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

Araysar said:

this doesnt really make any sense as the diet variety of a hunter gatherer was even more limited than that of a farmer, not to mention more sporadic. a bigger factor in determining height would be the consistency in availability of nutrients, not variety -- and the farming lifestyle delivered that consistency much better than hunting/gathering.

there were also other mammals that grew very large in prehistoric times, which had nothing to do with "lifestyle": wooly mammoths, sabertooth tigers, etc.

animals before mass extinctions (insects, dinosaurs, etc.) were even bigger due to higher oxygen content in the atmosphere

and of course, evolution dictates that larger animals inevitably grow larger as they establish themselves as apex animals.

Click to expand...

Found the video again, it's in french but has english subtitle if you are interested. What you say is very correct, but one effect you left out is how farming require constant work, and children were working also, carrying heavy weight that could affect their developpment.
Also, the vision of hunter-gatherer we had during the last century was mostly wrong, as they were not always in survival mode. They were always moving around, where they could hunt, drink. The food was plentifull (of course not during the ice ages).
Cro magnon (-40'000 years) had an average height of 1.83m, then during the neolithic it was 1.62m.
I'm not saying they are right, but they do raise good points and I find it very interesting.

EDIT : here is one of the source of the video :

I was remembering that denisovans might have been really tall but I googed around and didn't find much.

Araysar said:

I might watch later but it sounds like a lot of hocus that this thread is notorious for.

The argument for children being less developed because they had to carry heavy stuff is kind of laughable because if anything it would have promoted better muscle development and made them bigger and stronger instead.

Click to expand...

They explain that the skeletons they found had a lot of marks from malnutrition (especially on teeth). Worth a watch / read.

The ones that stand to lose are the tourism people I guess. "Hey look at how amazing our people were 6969 years ago" when the reality is some unknown civ built everything and they just piled a few rocks and mud on top. Or in Egypt's case, scribbled some graffiti on.

Kharzette said:

The ones that stand to lose are the tourism people I guess. "Hey look at how amazing our people were 6969 years ago" when the reality is some unknown civ built everything and they just piled a few rocks and mud on top. Or in Egypt's case, scribbled some graffiti on.

Click to expand...

Ever drive down I-95 and start seeing all of the South of the Border signs? And then you get there...

Void said:

I'm far more open to something like ancient advanced civilizations than I am to alien tech existing, but I still can't figure out why it would be something to cover up? I suppose I can see why they might keep alien tech a secret, but is society going to be affected in any tangible way if we find out that some previous iteration of civilization had the ability to "melt" or precision machine rocks or move the big pyramid blocks? It just doesn't make any sense to me. I might be completely unaware, obviously, but I didn't think that there was big money in pushing a particular narrative about ancient civs, the way there is big money in pushing climate change. So what is the explanation for "suppressing" this stuff?

Most of the people that might get booty blasted over their work being blown apart are, for the most part, nobodies to the vast majority of the planet. There aren't government narratives trying to push shit on us like with climate change...nobody really, truly would care if we suddenly found out that there was a series of somewhat advanced civilizations that existed previously. It isn't like any of them came anywhere close to even our middle ages level of tech (except perhaps for obscure shit like raising big stones in weird places/configurations), so who cares? I mean, besides a handful of people that this is their life's work, of course. No one is going to suddenly freak out like they would if aliens were incontrovertibly shown to exist.

That's the main reason why I have a hard time getting behind anything but the most basic of ancient civ stuff. What's the point in hiding it? There are plenty of eager young pioneers in any field that wouldn't hesitate to go against the popular narrative for a bit of fame, but the best we have is these YouTube videos? It just doesn't pass the sniff test for me.

So what am I missing?

Click to expand...

people told Columbus he was an asshole for wanting to sail west. they were dead set against him going there. there were lobbies who banned the automobile from some areas because of a host of dumb reasons. why are they denying the possibility of a much more ancient technology evolution? basically for the same reasons religions try to force other cultures to convert to their religion. they like their idea better and therefore yours is bad and must be stopped. when asked, Zawi Hawass pretended to never hear of Gobekle Tepe.

Ancient Egypt has been touted as the oldest and greatest civ of all time. according to them and science 5000 years is when civilization started and anything older is just crude religious buildings made by hunter gatherers. then a place like Gobekle Tepe comes along and with its 13,000 year old date. it throws a huge monkey wrench in their idea about the world. there are many other examples of new ideas being at odds with established scientific beliefs. it takes a long long time for things to change. just look at the mouth breathers who think you're talking about space aliens building the pyramids if you even hint at some unknown tech process. they're just parroting the hubris of the mainstream. in these cases when i and others say ancient high technology or unknown ancient tech, all it means is that some method was employed to build those structures that we havent considered. we know that the ancients had stone cutting saws/drills and could shape/melt hard rock in very short time, so it isnt magic or the spacemen. we just dont know what they used exactly, which is why its unknown.

in regards to the dating for some of these places, many cultures recycle the older culture structures and make it their own. so you have a group of people who settled an area 10 thousand years ago. they died out and and a new bunch came in, like what you did and then slapped their sticker on it. then science comes along and gives the new guys credit because they see their names on everything. another annoying thing is when science decides x culture did x things at this stage in history, they only dig deep enough for that particular age in excavations. some guys decided to dig deeper and they found a lot of disturbing things and when they published their work, were immediately discredited as crackpots.

Void said:

I sort of see what you guys are saying, but it still doesn't really make a lot of sense. I don't see, for example, Egypt being so all-powerful (or at least influential) as to shut down any significant research that might show there were older advanced civs than those that made the pyramids. The pyramids are still amazing and worth visiting (I assume, never been there) no matter what discoveries are made. And like I said, I just don't see a lot of big money being at stake for the people that are researching Egypt that will suddenly dry up if something older comes around. Sure a few might get hosed, but I don't think we're talking big money like climate change. But I could be wrong.

It just doesn't make sense to me that there is some big inertia to keep the "accepted" theories going like there is with climate change. Fields like astronomy are constantly pushing for new discoveries and theories and invalidating old ones, so what makes ancient civs so different?

Click to expand...

i dont think they are shutting anyone down, least i never heard of it. what is a fact is Egypt survives on tourism and they are the first thing people think of when talking about ancient civs. the Pyramids of Giza, the Sphynx and King Tut. thats a lot of influence right there. when the revolution/civil war/boogaloo hit Egypt in 2009, that hurt their industry. the museums got looted too and Egypt is still a very dangerous place to this day. that caused a lot of people to think of other places to visit instead of Cairo. now they go to Peru for Macchu Picchu or Cancun for Chichen Itza or anywhere they think they wont be murdered as soon as they get off the plane. TV shows still do the Egypt thing and my theory is the Egyptian Tourism bureau is working with or straight up funding cable channels like Discovery and Nat Geo to produce more Ancient Egyptian centric docs to regain their tourism market. so they do have a motive to want people to keep believing Egypt is the sole place you want to see for ancient relics. why they dont want people to believe the history of Egypt is far older than claimed? i dunno, maybe it just destroys the mythology they built up over the centuries.

Chris said:

Primitive tools and cutting away when the digger does most of the work. Yeah. That channel is a hoax.

Click to expand...

Nah. Even if he does bring in power tools during the cuts he still demonstrates they are not necessary for the build, they are labor saving devices.

You want to spend seven hours watching him scrape sand?

Chris said:

Primitive tools and cutting away when the digger does most of the work. Yeah. That channel is a hoax.

Click to expand...

Nah. Even if he does bring in power tools during the cuts he still demonstrates they are not necessary for the build, they are labor saving devices.

You want to spend seven hours watching him scrape sand?

ISIS went around destroying important ancient remnants for whomever was paying/controlling them. Maybe Egyptian lies please the same powers.