There are several books written on anthropological and archeological finds that have either been suppressed or destroyed. Do you buy into the validity of these claims? If you can believe that humanity has only been on earth for a few thousand years then how hard could it be to believe something like this?

A lot of the mainstream view on the development of the sciences is that they originated in the past and that today they are the most advanced form, but many people forget the obvious regressions mankind has gone through for instance the dark ages.

How do you explain mankind evolving, clinging to survival and having several near extinctions, yet somehow our oldest buildings are larger and more advanced and accurate than even modern architecture. If mankind has been progressing this entire time, how come it goes caves, pyramids, greek temples, roman buildings, castles, cathedrals, mansions, modern buildings. If you were to plot the technical level involved in making each of these buildings on a chart you'd get an up and down flow of progression and regression in terms of scale, accuracy, materials, integrity.

The Cradle of life was believed to be modern day Iraq, however newer evidence suggests mankind's earliest ancestors began their struggle in Africa migrating north into Asia and Europe and other areas.

I hear the history books keep telling people Hitler killed himself because they were just too darn lazy and people liked that ending to Hitler better than him being a sheep farmer in Argentina.

It's that type of conspiracy bullshit that makes you completely unsure of what to really believe in anymore.

At 3/26/15 08:05 AM, Cordyceps wrote: If there is an abundance of archaeological evidence being suppressed, you should be able to go out and independently confirm your suspicions. Since there isn't you can't.

Suuure

Wake up, people

HOW ARE YOU AT FREEDIVING?

At 3/26/15 08:13 AM, glumper wrote:

At 3/26/15 08:05 AM, Cordyceps wrote: If there is an abundance of archaeological evidence being suppressed, you should be able to go out and independently confirm your suspicions. Since there isn't you can't.

Suuure

Wake up, people

HOW ARE YOU AT FREEDIVING?

sCUMBAG

It's because religion created the dark ages and ruined literally everything.

They say we could be 1000 years more advanced right now the Catholic regime never happened.

Mind you I have nothing against religion so long as it doesn't fuck things up.
It fucked things up

I don't think anything was suppressed, just no one really cared to write everything down in ancient times. Today's society likes to keep a record of everything, but it wasn't like that back then, they had no fucks to give, and lived in the moment.

At 3/26/15 09:42 AM, FaroutFrank wrote: I don't think anything was suppressed, just no one really cared to write everything down in ancient times. Today's society likes to keep a record of everything, but it wasn't like that back then, they had no fucks to give, and lived in the moment.

Mostly because they had like only 25 years to live

At 3/26/15 05:13 AM, DarkMatter wrote: There are several books written on anthropological and archeological finds that have either been suppressed or destroyed. Do you buy into the validity of these claims? If you can believe that humanity has only been on earth for a few thousand years then how hard could it be to believe something like this?

Source?

A lot of the mainstream view on the development of the sciences is that they originated in the past and that today they are the most advanced form, but many people forget the obvious regressions mankind has gone through for instance the dark ages.
How do you explain mankind evolving, clinging to survival and having several near extinctions, yet somehow our oldest buildings are larger and more advanced and accurate than even modern architecture.

You high? Our oldest buildings are made of rocks and shit.

If mankind has been progressing this entire time, how come it goes caves, pyramids, greek temples, roman buildings, castles, cathedrals, mansions, modern buildings.

You've made three mistakes here.

1. You've mistaken large buildings for ones which are "better". Some of these buildings were impractical or served a singular purpose that is no longer relevant to modern people, and therefore no longer built.

2. You've mistaken specific, extremely uncommon buildings for ones which are common. Large, complicated buildings are much more common today than they were hundreds of years ago.

3. You've mistaken the ability to create large, complicated structures with their actual implementation. We can still make all of the stuff you would see in the ancient world, but practicality and cost are factors that remain constant.

caves,

OK.

pyramids,

The pyramids are huge, but their purpose is primitive. We could recreate the pyramids today, if it weren't for the fact that they were so horribly impractical to build. We simply don't have as many slaves as the Egyptians did to make building them the way they did practical, and their singular purpose was to house a god-king and they really didn't care how many slaves died in the process.

greek temples,

What is New Classical Architecture?

roman buildings,

See above.

castles,

Castles fell out of style with changes in warfare, but they've still been built in the last few hundred years, but not quite as often for the purpose of fortification as for aesthetics. Castles are completely irrelevant to modern warfare because of advances in weaponry and the fact that they take a long time to build.

We make forts and mansions now.

cathedrals,

Cathedrals represent a time when religious institutions held nearly as much power as kings. With the reduction in power of the church, they've become horribly impractical. The damn things take decades or even centuries to make.

mansions,

We still make them. They've replaced castles because they look better and are far easier to build.

modern buildings.

This is a far, far broader category than the others. But if you've ever been in a stadium, skyscraper, or any other large building then you know that they're more advanced than anything that came before it.

If you were to plot the technical level involved in making each of these buildings on a chart you'd get an up and down flow of progression and regression in terms of scale, accuracy, materials, integrity.

scale,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadium#The_modern_stadium
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyscraper
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Everett_Factory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_Islands_Resort

accuracy,

?

materials,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-beam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebar

integrity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Dam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Global_Seed_Vault

The Cradle of life was believed to be modern day Iraq, however newer evidence suggests mankind's earliest ancestors began their struggle in Africa migrating north into Asia and Europe and other areas.

Modern buildings are relatively easy to make compared to their predecessors because they leverage the use of lighter materials such as metal and glass rather than stone. Even stone itself has been replaced by rebar-enforced concrete. It's not that the buildings are inferior, it's that we don't have near-limitless wealth and thousands of slaves to build shit out of stones anymore. So it's possible to erect a steel building much faster and much cheaper than it would take to make a stone building of the same size.

And it's these advanced materials and building techniques that have allowed buildings to become cheaper and easier to build. You would never see a skyscraper in ancient times because stones aren't flexible enough, and even if they had steel, they wouldn't know that they need to counterbalance the damn thing to keep it steady.

The invention of steel cables has also lead to the construction of massive bridges that completely dwarf anything in ancient times. Not to mention warehouses and factories made of steel and stadiums that can fit 50,000+ people. If we had to make all of this out of stone, we wouldn't have half of the stuff we have today because it would all take too long and cost too much to make.

TL;DR: Modern architects work smarter, not harder. We could make a modern pyramid out of steel for 10% of the cost and %1 of the effort of making one out of stones.

WAKE UP AMERICA

The scientific discovery is a conglomeration of misconceptions, you cannot trust the fallible

At 3/26/15 05:45 AM, NGPulp wrote: I hear the history books keep telling people Hitler killed himself because they were just too darn lazy and people liked that ending to Hitler better than him being a sheep farmer in Argentina.

Hitler, did escape and move to Argentina. Once the war was over, The Allies didn't care anymore.

At 3/26/15 07:17 PM, 24901miles wrote: Please show tell me the names of the buildings I can use to fill out my graph.

Here ya go.

At 3/26/15 07:17 PM, 24901miles wrote: Please show tell me the names of the "oldest buildings" I can use to fill out my graph of buildings which are larger and more advanced and accurate than even modern architecture.

Checkmate, historians.

Modern skyscrapers are made of steel beams or reinforced concrete. You don't need an intricate system of load bearing walls for that shit.

I admit there are taller buildings today, but a lot of people don't seem to remember that the great pyramid was the tallest building in the world till around 1300, so depending on how old you think the pyramid is, that's almost 4000 years at least. Are you trying to tell me mankind was progressing that entire time? Horse shit, if anything we've been making progress for the past thousand years while the rest was just catching up to whoever built it back then.

While the materials and such used today make buildings easier to make, they still aren't as accurate as the great pyramid of Giza in some cases, which is ridiculously level, and a 6 acre perfect square base that's accurate within a half inch I think.

The mass of the Khalifa tower is 500,000 tonnes, the great pyramid though not nearly as tall has a mass in the millions of tonnes probably more than 10 times the tower. Do you seriously believe that people made the pyramids with chisels and stone tools?

You do realize that mainstream science says that they didn't even have the fucking wheel yet? There are tons of other megalithic structures around the world that defy this logic that mankind sprung out of the ground a few thousand years ago and erected a structure that stood unmatched for thousands of years, shrugged it's shoulders and went back to making mud buildings and arrowheads.

Go ask an architect or contractor to build you something small like a shed within a half inch perfect square and aligned to true north within so many seconds or whatever, and they'll think you're insane because of how hard just that would be. Then you tell them they can only use a stone and chisel then watch them laugh in your face, and then try and do it for a six acre base going all the way through millions of blocks.

Here's a shitty graph I wipped up real quick basically you can see before the blue line, everything is below Giza in scale and things go up and down through the years in regards to large structures. The blue line should probably be earlier like where the cathedrals first pop up but whatever the point is illustrated.

At 3/27/15 09:39 PM, 24901miles wrote:
Well didn't they use ropes, grinders, smoothing tools, etc? Weren't these stones moved using beasts of burden

I'm pretty sure you would want to ask this architect to build a perfect Platonic solid using naturally forming stone, and that you're going to elevate him and his family to the level of a God for completing the project.

Nope just what I said, he can build the shed out of anything, but he's gonna have to chisel it together with a rock and primitive chisel. And he can have ropes grinders and smoothing tools, beasts of burden and whatever else lol. Seriously let him have 10 oxen or whatever to haul his shit for him and hemp ropes and slave labor I don't give a shit. Just a small shed, could even be an outhouse.

I sincerely doubt mankind's progression has been a completely linear pattern of progression, and the pyramid dominating architecture for thousands of years convinces me that we've been below ourselves for quite some time.

At 3/26/15 12:55 PM, Bit wrote:

At 3/26/15 05:13 AM, DarkMatter wrote:

pyramids,

The pyramids are huge, but their purpose is primitive. We could recreate the pyramids today, if it weren't for the fact that they were so horribly impractical to build. We simply don't have as many slaves as the Egyptians did to make building them the way they did practical, and their singular purpose was to house a god-king and they really didn't care how many slaves died in the process.

Not even are most powerful modern cranes could life those stones to recreate the pyramids. We cannot re create them. You really enjoy talking out of your ass alot, does it make you hard?

At 3/28/15 09:58 AM, 24901miles wrote:

At 3/28/15 09:47 AM, FaroutFrank wrote: Not even our most powerful modern cranes could life those stones to recreate the pyramids. We cannot re create them. You really enjoy talking out of your ass alot, does it make you hard?

What? We build machines which toss around hundreds and thousands of tons of very awkwardly shaped materials. Those stones only weigh 3 tons apiece.

The discussion about this usually centers on using fulcrums for lifting and sliding the blocks along wet sand to drag them into place without cranes because cranes are "cheating".

I didn't understand a word you said. Let me repeat myself, we cannot recreate the pyramids with today's technology. Deal it with it.

At 3/28/15 05:15 AM, 24901miles wrote:
We haven't found any relics of ancient civilizations in orbit, on the moon, nothing on Mars, and nothing more advanced than the current drive for progress in any archaeological digs though. That's a pretty damning refutation of the idea of lost ancient technology.

What about ancient civilizations like the Sumerians knowing about the solar system and it's contents long before any such discoveries were made in mainstream science? It's one thing for a group of farmers watching the stars, but to know the orbits of planets that won't be discovered for thousands of years. How did they know this without a telescope? Perhaps they did have something that let them survey the sky or perhaps a culture before them passed down the knowledge.

What sort of technology would be used to build near-perfect geometric solids? What use would they be once completed? Why do all continents have civilizations which built monolithic structures from stone which have unique traits?

The tech in question has to do with the lifting and perfect placement of so many large rocks in such a short time. Certain people get hung up on holes being drilled and other things, which I think can be explained using simple tools. Today we have cranes and other technical means of lifting things, back then they had what hemp ropes and no wheel? I don't care if there were people back then who were 15 feet tall or not hemp ropes and chisels aren't gonna produce a perfect structure that has withstood earthquakes and nature for thousands of years. Leave the Burf Khalifa alone for 2 thousand years without any maintenance and when you come back it will probably be damaged if not destroyed in some way either by a natural occurrence or humans. Next time you feel superior to the engineers of the great pyramid take the wheels off your car and then "quarry" it a couple miles to your mechanic. That will probably give you the idea of what it took to move one of the millions of smaller blocks the pyramid is composed of. As for the use of such objects, right now a lot of people are settling on them being used for astrological functions. The Giza complex is aligned with the constellation Orion about 4000 (or more I forget) years ago, Stonehenge can be used to calculate equinoxes and other astrological things. A few decades ago these attributes weren't even permitted to these ancient "primitives" but now they're fucking experts on the stars, sun, and moon? Some people have taken their ideas to the extreme, some people think the irregular shapes of the inner chambers of the great pyramid in combination with it's location and dimensions made it a power plant and that they believe there were mechanisms filling those chambers. There are others who think the pyramid was a weapon. Either of these theories are whatever, I'm simply convinced that whatever culture built the great pyramid was way more advanced than chisels and ropes.

Since many human explanations can be given to the construction of the artifacts we find, are there any archaeological finds which completely defy that model? Is there any one building, tool, structure, or relic which could not have been made using the technology of its era?

There are all kinds of things that defy the current notion that the pyramids were built by gangs of slaves. Newer evidence shows that camps of skilled workers were employed to work on the structure, which makes sense by todays standards. Now that doesn't necessarily mean they had more tech beyond hemp ropes, but let's just stick to the current model for their construction for arguments sake. Current theory not only says that they built the pyramid without the wheel but they did it within 20 years. I'm too lazy to do the math so I'll let wikipedia do it for me.

" The mass of the pyramid is estimated at 5.9 million tonnes. The volume, including an internal hillock, is roughly 2,500,000 cubic metres (88,000,000 cu ft).[5] Based on these estimates, building the pyramid in 20 years would involve installing approximately 800 tonnes of stone every day. Additionally, since it consists of an estimated 2.3 million blocks, completing the building in 20 years would involve moving an average of more than 12 of the blocks into place each hour, day and night."

That means every 5 minutes for 20 years straight they had a 2 ton (at least) block placed, including during nighttime, which they did by what torch light? Next time you tell someone, "Just five more minutes." keep in mind you prescribe to the theory that in that "just" 5 minutes a multi ton rock was quarried, cut, polished, and perfectly placed. I'm no magician but I'm pretty sure it would be a huge pain in the ass to pull that trick off, better tell the audience not to hold their breath.

Then after they're done they make a pact, "We're never gonna build anything of this magnitude for thousands of years, we're gonna go back to making arrowheads and clay huts as soon as we're done, we're not gonna build during night anymore cuz that's not practical and actually kind of dangerous without modern lighting even though we're done using stone, and we won't make things perfect square, or earthquake proof either, that's just not practical for another few thousand years."

I am cleverer than all you

With this immature horsesh*t trolling you're just proving how much cleverer and more mature than you I am

No, wrong

That's wrong

Do you want the post limit reestablished

because thats how you get the post limit reestablished

When you write no i guess you mean yes but you are stupid so it came out as no

At 3/28/15 09:58 AM, 24901miles wrote: What? We build machines which toss around hundreds and thousands of tons of very awkwardly shaped materials. Those stones only weigh 3 tons apiece.

Nowadays we're also capable of casting the concrete in-situ.
We know this. The pyramid of Giza's volume is 2.5 million cubic metres, and the Hoover dam is 2.6 million cubic metres - and has to be designed to support the flow of a river, rather than freestanding in the middle of a desert.

I can accept that the pyramids were an amazing feat for their time, but anybody who says it's impossible with today's technology to build a stone lump is talking crap.

At 3/28/15 11:04 AM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote: We know this. The pyramid of Giza's volume is 2.5 million cubic metres, and the Hoover dam is 2.6 million cubic metres - and has to be designed to support the flow of a river, rather than freestanding in the middle of a desert.

I can accept that the pyramids were an amazing feat for their time, but anybody who says it's impossible with today's technology to build a stone lump is talking crap.

No offence but you don't know what you're talking about pal                                  

At 3/28/15 11:29 AM, Ejit wrote: No offence but you don't know what you're talking about pal                                  

Come over here and say that to my face, buster.

At 3/28/15 11:04 AM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote:

I can accept that the pyramids were an amazing feat for their time, but anybody who says it's impossible with today's technology to build a stone lump is talking crap.

If anything we could probably build a larger one if we put our minds to it, we simply haven't done it because the buildings we produce today have some kind of general contemporary purpose.

All I'm saying is that those methods were way more advanced than given credit for, and in some ways like the alignment to true north and perfect square base it may not be impossible for us to duplicate, but it'd still be a challenge and we have lasers and other sophisticated surveying tools.

The general model for humanities progression is linear, in other words we started with shit tools and they gradually got better. I'm saying that humanity probably developed much greater building capabilities which allowed them to create the pyramids, stone henge, machu pichu and other places around the world. For whatever reason those cultures either died out or migrated and the following cultures weren't as gifted or advanced. Perhaps following generations became less and less learned and didn't understand how things work the way you and I don't understand the circuitry of certain things.

At 3/28/15 11:34 AM, DarkMatter wrote:

All I'm saying is that those methods were way more advanced than given credit for, and in some ways like the alignment to true north and perfect square base it may not be impossible for us to duplicate, but it'd still be a challenge and we have lasers and other sophisticated surveying tools.

The general model for humanities progression is linear, in other words we started with shit tools and they gradually got better. I'm saying that humanity probably developed much greater building capabilities which allowed them to create the pyramids, stone henge, machu pichu and other places around the world. For whatever reason those cultures either died out or migrated and the following cultures weren't as gifted or advanced. Perhaps following generations became less and less learned and didn't understand how things work the way you and I don't understand the circuitry of certain things.

I guess what I'm reading is that you think our technological progress moves in jumps and starts, sometimes even falling back. I don't really get the impression that ... um... aliens? lol are involved. But the idea that a group of people who delegated all hard work to slaves could create an impressive feat for their time isn't all that far fetched to me.

I think people, in general, advance in the same way. Take any skill for example. You don't get better and better in a 'linear' way. You get better, then you get a little worse. Then, things seem to be going nowhere for a time but you stick it out. Then, you get better again. I wonder if society, as a whole, progresses in a similar way, where we started off in caves, then things jumped up and advanced, then things got a little worse, then it all jumped up, got a little worse, got better, then worse.