The Paranormal, UFO's, and Mysteries of the Unknown

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Chukzombi

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member
73,146
214,433
iannis said:
I watch it till I hit that bias. They don't all have it, which surprised me. One of the vids about composite stone I thought was quite good. There was another about a stone lathe in India (much more recent, not prehistory) which was also very good.

There are honest presenters.

And there's guys who are gonna tell you it's aliens.

I'm taking issue with the presentation more than the content. The majority of the content is just conjecture, and that's fine. Well and good. Not all of it is though. The parts that aren't have to be held to a higher standard. Those really are the interesting parts.

I think they're onto something with those bits. I really do.
Click to expand...
which ones are saying it was aliens? i watch all the videos i link and i dont hold with aliens did it bullshit. the indian guy is the only one who alludes to it, but he's deep into his religion and looks for mystical magic stuff in his videos, but he still presents the facts separately. then sometimes suggests perhaps it was Vishnu or Buddha coming to earth. i dont care for that stuff, but since nobody else is presenting these ancient enigmas in India or Shri-Lanka, he is the best we got for that region. Foerster, Matt from AA and UnchartedX guy never talk about aliens and they are the ones talking about ancient high technology in these structures. Ancient High Technology is not a dogwhistle for "Aliens Did It" its literally the belief that we had ancient civilizaions in the distant past who were capable of building feats using processes we have not embraced ourselves or developed in recorded history. thats their bias. yes its there. thats why i post those videos because i share that same belief along with some others here. its not aliens.
 
Nola

Nola

Trakanon Raider
2,994
1,430
I really wish I had Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk money. I would easily drop millions excavating, researching and trying to find out the truth about some of these posts in this thread.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1Solidarity
  • 1Worf
Reactions: 3 users
B_Mizzle

B_Mizzle

Avatar of War Slayer
7,965
15,968
iannis said:
Once again, polishing agents much like composite stone (concrete, asphault, the stuff you're talking about above) is not high technology. It is low technology, possibly advanced low technology.

High technology is being used as a buzzword. The term has a meaning. It's forgivable that most people would not be aware of that, I only know it because I read some engineering textbooks my grandfather gave me in my twenties. but it is not forgivable that these presenters are either unaware or intentionally misusing the term. Technics is esoteric but a real thing.

This is not the path to credibility. Which is a shame, because it seems like there is merit in the claims of more advanced technology than is commonly understood.

It makes them sound desperate. You don't need to be desperate with proof. They may be able to show applications of rudimentary chemistry.

It's almost like they've been hungry for so long that the smallest morsel becomes a feast. I get it on an emotional level, but it they want to promote this idea and these findings they need to stop.

The information is interesting though.

Concrete is not high technology.
Click to expand...

Going to have to disagree with you here. High technology defined is the use of advanced or sophisticated devices. On one of these videos the people were examining some boxes that are estimated to be 70 tons, they are in the middle of a pyramid and they have bore drill holes in them. To me that's evidence whoever made those boxes were use high technology IE power drills, and some how were moving those boxes around.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Chukzombi

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member
73,146
214,433
B_Mizzle said:
Going to have to disagree with you here. High technology defined is the use of advanced or sophisticated devices. On one of these videos the people were examining some boxes that are estimated to be 70 tons, they are in the middle of a pyramid and they have bore drill holes in them. To me that's evidence whoever made those boxes were use high technology IE power drills, and some how were moving those boxes around.
Click to expand...
you're thinking of The Sarappeum. its not under a pyramid. if it was under a pyramid then it would be much easier to explain how they put those 70 ton boxes inside it. The Sarappeum is an under GROUND series of catacombs and it too was carved out of the bedrock. its never been open from above and will eventually be forgotten again for another 5,000-20,000 years. the boxes are 70 tons and the lids are 60 tons. so yeah. figure that fucking shit out. lots of people to somehow push some massive granite boxes in there. maybe? then lift the massive granite lid up over it to seal it in. how about, no? all that "lots of slaves were used" shit goes right out the window in a small chamber like this.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
iannis

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,657
It's getting to agree to disagree territory. I'm not going to say that notion is wrong or stupid, but it is not the one I choose because that is too broad to be categorically useful. To me high technology is defined partly as a tool of which the sole or primary purpose is the production of other tools. What I said earlier about the Reliance on other technologies is an important qualification. That object is an artifact of high technology while the product of it need not be.

And luckily for us it can work the other way around, too. That Roman clock is high technology because it meets both requirements. It is a tool used to measure time as a primary function and the production was reliant on other technologies.

There can be, and are, advancements to technologies. But they're advancements and refinements, they do not represent the shift which the term high technology is meant to denote.

Which all sets the industrial revolution as a sort boundary. Something happened in those three generations that we don't have to speculate about. Our philosophy of tools changed. I'll admit that highly favors polymers, electricity, and automation as valid examples of high technology. But I'd also say that's the point, to delineate between functional sets of applied technology. There's a practical difference between tech in the 14th century and tech in the 18th that stems from natural philosophy. Not even science. Just technics. Our tools would be much more crude without science, but they would still be high tech ones. Just shifty high tech ones.

What I'm seeing when I look at these vids are tantalizing hints of a previous technological revolution. We went from low to high recently enough that we don't have to guess how it happened, and we are struggling with it in the 200 years since. At some point in the past society went from direct tool use to low technology. All of this might be part of that.

The singularity is the idealized next phase change.

It's mostly about the complexity of systems and their interdependence.

But it is fundamentally about complexity, so I can agree about that.
 
Void

Void

BAU BAU
<Gold Donor>
9,924
11,938
iannis iannis is kind of touching on one of the things that I've always had an issue with too.

I feel like some of the presenters of this information know the effect that certain terms will have on their audience, and they purposely use them to "elevate" the story, so to speak. Now, I'm not saying that any of the videos linked here do it, as I've only watched a tiny fraction of them, but just saying in general, and some of the written stuff as well.

Specifically, when they use terms like the already debated "advanced technology" or "geopolymer." The geopolymer one I realize might be an accurate statement, but they typically don't say things like "concrete is also a geopolymer" which would make it a whole lot less mysterious sounding. It makes it sound like they had some crazy ability to melt stone and form it however they chose. Again, once you're aware that concrete is an example, that becomes easier to comprehend and agree with. But I almost feel like they go out of their way to use the term geopolymer to distract from that fact.

Same with the advanced technology thing. I feel like that phrase gets tossed around way too much. I think some of this stuff is fascinating enough just saying we aren't sure how they did it, and with what little knowledge we do have of those times, it seems like they wouldn't have known how to do X, or build Y, etc. But way too many of the presenters choose words like "advanced technology" to sensationalize it. To early man, a fucking wheel was "advanced technology" but is that really the way we should be talking about it now? That's not even getting into the "we can't replicate their techniques" claim, because as someone else said, we don't have to replicate it and might have "lost" the old methods, but it doesn't mean we couldn't come up with ways to do it. But it sounds better to say that we are mystified and amazed.

Maybe all these linked videos cut out all that bullshit, and I just haven't watched them to know. But the ones I do see elsewhere mostly seem to use those techniques, and it makes me want to instantly shit all over them, which probably wasn't their intended reaction. I realize that's my issue, but I'm sure I'm not the only one either, so I wish they'd at least try to be a little objective when they present the facts.

(Again, no idea if these videos are guilty or not.)
 
Chukzombi

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member
73,146
214,433
Void said:
iannis iannis is kind of touching on one of the things that I've always had an issue with too.

I feel like some of the presenters of this information know the effect that certain terms will have on their audience, and they purposely use them to "elevate" the story, so to speak. Now, I'm not saying that any of the videos linked here do it, as I've only watched a tiny fraction of them, but just saying in general, and some of the written stuff as well.

Specifically, when they use terms like the already debated "advanced technology" or "geopolymer." The geopolymer one I realize might be an accurate statement, but they typically don't say things like "concrete is also a geopolymer" which would make it a whole lot less mysterious sounding. It makes it sound like they had some crazy ability to melt stone and form it however they chose. Again, once you're aware that concrete is an example, that becomes easier to comprehend and agree with. But I almost feel like they go out of their way to use the term geopolymer to distract from that fact.

Same with the advanced technology thing. I feel like that phrase gets tossed around way too much. I think some of this stuff is fascinating enough just saying we aren't sure how they did it, and with what little knowledge we do have of those times, it seems like they wouldn't have known how to do X, or build Y, etc. But way too many of the presenters choose words like "advanced technology" to sensationalize it. To early man, a fucking wheel was "advanced technology" but is that really the way we should be talking about it now? That's not even getting into the "we can't replicate their techniques" claim, because as someone else said, we don't have to replicate it and might have "lost" the old methods, but it doesn't mean we couldn't come up with ways to do it. But it sounds better to say that we are mystified and amazed.

Maybe all these linked videos cut out all that bullshit, and I just haven't watched them to know. But the ones I do see elsewhere mostly seem to use those techniques, and it makes me want to instantly shit all over them, which probably wasn't their intended reaction. I realize that's my issue, but I'm sure I'm not the only one either, so I wish they'd at least try to be a little objective when they present the facts.

(Again, no idea if these videos are guilty or not.)
Click to expand...
its high technology because we are unable to duplicate what they did even though we can armchair quarterback about it all day that its easy to do. its ancient because these structures are thousands to maybe tens of thousands of years old and our known history of those people only tell us they had bronze, copper or just stone tools. its not hyperbolic to say what these guys did was ancient high technology.
 
Void

Void

BAU BAU
<Gold Donor>
9,924
11,938
Chukzombi said:
its high technology because we are unable to duplicate what they did even though we can armchair quarterback about it all day that its easy to do. its ancient because these structures are thousands to maybe tens of thousands of years old and our known history of those people only tell us they had bronze, copper or just stone tools. its not hyperbolic to say what these guys did was ancient high technology.
Click to expand...
We'll just have to disagree about what high/advanced technology constitutes then. Because as far as armchair quarterbacking, if someone could legitimately expect to get rich off of building one of these structures AND duplicating as best they can the construction processes that they think were originally used, I guarantee someone would have done it by now and we wouldn't have the "we can't duplicate it" argument anymore. Unfortunately, there isn't a lot of money to be made trying to build even a small pyramid/ziggurat/burial chamber/whatever, let alone using nothing but manpower and primitive tools. So that's why you get nothing better than perhaps some guy showing how he can move multi-ton blocks himself.

That's what is holding back people from duplicating them, not some lack of ability or intelligence on our part. That's why I don't consider it high technology. I'm certainly open to calling it "technology we don't expect them to have had at the time" though. Maybe that is just semantics, maybe it isn't. Depends on your perspective I guess.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users
Chukzombi

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member
73,146
214,433
Void said:
We'll just have to disagree about what high/advanced technology constitutes then. Because as far as armchair quarterbacking, if someone could legitimately expect to get rich off of building one of these structures AND duplicating as best they can the construction processes that they think were originally used, I guarantee someone would have done it by now and we wouldn't have the "we can't duplicate it" argument anymore. Unfortunately, there isn't a lot of money to be made trying to build even a small pyramid/ziggurat/burial chamber/whatever, let alone using nothing but manpower and primitive tools. So that's why you get nothing better than perhaps some guy showing how he can move multi-ton blocks himself.

That's what is holding back people from duplicating them, not some lack of ability or intelligence on our part. That's why I don't consider it high technology. I'm certainly open to calling it "technology we don't expect them to have had at the time" though. Maybe that is just semantics, maybe it isn't. Depends on your perspective I guess.
Click to expand...
thats simply not true, PBS and the BBC have tried many times to duplicate just some of these blocks, they even used ridiculously small examples in comparison and they still couldnt duplicate it. the "there's no money in it" notion is a fallacy. there is plenty of money in these things. these guys just keep sucking wind. if there was no money in it ,these videos and TV documentaries would never be made.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
iannis

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,657
High technology means something specific, man.

It doesn't mean "I dunno how they did that so it must be magic." Magic is just magic. It's not high or low technology.

If there are low tech solutions to the problems, and for most of this stuff there are, then a person needs to assume that's what was used. Have you seen the documentary about the monkeys that learned how to split hard fruit by breaking it on a stone face? They've been living in the same area for hundreds of years and the knowledge is passed between generations... and you can tell because all of the rock faces in their habitat have giant holes in them where the monkeys have been splitting fruit.

Low technology can accomplish one hell of a lot more than you might think. And that's just dumb hungry monkies not even indulging in any technology at all. That's the impact of a technological precursor that, if those monkies died out and someone came by the site 100 years later would be a giant WTF.

Sure, a person can assume that they did everything with powertools if they want. No one can prove that is not the case. There is some stuff that is legit weird. Maybe they can uncover a foundry in a sunken city someday.
 
Chukzombi

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member
73,146
214,433
iannis said:
High technology means something specific, man.

It doesn't mean "I dunno how they did that so it must be magic." Magic is just magic. It's not high or low technology.

If there are low tech solutions to the problems, and for most of this stuff there are, then a person needs to assume that's what was used. Have you seen the documentary about the monkeys that learned how to split hard fruit by breaking it on a stone face? They've been living in the same area for hundreds of years and the knowledge is passed between generations... and you can tell because all of the rock faces in their habitat have giant holes in them where the monkeys have been splitting fruit.

Low technology can accomplish one hell of a lot more than you might think. And that's just dumb hungry monkies not even indulging in any technology at all. That's the impact of a technological precursor that, if those monkies died out and someone came by the site 100 years later would be a giant WTF.

Sure, a person can assume that they did everything with powertools if they want. No one can prove that is not the case. There is some stuff that is legit weird. Maybe they can uncover a foundry in a sunken city someday.
Click to expand...
lol, you really dont watch any of the videos i post. magic, aliens.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
MusicForFish

MusicForFish

Ultra Maga Instinct
<Prior Amod>
35,188
138,076


GARY McKINNON'S FIRST INTERVIEW IN YEARS.
UK citizen Gary McKinnon is the most famous UFO "hacker" of all time. Arrested in 2002, he was in danger of extradition to the US for ten years. What he found was apparent evidence of a secret space program, including references to "non-terrestrial officers" and ship to ship transfers of vessels not in the U.S. military inventory. Moreover, a high-resolution photograph, taken from space, of a smooth, cigar-shaped craft. Gary also talks about the repercussions of being sought by the U.S. government, his depression, suicidal thoughts, and more.
 
  • 4Like
Reactions: 3 users
Chukzombi

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member
73,146
214,433
on this giant stuff i lean toward no, with the possibility of people exaggerating the heights of regular tall people theyv'e seen. my uncle was almost 7 feet tall and as kid he was a giant to me. Bigfoot i used to think was plausible, because before smartphones not everyone hiked in the woods with motion picture equipment and high end cameras. now that everyone has an HD camera on them, the sightings have only gotten worse and fewer.
all that being said, this lecture i found entertaining. its worth a watch. it's quite long.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
TJT

TJT

Mr. Poopybutthole
<Gold Donor>
43,219
110,759
Chukzombi said:
Click to expand...


This is actually really fascinating. The dude, however crazy he may or may not be, creates an extremely logical progression of how the younger dryas cataclysm of, "Atlantis" would have led to the mainstream dawn of civilization. Assuming Atlantis was indeed in either West Africa or at least West of the Middle East area somewhere.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users
Chukzombi

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member
73,146
214,433
TJT said:
This is actually really fascinating. The dude, however crazy he may or may not be, creates an extremely logical progression of how the younger dryas cataclysm of, "Atlantis" would have led to the mainstream dawn of civilization. Assuming Atlantis was indeed in either West Africa or at least West of the Middle East area somewhere.
Click to expand...
yeah, i liked his bits of humor thrown in every now and then too. i wish there was more research into the Richat Structure, but its in a horrible shithole of a country. slavery is still legal there and any doughy scientist would likely be murdered within 24 hours.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
MusicForFish

MusicForFish

Ultra Maga Instinct
<Prior Amod>
35,188
138,076
Chukzombi said:
yeah, i liked his bits of humor thrown in every now and then too. i wish there was more research into the Richat Structure, but its in a horrible shithole of a country. slavery is still legal there and any doughy scientist would likely be murdered within 24 hours.
Click to expand...
And gang raped.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
You must log in or register to reply here.