Here we will look at what are supposed to be humanity’s forgotten achievements: the miraculous technologies of forgotten civilisations, submerged continents and oceanic explorers.
Some Bad Archaeologists believe that there are missing elements of our shared history: achievements that have been overlooked or suppressed, links between times and places that have not hitherto been noticed, whole civilisations that are unknown to conventional history.
Humanity’s forgotten achievements
There have always been those whose view of the past differs from that of mainstream scholars, whose alternative histories have been produced within the academic tradition, even if these scholars are seen as eccentrics or mavericks. The American Professor Robert Eisenmann, whose reading of the Dead Sea Scrolls as documents of early opponents of St Paul, falls into this category. A second group works with a perspective that generally derives from a particular philosophical or political viewpoint (such as Marxism, Zionism or fascism) and sometimes it contains genuinely new and exciting insights. There is a third group, who propose radical restructuring of chronologies (à la Velikovsky or à la David Rohl), unusual modes of explanation that include radical catastrophism (à la Velikovsky again) and the merging of separate characters such as King Arthrwys of Gwent and ‘King Arthur’ (à la Blackett & Wilson). Many of them share the arrogant assumption that they are trailblazers who have uncovered “The Truth about…”, whose work is destined to be ignored by the majority, usually because of the alleged jealousy of mainstream scholars. Generally the reason why mainstream scholars ignore their work is much more simple: despite what many people believe, academics do not have the time to read rubbish!
Hello,
Ley Lines from Ireland and UK….are they hoaxes too?
Thanks,
Michael
P.S. are you familiar wit Carl Munck’s work?
..”Early archaeologists laboured under a tremendous lack of solid data. ..” A sentence from this website.
In the truly disingenous attempts at marginalizing “lost civilizations” by avoiding even the slighest presentation of known facts surrounding ancient stone megaliths found throught the world would insult the intellect of a child.
It seems the authors here have engaged in a very selective process by which they care to leave “common sense behind”.
In fact the very absense of mentioning the ancient stone megaliths on this website makes the very same argument the authors use to “de-bunk” the “anomolies” found in the Art of Archeaology.
Afterall archeology is a bachelors of art degree (not a science), and as with all art it is subject to individual taste and interpetation.
To give an example of the point I am trying to make here is thus– megaliths built with stones weighing upwards of 1500 tons each, CUT and STACKED with a means that cannot be duplicated even by modern engineering and construction means today. By builders whom by the authors own timelines did not even have invented the wheel or sophisicated tools to construct these megaliths .
Examples such as
1). the Baaldek Megalith in Lebanon cut stones weighing upwards of 1300 tons each. The Romans built the Temple of Jupiter atop these stones,
2). Maachu Picchu Peru (said to be built by the Incas however the Incas inhabited the site for 100 years in the 15th cent.)
3). Sphinx of Egypt (which unlike the Great Pyramids shows distinct evidence of erosion by water, in an area of the Sahara that hadn’t been submerged for about 9,000 years).
4). Heliopolis, Egypt
5). Gobekli Tepe, Turkey.
I could go on and list many more sites from all over the world.
But suffice it to say these archeologists today are laboring under a very selective body of “solid data”.
The “solid data” to which I refer isn’t confined to the mysterious monuments you cite. The real data of archaeology consists of the minutiae that the promoters of “alternative” ideas never seem to grasp. The houses, the potsherds, the cess pits, the human remains, the field systems and so on that give us insights into the lives of people living in the past.
Megaliths are something that cannot be taken in isolation. The great platform at Ba’albek in Lebanon is of Roman date; it is enormously heavy but it consists of stones that are nowhere near as heavy as you suggest and which experiments have shown to be easily moved with ropes and wooden rollers (Wikipedia entry on Baalbek). The really heavy stones never left the quarry! If you believe that Macchu Picchu was built before 1450, please present evidence for that assertion. If the Sphinx at Giza (which isn’t a megalith, by the way) had been built much earlier than conventional Egyptology suggests, then we ought to be able to find evidence (in the form of the boring stuff I mentioned above) for what people in the Nile valley were doing over 9000 years ago. We find that they were hunter gatherers, who did not build monumental architecture, who lived in small, mobile groups. There are other explanations for the weathering on the Sphinx and its surrounding enclosure that don’t require it to have existed at a time of much higher rainfall than at present. In mentioning Heliopolis in Egypt – of which little remains to be seen: it’s near Cairo airport – I suspect that you’ve muddled it with Heliopolis in Lebanon, which is the Classical name of Baalbek.
Now, as for Göbekli Tepe: what an amazing site! This is the sort of place and the sort of fieldwork that does have the potential to transform how archaeologists understand the past. This is much more impressive and important than speculations about the age of the Sphinx because this is precisely the sort of “solid data” that you mistakenly claim that archaeologists are so selective about.
Why is it that in the Art Of Archaeology it is quite common to make unproven assumptions based upon known facts?
In all incidences of– Macchu Picchu and Baalbek and the Sphinx this body of “solid data” is based upon speculative assumptions.
Unless “modern archaeologists” have determined a scientific means to date inorganic material such as stones with uncanny accuracy. Thereby able to assign a “build date” to a stone structure?
Firstly:
to say the Romans laid the massive block trio world re-knowned as the “Trilithon”-(a row of three stones, each over 19 metres long, 4.3 metres high and 3.6 metres broad, cut from limestone. They weigh approximately 800 tons each.) this is beyond any rational thought process given what we know as fact, as the Romans did not even occupy the site until 27BCE when Emporer Augustus decided construct the Roman temple employing usual & customary construction means and methods most consistent with the Roman standards.–CONCRETE– not massive cut stones!!
However, Alexander the Great occupied Baalbek in 334 BCE, and was named Heliopolis (Ἡλιούπολις) from helios, Greek for sun, and polis, Greek for city. The massive stones were already in place then when Alexander showed up in 334BCE.
But before the Greeks in 334BCE there were the Persians, as previous excavations under the Roman flagstones in the Great Court unearthed three skeletons and a fragment of Persian pottery dated to around 550-330 BCE. The fragment featured cuneiform letters and images of figurines.
And before the Persians , recent archaeological finds have been discovered in the deep trench at the edge of the Jupiter temple platform during cleaning operations. These finds date the site Tell Baalbek from the PPNB neolithic to the Iron Age.
I am not saying neither the Persians, Greeks, Romans laid these stones. What I am saying is –you don’t have even a clue as to who did, and how these stones were cut, transported and moved into place!
No one has ever suggested a 800-1000 ton stone can be moved even by modern engineering & construction methods and means! Only a complete fool would suggest that a system of wooden rollers could be used.
Secondly:
Macchu Picchu simply because the Spanish observed the Incas inhabiting the structures is not even convincing enough to claim the Incas built the structures.
Afterall the Spanish in their recorded observations of the Incas noted that the Incas lacked the BASIC TOOLS-
1. complex mathematics (such as geometry, trigonmetry, alegbra) to determine lay-out the structures.
2. complex instruments (such as transit or surveyor’s level) to lay out the structures.
3. complex tools (made of forged metal to cut the stones or the WHEEL to move the stones)
The Spanish did note however that the Incas had a small piece of rope with notes knots at certain increments to do simple addition and subtraction and counting.
I am once again saying I can offer a date as to when Macchu Picchu was built . But you cannot even rationally assert the Incas built the structures.
For you make the claim that Incas built Macchu Picchu is both absurd and irrational given what has been factually established regarding the Inca civilization.
Lastly:
Sphinx – as you pointed out not a stone megalith ..more of a monument of sorts. Once again you are very misleading in your words as you chose the term “weathering”. When the correct term is EROSION. As “weathering” imples atomspheric” whereas erosion by water implies just that. The erosion at the base of the sphinx is indicative of erosion by means of water..i.e. flooding. In an area of the Sahara that has been flooded in more than 9,000 years.
No archaeologists have not found “a scientific means to date inorganic material such as stones with uncanny accuracy” except in a few very specific cases, which is not the case with these structures. The dating is done by context and stratigraphic association. Structures can be dated in a variety of other ways, though. The most obvious is art historical. A Greek temple does not resemble an Egyptian temple except in superficial ways. Column styles are different; the iconography is different; the layout is different; associated buildings are different. Foundation deposits can be dated. In many religious sites, there are specific types of deposit that were made before construction could begin. On Roman temples, for instance, a pit (known as a mundus) might first be dug, offerings made and placed in the bottom before backfilling it.
I see from your mention of the “deep trench” that you’ve read the Wikipedia article I cited. But not thoroughly enough, I’m afraid. The discoveries in the trench go towards the base of the mound of Tell Ba’albek and show that the settlement began to develop no later than the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Phase B. They do not date the Temple of Jupiter, which sits on top of (and is therefore later than) this sequence; indeed, the discovery of inhumation burials accompanied by Iron Age pottery beneath the paving of the temple shows that it cannot have been built before the sixth century BCE. You would also have gathered from reading the Wikipedia article that the Roman construction sits on top of the ruins of the earlier temples, which were covered by building the great platform with its 300 ton monoliths. The trilithon sits on the Roman platform, so it cannot be any earlier. We have plenty of clues about who cut and moved the stones!
You can call the stonemason Roger Hopkins, who tried to move blocks experimentally and succeeded, a fool if you like. I think you’d be wrong to do so: he’s someone with practical experience who has succeeded in doing what you claim is impossible and what you say that “[o]nly a complete fool would suggest”.
I don’t know where you got the idea that we date Macchu Picchu from the fact that the “Spanish observed the Incas inhabiting the structures” when the site was never visited by the Conquistadores and was not discovered until 1911 by Hiram Bingham, the first European claimed to have visited the site (although there are a few earlier, nineteenth-century claims). No, the dating depends on comparing it with other sites of known Inka construction. Hiram Bingham excavated the site in 1912 and 1914-15, under the auspices of Yale University, which had agreed to keep any artefacts found for no more than eighteen months (their refusal to return the objects to Perú is the subject of considerable ill feeling, although an agreement in principle to return them was made in 2010). His finds were all of late Inka style: if people had lived on the site in earlier times, they had very carefully taken all trace of their presence away with them in addition to cunningly designing their buildings in Inka style.
The incredulity of the Conquistadores in face of Inka achievements is typical European arrogance. You seem to be showing the same sort of incredulity: because the Inka lacked complex mathematics (insofar as you know), complex instruments such as the surveyors’ level and forged metal tools, you assert that some other, earlier culture that has left no remains other than puzzling structures to record its existence. That is an illogical way to proceed. We know that structures identical to those at Macchu Picchu were used by the Inka when the Spanish arrived early in the sixteenth century; we know from archaeological excavations that the people who built Macchu Picchu had a culture identical to that of the last century of the Inka Empire. The logical conclusion is the Macchu Picchu was built by the Inka (indeed, parts of it are unfinished, suggesting that when it was abandoned around 1550, it was still under construction by people whom you allege were incapable of building it); it is now up to archaeologists to determine how these structures were built. You are quite wrong to assert that “the claim that Incas built Macchu Picchu is both absurd and irrational given what has been factually established regarding the Inca civilization”.
As for the Sphinx, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with the term “weathring”. It’s not meant to mislead; indeed, it’s the very term used by Robert Schoch, who first proposed that the erosion patterns on the Sphinx and the surrounding quarry walls mean that it is older than generally believed. Weathering is a form of erosion. I’m not aware of any proponents of a very early Sphinx ever having suggested that the erosion/weathering patterns were caused by flooding: rainfall is the culprit most usually named.
Again Sir you assume facts not in evidence and ignore the obvious.
You’d claimed originally that in Roman times the entire temple including the platform was constructed during the reign of Emperor Augustus.
When the only elements of the temple that resemble established Roman construction practices are the overlaid flagstones and columns.
The platform with the “Trilithon”-(a row of three stones, each over 19 metres long, 4.3 metres high and 3.6 metres broad, cut from limestone. They weigh approximately 800 tons each.) is NOT CONSISTENT with ESTABLISHED ROMAN construction practices.
Hence we can establish that platform pre-exists the Romans.
And the Greeks had already established their temple on the platform prior to the Romans.
And had the Persians prior to the Greeks.
The stonemason Roger Hopkins claimed to have moved 300 ton stones, and furthermore that is the **established weight limit** of the means and methods of the *customary established construction practices* of the Roman time period!
You did not care to cite that important bit of the “solid data” that archaeologist labor under, instead you choose to be vague a common practise in the Art Of Archeaology.
Nor did you cite the fact that the “Trilithon” weigh approximately 800 tons each.
Not the *300 tons* that Roger Hopkins claimed to have moved.
You really don’t read what I write, do you? The Roman temple – the big one, with the Jupiter columns, that sits on top of the remains of earlier (yes, Greek and Persian) – is the one constructed on the platform. Your objection that it “is NOT CONSISTENT with ESTABLISHED ROMAN construction practices” assumes that the same techniques were in use across a vast empire. And yes, it is quite consistent with them. You cannot use your assumptions about how a Roman period building ought to have been constructed to show that the platform at Ba’albek is not Roman, especially not when it’s built on top of earlier remains.
Since when is 300 tons “he **established weight limit** of the means and methods of the *customary established construction practices* of the Roman time period”? Please cite your authorit for this. You chide me for not giving ”that important bit of the “solid data”” and then fail to do it yourself. Please be consistent.
I assume that readers of this site are quite capable of reading the Wikipedia article for themselves. There is not the space to provide every bit of data (all the stuff that you claim is lacking, by the way). Again, please be consistent: either we have data or we do not.
One of the major problems I have with the debunking is that sometimes it tends to gloss over obvious evidence that doesn’t fit the theory of a non-advanced prehistory. There ISs evidence all over the world of an advanced prehistory, from writings like the Mahabharata to enigmatic artifacts / structures / architecture, but ignored because if found true, it would collapse the field.
If one is going to debunk the Ancient Civilization theory then one must explain Puma Punku. Without plausibly explaining the building technology at Puma Punku, the archaeological theories are as much nonsense as any other theory, IMHO.
As opposed to other sites, Puma Punku does show advanced features that would be very hard to reproduce non-technologically. In Peru, one does find unexplainable architecture in stone in several locations. Glossing over the data because it doesn’t fit the theory isn’t valid science nor does it help the advancement of humanity.
Personally, I think “advanced features” and “unexplainable architecture” are gross exaggerations. The claims to the effect that we can’t even or can hardly reproduce them with modern technology so how could the ancients do it at all are even more so.
I’ve been moving the earth most of my working life and I’ve been to a few of these sites and seen what they’re like first hand. Pick a site and give me your plans. I’ll call the hall for a crew and we’ll go build it. It just ain’t that hard folks.
As has been pointed out earlier, people who are interested in figuring these things out have managed to shape and move stones as large and complicated as anything the ancients did using only the tools we have good reason to think they had and used. It’s just piking up fancy rocks, and they knew how to pile up rocks. I’ll need to see proof that a place is more than a pile of fancy rocks and maybe a wrecked contragravity transport and a handheld tractor beam as well before I can start to take seriously claims that an advanced but lost civilization or maybe extra-terrestrials built it.
James, you won’t be building Puma Punku, nor many of the South American megalithic structures. Those are beyond the capability of even modern constructions methods. Oh, you may make similar structures, true, but you’ll be doing those with modern technology. Propose a way where non-technicals could build the structures pictured here:
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTBPB_Bw6GO0Q967zEU4W-BRWAoHmyQkeEqo9Z4juOhgQILtzhT
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=puma+punku&start=80&hl=en&biw=1280&bih=808&gbv=2&addh=36&tbm=isch&tbnid=qGjhIicztW_aFM:&imgrefurl=http://www.leagueofreason.co.uk
(Sorry, but Google Images idiotic links don’t allow for much space)
Search Google Images under “Puma Punku”
Dr. Schoch’s theory that the Sphinx is at least (conservatively) 9,000 years old, forces one to start thinking the unthinkable. In my honest opinion, when a branch of science doesn’t look at all the evidence in equal light and tries to cherry pick to evidence to fit the theories that it is currently advancing, then such “science” does a disservice to the scientific method and to humanity as a whole.
What is so hard about accepting the idea that a previous civilization was here that had advanced technology that is now gone? The only problem I see with such is dogma, and the inability to admit that on is wrong. Please explain Puma Punku, Nan Madol, Göbekli Tepe, Olmec Statues, to just name a few, that exist all over the world and can’t actually be explained adequately by modern archaeological theories, IMHO.
Mystery of the Sphinx, 1 hr, 34 min. Propounding the theories of Schoch and West
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQ-xh3kedW4&feature=related
http://www.robertschoch.com/
BTW, to the site master, it would help to be able to preview posts…
We sure will, and do it with the same materials using tools and techniques the original builders could have used. Otherwise, what’s the point? Consider the block with a vertical slot near the left hand edge and round holes drilled along the bottom of the slot. Sure I’d like to take a powered diamond bladed wet saw to do the slot, then grab an electric hammer drill to do the holes and finish in a few hours instead of weeks. That’s generally the biggest difference in doing something with hand tools as opposed to power tools: It takes more people longer.If you really think someone who is practiced at it can’t shape stone, even big chunks of it, precisely into very complex shapes by tapping and scraping it with a few simple tools, masters Phideas, Michaelangelo, Rodin, and all their buddies would like a word with you.
I have done a feww things in this area myself. When I was in fifth grade, I discovered “Let There Be Light,” “The Birth and Death of the Sun,” and the rest of the astronomy books in the library. After that, I could not rest until I had a telescope of my own. I couldn’t afford to buy anything very good so I took the proceeds from delivering about five thousand newspapers and ordered a mirror making kit from Edmund Scientific. Grinding the mirror for an astronomical reflecting telescope is not something fundamentally hard like hitting big league pitching or coming up with the insight to prove Fermat’s last theorem. It’s just a matter of effort, patience, and perseverance. You set up a solid work table that you can walk all the way around. I used an oil barrel filled about a third full of water. After that it’s just lay your blank and tools out and have at it. Count your strokes, step to your left, count you strokes, step to your left, round and round the barrel. It took every free moment I had for three weeks to grind that first six inch mirror, then about two more weeks to gather the rest of the pieces and assemble them into a working telscope. I eventually built eight more. The largest was a twelve inch (30 cm) my junior year in high school. I figure if an eleven year old nerd could grind a precise mathematical shape accurate to within a quarter wavelength of light just by spooning wet sand between two pieces of glass and rubbing them together, grown men ought to be able to make rocks as smooth as they need to.
There’s nothing inherantly impossible about advanced antediluvian civilizations or uplifting extra-terrestrials. I’ve read gobs of science fiction with those themes. It’s just the hard way of doing it: We’ve found no structural steel trusses, no ceramacrete foundations, no colapsium plated doodads lying around. These things are just piles of rocks. Shaping and stacking rocks are about as low tech as it gets. What do they need E. T. for?
http://atlantis-today.com/Atlantis_Atlantis_Code.htm
This actually seems believable, a lot more so than the stories we are force fed and told is true. The huge structures weren’t built without some sort of advanced intelligence.
http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/pirireismap.htm
Piri Reis map lends credible evidence towards advanced civilization existing long before we currently accept.
http://www.7wonders.org/wonders/america/peru/cusco/sacsayhuaman.aspx Sacsayhuaman? come one now. “built with giant pieces of stone, which can reach until 8 meters high and 361 tons weight. Many of the stones used in the temple were brought to Sacsayhuaman from a quarry, located around 35 Kilometers from the temple.” That’s up a mountain. Can’t roll on trees up a mountain. Possibly pulleys, but did they even have rope of any sort of strength or did they tie together ox intestines to lift stones weighing close to a million pounds up a mountain from the quarry 35 km away? Also, when you attribute work to one group because of similar styles of construction in other works, it could be that they learned this style and mimicked it. Most reasonable answer I see is that an intelligent group moved into the area and used the natives as their labor and subsequently interbred with that population. The intelligent group moving in would then be accepted as gods, and would bring the ideals of advanced civilization with them. Which seems to be the case in many places including Egypt. If we thought about it for a minute, this is usually exactly what that civilization tells us in their history, yet we choose to ignore that for some reason time and time again. Why is that? The theory that the natives all of the sudden just accomplished these great architectural achievements with rudimentary tools and skills is actually much more far fetched, but it is the story that we are told to accept.
Even King Tut’s DNA according to this video isn’t Egyptian but Western European or Atlantean but they aren’t allowed to reveal it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iL-ZY-ithLM
You can find a lot on the internet and a lot is BS, and you have to sort through it try to corroborate what you think to be true or not. One thing is certain from my point of view, there is a massive coverup as far as the history of man and the purported evolution from the apes. The “evidence” we are told to believe is a joke. Cro Magnum and Neanderthal man both had larger brains than we currently have. Not the hunched over ignorant beasts we are told they are in history books. We have likely regressed in intelligence since then. This is not about religion or anything like that with me, I merely seek the truth and its sure not in our history books. Darwin’s theory of evolution holds no proof and is just something that has been shoved down our throats. Anything found to the contrary of the accepted version of our history is covered up. I could put many instances of that here with links if there is any interest. Here is one.
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/news/ufo_extraterrestrials/2011/08/04/393.html
Interesting and strongly disagrees with accepted version of history of man
Like I said, I just want the truth and I am not out to prove my point of view is the correct one. Keith, it sounds a little like you are trying to make the square fit into the round box. I have just now begun looking at the site, that is just my opinion from the posts on this article.
Would like to hear any rebuttals or refutes to my claims. Like I said, I am open to the truth whatever that may be and I am wrong in a lot of instances, and I don’t have a “side” to argue.
Saw your post on aliens “Or are we the aliens? Could humanity have arisen on another planet to be transplanted here at some time in the distant past? Might our ancestors be the result of genetic manipulation of hominin ancestors? Might we be a race of mutants, half alien, half terrestrial? Of course not, but we have have a giggle at these ideas along the way.”
Giggle? Why would you giggle at something that actually has evidence backing it up. Your theory the we “evolved from the apes” yet we have no fossil evidence to back it up is the thing to giggle at. It looks to me like either A) You are very close minded and not capable of formulating your own opinions based on evidence and want to push your same close minded ideals on others for the sake of proving you are right or B) You actually know you are wrong and are part of the conspiracy of cover up that does in fact exist. My theory is strongly B because if you have this website, you must have checked into things along the way and you would have found out the truth along the way. Anyone saying we have to giggle at the thought of aliens is an imbecile.. We are the only planet amongst what trillions with life? Hmm.. Ok. Yeah you must be right. I am going to make my own blog to help stop the misinformation blogs like yours spread to the unsuspecting public just looking for answers. Also, do your homework if you aren’t purposely spreading misinformation.
It’s not “my theory” that humans and apes share an ancestor (a subtly different concept from your “evolved from apes”: it’s the only way of accounting for numerous strands of evidence. Your claim that “we have no fossil evidence to back it up” would be laughable if it were not so ignorant. There are thousands and the numbers grow year on year.
At what point have I claimed that Earth is the only planet with life? Nowhere. You are putting words into my mouth for rhetorical effect, setting up a straw man. I find it inconceivable that this is the only planet with life. The universe is mind-bogglingly huge. It would be bizarre if life developed only on this one unremarkable, slightly wet rock. That doesn’t mean that there are millions of intelligent life forms cruising interstellar space on missions to “boldly go” in exploration, insemination and education. DNA evidence and fossil evidence make it perfectly clear that we humans are very much of this Earth.
As for being “part of the conspiracy of cover up”, I’m not. Not that you’ll believe it. There is no cover up. However, there is a venial “conspiracy” by peddlers of nonsense to part you and like-minded people from their money. They write books, produce television programmes and create websites peddling stuff they either know is untrue or are too gullible to questions. It’s because there are these frauds out there, misleading people like you, that I feel the need to present the real data.
Where is the fossil evidence that we evolved from apes? Better yet, where is fossil evidence of anything evolving? Why is there a missing link? We find dinosaur fossils but we can’t find the evidence we evolved from the apes? Instead we make it up. You have been duped by the system into believing what you are told. If you aren’t willingly part of the misinformation machine that does exist, then open your eyes and your mind. Lockheed Martin makes anti gravity propulsion now. We, as modern day humans, only learned how to fly what 100 years ago? It won’t be long before Earth humans will be populating other planets, and our technology is still very limited. If you believe in the existence of life on other planets, you would also have to believe it is likely they have advanced technology on these other planets that exceeds ours by millions or billions of years. They would surely have developed the anti-gravity technology to visit other planets.
During the Disclosure Project below he references that most of the aliens we are currently in contact with us resemble us. How could that be if your theories hold true? Tesla published papers on his communication with Mars in 1901. Up until recently it was called “The Red Planet” and all the pictures the public was allowed to see were colored red by the government. Why is that? Turns out now there is water on mars and the moon. We were told before water didn’t exist and it was necessary for life. The evidence of a cover up is around you. It is funny when you say there is no cover up. If there was, how would you know? Its a cover up.
If you really are interested in the truth, at least check out the links I post and attempt to discredit those links if you can. You should want to know if the opinions you so strongly represent are true or not. Clear your mind of the fact the government has already told you what to believe so it must be true and just look at your theories and beliefs about the rapid evolution of humans. It isn’t even remotely possible in the time frame which we have been given. Did you consider that at all? I commend you for printing my comments before and not just rejecting them because they are of an opinion which opposes yours.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vyVe-6YdUk
Disclosure Project
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8njYpyAkMp8&feature=related
NASA Tether Incident
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T0ckf005qo&feature=related
Here is the conspiracy you say does not exist. It is impossible to believe all these people, including former astronauts, are lying and the footage is directly from NASA and is conclusive. If you do take the time to watch the video you would at that point understand the conspiracy does in fact exist. Same stuff goes on in the UK. Has been for a long time. There are people that know and are let on in the secret and people that don’t. The problem is that sometimes the people that know and are let in on it, tell others that don’t. That info hits the internet and voila, soon everyone knows or the internet gets turned off.
Arguments from incredulity and arguments from authority (“[i]t is impossible to believe all these people, including former astronauts, are lying”) hold no water. There is no conspiracy other than the conspiracy to make money being perpetrated by those telling you that there is a conspiracy. Either these people are liars, which makes them contemptible, or they are deluded, which makes them pitiable.
The comment here are hilarious – all of them.
BTW, most ancient megalithic structures were poured, like concrete. It’s pretty obvious with some, like Puma Punku. The Great Pyramid was only partially poured, i.e., the blocks in the top half.
http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_megalithconstruction.htm
http://slimebug.home.comcast.net/~slimebug/megaliths.html
I wouldn’t say it’s obvious at all that “most ancient megalithic structures were poured”; have you actually visited any? The blocks in the Great Pyramid are very clearly the local Giza limestone, with a casing of Tura limestone quarried from the other side of the River Nile. The geology of the structure is pretty obvious, even to a non-geologist like myself. There is not the slightest indication of “pouring”!
I’ve not visited Puma Punku, but I have personally seen several dozen European megalithic sites, from Stonehenge to Tarxxien. Not one of them appears to be anything other than stone blocks shaped by pounding.
The idea that the blocks in the Great pyramid were poured has been around for some years now, but to my mind, it suffers from a pretty major drawback: lack of evidence. The Giza plateau is littered with quarries, from which the materials used to build the pyramid and its complex of related structures were extracted. Occam’s Razor suggests that the blocks were then manoeuvred into place. On the other hand, if the limestone was then ground up, mixed with water and set into reconstituted blocks, where are the sites where this happened? They ought to be nearby, but a century and a half of exploration on the Giza plateau has not located anything remotely like a stone grinding area. It’s not even as if the blocks of the pyramid are that precisely shaped and placed: they aren’t. People get muddled with the precision of the outer casing stones: they were the stones that Sir Flinders Petrie was astounded by and which were shaped and laid so precisely that there is virtually no gap between them, but there is a tendency to extrapolate that precision to the rest of the structure (well over 99.9% of it, in fact), which is just plain wrong. Perhaps the outer casing blocks might have been cast, but as for the rest of the pyramid, there is no trace of what would have had to have been a huge processing area to create the stone slurry.
It’s an ingenious but unnecessary hypothesis, lacking any supporting evidence.
There is actually planty of evidence:
http://www.materials.drexel.edu/News/Item/?i=948
http://www.materials.drexel.edu/Pyramids/
The stones at Puma Punku, which I have not visited either, but have seen pictures and video, do not look anything BUT cast! They are just too perfect. Our ancestors were more clever than we give them credit for.