/edu/ - Education

Interesting stuff coming out of the Amazon as well
I'm a bit skeptical of his Eurasian stuff tho

>>16648
Schizo interperation of history sells to viewers who want to learn about "forbidden mysteries". Its just business.

Yes there are holes in contemporary academic archaeology.
Yes there is an overconfidence in how much we know (goes for all sciences).
Yes people in the past were much more advanced than they're usually given credit for.
Yes overgrowth in many places has buried ruins under centuries if not millennia of soil and LiDAR is now revealing them.
Yes there is some degree of continuity in human societies going back to the ice age and earlier.
Yes the younger dryas impact hypothesis keeps looking more likely (at least insofar as the climate change was driven by impacts).
Yes sea level rise means that a lot of archaeological evidence is now underwater at the coastlines and we should do more underwater archaeology.
Yes it's probably true that people who had to migrate inland as sea levels rose had cultural exchanges with people who lived further inland which probably included "technology transfer" that Hancock talks about (like coastal people teaching fishing to people who didn't used to live on the coast before the coast came to them).

However

None of this substantiates Hancock's quite specific hypothesis that a single global civilization handed down technology to people around the world approximately 11,800 years ago. This story isn't even internally logical. Why would they wait until a cataclysm to do this if you have the technology to travel the world? And that's without getting into the actual counter-evidence, like the complete lack of species transfer unlike what occurred post-1492. It's actually pretty common in history for people to develop in parallel without contact. Many technologies and social forms were invented by different groups independently of each other. The fact that you see things like monumental architecture and stone carvings everywhere is not evidence that people were in contact. It's just the fact that it's not too hard to figure these things out, and that of all the things people made that long ago, very little besides stone is going to survive. If you actually had access to the full spectrum of their material cultures they would suddenly appear much more distinct.

It's a shame that genuine problems with archaeology/anthropology are being exploited like this and that the academics facilitate it by lumping anybody who recognizes this kind of evidence with schizos who believe in an ancient master race or whatever. It's the same kind of dynamic you see in culture wars - both sides are feeding off each other because antagonism and controversy is good for attention. Unfortunately academic study doesn't really stand to profit very much unlike the grifters.

>>16651
>Why would they wait until a cataclysm to do this if you have the technology to travel the world?
They're like the Lapita culture but the seas and oceans are smaller?
Interesting hypothesis I suppose

>>16648
IDK about this Hancock guy but i do liek anthropology and archeology, you should read this book i really enjoyed it and i think you will too.

>>16653
>doesn't include the latest research
outdated and irrelevant

Wow, such revelation. Never could have guessed they had roads. Didn't they find massive ruins decades ago already?

>>16654
>>doesn't include the latest research which makes it outdated and irrelivent
Cool. that is interesting. What new research is missing in the book which discredits and breaks the narrative of the book, anon?

>>16651
/thread

>1000 B.C.
Nothingburger.

>>16654
>>doesn't include the latest research
This becomes true of every work eventually. Find a more up to date entry-level text taking a broad view of the subject. That's not a rhetorical ask either. Please post more books on the subject.

>>16654
Lmao imagine if you discredited Marx on that basis

>>16654
>>doesn't include the latest research
This becomes true of every work eventually. Find a more up to date entry-level text taking a broad view of the subject. That's not a rhetorical ask either. Please post more books on the subject.

>>16648
>Graham Hancock - absolved

This retard sees a genuinely amazing, field shifting archaeological discovery and can only think of how it somehow proves the bullshit of some hack pseud with no evidence. The lack of intellectual curiosity is genuinely sad

https://youtu.be/341Lv8JLLV4

>>16662
why are there two guys named Milo shitting on this TV show
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXtMIzD-Y-bMHRoGKM7yD2phvUV59_Cvb

>>16663
lol that guy misquotes Hancock and ascribes beliefs to him that he doesn't have. criticism is always good, but if it is a strawman then it is not useful.

Hancock explicitly says he is against capitalism and the whole system needs changing, yet /leftypol/ keeps posting vids by a liberal defending the status quo.
>fuck Hancock, we shouldn't even discuss his crazy ideas in academia
<clap clap clap
>fuck Marx, we shouldn't even discuss his crazy ideas in academia
<clap- hey! wait a minute!
The arguments anons here use against Hancock, are similar to the arguments libs make against communists. Funny, for all your talk about revolution, you sure want to be accepted so badly by the very system you say you wish to replace.

Fuck bourgeois "science" and the liberal ideology it supports and propagates.

If [we] "critically support" anti-imperialist countries, with internal politics and forms of organisation we don't agree with, just because they are fighting against imperial countries / neoliberalism and Western capitalist institutions that we see as worse; then why can't we "critically support" Hancock in his struggle against neoliberal academia and the capitalist institutions that neoliberal academia supports and draws support from?

Unless you think that the belief, for example, that the Pyramid of Giza and the Sphinx are older than we think they are is worse than neoliberal academic institutions. Then by all means, continue defending a discipline (archaeology) that is famously gatekept and resistant to any kind of new ideas. Egyptology doubly so, because one guy in Egypt decides who even gets access to these sites.

>>16664
We shouldn't support him because he's a fucking dipshit, if we start just wanting to discard all science/history/etc we inevitably will slide into being deranged schizo rightoids.

>>1475369
>The fact that not even modern technology can replicate the pyramids

wheres the proofs :^D

Hancock just recycled Hapgood's and Velikovsky's already debunked ideas to make money by selling books to uneducated midwits. It's trash, there's no plot from the academia to silence him, he's just a greedy snake oil seller and actual scientists have actual work to do rather than peer review fiction books.

>>16667
The water erosion around the Sphinx and the discovery that the Great Pyramids were assembled top down are just two of many many examples

https://www.livescience.com/1554-surprising-truth-great-pyramids-built.html

>>16664
Hancock is a liberal and an anti-communist.

>>16669
Casting blocks is not alien technology, we perfectly know how to do it even though the process used or the ratio and exact nature of ingredients the ancients used may not be yet known. It's like greek fire, we don't know exactly how it was made or what it was composed of, but why would be use greek fire when we have napalm (or 30mm canons firing enriched uranium shells if you prefer since it was used on ships.)

>>1475369
>all without the mighty Anglo
> ley lines
<a theory that posits all large landmarks can be joined to each other with straight lines on a map and they are ancient english trade routes
lol lmao rofl.

>>16648
>new shit found
>AHAH, my tinfoil schizo shit is 100% validated

lmao no

>>16672
so this is the so called "eternal anglo" theory, now I wonder on which side of the finno-korean hyperwar they fought

>>16648
see:
>>16651

OP, nobody takes you seriously because you sneer "liberal" at anybody who rolls their eyes at your tinfoil attachment to a quack, and instead of engaging in good faith to defend your ideas, you shift goalposts and make it about a debate regarding scientific methodology in which you don't have anything to say either. You just scream about "bourgeois science" without even making it clear what your exact critique is. You just scream "LIIIBEERRALLLLL" and "BOURGEOIIIISSS SCIIIEEENCE" without actually being capable of articulating a meaningful critique.

You're acting like a child. Either having something coherent to say or shut the fuck up

Bourgeois scientists claim that water is composed of H2O. When will they retract this liberal-fascist lie and embrace the immortal socialist science that sees Gaia's energy as the primary building block of life. No I will not explain what the energy of Gaia is. You just have to feel it, bro.

>>16677
Hitler drank water, he was just like the rest of us

>>16677
I think the Chinese people felt it, hunger I mean, when they abandoned the bourgeois neoliberal way of agriculture for the true proletarian lysenkoist thought.

>>16676
The criticism against Hancock here is that he is a "schizo". He doesn't call himself a scientist, he reads the available archeological literature, primary/secondary sources (including myths), conducts interviews with archeologists in S. America, SE Asia, Africa, and then asks questions and posits theories. There are actual, learned, degree'd archeologists who agree with him. Not all of it, mind you, but they don't have to.

What you need to ask yourself, what evidence have you seen for the claims that the Pyramid of Giza (n.b. not all pyramids) and the Sphinx were built by the ancient Egyptians? Because the Egyptians built next to them? Because they graffitied around them? If I build a house next to the Golden Gate Bridge, in 8000 years people will just assume I built the bridge? Oh no, that's right, I'd have to write my name on the bridge first.

You believe all these things (without evidence or personal research) because you were taught them in school, at a young age, by an authority figure, from a "textbook". We all know words in textbooks are much truer than in any other book.

I'm not saying Hancock is 100% right, but you can't cling to capitalist/liberal institutions like a soft blanket because "that's the best we have right now" and deride anyone who dares to challenge the keepers of knowledge in their ivory towers.

Many "mainstream" historians and archeologists whom you'd probably agree with have done very little or no on-the-ground investigations themselves, and just read from books and journals, same books available to Hancock, you, me. libgen and sci-hub make it easy.

And the only people this affects, by this I mean there existing another civilisation or timeline of human civilisation that is radically different from the currently accepted one, are the archeologists and end-of-history libs. Because 1) a "lost" civilisation is compatible with HistMat, it proves society is determined by the dominant mode of production, i.e. technological advancement, and not any intricate human (Anglo) "civilising ability" or liberal notions of "progress"; 2) if a civilisation can disappear and history can "restart" then that means we don't simply stop when we get to "stability and rule-based order", despite all their efforts, it can all go away and be forgotten, this scares the neoliberals for they have dreams of singularity and 1.000.000 AI-managed technofascist reich.

>>16680
>If I build a house next to the Golden Gate Bridge, in 8000 years people will just assume I built the bridge? Oh no, that's right, I'd have to write my name on the bridge first.
??? But they would believe you (americans) build the bridge and they would be correct.

>>16681
>you (americans)
I will kill you where you sit. I'm obviously not American or an anglo, that is why I don't care if their empire of death and lies crumbles to dust, like the lost civilisation. Funny thing is, neoliberals don't have anything like the pyramids to leave behind.

>Graham Hancock - absolved
Lmao how? Mayan civilization being older than previously thought doesn't in any way indicate the existence of an ancient globe spanning civilization.
>You may begin your posts by admitting you were wrong to trust liberal scientists and the ideology-laden "science" that aims to maintain the status quo, rather than advance humanity.
But you are relying on the discoveries of these same liberal scientists to support your asinine beliefs. If there were a conspiracy to suppress this information, then it wouldn't be announced by the very people you claim to be trying to hide it.

>>16664
>fuck Marx, we shouldn't even discuss his crazy ideas in academia
Idk if you're just terminally burger-brained, but Marx is very much studied and celebrated in academia around the world. At my uni there were poli-sci, philosophy, sociology, and economics courses dedicated entirely to his work in those fields.

>>16682
Where u from

>>16682
>I will kill you where you sit. I'm obviously not American or an anglo
…And yet you live near the golden gate bridge…. So you are american.
I know you like playing the simpleton anon but this is stretching it.

>>1475631
<he does not know there are whole departments and specialties dedicated just to various parts of Marx's work
<he believes in Cultural Marxism
Lmao. I think you are my new favorite lulcow HancockAnon.

>>1475647
In post left circles, it is

>>1475647
>>1475631
I'm not talking about gender studies (although Marxist feminism is obviously a thing), I'm talking about Marxist philosophy, economics, and political theory, which is widely recognized as a legitimate field of research and study. You're aware that a world exists outside of burgerland right?

>>16648
>Graham Hancock is socialist
>Therefore we should support every ancient alien wacko theories he has
Nope. If capitalist followed similar argument they would have to believe in lot of shit too. Hancock's arguments have already been debunked mostly. Guy is a sociology degree holder not an archeologist.

>>1475679
>If he was accredited and promoted by the same liberal institutions that promote other forms of bourgeois pseudoscience then that would make him far less credible, so all the better for him to seek out the truth independent of some Ivy League snobs
Credibility should be based on evidence and nothing else. Ivy League or not doesn't matter. So far Grahams claims have either have no evidence or evidences are against it

>>16680
>what evidence have you seen for the claims that the Pyramid of Giza and the Sphinx were built by the ancient Egyptians?
The tablets scribes used to keep track of moving material and workforce for one, pretty huge bureaucracy developed at the time, takes a strong economy and a big state to do that kind of mega project. It's like if in the future historians looked at a paper pertaining to the steel being moved for the golden gate bridge or a .pdf listing workers of the contracting business doing the painting. Believe or not scientists don't make conclusions after looking at some graffiti.

>>1475679
>and how Stalin was an evil cis male fascist who corrupted the feminine ideal of communism
I had a prof that was an ardent ML and vehemently defended the DPRK, USSR, etc. but ok.

>>1475702
>Yes, the types of western leftoids that try to pretend Stalin was a liberal like them also exist
Absolutely unhinged.

> Graham Hancock absolved
he doesn't know Hancunt went on racist rant about mayans to try a prove his shitass "theories". Grabitch lamecock is a racist grifter if your the guy the last thread ur a burden

>>1475702
Stalin is a lot more progressive than people give him credit for if you look at the state of the world around him. Slavery was still a thing to the states south of the USSR when he was in power and the United States was adamant about extermination of the Indians through sterilization and forced kidnapping of children along with (sometimes) government sponsored paramilitaries like the KKK murdering Catholic immigrants and Jews. Homosexuality was still illegal in most of the world and outside pockets in Western Europe and the US, wide swathes of the world saw a women’s place as a servant in the kitchen. Stalin on the women question was on par with western leadership and yet was more lenient and accepting of diversity and racially different people that did shock western racists and polemics.

>>16696
Always love showing this to libs

>>16696
This. Lenin and Stalin were very "Woke" for their era. PatSocs that try to claim them as conservatives are anachronistically applying 21st Century standards to 20th Century leaders. If Haz lived in the 1930s, he would probably have hated Stalin.
>Homosexuality was still illegal in most of the world and outside pockets in Western Europe and the US…
Just want to say that people claim that the USSR criminalized homosexuality. That isn't really true. IIRC, what was criminalized was pederasty not homosexuality itself.

>>16695
link?

>>16698
Ok, two things misleading. Lenin is wayyyy more “socially open” than Stalin was and technically homosexuality was in effect criminalized by that ordinance and obscenity laws. Even still you have a point.

>>16648
>Graham Hancock - absolved

This is the thing with doubting official history. Historians are hacks, but doubters are so traumatized by rejection that they veer into crackpot science

In Russian case, there's Morozov (astrological reading of Bible and trying to remap biblical events to known astronomical dates) and Rezun-Suvorov (crackpot theory about middle ages being fake) and it works just like that

>>16699
He's probably referring to the talk/book from the 90s, when Graham said the stuff today was built by the people from this lost civilisation, described as "white men". That was 30 years ago, and he has since changed his opinion, and now he says it was the indigenous people of these places that built the structures after being taught astronomy, math and construction by these visitors.

I think it is interesting how the Pyramid of Giza and other structures include features that show a knowledge/record of thousands of years of observation of celestial bodies.

But the SINGLE FACT that makes me doubt the official narrative is that homo sapiens existed for 200.000 years, yet only managed to do agriculture and build a civilisation in the last 5.000 years of walking the Earth.

It is much more likely that there were many attempts, of varying success, all of which simply disappeared after tens of thousands of years of natural changes on the planet surface.

Historical materialism is not technologically deterministic, or rather it is "softly" so. HistMat doesn't say that every mode of production has one corresponding social system it is paired with, it shapes its development. That's why changes in mode of production (technological revolutions) necessitate a change in the social system (revolution).

It seems anons forget Marxism (and therefore communism) are theories of revolution and change. Hancock is doing more for the communist movement by challenging the liberal institution of archeology and ancient history than a "Marxist" academic, sitting in his office, writing a paper on the Deleuzian deconstruction of an ice-cream cone.

>>16685
Not N. America or any English-speaking country.

>>16684
>Idk if you're just terminally burger-brained, but Marx is very much studied and celebrated in academia around the world. At my uni there were poli-sci, philosophy, sociology, and economics courses dedicated entirely to his work in those fields.
Then you obviously didn't go there or take any classes. My university also had a Marxist department as part of philosophy, and anthropology department with explicitly Marxist professors. But the anthropologists will tell you they are not revolutionary marxists (which is an oxymoron).

There is no actual Marxism in academia, that would be silly from the standpoint of self-defense of liberal capitalist system and status quo. Those Marxist departments exist to trap students and disillusion them from communism and discourage revolution. Those professors and students are stuck analysing everything (not critiquing) through Marxist-adjacent frameworks. My university (former, alma mater?) hosts a Marxist conference once a year and philosophy students from all over the country and adjacent ones come to hear speakers talk, eat shitty catering food and get drunk. If you think these are some centres of revolution, or a concentration of "the most conscious parts of the working class" who are going to use their learning to advance communism, you will be sorely disappointed.

It is just another case of capitalism appropriating and commodifying something. Marxist departments in universities are the che guevara t-shirts of liberal academia.

And this isn't me btw:
>>1475631

>>16702
Didn't they unearth 10k BC civilizations in India and China and maybe even in Central Asia? Those people lived so long ago and were so dependent on nature that they didn't survive - either at all or had to migrate to other place - when the soil's fertility ran dry due to overuse

There probably was a cyclical development of civilizations, something like semi-migratory cycles of every couple hundreds years with resettlement, until technology allowed people to overcome this barrier. And late bronze age collapse was the last such cycle, dissolution of roman empire maybe also

>be Hancock
>claim ancient cultures could do more than we thought and archeologists dont change their views according to new evidence
>in the same breath claim that ancient cultures couldn't have built the structures themselves but required people of Atlantis to teach them how to do it
Lmao. By watching the Miniminuteman youtube video posted in this thread the archeologist wrecks every one of his claims. It becomes very evident that he does not understand archeology very much and his theories are built upon a house of cards of archeological misunderstandings

>>16704
because he's a cia nazi and laying the groundwork for the USAF to enact nordic aliens cargo cult in the same way jeff bezos lays the groundwork for the geography.
an interesting fact about the bezos high castle, denver nazi airport is where the CIA invented birds, which are just mini spy drones and didn't exist before 1960s.

>>16648
i'm confused how does this confirm ancient aliens or whatever you're saying

>>16702
>described as "white men".
>he says it was the indigenous people of these places that built the structures after being taught astronomy, math and construction by these visitors.
Why is it so unbelievable that non-white people can build things? Is it envy or what the fuck? Just because your civilization was building tiny structures and calling it a day, doesn't mean others didn't.

The pyramids in the Yucatan peninsula are for sure impressive and really nice, but they're nothing out of this world either…..
>I think it is interesting how the Pyramid of Giza and other structures include features that show a knowledge/record of thousands of years of observation of celestial bodies.
That's a dubious claim, and again, what if they did have a long history of records?

I think you're reifying historical materialism too much, applying it onto the world instead of seeing it in action.

>>16704
>By watching the Miniminuteman youtube video posted in this thread the archeologist wrecks every one of his claims.
>this guy confirms my preconceived notions, he's obviously correct
If you're just gonna be an emitter for the dominant ideology, don't bother replying. Yes, people who follow "mainstream" archeology and wait until they receive Certified Knowledge™ from an Accredited Institution® from a Professor™ who has completed his or her Education™ and received a Certificate proving he or she is able to follow instructions and retain, recall and manipulate information as and when requested.
>It becomes very evident that he does not understand archeology very much and his theories are built upon a house of cards of archeological misunderstandings
In true anglo fashion, you take opposition not as
a disagreement between equals, worthy of debate, but as a sign that the person is dumb and doesn't understand.

>>16706
>i'm confused how does this confirm ancient aliens or whatever you're saying
You're confused because you expect Hancock to talk about ancient aliens, when he explicitly rejects all that garbage.

>>16707
>Why is it so unbelievable that non-white people can build things? Is it envy or what the fuck?
No, it is what the ancient myths apparently said. But "white" doesn't have to refer to skin colour, it can be hair, or clothes, or some kind of metaphor. But as I said, he dropped that long ago. People are allowed to be wrong, admit their mistakes and change.

>Just because your civilization was building tiny structures and calling it a day, doesn't mean others didn't.
What? You've clearly not looked into this at all, you have a visceral reaction to it because it challenges the liberal ideology you've internalised. It's not about structures, it's the similarities: same symbolism, astronomical understanding built into them, similar building techniques, etc. which cannot simply be explained away by the word "coincidence", not when the structures are across the world, built by civilizlsations who have never met.

>The pyramids in the Yucatan peninsula are for sure impressive and really nice, but they're nothing out of this world either…..
OK.

>That's a dubious claim, and again, what if they did have a long history of records?
When was writing invented? Unless you're saying humans knew writing, then lost/forgot it and then acquired it again?

>I think you're reifying historical materialism too much, applying it onto the world instead of seeing it in action.
Nope, I'm simply saying that if there was a lost civilisation, that'd be perfectly compatible with the Marxist/HistMat outlook, however it does not go well with the liberal conception of history. Liberals see progress as linear and towards a better or more perfect system, which is pure idealism. people also like to ascribe this belief to Marx but HistMat does not make value judgments. Marxism is a critique of history form the standpoint of the working class, its historiography is different than that of liberalism. Marxism views things as a whole, while liberalism aims to delineate, separate and analyse in a vacuum.

For example, liberals will look at Miniman, the youtuber, as some guy who is saying interesting things. They see him alone, his thoughts his own, his ideas his own. But Marxists wouldn't see him the same way, they'd see him as the sum of his experiences and when they'd think about the context in which he acquired his knowledge and the kind of environment he was/is embedded in, they'd look at what he is saying more critically.

Really, you cannot agree with someone simply because they're confirming what you believed before without evidence. I mean you can, but it's lame. Someone thinking the same is not evidence. This is also a result of liberal ideology, thinking that if a majority believes something then that is correct. This suits liberals because they are masters of manipulation and propaganda, they even have you defending them ffs

>Graham Hancock

This guy is a retard and show are you for waiting for Washington post to tell you this. That Mayas were advanced and not "barbarians" is known for decades if not at least two centuries.

Another related book is "1491"

@1476798
>I'm too lazy to read the thread, because I don't care about the value of time
>but listen to my half-baked opinion and take me seriously
you're a joke. always were, always will be.

>>16699
even better heres a screenshot, Graham is just a racist and OP isn't better than the hyperborean failsons at /pol/

>>16702
>But the SINGLE FACT that makes me doubt the official narrative is that homo sapiens existed for 200.000 years, yet only managed to do agriculture and build a civilisation in the last 5.000 years of walking the Earth.
Honestly if you study evolutionary biology that isn't all that surprising. Evolution tends to progress via leaps that exponentially increase its pace. You have several billion years of single cellular life, followed by the Cambrian Explosion 500 million years ago in which we go from very simple to very complex life very suddenly. Then you have non-sapient multicellular life for another several hundred million years until proto-humans emerge. Following this pattern, it makes sense for most of our existence to be taken up by paleolithic ways of life. We follow essentially the same pattern in our transition from hunter-gatherer, to agricultural and then industrial society.

>>16710

I talked about this spammed joke metaphysical retard youtube guy mentioned in OP. not the thread. Why would I have to even to that? if you find him anything else than a scammer you are a joke yourself. Also, read a book that is not written by some obvious hack.

>>16712
>>16712
>Honestly if you study evolutionary biology that isn't all that surprising. Evolution tends to progress via leaps that exponentially increase its pace. You have several billion years of single cellular life, followed by the Cambrian Explosion 500 million years ago in which we go from very simple to very complex life very suddenly. Then you have non-sapient multicellular life for another several hundred million years until proto-humans emerge. Following this pattern, it makes sense for most of our existence to be taken up by paleolithic ways of life.
lol what? That has nothing to do with what I am saying. I am saying, and this is a fact, that homo sapiens, us, in our current form (with variations like we have today, but less I guess, and sticking more to "its kind" I'd assume) for nearly 300.000 years. The 200k figure is an old one, the timeline has been pushed recently.

So we have existed as what we are now for 300.000 years, and only in the last 10-12.000 did we think "hey, it'd be a good idea to start growing food and building durable dwellings". That doesn't really make sense.

And what else doesn't make sense is that we were able to build shit like the Giza pyramid, Gobleki Tepe, Easter Island statues, earthquake-proof walls in S. America and Egypt, at the "start" of our civilisation, but then our construction got worse. I'm not saying all pyramids were built by the "lost" civilisation, just the Giza one, perhaps under their guidance or something, I don't know the details. Then ancient egyptians built others as copies with some knowledge that was passed down (perhaps because of a lack of complex math language that could describe the engineering).

In any case, it doesn't make sense hunter gatherers built the pyramid of Giza in 27 years; quarrying, chiseling, transporting several dozens kilometers, fitting, two blocks a minute or something (2.000.000 blocks / 27*365*24*60). With copper tools, ropes, levers and pulleys (no wheels, no cranes or force multiplying gears).

>>16714
>you read his book/watched his show for free
>you got scammed brah
>meanwhile I watch YouTube ads so some limp-wristed liberal cuck can tell me what I already think
but yeah man, I'm the one who's being scammed.

>>16702
>But the SINGLE FACT that makes me doubt the official narrative is that homo sapiens existed for 200.000 years, yet only managed to do agriculture and build a civilisation in the last 5.000 years of walking the Earth
don't see anything weird about that, 70 years ago computers were so big they could barely fit in a whole room, today they can fit in your pocket
progress isn't a graphy that goes y=x, it's messy

>>16717
>progress isn't a graphy that goes y=x, it's messy
No shit, that's the whole point. Ancient history and archeology says we went from cavemen to here in pretty much a straight line going up.

What Hancock is saying, is that human history did not necessarily go that way, that there may have been a civilisation in the past that was more advanced than those who came after it (but less advanced than us, technologically. he says he thinks they were most likely "egalitarian" otherwise they wouldn't have been able to do what they did.) he is an acid communist, if anything.

I dunno, so far it has been strawmen and second-hand accounts. It is clear you hate the guy cause liberals say he's bad.

>>16718
Hancock isn't wrong about humans making technological advances and then seeing declines in innovation/production of tools/commodities. This happens after every empire falls. Then we destroy our cities during warfare before building everything back up when things settle down. Sometimes our knowledge survives in the records of another civilization. The "west" adopted most of its knowledge from the Mediterranean/Arab world. Now we're in decline and hopefully all our useful knowledge gets recorded somewhere in the 3rd world. (China already has most of our industrial knowledge.)

>Hancock is communist
He's not and we shouldn't pretend he is.

He's wrong about there being a global world government/civilization 10K years ago. There's no record of such a thing. There's no evidence, just conjecture based on different groups of humans realizing how to stack rocks. Stacking rocks isn't evidence, no matter how good of a showman Hancock is.

>>16715
>doesn't make sense hunter gatherers built the pyramid of Giza
>With (only) copper tools, ropes, levers and pulleys (no wheels, no cranes or force multiplying gears).
lol, talking about outdated research…

>>16648

Hancock will be remembered as someone who revolutionized our understanding of the world. He's up there with people like Darwin, Copernicus, and Einstein. All the sheep who subscribe to bourgeois science can cope and sneed all they want.

>This thread is still going

OP, you are the one doing the strawmanning.

Nobody here finds what you posted to be compelling evidence of the specific hypothesis that Hancock posits, and instead of engaging in good faith, you take the easy way out and scream LIIIIIIIIIIIIBEEEEEEERAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLL

Please stop. It's old and annoying.

We knew that the Urban indigenous nations of the America’s had better urban planning and architecture of the European world bar Roman constructions. Shame that smallpox and the bubonic plague broke down those networks, and that the European powers were more adept with the art of warfare and had artillery that was leagues over the more ritualized based combat of powers like the Aztecs or Incas. The only powers that gave the Europeans a bloody nose during colonization were Pueblo people of the mainly flat desert, hill faring Mayans, and Mapuches. Everyone else due to highly regimented centralization among theocratic monarchs, low population density, or being defenseless armed with spears and arrows only without armor just couldn’t compete.

>>16724
>We knew that the Urban indigenous nations of the America’s had better urban planning and architecture of the European world bar Roman constructions
The water management at Tenochtitlan could be argued to be as good as or better than what the Romans had, and with less territory. Their use of Lake Texcoco is comparable to Dutch land reclamation, except using the water instead of draining it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66PFvufJFpU

We know less about the terrace farms of Andean cultures but those were also very sophisticated and may have been competitive with the Romans too. And we also know there were large scale water management systems elsewhere in the Americas like the Amazon basin and in North America, but we know even less about them.

>>16724
>The only powers that gave the Europeans a bloody nose during colonization were Pueblo people of the mainly flat desert, hill faring Mayans, and Mapuches. Everyone else due to highly regimented centralization among theocratic monarchs, low population density, or being defenseless armed with spears and arrows only without armor just couldn’t compete.
That's not even true lol. There were many cases where Europeans lost. It took centuries to conquer North America. The first time Cortes fought the Aztecs he lost (he won the second time after they were weakened by the new plagues they had been exposed to). Indigenous people absolutely put up a fight in most places. Guns are overblown since at the time they were quite basic and single-shot, and because of the development of firearms heavy armor was not common any more. The germs part of guns, germs and steel is important but some other big factors were taking advantage of local rivalries to get support from other indigenous people to kill their enemies (before turning on them too) and the ability to move people around using horses and ships.

>>16720
>talking about outdated research…
Various "theories" like canals with floating blocks or sand pours that set stones into place or huge sand ramps are just people imagining ways it could have been done, they don't have any evidence of it. Funny how supposedly we have "work orders" and materials lists from the construction of the Giza pyramid, yet out of all the hieroglyphs and papyrus scrolls discovered in Egypt, not a single one of them mentions the techniques they used to build arguably the greatest man-made structure in history of humanity. That part can be left out, let's rather count how many shits the 237th mason had.

Every other pyramid in Egypt is covered with hieroglyphics, except the Giza pyramid, which has none, just Khufu's tag, written in paint, in some hidden chamber.

But tell me, what does new research say about Egyptian teleporting and anti-gravity technology. How else do you carve, move and place 2.000.000 blocks in 28 years, and achieve the precision they have achieved. Giza's north face is about 5° off from true, magnetic north. They built some French university and tried to align it with north, and were off by 17°.

Another thing is how some of their statues are perfectly symmetrical, and their features can be drawn by perfect circles. But what do archaeologists say how they were made?
>The symmetrical design is one of the basic elements of architec-
tural design for the façades of ancient Egyptian temples
https://conservation-science.unibo.it/article/download/12792/12508/45409
Ah that's right, that was just their style. They simply chose to do perfect symmetry and circles before the discovery of Pi as an artistic choice. I know very well that the paper is about conservation, but it shows how these archeologists have been trained to explain impossible feats for hunter gatherers as "that's just how it was". That is not good enough for me.

Oh yeah, turns out that the cubit is just Pi - Phi^2, two constants the Egyptians didn't know supposedly. Giza's "pyramidion", the little pyramid at the top is exactly 1m high. The "burial chamber" in the Giza pyramid has even dimensions on all sides and perfectly straight lines where the stones meet.

If it was one or two things, sure, I'd say it's a coincidence, but there's so many of these things that you simply have to ask yourself if hunter gatherers could have done it with the tools and knowledge we think they had.

>>16722
OK, you're not a liberal. You're a dyed-in-the-wool communist who just happens to be defending liberals and their institutions right now.
>>16723
While I do post from different IPs, I think it is easy to tell which posts are mine. I could give you a list of my posts in this thread, if you want. I would not do something as weasely as samefagging in support of myself. I actually find this topic interesting and wish to talk about it. It does me no good to talk to myself, I can do that without the whole trouble of posting and reading posts like yours.

>>16727
Pretty sure the armour of the Spanish was a big deal, cause arrows and spears of the indigenous people could not penetrate it. Plus they were on those big horses, also armoured. That's why a few dozen Spanish conquistadors could slaughter hundreds.

Why didn't the lost civilisation teach them weaponry? I think because less people, bigger world, more peace, allows a culture to develop in peace, rather than fight over resources and spend lots of time (and humans) on wars.

Basically: peaceful world -> cataclysm -> warring world. Which is pretty much a myth cliché from Epic of Gilgamesh to the Bible, and oral/stone-carved stories all over the world. And there is always a hero or heroes who come from the sea and teach the people. asupposedly, haven't actually read all those myths myself. but I'm sure if Hancock was wrong about that, he'd have dozens of people writing about it. Since nobody has challenged him on his retelling/explanation of myths, I'm gonna assume that he is more or less right about their content.

>>16730
>Why didn't the lost civilisation teach them weaponry?
i'm not OP, just pointing out the military supremacy thing is overblown

>>16728
>Oh yeah, turns out that the cubit is just Pi - Phi^2, two constants the Egyptians didn't know supposedly.
In what unit? 1 cubit = 1 cubit, what are you comparing it to?
>Giza's "pyramidion", the little pyramid at the top is exactly 1m high.
the Egyptians were apparently using meters lol

>>16732
>In what unit? 1 cubit = 1 cubit, what are you comparing it to?
Meters, forgot to write it.

1 Egyptian cubit = Pi - Phi^2 m

>>16730
Long bows regularly penetrated feudal armor that was much tougher then the armor worn during the colonial period. Armor then was more designed to protect against melee weapons then ballistic weapon. Calvary was regularly defeated by polemen, where the advantage of calvary was exploiting the flanks of the enemy army yet calvary was always weak smashing through the centre of a heavily fortified infantry line where you'd have half a dozen line of tightly packed infantry in the feudal period that would become a thick porcupine to calvary when attacked.

The reason why colonial armies were so successful was they didn't have to worry about reinforcement armies blobbing into grand armies like in feudal Europe, Asia and Middle East.

>>16715
>That doesn't really make sense.
Yes it does. Technology, like evolution, has always moved in sudden, exponential leaps. Its why we spent thousands of years doing mostly subsistence agriculture before we figured out industrialization. The pace of technological advancement (and increases in complexity) is exponential rather than linear. Hundreds of thousands of years of hunting and gathering followed by a few thousand years of subsistence agriculture, followed by a few hundred years of industrial society is following this established pattern. It's the same one you see in evolutionary biology.

>>16732
>the Egyptians were apparently using meters lol
Yeah, 7.000 years before the French standardised the metre, which was just a length of iron that sat in France. They standardised it after Napoleon had been in Egypt, iirc.

Louvre is actually the same shape as the Pyramid of Giza. Architect/designer of the Louvre denies having been inspired by the Giza pyramid. I guess Egyptians got lucky and coincidentally built their Giza pyramid in exactly the same shape that a modern engineer, using computers, advanced mathematics and all the knowledge available in the 1980s would.

There is also the fact the pyramid of Giza has 8 sides, which you can see only during the equinox.
>pic related
So on top of what we as the pyramid now, was actually a layer of white limestone, that also followed the shape of the internal structure. Another coincidence?

Anyone, feel free to refute any of this. So far nobody has said how hunter gatherers could have done it with pulleys, ropes, copper tools. There's also the fact the stones are carved to fit each other.

>>16734
>Long bows regularly penetrated feudal armor that was much tougher then the armor worn during the colonial period
<Aztecs had Longbows
It was also the arrow head, it was flat and a square shape, made for punching armour, because a sharp arrow just bounced off. Which is why they had those big collars on their armour.

Arrows and weapons of the indigenous people in S. America just bounced off of European armour. Remember, Aztecs didn't have steel, they made arrowheads and spearheads from obsidian.

>>16737
Much of (if not most) of colonial capture was natives vs natives though, not massive armies of europeans, afaik.

>>16737
That the Aztecs didn't have to worry about because European calvary had much thinner armor then knights during feudalism. Calvary at the time was geared towards speed like their antiquity ancestors rather then protection like knights were. Thus they would still lost to large number of poleman protected by heavy infantry with shields.

>>16735
>Technology, like evolution, has always moved in sudden, exponential leaps.
You obviously have no idea about history of technology. Yet you seem confident enough to blurt out a generalised, unresearched opinion about a field people spend years studying.

Technology and evolution develop dialectically. This means that quantitative change leads to qualitative change. So while a "revolution" may seem like a leap to us, it is a result of a long period of smaller, imperceptible changes. This is basic dialectics.
>before we figured out industrialization.
LOL. We just "figured it out", did we? I suggest you pick up a history book on the Industrial revolution, before you make an even bigger fool out of yourself.
>The pace of technological advancement (and increases in complexity) is exponential rather than linear.
Now pull a rabbit out of your ass.
>Hundreds of thousands of years of hunting and gathering followed by a few thousand years of subsistence agriculture, followed by a few hundred years of industrial society is following this established pattern.
Imagine calling Hancock dumb, then giving yourself license to make up absolute nonsense. First of all, we decide when a technological.change is big enough to be deemed a revolution, so you're not actually viewing an observed, empirical quality, you're looking at a constructed scale. Second, you didn't show technological advancement is exponential, all you've shown is that time between "technological revolutions", as we see them, is reduced exponentially. Third, how do you even decide a date when "industrialisation" happened? Invention of steam engine, an efficient steam engine, first steam-powered production machine (a "cotton gin" I think it was), first steam train? It's completely arbitrary, so how can you derive generalised conclusions about nature and its laws? You can't.

>>16738
>not massive armies of europeans,
I'm not saying it was. Due to their armour, 40-50 could slaughter hundreds, even thousands. The indigenous people could not penetrate the armour with their weapons. They could knock them down, burn them, drown them, etc. but that is not an effective tactic to defeat dozens of soldiers.

>>16739
>Thus they would still lost to large number of poleman protected by heavy infantry with shields.
Ah yes, I forgot the Aztec polemen and the Aztec history of learning how to fight against knights on horses, in their land without knights or horses.

>>16741
European calvaries were not knights, their armor was much thinner, aimed at improving survivability then to make then immune to hits.
>>16742
It is not rocket science, even armies of antiquity knew you can deal with mounted threats with very long pointy sticks, especially if you place them in the ground ahead of your line that also has pointy sticks along with shields. Then you just pack the line tight to make the mass of the infantry much more then the horse and their riders so the horse is basically running into a wall of heavy infantry and will break its necks when it hits the shield wall if not instantly killed from the pointy sticks.

>>16736
>Yeah, 7.000 years before the French standardised the metre, which was just a length of iron that sat in France. They standardised it after Napoleon had been in Egypt, iirc.
The metre was based on the arc length of the earth from the equator to the pole. Nothing to do with Egypt.

>Louvre is actually the same shape as the Pyramid of Giza. Architect/designer of the Louvre denies having been inspired by the Giza pyramid. I guess Egyptians got lucky and coincidentally built their Giza pyramid in exactly the same shape that a modern engineer, using computers, advanced mathematics and all the knowledge available in the 1980s would.
It's a pyramid, a basic 3D form that is effective at supporting its own weight. Btw the Louvre is a hollow pyramid made of metal and glass while the pyramids on the Giza plateau are made of stone lmao.

>There is also the fact the pyramid of Giza has 8 sides, which you can see only during the equinox.
Please be trolling.

>So far nobody has said how hunter gatherers could have done it with pulleys, ropes, copper tools.
Dynastic Egypt weren't hunter gatherers, and we probably don't know the full extent of the tools they had. Limestone is pretty soft though, so it's not like cutting those blocks was the hard part (and there are stoneworks made of harder stone too btw).

>>16741
>Due to their armour, 40-50 could slaughter hundreds, even thousands.
No, you idiot. With numbers like that, especially on your own turf, you would full-on Home Alone those motherfuckers. The reason they stood a chance was because they had reinforcements from other peoples in the area who had a grudge against the Aztecs.

>>16743
>It is not rocket science, even armies of antiquity knew you can deal with mounted threats with very long pointy sticks
Aztecs had javelin throwing devices called atlatls that were very effective.

>>16713
and providing the exact pagenumber numbnuts not who tf actually trynna read shitham lilcock

>>16744
This uygha really said Egyptians were hunter gatherers. Oh my days, it's not even worth engaging with someone who has so little understanding of the history he's trying to deboonk.

>>16745
>>16713
>>16711
>>16699
>>16695
I didn't save the reference but somebody found in his Fingerprints book that he cites a Nazi who talked about a global antediluvian civilization of Aryans. He doesn't make the same explicit racial claims but the influence is right there. Somebody was pointing this out on twitter.

>>16651
>None of this substantiates Hancock's quite specific hypothesis that a single global civilization handed down technology to people around the world approximately 11,800 years ago
It's almost as if this time period was that of the FIRST AGRICULTURAL REVOLUTION which far better explains any parallel advancements in human civilization compared to some global ice-age civilization shit.

This agricultural revolution could not have been given to later humans by le epik hyperboreans due to the simple fact that different regions domesticated and grew completely different crops and animals with zero access to the crops and animals of other regions until non-wank history shows some connection between said areas/cultures/whatever.

>>16736
>There's also the fact the stones are carved to fit each other.
Why tf do you think this is evidence of a more advanced pre-civilization? Do you not comprehend how masonry works? It's not even that hard to break a clean face in a stone with a hammer, some chisels, and a bit of elbow grease.

>>16743
>It is not rocket science, even armies of antiquity knew you can deal with mounted threats with very long pointy sticks, especially if you place them in the ground ahead of your line that also has pointy sticks along with shields. Then you just pack the line tight to make the mass of the infantry much more then the horse and their riders so the horse is basically running into a wall of heavy infantry and will break its necks when it hits the shield wall if not instantly killed from the pointy sticks.
Great! Except there were no horses in the Aztec empire, numbnuts, so how could they prepare to fight against them?

>>16744
>The metre was based on the arc length of the earth from the equator to the pole.
At first. Then they used the iron bar a couple of years later.

>It's a pyramid, a basic 3D form that is effective at supporting its own weight. Btw the Louvre is a hollow pyramid made of metal and glass while the pyramids on the Giza plateau are made of stone lmao.
<missing the point entirely
>It's a pyramid, a basic 3D form
So if I ask ten people to draw me a pyramid, they will all draw the exact same one? Are you even aware that there exists more than one pyramid shape?

>Please be trolling.
Are you dumb? This is an established fact, you fucking moron. pic related
also: http://www.catchpenny.org/concave.html

>Dynastic Egypt weren't hunter gatherers, and we probably don't know the full extent of the tools they had.
The rest of the world was. When most humans were hunter gatherers (or had just begun transitioning to agriculture) Egyptians were building the pyramid of Giza. Uneven development is fine, but that's just completely ridiculous.

>The reason they stood a chance was because they had reinforcements from other peoples in the area who had a grudge against the Aztecs.
It also helped that they couldn't be killed easily, I bet. Otherwise why would those peoples listen to them?

>Aztecs had javelin throwing devices called atlatls that were very effective.
Must not have been that effective.

>>16745
>and providing the exact pagenumber
OK, and? Does that somehow make the person more right, that you gave us the right page? What are you even saying here?

Let's have a look at what mainstream archeology is saying:
>The basalt blocks of the pyramid temple show "clear evidence" of having been cut with some kind of saw with an estimated cutting blade of 15 feet (4.6 m) in length. Romer suggests that this "super saw" may have had copper teeth and weighed up to 140 kilograms (310 lb). He theorizes that such a saw could have been attached to a wooden trestle support and possibly used in conjunction with vegetable oil, cutting sand, emery or pounded quartz to cut the blocks, which would have required the labour of at least a dozen men to operate it.[107]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza
>4.6m long supersaw
>4.6m long supersaw
They haven't found this saw, or a picture of it, or any mention, they just found cuts made by a big saw and assumed Egyptians had a big saw.

Do you see how the circular reasoning works?
>P: Egyptians built the Great Pyramid of Giza.
>P: Egyptians only had copper tools.
>C: Therefore, Egyptians must have built the pyramid with copper tools.

>>16750
>Great! Except there were no horses in the Aztec empire, numbnuts, so how could they prepare to fight against them?
The Romans didn't see war elephants till they were fighting them yet they quickly adapted. Once you have a grand disciplined army that knows how to stay in formation it opens up tactics, in Rome's case after one year of encountering them they learned the tactic of carvery setting grass fires to spook the elephants while javelin throwers picked them off from range.

What Aztec empire was lacking was an order of battle like Rome created. If you put ancient Rome in the shoes of the Aztec even without horses they would have slaughtered the Spanish due to being able to muser thousands of infantry in tight formation supported by primitive artillery.

>>16664
the claim marx was some crazy conspiracy theorist only really happened well after he died, at the time he was quite explicit about building on the works of other theorists.

>>16750
>OK, and? Does that somehow make the person more right, that you gave us the right page? What are you even saying here?
This guy doesn't know what an in-text citation is lol ur jus a pseud with too much time

>>16747
>I didn't save the reference but somebody found in his Fingerprints book that he cites a Nazi who talked about a global antediluvian civilization of Aryans.
>antedoluvian
>using Biblical time/epochs
>calling others Nazis
Yes, Hancock.quoted a single (1) person on the topic of lost civilisation. It was Hyperborea, actually.

The first people to mention Hyperborea are the ancient greeks. The first person to write about Atlantis was Plato, telling of a trip his cousin made to the library of Alexandria, where they told him about Atlantis and its destruction.

The claim that the idea of a lost civilisation is somehow inherently Nazi (despite existing couple of thousands of years before Nazis) is basically anons being intellectually lazy, and finding it easier to accuse someone of being a Nazi in hopes of "canceling" him, like the libs they are.

>>16748
>This agricultural revolution could not have been given to later humans by le epik hyperboreans due to the simple fact that different regions domesticated and grew completely different crops and animals with zero access to the crops and animals of other regions
Which we now know is actually a bad thing, because of invasive species, like the pine trees on the Mediterranean coast, or fire ants also in the Mediterranean. This is why countries forbid you from just bringing it plants and animals.

We also know that different plants are suited for different regions, and that not every plant can go everywhere.

You're also pretending as if they had to bring plants from all over the world in order to teach how to grow local plants or plants in general. Perhaps they found it more prudent to fill their ships with books, tools, etc. rather than plant seeds.

It doesn't make sense to bring a plant from somewhere and selectively breed it to fit the environment, when you can take plants that fit into the environment from the same environment. You're thanking like a 21st century person.

>>16749
>Why tf do you think this is evidence of a more advanced pre-civilization?
Because skilled work isn't easy, and being so precise using rudimentary tools with no way of actually measuring at the level of the precision they achieved makes it virtually impossible.
>Do you not comprehend how masonry works?
I actually do, that is why I am having a hard time believing ancient Egyptians built the pyramid of Giza with copper, stone and wood tools.
>It's not even that hard to break a clean face in a stone with a hammer, some chisels, and a bit of elbow grease.
Now do it on 2x5m rocks, weighing a couple tons. Do this 2.300.000 times in 27 years.

Is being right on the internet, among anonymous people, that important to you that you'll say things like "precision stone masonry isn't that hard with a copper chisel"? Getting to the Moon? Easy! Just sit in a rocket and point it at the moon. Literally anything can sound trivial after you have trivialised it.

>>16754
And anything can sound impossible if you hype it up.

>Now do it on 2x5m rocks, weighing a couple tons. Do this 2.300.000 times in 27 years.

Psst, it probably was more than one person doing it.

>>16751
>Once you have a grand disciplined army that knows how to stay in formation it opens up tactics
Which the Aztec army was not. They didn't even have wheels, because they used boats to get around, carry things and travel long distances. Where are they going to find fields to have big battles? Have you ever seen a picture of the geography of the Aztec empire? There's no places to do large formations.

>>16752
>the claim marx was some crazy conspiracy theorist only really happened well after he died
Is that why he was kicked out of every country?

>>16753
>This guy doesn't know what an in-text citation is lol ur jus a pseud with too much time
>it is literally impossible for a person to write falsehoods into the book
The guy doesn't quote Hancock, he interprets him. If Hancock's own words were so damning, then the guy would have just quoted Hancock. He doesn't, and that's telling that he has to make assumptions, connections, leaps, to make his argument.

So he calls Hancock a racist… which Hancock obviously isn't. And if you think he's some sort of 5-D chess-playing Nazi, who is gonna get you to kill Jews right after you admit the Sphinx could have been built at a time when it rained heavily in Egypt, then you might be the schizo one.

>>16751
>Once you have a grand disciplined army that knows how to stay in formation it opens up tactics
Which the Aztec army was not. They didn't even have wheels, because they used boats to get around, carry things and travel long distances. Where are they going to find fields to have big battles? Have you ever seen a picture of the geography of the Aztec empire? There's no places to do large formations.

>>16752
>the claim marx was some crazy conspiracy theorist only really happened well after he died
Is that why he was kicked out of every country?

>>16753
>This guy doesn't know what an in-text citation is lol ur jus a pseud with too much time
>it is literally impossible for a person to write falsehoods into the book
The guy doesn't quote Hancock, he interprets him. If Hancock's own words were so damning, then the guy would have just quoted Hancock. He doesn't, and that's telling that he has to make assumptions, connections, leaps, to make his argument.

So he calls Hancock a racist… which Hancock obviously isn't. And if you think he's some sort of 5-D chess-playing Nazi, who is gonna get you to kill Jews right after you admit the Sphinx could have been built at a time when it rained heavily in Egypt, then you might be the schizo one.

>>16757
>>16757
>Which the Aztec army was not. They didn't even have wheels, because they used boats to get around, carry things and travel long distances. Where are they going to find fields to have big battles? Have you ever seen a picture of the geography of the Aztec empire? There's no places to do large formations.
Again it is more a tactics and manpower problem, for example the indigenous population of Newfound and Labourer was able to get the Vikings to abandon their colony by far more effective use their defendable terrain then the Aztecs. The Aztec's never did what their northern counterparts did earlier and make Spanish officers worry even if they win it will be Pyrrhic.

>>16757
He was kicked out for being a rambunctious alcoholic trying to organize civil unrest

>>16740
>Yet you seem confident enough to blurt out a generalised, unresearched opinion about a field people spend years studying.
You mean the same people who universally think Hancock is a quack and who you think are all part of a giant conspiracy to suppress the existence of Atlantis or some shit?
>while a "revolution" may seem like a leap to us, it is a result of a long period of smaller, imperceptible changes.
So then why do you have an issue with it taking hundreds of thousands of years to develop agriculture and urbanization? You just admitted that its a slow process. Moreover it doesn't just seem like a leap, it was one. The pace of social transformation accelerated rapidly first with the development of agriculture, and then of industrialization. Of course these developments built on a long process of less revolutionary changes, but once all the elements were in place, these revolutions totally transformed human society and accelerated the pace of further changes. This is why there are much greater differences between our lives and those of people 200 years ago than there are between those people and the people 1000 years before that. On the timescale of humanity as a species, this transformation is the blink of an eye, which is why it's referred to as a revolution even if it was actually a few centuries in the making. The same applies to agriculture and complex civilization.
>Second, you didn't show technological advancement is exponential, all you've shown is that time between "technological revolutions", as we see them, is reduced exponentially.
Anon if time between massive technological shifts is reduced exponentially with each such shift, then technological development is exponential. Hence its not surprising that the time between the emergence of humanity and the emergence of agriculture is much longer than the time between the emergence of agriculture and that of industrialism. Not only that, but Hancock's hypothesis doesn't actually solve your issue vis a vis the length of time it took to develop agriculture and complex civilization. Even if we bump this back to 10,000 BC or so, that still means we were all hunter-gatherers for about 96% of our existence, as opposed to the roughly 98% proposed by mainstream anthropology.

>>16754

>Is being right on the internet, among anonymous people, that important to you that you'll say things like "precision stone masonry isn't that hard with a copper chisel"? Getting to the Moon? Easy! Just sit in a rocket and point it at the moon. Literally anything can sound trivial after you have trivialised it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug_and_feather
You're objectively a dumbass.

>>16761
And, before you ask, yes, this scales up to larger rocks when you use more plugs. The Ancient Egyptians knew how to do this. It's not that complicated to jam a line of wedges into something and hammer at the wedges, no hyperborean help needed!

I think you underestimate the thinking power of ancient humans if you think they must've had a more advanced civilization show them the ropes.

>>16762
>I think you underestimate the thinking power of ancient humans if you think they must've had a more advanced civilization show them the ropes.
Many such cases. Egyptians had thousands of years of traditions to perfect stone cutting methods.

>>16758
>Again it is more a tactics and manpower problem, for example the indigenous population of Newfound and Labourer was able to get the Vikings to abandon their colony by far more effective use their defendable terrain then the Aztecs.
Right, and tactics are not developed in a vacuum, they need to be developed in response to something. Aztecs dominated all the little villages in their territory, they didn't need advanced tactics, just a bunch of dudes with obsidian weapons to show up.

Also, Vikings in 1100 (or whenever they say they were in North America) were a bit different (weaker) than Spaniards in 1500s. Vikings were used to raiding European villages, where the only resistance they'd face is a peasant militia with practically home-made weapons or farm tools. In North America, they met indigenous warriors, who have been fighting with other, formidable tribes in the area, for who knows how long.

>>16760
>You mean the same people who universally think Hancock is a quack and who you think are all part of a giant conspiracy to suppress the existence of Atlantis or some shit?
No, I meant people who study history of technology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_technology

>So then why do you have an issue with it taking hundreds of thousands of years to develop agriculture and urbanization?
How did they disseminate knowledge about plants to different cultures around the world? Don't they say agriculture arose independently in 3-5 places in the world?
>You just admitted that its a slow process. Moreover it doesn't just seem like a leap, it was one.
Please define this "leap". If it was a leap, then it'd be easy to delineate its start and finish.
>The pace of social transformation accelerated rapidly first with the development of agriculture, and then of industrialization.
Did it though? We've had kingdoms/empires from like 6000BCE until practically 1918CE. Yes, social revolutions follow technological ones, but there is no implied time scale between them. You say it is exponential after you look back on it, it is a descriptive theory, not.prescriptive. By the way, where do you start your timeline? First human? We had had mixed with Neanderthals and others, could our knowledge-gathering, and therefore development, have started before the "first homo sapiens"?

I'm trying to tell you that the timeline, "first human", "technological revolution" are all human constructs, rather than observable features of.history or society. We use these constructs/models to make thinking about our.past easier. The "industrial revolution" was a time period between the first steam engine in like 1712, until the 1890s, when large parts of Europe and North America had been industrialised, or so goes one opinion that I happen to agree with. We can also say that the moment Watts got the idea for a condenser, that takes the steam from the boiler and condenses it separately, preventing the cool-down of the main cylinder and making it ready to receive more steam/do another stroke. But how do we find out the exact moment the idea got into his head? I'm not telling you, I'm trying to help you ask critical questions.
>Of course these developments built on a long process of less revolutionary changes, but once all the elements were in place, these revolutions totally transformed human society and accelerated the pace of further changes.
So did the telegraph, the ship, fire, an adze… Any tool or new knowledge not necessarily linked to a "technological revolution" helps us do more, faster. But you can't claim it is exponential just because time between them is being reduced. Why does it need to be defined in mathematical terms? What makes you think it can be? Go ahead, write a formula that describes the exponential development of technology, and include your reasoning why you chose the specific dates for your calculations.

>This is why there are much greater differences between our lives and those of people 200 years ago than there are between those people and the people 1000 years before that.
I mean, there's a huge difference between 1940 and now. The refrigerator "revolutionised" the home and how we cook and store food. There's a big difference between 1995 and now. There's always gonna be big differences in how we live as time goes on, you can't say "well this is a BIG difference". You have a preconceived notion of history and you look for facts that confirm it.

>On the timescale of humanity as a species, this transformation is the blink of an eye, which is why it's referred to as a revolution even if it was actually a few centuries in the making.
>On the timescale of humanity as a species, this transformation is the blink of an eye, which is why it's referred to as a revolution
>this transformation is the blink of an eye, which is why it's referred to as a revolution
lol
>The same applies to agriculture and complex civilization.
Because you say it does? "Complex civilisation" as opposed to a simple one? Pray tell, which civilisations are "complex" and which aren't? Also I can tell you're not an engineer, because "complexity" is not necessarily a good thing. In fact, complexity is usually bad and it shows inefficiency, decay, lack of planning, etc. Just look at the bureaucratic states we have now, they're fucking complex, and yet we know they need to be radically transformed.

We should be trying to make things more simple, not more complex. Complexity is how we get bullshit jobs and regulations on the height of grass in a garden.

>Anon if time between massive technological shifts is reduced exponentially with each such shift, then technological development is exponential.
Sure, in mathematics, when you have one dependent variable that is actually a number. What's the numerical value of "technological development"? You're making the mistake of thinking "technological development" is some measurable physical thing or wave or force or something. Technological development is just the name we've given to the human activity of making new tools and inventing stuff, you can't describe its growth/change with a simple mathematical formula.
>Hence its not surprising that the time between the emergence of humanity and the emergence of agriculture is much longer than the time between the emergence of agriculture and that of industrialism.
No, it isn't surprising to you because you made it up. Are you seriously trying to present your half-baked thoughts as established, self-evident facts that everyone should know? Just because you think something is true, it doesn't make it true.
>Not only that, but Hancock's hypothesis doesn't actually solve your issue vis a vis the length of time it took to develop agriculture and complex civilization.
All I said was that in 300.000 years of human history, I find it strange that only in the last 12.000 we bothered with "civilisation". It would make sense that we have attempted it before.
>Even if we bump this back to 10,000 BC or so
What do you mean "even if"?
<Archaeological data indicates that the domestication of various types of plants and animals happened in separate locations worldwide, starting in the geological epoch of the Holocene 11,700 years ago.[4] It was the world's first historically verifiable revolution in agriculture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution
Have you actually read anything about this stuff or are you just piecing together stuff you've seen in movies, heard from other people, read online a long time ago, and so on?
>, that still means we were all hunter-gatherers for about 96% of our existence, as opposed to the roughly 98% proposed by mainstream anthropology.
Mainstream archaeology gives the 11.700BCE number… which is actually when Hancock says the flood/cataclysm happened, destroying the "lost" civilisation, after which the "lost" civilisation people go out and start teaching astronomy and construction

>>16762
so smooth 😱

>>16761
I'm not denying you can.split rock with tapered dowels and wedges. I'm denying you can use that technique to make cuts that are precise to a milimeter, or make the stones fit so snug together.

What about that huge granite plateau on which the pyramid sits? How did they do that one? Cutting the limestone is a walk in the park compared to cutting granite.
But here's a good example of what I am saying. Despite it being an AI answer, it does learn from humans.
>How did the Egyptians do it?
<With various tools and techniques. They were amazing masons!
I mean… lol? Nobody, NOBODY, in the world, has explained how you can build the pyramid using tools we think were available to the egyptians. People have come up with theories how some things were done, but no one has come up with a coherent theory that explains it.

By the way, "Egyptians" made a mistake, the base of the pyramid is not perfectly square. Apparently the west side is 14.4cm longer than the east side. The base is 230.33m. That's an 0.06% margin of error! Copper chisels and wooden wedges!

Finding a discrepancy between only two sides, implies the other two are exactly the same. I guess they just got lucky with the chiseling, and fitting and rope pulling.

>>16762
>And, before you ask, yes, this scales up to larger rocks when you use more plugs.
Don't worry, I don't have to ask, I understand how physical forces work.
>The Ancient Egyptians knew how to do this. It's not that complicated to jam a line of wedges into something and hammer at the wedges, no hyperborean help needed!
No, it is not. Now do that 2.300.000 times, make them all fit together in an even pyramid, with even slopes, maintaining ratios and dimensions for hundreds of meters (up, down, and around). I say down, because there are chambers and tunnels under the pyramid. Then look at hallways inside and how the slopes of the hallways go evenly (same angle) all the way up hundreds of meters.

You've explained how they split a rock and… that's it? Tht is enough for you? Really? Case closed? Mystery solved? "If they can split a rock, they can make laser-precise measurements and build perfect slopes into granite rock!"

It's like someone asks you how do you make a soufflé. Instead of detailing the whole process/recipe, you grab an egg, break it and say "See? It's easy, that is how you open an egg." expecting the other person to be satisfied with the answer.

>I think you underestimate the thinking power of ancient humans if you think they must've had a more advanced civilization show them the ropes.
If I think the "lost" civilisation are humans, then I am not underestimating the thinking power of ancient humans, am I? If anything, I'm saying humans are smarter because it didn't take us 300.000 years to figure it out, we did it earlier, it's just that the flood/cataclysm about 12.800 years ago fucked us over.

>>16766
Why do you need to have 'special knowledge'? Is this an ego thing for you where you need to be smarter than everyone else?

>>16763
>Many such cases.
I actually think humans were smarter/more advanced than that, because I think we tried our hand at civilisation earlier than archeologists say. It is all you who say it took us 300.000 years to figure out how to plant seeds. I'm saying we could have had a thriving civilisation long before the ancient Egyptians.
>Egyptians had thousands of years of traditions to perfect stone cutting methods.
>thousands
You some kind of schizo wacko?! Did you even look at the official egyptologist timeline of egypt?
>masonry: c. 3400 BCE
>pyramid of giza: c. 2570 BCE
<3400 - 2570 = thousands 🤡
You fucking clown. Now tell me how 830 years is actually enough to perfect masonry, when five minutes ago you thought it took "thousands".

I find it funny how anons are defending archeology and egyptology, yet I am the one who has to keep correcting them and reminding them of the mainstream view.

It's a shame how much of history has been lost, because some people are compelled to fill gaps in our knowledge with mythology.

>>16767
>Why do you need to have 'special knowledge'?
What are you talking about? Where have I said I have special knowledge? I have touched upon the theory of knowledge in regards to this topic, but it was to say how I don't agree with the theory of "socially-constructed knowledge" because I don't think the number of people "knowing" something makes a difference on the veracity of the claim. If something is "mainstream" that doesn't mean it is automatically true.
>Is this an ego thing for you where you need to be smarter than everyone else?
Is this an ego thing for you where you take differences of opinions and possibility of being wrong as an insult to your intelligence and an affront to your manhood?

I'd be fine with conclusive evidence ancient Egyptians built the pyramids, or us scouring every millimeter of planet Earth to find evidence of a "lost" civilisation but finding none. I am happy to accept whatever the "truth" may be, I have no vested interest in the lost civilisation or the egyptians. I just think the topic is interesting and I want to learn more. I don't know about every book, journal, documentary in existence, asking on an internet message board one "recruits" help from anons. Then we all find shit and share with each other and if not our knowledge, then catalog of information and information sources grows. That's the idea anyway…

>>16769
As opposed to egyptologists, who fill the gaps with facts and logic? Like the 4.6m long, ancient Egyptian, copper SUPERSAW.

History is full of gaps, and we have to fill them in.

It's interesting though, not a single hieroglyph about the construction of the largest pyramid in the world. I guess they forgot, meant to do it and in 27 years just didn't have time to. It was important however to draw 100 versions of the same scene of the Nile. That they had time for; "we live next to a river, everyone in the future must know!"

>>16771
Our artists don't know how computers or cars work either, do you expect them to leave behind instructions?

>>16771
>It was important however to draw 100 versions of the same scene of the Nile. That they had time for; "we live next to a river, everyone in the future must know!"
This mfer really thinks that a society that revolves around a river only has 1 thing to say about it.
Bitch you get dumber with every post.

>>16768
It says 'mortar' as in brick cement, not masonry itself, idiot

>>16764
>Right, and tactics are not developed in a vacuum,
In the north you had nomadic hunting clans that were constantly skirmishing with each other as they didn't settle exactly in the same spot thus constantly bumped up against each other. This made them better at scouting, logistics, and skirmish warfare then the Aztecs.
>Aztecs dominated all the little villages in their territory, they didn't need advanced tactics,
You seem to forget the Tarascan Empire, that the Aztecs couldn't even make a dent in. This is what really prevented the Aztecs from advancing in military thought as they just shrugged and continued doing what they were doing to weaker targets instead of actually learning from their losses to Tarascan, this is what other empires did in Europe, Asia and the Middle East where bumping into peers (or superiors) would make them scramble to study the military sciences. This also meant when the Spanish came everyone hated the Aztecs Empire including the Aztecs.

>>16773
>ignores every post in the thread
>makes some river quip as a gotcha
You contribute nothing. Not just here, but overall in your life. Must suck to be useless.
>>16774
Even if it is the 4th millenium BCE, that's still only about 1500 years to go from holes in the ground to building Giza. But you know what, I'll give you that one: Egyptians spent thousands of years learning how to shape stone. I see that now and I agree.

My question is, how come the pyramids that came after Giza are worse and do not show the same skill or precision?

>>16775
We are agreeing, I'm pretty sure. N. American indigenous tribes were good at fighting cause that's what they did a lot, against adversaries on the same technological level. That's why they could defeat the Vikings. Aztecs focused on subjugating the undeveloped villages within their empire, extracting resources from them, rather than fighting against peer empires around it and learning tactics, therefore they could not adapt to the Spanish invasion.

>>16728
exactly, outdated research. a simple wooden lever can lift many tons. the giza pyramid did have more hieroglyphs, like the ones posted in your other thread. also, we do have documents about pyramid building like the diary of merer. just so happens most of the documents got destroyed by time, unbelievable since it's only been several thousand years.

for all out differences Im glad we can come together as a board to tell the hancockanon thats hes fucking stupid

>economist, scientist, policy makers and historians lied about everything about from wars, economics, politicians, history, genocides, communism, capitalism, education goes on and on

But they told us the truth about a western centric world view of anthropology. Do not question it. They only lie about everything else not this

>>16764
>Aztecs focused on subjugating the undeveloped villages within their empire, extracting resources from them, rather than fighting against peer empires around it and learning tactics, therefore they could not adapt to the Spanish invasion.
More they refused to adapt as long before they got crushed by the superior arches of the Tarascan Empire. The Tarascan Empire did decide to just be a vassal state to Spain as they didn't think the Spanish Conquistadors were barbaric idiots that would try to genocide a civilization that was giving them everything they asked for, where the Tarascan vassal state had to get the Catholic Church to step in on their behalf and tell the Spanish to chill and stop slaughtering them for no reason.

>>16766
>Now do that 2.300.000 times, make them all fit together in an even pyramid, with even slopes, maintaining ratios and dimensions for hundreds of meters (up, down, and around). I say down, because there are chambers and tunnels under the pyramid. Then look at hallways inside and how the slopes of the hallways go evenly (same angle) all the way up hundreds of meters.
It took them fucking decades to make these pyramids anon. If a block can be carved out and moved in a lesser time frame, that exact same process is then multiplied the necessary number of times by different work crews until the process is done.

"Muh 2,300,000 times" is irrelevant when you consider that they didn't build these pyramids in a short time frame.

Egyptians could do math and weren't fucking retards. I don't know why you seem to think math and measurement must've been invented by hyperboreans instead.

You could at least like, fucking google the shit you're trying to "disprove" before proving ur a dumbass in front of everyone.

>>16779
Schizo

>>16783
>main critique of 'main stream' anthropology and archeoogy is that it is simply bourgeoisie and 'le anglo'
<uncritically accepts the theories of a rich posh englishman who fucking championed the cause of 'Atlantis was real' and larked around the world searching for 'Ark the Covenant / Holy Grail ' for decades like he was a 1800's landed gentry '"'explorer'"' in the colonies
>believes in Ley Lines, a nonsense british-supremecy theory.
<probably a Haz-ite/Infracel
I know it is quite funny to wind-up HancockShizoAnon and watch him stick his fingers in his ears and get louder and louder but ATM the board is so dead and sow this is only a detriment to the front page.
At least sage your posts if you must get le epic dunks on the freak, it is the simpleist thing in the world, you do not even have to write it in to the form any longer..

>>16648
This is sincerely the most retarded thread I have ever read.

Graham Hancock has been so thoroughly disproven on almost all of his retarded points its hard to believe someone takes him seriously still.

You are the type of man to say the sky is green just because the Liberal bourgeoisie academia told you its blue.

and even this article STILL doesnt prove graham hancock, idk why you are taking a victory lap. His fundamental thesis is that there was a hype advanced civilization before the younger dryas period which was over 12,000 years ago, these ruins are dated far later than that.

Go buy his book and merch and listen to his show and fill his pockets with more money.

>>16777
>a simple wooden lever can lift many tons
Up to a height of 150m? Long fucking lever.
>the giza pyramid did have more hieroglyphs, like the ones posted in your other thread.
Only Khufu's name written in that chamber. But feel free to post them again. I looked for it, it seems I lost the archive link.
>also, we do have documents about pyramid building like the diary of merer.
Diary of merer was a bill of materials to be transported. For me it is not enough to read IFuckingLoveScience.com where it says they found the diary and it proves what they say it does. I'm going to need a bit more.

I don't actually believe it was necessarily a "lost" civilisation, it could have been Egyptians who built the Great Pyramid. I'd just like the egyptologists to make a better case for it. "Because we said so" is the worst reasoning.

>>16778
>we couldn't come up with good arguments
>but there's more of us so fuck him
I've been an outspoken communist all my life, being in the minority, arguing against a bunch of liberals who feel brave because they have other liberals around them. Huddling together is what prey animals do. Just an observation.

>>16782
>It took them fucking decades to make these pyramids anon.
27 years.
>The Great Pyramid of Giza[a] is the largest Egyptian pyramid and the tomb of Fourth Dynasty pharaoh Khufu. Built in the early 26th century BC during a period of around 27 years,[3] the pyramid is the oldest of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, and the only one to remain largely intact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza

For comparison, it took about 200 years to build the Pyramid of the Sun.
>The initial interpretation is supported: the dates reflect a cycle of cave creation through termination that began in the midfirst century and lasted about 200 years.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43460462
It is only half the height of the Giza pyramid, btw.
>The first construction stage, around 200 CE, brought the pyramid to nearly the size it is today. The second round of construction resulted in its completed size of 225 meters (738 feet) across and 75 meters (246 feet) high,[clarification needed] making it the third-largest pyramid in the world,[4] though still just over half the height of the Great Pyramid of Giza (146 metres). The second phase also saw the construction of an altar atop of the pyramid which has not survived into modern times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_the_Sun
And we can agree that lifting heavy objects higher is more difficult, yes? On account of the gravitational pull and resulting potential energy.

If you want to believe they built a taller pyramid, in 1/6th of the time 2500 years before, then go ahead. But that just seems ridiculous to me.

>Egyptians could do math and weren't fucking retards.
>math is magic that can lift rocks
They didn't have wheels or cranes, it was all pulled up a slope, apparently.

>You could at least like, fucking google the shit you're trying to "disprove" before proving ur a dumbass in front of everyone.
ditto!

>>16784
>At least sage your posts if you must get le epic dunks on the freak,
What epic dunks?
>hurr Egyptians could do math, they calculated the rocks into shape
>we call technological revolutions revolutions because compared to the human span, it is a blink of an eye
Epic dunks, really. As I said, I am agnostic on the topic, waiting for someone to post a good argument. So far it is all insults, with some attempts at factually wrong arguments. You automatically agree with every post against me uncritically, because John Oliver (or whoever your favourite liberal TV/youtube talking head is) told you to laugh at Hancock.

>>16785
>This is sincerely the most retarded thread I have ever read.
Really? Most retarded ever? More retarded than the o9a nazis, or the ancaps, or the thousands of marxism 101 questions by trolls? You libs always have to pretend like the thing you oppose in the moment is LITERALLY THE WORST THING EVER OMG AND YOU JUST DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN EVEN! Why? Doesn't make your position any stronger? It just shows you are on a rollercoaster of emotions and it makes one wonder if you base your decisions on emotions.

>Graham Hancock has been so thoroughly disproven on almost all of his retarded points its hard to believe someone takes him seriously still.
Ah yes! A classic lib tactic. Handwave something away and say it has been thoroughly debooonked before, therefore no need to even debate it.

>You are the type of man to say the sky is green just because the Liberal bourgeoisie academia told you its blue.
The sky isn't any colour, it just reflects and absorbs certain wavelengths of the visible light spectrum.

>and even this article STILL doesnt prove graham hancock, idk why you are taking a victory lap.
It was a slightly provocative OP to get people to respond. Worked on you, didn't it?

>His fundamental thesis is that there was a hype advanced civilization before the younger dryas period which was over 12,000 years ago, these ruins are dated far later than that.
We're basically pushing the timeline of what humans could do farther back in time. His thesis is that this "lost" civilisation, after the flood, went out and taught other people astronomy, construction, etc.

In the 90s I was taught in school that we lived in caves until about 7000 years ago, when we decided to start farming. But now it seems we weren't just cavemen, but had a lot of knowledge.

>Go buy his book and merch and listen to his show and fill his pockets with more money.
I haven't given a single penny to him. But thanks for your concern.

>>16786
didn't read+ you clearly have main character syndrome and I feel bad for anyone who knows irl lol

>>16785
>This is sincerely the most retarded thread I have ever read.
web.archive.org/web/20230326214826/https://leftypol.org/siberia/res/384126.html
It gives me no joy to link you this.
I am so sorry.

>>16787
I'm just responding to everyone, but doing it in one post.
>you like to discuss things on a discussion board?!
I'm just a fucking megalomaniac. Creating a thread for a topic I find interesting and want to talk about with anons…
pic related is you btw

>>16789
didnt read+ ur a pseud

>>16788
>web.archive.org/web/20230326214826/https://leftypol.org/siberia/res/384126.html
Nice! You found it. Thanks, anon. I mean, that thread is more of the same: anons screeching because people have different thoughts on shit that happened before the end of the last ice age.

>>16790
>sees his argument destroyed
>doesn't have a response
>d-didn't read you p-pseud!
But you came in here just to tell me you didn't read my post? You, you are smart guy, I can see that.

it's sad that indigenous americans came over the bering strait with horses and then lost them all. I think with the speed bonus provided by horses they would have developed their forces of production and actually been able to withstand the european onslaught or maybe even "discover" europe before europe "discovered" them

oh no it's another graham hancock thread. the last one got moved to /siberia/ for a reason

>>16793
>oh no it's another graham hancock thread. the last one got moved to /siberia/ for a reason
Yeah, the reason is that anons bitched and moaned, because the easiest thing is to have something removed.

Who is this Hancock fellow? I keep reading his name here. I know fuck-all about anthropology.

>>16651
great post. screenshotted for next time this guy comes around

>>16794
>wah i'm being censored what about my free market of ideas
stfu
>Who is this Hancock fellow?
a guy who exploits the fact that academia is a circle jerk and archeologists are sometimes proven wrong after digs reveal new evidence to push a ridiculous counterclaim of a lost global civilization that passed down tech to everyone everywhere

>>16791
>anons screeching because people have different thoughts on shit that happened before the end of the last ice age.

ah yes, we were definitely "screeching" and not politely telling you over and over again that real problems with contemporary academia do not prove correct or justify an absurd hypothesis.

>>16798
>found 2 posts out of 300
I am not saying holes in history substantiate his specific theory. I am saying that I do not believe the Egyptologists and point to Hancock's theory as a possible alternative. Feel free to posit something else. Call the "lost" civilisation a rallying cry of those who are disillusioned with "humanities" in academia. They exist to create the philosophical and "scientific" justification for as the philosophical arm of the dominant ideology (liberalism).

A good example is how neoliberals will brag that since 1991, 600 million people have been lifted out of poverty; slight implication being that they are responsible. But if you actually look at the data, you'll see clearly that most (if not all) of those people are in China.

>>16797
>a ridiculous counterclaim of a lost global civilization that passed down tech to everyone everywhere
almost as ridiculous as the Pyramid of Giza being built in 27 years in 2500 BCE, but it took the Mayans 2500 years later around 200 years to build a pyramid half the height of the Great Pyramid. Nothing suspicious here.

>>16798
Did you actually read the post, or did you just post whichever ones you found that have coherent sentences?
>they lived a sedentary lifestyle for a long time
And? Then they suddenly decided to build pyramids?
>then he lists all the technology used by some of the "ancients"
which is actually a decent argument. However, isn't it weird how these mechanisms and specific knowledge exist, but no evidence showing a cultural/scientific/craftsmanship base for these inventions and knowledge to arise. You have antikythera mechanism, but then everything else from the era looks roughly-made. If you have a workshop making stuff like the antikythera mechanism, then you'd have a bunch of them after a career of making them. Maybe it was passed down from the "lost" civ (lo-civ), and only a few survived. or the workshop did make a bunch, but only a few survived. both is equally likely, although the latter is more simple

But really, is simplicity in theories a sign it is a good theory, or has "simplicity" absolutely no bearing on whether a theory is more likely to be true, or not?

>>16800
>And? Then they suddenly decided to build pyramids?
Not only them, the Kush to the sound also built pyramids. In antiquity these were basically dick measuring contests for great powers, to show their neighbours they had the productive capacity to build such grand structures that did nothing more then mark where some dead king is buried.
>but no evidence showing a cultural/scientific/craftsmanship base for these inventions
What are you talking about? You talk like masonry and large scale construction didn't take place throughout antiquity.

>>16786
>Up to a height of 150m? Long fucking lever.
picrel(s)
>Only Khufu's name written in that chamber. But feel free to post them again. I looked for it, it seems I lost the archive link.
picrel(s). there were more tho. most got destroyed by looters and such, didn't help that early pyramids had much less decorum inside than later ones meaning few hieroglyphs to begin with. but they recently found some in the new secret chamber too, and hieroglyphs in the adjoining buildings are also relatively common. but pics are all from the inside.
>Diary of merer was a bill of materials to be transported. For me it is not enough to read IFuckingLoveScience.com where it says they found the diary and it proves what they say it does. I'm going to need a bit more.
you can read the text yourself, it talks about how the materials were transported via waterways and how much stone they quarried.

>>16801
The Kush sound like a dank civilization.

>>16654
;>)

>>16801
>In antiquity these were basically dick measuring contests for great powers, to show their neighbours they had the productive capacity to build such grand structures that did nothing more then mark where some dead king is buried.
Why spend all those resources building a grave, instead of building a palace? If you know pyramids are durable, why not build all your important buildings in a pyramid shape? And if it is Khufu's burial chamber, what's up with all those chambers and shafts? Seems very specific and since they're inside the sealed pyramid (some under the pyramid for some reason) they couldn't be seen from the outside. And if the chambers were to hold treasure for the pharaoh's afterlife, why take such care that the shafts and chambers are even and chiseled with precision?

>You talk like masonry and large scale construction didn't take place throughout antiquity.

True. But the Great Pyramid has some curious features. What puzzles me is the leap in quality of construction and precision. I keep repeating myself, but I am not satisfied with the explanation how it could have had been done.

Obviously, I know that gaps in our knowledge do not automatically mean that some other "crazy" theory is true. But the guarded nature of these disciplines and automatic rejection of any new ideas, paired with a very hierarchical and nepotistic nature of access to Egyptian sites and artifacts, does not instill confidence in them or what they are saying. Basically, Egyptologists act like they're hiding something. lol It'd be nice if they were more open to interdisciplinary cooperation.

You got me thinking though, and now I am as not as sure as I was earlier.

>>16805
forgot pics

>>16805
>Why spend all those resources building a grave, instead of building a palace?
They had large palaces but since capitals were also logistical hubs it put far less supply pressure doing such construction in the hinterland where your staging area is not blocking the flow of goods or the interfering with markets. Then you have the fact even planners back then could see it being a logistical headache if they put a pyramid in the centre of their logistical hub causing goods to be diverted around it to get to the other side of the capital.
>>16806
These took a long ass time to build so they would have been temples (their interior walls has religious texts) prior to completion. They would have been sealed more as a way to avoid having to keep a garrison defending the tomb from looters.

>>16791
didnt read + ur mad+ ur bad

>>16802
>pic rel
How do they then move the rock into place? How.do they align it? How do they lift them to the middle of the pyramid from the ramp at the edge? There's over a 100m from the edge to the center.
>picrel(s). there were more tho.
They're drawn with red paint. If they could chisel granite, why not chisel the name and inscriptions in?
>most got destroyed
Why would looters destroy graffiti? Why not destroy all of it, since you're at it?
>early pyramids had much less decorum inside than later ones meaning few hieroglyphs to begin with.
Sure. But Egyptians had been chiseling hieroglyphs into monuments and stones for hundreds of years before the supposed date of the Great Pyramid's construction. It seems strange that they wouldn't write something inside the chambers about the king for whom all that effort was expended.
>and hieroglyphs in the adjoining buildings are also relatively common.
True. But those buildings could have been built later. There's those other pyramids around the Great Pyramid, newer, but not as impressive as the GP.

Great Pyramid could have been built under the instruction of someone from the lost-civ some time after the end of the ice age, using advanced tools/techniques. They died or left, and then a while after comes Egyptians did their best to replicate the pyramids.

Giza wasn't a city, it was the burial ground for pharaohs. Why couldn't Khufu claim that one, and then they just continued building them.

The other.pyramids at Giza also bring up questions. I actually went looking for something to make me think the GP was built at a different time than the others, cause then it wouldn't make sense that they are a reflection of Orion's Belt.

But all it did is bring up more questions.
>first pic, Khafra, 2nd largest at Giza
The burial chamber isn't even in the pyramid. What's up with that?
>2nd pic, Menkaure
Same thing, chamber is below the pyramid.
>3rd pic
This is one of the wildest things I have seen from the pyramids. I was literally at the edge of thinking I was wrong and I started looking for evidence that would make me abandon this. But then I saw that… what the fuck? The pic is from Wikipedia, btw: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Menkaure
What kind of.copper or.stone tool can do that to stone? As a carpenter, I could be biased, but if that was a piece of wood, I'd say it was done with a sander. That's granite, by the way. Maybe I don't know enough about stone working, but that looks like quite a feat for 2500 BCE.

Then there's also:
>The pyramid's date of construction is unknown, because Menkaure's reign has not been accurately defined, but it was probably completed in the 26th century BC.
No evidence it was built for her, but they found (supposedly) her body in it.or next to it, so it must be hers.

>you can read the text yourself, it talks about how the materials were transported via waterways and how much stone they quarried.
I don't think it sounds that clear when I read an article on it. It seems a bit too good to be true. It is dated to the last year of Khufu's reign, when construction was finished. It is also the oldest papyrus ever found… And the guy reported to Khufu's brother, luckily we knew about him. I dunno, sounds a bit too convenient of an artifact. Or Egyptologists are extremely lucky. Just like the Egyptians with all their construction achievements lol

>>16807
Cause a palace is for 70 years if you're lucky, a tomb is forever.

Besides, Egyptians placed more importance on death than on life, seemingly. They spent a shitload of money on making sure they'd be pimping in the afterlife with slaves and so on.

>>16807
>These took a long ass time to build
27 years for the Great Pyramid, according to the official narrative. That's not very long. Took them 8 years to build the White House in the 18th century.

>>16807
>>16802
>>16801
Look at this. So this is the statue of Khafre, for whom the 2nd pyramid was supposedly built.
>The construction is made of anorthosite gneiss (related to diorite), a valuable, extremely hard, and dark stone brought 400 miles down the Nile River from royal quarries.
>extremely hard
It's harder than steel.
>pics related
How can copper and stone tools do that? I was actually hoping they tried for a decent explanation.
>In order to create this sculpture in-the-round, the sculptor used the subtractive method. He began with a cube-shaped stone block of diorite. First, the sculptor drew the front, back, and two profile views of Khafre on the four vertical faces of the stone.[3] After the sketched plans were made, the sculptor chiseled away the excess stone on all four sides until the plans came together, meeting at right angles. The last step was sculpting specific details of Khafre's body and face, carving the falcon god Horus, and other designs on the throne. The subtractive method allows the sculptor to create a block-like look for Khafre's ka statue, a standard for Egyptian sculpture during this time period. In addition to the subtractive method, abrasion, rubbing or grinding the surface was used to finish the product off. The diorite statue stands at a final height of five foot six.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khafre_Enthroned
>how did he do it?
>by removing stone until he got the shape
With what tools? A diamond cutter? A sand blaster? These are supposedly from the oldest dynasty/kingdom. They started out building statues like this, then just got worse as time went on. That makes no sense to me.

Not saying it was definitely a lost civilisation, but I'm gonna need a bit more, if I am going to believe that was made in 2500 BCE lol. If that was made today, people would be fucking impressed. I mean… just fucking think about it.

>>16810
>Egyptians placed more importance on death than on life, seemingly.
So say the Egyptologists, because it is a good explanation why they'd waste time and resources building them. If you look at it, two of them don't even have "burial chambers" inside, but under. Why even bother with the pyramid? Doesn't make sense.
>>16808
>didnt read
I know, Amerifat, I know.

>>16813
Call me crazy but I think the pyramid is more noticeable than just a hole in the ground.

>>16813
didnt read+ ur no one will ever respect ur opinion on anything here or irl lmao

>>16813
How are you suppose to be remembered through the annals of time if you are not buried under a giant ass pyramid bigger then the previous kings?

>>16812
If I say an explanation doesn't make sense, that's not because of a preconceived notion or belief. It doesn't make sense because it defies the physical laws of the universe lol.

Please find me a tool that was available to the 2-3. millennium BCE Egyptians that could shape this >>16811 Look at it lol. Yes, I am incredulous, I can't believe that people think that that could be made in 2500 BCE with copper chisels and stone hammers.

Again, please show me tools Egyptians had that could do that. It's not like I don't want to believe it, but I simply can't. Maybe it's cause I wasn't that interested in this stuff as a kid, I've never seen these statues, or looked into the pyramids in any detail, that I didn't hear their explanations when my mind was more receptive to knowledge from perceived/presented authority figures. But now you tell me granite was shaped in that way, with what they had at the time, and my mind rejects it. It's such a ridiculous notion. Just like these stones, try to imagine how they were shaped: >>16809

>>16817
Have you ever polished something with a cloth until it's smooth? Ok… Well the ancients could do that too.

>>16814
And if you don't want to get graverobbed, you build the tallest structure on Earth. No, wait, that doesn't make sense.
>>16816
>if you are not buried under a giant ass pyramid bigger then the previous kings?
This is what I mean by you "critics" not even knowing the basic facts. The largest pyramid, Khufu's, was built first. Followed by the 2nd largest, then the smallest one. Then the three little tiny ones.

That is what I mean they got worse at building them.

I feel like a few of you here might agree with me, if you actually bothered to read what Egyptologists say about these pyramids. Cause it is obvious a lot of you have your own ideas about the pyramids that do not agree with the official narrative

>>16818
The rock the statue is made of has a hardness that is greater than that of steel. How do you get the surface so even, and the lines so perfect?

I reported this thread. Did you, anons?
Be the change you want to see on the board.

>>16821
>Mods, help! the liberal ideology is under attack!
I think you're on the wrong site.

>>16819
>This is what I mean by you "critics" not even knowing the basic facts,
The basic facts are that pyramids started as mastabas with the simple idea of making them more visible from afar, this evolution happened way before Khufu.
Next when you get to the great pyramids the diminished returns for living rulers came clear thus they evolved to be built cheaper and faster.

>>16811
> How can copper and stone tools do that?
Sand. Abrasion. Stop this bullshit right now.

>>16822
<noo you have o entertain my autistic fixation on fucking graham hancock of all people or you are….. 'le wrong side!'

How about fucking no and go find some friends to talk about your retard-tier hobby with and peacock your autistic argumentative tendencies at. This isn't your facebook page.

>>16823
>The basic facts are that pyramids started as mastabas with the simple idea of making them more visible from afar, this evolution happened way before Khufu.
Thanks for proving my point.
>Even after pharaohs began to construct pyramids for their tombs in the 3rd Dynasty, members of the nobility continued to be buried in mastaba tombs. This is especially evident on the Giza Plateau, where at least 150 mastaba tombs have been constructed alongside the pyramids.[15]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastaba
>the diminished returns for living rulers came clear thus they evolved to be built cheaper
That other anon thought it was the reverse, that every subsequent pyramid was bigger, I was simply pointing it out.
>and faster.
Well, we don't know that, because we don't actually know for sure how long it took to build them. They say it took 27 years to build the Great Pyramid, because that is how long Khufu's reign was. Look a bit deeper into it, you'll see all these explanations rest on the assumption that it was a burial chamber for a pharaoh.

>>16825
>I have nothing better to do than to tell people I think they suck!
Find a hobby.

>mods have anchored the thread
Outrageous! I bet Zahi Hawass is behind this!

I ask about tools and construction methods, anons focus on pharaohs, fucking Great Man history bullshit. Learn Marxism, abandon liberalism!

The Marxist view of history

As Engels explained in his speech at Marx’s graveside:

>“Just as Darwin discovered the law of development of organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history: the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc.”

History cannot be simply boiled down to the development of ideas, or the deeds of great men. What is ultimately decisive are economic factors – the production and reproduction of real life.

This was a revolutionary idea that had yet to be introduced to archaeology in the early 20th century. When Childe was studying history, the study of the development of material culture, such as tools for example, was seen as secondary to the really important things: the palaces of kings, seats of government, cities from Roman and Greek poetry, and the like.

The story of tools

Childe agreed with Marx and Engels that first and foremost, it was the labour process that set humans aside from animals. We need tools to do many of the things that animals can do naturally, with their claws and our teeth. But using tools instead gives us a number of advantages.

Firstly, it is the reason why humans, unlike any other creature, are able to adapt themselves and live anywhere, from the hottest desert to the Arctic circle.

Secondly, and most importantly, by improving those tools, through improving our social knowledge and technique, human society can develop much faster than it could through purely biological evolution.

In other words, we move from the realm of biological evolution, to the realm of social evolution.

“In the course of the long time over which archaeologists can follow the story of tools,” Childe wrote in a pamphlet in 1944, “men have changed not only their tools but also the whole way in which they got their living (their economy), and consequently the way in which society was organised for cooperation.”

https://www.marxist.com/the-ideas-of-v-gordon-childe-in-defence-of-historical-materialism.htm

>>16829
>Childe agreed with Marx and Engels that first and foremost, it was the labour process that set humans aside from animals.
Checkmate gaytheists.

>>16826
>That other anon thought it was the reverse, that every subsequent pyramid was bigger, I was simply pointing it out.
Yet you do have an evolution of them getting to the size great pyramids, followed by them getting smaller.
>Well, we don't know that, because we don't actually know for sure how long it took to build them.
We see this by rulers with short reigns like Merenre having their small pyramid completed in time.

>>16828
>haha get fucked commie! liberals rule, you drool!
This is what happens when you recruit mods from reddit. This thread breaks no rules. Anons are just mad they don't have any arguments.

Imagine being so triggered by a thread, you come into it several times, write insults and nonsense, while shaking probably, then spam the report button while switching IPs until the mods give in.

Pathetic.

>>16831
>Yet you do have an evolution of them getting to the size great pyramids, followed by them getting smaller.

>We see this by rulers with short reigns like Merenre having their small pyramid completed in time.
That made sense at first, but think about it: how did they know he was going to live shorter making them start building a smaller pyramid? Also, at first you said that we see their evolution as going from small to large, then to small again, but now you say that it is about the length of the ruler's reign/life.

>>16833
No, I meant that the fact Merenre pyramid was completed in time means the smaller pyramid did not take a quarter century to built like the great pyramids. Of course they didn't know when they will die but a reason for rulers not wanting to go for great pyramid would be construction time, cost and with the great pyramids already exist yours won't stand out anyway due to how much larger you'd need to make yours to be noticeable at that scale.

>>16834
>I meant that the fact Merenre pyramid was completed in time
Anon, that is not a fact. They don't actually know how old the pyramids are, or how long it took to construct them. They determine its age according to which pharaoh or queen they think was buried there. They estimate construction time based on the reign of the pharaoh.
>rulers not wanting to go for great pyramid would be construction time, cost and with the great pyramids already exist yours won't stand out anyway due to how much larger you'd need to make yours to be noticeable at that scale.
Look at the official chronology of the pyramids
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Egyptian_pyramids
Does that look like any sort of "evolution" of pyramid-building techniques? Because it looks random to me.

>>16835
>They estimate construction time based on the reign of the pharaoh.
Yes and we have pyramids completed in time, for example Tutankhamun that had the body and treasure room even though he died young. Also of course the smaller pyramids didn't take as long to build, it is like you are unsure if a skyscraper takes longer to construct then a suburban house.
>Look at the official chronology of the pyramids
There are 135 known pyramids in Egypt so that list is kinda small. But even with Wiki's short lift of pyramids we can see a drop off after Khrafe, we also see a jump from Djoser.

>>16836
>Yes and we have pyramids completed in time, for example Tutankhamun that had the body and treasure room even though he died young.
Tutankhamun wasn't buried in a pyramid, he was buried in a tomb, in the Valley of Kings.
>Also of course the smaller pyramids didn't take as long to build, it is like you are unsure if a skyscraper takes longer to construct then a suburban house.
Sure, but not when it comes to pyramids. Pyramid of the Sun in Peru took 200 years to build, from 0 to 200 CE, and it reached half the height of the Great Pyramid, that was constructed 2500 years earlier in a period of 27 years.
>>Look at the official chronology of the pyramids
>There are 135 known pyramids in Egypt so that list is kinda small. But even with Wiki's short lift of pyramids we can see a drop off after Khrafe, we also see a jump from Djoser.
You're seeing what you want to see. Fact is, we don't know when they were built, so the chronology is just guesswork based on who they think the pyramid is for.

>>16809
>Great Pyramid could have been built under the instruction of someone from the lost-civ some time after the end of the ice age, using advanced tools/techniques. They died or left, and then a while after comes Egyptians did their best to replicate the pyramids.
This is the sort of wild speculation that requires hard evidence to have any basis. Why the fuck hasn't the burden of proof been on you this whole time? Literally what evidence do you have besides some retard's book and "muh aliens/pre-civ must've made the pyramids" meme?

>>16838
Why isn't the burden of proof on the Egyptologists making these claims?
>Some research suggests other estimates to the accepted workforce size. For instance, physicist Kurt Mendelssohn calculated that the workforce may have been 50,000 men at most, while Ludwig Borchardt and Louis Croon placed the number at 36,000.[citation needed] According to Miroslav Verner, a workforce of no more than 30,000 was needed in the Great Pyramid's construction.[citation needed] Evidence suggests that around 5,000 were permanent workers on salaries with the balance working three- or four-month shifts in lieu of taxes while receiving subsistence "wages" of ten loaves of bread and a jug of beer per day.[citation needed] Zahi Hawass believes that the majority of workers may have been volunteers.
>Zahi Hawass believes that the majority of workers may have been volunteers.
>Zahi Hawass believes that the majority of workers may have been volunteers.
That's the kind of shit Egyptologists write. He's the head egyptologist in Egypt, btw, in charge of the Giza pyramids, and other sites. He denies access to the sites unless you agree with him.
>Zahi Abass Hawass (Arabic: زاهي حواس; born May 28, 1947) is an Egyptian archaeologist, Egyptologist, and former Minister of State for Antiquities Affairs, serving twice

>In 2002 Hawass was appointed as the Secretary General of the Supreme Council of Antiquities. When US President Barack Obama visited Cairo in June 2009, Hawass gave him personal tours of ancient Egyptian archaeological sites.[11] Facing mandatory retirement, he was promoted by President Hosni Mubarak to the post of Vice Minister of Culture at the end of 2009.[12][13]

>Hawass was Inspector of Antiquities for Giza 1972–74, First Inspector until 1979 and Chief Inspector in 1980.

>Starting in 1987 he held the position of "Director General of the Giza monuments", which includes the sites of Giza, Saqqara, Memphis, Dahshur, Abusir and Bahariya Oasis.

>>16839
>instantly moves the goal posts to Egyptology instead of the existence of a more advanced pre-civilization
LMAO! Do you think that the Atlanteans giving everyone power tools to make the pyramids (and then deleting them perfectly so as to not show up anywhere in human record) are some kind of default position that Egyptologists have to disprove?

Give me proof of these advanced tools/knowledge/books, hard evidence, I want to see a power tool from the ice age.

>>16839
>He denies access to the sites unless you agree with him.
Yeah I'm sure he doesn't let psuedointellectuals without degrees dork around destroying historic artifacts.

>>16841
Also basically all of the Egyptologists who disagree with Zahi are not disagreeing with him on le epic Hyperborea/Atlantis pre civilization power tools aliens made the pyramids or whatever retard shit your pushing but instead disagree on more mundane things like 'Exact cause of death for King Tut' or 'Do ancient egyptians have Bantu genes'.

>>16837
>Tutankhamun wasn't buried in a pyramid, he was buried in a tomb, in the Valley of Kings.
You are not seeing the evolution of masaba to pyramids. Also I did also point out Merenre,
>Sure, but not when it comes to pyramids. Pyramid of the Sun in Peru took 200 years to build, from 0 to 200 CE, and it reached half the height of the Great Pyramid, that was constructed 2500 years earlier in a period of 27 years.
Different means of production, Dynastic Egypt was more advanced then the Aztecs. Egypt had mass trade routes and diplomatic relations with the rest of the bronze world around them, while the Aztecs pissed their more technological advanced neighbour Tarascan to the point the Tarascan closed the border and became isolationist to the point they didn't know the Spanish overthrew the Aztecs till the Spanish was on their border. So I can see how Egypt progressed much faster then the Aztecs.

Also any engineer will tell you that the higher you build the more planning and construction is required.
>You're seeing what you want to see.
We start at 2670 BC with 62 meters from there we go up to 104 meters, then 91.65 meters and our peak at 146.7 meters

>>16843
>You are not seeing the evolution of masaba to pyramids
Are you even reading my posts? Masabas existed along side pyramids, they found over 150 masabas at Giza.
>Different means of production, Dynastic Egypt was more advanced then the Aztecs
Aztecs didn't build the Pyramid of the Sun, they found it hundreds of years after it was abandoned. I don't think much is known about the previous cultures that used it.

But that's not the craziest part. Do you know why they think/thought the pyramid of the sun was built in two periods? Because they found artifacts from two different cultures underneath it. So no evidence on the pyramid itself, just stuff around it.
>In 1959, archaeologist Rene Millon and his team of researchers were some of the first groups of archaeologists to study the tunnel system underneath the Pyramid of the Sun. While some of these tunnels were made after the fall of Teotihuacan and the Aztecs, they eventually connected to tunnels and caves that were made during the periods of these civilizations. The investigations led by Millon revealed that most of the main tunnels were sealed off, and whether this was purposeful or not is up to interpretation. The tunnels underneath the pyramid gleaned pieces of pottery, hearths, and other meticulously made artifacts from other cultures that showed evidence elsewhere in Teotihuacan. Millon and his team ultimately concluded from their research and excavation efforts that the pyramid was either built continuously over various periods of time by the people in Teotihuacan, or that the entire pyramid was built during one period of time with its foundation and cave system being made separately in an earlier period of time. The splitting of the time periods is due to different cultures having expressive influence in the artifacts found in the tunnels underneath the pyramid. Millon and his team believe that the early depictions of the pyramids in Teotihuacan being built by slaves is wrong due to the craftsmanship of the pyramid itself as well as the popularity of Teotihuacan amongst its peoples. The people who built these pyramids had the motivation to do so, whether they immigrated from elsewhere in Mesoamerica or not.[7]

>“Since skeletal remains and charcoal are absent in the cave, owing to ancient vandalism, it is impossible to date the earliest use of the place for ritual purposes or for rites of passage. The ceramics and discs could have been placed here centuries after the conversion of the natural tunnel into a shrine. In view of the position of the pyramid over the grotto, it would seem that the cave was the focal point and not an accidental coincidence, and that it may have determined the site for the construction of a primitive place of worship and then for the pyramid.”.[9]

Oh no, another pyramid we can't accurately date.

>Also any engineer will tell you that the higher you build the more planning and construction is required.
That's literally what I wrote higher up in the thread when comparing GP and PotS, the former is twice as tall, but took 1/6 of the time to build.
>We start at 2670 BC with 62 meters from there we go up to 104 meters, then 91.65 meters and our peak at 146.7 meters
Yes, and after the peak they go to 60m and then up to 136m. But it's not just about the height, also the shape. They built step pyramids first, then smooth, then step, then smooth, often in the same dynasty.

>>16844
>Are you even reading my posts? Masabas existed along side pyramids, they found over 150 masabas at Giza.
Right but we find coffers in both and masabas are older thus the current theory of pyramids coming about by trying to make masabas more noticeable because you had offerings at both.
>Oh no, another pyramid we can't accurately date.
We could but politics around pyramids prevent any serious agnostic expedition. We have few samples for radiological dating and the Egypt goverment still has tons of red tape on using ground-penetrating radar to make accurate maps of the pyramids.
>That's literally what I wrote higher up in the thread when comparing GP and PotS, the former is twice as tall, but took 1/6 of the time to build.
Right but we are talking about Egypt and why their size of pyramid changed.
>Yes, and after the peak they go to 60m and then up to 136m.
Keep going, your down to 65 and stays below 80 meters.
>But it's not just about the height, also the shape. They built step pyramids first, then smooth, then step, then smooth, often in the same dynasty.
And? We have built skyscrapers with different building materials in the same year, I don't see why this matters over what the pyramids are.

Both The Guardian and Deutsche Welle have deboonked Hancock.

>>16846
Lib media trying to suppress people who challenge the lies of booj science.

>>16847
The monolithic ancient civilization theory is anti-material and anti-dialectical. It is basically a separate great civilization creating recorded human civilization rather then human civilization evolving and like in a nature we find similarities in separate species/civilization.

>>16845
>Right but we find coffers in both
Why couldn't they place the coffers in them later? If I see two cars parked together, should I assume they were made together and the same time?
>and masabas are older thus the current theory of pyramids coming about by trying to make masabas more noticeable because you had offerings at both.
Just because it is older, doesn't mean that one evolved from the other. Similarity does not necessarily mean there's a genetic connection. I mean, Hancock says that about the pyramids in S. America, Egypt and SE Asia, they are similar, therefore they must have the same source?

However, it seems that some pyramids were mistaken for mastabas.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/S_9_(Abydos)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/S_10_(Abydos)
But that begs the question, how did they go from mastabas to 120m pyramids in a relatively short time?
>We could but politics around pyramids prevent any serious agnostic expedition.
Exactly. That makes me distrust them. If they were confident in their findings, they'd allow whomever to check it out.
>the Egypt goverment still has tons of red tape on using ground-penetrating radar to make accurate maps of the pyramids.
Yup. Throws the whole "we don't give them access because we're protecting artifacts" argument out the window, as ground-penetrating radar would not damage anything. What are they worried people might discover?
>Right but we are talking about Egypt and why their size of pyramid changed
Sure, I was just trying to put it into perspective. Because some anons think 27 years is a long time to build a pyramid, I think it sounds kind of short.
>Keep going, your down to 65 and stays below 80 meters.
It peaks in the 4th dynasty, then they get significantly smaller and markedly less impressive. We can't date rocks, and finding stuff inside/outside the pyramid doesn't really convince me, because all of that stuff could have come later.
>We have built skyscrapers with different building materials in the same year, I don't see why this matters over what the pyramids are.
Yes, because we have formulas, and computers, engineering knowledge, so we can easily change shape, size, material, etc.

Egyptians would have had to do a whole new set of calculations, slope, block size, position, for every pyramid type. What is strange that after building the first, successful one, they change their construction style. Yet all the big ones at Giza are the same type/style and the three small ones are the same style. Not saying it proves or disproves anything, it's just puzzling, and I'd like a better explanation than "that's just what they wanted to do".

>>16847
>I hate the Guardian and DW
>fucking capitalist media, justifying imperialism and manufacturing consent
>they hate Hancock? wtf, I love the Guardian and DW now!
Let me guess, we can trust them on Hancock, but not on anything else, like politics, economics, world news, geopolitical analysis, history? Got it.

>>16848
>The monolithic ancient civilization theory is anti-material and anti-dialectical.
Buzzwords, I've already addressed that. Theory of lost civilisation is a great example of application of Historical Materialism and Marxist analysis. Hancock (and others) say "well, if Egyptians built them, where are the tools? where is the material evidence of its construction, not its use. Basically, where are the means of production for pyramids?

Saying "pharaoh wanted it so he got it" is a lazy explanation.
>It is basically a separate great civilization creating recorded human civilization rather then human civilization evolving and like in a nature we find similarities in separate species/civilization.
>liberals in crisis
>quick, invoke fascism!
No, you racist, it is not a "separate species/civilisation". Just like all the different cultures and civilisations that developed separately are all human, not different species. Variation within a species can happen.

In nature we find variation within a species and we consider them the same species, even if they evolved separately at some point.

But, species are just a taxonomical category. This is really the purpose of the thread, to stop people from thinking that scientific construct can affect reality or that a construct, just because it is accepted by the majority, can be taken as the complete, sufficient and identical representation of reality.

You see, liberals think that describing something means that they understand it. If we only analyse every part of a thing, we shall know everything about the complete thing. That's not how it works, Marxism looks at how things interact, because everything is constantly in motion. You cannot pluck an ant from a colony and expect to learn about the colony.

That is why liberals have separate disciplines for every little thing, then those disciplines are further subdivided. Marxists look at the whole, because only that way can you understand what is really going on. Hence why I call egyptologists liberals, because they think they can learn everything they need using a little shovel, brush and magnifying glass, without any interdisciplinary help.
>interdisciplinary
Liberals are something else. They take "natural philosophy" (old-timey science, combining philosophy, math, chemistry, biology, physics, whatever the person wanted), separate it into all these atomised units, then jerk themselves off when they come up with "interdisciplinary" studies.

>>16851
didnt read+ ur dumb

>>16852
>didnt read
I know, because you can't.

>>16850
>Let me guess, we can trust them on Hancock, but not on anything else, like politics, economics, world news, geopolitical analysis, history? Got it.
The solution to media having a bias that does not match your own is to imply critical thinking, not simply discard it all out of hand and pretend that the borgeosie are all in on some secret plot together.
This mentality goes to show why so many of you come across as uneducated mongoloids, even for burger standards..

Attached a book you might like though.

>>16853
didnt read+ i can tell your a smelly guy from ur typing style stinkyboy

>>16849
>Why couldn't they place the coffers in them later?
Coffers are the big stone boxes the sarcophagus go into. In the tomb for what is believed to be Khufu’s mother we have a empty coffer with an enact treasure room, it is unlikely looters wasted their time robbing the coffer before going for the easier to loot and sell treasure in the same room, pointing to the hypothesis that she simply wasn't buried there due to change of funeral plans. Yet there was a coffer there next to what we think is her stuff.
>But that begs the question, how did they go from mastabas to 120m pyramids in a relatively short time?
We don't know how long it took to evolve.
>Yup. Throws the whole "we don't give them access because we're protecting artifacts" argument out the window, as ground-penetrating radar would not damage anything. What are they worried people might discover?
Well some were done, that how we know of the cavity (big void) in the great pyramid. The problem is that the pyramids are treated like tourist traps by the Egypt goverment. I think they are afraid science will provide a narrative more mundane then their narrative along with stripping part of the mystery.
>It peaks in the 4th dynasty,
That would line up to the apex of the power of the royal family for antiquity.
>finding stuff inside/outside the pyramid doesn't really convince me,
Do you have a theory for their use other then a mastaba? Their interior layouts make what one could use them for limited, you have tight hallways with most having some kind of store room and tomb like chamber where natural light doesn't make it into these rooms.
>Egyptians would have had to do a whole new set of calculations, slope, block size, position, for every pyramid type. What is strange that after building the first, successful one, they change their construction style.
But the smaller pyramids would have reduced cost and complexity, we don't know how the royal family viewed the success of the big pyramids compared to their costs.

>>16851
You've constructed an entirely false dichotomy in which you claim that some Egyptologists being wrong or some dating and construction technique evolution from thousands of years ago being slightly vague is evidence for Atlanteans/Hyperboreans magically giving the Ancient Egyptians a bunch of shit.

Have you considered that it's entirely possible that Egyptologists aren't fully aware of everything Pyramid related (None of us were alive back then after all!) AND Hancock is a fucking retard for believing in a hyper advanced pre-civilization with zero archeological evidence to support this?

Your arguments do not logically follow from one another. You are essentially saying: "X pyramid construction technique is not fully known as of present, therefore Atlantis pre-civilization technology".

>Hancock (and others) say "well, if Egyptians built them, where are the tools? where is the material evidence of its construction, not its use. Basically, where are the means of production for pyramids?
Hancock doesn't have any of the secret Atlantean knowledge codexes or fancy power tools that they supposedly gave to the Ancient Egyptians according to him either. His skepticism is just that, skepticism, not evidence of a completely bonkers alternative solution with even less evidence to support it (that is to say, zero evidence).

>>16856
>Well some were done, that how we know of the cavity (big void) in the great pyramid. The problem is that the pyramids are treated like tourist traps by the Egypt goverment. I think they are afraid science will provide a narrative more mundane then their narrative along with stripping part of the mystery.
I think this is the strongest argument against Pyramid Schizo anon's claim of a global liberal scientist conspiracy. If there really was evidence of a more advanced pre-civilization within the Pyramids, why wouldn't the Egyptian government come clean with it in order to rack up the BAJILLIONS OF TOURISM DOLLARS FROM TOURISTS WANTING TO SEE THE PRE-CIVILIZATION ATLANTIS/HYPERBOREA SHIT???

If such a fantastical narrative were known to be true it'd be such a cash cow that I find it hard to believe that money-loving liberals wouldn't milk the ever loving shit out of it.

>>16854
>Attached a book you might like though.
Thanks. You've posted it a lot of times, next time I'll definitely be ready. It is an oversight on my part that I wasn't prepared this time.
>>16856
>we have a empty coffer with an enact treasure room, it is unlikely looters wasted their time robbing the coffer before going for the easier to loot and sell treasure in the same room, pointing to the hypothesis that she simply wasn't buried there due to change of funeral plans. Yet there was a coffer there next to what we think is her stuff.
If the coffers are the same in the mastabas and the pyramids, then I'd have to concede that is very strong evidence. I went to look it up, and it brought up more questions.
>Do you have a theory for their use other then a mastaba?
There actually is one! Not me, or Hancock, but like certified academics.
>pic related, had to take a screenshot, cause the retarded website wanted me to register before downloading.
Apparently it wasn't even a burial chamber.
https://www.academia.edu/88375399/HAS_THE_ANCIENT_EGYPTIAN_MASTABA_BEEN_MISUNDERSTOOD
And that's from a "reputable" source, not some random blog.

Not only was it not a burial chamber, but it was non-evolutionary. you either 4-D chess baited me to this, or you had no idea yourself it was disputed

>I think they are afraid science will provide a narrative more mundane then their narrative along with stripping part of the mystery.
What can be more mundane than a tomb? This whole planet is a tomb, it's full of dead people.

>But the smaller pyramids would have reduced cost and complexity, we don't know how the royal family viewed the success of the big pyramids compared to their costs.
I went to look up what the "official" reason for the smaller pyramids was, then I stumbled on this:

>Osiris Shaft
The Osiris Shaft is a narrow burial-shaft leading to three levels for a tomb and below it a flooded area.[30] It was first mentioned by Selim Hassan.[28] A thorough excavation was conducted by a team led by Hawass in 1999.[31] It was opened to tourists in November 2017.[32]
>A thorough excavation was conducted by a team led by Hawass in 1999.
Of course it's a fucking tomb. lol To this guy, every hole is a tomb.

But get this: the reference link is dead and the article doesn't exist. The link is just: https://ancientneareast.org/ (a parked domain) and there's no archive link. Searching by title of the article, nothing comes up.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA calls it a SYMBOLIC TOMB !

So this asshole found a shaft, hole, chambers, whatever, without a dead.body and still called it a tomb. Then later they had to say its "symbolic". Who knows what was down there, or what these shafts are for.

Since they are flooded, that means they were dug before the sea rose to the current level, right? We just have to see how deep the shafts and tunnels go, then look up when the sea was below that level.

Ground-penetrating radar would help.

>>16859
Still no uncovered Atlantean power tools!

Dafuq do you think they're gonna find under the pyramids with radar, Atlantean time machines? Maybe that's what they used to hide all the evidence of them ever existing so that only schizos online know the real truth!

>>16859
Since we're using wikipedia as a source, let's check out the page for the man himself!
>Reviews of Hancock's interpretations of archaeological evidence and historic documents have identified them as a form of pseudoarchaeology[7][8] or pseudohistory[9][10] containing confirmation bias supporting preconceived conclusions by ignoring context, cherry picking, or misinterpreting evidence, and withholding critical countervailing data.[11][12] His writings have neither undergone scholarly peer review nor been published in academic journals.[13]

Kek! Global liberal scientist conspiracy to hide the truth of Atlantis strikes again!

>>16857
>You've constructed an entirely false dichotomy in which you claim that some Egyptologists being wrong or some dating and construction technique evolution from thousands of years ago being slightly vague is evidence for Atlanteans/Hyperboreans magically giving the Ancient Egyptians a bunch of shit.
hahaha I literally said the opposite.
>>16805
<Obviously, I know that gaps in our knowledge do not automatically mean that some other "crazy" theory is true.

It proves that the "official" narrative is unreliable.

>some Egyptologists
You point to their small number, but don't mention the power they have: those Egyptologists control access to every significant site, pyramid, tomb, and structure related to ancient Egypt. Hawass is the chief secretary for all history and archeology in Egypt. They allow access to those who are there to prove Hawass' hypothesis, and they limit what can be accessed.

There's thousands of artifacts from under the pyramid (these shafts I guess) that they locked away in some place. Thousands of artifacts and they send around and display the same shit. Apparently engineers, material scientists, etc. want to look at these. Because like the statue in >>16811 it is a fucking achievement to make them and people are curious to figure out how they were made.

>Have you considered that it's entirely possible that Egyptologists aren't fully aware of everything Pyramid related
I have. That's why it puzzles me that they don't allow tools like ground penetrating radar to be used or they don't recruit help from scientific disciplines. Nah, they just wait until they dig up the right scroll.

>You are essentially saying
Again, no.

I suggest you read the thread before making assumptions. If you don't want to, then don't waste both of our times: you arguing against something I haven't said, and me writing something that is already explained in the thread.

>>16861
>Since we're using wikipedia as a source,
…regarding the Egypt stuff. Because Wikipedia will write what is in the "mainstream science". Just how they write the mainstream view on communism, capitalism, Soviet Union, and so on. It is actually an excellent source for the topic at hand. Besides, I have been posting links to sources when necessary.

It's a stupid "gotcha", and you're not being clever at all.

>>16862
>It proves that the "official" narrative is unreliable.
Naturally the burden of proof is on disproving ice age Atlantis. That's why ice age pre civ is true even though Hancock can't pull up any hard evidence that isn't straight out of his asshole!

>You point to their small number, but don't mention the power they have
Oh shit anon! I didn't realize that the Egyptologists control the Egyptian government to hide the proof of Atlantis and the resulting tourism money that'd otherwise occur if Atlantis were revealed! This totally isn't paranoid conspiratorial thinking whatsoever, you are so rational anon! I respect your bravery to stand up to the global liberal egyptologist elite conspiracy!

I'm sure the Atlantean power tools are just hidden by the global conspiracy anyways anon. It's okay, you don't need evidence for any of that!

>>16863
>It is actually an excellent source for the topic at hand
It's also an excellent source for knowing that Graham Hancock is a retard!

>>16859
>Apparently it wasn't even a burial chamber.
The problem with them being a vault is they were less secure then palaces that had full time security. Due to them being remote it would be trivial for brigands to plot an ambush thus every time you want to depot or withdrawal something you'd need a large security detachment escorting you since you'd need to be protected while they clear the pyramid each time. Their interior layout are not designed with constant use in mind where you have stone fall plugs that seal hallway permanently so you can't get your shit back unless you are a looter and break in.

Then you have ancient Greek accounts that say the Egypt pyramids were all looted even in their time so they failed at their job of being vaults. The Greeks also viewed the Pyramids as tombs.

>>16858
>I think
Uh oh.
>a global liberal scientist conspiracy.
Umm. Hate to break it to you, but there is a global liberal conspiracy, it is called liberal capitalism. lol did you forget you weren't on reddit for a second?

It isn't a "conspiracy" in the sense that they are all meeting in castles and under the light of candles plan what narrative they are going to push on us. They simply act in their own economic interest. If you want to make a career in archaeology or Egyptology you have to be accepted, accepted into a PhD program, published, allowed to the sites, allowed to see artifacts and so on. You're not going to get accepted if they think you might use your position to argue against them. From their (established egyptologists, archeologists, directors and deans of these schools, etc) point of view, they are acting in their interest. They are protecting their "legacy" and their positions/jobs, if the theory you built your career on is wrong, then someone who presents a better theory will take your position.

Most of this stuff is easy to figure out if you allow yourself to think for a second, rather than have these knee-jerk reactions to certain words. Then you get so triggered, you can't even finish reading the sentence but have to immediately start writing an epic own. Your hands most likely literally shake.

>If there really was evidence of a more advanced pre-civilization within the Pyramids,
Nobody is saying that.
>why wouldn't the Egyptian government come clean with it in order to rack up
Yeah, why wouldn't the Egyptian government completely throw away pretty much everything they've built their national identity and culture on? Good question, anon. You should stop posting for a while so I have time to really think about it. It's gonna keep me up at night, I can tell.

>>16867
>Yeah, why wouldn't the Egyptian government completely throw away pretty much everything they've built their national identity and culture on? Good question, anon. You should stop posting for a while so I have time to really think about it. It's gonna keep me up at night, I can tell.
You know this would be exactly the opposite problem Hitler had with his archaeologists. Where Hitler was mad they were showing German ancestors were far behind the likes of Rome,Greek and Egypt. This would be Egypt having evidence their ancestors were Herrenmenschen that gave birth to human civilization (what Hitler wanted to portray ancient Germany as).

As a respite from Egyptology Schizo anon claiming that his doubts on the official narrative by the Global Liberal Egyptologist Elite proves Hancock, let's see how Hancock tries to defend his ice-age civilization against carbon-14 dating!
> At Tiahuanaco we have, on the one hand, a fairly unanimous academic opinion, based on 29 C-14 samples, pottery and other "contextual" indicators, that the site is "old, but not that old" - certainly less than 2000 years old as a monumental megalithic city.

>On the other hand we have the maverick opinion of Arthur Posnansky of the University of La Paz, Bolivia. He carried out extensive excavations at Tiahuanaco between 1900 and 1940 – before the introduction of carbon-dating and before modern restorations. He also made a careful study of the principal alignments of the site and, after applying the accepted astronomical formula for calculating regular slow changes in the earth's obliquity, he concluded that the very large megalithic corner-stones of the Kalasasaya enclosure were originally set up to mark the points of sunrise and sunset on the winter and summer solstices as far back as 17,000 years ago.
<"Uhm, acktualleh sweetie, these megaliths everyone else carbon dated to a different rate were made in the ice ages because muh solstices!"
>Meanwhile I see no reason to discount my gut feeling that Posnansky 's hands-on experiences and painstakingly-acquired knowledge of the site over a period of 40 years are worth a lot
<"Trust muh gut feeling over carbon dating!"
> (Insert question and answer sequence):
> Question: "…But when you look at a technique like carbon-dating it is precisely the blocks, the various structures at Tiahuanaco that are dated using the radiocarbon dating technique."
> Answer from Hancock: "Well, it beats me how a block can be dated using radiocarbon. If we look underneath the block and find organic material under the block then we can say that that block was placed on top of that organic material at a particular date - which does not preclude the possibility that the block has been moved around several times and that the temple we have at Tiahuanaco has been constructed and reconstructed again and again over thousands of years. This is perfectly possible and cannot be ruled out by the carbon-dating at all."
< "Uhm, but have we ruled out that people didn't randomly move all of the stones around at the carbon dated times and that it REALLY was made in the ice age???"
> (Hancock goes on to talk about big LGM meltwater floods and earthquakes)
> "With such a scenario in mind, and remembering that the site has also been repeatedly plundered and rearranged by human beings as well as by nature, I certainly am not prepared to give up its megaliths without a fight to the relatively recent dates within which archaeologists wish to enclose them. They may indeed all have been quarried and transported here less than 2000 years ago, as the archaeologists say, but it is also possible that they could belong to the older layer of civilisation in the Andes that is hinted at in so many of the region's ancient myths - myths that the scholars have never satisfactorily explained and that flatly contradict the C-14 picture."
<"Well, uhm, the ANCIENT MYTHS say there must've been a pre-civilization here! Carbon dating doesn't account for this, so the carbon dating isn't the real date for the stones!"

Dude unironically says muh Great LGM Flood shit means that all carbon dating wrong not unlike Young Earth Creationists coping when Carbon Dating proves them incorrect.

>(Goes on to quote the Bolivian guy who said the stones were supposed to be solstices in the ice ages)
>"…I think 12 or 21 metres down we have another Tiahuanaco, and it's the sacred Tiahuanaco, the original. I can't tell how old it is. It's a new chapter in the study of Tiahuanaco. We are going to open a new book"
<"I think"
<"I think"
<"I can't tell how old it is"
This is a very strong statement of absolute fact. I'm absolutely sure that further study will dispro-I mean PROVE that this was all ice age things re-arranged just so that every single fucking carbon dating of the site makes it LOOK like it doesn't align with the MYTHS that are clearly true.

Lol!

>>16869
From here: https://web.archive.org/web/20050408064757/http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/HancockG1-p1.htm

>>16864
>Naturally the burden of proof is on disproving ice age Atlantis.
You're the first person to mention Atlantis in this thread.
>That's why ice age pre civ is true even though Hancock can't pull up any hard evidence that isn't straight out of his asshole!
You're exhausting.

> didn't realize that the Egyptologists control the Egyptian government
>pic related
He's kind of a big deal.
>to hide the proof of Atlantis and the resulting tourism money that'd otherwise occur
I like how you say something in one post, then in the next you write as if what you said is a well-established fact. The state of you.

>This totally isn't paranoid conspiratorial thinking whatsoever, you are so rational anon! I respect your bravery to stand up to the global liberal egyptologist elite conspiracy!
You could have just looked up the guy and the state of Egyptology. You would have saved yourself the trouble and you wouldn't look so foolish right now.

>>16869
>I'm absolutely sure that further study will dispro-I mean PROVE that this was all ice age things re-arranged just so that every single fucking carbon dating of the site makes it LOOK like it doesn't align with the MYTHS that are clearly true.
I mean of course, according to Hancock himself we're not gonna find anything anyways because it's all been erased by the LGM floodwaters.
>"Cataclysmic breakdown of ice masses that had formed over the Andes before the last glacial maximum 17,000 years ago makes it plausible that gigantic meltwater floods would have devastated the vicinity of Tiahuanaco not just once but several times between 17,000 and 7000 years ago. If there had been any civilisation there during that period, the chances are that very little of it would have remained for archaeologists to pick over today - although big megalithic structures would have been more likely to survive in some sort of order than ordinary buildings and habitations."
So good luck on trying to prove yourself mr Hancock man! Sadly all of the megalith structures so far haven't been from an ice age giga civilization. I guess we just haven't found them yet, clearly!

>>16866
>The problem with them being a vault is they were less secure then palaces that had full time security.
It doesn't say "vault" it says deposit. Did you even read it?

It was a store for ritualistic herbs and stuff, like a long term offering, prepared herbs and oils and stuff. It was a store for things of low value, difficult to transport, etc. Certainly nothing brigands would lie in ambush for. lol

I mean, it'd be silly to put a vault with treasures out into the desert when you can just put them under your palace.

>Then you have ancient Greek accounts that say the Egypt pyramids were all looted even in their time so they failed at their job of being vaults.
Why do you keep saying vault?
>The Greeks also viewed the Pyramids as tombs.
You just said the pyramids were looted by the time Greeks showed up. So they just assumed they were tombs because they saw something that looks like a stone casket.

And you're telling me we're just going with the conclusion people in 1000BCE had after looking at the pyramids once? Thanks, now I believe it even less. Mentioning them as the source of the theory does not help your case at all.

>>16868
Anon your only argument for this braindead pre-civ ice age empire is that "muh liberal scientist conspiracy MUST be wrong!"

Here you go again saying that some random egyptologists having ins with the egyptian government and (insert vague "but how did they build the pyramids without xyz tools" here) must mean that a hyper advanced pre-civilization is correct with zero actual fucking evidence to back it up!

>>16868
>You know this would be exactly the opposite problem Hitler had with his archaeologists. Where Hitler was mad they were showing German ancestors were far behind the likes of Rome,Greek and Egypt. This would be Egypt having evidence their ancestors were Herrenmenschen that gave birth to human civilization (what Hitler wanted to portray ancient Germany as).
Except they wouldn't be their ancestors, dum dum. That's what this whole discussion is about. If it is an "ice age civilisation" who built the pyramids, then it wasn't the Egyptians.

I like that you're disagreeing, but please think for two seconds, don't just go with the first thought. Sometimes I edit my post many times before sending, sometimes rewrite it whole.

>>16874 (me)
Of course you will never be able to show the supposed evidence the Egyptian government & Egyptologists are hiding because it doesn't exist anyways.

This is why I call you a paranoid conspiratorial schizo.

>>16874 (still me)
Also sorry if the person I tagged meant their point as a jab on the Hancock-schizo anon but my point still stands

>>16869
I dare Hancock-anon to reply to this.

>>16872
>So good luck
Thanks.
>I guess we just haven't found them yet, clearly!
Haven't thought about it that way, but that makes sense. If you think about it further, sea levels have risen by about 200m since the last ice age, and since we know that humans like settling by the coast, it would be safe to assume that this civilisation would have been in a place that is now deep under water. If conclusive evidence were to be found anywhere, it'd be on the ocean floor. We have only explored about 1% of the ocean's surface, so who knows what we might find in the future.

>>16873
>It was a store for ritualistic herbs and stuff, like a long term offering, prepared herbs and oils and stuff. It was a store for things of low value, difficult to transport, etc. Certainly nothing brigands would lie in ambush for. lol
Where they went through great effort to seal them with stone plugs and brass pins in the coffers to prevent them from being reopened. We also see evidence and accounts of looters going to great length with with seemly deep understanding of layouts to rob them, with the looters tunnel of the Great Pyramid seemed more to be built to get something big out then to get in.

>>16876
>Of course you will never be able to show the supposed evidence the Egyptian government & Egyptologists are hiding because it doesn't exist anyways.
I'm not saying they are hiding a laser gun or a space ship. Just that they could be more transparent and cooperative and open to new ideas.

For example, there's geologists and historians saying that the Sphinx may be showing signs of erosion, meaning it is older than we think because to have erosion it would have to come from a time when Egypt had a tropical climate.
https://www.akhbarelyaom.com/en/27374/could-there-be-a-second-sphinx-buried-in-giza

Hawass is immediately dismissive.
>The former Minister of Antiquities, Zahi Hawass argued against claims that there was another sphinx which was destroyed in the past.

>Hawass spoke in an interview for the DMC Channel, recorded with the impressive Pyramids of Giza in the background. He said: “There is a rumor that has roamed foreign newspapers, as well as some Egyptian newspapers, that were spread by someone who claims to be a historian, and took the idea from an Italian historian, that there is another Sphinx, on the other side.”
https://egyptindependent.com/zahi-hawass-refutes-claims-of-another-sphinx/

One of the geologists who supported the theory is Robert Schoch, who had a PhD in geology and geophysics from Yale (you find that sort of thing impressive). And if he's saying it, then it maybe we should look into it.

When you actually look at the rocks behind the Sphinx, and the Sphinx itself, both show evidence of water erosion. You can see the canals in the smoothed rocks behind her, showing water flow, with horizontal, parallel lines showing a dropping water level. You can also see the horizontal, parallel lines on the Sphinx, with the sharp edges at the thin parts of her face, both classic signs of water erosion. I've only lived by the coast my whole life, and when I look at the rocks and the Sphinx, they show clear signs of water erosion.

Pics of the Sphinx and rocks that are confirmed to be water eroded. Notice the canals, smoothed rocks and horizontal, parallel lines.

And regarding why Hawass doesn't want to accept it was another civilisation and reap tourism bux, he answers that himself:
>As for tourism in Egypt, he was hopeful, “there isn’t a single [ancient] civilization known to kids around the world except Egypt’s, we must use this to revive tourism in the country.”

>>16881
The idea of the Sphinx being older is not that conversational but most think it was repurposed to be the Sphinx built by Pre-Dynastic Egypt (and wasn't that much older) rather then built by another civilization. There wouldn't be a second Sphinx, as by the repurposed theory what we are seeing is a body built by Pre-Dynastic Egypt and a head from the 4th Dynasty.

>>16882
It's worth noting that the sphinx is carved out of bedrock rather than assembled by stacking stone (pic related - ignore the schizo parts, I couldn't find a scholarly diagram showing how the sphinx fits into its enclosure which was carved into the rock). Putting aside the adjacent temple made out of that stone, the sphinx itself (or a lion or whatever if it wasn't originally a sphinx) could have been carved by anybody with the ability to carve limestone (a soft stone). The sphinx being older isn't indicative of a more advanced culture, just history being wrong about something. Non homo sapiens might even be capable of carving the sphinx. It's really not that impressive. The temple made of the quarried stone speaks a lot more to necessary organization and labor capacity. But it also indicates an older date since it was sourced directly from the site unlike most dynastic era construction which was shipped in from elsewhere.

>>16878
>I dare Hancock-anon to reply to this.
OK. It's not a gotcha you think it is.
>>>1479105
>"Uhm, acktualleh sweetie, these megaliths everyone else carbon dated to a different rate were made in the ice ages because muh solstices!"
You cannot carbon date rock. lol You carbon date things which contain carbon, i.e. organic matter. So when they carbon date a megalithic site, they carbon date the organic stuff they find around the site, like wooden or bone tools, preserved burnt wood from a hearth, etc. Like he says here:
>based on 29 C-14 samples, pottery and other "contextual" indicators,
The word in the quotations is the key. Contextual, as in related but separate, like the word context. He puts it in quotes, because when writing that is how indicate you may not agree with the meaning but use it cause someone else does or that is the best word available, and sometimes it can indicate sarcasm, proper name, quote. In this context he is saying that he doesn't agree that they are related to the construction of the site, while obviously belonging to people who occupied the site, possibly long after the megalith was built.
>Trust muh gut feeling over carbon dating!
Oh no… You saw "carbon dating" and immediately thought "haha! science!" without knowing how it actually works. Classic liberal move

Carbon dating measures the decay of Carbon-14. It is called C-14 cause it has 6 protons and 8 neutrons, making it unstable, unlike the two stable forms of carbon, C-12 and C-13, which both have 6 protons, but 6 and 7 neutrons respectively. C-14 is radioactive on account of its instability, and will decay over time, shed the neutrons along with radiation. This decay is regular. An elements half-life (just like the video game) refers to the amount of time it takes for the number of C-14 molecules to be reduced by a half. For C-14 it is around 5.000 years iirc. Since we know the ratio at which C-14 appears in nature compared to C-13 and C-14 (can't remember what it is, something small), we can measure the current ratio of C-14 to C-12 and C-13 in an artifact, and by comparing it to the natural ratio infer irs age. As I said carbon occurs in organic matter. Rocks are not organic, they do not contain carbon, therefore you cannot carbon date them.
> "Uhm, but have we ruled out that people didn't randomly move all of the stones around at the carbon dated times and that it REALLY was made in the ice age???"
You shouldn't be this arrogantly confident when you don't understand the fundamentals of what you're talking about. They carbon date organic matter under' the rocks, and he's saying that the place the rock is, is not necessarily its final resting place. It is not a very good argument, I agree, but you should understand it. I'd have to look into how they choose the material and what they sample to completely dismiss it.

> (Hancock goes on to talk about big LGM meltwater floods and earthquakes)
Well yes, the flood could have shifted material, rocks, brought new material in, etc. Again, would have to look from where they take the samples to make up my mind about it.
>Dude unironically says muh Great LGM Flood shit means that all carbon dating wrong
You're poorly informed. The flood at the end of the last ice age (Younger Dryas) has been confirmed by geological evidence.

While there is still some debate, as more evidence is gathered, it seems to be pointing to a large, single-event flood, that changed the planet's landscape. The event must have been very traumatising for the people that survived, so no wonder it is in myths around the world. If you saw something like that, don't think you'd talk about anything else for the rest of your life.

Here's some links, but there's a bunch of information out there.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1207381109

https://medium.com/@humanoriginproject/did-the-younger-dryas-flood-shape-prehistoric-earth-e1d67d16a88c

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169555X20304426

http://biogeochemistry.org/biblio/Pelejero_et_al_99EPSL.pdf

https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/07/11/scientists-may-have-solved-huge-riddle-earths-climate-past-it-doesnt-bode-well-future/

http://maajournal.com/Issues/2019/Vol19-1/7_Jaye%2019(1).pdf

>This is a very strong statement of absolute fact. I'm absolutely sure that further study will dispro-I mean PROVE that this was all ice age things re-arranged just so that every single fucking carbon dating of the site makes it LOOK like it doesn't align with the MYTHS that are clearly true.
>doesn't know what carbon dating is
>doesn't know the flood at the end of the Younger Dryas has been corroborated by a lot of evidence
>confidence through the fucking roof

>>16882
The thing is, the Sphinx shows evidence of erosion, not just horizontal from being flooded, but vertical lines, that you get from rainfall erosion. Which means it had to have been built when Egypt had a tropical climate. That was over 13.000 years ago, before the flood at the end of the Younger Dryas. The cold, glacier melt water flowed into the oceans, changing the temperature suddenly and drastically, disrupting the warm ocean currents (and therefore air currents), changing the climate on a global scale.

Look at the pictures.
>first pic
The red around the chest, showing the cascading lines with dimples at the paths of least resistance, the curved red is next to an obvious ridge made by water flow. Green area is showing vertical lines from rainfall also, there's lots of them.
>2nd pic
The erosion is even more obvious. You can clearly see the vertical lines in the green area.

Cool thing about this is that you can use your own eyes. And don't trust me on erosion, go look up in a geology textbook (libgen.is) what water erosion looks like, rainfall, still water, flowing water, etc.

>>16885
The Sphinx would have had run off from the hill. Also the best guess is that is was originally a statue of the goddess Hathor in her lioness form thus the statue would have had to have been made after Hathor became part of Egypt mythology meaning it couldn't be over older then 4,000 BC and even then she would have been a cow till around 3,000 BC as far as we can tell.

>>16883
>The sphinx being older isn't indicative of a more advanced culture, just history being wrong about something.
It is, if it shows signs of hundreds of years of rainfall. Egypt has been a desert for the last 10-12.000 years. That means the Sphinx is older than what the current ancient history paradigm doesn't allow for. It's such a strong anomaly, that if true, would necessitate a paradigm shift in Egyptology and Archaeology. We'd have to rethink a lot of things.

To all the people who have built a career on the paradigm (and it's lots of people around the world), built a life, it is liberally the end of the world. Imagine if you had to accept that the last 50 years you spent researching, reading, writing was all bullshit, a life built on a lie. That's why most paradigm shifts happen after the "old guard" dies and new, younger people come in, with new ideas. Then they become old and just as unreceptive to new ideas ("it's my turn god dammit!") and the cycle continues.
>Non homo sapiens might even be capable of carving the sphinx. It's really not that impressive.
>Non homo sapiens might even be capable of carving the sphinx
>It's really not that impressive.
lol. Let's see you do it then.

>it also indicates an older date since it was sourced directly from the site unlike most dynastic era construction which was shipped in from elsewhere.
Sure. But we can't date the sphinx, because as you have rightly pointed out
>the sphinx is carved out of bedrock
There is no way to carbon date the rock the sphinx is made out of. So they assume the people who built the stuff around the Sphinx also built the Sphinx, the ONLY evidence being that they are next to each other. Nothing else, no.inscriptions, no record of carving, nothing.

>>16886
>The Sphinx would have had run off from the hill.
Which hill? Where is the water coming from? And how can water flow down the hill, but end up above the head and body. Think about it.
>Also the best guess is that is was originally a statue of the goddess Hathor in her lioness form
Best guess? By whom? Based on what? I show you hard, geological evidence and you're like "Well this guy says…"
>thus the statue would have had to have been made after Hathor became part of Egypt mythology meaning it couldn't be over older then 4,000 BC
How fucking convenient. It's circular reasoning. If you start with the premise that the Sphinx is less than 12.000 years old, that means you limit yourself to that time period and whatever "evidence" you can find. And when you can't, you make a "guess" (read: make it up), it's not like anyone can question you or challenge you if you're the "topmost authority on it". And if they do, you'll just kick them off the site.

>>16888
>Which hill?
There is a grade going from the wall surrounding the Sphinx up to the Pyramids along the road.
> And how can water flow down the hill, but end up above the head and body.
The head is not that weathered. It is a reason why the idea of the head being changed gained traction as it has less weathering.
>Best guess? By whom? Based on what? I show you hard, geological evidence and you're like "Well this guy says…"
From Egyptian mythology, I mean if we are talking per-dynastic Egypt odds are it would be a god/goddess from their pantheon. Hathor has a lioness form and was one of the popular deities dating back to the pre-dynastic period.
>How fucking convenient. It's circular reasoning.
If it is older I would think the religious cults would have either destroyed it or repurposed it. Though evidence points to Egypt having the technology to do anything like that 12,000 years ago. They only started agriculture around 11,000 BC from what we can tell

>>16889
>It is a reason why the idea of the head being changed gained traction as it has less weathering.
It is also missing the nose, it has horizontal lines across it, as if someone tried to destroy the head. But if you look at the face, you can see verical lines, that could have formed by water flowing.
>pic related
See those white, vertical lines, going from top of the head to the bottom? A common example of weathering.
>Stone objects are the most important carriers of cultural information. Most of them have gone through natural and anthropogenic damages over an extended period of time. According to the research results, the influent factors of the weathering can be divided into three categories of physical, chemical, and biological factors [1].

>The chemical and biological factors were considered to be the cause of discoloration on stone objects, such as blackening, whitening, and reding. These coloring changes cause not only esthetical interference, but also induce secondary damage to stone objects [2, 3].

<Red discolorations are not so common on the stone surface compared with the blackening and whitening phenomenon.
https://heritagesciencejournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40494-020-00394-z

>From Egyptian mythology
When Hancock uses mythology for clues, he's a nutjob, when Egyptologists do it, it's evidence.

>If it is older I would think the religious cults would have either destroyed it or repurposed it.
It seems like they tried. It's just not easy destroying bedrock/granite. Just like Arabs tried to destroy the pyramids, but after 8 months of work, just made a gash.
>In AD 1196, Al-Aziz Uthman, Saladin's son and the Sultan of Egypt, attempted to demolish the pyramids, starting with that of Menkaure. Workmen recruited to demolish the pyramid stayed at their job for eight months, but found it almost as expensive to destroy as to build. They could only remove one or two stones each day. Some used wedges and levers to move the stones, while others used ropes to pull them down.
>Despite their efforts, workmen were only able to damage the pyramid to the extent of leaving a large vertical gash at its northern face.[10][11]
It is not surprising that they wouldn't have been able to destroy the Sphinx thousands of years ago.

>Though evidence points to Egypt having the technology to do anything like that 12,000 years ago. They only started agriculture around 11,000 BC from what we can tell
Yes, that's why it is so strange and begs a lot of questions. You're starting with the assumption that Egyptians made the Sphinx, and then you arrive at the conclusion that it had to have been made by Egyptians much later than 12.000BCE, because they didn't have tools to do it earlier. But your original premise that Egyptians built the Sphinx is never discussed or proven, we just accept it as true, cause Egyptians lived in Egypt, Sphinx is in Egypt, therefore Egyptians built the Sphinxvcase closed!

Would you accept this level of rigour in any other academic/scientific discipline? Nope. But it's not like you or I could take some instruments and analyse the surface of the face to see if the discoloration really is from rainfall.

>>16890
forgot pic of the white lines. You can see the white lines on the Sphinx quite clearly. For comparison, you can see how water discolours rock over time.

>>16884
>dares me to respond
>I do
>he runs away
😎

>>16888
I doubt someone tried to destroy the head, more they re carved the head transforming it to Horemarkhet (what the Egypt kingdoms viewed the Sphinx as). This probably was done to give credence to the idea that the pharaoh was a deity that would have been heresy in the pre-dynastic era, where it would work for everyone but the local population but the Egypt kingdom could have just have brutally suppressed the settlement for the con to work with Egypt as a whole.

If the Sphinx in its pervious state was not one the deities at the time it begs the question how come we don't get mention of it? Surly it would have effected Egypt forklore.

>>16893
>If the Sphinx in its pervious state was not one the deities at the time it begs the question how come we don't get mention of it? Surly it would have effected Egypt forklore.
Not if it was discovered by the first Egyptians who arrived there, who didn't not have a (standardised) written language. I am not sure when they started writing on papyrus and stone. I think it was after they settled in the area. I am outside now and don't have time to look it up thoroughly. If you do look it up, post some links, I am curious to know.

>>16894
But what about the period of the two kingdoms (before upper and lower Egypt was unified)? If the Sphinix was recognized as one of their gods then it is understandable why it is hard to find mention of it. It would be hard to phrase context in writing of if they ever were referring to the giant stone idol or the actual deity. If they didn't recognize it then it should be easier to find mention of it in hieroglyphics.

>>16895
>If they didn't recognize it then it should be easier to find mention of it in hieroglyphics.
Not if they had an oral history about the Sphinx before they discovered writing. Because they could have invented a myth/story about the Sphinx and then passed it down orally. You're just interpreting it (without proper evidence) in a way that suits your point.
>hieroglyphics
Thanks for reminding me. Mastabas, which supposedly predated the pyramids, had hieroglyphics carved into or drawn onto the walls. So why wouldn't they do it inside the pyramids at Giza?

Khufu's name, drawn in red paint inside one of the chambers of the Great Pyramid, is the only evidence they have that pyramids were tombs of pharaohs. No mummies, no inscriptions, no hieroglyphics, nothing. Yet they assume they were tombs.

Once you look into it, you find that there is not much evidence for their claims and the mainstream narrative regarding the pyramids. Of course, I know that doesn't mean that the lost-civ is proven to be real, but it does prove the current theory is not significantly corroborated, and we need to do more research and study. We do this with theories to either confirm the current theory or deny it.

If you cared about "science" and the scientific method, you'd support further, independent research into the topic, and not just accept the "authoritative explanation", especially when it rests on such weak evidence. Not asking you to accept the lost-civ theory, just to consider that Egyptologists could be wrong.

Psychiatrists performed lobotomies into the 80s, so even contemporary doctors and scientists can be very wrong. So let's not pretend these egyptologists have it all figured out.

>>16896
That would have eventually been written down, Egyptian mythology has its roots predating its writing system. But there is a possible candidate celebrating the conquest of Lower Egypt, now this is obviously propaganda but we do see what could (repeat could) be what the Sphinx looked like as a landmark to passing boats on the river (the head being questionable as again this was clearly made as propaganda against the Delta region), or that could have been the state of construction stage of it at the time. There are many different possibility without going into the theory that it existed before the area was settled by the Maadi.
>Thanks for reminding me. Mastabas, which supposedly predated the pyramids, had hieroglyphics carved into or drawn onto the walls. So why wouldn't they do it inside the pyramids at Giza?
By the time we had modern records of them, looters have been through them longer then the Roman Empire has been dead to us, more then enough time to pick them clean. If they used something else for the engravings that would have been looted a long time ago, and they may have decided to go that route not knowing if the pyramids that big would even be structurally sound thus they the ornaments for the chamber was made more modular. Hell they may have been failures and never used for all we know.

>>16897
>we do see what could (repeat could) be what the Sphinx looked like
Where?
>By the time we had modern records of them, looters have been through them longer then the Roman Empire has been dead to us,
Yet hieroglyphics carved into stone survived everywhere else.
>If they used something else for the engravings that would have been looted a long time ago, and they may have decided to go that route not knowing if the pyramids that big would even be structurally sound thus they the ornaments for the chamber was made more modular.
What? I am talking about engraving stuff onto the walls of the pyramid's chambers. Just like they carved hieroglyphics into the walls of mastabas. And if they could build the pyramids, they'd know that carving hieroglyphics into the walls would not affect the pyramid's structural integrity.

>>16898
Top right under the Falcon (Horus). From the river the Sphinx could have just looked just like a head/neck and body, that also could have been as far as it was constructed at the time with no tail,or paws. Remember the Sphinx was just mined out of a quarry where its shape came from so its original shape could have been simpler.

> Yet hieroglyphics carved into stone survived everywhere else.
Not everywhere and the pyramids are highly visible targets.
>What? I am talking about engraving stuff onto the walls of the pyramid's chambers. Just like they carved hieroglyphics into the walls of mastabas. And if they could build the pyramids, they'd know that carving hieroglyphics into the walls would not affect the pyramid's structural integrity.
That would come later, meaning it is not a worry of carving effecting structural integrity, it would be them not knowing when it would be complete or if and waiting. This wouldn't be cheap and we know they had backup plans for burial with unused tombs.

WOAH!

Anons said that if you had a civilisation that could travel to every continent, you'd see genetic markers of human populations from a different continent, because it'd be impossible to visit and not leave a trace.

Well, as it so happens…

Earliest South American migrants had Indigenous Australian, Melanesian ancestry

>In 2015, scientists discovered something surprising: that some Indigenous peoples in the Brazilian Amazon were distantly—but distinctly—related to native Australians and Melanesians. The genetic signal of Australasian ancestry in so far-flung a population sent researchers scrambling for answers. A new study reveals this genetic signal is more prevalent throughout South America than thought and suggests the people who first carried these genes into the New World got it from an ancestral Siberian population.

>The finding also sheds light on those people's migration routes to South America. "It's a really nice piece of work," says Jennifer Raff, an anthropological geneticist at the University of Kansas, Lawrence, who wasn't involved in the study. It shows that the 2015 finding "wasn't just an artifact. It really is a widespread genetic signal ."

>One unanswered question is why the Y signal hasn't turned up in any North or Central American Indigenous groups. One possibility, Hünemeier suggests, is that the Y signal–bearing migrants simply stuck to the coast and made it to South America without leaving any genetic legacy up north. It's also possible that groups with Y ancestry did live in North and Central America, but died out in the deadly aftermath of European colonization. "The population Y signal is a puzzle," Meltzer says, "but this is an interesting piece to add to it."

Hm… So this civilisation possibly hadn't visited North America. How does one go from Siberia to South America without going through N. or C. America? 🤔🤔

>Next, the researchers used software to test different scenarios that might have led to the current DNA dispersal. The best fit scenario involves some of the very earliest—possibly even the earliest—South American migrants carrying the Y signal with them, the researchers report today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Those migrants likely followed a coastal route, Hünemeier says, then split off into the central plateau and Amazon sometime between 15,000 and 8000 years ago. "[The data] match exactly what you'd predict if that were the case," Raff agrees.

Ah yes, they went by the coast and left no trace. The exact explanation anons said is ridiculous when talking about the lost-civ visiting places. Or you know, they went by ship.

Regardless, the timeline is interesting.
>Anthropologists think bands of hardy hunter-gatherers left Siberia and entered the now-submerged land of Beringia, which then connected Eurasia and Alaska, when sea levels were much lower than today—perhaps about 20,000 years ago. Then, about 15,000 years or so ago, some departed Beringia and fanned out into North and South America. These early migrants made good time: By 14,800 years ago at the latest, radiocarbon dates suggest they were setting up camp in Monte Verde in southern Chile.
>These early migrants made good time
lol, their explanation is that super hunter-gatherers ran from Siberia to S. America. Makes sense, they did it in 6 generations, too. Why would they not stop in C. America, or anywhere else? There's absolutely no reason for them to go farther, and it's not like a band of hunter-gatherers can kill all the animals and use up all the plants in a place in a generation, no matter how "hardy" they are. It also implies that they knew where they were going, and didn't stray anywhere.

I brought a lot of evidence into this thread/topic. Not enough to prove the lost-civ, but definitely enough to cast doubt on the official story and official timeline of human development.

>>16899
>also could have been as far as it was constructed at the time with no tail,or paws.
No, because the rocks behind the Sphinx, the walls of the hole/depression at the bottom of which "rest" the Sphinx's paws, show clear evidence of water erosion. That means it was dug while it was still raining in Egypt or before the flood. You cannot deny laws of physics because they don't fit in with your narrative.

>its original shape could have been simpler.
Good point. Egyptians could have just made some modifications to the statue after finding it, to make it in line with their gods.

>everywhere else.
Not everywhere and the pyramids are highly visible targets.
Not the chambers inside, the hallways, etc. Just like in the mastabas you say they evolved from.
>That would come later, meaning it is not a worry of carving effecting structural integrity, it would be them not knowing when it would be complete or if and waiting.
OK, so why didn't they do it when it was complete? None of the three pyramids at Giza have any hieroglyphics or decoration inside. Which is what the Egyptians did in the tombs in the Valley of Kings and mastabas. Why didn't they do it in literally the greatest tomb and mastaba they have ever built?
>pics related
Wall decorations from tombs from Valley of Kings and mastabas that either predate or are (allegedly) contemporaneous with the construction of Giza pyramids. They found mastabas around the pyramid that have wall decorations and hieroglyphics.
<workers get the decorations and depictions of their life, but not the pharaoh, who is supposedly like a god to them
Not a chance.
>This wouldn't be cheap
Oh give me a break. Supposedly after the Giza pyramids they built a bunch more. They could afford those, but they couldn't afford hieroglyphics or wall decorations, which btw they have literally inside every other building and tomb they built.

>they had backup plans for burial with unused tombs.
Yeah, unused tombs that still had wall decorations and hieroglyphics (despite not even being used as a tomb).

At this point you're just trying to "win" an argument, rather than actually considering what is being said. You're just trying to come up with explanations, and they get wilder as time goes on.
>it was expensive
Yeah, they could afford to build pyramids, but not to carve hieroglyphics in them. Every past king, every professional, merchant, priest, papyrus carrier and ass wiper before, during and since the supposed building of pyramids at Giza got some decorations. The amount of decorations and their type depended on how much they could personally afford, or how much was alloted for their tomb. On the other hand, the pharaoh has all the wealth and resources of Egypt available to him.

>>16901
You don't have to go that far back, there was still significant rainfall in the pre and early dynastic period. Also we see restoration of the Sphinx going from the old kingdom through the Roman Empire, the soft body layer is very weak compared to the head with the body not even lasting on its own from the old kingdom to the time of the Roman Empire. You also have the fact before the quarries uphill, rainwater would have flowed down into the Sphinx.


>Good point. Egyptians could have just made some modifications to the statue after finding it, to make it in line with their gods.
Or the Maadi that settled the area, where we have evidence of them mining the area and making statues in the pre-dynastic period. You don't have to have them running across it from an even older civilization of which there is no evidence of.
>OK, so why didn't they do it when it was complete?
Was it? I mean at the time of the funeral was it? We don't have any evidence of that, these could have been completed by later pharaohs simply out of political reasons, their function then being simply because they couldn't change course, the previous pharaoh set it and motion as a god and they could not afford the contradiction. The living pharaoh could have viewed it as a good enough to avoid backlash, had a ceremony for reburial but the inside was more just a facade to look like the living pharaoh didn't cut corners, ie using paint on smooth walls instead of engravings with paint.

>>16900
>Earliest South American migrants had Indigenous Australian, Melanesian ancestry
forgot link: https://www.science.org/content/article/earliest-south-american-migrants-had-australian-melanesian-ancestry

Let's recap some parts of the official narrative so far:
>super hunter gatherers crossed three continents in six generations, leaving no genetic trace anywhere in N. or C. America
they didn't stop, or veer from their path, just ran
>every chamber, shaft and opening in Egypt that doesn't have a clear purpose is a tomb, grave or a room for preparation of dead people
Egyptians loved dead people
>that's why the largest structures they've ever built, that were not surpassed for millennia to come are just big tombs
they are not decorated like every other tomb though, cause they couldn't afford it lol
>mastabas have rooms because Egyptians built houses for their dead people
civilisation that figured out how to build the pyramids, thought it was a good idea to waste time carving villas for the dead out of bedrock

Don't you find that a bit weird? Every ancient civ and culture took death seriously, had elaborate rituals etc. but Egyptians are the only ones to organise their society around people dying.

>the pyramids are highly visible targets.
THEN IT IS A TERRIBLE PLACE TO PUT A DEAD PHARAOH AND HIS TREASURES IN THEM, ISN'T IT????
<how do we prevent the looting of the pharaoh's tomb?
<we make the tomb into a large structure that is visible from miles away, to attract any band of thieves in the vicinity
Brilliant! And these are the people you say built the pyramids? Real bunch of geniuses.

Unironically, thanks for that. I think you have just absolutely destroyed and BTFO'd the pyramid-tomb hypothesis (inadvertently, of course).

And that is why I like conversation, cause the conclusions and ideas I wish to explore, do not necessarily have to come from me, they can come from the other person

>>16902
You completely ignored the genetic evidence and the decorations in the tombs vs. no decoration in the pyramid. You can't just ignore the facts you don't like. I'll just take it as you conceding the points, because you have nothing to say about them.

>You don't have to go that far back, there was still significant rainfall in the pre and early dynastic period.
TRUE!
But they say the Sphinx was built in 2500.
>While the date of its construction is not known for certain, the general consensus among Egyptologists is that the head of the Great Sphinx bears the likeness of the pharaoh Khafre, dating it to between 2600 and 2500 BC.
So pharaoh Khafre, not goddesa Hathor. You really don't even know what the "offical narrative is" yet you are 100% sure it's right. Weird.

>However, a fringe minority of late 20th century geologists have claimed evidence of water erosion in and around the Sphinx enclosure which would prove that the Sphinx predates Khafre, at around 10,000 to 5000 BC, a claim that is sometimes referred to as the Sphinx water erosion hypothesis but which has little support among Egyptologists and contradicts other evidence.
>a fringe minority
>geologists
>little support among Egyptologists
LOL. Thanks for pre-bunking it, wikipedia. I'm glad they inform us they are a fringe minority, so I know not to take them seriously before I even read what they say. Which means I don't need to read what they say. Wow cool and easy!
>contradicts other evidence
>other evidence
<the general consensus among Egyptologists is that the head of the Great Sphinx bears the likeness of the pharaoh Khafre, dating it to between 2600 and 2500 BC
Someone should inform these crackpot geologists that the real scientists, the egyptologists said the sphinx (despite missing it's nose and a 1/3 of its face before restoration) bears the likeness of a pharaoh, who we've only seen represented in other statues and 2D pictures. And this is conclusive and indisputable evidence that the Sphinx was built when they say it was.

Looks like geologists are gonna have to change how they think about erosion. Clearly, there's no erosion around the sphinx. UNO REVERSE CARD, Egyptologists plunge geology into a crisis.

>Or the Maadi that settled the area
They'd say you're as schizo as I am. They said the Sphinx was built in 2500BC and that's that! End of discussion, no more study, research or investigation.

>an even older civilization of which there is no evidence of.
except of course the pyramids and the sphinx they left behind, right? because the evidence for it being built by Egyptians is purely circumstantial.

>Was it? I mean at the time of the funeral was it?
It is a bit tiring when I have to explain your position to you, as well as argue for my own. Yes, Egyptologists say it was completed in the lifetime of Pharaoh Khufu, 27 years.
<Built in the early 26th century BC during a period of around 27 years,
>these could have been …
And then you go on making wild speculations and fanciful narratives to explain away inconvenient things.

In the next post I will look at the chronology of the pyramids. Cause that's also fucked. At this point I do not give a fuck about the lost-civ actually, now I just want to poke holes in egyptology and expose it for the bullshit it is. You'll see what I'm talking about in the next post.

>>16904
>You completely ignored the genetic evidence and the decorations in the tombs vs. no decoration in the pyramid. You can't just ignore the facts you don't like. I'll just take it as you conceding the points, because you have nothing to say about them.
I just don't see then being missing as compelling evidence they existed prior to Egypt.
>But they say the Sphinx was built in 2500.
It is one thing to say the Sphinx is ore-dynastic it is another to say it pre-dates the tribes that make up Egypt.
>except of course the pyramids and the sphinx they left behind, right? because the evidence for it being built by Egyptians is purely circumstantial.
Why can't the Sphinx be built by the Maadi? The Rapa Nui built the Moi heads without any more advanced tech then the Maadi. And it seems the Sphinx started life as just a bust, the neckline down is much softer stone, unfit for such structures. So either its creators didn't know basic geology required for stone work or never planned it to be anything but a bust on a plateau. Have them dig a trench around it for water run off and so people can look up to it and and the body could have formed from natural erosion. Later you could have the Egypt old kingdom restore it into the Sphinx assuming the plateau was actually a carved body. As for the pyramids, once we get into dynastic Egypt have evidence of stone working even beyond the Maadi, we have records of them talking about their construction (yet not the Sphinx). Why would the lie about creating the pyramids yet admit they didn't build the Sphinx?
>It is a bit tiring when I have to explain your position to you
My position is not of Egyptologist yet I don't jump to the conclusion of older civilization we don't have any evidence even existed.

Radiocarbon dating sounds science-y, it must be an independent and objective way to verify their claims, right? Wrong.

Let's see how dating works in Egyptology.
>pic related
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza
I took a screenshot so you'd see that the paragraph has no citation.

>The reign lengths from Khufu to known points in the earlier past are summated, bolstered with genealogical data, astronomical observations, and other sources. As such, the historical chronology of Egypt is primarily a political chronology, thus independent from other types of archaeological evidence like stratigraphies, material culture, or radiocarbon dating. [from 2nd pic]
That's revealing.
>In the past the Great Pyramid was dated by its attribution to Khufu alone, putting the construction of the Great Pyramid within his reign.
Well, then I am sure they completely disregarded the original date and independently arrived at the same number.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/44683433_Radiocarbon-Based_Chronology_for_Dynastic_Egypt
>The historical chronologies for dynastic Egypt are based on reign lengths inferred from written and archaeological evidence.
Read: contextual evidence, artifacts found at the site, that may or may not have been left long after the pyramid was built, no way of knowing.
>These floating chronologies are linked to the absolute calendar by a few ancient astronomical observations, which remain a source of debate.
Uhh…
>We used 211 radiocarbon measurements made on samples from short-lived plants, together with a Bayesian model incorporating historical information on reign lengths, to produce a chronology for dynastic Egypt.
They use the assumption that it was built around 2500 BCE in their calculations. And they have to, because for radiocarbon dating to work they need to know the ratio of C-14 to C-12 and C-13 in nature at around the time they are dating.
>A small offset (19 radiocarbon years older) in radiocarbon levels in the Nile Valley is probably a growing-season effect. Our radiocarbon data indicate that the New Kingdom started between 1570 and 1544 B.C.E., and the reign of Djoser in the Old Kingdom started between 2691 and 2625 B.C.E.; both cases are earlier than some previous historical estimates.
Even though it used the egyptologist assumptions, carbon dating found that it is actually slightly earlier than they think. Obviously not 10.000 years older, but enough to tell us that Egyptologists don't know shit.

Carbon dating gives them conflicting data, but when there is an anomalous reading, they just come up with an ad-hoc explanation. This is a bad way of forming theories, eventually the whole theory rests on self-referential ad-hoc explanations for scientific data. Bad, bad, bad.
>In 1872 Waynman Dixon opened the lower pair of "Air-Shafts", previously closed at both ends, by chiseling holes into the walls of the Queen's Chamber. One of the objects found within was a cedar plank, which came into possession of James Grant, a friend of Dixon. After inheritance it was donated to the Museum of Aberdeen in 1946; however, it had broken into pieces and was filed incorrectly. Lost in the vast museum collection, it was only rediscovered in 2020, when it was radiocarbon dated to 3341–3094 BC. Being over 500 years older than Khufu's chronological age, Abeer Eladany suggests that the wood originated from the center of a long-lived tree or had been recycled for many years prior to being deposited in the pyramid.[40]
Ah yes, it must have been recycled many times/years. Because when you're building a pyramid for the queen, you rely on used parts, instead of getting a new plank.

I like how these pharaohs are gods that can make hundreds of thousands of people build them pyramids, and drag 10 ton blocks 100m high up a slope because man-power (food production and shelters) is no issue: unlimited amounts of resources for pyramids, tools, boats, frames, levers; unless there's an inconvenient fact, then that particular thing wasn't so important and could be half-assed.

How could anyone trust anything Egyptologists say, especially if the person doesn't actually known what they say, is beyond me.

>>16900
Dumb bass, south america also has many pacific island plants that came alongside traders. That's not evidence of ancient pre-ice age civilization. Plus, they have timed the migrations of both these plants and the animals to well past the ice age anyways.

>>16905
>As for the pyramids, once we get into dynastic Egypt have evidence of stone working even beyond the Maadi, we have records of them talking about their construction (yet not the Sphinx).
Who? The Maadi or the Egyptians?
>Why would the lie about creating the pyramids yet admit they didn't build the Sphinx?
Yeah, why would they lie about building a wonder? It helps to control your populations, if they think you're capable of such feats.
>My position is not of Egyptologist yet I don't jump to the conclusion of older civilization we don't have any evidence even existed.
You keep using that strawman. Find where I conclude that or stop mentioning it. It is dishonest and frankly, annoying.

As I keep saying OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER again. It is also tiring to keep having to explain myself, because it is easier for you to imagine me as some schizo who went into this, (500+ posts and replies about the topic over two threads), with faulty logic in the very premise of my argument.

All of this is NOT (negative, deny, refuse, reject) evidence that there existed an ancient pre-ice age civilisation.

With me so far?

This IS evidence of (positive, accepting, agreeing, yes) Egyptologists either willfully lying or just being wrong.

The lost civ theory is just ONE OF (not the only one, in company with others) the POSSIBLE (not certain, maybe yes, maybe no), ALTERNATIVE (not the same, but accounting for an equal or greater amount of data, evidence, explanations and predictions as the first/original) theories that could replace the current theory.

I'm always open to hear others.

>>16907
>Dumb bass, south america also has many pacific island plants that came alongside traders.
What? Are you saying they sailed across the Pacific ocean in 15.000BCE? When I said the "lost-civ" might have done it in 12.800BCE all the detractors said that's ridiculous. So no, there was no cross-ocean trade (according to the mainstream view) in 15.000BCE that could explain it.

>That's not evidence of ancient pre-ice age civilization
No, it is evidence that people migrated from Siberia to S. America BEFORE the last ice-age, in other words, BEFORE the time we used to think it happened. The archeologists say they walked, but didn't leave any genetic traces while walking through N. America.
>Plus, they have timed the migrations of both these plants and the animals to well past the ice age anyways.
You're kinda dumb dude. You're having trouble comprehending sentences. You saw one thing, but your brain read something completely different, the opposite actually.
>These early migrants made good time: By 14,800 years ago at the latest, radiocarbon dates suggest they were setting up camp in Monte Verde in southern Chile.
Last ice age (Younger Dryas) ended in 12.800BCE. When in the "before common era" or "before christ", before 0, the numbers aren't written with a negative, so it looks like they are getting smaller. But actually they are increasing, just like -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, that's in ascending order, from smallest number to largest. I know it's a bit confusing, but 12.800BCE actually comes AFTER 14.800BCE. Therefore they have shown the migration happened BEFORE the last ice age. You said after, which is incorrect

Furthermore, if you find the article and read it (my bad for not posting the link at the same time, it is a few posts below) you will find they tested people, not plants.
>The 2015 DNA studies revealed Australasian ancestry in two Indigenous Amazonian groups, the Karitiana and Suruí, based on the DNA of more than 200 living and ancient people. Many bore a signature set of genetic mutations, named the "Y signal" after the Brazilian Tupi word for "ancestor," ypikuéra.

>The new study, led by geneticist Tábita Hünemeier at the University of São Paulo, São Paulo, examined genetic data from 383 modern people from across South America, including dozens of newly genotyped individuals living in the Brazilian Amazon and central plateau.

Isn't this embarrassing for you? That I have to keep correcting you on basic facts, telling you how things work and explaining what the text/sentence actually means. It's been like this for a while. Personally, if I were you, I'd feel shame and probably do a quick web search and read more carefully, so I don't say dumb shit. You though, you seem to be in your element.

>>16908
>Who? The Maadi or the Egyptians?
The Egyptians, they clearly state they restored the Sphinx but never claimed to have built it.
>Yeah, why would they lie about building a wonder?
Again, the admit they restored the Sphinx while saying they built the pyramids. Also the Sphinx would not have been much of a wonder, some carved head sticking out of a plateau, if the Greeks and Romans didn't think the Sphinx was a whole body work that was more ancient then them they would have been unimpressed. They would have noticed it is in an old quarry and wounder what the big deal was that someone carved a head using the stone of a quarry then left it there. It is they idea someone carved the whole thing that makes it seem impressive but you run into the problem of the stone quality rapidly diminishing below the head that they would have known from digging down elsewhere in the quarry.

>You keep using that strawman. Find where I conclude that or stop mentioning it. It is dishonest and frankly, annoying.
That you seem to dismiss the idea the Maadi could have made a proto-Sphinx.

>>16908
I was referencing a less popular theory about how they had far away heritage with so little evidence of continental migration. It's been long known that people from even as far as taiwan migrated to polynesia, their descendants slowly spread all across the islands there. So they island hopped all the way to near the coast of south america, closer than today because lower ocean levels meant more islands, and could even reach the coast easier. They didn't do cross-ocean trips, it was propably islanders close to the continent doing irregular trips there and interbreeding a bit. The plants I was referencing are the foreign plants that had somehow appeared on the other side of the ocean in the eyes of botany (sweet potato), which are now known to have been spread by these traders/explorers/migrants. But this hasn't been fully proven since the earliest confirmed date of contact between polynesians and south americans is around the ~1200 A.D. mark based on the spread of sweet potatoes. Personally I think this is fully plausible and will propably be the dominant theory in the future since even your article specifically talks about "Australian, Melanesian" ancestry.
And this isn't really "new-new" news:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.331.6024.1512
https://www.science.org/content/article/most-archaeologists-think-first-americans-arrived-boat-now-they-re-beginning-prove-it

>>16909
>they clearly state they restored the Sphinx but never claimed to have built it.
That is something I didn't know. So why do they still say Egyptians made the Sphinx? Good source on the claim?
>Also the Sphinx would not have been much of a wonder
I was talking about the pyramids and the possible motivation for lying.
if the Greeks and Romans didn't think the Sphinx was a whole body work that was more ancient then them they would have been unimpressed.
Because it was buried?
>pic related
>It is they idea someone carved the whole thing that makes it seem impressive but you run into the problem of the stone quality rapidly diminishing below the head that they would have known from digging down elsewhere in the quarry.
A.K.A. the mainstream opinion: Egyptians carved the Sphinx in onen go, at around 2500BCE, around the same time they built Khafre's pyramid (because the Sphinx looks like Khafre). See what I mean with self-referential ad-hoc explanations.

>That you seem to dismiss the idea the Maadi could have made a proto-Sphinx.
Nope, again, I literally said the opposite.

Hm, looks like I accidentally deleted that post/part of the post or forgot to post. That is my mistake.

What I said (or wanted to say, but didn't, well, not really, cause I just went off)

>>16902
>You don't have to go that far back, there was still significant rainfall in the pre and early dynastic period.
For me, it's more about showing Egyptologists, liberals and the academia that kowtows are wrong and full of shit, that Egyptologists only care about their own reputation/ego and not about "the truth", while liberals only care about having a cohesive narrative that can be used to support their ideology, and not "reality". Libs will categorically reject anyone who doesn't agree with them, regardless of what the content is Academia/education is just another pillar of capitalism, along with the institution of marriage, banks, police, and a few others. Liberal capitalism has dominated the West, and no longer do we have "democracy" or any kind of vibrant debate about how we should organise our lives. We now have ossified institutions (with a plethora of specialised departments, that keep getting even more specialised and atomised) that manage capitalism/our system and therefore us.

The hierarchical/undemocratic structure of these institutions makes them resistant to change, and therefore less adaptable to changing conditions. Which is why maintaining the status quo and "everything must stay as it is but it can be "improved", again by specialising. A good example is the kitchen, how is it "improved" in capitalism? By creating specialised tools: a blender, juicer, food processor, which all do the same thing essentially (it is a spinning blade, only the shape of blade and container is different).

This specialisation isn't done for specialisation's sake, it has a purpose. The specialisation in institutions is just to create more jobs ("bullshit jobs") for all those academia graduates who are facing a prospect of joblesness because all productive work (in the Marxist sense, not dictionary definition) has been moved out of the West. Productive labour actually benefits from specialisation and division of labour, because generally it means something can be made faster, or improvements can be achieved quicker. This creates more value, and the surplus can be used to support that person.

What happens in institutions is that they become money sinks, they create no value. For example what value can be created from every police department having a SWAT team, bomb squad, armored vehicle, snipers, etc. it costs more. But it helps manage capitalism/us,

Coming back to academia. The atomisation and specialisation of academic departments results in professors having an "ant hill" to defend, they have to fight to maintain their position, while departments compete against each other for funding, professors fight to maintain the position, while students compete The logic of capitalism is recreated in all of its constituent parts/institutions. For example marriage has become transactional, and an economic decision, rather than anything about love.

Plekhanov in Monist theory of.history says that society, history, what we analyse.with Marxism is made up of trillions of individual actions, from which patterns emerge, like ants' colony intelligence emerges, or our consciousnesses. It's dialectics – lots of.small quantitative.changes, results in qualitative change.

SO! Liberals understand this, that's why it is important to keep any changes to a minimum, maintain status quo on all fronts. Change is allowed only.once it has been appropriated by capitalism and filtered through the ideology so all of its original content is gone or changed, so as to actually support the system, rather than be a threat to it. An example off the top of my head: MLK and Malcolm X, also Nelson Mandela. All supporters of violence and socialists, but that is not.how they are presented. They called Mandela a terrorist and supported the SA government that imprisoned him, but once he's dead and no longer a threat, he was a hero, changed the world blah blah blah

Professors are in a similar position in academia, like.bourgeoisie are in society: it is precarious, they have threats from below, from other professors, etc. And what do you do in society to make your position safer? You organize yourself as a class, stop infighting and focus on maintaining your collective position, while at the same time.keeping the other class in check. What does this mean in practice? Professors support/take on students that agree with them and wish to continue their work, not the ones who disagree or think differently. Between disciplines, they all have this tacit understanding that they

Liberal/bourgeois science is political and individual. Political, because it is the political ideology that determines what science will be done, i.e..which specialised "departments" will be created. E.g. nuclear research and energy, or not. So while the scientific method, as a tool, is politically-agnostic (more or less), the decision where it is used is not.

Back to academia (we're getting closer to egyptology and the point, I promise). These various specialised departments within academia are specialised in the liberal/bourgeois sense, not the socialist sense (rationalisation? Lukacs, not dictionary). This means rather than increasing productivity (more vibrant discussion and a more Feyerabendian approach to science), they become disconnected, all "reporting" to an authority rather than each other ("free association of producers"). Instead of cooperating and ensuring coherence amongst each other, they can only check it against the.dominant ideology to check its "correctness". Again, in a socialist/Marxist country checking against the ideology is OK, because it is a critical ideology (Marxist sense, not "woke" or dictionary sense), change is in-built into its core premises.

In liberalism, one of the core premises is not changing. That's why Fukuyama could say it's the end of history. Liberalism is philosophically idealist, this means that "progress" to them means going towards a goal, and that goal is inclusion (dictionary sense, not "woke" sense). Inclusion (and consequent subsumption) of every human, and every living being and non-living thing into itself, i.e. capitalism. How does one include things? Many ways, it could be on equal grounds, comradely, with mutual respect and respect for everything else. On account of our proletarian consciousness, we know, among other things, that we are not alone on a deserted island, but the product of our material conditions and the interaction of things, just how we use various things from nature and through cooperation create value.

In liberalism, inclusion is done not with respect between equals, it is done patronisingly, from the standpoint of a caretaker. They take you in "to help you", just like " job creators" give jobs, and they certainly don't exploit the person they "help". You, and everything else becomes a ward of liberal capitalism. That is why poor people are helped with small handouts, rather than with anything that might actually change their position, because ultimately for liberalism it's better if the person stays where they are, but they can live in an apartment, and enjoy gadgets – toys in a cage.

Liberalism also uses analytical philosophy, because that suits it. Much like Marxism looks at change, so analytical philosophy, and therefore the logic of doing science, is about analysing things at rest. Where Marxism looks at the whole, the interaction of all the moving parts and the various contradictions that arise out of it at the points where opposites find purchase/friction. Much like bourgeois science is satisfied by dissecting and labeling all the parts of the things they analyse, liberalism too takes things out ("kills" them by removing them from the interactions that make them what they are. It's our relationships, our interactions with other things that make us what we are, and not the various organs that make us up. Cut "our" liver out and you are still you, you aren't now you-minus-liver. There is nothing inherently about it that makes it "yours". It carries a DNA code that allows the organ to grow and determines its relationship to other organs. But that isn't "you". The ONLY way it is yours, is when it is interacting with the other organs and its part of the whole that makes "you". Outside of that, it is just a piece of meat.

Liberals classify and label everything. Because they mistake knowing what something is made of for understanding. Every academic discipline has their "thing". Just like telecom companies divide the market amongst themselves, so do academia and science institutions divide the world amongst themselves. They all get something to do, a piece of the world to analyse, in other words to classify and control, become "experts" on that one thing and stay in their lane! With that, naturally, comes the belief that only way to know about something or become an expert, is to be anointed by the current "experts", like I have mentioned professors protecting their position.

In EGYPTOLOGY (we made it) this is shown in how they are satisfied with classifying all the old.shit thet.find, labeling its date of production, producer, buyer and what it is composed of. That's it. The tools used, the details of work was organised, that's not important. That only becomes important in the little niche that is anthropology (also one of the few places were Marxism is allowed, stripped of its revolutionary content). That is also why the Egyptologists are satisfied with never asking for help from other discipljnes, unless it is to learn one of the aforementioned properties.

Egyptology doesn't have to make their "knowledge" compatible with other disciplines, it needs to be somewhat internally consistent and be compatible with the dominant ideology. And as long as it supports the dominant ideology, it will get support from all the relevant things subsumed by the liberal capitalist system.

By support I don't mean some kind of mumbo jumbo hippie energy shit, but media will write about it, wikipedia authors will write "a fringe theory" before they mention your opponents' theories, and so on. Who tells them to do this? Nobody, or rather their consciousness and whatever ideology they have internalised. Their subconsciousness, the part of the consciousness we don't have access to, that still affects our actions, isn't something we get ready to go out of the factory, it is something that develops as we grow, interact with the world, others, as we're taught, etc. So if you have internalised the dominant ideology, you will recognise it in others, and most people will want to inteeacrlt with whom they are compatible with. And yes, I think a lot.of this "decision making" happens in the part we don't really have access to (but it can be "programmed")

Finally getting to THE POINT. I went off on a few tangents, just need to clean up formatting at some point Why do I do this?

I don't give a shit about Hancock or what the particular theory that challenges the dominant view. This Hancock vs Egyptologists is a small contradiction, but a contradiction none the less. We need more of them, and we need to try to increase them, not decrease them. We shouldn't be on the liberals' side. I know he is not a communist, or a revolutionary, but he is increasing contradictions in this one area.

Egyptologists are trying to maintain the status quo, because just like with the bourgeoisie, status quo helps those in power stay in power and continue reaping benefits from their position. While contradictions, struggle is where workers can develop a proletarian consciousness.

We want chaos, because chaos is opportunity. That is why action has to be two-fold: 1) increase contradictions, chaos; 2) build dual power, organise, so that when opportunity in chaos arises there is a movement that can take advantage of it and bring workers to power. Is it a coincidence that the successful revolutions (French, Russian) came on the heels of a war?

>>16911
Forgot to add. I have no illusions about organising online, I do praxis in the material world. What can be done online, is strengthen arguments against liberal academia, teach others about it, and so on.

Someone should do for.quantum physics what Hancock does to egyptology. Bohmian vs Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Again, they separate and analyse, so now e-m waves are waves AND particles. What are they waves of? Probability curves! probability that a particle is in a certain spot. Then you have Bohmian interpretation, you could say materialist. Because idealism doesn't mean it is "ideal", idealists think ideas come before matter. So to them, having a mathematical formula that calculates the probability of particles position or velocity is good enough for them, because they have an "uncertainty principles". So apparently current interpretation of quantum mechanics says that particles pop in and out of existence.

Like I said, theories in liberal/bourgeois science and academia only need to be internally consistent (Even if you have to assume there is uncertainty in the universe) and consistent with liberal ideology.

>>16910
>https://www.science.org/content/article/most-archaeologists-think-first-americans-arrived-boat-now-they-re-beginning-prove-it
<That discovery, in 2004, proved to be no anomaly; since then, Des Lauriers has discovered 14 other early sites and excavated two, pushing back the settlement of Cedros Island to nearly 13,000 years ago.

<The Cedros Island sites add to a small but growing list that supports a once-heretical view of the peopling of the Americas. Whereas archaeologists once thought that the earliest arrivals wandered into the continent through a gap in the ice age glaciers covering Canada, most researchers today think the first inhabitants came by sea. In this view, maritime explorers voyaged by boat out of Beringia—the ancient land now partially submerged under the waters of the Bering Strait—about 16,000 years ago and quickly moved down the Pacific coast, reaching Chile by at least 14,500 years ago.

A pre-ice age "civilisation" that could navigate seas and build boats…🤔

>>16908
>What is something I didn't know. So why do they still say Egyptians made the Sphinx? Good source on the claim?
Because of the head carving, the idea that dynastic Egypt carved it out of something like Moai head is lost on them even though we have examples of them recurving their own statues. Then imagine the drama of the idea the Sphinx is two statues mushed together, the re-carved head and the plateau that they modified into the shape of the body.
>I was talking about the pyramids and the possible motivation for lying.
Yes but if they were lying I would think they would lie over their age thus the great pyramid (and such) being middle kingdom rather then old when they had iron tools making their construction easier for them.
>Because it was buried?
Again looking at the weak stone under the head I don't think it was ever meant to be a full body statue. Here is a plausible theory, the mining operation at the quarry left a plateau that could be viable from the river. The locals decided to carve a head on the plateau facing the river, they knew the layers of rock going down because they already went to bed rock in the quarry thus confident they could carve a head in it. They left the plateau as a rectangle as they knew all that stone was not worth extracting due to its poor quality. The result was a head sticking out of a rectangle rock plateau in the middle of an active quarry that would flood because its a quarry they didn't give a shit they'd just wait for the water to run down to the river. Of course Egyptologist don't like to admit this level of civilization existed in the pre-dynastlic period because it comes with an uncomfortable baggage that the settlements that got annexed into the first Egypt dynasty by force were civilized too.

>>16914
Again, it doesn't matter what happened precisely or what the truth is. Egyptologists are wrong, that's the take-away.

>>16913
More like towns/villages. But them building ocean-worthy boats and navigating by the stars isn't really that amazing, go visit a more tribal area somewhere around the pacific and ask them to teach you. Wasn't it a big deal when those guys sailed across the atlantic with a wooden ship a few years ago.

>>16916
>them building ocean-worthy boats and navigating by the stars isn't really that amazing,
lol wtf? it is a big deal and it is amazing. Wood loses it's strength the longer it is, so building long boats presents some challenges. You look at a sea and you think "oh that's just water", well boats at sea are constantly pushed and pulled by forces. There's the upward force, the downward force, all the water, and so on. Boats need to be strong enough to withstand those forces. That's why (they used to think) Vikings' longboats were the first to cross the ocean, in 1100 CE with boats whose planks were fastened with iron nails, as well as being able to tack. For comparison, galleys, like the Roman trireme could not sail against the wind, sails were for downwind, oars for manouvering and up wind.
>navigating by the stars isn't really that amazing,
Are you just pretending to be dumb, or do you really think that? You really think that navigating with the naked eye, on a spinning, revolving Earth, using lights from a source billions of kilometers away isn't that amazing?

Well, no wonder you think the way you do. You've been so alienated from human activity that you don't think things like navigating by the stars with the naked eye is an amazing feat.

I suggest you try to make something from the ground up, something useful. Out of wood, metal, concrete, doesn't matter. I don't mean assemble pre-made parts, I mean take raw materials and turn them into something useful. That is the only way you will see for yourself, because Hollywood movies with montages and supermarkets full of stuff made you believe that things are easy to make just because we have machines and tools that do it for us.

>>16912
>quantum physics
Incidentally I know someone working in that field. What we decided on regarding the issue of truth is that "Truth is a consensus"

>>16918
>What we decided on regarding the issue of truth is that "Truth is a consensus"
That's what I mean when I say "socially constructed" knowledge. I don't agree with it, because it is rarely a consensus of independent individuals who have come to the idea on their own, it's more of a nepotistic affair and it isn't so merit-based. Practically, how do you decide how much a consensus you need, how to achieve it, and so on.

"Consensus" is a slippery word that can mean a lot of things and be used in various ways. Consensus is that communism is bad and capitalism good, does that make the statement true?

An example I can think of is Einstein's theory of general relativity. It was met with ridicule the first 5-10 years of its existence, and only once the old professors gate keeping physics died off, could Einstein's ideas be studied.

Ask your friend what he thinks of the Bohmian interpretation of quantum mechanics. It's a materialist conception of quantum mechanics, as opposed to the Copenhagen interpretation, that relies on magic.

How is anything the OP news to anyone?

This article about paved roads connecting cities dates back to at least 2005:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacbe?&useskin=vector

Fucking clickbait bullshit.

>>16920
And yet the thread was locked, curious.

>>16917
Man, ocean-worthy ships like catamarans aren't "amazing" "big-deals". They had a problem to solve and solve it they did: add a bunch of floaters on the sides to stabilize a long and narrow hull. Don't need no math to do it.
>You really think that navigating with the naked eye, on a spinning, revolving Earth, using lights from a source billions of kilometers away isn't that amazing?
<We're all made up of dead stars, isn't that heckin' amazerino!??!

>>16922
<We're all made up of dead stars, isn't that heckin' amazerino!??!
>missing the point
>writing down the first association that pops into your head
What's amazing is that you've somehow survived long enough to learn how to use a computer.

You say things without understanding their implications. They "just" built ocean-going ships and they "just" navigated with the naked eye. It betrays your poor understanding of how things work. Have you ever been on a boat? I sail. I bet you'd miss a spot by kilometers in a rowboat with GPS. Do you know how hard it is to look at your GPS location and find corresponding points on the coast? That's why they have buoys, poles, lighthouses, even fucking signs, so that you go where you want to go. Now think about what it'd take to cross the fucking Pacific Ocean.
>add a bunch of floaters
>floaters
Such as…? You can't just use a noun formed from a verb that describes the supposed function you think they had. It's like saying they had helicopters, they just used lifters.
>ocean-worthy ships like catamarans aren't "amazing" "big-deals".
The Internet and its plethora of search engines, as well as libgen and sci-hub make it very easy to find information and look up history of ships and boat building, there really is no excuse for your lack of knowledge. Go look up when archeologists/historians think ocean-going ships were invented.

If Hancock so smart so wise, why does he insist the Yonaguni monuments are artificial?
Graham Hancock - unabsolved

>>16922
>denigrating mankind's achievements in ancient times because "it's simple"
Build me a fucking longboat with the tools and materials available to the people of the past, within a year. I don't even care about this thread, but reading this shit tells me that you're an armchair analyst with no fucking experience in physical labour.

Hancock vindicated yet again
We can't stop winning lostcivbros…
https://www.science.org/content/article/laser-mapping-reveals-oldest-amazonian-cities-built-2500-years-ago
>Archaeologists once believed the ancient Amazon rainforest was an inhospitable place, sparsely populated by bands of hunter-gatherers. But the remains of enormous earthworks, pyramids, and roads from Bolivia to Brazil discovered over the past 2 decades have proved conclusively that the Amazon was home to large, complex societies long before European colonizers arrived. Now, there’s evidence that another human society—the oldest yet—left its mark on the region: A dense network of interconnected cities, now hidden beneath the forest in Ecuador’s Upano Valley, has been revealed by the laser mapping technology called lidar. The settlements, described today in Science, are at least 2500 years old, more than 1000 years older than any other known complex Amazonian society.

No, this is not evidence of Hancock's "lost civ".
>What is it evidence of then?
Hancock has been arguing human civilisation is older than mainstream archeology tells us, he predicts that as more research is done the more older civilisations we'll find. These settlements in the Amazon are older than mainstream archeology thought existed.

If we are still finding settlements in the Amazon, who knows what is hiding on the bottom of the ocean (of which we have mapped only 1%), under dozens of meters of sand, on the sunken continents.

>>16922
You are genuinely retarded and schizophrenic. You should seriously think about the rabbithole you are in and consider reaching out for help.

>>21492
Already made a post demonstrating why this is a sensationalist and misleading headline.
>>21392
>>21394

>>17982
>why does he insist the Yonaguni monuments are artificial
I don't recollect him claiming this but Kimura Misaaki has stated such and has the education in tectonics, geology, archeology etc. to know what he's talking about. The idea of a sunken city or remains of such are not far-fetched. Russia has many legends of such sunken ancient cities, with at least a few accounts of Soviet explorers finding such places in the early 1930s but being unable to locate them again because they lacked the mapping equipment to mark the mountains and canyons they were exploring.

>>21850
yes and various other geologists insist they are a natural phenomena

>>21945
>various other geologists insist they are a natural phenomena
<The mainstream assertion claims the opposite
No shit.