Proof of the Last Extinction Event 12980 years ago.

[LogicalFallacy]

1 hour ago, Geezer said:

 

I think I've found the problem. You're listening to some guy named Randall Carson, and I'm referencing a theorists named Randall Carlson.   I can see why you confused them, their names are so similar. 

 

Spelling error. Carlson is who we are talking about. He is some random conspiracy freemason nutty guy who thinks green aliens erected the pyramids as butt scratchers.   

 

Ok so maybe I'm taking his theory too far, but around here we have a relaxed attitude to representing views properly.

 

Oh speaking of which you know the meteor theory is not his theory right? It's an actual scientific hypothesis that just hasn't had a strong case built for it yet. So my problem with the guy whose last name starts with C is that taking this hypothesis then running off on the conclusions he does is simply taking ideas too far into the speculating range to be called science.

 

I'd also like to point out that not only is Mr Carlson apparently uniquely knowledgeable about ancient history, geology, cultures, peoples etc, but he's an expert in climate change on a global scale. I mean this guy is like the one stop shop for all science. I expect to hear his view on the origin of life and what happened moments before the big bang soon, because we all know the experts don't know shit about those topics!

 

Despite the humour above, I hope you understand why I'm sceptical of people like Carlson who, like our recent friend Petersen, seems to be an expert in everything. Really both guys should go into string theory and work on the Theory of Everything.

 

Edit: I just found out he's also a mathematician.

[Geezer]

14 hours ago, mwc said:

     Maybe shit like this?  Found it on his website.  It doesn't take a PhD to pull this laughable crap out of one's ass either.

 

     No, wait, he nailed.  The ancients were using our MPH when they encoded the bible.  Good stuff.  Derp derp.  I think I'll believe more of what he says.  Him seem on ball.

 

          mwc

 

 

If you place what he was saying in context, and you were aware that he's a math guy,  then you would understand where he's coming from. I have no idea whether he is correct that ancient technology & theology was based on mathematics. You would have to listen to his videos about the procession of the Equinox and the math associated with that in order to put your referenced video in context.

 

If I understand his theory correctly, and I probably don't, the math tells us why & where the Pyramids were built. It's all about the stars & planets and their positions in the sky at different times of the year and how those calculations change over time.

 

If the video you referenced is put in context with his theories about Astrology & Astronomy you would be able to see the connection he's making with the numbers 666. I don't know if he's right but their is logic behind his theory and it's not as crazy as you're implying. 

 

I've watched quite a few of his videos so I think I have a much different perspective about his theories. I'm don't know if he's right but his theories generally make sense, at least to me, when they are placed in context. 

 

Think what you will of the man's theories, but he is definitely not a kook.

 

 

[mwc]

10 hours ago, Geezer said:

 

If you place what he was saying in context, and you were aware that he's a math guy,  then you would understand where he's coming from. I have no idea whether he is correct that ancient technology & theology was based on mathematics. You would have to listen to his videos about the procession of the Equinox and the math associated with that in order to put your referenced video in context.

 

If I understand his theory correctly, and I probably don't, the math tells us why & where the Pyramids were built. It's all about the stars & planets and their positions in the sky at different times of the year and how those calculations change over time.

 

If the video you referenced is put in context with his theories about Astrology & Astronomy you would be able to see the connection he's making with the numbers 666. I don't know if he's right but their is logic behind his theory and it's not as crazy as you're implying. 

 

I've watched quite a few of his videos so I think I have a much different perspective about his theories. I'm don't know if he's right but his theories generally make sense, at least to me, when they are placed in context. 

 

Think what you will of the man's theories, but he is definitely not a kook.

 

 

     There's the apology I was talking about.

 

     The context is the video from his own website.  And the issue is the folks who wrote the Revelation somehow encoded the number 666 to mean 66,600 (problem 1) in modern miles (problem 2).  Don't forget that their ancient miles were shorter than our current Imperial miles so the numbers would be different.  There should be more ancient miles over the same distance but they were forward thinkers I suppose?  They knew the mile would change length?   And if you just go to Google and convert the numbers then 29.78 kps equals 66615.963 mph.  It's not as pretty as he's making it out to be.  He's truncating at the second decimal place in step one so the numbers come out nice and clean.  I'd say this is a minor issue but the point is to give the illusion that this is just 66600 and not 66615.

 

     This is simply nonsense mixed with some slight of hand deception.  There's no way to justify it.

 

          mwc

 

[mwc]

     Since I was just sitting here for a minute I decided to math it out just to see if I was right.  So using the bit of math from the video (round about 50 seconds in):

 

     We'll start by taking 29.78 km and converting that to feet.  So 1 km is 3280.84 ft and 29.78 of those is 97,703.4152 ft.  This will make things a little easier in our next steps instead of simply converting from km/s to miles/sec as he does in his first step.  Now we can do the rest.

 

     We convert 97,703.4152 to miles so 97,703.4152/5280 = 18.50443469696969696969696969697 miles/sec.

     18.50443469696969696969696969697 miles x 60 = 1,110.2660818181818181818181818182 miles/min.

     1,110.2660818181818181818181818182 miles/min x 60 = 66,615.964909090909090909090909091 mile/hour.

 

     That's essentially his answer (minus the truncating he uses).  Only this uses Imperial miles. 

 

     Lets use Roman miles which is 4850 of our feet:

     We convert 97,703.4152 to Roman miles so 97,703.4152/4850 = 20.145034061855670103092783505155 miles/sec.

     20.145034061855670103092783505155 miles/sec x 60 = 1,208.7020437113402061855670103093 miles/min.

     1,208.7020437113402061855670103093 miles/min. x 60 = 72,522.122622680412371134020618558 miles/hour

 

     And just for the hell of it Roman miles were 5000 of their feet:

     We convert 97,703.4152 using the Roman number of feet/mile so 97,703.4152/5000 = 19.54068304 miles/sec.

     19.54068304 miles/sec. x 60 = 1,172.4409824 miles/min

     1,172.4409824 miles/min x 60 = 70,346.458944 miles/hour

 

     I don't think I missed anything.  The only way this even comes close is with Imperial measure which didn't exist.  Using Roman miles, the middle one, which is the most accurate compared to our Imperial feet, it isn't close and just because I could I tossed in Roman feet (which weren't the same length as ours so I expected this to be off).

 

          mwc

 

[Joshpantera]

We didn't even need to go there because he's ignored the older the number of the beast being 616, as so many have done. Both renditions come together as the Greek and Latin spelling of Neron (666) or Nero (616) Caesar given as numberic value. So although 666 has been associated with all variety of historical personalities and things by protestants, esotericist's and whoever else, the simple explanation is that that part of Revelation is calling attention to Nero Caesar, somewhat discretely. 

 

 

Randall's probably rehashing old theories about the number of the beast which get consumed by the newer academic view I've mentioned above. I haven't gone into any of the esoteric stuff he's into as a freemason, because that's not what concerns me here. It's the possibility of whether the scientists are correct about the last extinction event and how all of the various data that Carlson illustrated in the video I posted plays out. There seems to be straight forward correlation between the abrupt spike in global temperature and the extinction of massive land mammals. It's only an 18 minute segment that I posted. But it's specifically about comparing the existing data. 

 

At this point I see where caution is probably warranted where Carlson presents data when laying out a case. But as long as it's not skewed by personal bias or a Freemasonry agenda of some type, it stems to wonder why mainstream academics have settled on human causes for the mass land mammal extinction. Did anyone look at the data or did it get dismissed already because Carlson's associated with esotericism? 

 

Discussing the data, take two: 

 

 

 

 

[mwc]

     We'll ignore his strange methodologies and just look at this one clip?

 

     Okay.  I already addressed this.  Just look earlier in the thread.  I posted a list of cultures that pre-exist this point in time, during this point in time, and after this point in time.  Not only this but they exist through this point in time.  This is all import because this is the evidence we have.  And there are no special cultures in the bunch.  That's an issue.

 

     Instead, he's dealing with evidence he wants to have.  The special culture that is hidden under the sea.  The one we don't know about yet.  The one that holds the key to his currently unprovable theory.  They were exceptional and escaped with their special knowledge that was spread to others.  But the current evidence doesn't support any of this.  Not that there might be stuff under water but that they were significantly any different than those that we currently know about.  Because, lets face it, they would have co-existed prior to any catastrophe.  Especially if this special group were so mobile as we're being told.  Intermingling should be apparent and their "fingerprints" all over what we're seeing now.  If that's the case then what we have points to a fairly mundane bunch.  I also posted the DNA migration of people to show they got around during this time.  People are accounted for from all over the map and time.

 

          mwc

 

[Joshpantera]

5 hours ago, mwc said:

Okay.  I already addressed this.  Just look earlier in the thread.  I posted a list of cultures that pre-exist this point in time, during this point in time, and after this point in time.  Not only this but they exist through this point in time.  This is all import because this is the evidence we have.  And there are no special cultures in the bunch.  That's an issue.

 

Except for any cultures that were on the coast lines now around 300' - 400' below current sea level. Abrupt sea level spike is part of the data. Along with illustrating the continental shelves as dry land back then. I realize that what's below sea level may not really qualify as "special cultures," in that they would be different from the cultures we are aware of. But we may consider them special in that they would necessarily predate our conceptual models of when civilization took shape. If hunter gathers built the older sites, then it would seem that hunter gathers were more "civilized" than we thought. Civilized enough to build these things. I've been watching more videos about the submerged ruins off of Japan and Taiwan. These go along with the data on sea level rise that Carlson brings up. 

 

5 hours ago, mwc said:

Instead, he's dealing with evidence he wants to have.  The special culture that is hidden under the sea.  The one we don't know about yet.  The one that holds the key to his currently unprovable theory.  They were exceptional and escaped with their special knowledge that was spread to others.  But the current evidence doesn't support any of this. 

 

Maybe not the sensational conclusion aspects would turn out to be true, but the data seems to show the sea level rise and there are sites underwater down where older coastal sites would have been. It's not that it shows one single global civilization (I'll have to look more closely at Carlson's claim about this), but it would appear that many different ones are down there to be found, just going by the finds so far and the logical issue of people living in coastal areas, which, are literally under water now. So there's the sensational aspects and also the 'logical place to look' aspects both going on here. 

 

5 hours ago, mwc said:

Not that there might be stuff under water but that they were significantly any different than those that we currently know about.  Because, lets face it, they would have co-existed prior to any catastrophe.  Especially if this special group were so mobile as we're being told.  Intermingling should be apparent and their "fingerprints" all over what we're seeing now.  If that's the case then what we have points to a fairly mundane bunch.  I also posted the DNA migration of people to show they got around during this time.  People are accounted for from all over the map and time.

 

That's just it, it seems more likely that they would turn out to be similar to civilizations that we are aware of instead of off the wall different. Maybe advanced hunter gatherer types like in ancient Turkey. Capable of building but ahead of their time from our perspective. Not building freeways, skyscrapers, and flying in jet planes, but advanced for the time according to our perceptions of linear model advancement. That dips and dives may have occurred in advancement which still need mapped out. So something like Turkey, or an older Egyptian group that would have made the lion sphinx when rain was a factor - contemporary with these other mysterious and advanced people from higher elevations who were monolithic builders, that we're just very recently figuring out more details about, but way under water now. 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

3:00 - Illustrates Younger Dryas, explains the name. 

3:30 - Sea level spike graph. 

4:32 - Melt water pulse 1a  and 1b explained. Which show that there wasn't a gradual and even sea level rise of 400' spread out over time. But two very abrupt rises.

4:55 - Melt water pulse 1a and 1b in correspondence to the the Younger Dryas time slot zone on the graph. 

5:20 - Introducea late pleistocene mortality graph. Some 120 mega mammals that lived in the ice age, went extinct. 

6:20 - Shows how the amount of extinct animal fossils spikes that have been found goes through the roof between 13,000 and 11,000 years ago. 

6:30 - Flashes back to Melt water pulse 1a and 1b. Observes the correspondences between that and the mass extinction. 

7:00 - Discusses how the dominant theory is that humans caused the mass extinction. Personally disagrees with the dominant view. 

7:45 - Talks about how the dominant view only addresses woolly mammoths but neglects to explain the rest of the some 120 species that went extinct. 

8:30 - They go on discussing the ill logic that goes into the dominant view of human induced mass extinction.

 

The basic gist of this doesn't require anything too sensational aside from having our academic's shown to make poor judgement calls based on the available evidence. Which wouldn't be very surprising. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mwc]

12 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Except for any cultures that were on the coast lines now around 300' - 400' below current sea level. Abrupt sea level spike is part of the data. Along with illustrating the continental shelves as dry land back then. I realize that what's below sea level may not really qualify as "special cultures," in that they would be different from the cultures we are aware of. But we may consider them special in that they would necessarily predate our conceptual models of when civilization took shape. If hunter gathers built the older sites, then it would seem that hunter gathers were more "civilized" than we thought. Civilized enough to build these things. I've been watching more videos about the submerged ruins off of Japan and Taiwan. These go along with the data on sea level rise that Carlson brings up. 

     Abrupt.  As in about a century?  That's abrupt by geologic time but more than enough time for anyone to walk out of the way.  Even if we halve the time people still won't just sit there.  It's not like this is something like a tsunami that swept in over the course of a few minutes or even hours (or a few days) where people just went under the waves.  There are some isolated instances of local flooding, similar to dams breaking, but those are the exceptions not the rule.

 

12 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Maybe not the sensational conclusion aspects would turn out to be true, but the data seems to show the sea level rise and there are sites underwater down where older coastal sites would have been. It's not that it shows one single global civilization (I'll have to look more closely at Carlson's claim about this), but it would appear that many different ones are down there to be found, just going by the finds so far and the logical issue of people living in coastal areas, which, are literally under water now. So there's the sensational aspects and also the 'logical place to look' aspects both going on here. 

     This is like saying the logical place to look for evidence for the Exodus is the entire desert.  The entire ancient coastline is not a reasonable search parameter.  That's just sort of everywhere.  I haven't heard any proposals that indicate where these advanced peoples lived ("the coast" isn't good enough) or migration paths.  These things would narrow search areas.  

 

12 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

That's just it, it seems more likely that they would turn out to be similar to civilizations that we are aware of instead of off the wall different. Maybe advanced hunter gatherer types like in ancient Turkey. Capable of building but ahead of their time from our perspective. Not building freeways, skyscrapers, and flying in jet planes, but advanced for the time according to our perceptions of linear model advancement. That dips and dives may have occurred in advancement which still need mapped out. So something like Turkey, or an older Egyptian group that would have made the lion sphinx when rain was a factor - contemporary with these other mysterious and advanced people from higher elevations who were monolithic builders, that we're just very recently figuring out more details about, but way under water now. 

 

 

     I gave you the list.  Do you see them there?  Any indications of people migrating like this migrating inland from the coast?  Have any proposals been made?  Or are they always just some mysterious group under the sea?  Some group that failed to walk away while the sea lapped at their feet?

 

          mwc

 

[Joshpantera]

6 hours ago, mwc said:

I gave you the list.  Do you see them there?  Any indications of people migrating like this migrating inland from the coast?  Have any proposals been made?  Or are they always just some mysterious group under the sea?  Some group that failed to walk away while the sea lapped at their feet?

 

We know that sea levels rose - melt water pulse 1a and 1b. Did no one live on what is now continental shelf as this happened? And if anyone did live on what is now continental shelf, where do you assume they moved to as the sea levels rose? Did they not move away from the coasts and integrate with others in higher elevation regions? I'm not sure what you're even asking.

 

Would they be of some special DNA not present in the world at the time or now? 

 

[mwc]

3 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

We know that sea levels rose - melt water pulse 1a and 1b. Did no one live on what is now continental shelf as this happened? And if anyone did live on what is now continental shelf, where do you assume they moved to as the sea levels rose? Did they not move away from the coasts and integrate with others in higher elevation regions? I'm not sure what you're even asking.

     You apparently don't understand since you just asked me what I asked you.  Only I asked where the evidence was for this.  Forgetting the folks near the ocean we should be able to find something from the other half of the population that doesn't settle there.  I'm surprised we have any evidence of any cultures, much less all we have, considering I'm being told the evidence is essentially under the oceans now.  I guess we're just finding the backwater groups who don't count for much and can be dismissed?  That seems fair.  Ignore/downplay what we have in favor of what we'd like/hope to have or think we might find (under the sea).

 

Quote

Would they be of some special DNA not present in the world at the time or now? 

 

     No, the DNA reference was about evidence of movement.  Motion of people in the form of DNA.  I'm just looking for evidence.  The evidence we have.  Not the evidence that is lost at sea.

 

          mwc

 

[Joshpantera]

2 hours ago, mwc said:

No, the DNA reference was about evidence of movement.  Motion of people in the form of DNA.  I'm just looking for evidence.  The evidence we have.  Not the evidence that is lost at sea.

 

All I'm saying is that whoever used to live down at ancient coastlines, must be part of the movements. There's old native American burials and assorted evidence of this out in the Gulf here off of Florida. We know that people once lived out on the continental shelf at one point. Those people must be part of the data you presented in some way. What else would they be? And what else would they be anywhere else in the world where the case is the same? 

 

 

 

[mwc]

13 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

All I'm saying is that whoever used to live down at ancient coastlines, must be part of the movements. There's old native American burials and assorted evidence of this out in the Gulf here off of Florida. We know that people once lived out on the continental shelf at one point. Those people must be part of the data you presented in some way. What else would they be? And what else would they be anywhere else in the world where the case is the same? 

 

 

 

     In the video (maybe 15 minutes in?) he says something like when we look for the rise of modern cities where to we look?  Then answers his own question with on the coastlines and rivers.  The implications are the "modern" folks are all lost under the waves.  But what about all the thousands of years before?  Then 1000, 2000 or 5000 plus years earlier into that same era?  There's plenty of time for "modern" cities to exist beyond what he's suggesting.  If he's correct then places he advances as modern like Gobekli Tepi should be right near the sea but it's not.  I don't even think it's near a major river (I'd have to look).

 

     I hear him saying in broad strokes, without evidence, that "modern" cities appeared along the coasts (and nowhere else) just late enough in the era to covered over by the rising sea.  Few peoples from these cities survived (for some reason even though they could have just walked away to safety in many cases).  They went on to carry some knowledge and what have you directly and in the the form of myths.  They helped redevelop and repopulate (for some reason even though there were still many people from other areas who we're not talking about even though they're actually known).  They didn't form proper cities again for thousands of years apparently (for some reason).

 

     This makes little sense.

 

          mwc

 

[Joshpantera]

6 hours ago, mwc said:

In the video (maybe 15 minutes in?) he says something like when we look for the rise of modern cities where to we look?  Then answers his own question with on the coastlines and rivers.  The implications are the "modern" folks are all lost under the waves.  But what about all the thousands of years before?  Then 1000, 2000 or 5000 plus years earlier into that same era?  There's plenty of time for "modern" cities to exist beyond what he's suggesting.  If he's correct then places he advances as modern like Gobekli Tepi should be right near the sea but it's not.  I don't even think it's near a major river (I'd have to look).

 

I just took the idea of looking underwater to mean good places to look for places that may resemble what they've already found on land, like in Egypt and Turkey. And there are some type of temple looking structures underwater that Hancock dives down to: 

 

 

Some of these clips where included in the Rogan pod casts and some of the other videos as an aside to the discussions. These would be similar to Gobleki Tepe and date to how ever far back we have to go for them to have been on dry land. Beyond 4:30 they start illustrating a reversal of sea level rise to look at where dry land once was, and at what times. There were primitives there at the time. Known people. And by 6:00 he's off looking for higher elevation building from these same, known people. The issue being more the case of known peoples, before what we've considering civilization, being capable of building things which were previously not understood by contemporary academic's. Not too big a deal, really. 

[Geezer]

The fundamentalists mindset seems to extend beyond religion and includes other areas such as academia, science, & politics. I think another appropriate term used to describe this condition is tunnel vision. It seems to be part of our human nature. We lock onto something and become convinced that it's true; once that happens our minds become virtual impenetrable vaults. And I am not pointing my finger at any one person or groups of people. I think we are all guilty of this tendency. 

 

It is difficult to admit that we might be wrong about something we passionately believe is true. And it seems there is almost always conflicting facts and evidence that cast doubt on any one solution being absolutely factually true. 

 

People tend to embrace that which makes the most sense to them or that which validates a predetermined belief or conclusion. Humans tend to seek validation for what they already believe and reject anything that challenges their beliefs. 

[Geezer]

I think some of these historical arguments are little more than, "My scholar is smarter than yours." I've notice some posters that disagree with me do so by telling me the "authority" that I'm basing my conclusions on is unqualified, just plain wrong, isn't peer reviewed, or isn't published, isn't accepted as a true scholar by the academic community, or has totally misinterpreted the evidence.

 

I think it has been well established that academia is just as bias, intimidated, and coerced as any religious group. There apparently is no such thing as academic freedom. Those with the authority and power determine truth and everybody else goes along to get along, and to keep getting their paychecks. Knowing that I tend to embrace findings and conclusions that seem to make the most sense to me and my tiny little inadequate mind. 

[mwc]

18 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

I just took the idea of looking underwater to mean good places to look for places that may resemble what they've already found on land, like in Egypt and Turkey. And there are some type of temple looking structures underwater that Hancock dives down to: 

 

 

Some of these clips where included in the Rogan pod casts and some of the other videos as an aside to the discussions. These would be similar to Gobleki Tepe and date to how ever far back we have to go for them to have been on dry land. Beyond 4:30 they start illustrating a reversal of sea level rise to look at where dry land once was, and at what times. There were primitives there at the time. Known people. And by 6:00 he's off looking for higher elevation building from these same, known people. The issue being more the case of known peoples, before what we've considering civilization, being capable of building things which were previously not understood by contemporary academic's. Not too big a deal, really. 

     How old is this show?  I must have watched it something like 20 years ago?  If it's not that old it sure seems that old.  I probably entertained these ideas after that though so maybe 15 years ago?  But I could swear I saw this show before then.  I guess it doesn't really matter.

 

     Anyhow, so I can't say I'm surprised this is what's being shown.  It's usually this or the "road" in the Atlantic (Bimini Road?).  So, assuming this is all true and man-made, where and how would these people fit into the known cultures as I posted them earlier?  We see their contemporaries so where do we plug them in?

 

          mwc

 

[Joshpantera]

48 minutes ago, mwc said:

Anyhow, so I can't say I'm surprised this is what's being shown.  It's usually this or the "road" in the Atlantic (Bimini Road?).  So, assuming this is all true and man-made, where and how would these people fit into the known cultures as I posted them earlier?  We see their contemporaries so where do we plug them in?

 

 

He's a bit younger in these shows (part 1 was in India where they were looking at similar underwater sites) and I seem to remember this from pretty far back. Because I've understood for long time already that the obvious explanation is that people had structures around in various places that are now on sea floors. The people would have to be the same people that occupied India, Japan, Taiwan, or the Bahamas at the relevant time periods. They haven't yet determined which people exactly were the one's there, but they have ideas based on looking for who ever was known to be around those parts at the time periods in question. Who were the people from Gobleki Tepe? They are being viewed as some type of hunter gathers who were capable of doing much more than previously assumed hunter gathers could do. 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

On 9/25/2018 at 8:42 AM, mwc said:

     So, speculating given the DNA markers and the time distributions it might be more plausible that these symbols were developed and passed down during the Paleolithic and then crossed over the Bering Land Bridge.  It would also explain the distribution in the Middle East and at places like Gobekli Tepl.  The only thing that lacks in all cases, to my knowledge, is an absence of evidence for this symbol, or object, in the Paleolithic (or early Holocene since I believe the land bridge still existed at that time).  It is my understanding that the land bridge disappeared at nearly the same time that Gobekli Tepi is first dated to so I could try to assert some common knowledge between groups that did both.  One, as it were, that built one structure and one that crossed the bridge, it's tempting, but I don't have that information.

 

          mwc

 

 

So the underwater ruins in Japan and Taiwan are the sector of what looks like M174 and M130 from some 50,000 years ago. The underwater structures in question would have gone below sea level following the breaking up of the last ice, the periods of YD concerning a mere 11,000 to 13,000 years ago. I'm not seeing the problem we're searching for. Is the problem that no one lived there? Because that doesn't look like a problem on the map. 

 

The southern Indian sites? Looks like the same groups of M174 and M130 went through there some 50,000 years ago. And, again, the sites in question are within the last 12,000 years or so. 

 

What about Gobleki Tepe? What looks like M170 runs through Turkey some 25,000 years ago. And someone of the local population erected the site within the last 12,000 years. Someone who lived there and who must be accounted for on the DNA migratory charts. If they would have had to have lived in these locations (currently above or below present sea level) prior to known occupation of the locations in question, that would be one thing. But that doesn't seem to be the case for any of the mysterious sites we're looking at. All of them were not only occupied, but occupied by known people at the relevant times periods.

[mwc]

23 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

So the underwater ruins in Japan and Taiwan are the sector of what looks like M174 and M130 from some 50,000 years ago. The underwater structures in question would have gone below sea level following the breaking up of the last ice, the periods of YD concerning a mere 11,000 to 13,000 years ago. I'm not seeing the problem we're searching for. Is the problem that no one lived there? Because that doesn't look like a problem on the map. 

 

The southern Indian sites? Looks like the same groups of M174 and M130 went through there some 50,000 years ago. And, again, the sites in question are within the last 12,000 years or so. 

 

What about Gobleki Tepe? What looks like M170 runs through Turkey some 25,000 years ago. And someone of the local population erected the site within the last 12,000 years. Someone who lived there and who must be accounted for on the DNA migratory charts. If they would have had to have lived in these locations (currently above or below present sea level) prior to known occupation of the locations in question, that would be one thing. But that doesn't seem to be the case for any of the mysterious sites we're looking at. All of them were not only occupied, but occupied by known people at the relevant times periods.

     Super.  So you're putting people all over the map during the Paleolithic. 

 

      So now I'm asking about contemporaneous groups.  Those groups who lived about the same times in the same areas.  In this most recent case the known groups in the Taiwanese/Japanese area.  It would be nice to know what they were like.  What kind of tools did they have?  Things like that.

 

          mwc

 

[LogicalFallacy]

On ‎10‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 5:10 AM, Geezer said:

I think some of these historical arguments are little more than, "My scholar is smarter than yours." I've notice some posters that disagree with me do so by telling me the "authority" that I'm basing my conclusions on is unqualified, just plain wrong, isn't peer reviewed, or isn't published, isn't accepted as a true scholar by the academic community, or has totally misinterpreted the evidence.

 

I think it has been well established that academia is just as bias, intimidated, and coerced as any religious group. There apparently is no such thing as academic freedom. Those with the authority and power determine truth and everybody else goes along to get along, and to keep getting their paychecks.

 

Well I guess we can break this down into two broad groups, both probably with the habit of mischaracterising the positions of the other:

 

On one hand you have the group that proclaims the other group is religious, dogmatic, and fundamentalist because they largely agree with the consensus. The group proclaims science believers as religious zealots who are clearly unenlightened and are just sheep following a corrupt academic organisation. The group proclaiming this only agrees with science that fits into their brainbox.

 

On the other hand you have the group that decries anything outside the scientific establishment as not authoritative. People not accepting of consensus are conspiracy nuts who think their own truth is all that matters. The group proclaiming this only agrees with science that fits into their brainbox.

 

 

On ‎10‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 5:10 AM, Geezer said:

Knowing that I tend to embrace findings and conclusions that seem to make the most sense to me and my tiny little inadequate mind. 

 

Sounds rather postmodernist. Everyone's truth is their own and there is no objective truth to be discovered. Interesting.

 

[Geezer]

I am aware of the corruption, lying, politics, & coersion that is part of building a consensus in the academic & scientific community. It is similar to what is found in the religious community. Therefore, I don't automatically accept a consensus in any of these fields as solid evidence of truth in and of itself. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

21 hours ago, mwc said:

Super.  So you're putting people all over the map during the Paleolithic. 

 

You asked to refer to your map. I did that by pointing out the obvious on your map, which is the migratory paths you listed. On that map people were migrating through these places around 50,000 years ago. So we know people were around at that times we're considering. 

 

21 hours ago, mwc said:

So now I'm asking about contemporaneous groups.  Those groups who lived about the same times in the same areas.  In this most recent case the known groups in the Taiwanese/Japanese area.  It would be nice to know what they were like.  What kind of tools did they have?  Things like that.

 

 

Yes, contemporaneous groups. That was part of the video content I posted where he went looking for possible culprits. Around 30:00 into the program they are discussing the search for who may have done it, what they're pottery looked like, what skills they seemed to have, and how academics may have misjudged them: 

 

 

[mwc]

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

 

You asked to refer to your map. I did that by pointing out the obvious on your map, which is the migratory paths you listed. On that map people were migrating through these places around 50,000 years ago. So we know people were around at that times we're considering. 

     I asked that we use the known evidence.  There has to be some basis for when things happened.  Most of these timelines are based on carbon dating or the like (whenever that can be established...there are a number of outliers where this is still problematic).  There needs to be a syncretism to help align events.  Like when they use tree rings along with ice core data to find major events and align things.  So since people have done this work it seems like the thing to do is just go ahead and use it.

 

     That's why I asked where everything fit in to what is already known.  The information gathered from all these sources has been processed.  Timelines built.  And now we have some stuff that needs to be inserted. It would be nice to know where this new information belongs.

 

     I'll put it this way.  We have monuments that are considered to be rather impossible to build, by many folks, using the tools and knowledge of the peoples of the day.  So looking back into the Paleolithic and what we know of their tools and knowledge where should we insert the great monument builders?  This isn't to say they couldn't build great monuments.  Do confuse what I am saying here.  What I am saying is if the later group couldn't do it with soft metal tools (and tech) and all we're finding are stone tools (and tech) earlier on then where do we put these people?  If these earlier people are building monuments, but they're still of a scale less than what comes after, then where do we place them?

 

     I made a point (in one of these many threads) that humans evolved knowledge.  And it was effectively an unbroken chain (periods of gain with periods of relative stagnation).  Not that it reached a high point, a catastrophe happened, and then we rebuilt from some lower level of knowledge (like a stock market ticker or roller coaster).  But that was shot down.  So, ever since, I've been looking for the standout group.  The special one (or ones).  And I haven't yet found them.  My only thinking is I don't know for what or where to look.  "Under the sea" isn't really an answer though.

 

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Yes, contemporaneous groups. That was part of the video content I posted where he went looking for possible culprits. Around 30:00 into the program they are discussing the search for who may have done it, what they're pottery looked like, what skills they seemed to have, and how academics may have misjudged them: 

 

 

     I see him arguing that these Japanese were reshaping rocks pretty much in place.  That's not really what this is all about.  This was about gaining a knowledge, tools and abilities that were thousands of years ahead of their time because when people after them did it the whole idea of these other people gaining this knowledge is unthinkable and it somehow needed to be handed down to them from a more advanced group.  Just like us just coming up with digital computers is so sudden, historically speaking, we must have gotten them somewhere else when really they just evolved (not that they were a given and had to happen but they were going to happen once we managed to get to a certain place).

 

         mwc

 

[LogicalFallacy]

8 hours ago, mwc said:

Just like us just coming up with digital computers is so sudden, historically speaking, we must have gotten them somewhere else when really they just evolved (not that they were a given and had to happen but they were going to happen once we managed to get to a certain place).

 

         mwc

 

 

Bloody good point this.

 

Look where we have come in 100 years. Stuff we have today that our grandparents never dreamed about.

 

In the future if there is any evidence left over someone might make the mistake of saying that obtaining these things in such a short space of time was impossible without accessing prior knowledge or external intervention. Perhaps aliens traded with us and helped us with tech? This position is assuming humans cannot figure out complex things in a short time, and I think this is a mistaken position to hold. Take our ancient Egyptian friends - I think we don't give them enough credit, and in our own ignorance can't understand how a 'backward' people built structures we have trouble building today with all our 'advancement'.