Atlantis and Lumeria - Ancient and advanced civilization

What do you think the chances are that there may have existed an ancient and technologically advanced society which was wiped out, with nearly all evidence removed?

The evidence strikes me as compelling. I'm not going to go over all of it but I'll list a couple things to start a conversation. It appears as though Pyramids and other ruins were not built in the time frame we believe they were, but were built much earlier than that by a much more advanced society. These ancient sites create a direct line and form their own equator along the planet. Examples of sites along this equator are Easter Island, Nazca Lines and Giza.

So why pyramids? It appears as though they have a healing property.

Quote:

---

With a view to investigate the contribution and role of environment within a wooden pyramid model on the wound healing suppressant effect of dexamethasone in rats, wound breaking strength, dry weight, hydroxyproline content and histology of granulation tissue of the dead space wound were studied in rats. The results indicate that the environment within the wooden pyramid not only promotes significant wound healing but also reduces the wound healing suppressant effect of dexamethasone. Histological studies also confirmed the results.

---

Pyramid environment reduces the wound healing suppressant properties of dexamethasone in albino... - Abstract - Europe PubMed Central

The documentary series Magical Egypt (available on youtube) goes into greater detail regarding these healing properties.

Why they form their own equator remains a mystery, as well as how they were built or why their size is so important, but if even a wooden pyramid with replicated dimensions can heal wounds faster, imagine the possibilities.

There are also many other ancient sites which do not fit this equator but remain connected along ley-lines and other vortexes. Here is an example of the theorized grid system

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ci...avitywg011.jpg

The bermuda triangle is one example of what's been called a "vile vortex" though the true nature of these vortexes remains a mystery. For example, some consider Easter Island to be one of these "vile vortexes" though Easter Island is also one of the ancient sites that lines up with the Nazca Lines, Pyramids of Giza, etc.

Earth's Grid System, Becker-Hagens, Ley Lines, Hartmann Net, Curry Lines - Science and Pseudoscience - Crystalinks

Mapping The World Grid

Ley line - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vile Vortices - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I also recommend the documentary Revelation of the Pyramids to further investigate some of the interesting details regarding these ancient sites.

The significance between the ancient world and this grid system remains elusive. I'm open to theories and/or explanations. Moving on, though, I'd like to point out that while it may be possible to at least argue that these ancient sites do not predate history and hence, were not built by an ancient and advanced civilization, there are a couple sites you cannot make this argument about because they are underwater. Therefore, some ancient and devastating shift must have occurred since they were built. For example:

Bimini Road, a limestone formation that appears to be man-made http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bimini_Road

Yonaguni Monument, an ancient city full of underwater pyramids http://genesisveracityfoundation.com/yonaguni01.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ouEIZEmC-I...nimonoment.jpg

It is also rumored that a pyramid has been found in the gulf of Mexico, near Cuba, in the Bermuda Triangle. However there are currently not enough facts to confirm this.

Please note: If your intention is to ridicule this investigation I'm going to ask that your posts be removed from this thread. The intention of this thread of a serious investigation. While you are encouraged to think critically, take the subject matter seriously or ignore the thread.

I think a key here is the assumptions that go along with the phrase 'technically advanced'. Several past civilizations had very good engineering and architecture. This doesn't however imply things like engines or electronics. Archimedes is said to have said that given a suitable place to stand, he could move the world with a lever. I think that there's something to be said for that. I've moved and positioned objects weighing several thousand pounds using just levers, rollers, blocks, and careful planning. Maybe someone who didn't see the result or didn't have a good intuitive understanding of statics and dynamics would assume that I must have used levitation or some advanced technology.

No, I don't presume to disprove anything with one anecdote, its just to illustrate that people's intuitions can go wrong about this sort of thing when they don't know how something was done.

I think that most of the stuff about Atlantis and Lemuria was made up by Theosophists. I used to believe it in the mid-90's before I recognized that I couldn't believe any of that stuff and had to look at it all fresh. Now I think the 'mainstream' view of history is basically correct, and the challenge for people like myself who believe in paranormal stuff is to figure out how that fits. The approach that the Theosophists took, which was to attack the credibility of science without offering scientifically strong arguments, is not healthy in my view. It drives a destructive wedge between an occultist's mind and reason, and between his mind and the rest of society. This would be necessary if the occultist was right, but in my case he wasn't.

Part of what changed this for me was going to math graduate school. Ideas which had previously seemed plausible no longer seemed at all plausible after my understanding of system dynamics and topology improved. And this taught me how limited I am by all of these abstract ways of thinking, even though I already knew it intellectually before that. Also I learned that just because something seems emotionally compelling and seems to fit with everything I already 'know' doesn't mean that it actually makes any sense. Again I already knew that at some level, but without recognizing the implications to that extent. I don't think a person can learn this from 'popular' science expositions, it takes intensive study of a subject that requires significant rigor, and I doubt that a person can even know what that is without doing it. Consequently I doubt I can convince anyone else of this. So maybe my own struggle was to a significant extent a cruel joke with not much to show for it.

If you don't care what I think just let it go, I don't feel like arguing. I just responded because its a topic I looked into a fair amount and put a lot of thought into.

I do agree with the possibility that very advanced lever and pulley systems could account for many of these ancient monuments. However there is still more significant data available, such as the precision of the cuts and measurements. In Giza, specifically, there are hallways which are completely straight down to the millimeter.

Furthermore, the fact that there are ruins which are deep underwater also leads me to believe that there is something significant to the possibility of ancient civilizations far predating known history.

I do not know who the majority of promoters of Atlantis/Lumeria theory is, and I'm not exactly sure if your label "theosophist" is correct. I, for one, believe in Science and support the scientific method to a pretty great extent. It is due to the fact that I am so in favor of the Scientific Method that I continue to bring up possibilities which some would consider far-fetched. I believe it is our job to explore, and continue exploring. And while I agree that one must follow certain sciences more intensely if they want a real grip on it, you cannot consider mythology if you trap yourself in the perspective of a historian. Rooting yourself too deeply in one particular scientific realm and you begin to fit everything into a narrower and narrower perspective, and then write off anything that doesn't fit, simply because it doesn't fit a viewpoint which you have grown attached to. So too much research can create the same problem in the scientist that you described in the theosophist writing off scientific theory.

I do not wish to argue and frankly I'd like to avoid an argument at all costs in this thread. Because I don't know. But I do require more than the sentiment that you did the research but then got really into math and decided it was foolish. I'm not sure what mindset you were in, and by the sound of it you were helping yourself by claiming a more mainstream worldview. Perhaps it was the healthiest thing you could do. For the sake of your mental health, you are certainly permitted not to explore the same possibilities which fascinate me. For the sake of my mental health, I must continue to play with possibility. So if you would like to examine this evidence, perhaps explain what you may have learned about ley-lines and vortexes, I would be keenly interested. I find the coincidence too great to be meaningless.

I think it was at Puma Punku, where they looked at tool marks left on building blocks under powerful microscope to compare them to tool marks left by cutting-edge modern technology. They came to conclusion, that walls build in Puma Punku were cut by technique or tools that are far more advanced than our modern tools are.

I do believe, that our civilization is not the first one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

But I do require more than the sentiment that you did the research but then got really into math and decided it was foolish.

---

I don't think that's a fair characterization of my understanding and experience. But I agree that me writing pages and pages trying try to flesh all of that out better probably isn't going to do either of us any good. I think that me telling you what I think about vortexes is likely to be a waste of time for the same reason. Anything I say will from the outset seem inadequately supported and contrary to possibilities you want to consider, but if I take the time to support it more rigorously that will just seem like a more and more persistent attack.

As a possible clarification in my first point in the previous point: An ancient civilization can be more advanced than ours in some regards while also lacking much of our technology. My suggestion wasn't that past civilizations weren't advanced, and that they did everything with more primitive technology. My suggestion was that its worth considering what being advanced means, and not assuming that they were equal to or ahead of us in some general technological sense just because they could do certain things that we can't do as well.

That aside, here's another idea which I haven't mentioned for a while which might be helpful....A thought about an ancient civilization can feel real because other people are thinking about it, and because it is somehow in some sense in our 'past', but this isn't the same as being in our historical past. For instance, suppose that Atlantis was real, and then we changed our thoughts about life in a way that changed both our present and the history leading up to it. Now Atlantis is 'gone', but not just buried in a geological sense, its gone as if it was never there except in our emotional or 'soul' memories. Or it might not even have been in this world, which is a similar way of trying to express the same thought.

If you want additional ideas about Atlantis, Lemuria, and other past civilizations, then Thinking and Destiny by H. W. Percival, which is available for free at thewordfoundation.com, has a lot about that. Percival was also a Theosophist, but I think that a very large portion of late 19th, early 20th century occult/mystic thought can be fairly characterized as Theosophist. The movement had a huge impact. Max Heindel, for example, called himself a Rosicrucian, but if you compare his Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception to Theosophy by Rudolph Steiner, its pretty much the same stuff. There's the blindness that comes from having too narrow a focus, but also the blindness of having inadequate context and information about what you're trying to form reasonable hypotheses about.

In any case, I wish you a fruitful exploration.

I agree that when I say technologically advanced, it can be interpreted to mean I'm implying they had particular technology that there's no evidence of. Granted, they did find in Gabon that the uranium they've been mining has already been used, as though a nuclear reactor did exist in prehistory.

And again, if you were to watch Magical Egypt, you would find there's a lot of interesting aspects to the Pyramids which reveal an interesting combination between science, medicine, art, architecture and mathematics. Like I said earlier, they've already replicated the pyramid's dimensions and discovered healing properties.

And again, it's not explainable how Yonaguni got where it is in the time frame historians and archaeologists have allotted for it. It had to have been built much earlier than when it is supposed most of these ancient sites were erected, because the world needed to take a great shift in order to move the ancient site under water.

I'd like to address your point about the metaphysical or belief-based reality theory regarding Atlantis, as well, though. This is an interesting concept, though it's difficult to really say if history can be affected by our combined expectations. Intuitively I would say that history is accumulative, but there's also a history of thought-forms, the rising and falling Gods which are essentially tulpae, and there's a whole mythology that exists to a subtle and mental extent, like a war between human ethos and the symbols tied to ethos. A culture's ethos, or collective beliefs, attitudes, ethics, etc, is reflected symbolically through their mythology.

However, there is a fine line between myth and history, and while it's irrefutable to claim that myth is anything less than a symbolic means or maintaining cultural traditions, it also seems to be a way of preserving very old history. It turns into myth because as a society decays in intelligence or understanding, or a story is transferred to a new society, they are forced to understand the history symbolically. So they understand that their forefathers founded their society on flying bird boats, and the like.

Intuitively I believe there was an ancient society but I believe reality may be very different than we think it is, and there's a lot to the mystery that I do not understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Granted, they did find in Gabon that the uranium they've been mining has already been used, as though a nuclear reactor did exist in prehistory.

---

The existence of an natural reactor does not at all imply nuclear technology (Natural nuclear fission reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Similarly the existence of a mine with uranium in it also does not imply uranium mining. Uranium ore is typically only about 0.1% Uranium, and Uranium decays into Radium and Lead, both of which have primitive (though toxic) uses. Maybe this was your point, but it wasn't clear to me.

If you want to avoid an argument "at all costs", just don't reply and I'll leave you alone now.

Here's a couple of thoughts:

First, humans have possessed about the same potential for intelligence for tens of thousands of years; why can't they have made the pyramids with such precision? Ancient peoples were just ancient; they weren't stupid, and there should be no reason we need to be amazed at their building skills or surprised if they were a bit more advanced than we at first thought -- or are willing to admit, as it were.

Second, the earth has been spinning for a very long time, with advanced life like us occupying it for millions of years. Since the entire known human history has moved from hunter-gatherers to space travel and cell phones in less than 25,000 years, yet homo sapiens have been around for hundreds of thousands, why couldn't we have gone through some cycle of development and destruction once or twice before? For that matter, who is to say that some other race of beings (small intelligent dinosaurs being one of my favorites) didn't go through multiple cycles as well? And evidence might be truly scares -- I saw "Life After People," and was suitable amazed at how quickly the planet cleans up after its infestations.

I guess I offer these thoughts not for the sake of argument, but to suggest that this pastime humans have of imagining wonderful and mystical explanations for what might well be just inevitable (and, for lack of evidence, irretrievable) history that happened without any input from us.

Shadowofwind - I want to avoid a bickering match. I want to avoid defensive attitudes. I don't have my mind made up on the subject and defensiveness won't get me anywhere. I am merely presenting all the evidence I've obtained. Some of it is obviously debunkable.

Sageous - This essentially reflects my opinion. The only difference being that some of the precision regarding the pyramids is very difficult to imagine without precision cutting tools that, as far as I can tell, would require energy and engines which archeologists do not believe ever existed on the planet before the last century. You're right that the earth can clean up pretty quickly, but there is something that does have a tendency to survive, and that's granite and limestone, which is what these ancient sites are made from.

What I find most curious is the placement of these ancient sites, especially regarding the fact that so many of them form a perfect straight line across the planet. I also can't help but believe the so-called vile vortices are linked. But so far no single theory has made a whole lot of sense, least of all the channelings from Seth and what have you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gab

I think it was at Puma Punku, where they looked at tool marks left on building blocks under powerful microscope to compare them to tool marks left by cutting-edge modern technology. They came to conclusion, that walls build in Puma Punku were cut by technique or tools that are far more advanced than our modern tools are.

I do believe, that our civilization is not the first one.

---

Puma Punku (spelling?) blows my mind away!!

I recently watched a program on ancient Egypt. It was on netflix if anyone is curious. The mini series has about five episodes. The most amazing site was one that reminded me of Puma Punku. It also features perfectly cut blocks and stones that show signs of advanced technology. They also can't figure out what those features are for.

But! The biggest difference between ancient technologies and today is capitalism. As far as I can see ancient technology was always tied up with the mystery religions. I think that's why the knowledge was lost.

Who knows! I hope we find more sites like Puma Punku

All these myths must originate from some kind of truth

I forgot the site where I read this but supposedly Atlantis and Lumeria were highly advanced civilizations and had some kind of power that harnesses a universal energy.



After Lemuria and Atlantis were destroyed, survivors fled to different areas and created civilizations like Tiwanaku ( Puma Pumku ), Mayan, Egyptian. Then those civilizations were destroyed or invaded/overrun. The story of Atlantis was told to Plato by an Egyptian priest.

One universal truth was passed down through all these civilizations and supposedly lost. Really it's hard to understand anything about these ancient civilizations without delving into the study of human spirit.

I do believe a higher dimension/universal energy can be harnessed and channeled into the physical realm but this energy/higher dimension comes from within human beings. Meditation basically does this. But supposedly Pyramids are a natural technology that "raises your vibration" which I totally believe but have no idea how that technology works.


I believe we are headed into another "Atlantis/Lemuria" type of society.

Love, peace, creativity, passion, joy.. these are the things that really matter to the human spirit and are all experienced subjectively. I for one am really grateful to be alive in this time period.


That theorized grid system you posted is interesting Original_Poster. The world must have been connected at some point

One should be wary of the type of pyramid. Giza is actually 8-sided, and this has a beneficial effect but a 4-sided pyramid is actually harmful to the body in the long run.

Here's what I think bout Atlantis. It was the Indus Valley civilisation. Look it up. I think Plato put all the myths that had accumulated about it into a cohesive story, like Rick Riordan did with The Kane Chronicles

Damn I remember this thread. Recently I learned that the Bermuda Triangle doesn't actually account for a statistically relevant number of ships or planes lost than any other portion of the sea that size. So perhaps calling them "Vile vortices" isn't fair but it's how they're recognized.

Atlantis was a story. Lemuria was a hypothesis as to why there were lemur ascestral fossils in both India and Madagascar. There isn't any real basis for the existence of either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBlbhiwmUF4

This really goes into the more New Age stuff, but he still talks about why neither are real.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

What do you think the chances are that there may have existed an ancient and technologically advanced society which was wiped out, with nearly all evidence removed?

The evidence strikes me as compelling.

---

Thank you, I lol'd.

Question: Why couldn't we recreate the pyramids even with today's advanced technology in the precision they were created? Why do ancient sites form their own equator? Why do ancient ruins exist in the friggin ocean? Etc.

Hypothesis: Technologically advanced ancient civilization.

Problem: Would be more evidence

Potentially, but how do you solve these riddles?

Doesn't matter, your hypothesis is invalid.

But can you answer the question?

No, but your hypothesis is invalid.

How fucking constructive of you.

The Mystery of Pumapunku

This thread exists to provide hypotheses not debunk them, friend.

Debunking hypotheses is part of any effective process of forming hypotheses.

The sea level has gone up 100 meters in the past 20,000 years, and 50 meters in the past 10,000 years. Cities tend to be built on flat areas like river deltas, since they're good for farming and navigation, and easy to build on. As an example, if the grade in a particular area were 6%, which is relatively steep for a road, that would put a 20,000 year old shoreline 'city' more than 50 kilometers out at sea. (Though most 'ruins' aren't that old of course.) Additionally, there are other reasons that land rises and falls. Land can sink during earthquakes. Cities built on river delta silt tend to sink under their own weight, a process which can be greatly accelerated by storm erosion. In northern latitudes where there were glaciers, land tends to sink as nearby land rises as its decompressed as the ice melts. So yeah, there are ruins in the ocean.

The idea that the pyramids can't be recreated with today's technology is just misinformation. Of course its always possible to find an academic of some sort who can't imagine how a particular problem was solved. This doesn't mean there aren't 10 other academics who can solve it. Of course those 10 other guys don't get interviewed by cable TV because that doesn't sell ads.

I don't understand what it means for a site to have its own equator. The sun and moon go down in the west and come up in the east. Ancient people were 1000 times more aware of the movement of heavenly bodies than modern people, since almost everything important in their lives depended on understanding and predicting seasons. I'd be surprised for significant ancient ruins not to have precisely engineered east-west divisions and other such things. Nobody has been suggesting ancient people were stupid. Except maybe for the people who say that that ancient people couldn't plausibly accomplish anything without outside help or the equivalent of modern electronics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

The idea that the pyramids can't be recreated with today's technology is just misinformation. Of course its always possible to find an academic of some sort who can't imagine how a particular problem was solved. This doesn't mean there aren't 10 other academics who can solve it. Of course those 10 other guys don't get interviewed by cable TV because that doesn't sell ads.

---

Some more context for this statement....My current company, which is pretty low tech, uses granite that's engineered to micrometers. My previous company dealt with crystals that were polished with tolerances in nanometers, almost layers of atoms. These are not architectural applications of course. But that's because modern people with money don't desire that kind of precision with architecture. If they did, engineers could be hired to do that. And if it needed to be done without the assistance of lasers and whatnot, that could be done too, it would just take more time and resources to develop a solution, which would cost more.

The article linked by StephL debunks the alien theory which was never made in this thread, fails to explain the precision of the stones and calls it a day. That isn't constructive by a long shot.

I don't doubt that modern technology could accomplish this, and now that I look at it, the prevalent theory on Yonaguni is that an earthquake shoved it under water. However, the dates these ancient sites were erected still remain total ballpark estimations, and so far I haven't found a viable means of debunking the theory that many of them were inherited. Or at the very least, Khufu took a fuck longer to build than is supposed. The only reason it's supposed they erected it so quickly was because they built it for that particular Pharaoh. Frankly I find that construction time more improbable to believe than that they inherited the pyramids and repurposed them.

If the ancients built any of them less than 12,000 years ago, we are starkly underestimating how brilliant they were. Not just their capability to build really big stuff, but to make ducts perfectly straight within a millimeter that span hundreds of feet, and to have such perfect symmetry and mathematical impeccability regarding so many frivolous measurements, far surpassing the extraordinary attention to detail shown by the ancient Greeks both in their statues and the Parthenon. The Parthenon monuments the epitome of ancient greek accomplishments and still pales in comparison. In fact ancient monuments paint a picture of devolving architectural ability rather than what you assume would be the opposite. It would also mean Egyptians traveled to the new world and then went to Easter Island. I'm not saying this is all impossible, I'm just saying it continues to remain worthwhile to investigate the possibility that they inherited these structures from an older, more advanced civilization. I believe it's less far-fetched to imagine that human civilization was once far more advanced than we give them credit for. The details of these monuments alone and their synchronicity with Earth's magnetic field prove they were far more advanced than we give them credit for already, but it's still out of the question that their tools were more advanced as well.

Hitting a few highlights, not in order....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

The details of these monuments alone and their synchronicity with Earth's magnetic field prove they were far more advanced than we give them credit for already, but it's still out of the question that their tools were more advanced as well.

---

What is synchronous with the earth's magnetic field and what does that show? The magnetic field is approximately in line with the axis of rotation, though it drifts around a bit more. What shows awareness of the magnetic field, as opposed to the earth's rotation? And who is this "we" who doesn't imagine them making careful and accurate astronomical measurements?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

I don't doubt that modern technology could accomplish this

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Why couldn't we recreate the pyramids even with today's advanced technology in the precision they were created?

---

It seems that either there's some nuance lost here in translation to words, or you're moving the goalposts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

If the ancients built any of them less than 12,000 years ago, we are starkly underestimating how brilliant they were. Not just their capability to build really big stuff, but to make ducts perfectly straight within a millimeter that span hundreds of feet, and to have such perfect symmetry and mathematical impeccability regarding so many frivolous measurements, far surpassing the extraordinary attention to detail shown by the ancient Greeks both in their statues and the Parthenon.

---

Again, who is this "we"? These were men, not chimps. Men can put a man on the moon, and they can build big precise stone structures with careful engineering and slave labor, if that's what they value. Maybe the Greeks cared more about aesthetics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

It would also mean Egyptians traveled to the new world and then went to Easter Island.

---

I don't see how this follows at all. Some problems have natural solutions which arise where they are needed. People share ideas with other people who travel other places. People get ideas telepathetically from other remote people, particularly where gods are involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

The article linked by StephL debunks the alien theory which was never made in this thread, fails to explain the precision of the stones and calls it a day. That isn't constructive by a long shot.

---

But you find theories about aliens being involved with man's technological development to be credible, that is a relevant aspect of where you are truly coming from. And the underlying psychology, logic, and worldview is very much connected. Unless the goal is to play games on the surface while avoiding the heart of things, I think she was on topic. (Though I didn't follow the link, so I'm just guessing from your response.)

Large scale farming tends to be labor intensive during short periods, with a lot of spare time in other seasons. They unavoidably had extra time and not much else to occupy it. I don't see how millimeter precision over hundreds of feet is a big deal. I'd try using a bright lamp in a box with a millimeter slit on each side, a measuring standard like a stout stick, and patience. If that didn't work, I'd consider why it failed, and modify the approach accordingly. Maybe the video didn't address the precision of the stones because like me they didn't understand why its considered a problem.

The precision of those sort of things are not anything special. If you just put a ruler across two blocks you can make sure they are even in size with each other. It doesn't take any advanced technology what so ever. It just takes some guy with a ruler.

Also, cutting stone doesn't require advanced tools. You could carve pretty much anything out of stone, using just a rock as a tool. It would take forever, but it is entirely possible. The problem with early tools is that they are slower than power tools, and are often made out of softer metals that need to be resharped often. There wasn't any issue with a lack of precision.

In the end attention to detail, is simply attention to detail. None of those things are beyond humans with the most simple of tools. You don't need advanced tools to make straight lines, and the length and size doesn't matter in the slightest. If you can make a straight even block two inches long then you can do it 1000 miles long. All it takes is you doing it two inches at a time.

Also all the talk of stuff lining up is just gibberish. People like to draw lines all over maps and try to connect points but they don't actually line up in meaningful ways. It is just a trick to use lines in fancy patterns that mimic meaning when there is none.

Shadowofwind - I never did say aliens were necessary to explain this. Not once. The link debunks aliens, which is a hypothesis I never brought up. This is something I'm having a problem with. My position is being made for me by virtue of the fact that I bring up these questions. If I were to ask "Why is there something instead of nothing?" Would it be considered feasible to respond "Not because of aliens?" This is not a thread where I try to prove a claim, the intention was made very clearly that this thread is here in order to discuss ancient mysteries, not argue whether or not they came from aliens. If someone wants to provide evidence they came from aliens and another person wants to then respond why it's improbable that falls in line with the thread, but StephL's link was non-sequitur.

Their structures follow the electro-magnetic field in the sense that ancient ruins fall into the gridlines I've laid out in the OP. Furthermore, when they attempted to build the whitehouse so the sides matched up perfectly with directions, they failed to come close to the pyramid's precision in this endeavor. Through their harmonization with the EM field, they've got healing properties (which I also believe I've linked)

When I said originally that we couldn't recreate these structure with modern technology I was mirroring this claim as laid out by many of the sources I'm picking this information from. I agree that this is not provable based on one failed attempt. However, there is a very short timeline Egyptologists argue that the Pyramid of Khufu was erected in, and I remain very doubtful even with today's tools we could accomplish that level of precision in such a short time. Even if you agree that it was erected less around the era it's assumed, you still seem to have as much trouble with the proposed timeline that I do. And even Alric, apparently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

...
But you find theories about aliens being involved with man's technological development to be credible, that is a relevant aspect of where you are truly coming from. And the underlying psychology, logic, and worldview is very much connected.
Unless the goal is to play games on the surface while avoiding the heart of things, I think she was on topic. (Though I didn't follow the link, so I'm just guessing from your response.)
....

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Shadowofwind - I never did say aliens were necessary to explain this. Not once.
The link debunks aliens, which is a hypothesis I never brought up.

This is something I'm having a problem with. My position is being made for me by virtue of the fact that I bring up these questions.


If I were to ask "Why is there something instead of nothing?" Would it be considered feasible to respond "Not because of aliens?" This is not a thread where I try to prove a claim, the intention was made very clearly that this thread is here in order to discuss ancient mysteries, not argue whether or not they came from aliens.


If someone wants to provide evidence they came from aliens and another person wants to then respond why it's improbable that falls in line with the thread, but StephL's link was non-sequitur.

---

You are not entirely correct here - this is how the article starts:

Quote:

---

Today we're going to climb high into the Andes and take a look at an ancient structure that has been cloaked with as much pop-culture mystery as just about any other on Earth: Pumapunku, a stone structure that's part of the larger Tiwanaku. Pumapunku, which translates to the Doorway of the Puma, is best known for its massive stones and for the extraordinary precision of their cutting and placement. It's one of those places where you've heard, probably many times, that the stones are so closely fitted that a knife blade cannot be inserted between them. Due to these features,
Pumapunku is often cited as evidence that Earth was visited by aliens, Atlanteans, or some other mythical people who are presumably better at stonemasonry than humans.

---

By asking your questions, you basically deny "normal" human development of skills, and natural means standing behind certain monuments.
In especially when it comes to them supposedly being arranged in a global pattern
There is no meaning in invoking normal humans, who used to be more advanced in regular arts than those humans, to whom the monuments are usually ascribed to, if you don't want to invoke the supernatural.
We have the evidence of most wonderful and precise building activities of our ancestors - so why would it be more exciting, if it were a bit older?
And what shadowofwind said confirms it.
You can't expect to open a thread like this, and do as if that aspect of the whole topic wouldn't exist.
Or how do you account for the presumed miraculous abilities of these ancient people in actual fact?
What's the point of the argumentation?

I was about to just cite the last passage, but was curious as to what would happen, were I to throw it in without comment.
He does discuss the precision work by the way - basically in the same way as in here.


If you don't mention, where you believe this supposed superiority came from, it really looks like wanting to play games on the surface.
This "non-sequitur" of mine has pointed directly at the heart of the issue.



Just an aside:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

When I said originally that we couldn't recreate these structure with modern technology I was mirroring this claim as laid out by many of the sources I'm picking this information from. I agree that this is not provable based on one failed attempt. However, there is a very short timeline Egyptologists argue that the Pyramid of Khufu was erected in, and I remain very doubtful even with today's tools we could accomplish that level of precision in such a short time. Even if you agree that it was erected less around the era it's assumed, you still seem to have as much trouble with the proposed timeline that I do. And even Alric, apparently.

---

What exact time-frame are you talking about?
I can't see a time-line or Alric and shadowofwind having trouble explaining one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

If you can make a straight even block two inches long then you can do it 1000 miles long. All it takes is you doing it two inches at a time.

---

The errors accumulate. If you have a 0.01 inch error each time, after a few hundred inches you have quite a large error. You need some way to measure the error over the long distance, otherwise your line will wander all over the place, and as you try to straighten it with local adjustments it will just make other parts worse. That's why I suggested a lamp in a box with a slit it in. If the blocks are all the same width, if they're not placed correctly they'll eclipse the lamp on one side or the other. The main problem that I see is that the small slit gets hard to see if you're too far away, but it seems to me that it would work for a fairly large distance at night, in the absence of other nearby light sources.

In any case, if there's a flaw in my idea I would find out when trying it, and refine accordingly. It would be vain and silly for me to say "someone else with decades of experience building things did a better job than I did, so it seems likely they had help."

This is actually a great idea with the lamp in the box - how did you come to it - never heard it before, I believe?! Is it yours?
The use of light is ingenious - won't deviate, you can be sure of that.
And I could imagine a huge variety of methods, small other ingenious devices by which - lacking other equipment - a great deal of sophistication in masonry, and also precision could have been achieved.
Things we can't even easily think up today, because there is no need for them - and nobody imaginative is seriously and furiously trying to invent something to please a deadly despot.

You could just put a ball on top of the stone, if it isn't level it will start rolling. You could also pour water on it, and the water will flow downwards it is uneven.

My point - many, many physical phenomena follow observable rules, which can be used as measures, with often surprisingly simple contraptions - and how you go about it large scale - pressure put upon a genius. Or several.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

The errors accumulate. If you have a 0.01 inch error each time, after a few hundred inches you have quite a large error. You need some way to measure the error over the long distance, otherwise your line will wander all over the place, and as you try to straighten it with local adjustments it will just make other parts worse. That's why I suggested a lamp in a box with a slit it in. If the blocks are all the same width, if they're not placed correctly they'll eclipse the lamp on one side or the other. The main problem that I see is that the small slit gets hard to see if you're too far away, but it seems to me that it would work for a fairly large distance at night, in the absence of other nearby light sources.

In any case, if there's a flaw in my idea I would find out when trying it, and refine accordingly. It would be vain and silly for me to say "someone else with decades of experience building things did a better job than I did, so it seems likely they had help."

---

However applicable this suggestion might be. I don't see how they could have possibly used it to make the pyramids. For one it means they could only cut stones at night. Now that doesn't seem like that much of a problem if you have a good schedule. But, there seems to be loads of room for human error using this method. Constant rechecking and adjusting the angle because it eclipses the light does not seem like a viable working method to me.

If they cut the stones it seems likely to me that they cut the stones after they arrived on their assigned spot. It just seems like a good method. And i can see how they did this at night using light. As a layman ofcourse this makes sense.

Then we still have the issue of how they got the stones there in the first place. I used to like the idea that the stones have been liquidified for transport solidified at the spot. They could have maybe somehow floated them from all over egypt to the river nile and then placed a construct to transport them to the pyramid in their liquid form.. (the biggest hole in my theory is probably my ignorance in geography and pretty much everything else ^^)

I believe in an electromagnetic purpose for the Great Pyramid of Giza, atleast. I believe it was Nikola Tesla who proposed (or maybe even just explained) how the form of pyramids and material they used (Granite? Shadow, you work with Granite. I heared it has oscillating properties or something) causes weather changes in the surrounding area by changing the Ions in the atmosphere to change the Weather to more favorable conditions. (No drought in that part of Egypt). I believe it was this realization that spurred Tesla to make a weather control device and work with oscillating towers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dthoughts

However applicable this suggestion might be. I don't see how they could have possibly used it to make the pyramids. For one it means they could only cut stones at night.

---

The light is used to assist with the placement of stones, not with the cutting of them. So although the placement would have to be refined at night, almost all of the work and placement would be done during the day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dthoughts

I believe in an electromagnetic purpose for the Great Pyramid of Giza

---

I think that if we dig down through this structure of beliefs, we find that these kinds of arguments about stone placement are not driving it. You have the belief mostly for other reasons, and fit the arguments around the belief. Otherwise you'd understand ideas like the lamp suggestion better before deciding why they can't work. Likewise for Original Poster. Sorry for leaving this statement hanging without better justification. I must work, more on this later.

I still feel like my position is being made for me in order to be argued against. Why the fuck is the supernatural a required element in any of this? The only claim I made made was that these monuments are older than archeologists are currently claiming. It is currently claimed it took 14-20 years to build the pyramid of Khufu. The reason this is claimed is because of the lineage of Pharaohs and the theory that pyramids are built as funeral monuments so they have a deadline to bury the pharaoh. This claim doesn't add up. That doesn't mean I think anything supernatural is necessarily afoot. Cataclysm, after all, is not a supernatural idea, nor is the idea of reusing structures left behind.

That being said, mysticism was a heavy part of Egyptian society. They combined math, science, music and architecture with their religion and believed they could make structure as music frozen in time according to certain Egyptologists. It's been shown that building a pyramid with the same properties as Khufu that also faces direct north has healing properties. This isn't supernatural, this is science we haven't understood yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

I still feel like my position is being made for me in order to be argued against. Why the fuck is the supernatural a required element in any of this?

---

You change your position almost every post. To the limited extent that we're making up a position for you, we're just trying to find the real position that's motivating the more temporary positions, in hopes of having a real conversation.

You called for an explanation for why ruins are under water. I spoke to that. You called for an explanation for how pyramids are built with a higher degree of precision than is possible even with current technology. I spoke to that. But it seems you're not really basing anything on these points, you just move on to something else. I can speak to the ideas about magnetic fields too, because I know a lot about magnetic fields, and a little bit about Egyptian iron working. But it seems it may be a futile exercise. Now you're saying "why the fuck is the supernatural a required element?" Who says its a required element? I never said anything like that, and nobody's arguments have been based on anything like that. You also repeated a couple times that you haven't said that aliens aren't necessary to explain this. But we didn't say that you did. What we are saying is that 'aliens' and 'mysterious elder civilizations' are very nearly the same kind of explanation, and the arguments for and motivations for both are almost exactly the same. One comes from 'outside' of known history temporally, and another spatially. From my standpoint the two ideas are almost interchangeable. Moreover, you do believe it highly likely that aliens have been involved with human history, unless you've recently changed your mind and are being coy about that also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

The only claim I made made was that these monuments are older than archeologists are currently claiming.

---

No that is most definitely not the only claim you made. What about the magnetic field alignment, for example? I agree that archeologists likely have some of their dates wrong, they do some amount of guessing and making stuff up without always admitting they're doing that. But for you to believe the monuments are a lot older, that must be based on something. Its hard to engage in whatever that is though when you keep contradicting yourself about what you're arguing. I could speculate, and would have tossed out a few ideas already, to see if anything seems to touch a nerve, but haven't mostly due to a lack of time. I leave for China and Japan tomorrow, maybe I'll have more time at the hotel.

I'm not even trying to argue, dude. I just want a friendly discussion. I'm not changing my stance, I'm whisking through evidence and theories made by other people so that this thread can be a brainstorm of ideas about these monuments, not the antagonistic bickering match you seem intent on having.

Compelling ideas were presented to me through various documentaries and other sources such as "Revelation of the Pyramids" because I have a thirst for knowledge, but I remained skeptical and continued inquiring on my own. What I discovered only enhanced the mysterious properties of the Pyramids and other ancient sites, such as learning the healing properties, ley lines, underwater monuments, etc. I decided to compile all of this information on one thread, not because I believe it, but because it's fucking fascinating. The claim made by Revelations of the Pyramids is that these sites are much older than believed and more or less inherited by later civilizations, just as the nation of Egypt has inherited them from the Egyptian Empire. I do not necessarily believe in this claim but based on the evidence I've seen, I found it viable. I'm not changing goal posts or anything, since then all I've done is shrug off the strawmen positions being attacked and reassert the evidence in their regard to speak to how amazing these sites are, perhaps because I feel like they're being underrated and marginalized to a degree. The intricacy of what the ancients understood does not have to mean that they had laser cutting tools or something, that's simply one of the theories proposed I decided to bring attention to. We don't have to bicker about it, in particular. And me bringing up their harmonization with the EM field was not an attempt to argue a mysterious elder civilization, it's me bringing up another unique and amazing quality about these monuments.

Original Poster:

These 'fascinating theories' you're exploring overtly attack and attempt to discredit other ideas which they wish to replace. And you've been doing that in your presentation of them.

When someone expresses agreement with an idea you've been attacking, even by doing something as simple as posting a link, you say they're not being constructive. You say their criticism failed to address the actual arguments behind the ideas you presented. Then when someone does address those arguments, you say that by doing that they're intent on bickering. And when your arguments are shown to be bogus and unserious, you say you're just brainstorming and exploring ideas.

From my perspective, you show no signs of having a 'thirst for knowledge': all indications are that your self image in this regard is a fraud and a farce. If you cared about knowledge, you'd think and engage honestly in pursuit of that knowledge, rather than playing these bizarre games where you fling bullshit at other people's views, while claiming they're being argumentative if they disagree with you.

I've 'made this personal' by attempting to cut through the crap, and I'm more aggressive than you in that regard. I think the ideas you express are intrinsically antagonistic, they attempt to destroy both the fruit and the tree of real understanding. But whatever. If you forget about me for a moment, and look objectively at what Steph said, and compare it to what you said to her and in support of your speculations, I think you will see that your criticism of her post is remarkably hypocritical. You've been debunking theories left and right, but only see it as debunking when other people do it to claims that you find compelling.

You also appear to confound sincerity with aggression, and insincerity with open mindedness. What I'm doing looks more tenacious to you than what you're doing, but from my perspective, you seem less attached to your arguments primarily in the sense that you're making them in jest more than in earnest. You are indeed a bullshitter, you're right about that. But you're attached to your faith in elder civilizations as if your life depends on it. To me the reason for that is a more interesting question. But it doesn't seem to be interesting to you. So if you're done with this conversation too, I'll let it go now and let you have your fake brainstorming thread the way you want it.

I don't actually have attachment to elder civilizations, in fact if you'll note the time of the OP since then I've drifted quite a bit from the original argument. A lot of time has passed, this thread was sort of rezzed and I decided to add the piece of data about how no more people disappear in the Bermuda Triangle than the rest of the ocean, which is critical of theory surrounding the grid system.

But the author of that link rubbed me the wrong way. I don't feel like he was giving the data fair respect. He debunked two little aspects of one particular site and then went on to marginalize the entirety of alternate theory on these ancient sites. I draw offense to that kind of well poisoning. You're free to criticize all the evidence in the OP but I don't like it when people ridicule theorists who draw different conclusions. I think it hurts the scientific process.

The only claim I still hold onto that actually disagrees with Egyptologists at this point is the timespan they claim Khufu was built in and with it, the original purpose of the pyramids. I also feel like they're mostly considered glorified tombstones when they are much, much more than that. But you've admitted to that, you only draw issue on something I didn't even disagree with you on. And then you claimed I was changing goal posts when I was just trying to find my footing, mostly just from attempting to defend my criticism of StephL's link. If it's hypocritical, then it's hypocritical and I'm capable of much greater hypocrisy than that without noticing it, either. I realized now that if I had just stopped trying to defend my criticism I could have prevented the entirety of what occurred afterward. But frankly, I still don't like that article, I still think it skims over major questions and then acts as if it addressed them and the mystery is solved.

To digress, here's a fascinating little article I just found: Swedish Divers Discover A “Stone Age Atlantis”: 11,000 Year Old Ancient Settlement Under The Baltic Sea | Spirit Science and Metaphysics

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

I don't actually have attachment to elder civilizations....
....
I still don't like that article, I still think it skims over major questions and then acts as if it addressed them and the mystery is solved.

---

OK. Attachment wasn't the right word for what I was trying to get at, so I take that back.

I agree that skeptics in general do what you just said they do. But I think that applies at least as much to proponents of alternative histories. So it appears we're both trying to defend the same principle.

My last post came off as more aggressive than what I'd intended. I apologize for that.

I'm in Hong Kong for my job. It's a remarkable city. Have to go catch a flight now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Original Poster

I realized now that if I had just stopped trying to defend my criticism I could have prevented the entirety of what occurred afterward.

---

I was nodding, when I read this - sometimes your defending seems to run away with you.
So it does with most of us some of the time.
:)

Found another 10 minutes....Here's what I meant by attachment, which was the wrong word: We feel a need for, and in some sense we feel the presence of, a reality that we can't find in our immediate physical circumstances. This need colors what we perceive as interesting and plausible. Understand or answer that need in a different way, and what seemed stimulating or fascinating before shows its weakness and moral ugliness a lot more easily. I find just about everything on History or Discovery Channel, or the bookstore and Internet equivalent, to be an affront to honest reason. Exploring the reasons for our different perceptions about that, to the extent that they differ, is more interesting to me than the details of the arguments, which are important but not as primary. It's not just a matter of differing starting assumptions. We're attempting to solve or spiritual 'problem' in slightly different ways, and these clashes of perspective are a symptom. As I see it.