Lost human cilvilizations?

[Stylizer1]

Anyone like Graham Hancock and Randall Carlson?

Click to read more...

 

[Stylizer1]

Turkey now reopens Gobekli tepe to the public. Over 12,000 year old civilization.

 

[Stylizer1]

The Okavango delta in South Africa is surrounded by evidence of hundreds of miles of artificial irrigation. The parallel channels that you see are a mile or so apart. This suggests that there was once an extremely large population there utilizing advanced agricultural techniques.



Very interesting.

 

[RandV]

Anyone like Graham Hancock and Randall Carlson?

Been listening to this, kind of curious what the critics say about these guys. They take about an inflexible 'mainstream' science a lot, with some of the things they say being half way to arguments creationists or climate change deniers would make. But they aren't actually suggesting anything like that, and what they're talking about sounds all really well constructed and supported. Then 1:20 in for some reason they start talking about smoking DMT(?) and communicating with "entities", and I get a little skeptical.

Basically I'm finding it fascinating, but if the guys start by talking about how they just get rejected by 'mainstream science' it raises some flags so I want to dig in a little to make sure it's not bullshit because it's actually really fascinating. The basic summary of what I've heard so far: civilizations likely existed well before what our current model/understanding says (see: Gobekli tepe), but were wiped out by a cataclysmic comet impact (supported by evidence?) 12,800 years ago. These impacts, rather than humans, would also be the cause of a number of mass extinctions such as the woolly mammoths.

 

[Stylizer1]

Been listening to this, kind of curious what the critics say about these guys. They take about an inflexible 'mainstream' science a lot, with some of the things they say being half way to arguments creationists or climate change deniers would make. But they aren't actually suggesting anything like that, and what they're talking about sounds all really well constructed and supported. Then 1:20 in for some reason they start talking about smoking DMT(?) and communicating with "entities", and I get a little skeptical.

Basically I'm finding it fascinating, but if the guys start by talking about how they just get rejected by 'mainstream science' it raises some flags so I want to dig in a little to make sure it's not bull**** because it's actually really fascinating. The basic summary of what I've heard so far: civilizations likely existed well before what our current model/understanding says (see: Gobekli tepe), but were wiped out by a cataclysmic comet impact (supported by evidence?) 12,800 years ago. These impacts, rather than humans, would also be the cause of a number of mass extinctions such as the woolly mammoths.

There are a few earlier podcasts in the Joe Rogan series where he speaks to Carlsson and Hancock separately and also together. This was the first one I saw and went back and watched the others. The arguments made against the Egyptologists and there closed ideology really shed some light on the quest for new information and how hard it is to analyze new findings.





Michael "the official skeptic" Shermer

 

[Stylizer1]

Ice age took 5 years to melt.

 

[Stylizer1]

 

[Stylizer1]

Yet another really cool video of ancient people.

 

[Stylizer1]

 

[Jumptheshark]

with some of the guys in this thread we need to break out the tin foil hats

 

[Stylizer1]

with some of the guys in this thread we need to break out the tin foil hats

Which ones?

 

[hector morrison]

What? No Icemen with hockey sticks? Booooooring!

 

[Stylizer1]

 

[Stylizer1]

This guy in the video is very annoying but the info is what is important.

 

[RageQuit77]

Considering that sea levels were 100-130 meters lower during ice age and that all known traditional advanced cultures and civilizations (Mesopotamia, Harappa, Eqypt, Ancient china etc.) have been related to big rivers and deltas, its surprising how relatively small amount of effort, study and research are actually put to the "real sources" of civilizations. Ancient deltas of these rivers are under the sea, and so are likely also "real cradles of civilization". To me its look like most of archaeology have been concentrating areas of rims of ancient civilizations that are well known, tho that is understandable considering difficulties related to deep sea marine research. But making strict conclusions about history and prehistory, and statements basing on only periphery of ancient cultures gives rather twisted image of how ancient high cultures were developed, and categorical denial without any proofs is not a scientific argument if and when, it's known that geography of the world was different during ice age, and in principle and practice its possible to make researches also in these areas.

For same reason its hard to find hard evidence and fossils about much more ancient human migrations out of Africa. Our forerunners' (as well as several other Homo species') primary paths and population concentrations were likely at areas that are now submerged.

Submerged deltas of Nile, Indus/Sarasvati, and Euprates/Tigris/Eden, Yellow River, Mekong etc. would be most logical places to search about our cultural origins, but same apply to submerged deltas of big rivers of sub-Saharan Africa. If searching the oldest cultures and traces of most early developments of cultural evolution, the most logical place is Africa, Mama Africa.

Also definition of Civilization itself isn't always that clear. How about highly developed technical culture in a middle of rain forest at equator prominent in its use of wood, bone, and other organic technologies? What that kind high culture leave behind to archaeological stratas in that kind environment? Is it beyond imagination that wooden 'megalithic' scale constructions once existed when its clear that such construction material and its working was probably the very first technology the humankind achieved (maybe even before we learnt how to lit and burn it?) Can someone truly declare seriously that those didn't exist, only because so little material is left from them?

Of course. All kind pseudo-archaeological BS that humans couldn't build pyramids without help of UFOs should be left to fringe groups of tin foil hat people. They dramatically underestimate both intelligence and skills of their own progenitors.

 

[Stylizer1]

Considering that sea levels were 100-130 meters lower during ice age and that all known traditional advanced cultures and civilizations (Mesopotamia, Harappa, Eqypt, Ancient china etc.) have been related to big rivers and deltas, its surprising how relatively small amount of effort, study and research are actually put to the "real sources" of civilizations. Ancient deltas of these rivers are under the sea, and so are likely also "real cradles of civilization". To me its look like most of archaeology have been concentrating areas of rims of ancient civilizations that are well known, tho that is understandable considering difficulties related to deep sea marine research. But making strict conclusions about history and prehistory, and statements basing on only periphery of ancient cultures gives rather twisted image of how ancient high cultures were developed, and categorical denial without any proofs is not a scientific argument if and when, it's known that geography of the world was different during ice age, and in principle and practice its possible to make researches also in these areas.

For same reason its hard to find hard evidence and fossils about much more ancient human migrations out of Africa. Our forerunners' (as well as several other Homo species') primary paths and population concentrations were likely at areas that are now submerged.

Submerged deltas of Nile, Indus/Sarasvati, and Euprates/Tigris/Eden, Yellow River, Mekong etc. would be most logical places to search about our cultural origins, but same apply to submerged deltas of big rivers of sub-Saharan Africa. If searching the oldest cultures and traces of most early developments of cultural evolution, the most logical place is Africa, Mama Africa.

Also definition of Civilization itself isn't always that clear. How about highly developed technical culture in a middle of rain forest at equator prominent in its use of wood, bone, and other organic technologies? What that kind high culture leave behind to archaeological stratas in that kind environment? Is it beyond imagination that wooden 'megalithic' scale constructions once existed when its clear that such construction material and its working was probably the very first technology the humankind achieved (maybe even before we learnt how to lit and burn it?) Can someone truly declare seriously that those didn't exist, only because so little material is left from them?

Of course. All kind pseudo-archaeological BS that humans couldn't build pyramids without help of UFOs should be left to fringe groups of tin foil hat people. They dramatically underestimate both intelligence and skills of their own progenitors.

I think all of the megaliths around the world where built before the last ice age. Modern day humans just moved in.

How could humans move this?

 

[RageQuit77]

2000-5000 humans and technology, and knowledge.

+ elephants and rhinos (before exstintion).

Browse net without selection bias, dude.

Who else moved then us, if we couldn't?

You just spit on a face of our forerunners, nothing else. Your contemporary impairment, both physical and intellectual, doesn't determine limits they did or what they could/did do.

They did it

.

 

[RageQuit77]

@Stylizer1

Start from there:

Occam's razor

And in all cases you possibly meet. Your cases are not even most difficult ones, because we know for sure there are nothing that couldn't be made by us.

Don't be idiot, they weren't.

 

[Jumptheshark]

Which ones?

Basic logic argument


Person A: This happened
Person B: Prove it
Person A: Prove me wrong

some of the people in the videos are making assumptions with no real hard evidence and suggest that anyone who says they are wrong need to prove them wrong--even though they are using a theory that make a lot of leaps


The Asteroid theory is one that annoys some highly accredited people on the subject because some people use that theory overly to defend their assumptions that an asteroid destroyed all elements of the civilizations--the problem is modern science has been able to assertain evidence of what the world looked like back as far as dinosaurs--and certain people in the videos in the thread will respond "Oh, the asteroid hit the civilization directly" and that is why there is no evidence of some certain civilizations.

In the first video they guys say all the main stream scientist ignore their cataclysmic theories--Oxford and Cambridge have it as part of the curriculum.

By saying the main stream sciences are ignoring their theories--helps them sell them to some people--main stream science is not ignore their theories and investigating it

also


Hancock has a sociological background and not a science background or archaeology background

Carlson is an architect

neither have the degrees on the subjects they talk about and claim to experts--they are self taught

 

[Stylizer1]

2000-5000 humans and technology, and knowledge.

+ elephants and rhinos (before exstintion).

Browse net without selection bias, dude.

Who else moved then us, if we couldn't?

You just spit on a face of our forerunners, nothing else. Your contemporary impairment, both physical and intellectual, doesn't determine limits they did or what they could/did do.

They did it

Educated guesses are still guesses. The problem is we try to attribute what they did back then to what is possible today. Today we believe that they built all of these mega structures with hand tools and animals. Today we build skyscrapers with neither. Which is the greater feat, and in which time period are we judging?

 

[Stylizer1]

 

[PatrikBerglund]

Sweden

 

[Stylizer1]

Sweden

???

 

[JMCx4]

Sweden

I would've nominated the U.S. since the 1950s, but OK.

 

[JMCx4]

... Hancock has a sociological background and not a science background or archaeology background

Carlson is an architect

neither have the degrees on the subjects they talk about and claim to experts--they are self taught

Puts them in a perfect position to be co-moderators of this forum. Sign 'em up.