication over centuries is the most effective way of eliminating temporal " noise" - unsignificant events/trends= temporal facts - in written history they accumulate exponentially hiding the core atemporal trends effectively.
So for me it is a 50/50 at least. which is not so bad.
hej Sapo
of Course, especially since writing was invented, mistakes persist. In oral tradition, most mistakes are eliminated- I mean, 2 thousand years laters no one will try to analyze Your particular wrong stories-nor Platos- especially after all the persecutions and destruction of Greek legacy - of course, if they would not be spelling some eternal truth or a hint of that;)
Oral communication over centuries is the most effective way of eliminating temporal " noise" - unsignificant events/trends= temporal facts - in written history they accumulate exponentially hiding the core atemporal trends effectively.
So for me it is a 50/50 at least. which is not so bad.
QUOTE ("THEY"+Jan 31 2008, 12:24 PM)
I think it is almost arrogance (or ignorance) to say that it isn't possible for Atlantis to have ever existed. I believe if it did exist, one day we will find the clues.
My thoughts too, if something were to happen today that wiped out 90% of the population on the entire globe (okay, that is a little extreme, but whatever) and humanity plunged into a survival mode and back into a dark ages for 2000 years or more. In 20,000 years would an advanced civilization even believe that humans could have been smart enough that here we sit talking on computers all around the world, have flying machines, machines in space....... yadda yadda? What would be left of our skyscrapers in 20,000 years?
Good topic.
Skyscrapers are LONG gone by 20,000 yrs...try only a few hundred years for them to fall under their own weight...and then become covered with foliage/earth, to become the "new underground".
Basically 3 things will far outlast everything else:
1) Great Wall of China
2) Hoover Dam...it will actually produce power for decades without mankind.
3) no surprise here...the pyramids in Egypt...and these because they will become entombed in a protective 'sand shelter' once more.
The end of our civilization's mark on this planet will be rather short and relatively abrupt.
Basically, without maintenance a house will collapse unto itself in about 50 years...a skyscraper will last about 1-200 years....that is if the fires don't get them first....they said a car can last in the open elements for about 30 or so years without care.
http://www.history.com/minisites/life_after_people/
Great show, check it out!
In 20,000 years....an 'advanced civilization' would be wondering where the 'aliens' came from and why they left items 1,2 and 3 above. There would otherwise be VERY LITTLE manmade contructs to indicate we were ever actually living here.
Basically the wind and rain will erode, as we are all familiar....but also the unfettered vegetation will rip and crush things apart as well.
For example....in only a couple of decades, you won't even be able to find most roads. Within a year, enough leaves and dirt has accumulated to create a layer of soil for vegitation to grow....also up through the cracks in pavement the vegitation will grow and rip the roads to crumbles in the same 20 year period.
You'd better have some granite tablets buried fairly deep to survive it.
My thoughts too, if something were to happen today that wiped out 90% of the population on the entire globe (okay, that is a little extreme, but whatever) and humanity plunged into a survival mode and back into a dark ages for 2000 years or more. In 20,000 years would an advanced civilization even believe that humans could have been smart enough that here we sit talking on computers all around the world, have flying machines, machines in space....... yadda yadda? What would be left of our skyscrapers in 20,000 years?
Good topic.
Skyscrapers are LONG gone by 20,000 yrs...try only a few hundred years for them to fall under their own weight...and then become covered with foliage/earth, to become the "new underground".
Basically 3 things will far outlast everything else:
1) Great Wall of China
2) Hoover Dam...it will actually produce power for decades without mankind.
3) no surprise here...the pyramids in Egypt...and these because they will become entombed in a protective 'sand shelter' once more.
The end of our civilization's mark on this planet will be rather short and relatively abrupt.
Basically, without maintenance a house will collapse unto itself in about 50 years...a skyscraper will last about 1-200 years....that is if the fires don't get them first....they said a car can last in the open elements for about 30 or so years without care.
http://www.history.com/minisites/life_after_people/
Great show, check it out!
In 20,000 years....an 'advanced civilization' would be wondering where the 'aliens' came from and why they left items 1,2 and 3 above. There would otherwise be VERY LITTLE manmade contructs to indicate we were ever actually living here.
Basically the wind and rain will erode, as we are all familiar....but also the unfettered vegetation will rip and crush things apart as well.
For example....in only a couple of decades, you won't even be able to find most roads. Within a year, enough leaves and dirt has accumulated to create a layer of soil for vegitation to grow....also up through the cracks in pavement the vegitation will grow and rip the roads to crumbles in the same 20 year period.
You'd better have some granite tablets buried fairly deep to survive it.
Or a secret stash of 8-tracks?
Porn.
Gotta have porn.
Gotta have porn.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Feb 5 2008, 10:08 PM)
Porn.
Gotta have porn.
Can you get porn on eight-track?
Gotta have porn.
Can you get porn on eight-track?
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Feb 6 2008, 04:08 PM)
why have we found nothing, well lets first ask where is it supposed 2 b. answer; some unknown distance past the pillars of hurcules in the direction of the atlantic. now what happend, it sunk appx 10k + years ago. so how much marine snow (equivilent of dust) falls 2 the ocean floor. a bunch more snow covers the ocean floor than dust covers the earth. also how much of the ocean floor has been explored , now take into account how much sediment would be on top of any ruinsafter so long, to find evidence would require extensive exploration of the atlantic floor and then you have 2 b lucky enuf to excavate n the right place
There actually is enough real scientific information about the ancient world available to us to solve the mystery of Atlantis - so that's what I've done in an 8 minute video. You can find it on Youtube by searching for 'Lost History-Finding Atlantis'. Please let me know what you think.
[Moderator: The forum has spoken (below). Here's the implied link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cvT44vbkhA ]
[Moderator: The forum has spoken (below). Here's the implied link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cvT44vbkhA ]
OK....
I thought the video would be one of those crank insano pieces but it wasn't. It wasn't exactly a magnum opus... you do make some massive over generalizations with your statements, and there are a few small errors, but it's not bad all the same.
I say that as an aspiring historian btw... so to a layman it's probably pretty well as good as you need.
I thought the video would be one of those crank insano pieces but it wasn't. It wasn't exactly a magnum opus... you do make some massive over generalizations with your statements, and there are a few small errors, but it's not bad all the same.
I say that as an aspiring historian btw... so to a layman it's probably pretty well as good as you need.
I'm not as harsh a judge as Rob, (at least today), so I found it delightful.
There may be historical and scientific errors, but who cares? It was a better job than some of the crap I see on the "Science" channels on the tube.
It was well done: the timing was good, as were the tone and tempo. And my name is Donovan, so I enjoyed it even more.
tokarski21, come visit my Joint... Maybe you'll enjoy something too.
There may be historical and scientific errors, but who cares? It was a better job than some of the crap I see on the "Science" channels on the tube.
It was well done: the timing was good, as were the tone and tempo. And my name is Donovan, so I enjoyed it even more.
tokarski21, come visit my Joint... Maybe you'll enjoy something too.
QUOTE (Granouille+Sep 12 2009, 05:34 PM)
It was a better job than some of the crap I see on the "Science" channels on the tube.
Seconded.
Seconded.
Not a bad watch. 
Hey Granouille...
I did say.. as a historian...
For a historian, what I said was high praise.
I did say.. as a historian...
For a historian, what I said was high praise.
Thanks, guys. I'll check you out at your site, Donovan.
This is BigFairy. If any of you want his IP addresses, PM me.
That's really too bad, because I thought there was something there besides another crackpot...
That's really too bad, because I thought there was something there besides another crackpot...
Aaaahh... CRAP. Disappointing.
Yep, but I have a whole slew of addresses that are now known to be bad.
The freak spent 15 minutes testing my scripts and patience.
The freak spent 15 minutes testing my scripts and patience.
Uhm... I was just checking back in to let Granouille know his site isn't working right, and being new here I'm not sure where the threads going - am I supposed to be the BigFairy?
QUOTE (Granouille+Sep 12 2009, 08:13 PM)
Yep, but I have a whole slew of addresses that are now known to be bad.
The freak spent 15 minutes testing my scripts and patience.
ummm, I think you might be mistaken. Unless either BigFairy merely copied the screen name of youtube's tokarski21 or BigFairy actually produces high-quality youtube content, tokarski21 is not BigFairy.
This might just be an unfortunate coincidence.
http://www.youtube.com/user/tokarski21
tokarski21,
I think Granouille has mistaken you for a rather prolific troll that likes to frequent this forum. I'm about 99% sure that you're not him, so stick around.
Cheers
The freak spent 15 minutes testing my scripts and patience.
ummm, I think you might be mistaken. Unless either BigFairy merely copied the screen name of youtube's tokarski21 or BigFairy actually produces high-quality youtube content, tokarski21 is not BigFairy.
This might just be an unfortunate coincidence.
http://www.youtube.com/user/tokarski21
tokarski21,
I think Granouille has mistaken you for a rather prolific troll that likes to frequent this forum. I'm about 99% sure that you're not him, so stick around.
Cheers
Yeah, I googled BigFairy and he comes up on the first page on the PhysForum. I am not he.
QUOTE (tokarski21+Sep 12 2009, 09:40 PM)
Yeah, I googled BigFairy and he comes up on the first page on the PhysForum. I am not he.
Granouille manages another forum and has BigFairy blocked there. Apparently your IP is the same as one that BigFairy used. This can happen easily if an ISP keeps all its users under the same IP address.
Granouille manages another forum and has BigFairy blocked there. Apparently your IP is the same as one that BigFairy used. This can happen easily if an ISP keeps all its users under the same IP address.
If you are not BigFairy, we will all owe you an apology. I hope you are not. BigFairy was a plague ... based on your video, I hope you are not so we can have some good historical discussions.
BigFairy is some teenage idiot in Queensland AU.
I believe tokarski21 may hail from the Great Lakes Region in North America.
I believe tokarski21 may hail from the Great Lakes Region in North America.
Yeah, I'm a 54 year father of 5 in Detroit. But I did quit smoking years ago because my wife said the way I held cigarettes made me look like a fairy.
My apologies if this is true. I was hit by about 6 different IPs in as many minutes.
Apology accepted. Also, I went to your site, but I couldn't click the topics or register. You might want to look into that.
I don't doubt that you were using Internet Explorer.
The Joint is Firefox-friendly. One of the last updates to IE broke something in a script. I don't have access to anything more recent than IE6, so I can't troubleshoot it.
The Joint is Firefox-friendly. One of the last updates to IE broke something in a script. I don't have access to anything more recent than IE6, so I can't troubleshoot it.
A VEI 8 eruption or a similar scale meteor impact event could easily put mankind back in the stoneage. If Yellowstone were to erupt at it's full potential, possibly so that the super-plume under the caldera simply exploded through the crust like it has in the past, it would be the end of civilization as we know it, definitely in North America.
Those who don't die in the initial explosion or from inhaling toxic fumes or volcanic dust would face an even worse fate. Starvation would be assured for a very, very high percentage of the world population, perhaps 90-99%, on top of those who die from the initial blast, particularly when you consider food is one of the biggest U.S. exports.
The people most involved in high-tech industry are those least equipped to survive a global catastrophe, as they generally have the least personal survival skills. Farmers, survivalists, and doomsday alarmists would be best equipped to survive the first several years after a global mega-disaster. Ash deposits and other debris could completely destroy entire regions of farm land. Then you must consider 18 months to even several years worth of near-total darkness. This means that commercial farming would be impossible. The guy who manages to grow something edible isn't going to sell it, he's going to protect it with his life, or die trying.
Temporary glaciation could destroy huge swathes of infrastructure, including hydro-electric dams, levees, bridges, freeways, and tunnels and other similar things that we don't normally think of as being exceptionally vulnerable to normal scale disasters.
Those who don't die in the initial explosion or from inhaling toxic fumes or volcanic dust would face an even worse fate. Starvation would be assured for a very, very high percentage of the world population, perhaps 90-99%, on top of those who die from the initial blast, particularly when you consider food is one of the biggest U.S. exports.
The people most involved in high-tech industry are those least equipped to survive a global catastrophe, as they generally have the least personal survival skills. Farmers, survivalists, and doomsday alarmists would be best equipped to survive the first several years after a global mega-disaster. Ash deposits and other debris could completely destroy entire regions of farm land. Then you must consider 18 months to even several years worth of near-total darkness. This means that commercial farming would be impossible. The guy who manages to grow something edible isn't going to sell it, he's going to protect it with his life, or die trying.
Temporary glaciation could destroy huge swathes of infrastructure, including hydro-electric dams, levees, bridges, freeways, and tunnels and other similar things that we don't normally think of as being exceptionally vulnerable to normal scale disasters.
Theories that put "Atlantis" in any vicinity to the Greeks are just wrong.
"If" there was some advanced city/state that existed in prehistory (i.e... more than 10,000 years ago) then I think South America is the most likely area for it to have been located. It's becoming clear that the OLDEST "civilization/societies" are on that continent. See "Caral" for example ...
Where did the Cocaine found in Egyptian dead come from? Only one answer ...
"If" there was some advanced city/state that existed in prehistory (i.e... more than 10,000 years ago) then I think South America is the most likely area for it to have been located. It's becoming clear that the OLDEST "civilization/societies" are on that continent. See "Caral" for example ...
Where did the Cocaine found in Egyptian dead come from? Only one answer ...
I like coke as much as the next dead egyptian, but here's the problem. If a civilization had been in South America 10,000 years ago they would have already domesticated corn. Without a crop to create a food surplus, a culture can't make that next step and stratify their population so some can devote themselves entirely to other tasks than gathering food. If there had been a civilization, those crops would have spread to other areas - and today we would be able to genetically trace them back to a time and place of origin. The earliest crop in the Americas, corn, has been traced back to 8000 BC in Mexico - but it looked totally different and was too small to sustain large populations. As late as 3000 BC a corn cob was only 1 1/2 inches long. That's why we don't see the Caral culture, not civilization, until around 3500 BC - and the Olmecs don't appear until 1500 BC.
Beg pardon for the typo in your your latest feedback.
QUOTE
If there had been a civilization, those crops would have spread to other areas - and today we would be able to genetically trace them back to a time and place of origin.
Perhaps a bit too much "connecting the dots" there but generally sound thinking no doubt. Farming clearly ratchets the civilization-meme to a great degree.
But I can also envision some lucky confluence that existed long enough in antiquity to support something like the Greeks would have called Atlantis. I think it's difficult for us to try to imagine the possible bounty of nature in antiquity. The last great Ice Age was a time of great stability temperature-wise and while we typically shiver at the thought, there were significant ecosystems that would have thrived in ways we don't imagine. How long would it have taken to build something that would have blown the Greeks minds? 1,000 years of stable temps in some "paradise" would seem to be enough to create something along the lines of typical descriptions of "Atlantis".
It's true we'll never know for sure, but if we look at the 3 places where we know civilizations started from scratch - Mesopotamia, China and Central/South America - it took atleast 5000 years from the first domesticating of plants and animals to the first cities. I don't know if that window exists in an earlier time.
QUOTE
1,000 years of stable temps in some "paradise" would seem to be enough to create something along the lines of typical descriptions of "Atlantis".
However...
You have to remember that ancient civilizations traveled extensively. That is something that has been a facet of recent archeology... the fact that ancient people have been massively underestimated in their ability to communicate, travel and trade over long distances. If a high civilization existed that long ago, why didn't their culture, trade goods and artifacts travel to other lands?
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Sep 17 2009, 04:35 AM)
However...
You have to remember that ancient civilizations traveled extensively. That is something that has been a facet of recent archeology... the fact that ancient people have been massively underestimated in their ability to communicate, travel and trade over long distances. If a high civilization existed that long ago, why didn't their culture, trade goods and artifacts travel to other lands?
I wouldn't be too quick to discount aboriginal people's ties to their lands. Most if not all primitive cultures had high reverence for the land that provided for them. In the possibility that some sort of "perfect confluence" of factors arose that enabled an actual civilization then it seems to me that they could have been so deeply ingrained in locality that little or no travel took place.
I'm just imagining something that existed during the last ice age in some "magic" pocket. There certainly were plenty of humans around in South America 15,000 years ago.
There are also some interesting satellite surveys that are revealing some interesting possibilities in areas that are now deeply covered by jungle but at one time could have been very temperate. It's tough to guess at but perhaps any travel they did make resulted in them only finding backwards aboriginals so they just went home to "paradise"?
All pure speculation based on not much else but intuition. I'm sure there is much we'll never discover about antiquity (>10,000 years ago) seeing as there are things from just 1500 years ago that were lost and/or remain lost.
So much of who we are today remains unchanged from who we were 10,000 years ago. Language was basically the same in terms of usefulness. Intelligence was limited only by diet so any culture with serious bounty wouldn't have been hampered developmentally. We all tend to think that somehow ancient peoples were backward but in many many ways they were equally sophisticated to 21st century folks.
Many people think that Atlantis was a real place- the isle of Santorini.
This is an island south of Greece where a large volcanic explosion occured. The ejected lava left a large gap underneath the island, and a big part of the island sand beneath the water.
The outer rim of the island still exists today.
The island was advanced technologically, as a branch of the Minoan civilization. They had sewers which have been found during excavations, thousands of years before the rest of the world had them.
It fits the bill, is a real place, and probably is Atlantis.
This is an island south of Greece where a large volcanic explosion occured. The ejected lava left a large gap underneath the island, and a big part of the island sand beneath the water.
The outer rim of the island still exists today.
The island was advanced technologically, as a branch of the Minoan civilization. They had sewers which have been found during excavations, thousands of years before the rest of the world had them.
It fits the bill, is a real place, and probably is Atlantis.
TinyTree and uaafanblog
It really depends on what you mean by Atlantis.
Santorini or more often Thera (at the time) is a good candidate for a superior (ish) civilization but it does not match Plato's account in a number of ways.
It is not past the Pillars of Heracles.
It is not in the ocean... and the Greeks knew the difference between the sea and the ocean.
The civilization there did not exist 9000 years ago.
However...
It is also quite possible that Plato exaggerated many of the components of his tale, or made up some aspects of it, or was simply repeating a legend that had grown in the telling.
From the point of view of modern archeology, Thera is a good candidate for Atlantis but the matter is hardly settled.
It really depends on what you mean by Atlantis.
Santorini or more often Thera (at the time) is a good candidate for a superior (ish) civilization but it does not match Plato's account in a number of ways.
It is not past the Pillars of Heracles.
It is not in the ocean... and the Greeks knew the difference between the sea and the ocean.
The civilization there did not exist 9000 years ago.
However...
It is also quite possible that Plato exaggerated many of the components of his tale, or made up some aspects of it, or was simply repeating a legend that had grown in the telling.
From the point of view of modern archeology, Thera is a good candidate for Atlantis but the matter is hardly settled.
It looks like some people think the scribe who recorded Plato erred in the number of zeros, and he meant 900 years and not 9000 years.
900 years would have placed it at around 1600 BC (relative to when Plato was recorded), which is around when Santorini blew apart. The Minoan eruption took place around 3600 years ago.
900 years would have placed it at around 1600 BC (relative to when Plato was recorded), which is around when Santorini blew apart. The Minoan eruption took place around 3600 years ago.
QUOTE
It looks like some people think the scribe who recorded Plato erred in the number of zeros, and he meant 900 years and not 9000 years.
It doesn't change the fact that many other details do not match... like it's reported position, etc.
Also, the text didn't write the date using numbers.. it would have been written "nine thousand" and not "9000".
However, again like I said..
Plato might have just repeated a legend rather than certain knowledge. That is quite a bit more likely.
Puma Punku, enough said.
Don't any idiot tell me some indians without writing made that.
To make Puma Punku as it once stood, you need at the very least:
Writing
Diamond tools
Pythagorean Theorem
advanced calendar
trigonometry
something that can lift 800ton megalithic stones up a 12,000ft elevation mountain-side from their quarry(in some cases as much as 100miles away), and then lift them vertically perhaps 4 or 5 stories...
Don't any idiot tell me some indians without writing made that.
To make Puma Punku as it once stood, you need at the very least:
Writing
Diamond tools
Pythagorean Theorem
advanced calendar
trigonometry
something that can lift 800ton megalithic stones up a 12,000ft elevation mountain-side from their quarry(in some cases as much as 100miles away), and then lift them vertically perhaps 4 or 5 stories...
Quantum_Conundrum
We've been through that one already. You should try not to get your info from UFO sites.
Writing
Nope
Nope
They likely used quartz powder and water, using friction to cut.
Nope
They likely used quartz powder and water, using friction to cut.
Pythagorean Theorem
advanced calendar
trigonometry
Nope.. though they had good calendars.
There are no stones there that weigh 800 tons. Also, numerous archeologists and hobbyists have demonstrated how you can lift those stones with only primitive tools.
Look it up.
That is funny coming from you....
Anyhoo...
Actual archeology
That is funny coming from you....
Anyhoo...
Actual archeology
One of the most puzzling aspects of the Tiwanaku pyramids is the lack of nearby quarries. Analysis of the red sandstone places one quarry 10 kilometers away, an incredible distance considering that one of the stones alone weighs over 130 tons. The source of the green andesite stones, the material from which the most elaborate carvings and monoliths are made, is on the Copacabana peninsula, across Lake Titicaca. One theory is that these giant andesite stones (the largest weighing 40 tons) were transported some 90 kilometers across Lake Titicaca on reed boats, then laboriously dragged another 10 kilometers to the city. Using only traditional techniques and locally available materials, we'll be testing this theory by recreating the Tiwanaku building process with a group of leading Aymara experts in totora reed boat building.
Note.. none of the rocks are 800 tons.
I find it amusing that you watched videos on You Tube in order to do your amateur archeology rather than look for real archeology or real information. It says a lot about you.
Well...
Moving Stonehenge
That's just one man...
That is funny coming from you....
Anyhoo...
Actual archeology
Note.. none of the rocks are 800 tons.
I find it amusing that you watched videos on You Tube in order to do your amateur archeology rather than look for real archeology or real information. It says a lot about you.
Well...
Moving Stonehenge
That's just one man...
Hey guy, I can promise you that, regardless of where you got that article, the blockes shown in that still photo are far, far more than any 40 tons.
You would think anyone with half a brain would realize that just by looking at the scale of the rocks, but why don't you actually try taking the scale of the human being in the photos and calculate the volume of the cut rocks, as I did, and then multiply by the density.
You will find 40 tons is laughably low estimate of the mass of those rocks.
By the way, 40 tons is only the mass of 40 cubic meters of water, or 4x5x2 meters...I hope you realize those stones in that still photo are several times larger than that....
An average human is 1.8meters tall and without even adjusting for foreshortening, that rock is at least 2 times as tall as the person in the photo, and the same width. It is also about 10 or more times as long as the person is tall. This gives a fair estimate of 4 meters x 4 meters x 18 meters for the volume, again, without adjusting for foreshortening, or about 288 cubic meters.
If you think I'm exaggerating, get a piece of paper and mark the size of the person, and then compare it to the size of the edges of the stones.
Multiply this by the density of stone, which I used that of granite. Convert to kilograms per meter.
Hey, even if the stones were PUMICE they would still weigh at least a couple hundred tons, as anyone who has actually looked at the photo will be able to calculate by volume & density! Ha.....but they aren't pumice, they are dense stone.
Even without adjusting for foreshortening, which actually would favor the stones being even heavier, I still come up with ~777.6 metric tons for the mass of the stones in that still photo, and I seriously doubt you will find any honest person who would disagree with this as being at least a fair rough estimate given only this photo as evidence.
Even if the guy in the photo were the world's smallest midget, those stones would still be at least 150-200 metric tons...
Sigh... find me an actual archeology article that describes any of the blocks as weighing anything like 800 tons. All you have is You Tube videos of dubious provenance made by UFO enthusiasts.
Sigh... find me an actual archeology article that describes any of the blocks as weighing anything like 800 tons. All you have is You Tube videos of dubious provenance made by UFO enthusiasts.
I do believe there must have been an ancient civilization far more advanced and long lived than we realize, longer in the past than we realize.
Rather than quoting UFO sites, some actual evidence would be nice.
How about this... find me any actual archeologists that think that Puma Punka could not have been done by the locals.
Not sure who made these measurements, but both blocks seen in that photo are easily bigger than 16x6x36ft.
The man is presumably about 5ft10inches, i.e. 1.8meters.
This puts the block at easily 4meters wide by 4 meters thick, and it is far more than 36 feet long.
The one in the front is foreshortened by the perspective of the camera, and the one in the back is foreshortened by distance from the camera.
However, even using the fake 6x16x36ft numbers for size, I STILL came up with 272 metric tons after converting to metric sytem for volume and multiplying by density...which shows that whatever idiot wrote that article used severely wrong numbers for the density of stone when calculating the mass of these stones.
Even with the terribly under-estimated dimensions that article gave, the block really WOULD have to be made of Pumice to weigh only 130 tons...
We've been through that one already. You should try not to get your info from UFO sites.
QUOTE
To make Puma Punku as it once stood, you need at the very least:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| To make Puma Punku as it once stood, you need at the very least: |
Writing
Nope
QUOTE
Diamond tools
Nope
They likely used quartz powder and water, using friction to cut.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Diamond tools |
Nope
They likely used quartz powder and water, using friction to cut.
Pythagorean Theorem
advanced calendar
trigonometry
Nope.. though they had good calendars.
QUOTE
something that can lift 800ton megalithic stones up a 12,000ft elevation mountain-side from their quarry(in some cases as much as 100miles away), and then lift them vertically perhaps 4 or 5 stories...
There are no stones there that weigh 800 tons. Also, numerous archeologists and hobbyists have demonstrated how you can lift those stones with only primitive tools.
Look it up.
Let's take a look at something.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPZpOAEm7mQ&feature=fvsr
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tag8cLoot5Y
Second video, 12 seconds in, look at the scale of this cut rock, idiot.
Even with a very conservative estimate of the height, width, and length based on the scale of an adult human in the still frame, and using the density of granite, I calculated the mass of the foreground object to be at LEAST somewhere between 620 and 850 metric tons.
The block in the background is significantly bigger by the time you factor foreshortening and perspective.
Some of the ELEVATED square shaped blocks seen in other videos are actually roughly twice the mass of those blocks in that still photo!!
Now, please tell us all how anyone could possibly make what you see in the first video with no writing, no trigonometry, and no pythagorean theorem.
And while you're at it, please tell us how they even managed to cut an 800ton block out of solid bedrock without being smashed to oblivion, much less move it at least 10-100 miles...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPZpOAEm7mQ&feature=fvsr
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tag8cLoot5Y
Second video, 12 seconds in, look at the scale of this cut rock, idiot.
Even with a very conservative estimate of the height, width, and length based on the scale of an adult human in the still frame, and using the density of granite, I calculated the mass of the foreground object to be at LEAST somewhere between 620 and 850 metric tons.
The block in the background is significantly bigger by the time you factor foreshortening and perspective.
Some of the ELEVATED square shaped blocks seen in other videos are actually roughly twice the mass of those blocks in that still photo!!
Now, please tell us all how anyone could possibly make what you see in the first video with no writing, no trigonometry, and no pythagorean theorem.
And while you're at it, please tell us how they even managed to cut an 800ton block out of solid bedrock without being smashed to oblivion, much less move it at least 10-100 miles...
QUOTE
idiot.
That is funny coming from you....
Anyhoo...
Actual archeology
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| idiot. |
That is funny coming from you....
Anyhoo...
Actual archeology
One of the most puzzling aspects of the Tiwanaku pyramids is the lack of nearby quarries. Analysis of the red sandstone places one quarry 10 kilometers away, an incredible distance considering that one of the stones alone weighs over 130 tons. The source of the green andesite stones, the material from which the most elaborate carvings and monoliths are made, is on the Copacabana peninsula, across Lake Titicaca. One theory is that these giant andesite stones (the largest weighing 40 tons) were transported some 90 kilometers across Lake Titicaca on reed boats, then laboriously dragged another 10 kilometers to the city. Using only traditional techniques and locally available materials, we'll be testing this theory by recreating the Tiwanaku building process with a group of leading Aymara experts in totora reed boat building.
Note.. none of the rocks are 800 tons.
I find it amusing that you watched videos on You Tube in order to do your amateur archeology rather than look for real archeology or real information. It says a lot about you.
QUOTE
And while you're at it, please tell us how they even managed to cut an 800ton block out of solid bedrock without being smashed to oblivion, much less move it at least 10-100 miles...
Well...
Moving Stonehenge
That's just one man...
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Sep 20 2009, 09:49 PM)
That is funny coming from you....
Anyhoo...
Actual archeology
Note.. none of the rocks are 800 tons.
I find it amusing that you watched videos on You Tube in order to do your amateur archeology rather than look for real archeology or real information. It says a lot about you.
Well...
Moving Stonehenge
That's just one man...
Hey guy, I can promise you that, regardless of where you got that article, the blockes shown in that still photo are far, far more than any 40 tons.
You would think anyone with half a brain would realize that just by looking at the scale of the rocks, but why don't you actually try taking the scale of the human being in the photos and calculate the volume of the cut rocks, as I did, and then multiply by the density.
You will find 40 tons is laughably low estimate of the mass of those rocks.
By the way, 40 tons is only the mass of 40 cubic meters of water, or 4x5x2 meters...I hope you realize those stones in that still photo are several times larger than that....
An average human is 1.8meters tall and without even adjusting for foreshortening, that rock is at least 2 times as tall as the person in the photo, and the same width. It is also about 10 or more times as long as the person is tall. This gives a fair estimate of 4 meters x 4 meters x 18 meters for the volume, again, without adjusting for foreshortening, or about 288 cubic meters.
If you think I'm exaggerating, get a piece of paper and mark the size of the person, and then compare it to the size of the edges of the stones.
Multiply this by the density of stone, which I used that of granite. Convert to kilograms per meter.
Hey, even if the stones were PUMICE they would still weigh at least a couple hundred tons, as anyone who has actually looked at the photo will be able to calculate by volume & density! Ha.....but they aren't pumice, they are dense stone.
Even without adjusting for foreshortening, which actually would favor the stones being even heavier, I still come up with ~777.6 metric tons for the mass of the stones in that still photo, and I seriously doubt you will find any honest person who would disagree with this as being at least a fair rough estimate given only this photo as evidence.
Even if the guy in the photo were the world's smallest midget, those stones would still be at least 150-200 metric tons...
Quantum_Conundrum,
What are you suggesting then? Time-traveling construction contractors with cranes?
What are you suggesting then? Time-traveling construction contractors with cranes?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 20 2009, 11:12 PM)
Quantum_Conundrum,
What are you suggesting then? Time-traveling construction contractors with cranes?
No, but someone a hell of a lot smarter than some supposed indians with no writing made this...
As I've said before, I don't believe in space aliens, and I don't believe time travel was involved.
I do believe there must have been an ancient civilization far more advanced and long lived than we realize, longer in the past than we realize.
What are you suggesting then? Time-traveling construction contractors with cranes?
No, but someone a hell of a lot smarter than some supposed indians with no writing made this...
As I've said before, I don't believe in space aliens, and I don't believe time travel was involved.
I do believe there must have been an ancient civilization far more advanced and long lived than we realize, longer in the past than we realize.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Sep 21 2009, 12:20 AM)
No, but someone a hell of a lot smarter than some supposed indians with no writing made this...
As I've said before, I don't believe in space aliens, and I don't believe time travel was involved.
I do believe there must have been an ancient civilization far more advanced and long lived than we realize, longer in the past than we realize.
Indians? Really? Wow, you're an idiot.
As I've said before, I don't believe in space aliens, and I don't believe time travel was involved.
I do believe there must have been an ancient civilization far more advanced and long lived than we realize, longer in the past than we realize.
Indians? Really? Wow, you're an idiot.
QUOTE
Hey guy, I can promise you that, regardless of where you got that article, the blockes shown in that still photo are far, far more than any 40 tons.
Sigh... find me an actual archeology article that describes any of the blocks as weighing anything like 800 tons. All you have is You Tube videos of dubious provenance made by UFO enthusiasts.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Hey guy, I can promise you that, regardless of where you got that article, the blockes shown in that still photo are far, far more than any 40 tons. |
Sigh... find me an actual archeology article that describes any of the blocks as weighing anything like 800 tons. All you have is You Tube videos of dubious provenance made by UFO enthusiasts.
I do believe there must have been an ancient civilization far more advanced and long lived than we realize, longer in the past than we realize.
Rather than quoting UFO sites, some actual evidence would be nice.
How about this... find me any actual archeologists that think that Puma Punka could not have been done by the locals.
QUOTE
The stones are believed to have been transported up a steep incline from a quarry near Lake Titicaca roughly 20 miles away. Some of the blocks are said to weigh in the range of 100–130 tons.[2][3][4]
Recreated drawing of interlocking stone blocks
One notable block has been measured at 36 feet long, 16 feet wide and 6 feet thick.[5] Archaeologists believe that this was accomplished by the large labor force of ancient Tiwanaku. Several theories have been proposed as to how this labor force transported the stones although these theories remain speculative. Two of the more common proposals involve the use of llama skin ropes and the use of ramps and inclined planes
Recreated drawing of interlocking stone blocks
One notable block has been measured at 36 feet long, 16 feet wide and 6 feet thick.[5] Archaeologists believe that this was accomplished by the large labor force of ancient Tiwanaku. Several theories have been proposed as to how this labor force transported the stones although these theories remain speculative. Two of the more common proposals involve the use of llama skin ropes and the use of ramps and inclined planes
An 800 ton stone cube would be 5 meters on a side. Point to Rob.
QUOTE (rpenner+Sep 21 2009, 12:27 AM)
An 800 ton stone cube would be 5 meters on a side. Point to Rob.
rpenner:
The blocks in that photo are 4x4x18 meters....look again...
Like I said, get a piece of paper and scale the human(~1.8meters) and calculate the size of the blocks.
You will get something approximately what I have just given, 4x4x18 meters = 288cubic meters.
By the way, your numbers are wrong anyway, as a cube 5 meters on each side would only be 125 cubic meters, and so would not weight 800tons....
Point to me...
minus 1 to everyone else
rpenner:
The blocks in that photo are 4x4x18 meters....look again...
Like I said, get a piece of paper and scale the human(~1.8meters) and calculate the size of the blocks.
You will get something approximately what I have just given, 4x4x18 meters = 288cubic meters.
By the way, your numbers are wrong anyway, as a cube 5 meters on each side would only be 125 cubic meters, and so would not weight 800tons....
Point to me...
minus 1 to everyone else
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Sep 21 2009, 01:44 PM)
Point to me...
minus 1 to everyone else
what an idiot.
minus 1 to everyone else
what an idiot.
QUOTE
One notable block has been measured at 36 feet long, 16 feet wide and 6 feet thick.[5] Archaeologists believe that this was accomplished by the large labor force of ancient Tiwanaku. Several theories have been proposed as to how this labor force transported the stones although these theories remain speculative. Two of the more common proposals involve the use of llama skin ropes and the use of ramps and inclined planes
Not sure who made these measurements, but both blocks seen in that photo are easily bigger than 16x6x36ft.
The man is presumably about 5ft10inches, i.e. 1.8meters.
This puts the block at easily 4meters wide by 4 meters thick, and it is far more than 36 feet long.
The one in the front is foreshortened by the perspective of the camera, and the one in the back is foreshortened by distance from the camera.
However, even using the fake 6x16x36ft numbers for size, I STILL came up with 272 metric tons after converting to metric sytem for volume and multiplying by density...which shows that whatever idiot wrote that article used severely wrong numbers for the density of stone when calculating the mass of these stones.
Even with the terribly under-estimated dimensions that article gave, the block really WOULD have to be made of Pumice to weigh only 130 tons...
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 21 2009, 12:53 PM)
what an idiot.
Have any of you tried scaling it yet and calculating the volume based on scale of the man? No, if you had, you'd know I was right.
Have any of you tried scaling it yet and calculating the volume based on scale of the man? No, if you had, you'd know I was right.
Have you tried looking at info from real archeology yet?
No?
Didn't think so. If you had then you would know I am right.
No?
Didn't think so. If you had then you would know I am right.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Sep 21 2009, 02:06 PM)
Have any of you tried scaling it yet and calculating the volume based on scale of the man? No, if you had, you'd know I was right.
Only an idiot would attempt to measure something from the perspective of a youtube video. Different lens types can distort perspective very easily, most importantly the effect of foreshortening. A wide-angle lens makes things appear longer, and a telephoto lens makes things appear shorter. You are not an archeologist, you are merely a crank with delusions of grandeur.
Only an idiot would attempt to measure something from the perspective of a youtube video. Different lens types can distort perspective very easily, most importantly the effect of foreshortening. A wide-angle lens makes things appear longer, and a telephoto lens makes things appear shorter. You are not an archeologist, you are merely a crank with delusions of grandeur.
See, math check on the not only COMPLETELY WRONG but also COMPLETELY INCONSISTENT numbers from that article...
Article claims 6x16x36ft = 130tons rock.
However, using the real density of stone, we get something quite different.
6x16x36ft = 3456 cubic feet.
convert to meters (i.e. 12^3/ 39^3)
3456 * 12^3 / 39^3 = 100.675 cubic meters.
Now if the rocke has the density of water, it would already weigh 100.675 metric tons. Which is why the 130 metric tons claim from the article is a complete joke.
With the density of granite, it would be 272 metric tons.
With the density of concrete, it would be ~200 metric tons.
With the density of water, it would be close to that idiot's article's estimate....
Article claims 6x16x36ft = 130tons rock.
However, using the real density of stone, we get something quite different.
6x16x36ft = 3456 cubic feet.
convert to meters (i.e. 12^3/ 39^3)
3456 * 12^3 / 39^3 = 100.675 cubic meters.
Now if the rocke has the density of water, it would already weigh 100.675 metric tons. Which is why the 130 metric tons claim from the article is a complete joke.
With the density of granite, it would be 272 metric tons.
With the density of concrete, it would be ~200 metric tons.
With the density of water, it would be close to that idiot's article's estimate....
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 21 2009, 01:19 PM)
Only an idiot would attempt to measure something from the perspective of a youtube video. Different lens types can distort perspective very easily, most importantly the effect of foreshortening. A wide-angle lens makes things appear longer, and a telephoto lens makes things appear shorter. You are not an archeologist, you are merely a crank with delusions of grandeur.
Only look again...
There is another human on the stone in the background lying down along the same axis as the stone(left center)...which means that any distortion acting on the stone is acting on him in the same fashion.
If there was only one reference object, or no reference object, you MIGHT have an argument, but we have two reference objects: a human on each stone at the key locations in the photograph.
Only look again...
There is another human on the stone in the background lying down along the same axis as the stone(left center)...which means that any distortion acting on the stone is acting on him in the same fashion.
If there was only one reference object, or no reference object, you MIGHT have an argument, but we have two reference objects: a human on each stone at the key locations in the photograph.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Sep 21 2009, 02:27 PM)
Only look again...
There is another human on the stone in the background lying down along the same axis as the stone(left center)...which means that any distortion acting on the stone is acting on him in the same fashion.
If there was only one reference object, or no reference object, you MIGHT have an argument, but we have two reference objects: a human on each stone at the key locations in the photograph.
Wow, that is the worst photoshop job since bigfoot. Whatever the original picture was, someone obviously photoshopped a little man onto the stone block. Why is it that the only source pictures you have are blurry B&W? Obvious fakes.
Here's the image in question:
User posted image: User posted image
There is another human on the stone in the background lying down along the same axis as the stone(left center)...which means that any distortion acting on the stone is acting on him in the same fashion.
If there was only one reference object, or no reference object, you MIGHT have an argument, but we have two reference objects: a human on each stone at the key locations in the photograph.
Wow, that is the worst photoshop job since bigfoot. Whatever the original picture was, someone obviously photoshopped a little man onto the stone block. Why is it that the only source pictures you have are blurry B&W? Obvious fakes.
Here's the image in question:
User posted image: User posted image
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 21 2009, 01:33 PM)
Wow, that is the worst photoshop job since bigfoot. Whatever the original picture was, someone obviously photoshopped a little man onto the stone block. Why is it that the only source pictures you have are blurry B&W? Obvious fakes.
Um....so you are claiming that the fricken history channel faked the photos?
Wow...you really are a psychotic fag......
I'm currently looking for other videos showing humans next to various objects in these ruins.
This one is relatively small, but has a human, though crouching, for scale
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10ttB07EsY4&feature=related
Just because somebody doesn't agree with the mainstream view, doesn't mean they are a space alien ufologist...
http://members.tripod.com/kon_artz/cultures/stonetec.htm
Ok, this site here is actually in Lebanon, so maybe different civilization...or maybe the SAME civilization...but look at this...
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sumer_an...illemnium03.htm
Um....so you are claiming that the fricken history channel faked the photos?
Wow...you really are a psychotic fag......
I'm currently looking for other videos showing humans next to various objects in these ruins.
This one is relatively small, but has a human, though crouching, for scale
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10ttB07EsY4&feature=related
Just because somebody doesn't agree with the mainstream view, doesn't mean they are a space alien ufologist...
http://members.tripod.com/kon_artz/cultures/stonetec.htm
Ok, this site here is actually in Lebanon, so maybe different civilization...or maybe the SAME civilization...but look at this...
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sumer_an...illemnium03.htm
Hey idjit..
Watch this, about 2:30 and elsewhere, same blocks, this time color photo and a video of a guy walking along it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpthtzT7eYU&feature=related
Watch this, about 2:30 and elsewhere, same blocks, this time color photo and a video of a guy walking along it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpthtzT7eYU&feature=related
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Sep 21 2009, 03:38 PM)
Um....so you are claiming that the fricken history channel faked the photos?
The source you gave was not the history channel.
Class.
Class.
Just because somebody doesn't agree with the mainstream view, doesn't mean they are a space alien ufologist...
South America lacks two of the primary tools needed for ancient advanced civilization: metal and beasts of burden. Llamas aren't strong enough to do any real work.
Maybe that original picture wasn't actually from South America. Ever thought of that? The block pictured was 10x the size of all the other Puma Punku blocks.
In OTHER parts of the ancient world, the means to move rocks of that size were available. Ancient Egypt was very adept at this, and the examples have been well-documented.
Your mistake was in claiming that South America had the same technology.
You are a hack, and a talentless one at that.
What article?
I only posted two links... and neither has any stones weighing 800 tons.
What article?
I only posted two links... and neither has any stones weighing 800 tons.
Ar3 you brain dead?
The links you posted claimed the stones weighed between 40 and 130 tons at 6x16x36ft.
I showed the MATH to prove that even if his estimates of size were correct, then the stone MUST be at least 270 metric tons.
You, however, are too stupid to even realize that.
What link?
What link?
Don't act like you don't know what I'm talking about now...
This link, and also the quote from the wikipedia article you used.
http://www.archaeology.org/interactive/tiw...experiment.html
There.
The source you gave was not the history channel.
QUOTE
Wow...you really are a psychotic fag......
Class.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Wow...you really are a psychotic fag...... |
Class.
Just because somebody doesn't agree with the mainstream view, doesn't mean they are a space alien ufologist...
South America lacks two of the primary tools needed for ancient advanced civilization: metal and beasts of burden. Llamas aren't strong enough to do any real work.
QUOTE
Ok, this site here is actually in Lebanon, so maybe different civilization...or maybe the SAME civilization...but look at this...
Maybe that original picture wasn't actually from South America. Ever thought of that? The block pictured was 10x the size of all the other Puma Punku blocks.
In OTHER parts of the ancient world, the means to move rocks of that size were available. Ancient Egypt was very adept at this, and the examples have been well-documented.
Your mistake was in claiming that South America had the same technology.
You are a hack, and a talentless one at that.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 21 2009, 02:44 PM)
The source you gave was not the history channel.
Class.
South America lacks two of the primary tools needed for ancient advanced civilization: metal and beasts of burden. Llamas aren't strong enough to do any real work.
Maybe that original picture wasn't actually from South America. Ever thought of that? The block pictured was 10x the size of all the other Puma Punku blocks.
In OTHER parts of the ancient world, the means to move rocks of that size were available. Ancient Egypt was very adept at this, and the examples have been well-documented.
Your mistake was in claiming that South America had the same technology.
You are a hack, and a talentless one at that.
You are liar guy.
I don't know why the heck I bother trying with some body like you.
Did you bother trying the math yet for yourself? Oh wait, if you had, you'd know I didn't make that crap up.
And by the way, those blocks ARE at the Puma Punku site and also at the quarry site.
Hey *****,
If they didn't have the same or better technology, how the hell did they move blocks as much as twice as big?
==
Hey m-or-on,
Have you figured out yet how a 100 cubic meter granite can weigh only 130 tons?
Didn't think so...
Have you figured out how a 288 cubic meter stone other than pumice... can weight only 130 tons?
Didn't think so...
Class.
South America lacks two of the primary tools needed for ancient advanced civilization: metal and beasts of burden. Llamas aren't strong enough to do any real work.
Maybe that original picture wasn't actually from South America. Ever thought of that? The block pictured was 10x the size of all the other Puma Punku blocks.
In OTHER parts of the ancient world, the means to move rocks of that size were available. Ancient Egypt was very adept at this, and the examples have been well-documented.
Your mistake was in claiming that South America had the same technology.
You are a hack, and a talentless one at that.
You are liar guy.
I don't know why the heck I bother trying with some body like you.
Did you bother trying the math yet for yourself? Oh wait, if you had, you'd know I didn't make that crap up.
And by the way, those blocks ARE at the Puma Punku site and also at the quarry site.
Hey *****,
If they didn't have the same or better technology, how the hell did they move blocks as much as twice as big?
==
Hey m-or-on,
Have you figured out yet how a 100 cubic meter granite can weigh only 130 tons?
Didn't think so...
Have you figured out how a 288 cubic meter stone other than pumice... can weight only 130 tons?
Didn't think so...
yaaawwwwwn
You're not even trying.
I said that the extremely large blocks are not from South America.
You have yet to provide any evidence that they are.
Please explain what tool(s) you think are necessary to create the megalithic blocks that you are referring to.
You're not even trying.
I said that the extremely large blocks are not from South America.
You have yet to provide any evidence that they are.
Please explain what tool(s) you think are necessary to create the megalithic blocks that you are referring to.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 21 2009, 03:13 PM)
yaaawwwwwn
You're not even trying.
I said that the extremely large blocks are not from South America.
You have yet to provide any evidence that they are.
Please explain what tool(s) you think are necessary to create the megalithic blocks that you are referring to.
I have already shown videos that show rocks of the same or larger size that definitely are in Puma Punku some elevated by several meters.
Damn, how many times I gotta post this?
Again, I don't believe in space aliens. I'm using this video as a reference because of the quality of the video on some of the stones, since it is hard to find good videos on this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AABPXvwevVA&feature=related
You're not even trying.
I said that the extremely large blocks are not from South America.
You have yet to provide any evidence that they are.
Please explain what tool(s) you think are necessary to create the megalithic blocks that you are referring to.
I have already shown videos that show rocks of the same or larger size that definitely are in Puma Punku some elevated by several meters.
Damn, how many times I gotta post this?
Again, I don't believe in space aliens. I'm using this video as a reference because of the quality of the video on some of the stones, since it is hard to find good videos on this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AABPXvwevVA&feature=related
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 21 2009, 03:13 PM)
yaaawwwwwn
You're not even trying.
I said that the extremely large blocks are not from South America.
You have yet to provide any evidence that they are.
Please explain what tool(s) you think are necessary to create the megalithic blocks that you are referring to.
Wait...
No, no, not playing that game.
You explain it, since you claim some indians without math or writing made this.
I'm waiting...
You're not even trying.
I said that the extremely large blocks are not from South America.
You have yet to provide any evidence that they are.
Please explain what tool(s) you think are necessary to create the megalithic blocks that you are referring to.
Wait...
No, no, not playing that game.
You explain it, since you claim some indians without math or writing made this.
I'm waiting...
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Sep 21 2009, 04:25 PM)
I have already shown videos that show rocks of the same or larger size that definitely are in Puma Punku some elevated by several meters.
There were zero 800+ ton blocks at Puma Punku in that video.
You still have not mentioned what method(s) you think were used that are not already accepted by the scientific community.
By the way, they're not Indians, you racist *****.
Indians are from India.
There were zero 800+ ton blocks at Puma Punku in that video.
You still have not mentioned what method(s) you think were used that are not already accepted by the scientific community.
By the way, they're not Indians, you racist *****.
Indians are from India.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 21 2009, 03:33 PM)
There were zero 800+ ton blocks at Puma Punku in that video.
You still have not mentioned what method(s) you think were used that are not already accepted by the scientific community.
By the way, they're not Indians, you racist *****.
Indians are from India.
The term "Indian" is even used of native americans even in encyclopedias and school text books, always has been.
In World Book Encyclopedia, immediately following the article for "India" is the article "Indian, American" which is...you guessed it INDIANS.
If you think me using the word "indian" is racism, you need to get a life.
Stupid political correctness troll.
If you have a problem with me using a ~417 year old term, get over it.
You still have not mentioned what method(s) you think were used that are not already accepted by the scientific community.
By the way, they're not Indians, you racist *****.
Indians are from India.
The term "Indian" is even used of native americans even in encyclopedias and school text books, always has been.
In World Book Encyclopedia, immediately following the article for "India" is the article "Indian, American" which is...you guessed it INDIANS.
If you think me using the word "indian" is racism, you need to get a life.
Stupid political correctness troll.
If you have a problem with me using a ~417 year old term, get over it.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 21 2009, 03:33 PM)
There were zero 800+ ton blocks at Puma Punku in that video.
You still have not mentioned what method(s) you think were used that are not already accepted by the scientific community.
By the way, they're not Indians, you racist *****.
Indians are from India.
I suppose you think those big square slabs weigh 800kilograms?
You still have not mentioned what method(s) you think were used that are not already accepted by the scientific community.
By the way, they're not Indians, you racist *****.
Indians are from India.
I suppose you think those big square slabs weigh 800kilograms?
So...
Have you found any actual archeologists or archeology sites that validate your contention?
Or just more UFO sites?
Have you found any actual archeologists or archeology sites that validate your contention?
Or just more UFO sites?
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Sep 21 2009, 04:44 PM)
If you have a problem with me using a ~417 year old term, get over it.
I'm sure if you look up the 'n' word, you'll get the same result.
I'm sure if you look up the 'n' word, you'll get the same result.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Sep 21 2009, 03:48 PM)
So...
Have you found any actual archeologists or archeology sites that validate your contention?
Or just more UFO sites?
Did you check the math for the mass for that stone?
You do realize your "mainstream" archeologist is clearly wrong on the mass by a factor of two, even if we assume his estimates for the length, width, and height are accurate?
====
The few articles and videos I have found by "mainstream" people never seem to have anything in their photos which can be used for scale, and also all they ever do is post the same 2 or 3 photos of some of the much smaller stones, which they all got from the same source...
Have you found any actual archeologists or archeology sites that validate your contention?
Or just more UFO sites?
Did you check the math for the mass for that stone?
You do realize your "mainstream" archeologist is clearly wrong on the mass by a factor of two, even if we assume his estimates for the length, width, and height are accurate?
====
The few articles and videos I have found by "mainstream" people never seem to have anything in their photos which can be used for scale, and also all they ever do is post the same 2 or 3 photos of some of the much smaller stones, which they all got from the same source...
Hmmm... so you trust a You Tube mock up video but not archeologists who have actually been there.
Interesting.
Why do you think that people with no idea of what is there have a better grasp of the size of the blocks than people who have actually conducted research there?
Interesting.
Why do you think that people with no idea of what is there have a better grasp of the size of the blocks than people who have actually conducted research there?
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Sep 21 2009, 03:56 PM)
Hmmm... so you trust a You Tube mock up video but not archeologists who have actually been there.
Interesting.
Why do you think that people with no idea of what is there have a better grasp of the size of the blocks than people who have actually conducted research there?
I rebutted the mass given by the mainstream guy using the dimensions of the stone ACCORDING TO HIS ARTICLE...
Given the dimensions of 6x16x36ft, the stone needs the density barely greater than WATER to weigh only 130 tons...figure that out guy....your archeologist is a dumbass...
Interesting.
Why do you think that people with no idea of what is there have a better grasp of the size of the blocks than people who have actually conducted research there?
I rebutted the mass given by the mainstream guy using the dimensions of the stone ACCORDING TO HIS ARTICLE...
Given the dimensions of 6x16x36ft, the stone needs the density barely greater than WATER to weigh only 130 tons...figure that out guy....your archeologist is a dumbass...
QUOTE
I rebutted the mass given by the mainstream guy using the dimensions of the stone ACCORDING TO HIS ARTICLE...
What article?
I only posted two links... and neither has any stones weighing 800 tons.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Sep 21 2009, 04:09 PM)
What article?
I only posted two links... and neither has any stones weighing 800 tons.
Ar3 you brain dead?
The links you posted claimed the stones weighed between 40 and 130 tons at 6x16x36ft.
I showed the MATH to prove that even if his estimates of size were correct, then the stone MUST be at least 270 metric tons.
You, however, are too stupid to even realize that.
QUOTE
The links you posted claimed the stones weighed between 40 and 130 tons at 6x16x36ft.
What link?
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Sep 21 2009, 04:18 PM)
What link?
Don't act like you don't know what I'm talking about now...
This link, and also the quote from the wikipedia article you used.
http://www.archaeology.org/interactive/tiw...experiment.html
QUOTE
One notable block has been measured at 36 feet long, 16 feet wide and 6 feet thick.[5] Archaeologists believe that this was accomplished by the large labor force of ancient Tiwanaku. Several theories have been proposed as to how this labor force transported the stones although these theories remain speculative. Two of the more common proposals involve the use of llama skin ropes and the use of ramps and inclined planes
There.
Well.. let's see..
The archeology one does not mention any stone weighing 800 tons nor do they have any pictures or photos of any rock that could be that weight.
The other one is from Wikipedia
So according to you...
So.. a bit off of 800 tons then.
Where is the block weighing at 800 tons? Wasn't that your argument or are you changing tunes?
By the way.. note that the guy in the video that I linked was moving blocks weighing about 40 tons. One guy. How many would it take to move 400 tons then... 10?
Also.. the estimate of it's weight at 270 tons is based on the density of granite. I know because I did the calculation myself.
The average density of granite is 2.75 g/cm3
However....
So.. a bit off of 800 tons then.
Where is the block weighing at 800 tons? Wasn't that your argument or are you changing tunes?
By the way.. note that the guy in the video that I linked was moving blocks weighing about 40 tons. One guy. How many would it take to move 400 tons then... 10?
Also.. the estimate of it's weight at 270 tons is based on the density of granite. I know because I did the calculation myself.
The average density of granite is 2.75 g/cm3
However....
Analysis of the red sandstone places one quarry 10 kilometers away, an incredible distance considering that one of the stones alone weighs over 130 tons
The density of sandstone is 2.0 g/cm3
We are getting closer to 200 tons. That is assuming that the block they are talking about has those dimensions in a uniform fashion.
Anyhoo...
It doesn't take much to figure that even 300 tons is quite movable even by the methods of that day.
Particularly when you have a large population of disposable workers.
No super science needed... just a few smart people and a few more ruthless ones.
You photo is not identifiable as being from Puma Punka.
No archeology site mention a rock of that size or weight.
The rest of your insults are just a show of your lack of class.
You photo is not identifiable as being from Puma Punka.
No archeology site mention a rock of that size or weight.
The rest of your insults are just a show of your lack of class.
Number 2, the blocks ARE NOT SANDSTONE YOU IDIOT. They are igneous rocks.
Sandstone is in fact used at Puma Punka, as evinced by a number of references.
Yes... but I am not from that civilization. We don't know what they used.
Anyway... I note that you have yet to find any actual archeologist or archeology site that validates your contention.
Are you even trying or are you just here to hurl insults and rave about like a crass UFO enthusiast?
The archeology one does not mention any stone weighing 800 tons nor do they have any pictures or photos of any rock that could be that weight.
The other one is from Wikipedia
So according to you...
QUOTE
I showed the MATH to prove that even if his estimates of size were correct, then the stone MUST be at least 270 metric tons.
So.. a bit off of 800 tons then.
Where is the block weighing at 800 tons? Wasn't that your argument or are you changing tunes?
By the way.. note that the guy in the video that I linked was moving blocks weighing about 40 tons. One guy. How many would it take to move 400 tons then... 10?
Also.. the estimate of it's weight at 270 tons is based on the density of granite. I know because I did the calculation myself.
The average density of granite is 2.75 g/cm3
However....
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I showed the MATH to prove that even if his estimates of size were correct, then the stone MUST be at least 270 metric tons. |
So.. a bit off of 800 tons then.
Where is the block weighing at 800 tons? Wasn't that your argument or are you changing tunes?
By the way.. note that the guy in the video that I linked was moving blocks weighing about 40 tons. One guy. How many would it take to move 400 tons then... 10?
Also.. the estimate of it's weight at 270 tons is based on the density of granite. I know because I did the calculation myself.
The average density of granite is 2.75 g/cm3
However....
Analysis of the red sandstone places one quarry 10 kilometers away, an incredible distance considering that one of the stones alone weighs over 130 tons
The density of sandstone is 2.0 g/cm3
We are getting closer to 200 tons. That is assuming that the block they are talking about has those dimensions in a uniform fashion.
Anyhoo...
It doesn't take much to figure that even 300 tons is quite movable even by the methods of that day.
Particularly when you have a large population of disposable workers.
No super science needed... just a few smart people and a few more ruthless ones.
Not to get in the middle of a pissing contest but ...
If QC's main point is that there is much from antiquity that we cannot know then I agree. I believe there were technologies developed by ancient peoples that have completely disappeared. Perhaps one day we'll find them or even separately rediscover them. Perhaps not. I don't believe in space aliens or time travel either. The people associated with Puma Punka accomplished what they accomplished on their own.
The Antikytheran Mechanism was discovered in 1901 but it wasn't until the advent of CAT scans that we could see what the hell it was. Did the Tiwanakans build themselves a device to utilize float stones via the Woodward Effect? Very doubtful.
But since ancient minds were equal to ours ... who knows what clever shite they might have come up with?
If QC's main point is that there is much from antiquity that we cannot know then I agree. I believe there were technologies developed by ancient peoples that have completely disappeared. Perhaps one day we'll find them or even separately rediscover them. Perhaps not. I don't believe in space aliens or time travel either. The people associated with Puma Punka accomplished what they accomplished on their own.
The Antikytheran Mechanism was discovered in 1901 but it wasn't until the advent of CAT scans that we could see what the hell it was. Did the Tiwanakans build themselves a device to utilize float stones via the Woodward Effect? Very doubtful.
But since ancient minds were equal to ours ... who knows what clever shite they might have come up with?
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Sep 21 2009, 10:42 PM)
Well.. let's see..
The archeology one does not mention any stone weighing 800 tons nor do they have any pictures or photos of any rock that could be that weight.
The other one is from Wikipedia
So according to you...
So.. a bit off of 800 tons then.
Where is the block weighing at 800 tons? Wasn't that your argument or are you changing tunes?
By the way.. note that the guy in the video that I linked was moving blocks weighing about 40 tons. One guy. How many would it take to move 400 tons then... 10?
Also.. the estimate of it's weight at 270 tons is based on the density of granite. I know because I did the calculation myself.
The average density of granite is 2.75 g/cm3
However....
The density of sandstone is 2.0 g/cm3
We are getting closer to 200 tons. That is assuming that the block they are talking about has those dimensions in a uniform fashion.
Anyhoo...
It doesn't take much to figure that even 300 tons is quite movable even by the methods of that day.
Particularly when you have a large population of disposable workers.
No super science needed... just a few smart people and a few more ruthless ones.
The block weighing close to 800 tons is seen in the damn photograph. Which I showed you can scale with a fricken piece of paper.
Quit acting like a complete retard...
And those two blocks ARE at Puma Punku, as I've seen it in another photo and video that I just haven't been able to find again. There is a video by BBC and one by another networkd that also have people AT PUMA PUNKU on the same blocks...
====
Number 2, the blocks ARE NOT SANDSTONE YOU IDIOT. They are igneous rocks.
====
Number 3, you people claim these guys didn't even have writing, have you ever actually BUILT anything in your lifetime?
I have, idiot. You can't even make a dog house without pythagorean theorem and such. Even if the person doing it doesn't know those things, the guy who made the framing square and the tools DID KNOW IT...
The archeology one does not mention any stone weighing 800 tons nor do they have any pictures or photos of any rock that could be that weight.
The other one is from Wikipedia
So according to you...
So.. a bit off of 800 tons then.
Where is the block weighing at 800 tons? Wasn't that your argument or are you changing tunes?
By the way.. note that the guy in the video that I linked was moving blocks weighing about 40 tons. One guy. How many would it take to move 400 tons then... 10?
Also.. the estimate of it's weight at 270 tons is based on the density of granite. I know because I did the calculation myself.
The average density of granite is 2.75 g/cm3
However....
The density of sandstone is 2.0 g/cm3
We are getting closer to 200 tons. That is assuming that the block they are talking about has those dimensions in a uniform fashion.
Anyhoo...
It doesn't take much to figure that even 300 tons is quite movable even by the methods of that day.
Particularly when you have a large population of disposable workers.
No super science needed... just a few smart people and a few more ruthless ones.
The block weighing close to 800 tons is seen in the damn photograph. Which I showed you can scale with a fricken piece of paper.
Quit acting like a complete retard...
And those two blocks ARE at Puma Punku, as I've seen it in another photo and video that I just haven't been able to find again. There is a video by BBC and one by another networkd that also have people AT PUMA PUNKU on the same blocks...
====
Number 2, the blocks ARE NOT SANDSTONE YOU IDIOT. They are igneous rocks.
====
Number 3, you people claim these guys didn't even have writing, have you ever actually BUILT anything in your lifetime?
I have, idiot. You can't even make a dog house without pythagorean theorem and such. Even if the person doing it doesn't know those things, the guy who made the framing square and the tools DID KNOW IT...
QUOTE
The block weighing close to 800 tons is seen in the damn photograph. Which I showed you can scale with a fricken piece of paper.
You photo is not identifiable as being from Puma Punka.
No archeology site mention a rock of that size or weight.
The rest of your insults are just a show of your lack of class.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The block weighing close to 800 tons is seen in the damn photograph. Which I showed you can scale with a fricken piece of paper. |
You photo is not identifiable as being from Puma Punka.
No archeology site mention a rock of that size or weight.
The rest of your insults are just a show of your lack of class.
Number 2, the blocks ARE NOT SANDSTONE YOU IDIOT. They are igneous rocks.
Sandstone is in fact used at Puma Punka, as evinced by a number of references.
QUOTE
have you ever actually BUILT anything in your lifetime?
Yes... but I am not from that civilization. We don't know what they used.
Anyway... I note that you have yet to find any actual archeologist or archeology site that validates your contention.
Are you even trying or are you just here to hurl insults and rave about like a crass UFO enthusiast?
Try reading "The Lost City of Z".
It hypothesizes and shows the exploration of ancient technologies and civilizations- they were real.
Check it otu
It hypothesizes and shows the exploration of ancient technologies and civilizations- they were real.
Check it otu
Yes... ancient civilizations did exist. Good observation.
The observation is not that ancient civilizations existed.
The observation is that advanced technologies existed in ancient civilizations, and the artifacts are readily visible.
This recent thread was implying that the advanced technology of the Punka site demonstrated something more than what it was- a simple observation of advanced technology from ancient times.
The observation is that advanced technologies existed in ancient civilizations, and the artifacts are readily visible.
This recent thread was implying that the advanced technology of the Punka site demonstrated something more than what it was- a simple observation of advanced technology from ancient times.
QUOTE (TinyTree+Sep 25 2009, 08:01 PM)
The observation is not that ancient civilizations existed.
The observation is that advanced technologies existed in ancient civilizations, and the artifacts are readily visible.
This recent thread was implying that the advanced technology of the Punka site demonstrated something more than what it was- a simple observation of advanced technology from ancient times.
Define 'advanced'
The observation is that advanced technologies existed in ancient civilizations, and the artifacts are readily visible.
This recent thread was implying that the advanced technology of the Punka site demonstrated something more than what it was- a simple observation of advanced technology from ancient times.
Define 'advanced'
QUOTE (TinyTree+Sep 26 2009, 12:01 AM)
The observation is that advanced technologies existed in ancient civilizations, and the artifacts are readily visible.
Stargate SG1 is actually fictional material, honest!
Stargate SG1 is actually fictional material, honest!
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.