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

TJT said:

Graham is certainly right that human civilization began long before the expected timeline assumed by modern academia.

Click to expand...

When is that then?

This is Hancock's manipulation, he's told you this about "mainstream academia" but I don't think that any archeologist has ever set a start date for civilisation.

They know how much is underwater. They just also know shit like how to prove Bimini Road is a natural formation and disregard it, or that "hidden chambers" in dormant volcanoes are likely magma tubes, especially if are only rectangular from one specific weird angle.

TJT said:

Are you that terrible at reading comprehension? For the entirety of our lifetimes the idea that civilization predated Mesopotamia and the supposed timeline of the agricultural revolution was considered preposterous.

Click to expand...

Prove it.

Chris said:

Prove it.

Click to expand...

What did you learn in school? Because that's exactly what I was taught.

rad said:

What did you learn in school? Because that's exactly what I was taught.

Click to expand...

So you had a school history teacher say "Mesopotamia was the oldest civilisation" in passing, since I doubt you studied that time period, that's not mainstream acedemia archaeologists. I bet that THEY all said "oldest known" with something about cities or agriculture.

Chris said:

So you had a school history teacher say "Mesopotamia was the oldest civilisation" in passing, since I doubt you studied that time period, that's not mainstream acedemia archaeologists. I bet that THEY all said "oldest known" with something about cities or agriculture.

Click to expand...

How do they come to conclusion that something is the oldest? How do they figure out what year something is from? Can you explain the process? Im interested.

Daidraco said:

How do they come to conclusion that something is the oldest? How do they figure out what year something is from? Can you explain the process? Im interested.

Click to expand...

You can't prove that something is the oldest, only the oldest known.

You can google how they date things. There are multiple techniques.

Chris said:

So you had a school history teacher say "Mesopotamia was the oldest civilisation" in passing, since I doubt you studied that time period, that's not mainstream acedemia archaeologists. I bet that THEY all said "oldest known" with something about cities or agriculture.

Click to expand...

We definitely studied that period, and it was always referred to as the cradle of civilization. But you're right, the sanctioned text did not represent mainstream academia.

Chris said:

You can't prove that something is the oldest, only the oldest known.

Click to expand...

So, you're saying the science isn't settled? It's almost like that's the very notion Hancock is trying to push.

rad said:

So, you're saying the science isn't settled? It's almost like that's the very notion Hancock is trying to push.

Click to expand...

There's a difference between saying that it isn't settled and we could find a period appropriate coastal Egypt style civilisation somewhere underwater, and recyling sanitised Ancient Aliens theories about conical mounds and vague star alignments to say that an advanced civilisation must have existed.

TJT said:

Graham says lots of stupid shit nobody denies that. He also explicitly states that he doesn't mean advanced like they had alien space technology advanced but that a culture with the stoneworking abilities of Mesopotamia and other cultures in antiquity existed millenia before that. Arguing that said culture, whatever it actually was, was extinguished by the known Younger Dryas period ending. As if a culture did indeed exist during the humid period of North Africa it would have been almost entirely killed off by this event.

It is know that the extinction period of the Pleistocene megafauna would have contributed significantly to the downfall of any society out there that relied upon them.

I don't think it is obscene to argue that certain structures in the world we attribute to known civilizations weren't actually made by them. But by a previous and unknown culture that existed before all of that, the ones we know of simply built on top of it or reused it. Machu Picchu and the Hatun Rumiyoc are excellent examples because you can see a clear clashing of knowledge. Where contemporary and easily traceable Incan and later Spanish stonework is build directly on top of megalithic fitted stones.

So you must draw the conclusion that the Inca developed this method and at some point completely forgot about it and started using contemporary stonemasonry as we understand it today or they never understood it in the first place because they just built where they already found stuff to start with.

Click to expand...

Keep in mind you're arguing with Chris. Which is probably very much thinking the generic low IQ thought that any explanation means the person thinks "ALIENS!" when explaining anything ancient. With him having no working knowledge of how they are carbon dating the items found in the general area, much less the awarity that those items that can be carbon dated may or may not be associated with the original civilization that built said ruins (deduced by the "google it" response). Or the very fact that carbon dating and other similar techniques start to have a margin of error that increases by a large percentage the older something is (which could be older or younger in this case.)

They very idea that there is this new generation of people outside of the establishment is proposing any ideas that have merit, any at all, shows that most everything we know about the past is based on story telling and educated theory. Both of which barely exist.

I dont think its at all out of line to think that there was a civilization(s) that was obliterated in Northern Africa (and around the world). The younger dryas period has so many antique stories of destruction around the same time frame from different unconnected civilizations - that its hard to believe that the world didnt go through some extremely destructive events back then. Regular scientists can see the increase in ocean levels in such a short time frame. To think that the world over wasnt awashed with Tsunami's, floods, etc. isnt out of line and would explain why everything thats ancient is buried several feet.

TJT said:

Graham says lots of stupid shit nobody denies that. He also explicitly states that he doesn't mean advanced like they had alien space technology advanced but that a culture with the stoneworking abilities of Mesopotamia and other cultures in antiquity existed millenia before that. Arguing that said culture, whatever it actually was, was extinguished by the known Younger Dryas period ending. As if a culture did indeed exist during the humid period of North Africa it would have been almost entirely killed off by this event.

It is know that the extinction period of the Pleistocene megafauna would have contributed significantly to the downfall of any society out there that relied upon them.

I don't think it is obscene to argue that certain structures in the world we attribute to known civilizations weren't actually made by them. But by a previous and unknown culture that existed before all of that, the ones we know of simply built on top of it or reused it. Machu Picchu and the Hatun Rumiyoc are excellent examples because you can see a clear clashing of knowledge. Where contemporary and easily traceable Incan and later Spanish stonework is build directly on top of megalithic fitted stones.

So you must draw the conclusion that the Inca developed this method and at some point completely forgot about it and started using contemporary stonemasonry as we understand it today or they never understood it in the first place because they just built where they already found stuff to start with.

Click to expand...

Yeah I agree with all of that, Graham Hancock just has zero evidence for almost anything he says though.