+- +-


Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Total Members: 46
Latest: Tony Ryan
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Total Posts: 12329
Total Topics: 256
Most Online Today: 5
Most Online Ever: 137
(April 21, 2019, 04:54:01 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 2
Total: 2

Author Topic: Lost Cities and Civilizations  (Read 10757 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24046
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Lost Cities and Civilizations
« Reply #30 on: February 01, 2015, 09:21:54 pm »
Calcite, aragonite and vaterite are pure calcium carbonate minerals. Industrially important source rocks which are predominantly calcium carbonate include limestone, chalk, marble and travertine.
Limestone and Marble


These minerals make up more than 80% of the rock. Other common minerals include mica (muscovite and biotite) and hornblende (see amphibole). The chemical composition of granite is typically 70-77% silica, 11-13% alumina, 3-5% potassium oxide, 3-5% soda, 1% lime, 2-3% total iron, and less than 1% magnesia and titania.

Around the turn of the century (not this last one but the one before that!), I imagine there was a bit of a commotion among British archeologists. You see, British archaeologist Sir Flinder Petrie published his study of "Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh".

British archaeologist Sir Flinder Petrie worked in Egypt from 1880 for around 40 years. He credited the ancient Egyptians with methods that "we are only now coming to understand” (i.e. around 1900 by presenting evidence  in his study of "Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh" proving that the ancient Egyptians used tools such as straight saws, circular saws, and even lathes.). :o
Possible British Royal Society Erudite, Measured, Prudent and Scientific Comments on the study: Do you mean to say that those Egyptian primitive savages could work stone like we can in England!!? Bollocks! Balderdash! Preposterous! The very idea is repugnant. SNIFF!

Look here Flinder, what would Darwin say? Evolution goes forward, my good man, not backwards! Where's my snuff box? James, bring me a glass of Port!

I must say Flinder, this is most irregular! I don't care what the Germans say, lathes were invented in England! Ancient Egyptians, you say?  ::) I hear people that spend too much time down there go balmy.   ;)  ;D

Machining technology was in its infancy in the early 1900’s, and it is only in recent decades that modern-looking machine tool marks in Egyptian workpieces have been fully recognized.

Here's small vase in the Petrie identified collection.

Beautiful Granite Vase dated to be from 2,800 BC or earlier

This one piece is so flawlessly turned that the entire bowl (about 9" in diameter, fully hollowed out including an undercut of the 3" opening in the top) balances perfectly (the top rests horizontally when the bowl is placed on a glass shelf) on a round tipped bottom no bigger than the size and shape of the tip of a hen's egg.

It's made of Granite. The attempted "debunking" of ancient Egyptian machine technology  (see Experiments in Egyptian Archaeology: Stoneworking Technology in Ancient Egypt by Denys A. Stocks) through the making of a few vases using hand tools was conveniently done on Limestone, NOT Granite. Yes, Limestone and Marble are made out of calcium carbonate (CaCO3). Granite has SOME CACO3 but has mostly other, much harder minerals. Limestone is relatively soft and easily HAND WORKABLE, whereas Granite and marble are much, much harder. PLEASE don't make me provide you with a hardness value, how hardness is determined by modern science and industry and how they measure it. Google it if you don't believe me and don't pull the hairsplitting stuff on me. I know of what I speak.

Also, PLEASE don't bring up potter's wheels.; they are USELESS for stoneworking.

Granite and Marble cannot be worked by hand to get the results Petrie observed and documented.  And even Limestone worked by hand cannot get the symmetrical tolerances observed in Egyptian workpieces. Denys A. Stocks produced some crude specimens (see pictures of his "craftsmanship" on the internet. LOL!). Stocks, of course  ;D, explained that, if he had years and years of training back in ancient Egypt, he would have certainly attained the quality and precision of the Petrie collection.

Please observe the following "minor" detail about the pictured Granite vase:

Bottom of Granite Vase dated to be from 2,800 BC or earlier perfectly balanced on a flat surface.

This requires that the entire bowl have a symmetrical wall thickness without any substantial error! (With a base area so tiny - less than .15 " sq - any asymmetry in a material as dense as granite would produce a lean in the balance of the finished piece.)

NO, the bottom isn't SUPER THICK to produce balancing in spite of the "hand made asymmetry". Others have tried that hairsplitting, but logical, argument already. You can always go back to "those ancient craftsmen sure could make some great hand made stuff" speculation, of course. But don't call THAT science! WE cannot DO THAT by hand NOW. That much, at least, is the accepted scientific consensus. The speculation by some Egyptologist archeologists that they COULD do that by hand in ancient Egypt is just that. But that's their story and they are sticking to it!

My response to this evidence free speculation cloaked as science:

I am certain Sir William Flinders Petrie, grandfather of archaeology, who introduced science and methodology into the subject, would have scoffed at that speculation.
In 1892 Sir Flinder Petrie was appointed as Edwards professor at University College London, the first person to hold a chair in Egyptology in Britain.
Here's a google image search on Petrie collection vases:

Now let's move on to some large workpieces.

Ancient Egyptian Workpieces Evidence Advanced Technology

The language of science and technology doesn’t have the same freedom as speech. So even though the tools and machines have not survived the thousands of years since their use, we have to assume, by objective analysis of the evidence, that they did exist.

The precision in these artifacts is irrefutable. Even if we ignore the question of how they were produced, we are still faced with the question of why such precision was needed. Revelation of new data invariably raises new questions. In this case it’s understandable to hear, "Where are the machines?"

Machines are tools. The question should be applied universally and can be asked of anyone who believes other methods may have been used. The truth is that no tools have been found to explain any theory on how the pyramids were built or granite boxes were cut! More than eighty pyramids have been discovered in Egypt, and the tools that built them have never been found.

Even if we accepted the notion that copper tools are capable of producing these incredible artifacts, the few copper implements that have been uncovered do not represent the number of such tools that would have been used if every stonemason who worked on the pyramids at just the Giza site owned one or two. In the Great Pyramid alone, there are an estimated 2,300,000 blocks of stone, both limestone and granite, weighing between 2½ tons and 70 tons each. That is a mountain of evidence, and there are no tools surviving to explain its creation.

The principle of "Occam's Razor," where the simplest means of manufacturing holds force until proven inadequate, has guided my attempt to understand the pyramid builders' methods. With Egyptologists, there is one component of this principle that has been lacking. The simplest methods do not satisfy the evidence, and they have been reluctant to consider other less simple methods.

There is little doubt that the capabilities of the ancient pyramid builders have been seriously underestimated. The most distinct evidence that I can relate is the precision and mastery of machining technologies that have only been recognized in recent years.

Copper Chisels to work Granite?   ???

One can gather by reading Petrie’s work that he involved himself in some extensive research regarding the tools that were employed in cutting hard stone. Even so, there is a persisting belief among some Egyptologists that the granite used in the Great Pyramid was cut using copper chisels. I.E.S. Edwards, British Egyptologist and the world's foremost expert on pyramids, makes the following statement.

“Quarrymen of the Pyramid age would have accused Greek historian Strabo of understatement as they hacked at the stubborn granite of Aswan. Their axes and chisels were made of copper hardened by hammering.” (Edwards, I.E.S. Ancient Egypt, Page 89. (1978 - National Geographic Society, Washington, DC.)

Hopefully, besides mainstream Egyptologists, such as Mark Lehner and IES Edwards, (RIP) other Egyptologists do not suggest that the copper chisels, that can now be found in the Cairo Museum, were representative of the tools used to build the pyramids. If they were I would strongly suggest that they make an effort to learn about the materials and processes that they are proposing by actually creating one of these artifacts.

To identify copper as the metal used for cutting granite is like saying that aluminum could be cut using a chisel fashioned out of butter.

Physical Cause and Effect Workpiece Machining in Ancient Egypt

What follows is a more feasible and logical method, and it provides an answer to the question of techniques used by the ancient Egyptians in drilling into granite.

The fact that the feedrate spiral is symmetrical is quite remarkable considering the proposed method of cutting. The taper indicates an increase in the cutting surface area of the drill as it cut deeper, hence an increase in the resistance.

A uniform feed under these conditions, using manpower, would be impossible. Petrie theorized that a ton or two of pressure was applied to a tubular drill consisting of bronze inset with jewels. However, this doesn’t take into consideration that under several thousand pounds pressure the jewels would undoubtedly work their way into the softer substance, leaving the granite relatively unscathed after the attack. Nor does this method explain the groove being deeper through the quartz.

High Tech Tubular Drilling

Egyptian artifacts representing tubular drilling are clearly the most astounding and conclusive evidence yet presented to indicate the extent to which knowledge and technology was practiced in pre-history. The ancient pyramid builders used a technique for drilling holes that is commonly known as "trepanning."

This technique leaves a central core and is an efficient means of hole making. For holes that didn’t go all the way through the material, they reached a desired depth and then broke the core out of the hole. It was not only evident in the holes that Petrie was studying, but on the cores cast aside by the masons who had done the trepanning.

Regarding tool marks that left a spiral groove on a core taken out of a hole drilled into a piece of granite, he (Petrie) wrote,
"the spiral of the cut sinks .100 inch in the circumference of 6 inches, or 1 in 60, a rate of ploughing out of the quartz and feldspar which is astonishing."

After reading this, I had to agree with Petrie. This was an incredible feedrate (distance traveled per revolution of the drill) for drilling into any material, let alone granite. I was completely confounded as to how a drill could achieve this feedrate.

Petrie was so astounded by these artifacts that he attempted to explain them at three different points in one chapter. To an engineer in the 1880’s, what Petrie was looking at was an anomaly. The characteristics of the holes, the cores that came out of them, and the tool marks indicated an impossibility. Three distinct characteristics of the hole and core, as illustrated, make the artifacts extremely remarkable.

They are:

A taper on both the hole and the core.

A symmetrical helical groove following these tapers showing that the drill advanced into the granite at a feed rate of .100 inch per revolution of the drill.

The confounding fact that the spiral groove cut deeper through the quartz than through the softer feldspar.

In conventional machining the reverse would be the case. In 1983, Mr. Donald Rahn of Rahn Granite Surface Plate Co., Dayton, Ohio, told me that in drilling granite, diamond drills, rotating at 900 revolutions per minute, penetrate at the rate of 1 inch in 5 minutes.

In 1996, Eric Leither of Trustone Corp, told me that these parameters haven't changed since then. The feedrate of modern drills, therefore, calculates to be .0002 inch per revolution, indicating that the ancient Egyptians were able to cut their granite with a feed rate that was 500 times greater or deeper per revolution of the drill than modern drills.  ;D
The other characteristics also create a problem for modern drills. They cut a tapered hole with a spiral groove that was cut deeper through the harder constituent of the granite. If conventional machining methods cannot answer just one of these questions, how do we answer all three?

The application of ultrasonic machining is the only method that completely satisfies logic, from a technical viewpoint, and explains all noted phenomena. 

Ultrasonic machining is the oscillatory motion of a tool that chips away material, like a jackhammer chipping away at a piece of concrete pavement, except much faster and not as measurable in its reciprocation. The ultrasonic tool-bit, vibrating at 19,000 to 25,000 cycles per second (Hertz) has found unique application in the precision machining of odd-shaped holes in hard, brittle material such as hardened steels, carbides, ceramics and semiconductors. An abrasive slurry or paste is used to accelerate the cutting action.

Modern Stone cutters are Queried

I have contacted four precision granite manufacturers in the US and haven’t been able to find one who can do this kind of work. With Eric Leither of Tru-Stone Corp, I discussed in a letter the technical feasibility of creating several Egyptian artifacts, including the giant granite boxes found in the bedrock tunnels the temple of Serapeum at Saqqarra. He responded as follows:

"Dear Christopher,
First I would like to thank you for providing me with all the fascinating information. Most people never get the opportunity to take part in something like this. You mentioned to me that the box was derived from one solid block of granite. A piece of granite of that size is estimated to weigh 200,000 pounds if it was Sierra White granite which weighs approximately 175 lb. per cubic foot.

If a piece of that size was available, the cost would be enormous. Just the raw piece of rock would cost somewhere in the area of $115,000.00.

This price does not include cutting the block to size or any freight charges. The next obvious problem would be the transportation. There would be many special permits issued by the D.O.T. and would cost thousands of dollars.

From the information that I gathered from your fax, the Egyptians moved this piece of granite nearly 500 miles. That is an incredible achievement for a society that existed hundreds of years ago."

Eric went on to say that his company did not have the equipment or capabilities to produce the boxes in this manner. He said that his company would create the boxes in 5 pieces, ship them to the customer and bolt them together on site.

Agelbert NOTE: The above is a brief summary of a detailed article at the link below. There is much detailed information on stone cutting techniques.

Each and every one of the 'primitive tools did it' Egyptologist claims are dispassionately deconstructed to show they are based on evidence free conjecture, not science.

High Tech machine tools are the only explanation that fits. And that High Tech is right there with the best techniques we have for working these types of stones at present.
So you can imagine that Petrie, the fellow that first wrote about these Egyptian workpieces in 1880, did some serious head scratching at the time. Only NOW can we get those kinds of results in granite. 


The book "Experiments in Egyptian Archaeology: Stoneworking Technology in Ancient Egypt" By Denys A. Stocks explaining how the Egyptians used primitive tools to do what they did, including experiments he performed with copper and sand, have been proven insufficient to explain the smoothness, feed rate, striations and tolerances on the Egyptian workpieces.

The book, celebrated by Egyptologists, is full of "I suggest this" and "I imagine that" WITHOUT presenting how, at the drill rate and poor precision he was achieving with copper hand drilling, this massive work could have been accomplished.

So it goes. But perhaps some Doomers will accept it because Stocks is "Credentialed". Just Google it and be prepared for lots of calm, prudent, erudite baloney about how he FINALLY realized how EASY it was to do all this with primitive tools and what poor deluded FOOLS people who see evidence of high tech machine tools are. This arrogant mocking puffery is par for the course in the 'don't confuse us with facts, our minds are made up' "scientific" Egyptologist archeologist community.

I prefer evidence to consensus pseudo scientific cheerleading (more at link below).

After studying the physical evidence from ancient Egypt and the facts about hand versus machine working of granite, marble or limestone workpieces, this is my response when someone claims the ancient Egyptians had no machines and achieved all their workmanship with copper hand tools and sand:
This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles.. -- Psalm 34:6


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24046
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Lost Cities and Civilizations
« Reply #31 on: February 01, 2015, 11:39:46 pm »
Dr. Greer's tiny humanoid

I found a video by Dr. Greer that summarizes the findings. I stand corrected on the age at time of death; it was aged 6 to 8 years old at time of death, not 12.

Dr. Greer says there are possibly more specimens to be obtained. Dr. Nolan confirms that if more phenotypes identical to the humanoid are found, then it cannot be classified as an abnormality.

The GENOPTYPE (human female mitochondrial DNA only) DOES NOT match the PHENOTYPE (skeletal structure and size of the humanoid). But yeah, there is no proof whatsoever that it is an ET.



This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles.. -- Psalm 34:6


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24046
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Lost Cities and Civilizations
« Reply #32 on: February 05, 2015, 03:19:34 pm »
Excellent info!

Surly said,
... many of the pieces of evidence he cites can not be conveniently explained away.

Such as this, from his FB page... Enjoy.

Love that map! I'm saving it for some future debating fun.   
This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles.. -- Psalm 34:6


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24046
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Rephaim is the Hebrew word for GIANTS
« Reply #33 on: February 06, 2015, 12:52:19 am »

Evidence of giants is not limited to the Bible. Yet Archeologists do not admit the fact of their existence outside of describing them as "anomalies" or an infrequent  normal human genetic variation. WHY? ??? 

Is being a smaller and weaker Homo SAP an "evolutionary advantage" in nature?  Sure, you don't need as much food, but tell that to the animal predator that hunts you or the ruminant prey you hunt that outruns you!  :P If giants were common once, we little guys obviously whipped the big guys so you MIGHT say that little humans are more "fit" than the big ones. That makes sense ONLY if we outnumbered them massively because THEY were mostly wiped out by the catastrophic comet fragment strike about 12,000 years ago or some other unknown cause. The point is that if their numbers were similar to ours, we would not be here now. 8)

A smaller, shorter Homo SAP could be the result of DEvolution, not Evolution. If we are a shorter, weaker  version of what we once were, wouldn't Darwinian Theory (SET) supporting archeologists have a vested interest in denying it and ensuring skeletal remains were kept OUT of the museums?       

Question: "Who were the Rephaim?"

 Answer:  There are several passages in the Old Testament that speak of the Rephaim (or Rephaites), and the context describes them as giants. The name of these people literally means “terrible ones.”

The Hebrew word Rephaim has two distinct meanings: first, in poetic literature it refers to departed spirits whose dwelling place was Sheol. It is a figurative description of the dead, similar to our concept of a ghost. The second meaning of Rephaim is “a mighty people with tall stature who lived in Canaan.” The word doesn’t seem to be ethno-centric like “Jew” or “Egyptian” but is more of a descriptive term. This second meaning will be the focus of this article.

 The first reference to the Rephaim is Genesis 14:5, when the Rephaim, Zuzim and Emim people were defeated in a battle with Kedorlaomer and his allies. When the Israelites first approached the Promised Land after the Exodus from Egypt, they were afraid to enter the land because it was filled with “giants” (the word used in Numbers 13:33 is Nephilim), the sons of Anak. Giants were widely scattered through Canaan, but were known by different local names, including Rephaim, Zuzim, Emim, and Anakim. Deuteronomy 2:20–21 says the Rephaim were strong and tall, like the Anakites. Og, king of Bashan, was described as the last of the Rephaim in his land (Deuteronomy 3:11), and his bed was thirteen feet long and six feet wide.

Is it possible that the Rephaim were literal giants? The Septuagint uses the Greek words gigas and titanes (the source of the English titan) to translate these and other verses, so the ancient Jews certainly considered them to be giants. They are described generally as being between 7 and 10 feet tall and are called “mighty men.” The Egyptians wrote about giants who lived in the land of Canaan, and the folklore of other nations is full of such references. The people of the ancient world accepted the presence of giants as a fact of history, and the Bible presents them as enemies who were destroyed either by the judgment of God or in battle with men.

 So where did these giants come from? One theory, based on Genesis 6:1–4, is that fallen angels (the sons of God) had sexual relations with women, resulting in the birth of giants. This is remarkably similar to Greek and Roman myths about demi-gods, but the theory has some theological and biological obstacles. Another theory, also based on Genesis 6, is that the fallen angels, having knowledge of human genetics, indwelt certain men and women who would have the right traits to produce a race of giants and induced them to cohabit with each other. A third theory is that the giants were simply the result of normal genetic variability within a society. Whatever the origin of the Rephaim, it is certain that a race of “giants”—strong, tall people—did exist at one time, and many cultures had dealings with them. Even today, there are people who grow to extreme sizes, whether through genetic disorders like gigantism or through normal heredity.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Rephaim.html#ixzz3QwKEj5nH
This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles.. -- Psalm 34:6


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24046
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Lost Cities and Civilizations
« Reply #34 on: February 07, 2015, 11:49:47 pm »
Man, was THAT weak. ::) - AND LONG! And then you don't want to take even 5 or ten minutes, never mind and HOUR, to watch some video or a portion of it I post here?    You want me to wade through all this? I did. Talk about using a pack of claims (see the fallacious debating technique you accused me of using to "try to snow you  8)) to derail the central issue...   


Sources of dubious (and not-so-dubious) news on the internet have been getting very excited for the past week or so about some skulls from Paracas in south-western Perú. According to these sites, the skulls have been shown to have DNA that proves them not to be modern Homo sapiens but something else. Depending on the slant of the site, they are the remains of either an unknown but earthly species or aliens. Some sites make comparisons with the Starchild Skull, which has been touted as a human/alien hybrid.
So just how reliable is the news? *

* Agelbert NOTE: Leading question used to set up DOUBT in the mind of the reader. An intelligent person stops reading right there. But I'm not too bright so I went on to see what they claim to have DISPROVING THE CLAIMS - Yeah, it's CLEAR right HERE that the aim of the article is to do a HIT PIECE on the Paracas skulls.

Some significant admissions about the skulls by the article at the start to convince the reader that the writer is OBJECTIVE:   ;)



... best South American textiles ever found.

... quality of their grave gifts suggests that they were of high status

Comparisons have also been made between the later Paracas textiles and those of the Nasca Culture, suggesting another relationship.

It is generally accepted that the Nasca culture derives from the Paracas Necropolis Culture.

... cotton nets may be evidence for fishing.

So far, so good.   
Many of the high status burials of the Paracas Necropolis Culture have deformed skulls, which are usually believed to be deliberately induced using boards and weights. These result, in extreme cases, in skulls that are elongated into tall conical shapes. No two are alike and all are believed to have denoted high status in Paracas Necropolis Culture society.

Agelbert NOTE: The word "many" is a red herring to fool you into believing a little further down that ALL the cone heads are the result of cranial deformation.

And "BELIEF" has nothing to do with it. Science has two designations for Homo sapiens cone head skulls, cranial deformation and cranial malformation; the former is forced and the latter is genetic. BOTH have the same brain pan size. HERE is where this article gets into perfidy territory.


Brien Foerster (described as a “Canadian-Peruvian anthropologist” by Amazon, although it would be more accurate to describe him as a tour operator), Childress suggests that the phenomenon is not one of cranial deformation.

.. the presence of a large wormian bone at the parietal/occipital interface is said to demonstrate 
the primitive nature of this people

...Because of the high incidence of such bones among the indigenous peoples of the Andes, they are sometimes known as Inca bones.

Get it? You don't? You call the above "science"!!!? Inca=indigenous=primitive=cone heads= nothing to see here, move along.     Hey, the Spaniards were doing the, "Injuns are stupid savages" thing LONG before Darwin wanted to make monkeys of the "lesser races", pal!

Childress, Foerster and  Pye are all attacked with such "scientific" terms as "It appears that Childress and Foerster cannot adduce any recent ..." and "... ignorance of archeological dating techniques" and so on.

I am not going to waste time with these unprovable bits of defamation and character assassination. It is an established fact that carbon dating is ONE thing and DNA is another, MUCH HARDER, thing (getting usable DNA from a 2000 year old molar is quite difficult - getting the C-14 ratio is much easier). And even if it's just a modern DNA test to determine paternity. electrophoresis of fresh DNA is EASY compared with ancient DNA.  The author DELIBERATELY conflates the two in order to cast aspersions on Brien Foerster. Then he throws in lots of big words to show the readers that "knows what he is talking about".

Well, he DOES know how to do a hit piece. However, science deals with FACTS, not "it appears", "it is generally accepted" and so on. He does NOT know what he is talking about, chiefly evidenced by the FACT that he NEVER mentions cranial MALFORMATION! 

It's clear he is out to "get" Childress et al. His "This is a non-story" says it ALL. A true scientist would objectively request a thorough DNA study of hundreds of skulls based on the immense importance of finding evidence of a separate homind species that was honored so much that our branch tried to imitate it by forcing baby skulls into that shape. A true scientist would want to put all the claims to rest with evidence, no innuendo. This article is TRASH.

Some "interesting", but clever  , phrase usages:

ENTER Lloyd Pye.

Brien Foerster managed to persuade...

...Lloyd Pye (1946-2013), a crank who believed in ancient astronauts, the extraterrestrial origins of humanity and, worst of all, the “Starchild Skull” as an alien/human hybrid

OF COURSE! ANYONE who "believes" (otherwise know as formulating a hypothesis that ancient peoples were contacted by ETs and proceeding to test it) ET "stuff" HAS to be a CRANK!. How scientific of the writer to help the reader KNOW which way the wind is blowng in this article.
"This suggests that, ..." ,

That phrase is as unscientific as you can get in wanting to disprove a claim. The fact is that it is posted, not to DISPROVE the claim (because it has NOT been disproved), but to discredit the claimant. But the reader is left with the, very deftly placed, impression that Foerster and Pyle are con artists, whackos or both.

Yes, the author LOVES to SUGGEST. Such a scientific fellow...

Here's an EXCELLENT example of world class hit piece pseudo scientific doubletalk:

A Paracas skull: note the dimple toward the top of the head, which is a product of head-binding, depressing the suture between the parietal plates that Brien Foerster claims does not exist.

The above statement is TRUE! But the referenced skull is a head boarded or rope tied cranial DEFORMATION skull with what might be some trepanation! Whether Brien Foerster's claim applies to THIS skull (I seriously DOUBT IT!)  is not mentioned. How convenient.    At the start of the article, the author said "many". Yup, that is one of the "many". BUT IT"S NOT ONE OF THE FEW 20% larger brain pans sized NOT deformed  OR MAL formed cone heads!

It gets worse

IT SURE DOES. At this point he goes for the jugular to make sure the reader is left with a VERY bad taste in his mouth for the researchers. And it's all based on focusing almost exclusively on the Homo sapiens cone head deformation (with some "star child" fun thrown in to help the ridicule along   ).

I am surprised that a geneticist would make this statement

MORE innuendo.  ::)

Now, this statement troubles me.

Well, our anonymous geneticist goes on to classify Sample 3A as “a new human-like creature”.

NOW the geneticist is taking the reader for a ride too? Never fear, our bold author will straighten it all out for you and then humbly claim he finds the conduct and announcements of the geneticist to be "curious"...


The OBVIOUS mocking, stuffed shirt tone
in this next paragraph is something that, along with all those nice big words, Ashvin swallowed hook, line and sinker.   
So it''s not actually unrelated to the rest of the animal kingdom. That''s a relief.     However, it’s “very distant from Homo sapiens, Neanderthals and Denisovans”, whatever that is supposed to mean. Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) and Denisovans (exact species not yet determined, although members of the genus Homo) are extinct homininds whose distribution was restricted to Europe and western Asia: one would not expect to find them in South America. If the mtDNA of Sample 3A really is “very distant from Homo sapiens”, the only hominind so far known from the New World, does this mean that the geneticist considers it to be another species within the genus Homo or a member of an entirely separate genus. This is something I would expect them to give an opinion on and I find it curious that they apparently  :icon_scratch: have not.

What is even more curious is the statement that “I am not sure it will even fit into the known evolutionary tree”. This is  worryingly ambiguous and can be taken in two ways. It might mean that Sample 3A derives from a species whose position in the hominindin lineage cannot yet be determined, but which might one day. I suspect that this is not the intended meaning though. Given the thrust of the rest of the statement, I suspect that it is meant to imply that the mtDNA belongs to a species entirely outside the hominind  lineage.

In other words, it's leaving open the possibility that we should regard the sample as deriving from an alien. There does not appear to be any consideration given to the likelihood that the odd features of the mtDNA recovered are not “mutations unknown in any human, primate or animal” but a result of contamination (after all, the skulls were excavated in the 1920s and we do not know the conditions under which they have been stored, how much they have been handled, whether any procedures have been used to stabilize them and so on) or errors in the laboratory

Get it? Question Darwin and you are whacko! The FACT that it is unrelated to a common sample of DNA MEANS more research is required, NOT that it is ALIEN, like the author tries to assume is the ONLY intent of the geneticist. And the old "contamination" TRICK is par for the course when a new finding contradicts the consensus (see Mary Shweitzer).  ;)

The author does NOT ask for more testing but, in fact, continues to state, with his constant fecal flow of words like "curious, worrying, and so on" that science is being corrupted and this is all carnival Ripley's Believe it or Not baloney. 

At the end, and quite conveniently, he IGNORES the FACT that widely dispersed human ancient primitive cultures practiced head boarding to distinguish their LEADERS.

He TOTALLY **** canned the "so far, so good" part of this article that DOVETAILS with the high status of cone heads in their societies, NOT just in Paracas. WHY? Because that was put there to adopt a guise of objectivity that the author lacks.

... best South American textiles ever found.

... quality of their grave gifts suggests that they were of high status

Comparisons have also been made between the later Paracas textiles and those of the Nasca Culture, suggesting another relationship.

It is generally accepted that the Nasca culture derives from the Paracas Necropolis Culture.

The stuff about what is "known" and what is not "known" about the Paracas cultures is irrelevant filler thrown in to confuse the issue.

 The issue is the skulls.


Altering the shape of the skull also alters its volume  ;), despite Foerster’s claim that it does not [edited 19.2.2014 by KJF-M]. 

Although small variations away from normal volume can be produced,
they are not significant; however, while Foerster claims that the capacity of the skulls is too great for Homo sapiens, this is not the case: the Paracas skulls have an average capacity of 1600 cm3 and the human range is up to 1800 cm3 and they therefore fall well within the normal distribution range.
The above is the MOTHER LODE of duplicity. WHY?

Because MOST of the Paracas skulls are cranial deformations of Homo sapiens! (see any discussion of AVERAGE wealth in the USA!). "Well within capacity of 1600 cm3" is true of them on the AVERAGE.

But the ones that are NOT cranially deformed, and have what he claims is a "primitive" bone structure, have a  20% larger brain pan AND denser bone RIGHT NEXT to Homo sapiens cranially deformed cone heads that DO fit the normal brain pan range. This is typical doubletalk. He flat REFUSES to separate the "primitive" LOL! skulls from the others. He will NOT GO TO THE "it's another species" route, PERIOD!. How **** convenient!

He even threw BIGFOOT in at the end, LOL!

The finishing touches of "Nobody believes this guy. He's hurting for cash" and so on are really low class.   

In summary, this is a non-story.    

There is nothing at all unusual  ::) about the population of the Paracas Necropolis Culture, apart from the extreme nature of the head-binding they practiced.

 DNA or no DNA, they are fully human:  every aspect of their skulls can be explained in terms of genetics (such as the large wormian bone)   and culture (such as the cranial deformation).  Any statements to the contrary contain a mixture of deliberate deception, ignorance of anthropology, lack of archaeological knowledge and jumping to wild conclusions using “sketchy” data. They are not evidence for aliens  or an otherwise unknown hominin species.     ;)
Who taught this guy to spell hominid with an "N" at the end?  :icon_mrgreen: I know, I'm being picky but, hey ,we ARE talking about human skulls and this guy claims to know is anthropology science, does he not?

I already discussed the difference between cranial DEformation (rope or board cranial plate growth forcing)and cranial MALformation (genetic but still Homo sapiens) as well as the NON-rope or board cranial formation unrelated to MAL (genetic) formation. The artcle ignores the third, and most significant evidence.

Often in the Deformed cone head skulls (but not always), trepanation (making a small hole in the skull) was done because of pain from the cranial plates forced to grow in this fashion.

It has already been CLEARLY evidenced that MOST of the Paracas skulls are cranial DEformations with IDENTICAL sized brain pans to Homo Sapiens. MALformations are not evidenced there. Genetic MALformations of the cranium, according to dysmorphologist M.D.s that study cranial formation, always produce asymmetric skull plates (one side is shaped noticably different hat the other side). However, a small percentage (No Ashvin, not just ONE of them - there are several) have 20% GREATER brain pan size that Homo sapiens.

DEformed or MALformed skulls DO NOT have any appreciable increase in brain pan size OR skull weight. Your article pulls the old "average" skull capacity BULLSHIT to bypass the unique, un-Deformed craniums.

I do my homework. I consult medical science and mainstream archeology BEFORE I present the possible speciation evidenced by these other skulls. Whether they are or aren't ET is NOT the issue in regard to the skulls themselves. The ISSUE is whether they are a different hominid species.

IF they are a different hominid species, then, and only then, can we ask further questions about the FACTS, as established by our credentialed historians and archeologists, that:

1) Widely diverse "primitive" cultures (separated by oceans before transatlantic travel) practiced cranial deformation for tribal leaders. NO other practice like neck expanding, ear lobe enlarging, teeth sharpening, and so on, was practiced in widely diverse cultures. So please spare me the "primitives do weird things to distinguish their leaders" business. Yes, they do. BUT not on a worldwide basis UNLESS it was cranial deformation.

2) Wherever they were, they were leaders in the community as evidenced by funeral garb.

We CANNOT logically proceed to the next question until, or if, it is confirmed that the 20% greater brain pan sized (and higher bone density as well) cone heads (NOT DEformed and NOT genetically Malformed - they are symmetrical and show no signs of trepanation or cranial plate forcing distortions) is the product of hominid speciation.

THIS IS THE NEXT QUESTION THAT IS MOOT until all the above is confirmed:
Is their any evidence that they were ETs such as, but not limited to, written records, ancient schematics, knowledge of astronomy, a recovered flying saucer or part of one in a dig or high tech artifacts such as machines?

These articles with "enter this guy and enter that guy (liar for money!  ;)) are not germain when we HAVE skulls to test. **** the claims, pal! Let's get the DNA evidence for or against speciation. The rest is "he said, she said" propaganda used for the purpose of increasing the credibility of mainstream archeologists poo pooing a claim that calls their methodology and scientific integrity in to question while simultaneously casting aspersions on a non-credential individual investigating the cone heads.

YOU should NOT CARE, Ashvin, about what people SAY when you have skull evidence to analyze. The fact that the overwhelming majority of the skulls are BOTH deformed and show evidence of trepanation only means that MOST of those people where probably Homo Sapiens. Even that must be corroborated by DNA analysis.

A long article on deforming a skull 101 does not do **** to address the 20% larger brain pan size. Citing "average size does even less! And when that article starts attacking some non-credentialed researcher that might or might not be making a pile of money on the admittedly wild eyed idea that some of the cone heads were ET's, it's CLEAR that the article is a hit piece lacking objectivity and should be given circular file treatment.

I keep trying to get you to focus on the ANOMALOUS evidence. You keep trying to point at the portion that is run of the mill to establish the case that pecuniary motives of unscrupulous researchers "proves" the anomalous evidence is a fabrication. No it does not! Only DNA evidence does that. And the author of your article is allergic to DNA evidence.

So, let's stick to, "Are the GENUINE cone heads evidence of speciation or not?". Pointing at the money grubbers is a really tired tactic. But you give it an amazing amount of importance in formulating your conclusions so I will continue to emphasize the vacuity of using that possibility as a premise spring board to disbelieve all claims.

ARE THE CONE HEADS THAT ARE NEITHER Deformed or Malformed with 20% greater brain pan size and higher bone density evidence of a NON-Homo sapienshominid?

ONLY DNA analysis will answer THAT! The author of your article does not believe there is any evidence of hominid speciation.

Genetics is how real scientists address the issue of hominid speciation:
Gorillas are humans' closest living relatives after chimpanzees, and are of comparable importance for the study of human origins and evolution. Here we present the assembly and analysis of a genome sequence for the western lowland gorilla, and compare the whole genomes of all extant great ape genera. We propose a synthesis of genetic and fossil evidence consistent with placing the human-chimpanzee and human-chimpanzee-gorilla speciation events at approximately 6 and 10 million years ago. In 30% of the genome, gorilla is closer to human or chimpanzee than the latter are to each other; this is rarer around coding genes, indicating pervasive selection throughout great ape evolution, and has functional consequences in gene expression.  We also compare the western and eastern gorilla species, estimating an average sequence divergence time 1.75 million years ago, but with evidence for more recent genetic exchange and a population bottleneck in the eastern species.


In other words, speciation evidence is found ONLY in the DNA. But the author of your article says, QUOTE  "DNA or no DNA, they are fully human:..." UNQUOTE

And you believe him.   

The video below is very nuts and bolts.    It's only 21 minutes and covers all the bases NOT covered in the article Ashvin posted.

Outside of his hair style  :P (which is not conducive to the awarding of Nobel Prizes  :icon_mrgreen:), I feel the speaker is credible, honest and forthcoming about what he can prove and what he cannot prove. The interviewer asks the right questions. enjoy. 

This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles.. -- Psalm 34:6


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24046
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Lost Cities and Civilizations
« Reply #35 on: February 09, 2015, 01:07:25 am »
I have been pondering the following question:

If I was an Egyptian 5,000 years ago and I wanted to make a stone surface really, really flat, how would I go about it?

Well, let's see now, what is the flattest surface I have ever seen in my life in the land of the Nile (no jokes, ya hear? This is serious business! I'm trying to do some high tech stuff with low tech hand jobs - Wipe that smile off your face!   ;D).

Flat tires? NOPE, they didn't have tires. Flat women? NOPE, the human anatomy can be subject to certain bits of low class humor but it is, according to Stephen Hawking, definitely not macroscopically flat, never mind near microscopically flat. Therefore being flat-assed broke is not applicable to this bit of scientific inquiry. And when I knocked my stone cutting supervisor flat, he still made a lumpy appearance laying on the ground. :

You see, we had a bit of a discussion about "flatness".  He said my work is not flat enough for Pharaoh standards. He said a lot more than that but this is PG discussion.  ;)

The altercation aside, what my stupidvisor did was pour some water on the workpiece I am putting my heart, soul and most of the copper and sand in Egypt into! That water did NOT run off my workpiece.    I stared at the stupidvisor and told him, this is flat!   

HE smirked and went over to three nondescript areas of my piece and said, NOPE! Those areas were slightly drier than the rest of the piece.  :(  :P He said the water must look the SAME over the entire piece without running off at minimum thickness or I may find myself in the salt mines soon where high caliber precision is not required... 

I let him have it. POW, right in the kisser! It's a good thing he is my sister's half cousin or I would be Nile crock food right now.  8)

After I apologized and promised to work on the slight imperfections, he took out his hair measuring gizmo and showed me some places in the stone where there were depressions in the water a few hairs DEEPER than the acceptable Pharaoh stone flatness standard.  :P

That means I have to work the WHOLE PIECE down to those levels.    That means another two months to get this 43 cubit rock up to snuff instead of a few days. And never mind the amount of copper I need for THAT!   

My stupidvisor did not smirk again but he did say all my lunch breaks were cancelled until I got these 43 cubits by 14 cubits exactly RIGHT!

Egypt sucks! I'm going to the twenty first century and pretend this never happened!    i]

The point of the above thought exercise is to try to think like an ancient Egyptian. The flattest thing they ever saw in their entire lives was the surface of water in a pool with no wind. That IS pretty flat. Is it microscopically flat? I'll let you know when I do some research. Of course, they had ICE in those days too. BUT NOT IN EGYPT unless the climate was much different han it is now:

Climate of Egypt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Egypt essentially has a hot desert climate (Köppen climate classification BWh). The climate is generally extremely dry all over the country except on the northern Mediterranean coast which receives more rainfall in winter. In addition to rarity of rain, extreme heat during summer months is also a general climate feature of Egypt although daytime temperature are obviously more moderated along the northern coast.

The prevailing winds from the Mediterranean Sea continuously blow over the northern coast without the interposition of an eventual mountain range and thus, greatly moderate temperatures throughout the year. Because of this effect, averages low temperature vary from 9.5 °C (49.1 °F) during wintertime to 23 °C (73.4 °F) to summertime and averages high temperatures vary from 17 °C (62.6 °F) during wintertime to 32 °C (89.6 °F) in summertime.

So only some wild dudes that went in reed boat ships to colder places had ever seen ice. And when they DID see it, it was moving around a lot.  :emthdown:

There are a few rocks, like flag stones, that naturally split into fairly flat surfaces. Perhaps the Egyptian craftsmen had seen flagstones. But flagstones are okay to walk on put they crap compared with Egyptian workpieces. Nevertheless, the ancients had a THING fro making their stone cut surfaces extremely flat. That certainly makes sense if you are going pile one on top of the other and wish to get a building or pyramid that doesn't resemble a drunken sailor.

Assuming (now I'm getting in trouble here for sure.  :icon_mrgreen:) that the REASON the ancient wanted their work to have a flat surface was because they wanted to put other pieces on top, then there would be no need to make the SIDES equally as flat, right? Wrong?

Sure, aesthetically, a nice long rectangular solid is more pleasing than one with wavy walls but this is something that is important in analyzing what they did and why they did it.

We know they OBVIOUSLY quarried the stones. We know where the quarry is (about 500 miles from the main monuments to this that and the other ET ;D  giant gods that preferred sitting to standing - AHA! Scientific proof that the Egyptians were pretty laid back. Settle down Ashvin, I'm kidding!  ;)).

Now if they used the handy dandy hair meter I invented ex nihilo in my quest to come up with a LOW TECH device they could have had back then to measure flatness, they needed to combine it with the molecular adhesive quality of water to create a thin film over a flat surface. No, they didn't need to understand molecules to know water is rather flat and, if it doesn't run, the surface it is on is really flat.

Water, because of its hydrogen bonds, WILL try to go "uphill" with the surface because it is attracted to itself. However, it will thin out somewhat (water is VERY elastic - I know this because I have studied tree transpiration - water in the tracheal capillaries of a tree can be stretched to 1/26th or so of it's normal density AS LONG as the vacuum holds inside the tree - That's how it climbs up to the leaves from the roots - Test on Monday) . A craftsman with a good eye will see the water thinned out in some areas and, with a hair gage, could find depressions that the human eye could not detect. Yes, the "hair" gage would have to be treated with a hydrophobic substance (a bit of olive oil might do it!) to keep the water molecules from climbing up the gage and ruining the reading, so to speak.

But once they got the TOP surface so flat that they needed to attack Cyprus (the copper mining mecca of that time period) because they were going through the copper stash like there was no tomorrow, they would HAVE to rotate the workpiece so all four sides, one at a time, became the TOP for flattening.

Well Doomers, do you think this would work? Has anybody done the math on the amount of copper and sand they need to do what they did? Everyone knows sand is abrasive. It is abrasive BECAUSE it has some very hard rocks in it. Yes, it has soft rocks that wear away too but THOSE aren't the ones that make sand do what it does. If you don't believe me but talcum powder on your sand paper.

Stocks' hypothesis is that there was enough copper, combined with the aid of sand abrasives, to do all this by hand. With the water technique I dreamed up, perhaps it is possible IF hey had enough copper and IF they had enough man power NOT tied up in growing food or whipping the slaves into shape. Egypt was NOT exactly a "life of leisure" for anybody but the Pharaoh (and the "priesthood" of course - those guys always have an angle     ).

The biggest elephant in the Stocks hypothesis (he alleges they did it by hand by using copper tools to drill limestone, producing rather crude - by ancient Egyptian standards, work. He also has not demonstrated successfully that the copper and sand technique works on Marble or Granite) is TIME. The time it is estimated those monuments took to complete is way too low, in my opinion, for the massive amount of product, as evidenced by so much expertly cut stone laying around, of many, many flat surfaces and circular drilling.

How long did it take to build these things? That is really important. They need skilled craftsmen working quickly for, say, a 25 year period with machine tools. They needed perhaps a century or more to do it by hand with quite a bit of labor dedicated exclusively to this effort. Yes, the monuments were apparently built at different times and on different schedules so it is a huge bag of worms to try to pin it down.

I'll get back to you on how flat water adhesion on a flat surface can achieve as far as tolerances. If you van get .01 or better, that may be how they did it. But I don't have an answer to the extremely precise circular drilling and the feed rate consistency, the lathe quality work when they weren't supposed to have them and for the machine tool marks.

Eddie, you do a lot of drilling. Help me out here. I made a hollow "drill bit" out of some copper tubing to drill some wood years ago for a project I was working on (needed a big bit). I hacksawed some teeth on it and went to town. It lasted about 3 days. Harwood eats copper pretty quick.     I used a power drill. If it had been by hand with some sand, maybe I would get more out of it but I do not see how copper can work successfully on marble or granite, even if you have an unlimited supply from Crete or Cyprus (or whoever they plundered to get copper in those days - I'm sure it wasn't free!) to throw at it.   
This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles.. -- Psalm 34:6


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24046
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Lost Cities and Civilizations
« Reply #36 on: February 09, 2015, 03:51:06 pm »
I have no f***ing idea. LOL.

I do question the efficacy of soft metal cutting instruments on hard stone (even with an added abrasive), although I'm no expert on quarrying or drilling rocks. It does sound iffy to me. They did cut them somehow, with some kind of tech. I'd posit we haven't yet considered all the possibilities.

Even aliens would have had their work cut out for them.

Eddie said,
Even aliens would have had their work cut out for them.

This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles.. -- Psalm 34:6


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24046
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Is the surface of water ever "perfectly" flat?
« Reply #37 on: February 09, 2015, 07:15:23 pm »
Excellent discussion of precision flatness in water and molten tin too!

Full thread is at this link:

Is the surface of water ever "perfectly" flat?

Before anybody goes off on a bent about "perfectly," let me explain; No, I'm not an Indian graduate student. When I say "perfectly" I mean by a machinist's standards; does it pass the test of a surface plate's flatness spec (like accurate to .0001").

 I know there's either a concave or convex meniscus at the edge, and I know that the surface of the water will follow the curvature of the surface of the earth. But what I don't know, is if I were able to "freeze" (not as in freeze by cold temperature turning it into ice, which would change the size & shape, but "freeze" as in magically make it turn instantly solid without morphing) a bathtub full of water, would I have a "perfectly" flat surface in the middle, say 1" in from the edges? Or would it still have some radius (a tigher radius than the earth's radius) to it, like it's just the surface of one giant water droplet that just happens to be in a bathtub?

Glenn Holland
Except for surface tension at the edges and with no motion, the surface should be almost flat.

 Other liquids such as molten tin exhibit near flatness and the surface can be used as a reference and also a mold for casting other flat shapes. s an example, plate glass is made by applying molten glass over the surface of molten tin.

In your bathtub example, in theory, the inside surface area would have a curvature to it. It would be slight. The curvature would have a radius R, to the center of gravity of the earth.

 You can get damn close with a machined surface to true flatness.

 Probably the closest we can get to flatness is.........a stretched sheet of graphene.

Dont forget about the Moon's gravitational attraction.

Absolutely. The first bathtub curve will be modulation by a second and inverse curve with radius r.....to the center of gravity of the moon.

I once had a conversation with a structural engineer about using a water level vs a laser level on a large building. Something like 1000 feet and you're out of spec for, "flat" with the water level.

 He never answered me. Probably because his daddy was an engineer and "forced" him to get a 4 year degree. It worked. He's financially secure and can't figure out how structures were built before lasers were available.

 Anyway, I did the math to get the 1000 foot number, and you can too...if you care enough.
 X^2 Y^2 Radius = 4000 miles etc.
Do the math and find out how flat bath tub water is!

Alright I'll take a stab at it, but first, ...
 If you're looking for level, I say, a hose full of water is the only thing that's going to give you a true level.
 If you use a bubble level or laser, you're shooting two tangent lines out from your position on the face of the earth, into space. if you were run your level or laser in either direction along that line, as soon as you leave dead center (where you took the measurement), you're going to be off by more and more ****hairs the further you go out.

So, having said that, I'll use the Distance to the Horizon formula in order to determine the difference between FLAT and LEVEL, at 1000ft.
 distance to horizon formula:
 d = 1.22h
 d = distance in miles
 h = height in ft

 Rearrange to solve for h:
 h=0.1894mi/1.22 = 0.15525ft = 1.863"

 Now confirm with Pythagorean theorem:

 436,957,148,390,400ft2 + 1,000,000ft2 = c^2

 C-A = 0.02391941642909571014096ft = 0.287033"

Big difference there. I suspect the Pythagorean theorem is the closer one to correct. What was your number?

 Anyway, same Pythagorean method substituting in my 4ft instead of your 1000ft, yields .00000459253" over 4ft. Good enough for me ;)

Agelbert NOTE: Me too! Water is REALLY FLAT!  :o  8) The question is, HOW could the ancient Egyptians, who probably were quite good at math before Pythagoras (thanks to ET  ;D previous knowledge from maybe the Sumerians), make use of this BETTER THAN .001" water flatness precision?

Water WILL follow rock surface contours to a degree. So, on a planed marble surface, it will not be as flat as in a still pool of water. But there is a limit to high much it will climb before it starts stretching and thinning out.

I'll get back to you. 

Man, those ETs ancient Egyptians were smart "copper" using cookies, weren't they
Ashvin?  ;D 

« Last Edit: February 09, 2015, 08:37:05 pm by AGelbert »
This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles.. -- Psalm 34:6


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24046
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Lost Cities and Civilizations
« Reply #38 on: February 09, 2015, 11:53:34 pm »

The Egyptians wore funny hats to fool people into thinking they had weird, but SYMMETRICAL, upper crust status skulls.  Now where have we seen THAT before?   

But if the top brass really had skulls shaped like that, as the EVIDENCE supports (Google it!), and they were NOT  cranial deformations or malformations but the result of genetic modification, a little knowledge (to put mildly!  )  of transfer DNA in LIFE processes might have helped get that result. 
The Ankh looks like the Transfer DNA molecule. What better way to communicate to posterity that you knew a thing or three about GMOing a human?  :icon_mrgreen:

The ankh (/ˈæŋk/ or /ˈɑːŋk/; Egyptian: IPA: [ʕaːnax]; U+2625 ☥ or U+132F9 𓋹), also known as breath of life, the key of the Nile or crux ansata (Latin meaning "cross with a handle"), was the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic character that read "life", a triliteral sign for the consonants ꜥ-n-ḫ.

SNIPPET from a 2005 article:
U.S. Denies Patent for a Too-Human Hybrid

by Rick Weiss, Washington Post
February 13th, 2005

The decision letter to Newman notes that many people have heart valves from pigs. A patent has even issued on the use of baboon cells in people to aid in organ transplantation. Those procedures, the letter says, "did not convert the human patient to a non-human."

Similarly, mice that have up to 1 percent human brain cells in their skulls are clearly mice, said Stanford University biologist Irving Weissman, one of the scientists who helped make hybrid rodents.

The tricky part, all agree, is what to do with the middle ground. Weissman and others, for example, have talked about their desire to make mice whose brains are made entirely of human brain cells.

A preponderance of "H"'s Greely, a professor of law and director of Stanford's Center for Law and the Biosciences, said even those animals would not seem very human to him. "But a chimp brain with human neurons. . . ."

That's exactly the kind of scenario that makes Rifkin, Newman and others want a total ban.

"If the U.S. Congress and president are not willing to do this now, then there is no door that will remain closed to an era of commercial eugenics," Rifkin said. "We'll be on our way to that brave new world that Aldous Huxley warned us about."

Leon Kass, chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics, agreed that Congress should at least get involved.

"The patent office is not the place for society to make its moral decisions," Kass said.

Weldon, the Florida representative, said he is interested in providing such guidance -- and believes the public would favor restrictions.

"There's instant public revulsion when you start talking with the average person about this stuff." For starters, Weldon said, "I'd like to ban the creation of human embryos with animal genes in them."

But many scientists fear that Congress is likely to overreact.

"There are chimeras out there that serve very valuable purposes in medical research, such as mice that make human antibodies," said Michael Werner, chief of policy for the Biotechnology Industry Organization. "This is sufficiently technical scientifically that it should be left to scientific bodies like the National Academy of Sciences to decide."

This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles.. -- Psalm 34:6


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24046
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Lost Cities and Civilizations
« Reply #39 on: February 10, 2015, 03:32:02 pm »
This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles.. -- Psalm 34:6


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24046
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Lost Cities and Civilizations
« Reply #40 on: February 10, 2015, 08:45:04 pm »
UB said to Ashvin,
Your evidence presented  by Fitzpatrick is all ad hoc and ad hom and totally unprofessional, several people have noted this including the comment by "John" he downvoted but did not repond to. He sets up a website called "Bad Archaeology" Capitals are appropriate as a proper noun for HIS site. He then goes on to repeatedly refer to OTHER peoples work as "Bad Archaeology" not even "bad archaeology" which would be bad enough. But it seems it is his best shot at smug superiority and assorted appeals to irrelevant technicalities such as Hancock not knowing what species of spider is shown carved on rock instead of addressing how the hell the giant spider picture got there.

Exactly. And then Ashvin tries to turn it all around and claim we are the ones who lack objectivity. Also, what you mentioned about how Ashvin switches between the macro and micro to dance is par for the rhetorical course in fallacious debating techniques. Then he claims I am "accusatory" and going al "ad hom" on him. Nope. I just want him to stop dancing. He won't do it.

The fact I believe the ET presence is real does not have jack sh it to do with the EVIDENCE presented by Graham Hanc ock, who DOES NOT hold the "ETs taught humans how to draw maps" theory ( or any other 'ETs are here' theory, for that matter - but Ashvin likes to group the "con artists" for effect.

As Eddie said (and I had mentioned it previously too)
Graham Hanc ock is not a UFO guy, really. I haven't read his books, but none of the videos I've seen tries to make a case for ancient astronauts or anything of that sort.

But it is QUITE important for Ashvin's argument to cast me as an "ET true believer sans evidence" even though I took pains to show him the logical steps in the premise; ALL of which he has STUDIOUSLY avoided discussing with his micro to macro and back dance. 
As I said a couple of pages ago:

I do my homework. I consult medical science and mainstream archeology BEFORE I present the possible speciation evidenced by these other skulls. Whether they are or aren't ET is NOT the issue in regard to the skulls themselves. The ISSUE is whether they are a different hominid species.

IF they are a different hominid species, then, and only then, can we ask further questions about the FACTS, as established by our credentialed historians and archeologists, that:

1) Widely diverse "primitive" cultures (separated by oceans before transatlantic travel) practiced cranial deformation for tribal leaders. NO other practice like neck expanding, ear lobe enlarging, teeth sharpening, and so on, was practiced in widely diverse cultures. So please spare me the "primitives do weird things to distinguish their leaders" business. Yes, they do. BUT not on a worldwide basis UNLESS it was cranial deformation.

2) Wherever they were, they were leaders in the community as evidenced by funeral garb.

We CANNOT logically proceed to the next question until, or if, it is confirmed that the 20% greater brain pan sized (and higher bone density as well) cone heads (NOT DEformed and NOT genetically Malformed - they are symmetrical and show no signs of trepanation or cranial plate forcing distortions) is the product of hominid speciation.

THIS IS THE NEXT QUESTION THAT IS MOOT until all the above is confirmed:
Is there any evidence that they were ETs such as, but not limited to, written records, ancient schematics, knowledge of astronomy, a recovered flying saucer or part of one in a dig or high tech artifacts such as machines?

Then Ashvin claims this is ALL ABOUT ETs. :evil4: Sure, Brien Foerster includes it in the possibilities (that Ashvin views as  a premise that is number umpteen on the priority list of possibilities  ;)). But Brien Foerster has said, QUITE CLEARLY, that  the evidence has NOT proven in any way whatsoever that the skulls were ET. How many times does Ashvin have to be told this to understand it?  They have found DNA in the New York SUBWAY TUNNELS that matches no known organism. SO WHAT? That doesn't mean they are ET bugs on the subway tunnel walls! I continue to claim that Ashvin keeps parading the ET thing here as a rhetorical tool used to undermine the credibility of the researchers dealing with ancient civilizations and their level of advancement. Then he accuses me of attacking the messenger.

Ashvin has not answered the questions posed with evidence. Yet he claims that is sufficient to counter them. 

I beg to differ. And I will continue to differ. Notice I posted two screen shots with questions and he completely ignored them (about Plato and about the Rephaim). This is called glossing over. Then he gets pissed when I point at his glossing over.     


Ashvin, did PLATO make this STRANGE SH IT up? 

How about the Hebrews? Did they make up this STRANGE SH IT too?     

Ashvin, please address the following two claims by Eddie:

Eddie said,
I'm only willing to make two claims.
1.  Graham's take, that it is likely that there were one or more somewhat advanced civilizations that probably got wiped out in Younger Dryas flooding, seems to make some sense.

2. UFO and alien type stories exhibit uncanny parallels with ancient glyphs and cave paintings, and would seem to be associated with shamans and the inner world described by those who have ingested plant entheogens, like Ayahuasca.

The two points you make are quite adequate to the task of cornering Ashvin logically. He has not countered either one.
Ashvin said,
I didn't bring Antarctica into the discussion, UB did after reading a sentence in the BA post. I couldn't have anticipated that he would bring that up. That being said, YES, I do think that is a very weak part of their arguments. Please do go into that and the South American boundaries too, if you want.
You mockingly asked if a portion of a map looked like Antarctica. DON'T DENY IT.

As to maps, when I went to photo interpreter school many years ago, I studied cartography including Lambert conformal conic, Mercator and so on. I understand how distortions build on maps. As I pilot, I had to know ho to read maps rather well.

In pre-accurate time piece times, they could draw coastlines okay but locating them was a bit of a challenge, to put it mildly. The guy that made the Piri Reis map ADMITTED it was a copy with several iterations from the original! He was no ET. Handcock says a past high civilization of HOMO SAPS obtained the cartographic info and it was passed down, PERIOD.

It being that you have some QUESTIONS to answer on this post, I will make a separate post on the Piri Reis map with an explanation of the projection issue. If you want to haul in another hit piece "debunking" Piri Reis as a fraud, there's plenty of them on the internet.

I suggest you do a little more checking on what you post here than some "Bad Archeology" hit piece heaven. UB is far more patient and learned than I am and will continue to deconstruct disingenuous claims presented. ;D

I await your answers to the above questions.  8)
This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles.. -- Psalm 34:6


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24046
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Lost Cities and Civilizations
« Reply #41 on: February 13, 2015, 02:03:30 am »
Evidence that Demands a Verdict:
The Consensus Historical View that Piri Reis used South American Coastline maps made by Columbus

Christopher Columbus (Italian: Cristofero Colombo; Spanish: Cristóbal Colón; Portuguese: Cristóvão Colombo; born between 31 October 1450 and 30 October 1451, died 20 May 1506) was an Italian explorer, navigator, and colonizer, citizen of the Republic of Genoa.

Cristofero Colombo's handwritten notes in Latin, on the margins of his copy of The Travels of Marco Polo.

Explorers need maps. So Cristofero began scrounging around for maps, after being inspired by Marco Polo (keep that in mind, please  8)), that would help him in his quest.

Toscanelli's notions of the geography of the Atlantic Ocean, which directly influenced Columbus' plans.
Columbus estimated the distance from the Canary Islands to Japan to be about 3,000 Italian miles (3,700 km, or 2,300 statute miles). The true figure is now known to be vastly larger: about 12,500 km.

First KNOWN map by Cristofero Colombo. This map is quite logical. It covers what Cristofero actually knew before he hitched a ride on the trade winds on the good ships ""Saint Mary" (real name - all ships were named after saints), the "Pint" or "Painted lady", depending on the translation, and the  "Young Girl" (non saint names were probably nicknames - test on Monday  ;D).

Mapa de Cristóbal Colón. Lisboa, taller de Bartolomé y Cristóbal Colón, hacia 1490.
Christopher Columbus map. Lisbon, workshop of Bartolomeo and Christopher Columbus, c.1490

Who in the world would've ever known
What Columbus could do
If Queen Isabella hadn't hocked her jewels
In fourteen ninety two! (it's a song Ashvin. Settle down!).  :D


Queen Isabella's timing was good, but in regard to the Piri Reis map, Cristofero's timing was not. 

So off he went with his crew of fear filled sailors.

Replica of the Pinta. I actually walked on it and talked to a sailor that made the Atlantic crossing (imitating Columbus) on this replica in 1992. A voyage on this vessel is NOT for the feint of heart. It is VERY small for a transatlantic vessel! :o

The New World was first sighted by Rodrigo de Triana on the Pinta on October 12, 1492.

Voyages of Columbus

First voyage 1492

All four voyages

More detail of the four voyages. Ashvin, PLEASE observe how far SOUTH Columbus went.  8)

Columbus always insisted, in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary, that the lands that he visited during those voyages were part of the Asian continent, as previously described by Marco Polo and other European travelers.[9] Columbus' refusal to accept that the lands he had visited and claimed for Spain were not part of Asia might explain, in part, why the American continent was named after the Florentine explorer Amerigo Vespucci and not after Columbus.[40]

That's NOT all, folks. Cristofero died in May of 1506 DENYING the existence of the "New World". That is a historical FACT, Ashvin.

Was Cristofero keeping some land area map knowledge a secret?    I don't think so. But there is "evidence" out there that serious scholars (this is not a joke, pal) accept/swallow/claim/push (and so on) that makes absolutely no sense unless Cristofero was a world class liar and insane too. Yet no serious scholar has called him a liar or an expert in shooting himself in the foot and face.  ???  I'll get to that later on.

Mapping South America

Mapping the east coast of South America, especially in those days when some native tribes along the east coast were quite warlike, is a rather time consuming task. It is safe to say that in 1504, from Cristofero's last sighted point on down, said coast had NOT been mapped by humans yet, right?  Wrong. Well, that's what serious scholars state, so I guess that's what you believe too, Ashvin. I agree. But the serious scholar historical doubletalk is in the details, so to speak.
Let's take the last bit of South American coastline that Cristofero sighted on his third voyage. That was the southernmost point in his four voyages. After the fourth voyage he died without added coastal mapping knowledge beyond what he had mapped.
Guyana = 459 km
Brazil = 7,491 km
Uruguy=  660 km
Argentina = 4,989 km
Total 13,599 km = 8,500 miles


Going back and forth from Europe to South America must be added to the length of time such a herculean task as mapping the east coast of South America would take. 

Back to Cristofero, he mapped most (not all - he did not map a large part of  Cuba and part of what is now Haiti) of the Caribbean islands and part of Central and South American coast in FOUR voyages at varying intervals from 1492-1504. Islands have a lot of coastline so he was quite busy. In 12 years, he mapped approximately 3,500 km (2,187 miles) of coastline.
Vespucci is credited with mapping the coast of eastern  South America south of Cristofero's last point at about 10 degrees south latitude (Guyana).

Vespucci voyages NOTE: Vespucci turned north back to Spain, on his voyage down the east coast of South America, 400 miles north of Tierra de Fuego.

Then we have the Balboa voyage discovering the Pacific (1510-1513). Observe that he did not go further south than Columbus. Balboa is considered the FIRST Conquistador.
Early Voyages of Exploration 1492-1609

But, SO WHAT? Hadn't Vespucci mapped the eastern coast of South America in 1501-1502?  My answer is a DEFINITIVE NO! The "serious" scholar historians are quite satisfied that my claim is false.

The historical record also is clear that Vespucci DID NOT go back to South America after that voyage. Magellan (1519) was the next explorer that took Vespucci's route.

Let me be clear. I'm not saying Vespucci did NOT sail down the coast to approximately 400 miles north of Tierra de Fuego before turning home to Spain. I AM saying his mapping was a cursory job with only the most salient details in his map.

It's a LONG coast. He did NOT know when it would end. He had warlike tribes to deal with if he got too close to the coast (something you HAVE TO DO to map on the relatively tiny vessels of the day with much shorter masts than the tall ships that came centuries later).

You need a daily sun shot to get your latitude at noon and some sort of time keeping to figure your longitude too. It's been a while since I've studied it but is NOT something he could have done quickly, no matter how skilled Vespucci was.

There's also the weather to deal with. ANY TIME it rained, he could NOT map accurately and had to drop anchor until he could see the sun at noon for latitude (for longitude the stars and/or preferably the moon were needed along with the time piece, of course - so rain at night was a pain too!).

And then there were his trip provisions. He had a certain amount of time before he HAD TO turn back to Spain, regardless of what he could forage for on land.

Finally, there were the carreer advancement goals of Vespucci. Columbo was still the big dog when Vespucci became convinced,  on his second voyage, that this was a "new world". He needed to get back to the king to gain favor for his hypothesis. He was a smart cookie (For any scholar reading this: No, I will not stop using pedestrian "man in the street" common terms, language and expresions that make scholars sniff in derision when they read my work. I rather enjoy using vocabulary that communicates reality rather than some ivory tower, high brow, erudite fuddy duddy,  self aggrandizing prose.).

My contention is that Amerigo Vespucci did a RUSH JOB on the eastern South American coast. More on that later.

That brings us to 1513 and, you guessed it   , the Piri Reis map.

Piri Reis map next to current land mass photo. 
Ashvin, there is NO WAY in God's GOOD EARTH that ANYBODY could have mapped 8,500 miles, or even HALF that much, of South American coastline, brought it to Spain, sold a copy to the Turks and enabled Piri to get his dibs on it, never mind reconciling the other maps he had access to and produce the Piri Reis map by 1513!

By 1550, sure. The Spaniards were going to town on the injuns down there by then. They surely had to have the coastlines mapped to find who to torture or enslave for God and Country next (along with knownin' where the ORO and PLATA was too!)

But our serious scholars are having none of that post 1510 (that's right 1510, NOT 1513! ) business.     No sir! It has been accepted by historians that 1513 is the actual date the map was finished.   

The map was signed by Piri Reis, an Ottoman-Turkish admiral, geographer and cartographer, and dated to the month of Muharram in the Islamic year 919 AH, equivalent to 1513 AD.[12][13] It was presented to Ottoman Sultan Selim I in 1517.[4][14]

Our SERIOUS SCHOLARS in this wikipedia article, and EVERY serious historical reference to this EMBARRASSING Piri Reis map (discovered in 1929),  CLAIM that Piri used maps from Cristofero Colombo!

You know, that guy that went to his grave claiming there was no "new world" (see Marco Polo fixation).
You know, that guy that got one upped by Amerigo Vespucci for that very reason!
You know, the guy never got south of about 10 degrees north latitude in all four voyages!

And you claim these "serious" scholar historians (and you) rely on the "BEST" explanation!!!? ???

In the map's legend, Piri inscribed that the map was based on about twenty charts and mappae mundi.[15][16][17] According to Piri, these maps included eight Ptolemaic maps, an Arabic map of India, four newly drawn Portuguese maps from Sindh, Pakistan and a map by Christopher Columbus of the western lands.

From Inscription 6 on the map:

From eight Jaferyas of that kind and one Arabic map of Hind [India], and from four newly drawn Portuguese maps which show the countries of Sind [now in modern day Pakistan], Hind and Çin [China] geometrically drawn, and also from a map drawn by Qulūnbū [Columbus] in the western region, I have extracted it. By reducing all these maps to one scale this final form was arrived at, so that this map of these lands is regarded by seamen as accurate and as reliable as the accuracy and reliability of the Seven Seas[18] on the aforesaid maps."[19]

Surviving fragment of the Piri Reis map showing Central and South America shores. In his notes appended to it is written "the map of the western lands drawn by Columbus"[1]

Piri Reis map
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Surviving fragment of the Piri Reis map showing Central and South America shores. In his notes appended to it is written "the map of the western lands drawn by Columbus"[1]

The Piri Reis map is a world map compiled in 1513 from military intelligence by the Ottoman admiral and cartographer Piri Reis (pronounced [piɾi ɾeis]). Approximately one-third of the map survives; it shows the western coasts of Europe and North Africa and the coast of Brazil with reasonable accuracy. Various Atlantic islands including the Azores and Canary Islands are depicted, as is the mythical island of Antillia and possibly Japan.

The historical importance of the map lies in its demonstration of the extent of exploration of the New World by approximately 1510 , and in its claim to have used Columbus's maps    , otherwise lost, as a source. It used ten Arab sources, four Indian maps sourced from the Portuguese and one map of Columbus. More recently it has been the focus of pseudohistoric claims for the premodern exploration of the Antarctic coast.

Magellan DID travel along, and map, the east coast of South America beginning at a point midway down the coast of Brazil, but he began this voyage in 1519!

What about the Ashvin style "best" explanation logic that the Piri Reis map, if Vespucci didn't produce it, is a backdated Magellan map? 

The Piri Reis map could not have been a "backdated" Magellan piece BECAUSE of two reasons:

1) The Piri Reis map shows the coast of Guyana and Brazil AFTER the last point Columbus sighted and BEFORE the point in Brazil where Magellan sighted land.

2) Magellean mapped the coast from the point he sighted land to the Strait of Magellan, and kept going WEST. His maps DO NOT twist the southern part of South America to the right.

1520 Strait of Magellan map

Magellan’s 1520 transit of the strait took thirty-eight days, many of them spent scouting and discounting alternative paths through the labyrinth. The following expedition in 1525, led by the Spanish nobleman Garcia Jofre de Loaísa, required four and a half months to solve the strait’s puzzle. As a result, the commander recommended that Spain abandon using the route to reach the Pacific. Henceforth, most Spanish expeditions to the Pacific were launched from their ports on the western coasts of Central and South America.

The first English venture through the passage—in a speedy seventeen days—was that of the privateer and circumnavigator Sir Francis Drake in 1578. Exiting into the Pacific, his expedition met fierce winds that pushed his ships south and east to a latitude of about 57° S, where they were surprised to find open water. (Later, this serendipitous discovery was named the Drake Passage; it offered the possibility of a more southern route around South America.)

Final half  in next post on this thread.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2015, 03:55:17 pm by AGelbert »
This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles.. -- Psalm 34:6


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24046
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Lost Cities and Civilizations
« Reply #42 on: February 13, 2015, 03:11:52 am »
Second and final part of:

Evidence that Demands a Verdict:
The Consensus Historical View that Piri Reis used South American Coastline maps made by Columbus

Corneille Wytfliet’s map of 1597

It wasn't until 1616-1624 that the the southern tip of South America was mapped.
The discovery of the Le Maire Strait and Cape Horn by the Dutch mariners Jacques Le Maire and Willem Corneliszoon Schouten in 1616 at last provided explorers and merchants with a viable alternative to the vagaries of the Magellan Strait.

Published before the Dutchmen Jacques Le Maire (1585–1616) and Willem Corneliszoon Schouten (d. 1625) rounded Cape Horn (1616), the map shows the Strait of Magellan separating Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego, which still was considered to be part of a vast southern continent. The charm of the map lies in its depiction of Patagonian giants, the mythical        race of large people first mentioned by Antonio Pigafetta in his chronicle of Ferdinand Magellan’s voyage.  Bertius’s note next to the illustration states that the giants can reach ten feet in height   :o and that they paint their bodies in various colors from diverse herbs.  ;D

It was not until 1624 that another Dutch explorer, Jacques L’Hermite, charted the islands and waters around the cape, proving that Cape Horn was really an island.

Rounding Cape Horn, of course, would prove to have serious weather issues of its own—ones that continue to confront and confound sailors today—but it would become the preferred transoceanic route for sailing ships for centuries to come.

Gerritsz., Hessel, 1581?–1632. “Provincien van de Straet van Magallanes, ende vande Straet Le Maire.” Copperplate map, with added color, 27 × 35 cm. From Joannes de Laet’s Nieuwe wereldt . . . (Leiden, 1630). Acquired with funds provided by the Friends of the Princeton University Library. Reference: Martinic, Cartografía magallánica, VIII, 89. Historic Maps Collection

Oriented with north to the right, the map explodes the long-held belief that Tierra del Fuego was attached to a southern continent. Fifteen years after the circumnavigation of Le Maire and Schouten, Hessel Gerritszoon, the official mapmaker for the Dutch East India Company, is able to show the alternative route navigators can take to reach the Pacific from the Atlantic: around Cape Horn via the Strait of Le Maire.

The last map in this series I will present is a truly beautiful map. It's truly a work of art, as well as exceptional cartography. Put the establishment is not altogether happy with it.

This is an excellent example of serious historians engaging in conjecture and clever suggestions of PROPAGANDA when the data does not fit their historical paradigm. 

Whenever a serious scholar wants to undermine the credibility of some map data and/or annotation, they use descriptive terms like "mythical", "incongruous", "propaganda", "alleged", "unproven", etc.

What's wrong with that, you (or Ashvin  ;D) might ask?  They are just being prudent, measured, serious (and so on), RIGHT?   

WRONG! It is, in fact, quite the double standard! WHY?  ???  Because, in regard to exactly the SAME map, they will use descriptive terms such as "Tour de force", "elegant", "detailed", etc. to support   the accuracy and credibility of the cartographer!   

1675: Wit, Frederik de. “Tractus australior Americæ Meridionalis, a Rio de la Plata per Fretum Magellanicum ad Toraltum.” Copperplate map, with added color, 48 × 54 cm. From Wit’s Orbis maritimus ofte zee atlas. Amsterdam, 1675.  Reference: Martinic, Cartografía magallánica VIII, 121. Historic Maps Collection

One of the most elegant and detailed charts of southern South America produced in the seventeenth century. The map continues the now archaic, headland view of Cape Horn but offers a much fuller picture of the west coast of Chile, identifying many capes and ports. In the Atlantic, an unspecified Dutch naval battle takes place.

The dramatic cartouche, however, is the tour de force of the map (see the map detail): a meeting between Dutch merchants and natives (Patagonians or Fuegians?) who are mining, refining, and molding what appears to be gold. The onlooking animal with the spiral horns looks like a blackbuck antelope, native to India, or even an eland or oryx from Africa—but is out of place in South America.

At the time of this map, the continent was a literal gold mine for Spain, and Dutch commercial interests were focused on the East Indies.

Hence, this iconography seems incongruous: one would expect to see Spanish conquistadors and Peruvian Indians portraying their contemporary master/subject roles. Here, the scene suggests that a new deal or trade could be made.

Perhaps the artist/cartographer is dramatizing the possible rather than the status quo in a work of Dutch propaganda.
Princeton University collection and history of South American maps made by Magellan and those who came after him:

In short, the cartographer from centuries ago is JUDGED to be perfectly honest, thorough and accurate AS LONG as he tows the present "serious" historian paradigm. Any departure from that is poo pooed with erudite puffery. 

That is not serious scholarship. Yet Ashvin NEVER even considers the possibility of interpretative perfidy among "serious" scholars. The fact that scholars ALWAYS use careful language blinds Ashvin and others to their paradigm turf protecting duplicity. They use it sparingly to preserve their credibility but do not hesitate to invent long screeds of logic free discourse to demonize any revisionist history that questions their paradigm. But they are so polite about it!

Consequently, NOBODY  is allowed to consider the possibility of mens rea because academics are, OF COURSE, not affected by peer pressure, establishment line towing, tenure considerations, social climbing, status and money.  SNIFF! Oh no!

It's all those pseudo historians out there that that are immediately suspect... BALONEY!  >:(  News flash! The higher up on the civilizational hierarchy a human is, the MORE PRONE he is to engage in mendacity, duplicity, perfidy and fraud to DEFEND the status quo. But our credentialed "priesthood" must always be sanctified while anybody questioning, with data and evidence, their paradigm gravy train is demonized and ridiculed (see double standard on steroids  :P).

And all the while, these logic challenged credentialed meat heads have the audacity to claim they will change their views with "sufficiently valid" evidence that their paradigm requires a shift to understand the data. I don't think so. It is not hard to change the paradigm because of lack of evidence; it's hard because of ossified, stubborn and pride filled status quo turf defending.

Of course it's part of human nature. But, if we were logical and reasonable about this, we would, given that power and position CORRUPTS, look with a more jaundiced eye at the establishment pooh bahs than women or men (like me  ) that just want the honest God's historical truth to be accepted, regardless of who's pride is hurt by looking like a world class turf protecting reprobate.

I don't think any of the maps or mapmakers presented here are deliberately inaccurate or mendaciously annotated in any way, shape or form. (the Piri Reis NOTES allegedly APPENDED to the Piri Reis map are another matter).
And YEAH, Ashvin, that INCLUDES those rather large natives Magellan saw in Patagonia! They are NOT on alleged NOTES APPENDED to the map; they are written on it! But I KNOW what your reaction to Magellan's eye witness account will be.  ANYTHING that doesn't fit your paradigm is "not relevant" to the "best" explanation so you will use your rhetoric to    away from it.  ;D

The Piri Reis map has the South American coast twisted to the right with no gap at the end, giving the, PROBABLY MISTAKEN, impression to a modern cartographer that it was mapping Antarctica. I am not convinced of the Antarctica mapping but that's neither here nor there. I have some theories about why that is if you want to hear them (it has to do with the accuracy of the available time pieces of the mappers).


It is IMPOSSIBLE for Columbus to have provided the map info credited to him by Piri Reis in the "NOTES APPENDED TO IT" (the map), as serious scholars claim because.

1) No European explorer was THERE to map eastern South America in this DETAIL until AFTER 1519!

2) Even if Cristofero had lived past 1506 and sailed to map said coast, he wouldn't have had enough time to map 13,599 km = 8,500 miles of coastline, get it to Spain and hand it off to the Turks!

But you believe them. Fine and dandy, Ashvin, you have lots of company in your beliefs. But that's all they are.

Cabot went out in 1497 but it was much farther north than Columbus (Newfoundland).

Cortes starts out in 1519. Pizarro in 1531 and Hudson in 1609. END OF STORY.

Check all voyage geography and dates HERE:
Early Voyages of Exploration 1492-1609

When the accurate, indisputable data (I know, MISSION IMPOSSIBLE for an adversarial lawyer  ;)) does not fit the paradigm, a shift in the paradigm is required. Vested interests and the scholarly historical consensus do NOT want to undergo a paradigm shift BECAUSE that requires eating a LOT OF CROW and rewriting history.

They rightly fear that the pseudo-historians and scam artists will have a field day if the credibility of serious scholars is undermined BY serious scholars.
But that's just turf protecting, not logic or serious scholarship.  No amount of clever rhetoric by you or anybody else can disguise that. The scam artists will always be there. That is NOT an argument for disingenuously inventing the baloney that Cristofero Colombo provided the South American map data to Piri Reis.

Among the pseudo historians there is a subset of "pseudo" historians (i. e. Serious, truth searching historians - something you REFUSE to believe) that have pointed to the truth. Serious scholars don't want to give them the time of day for the reasons I have stated, but serious scholars have PECUNIARY reasons as well. Try not to forget that when you attack the credibility of an author (i.e. claim they are ruled by conscience free greed instead of truth) based on the fact that he is making a buck by writing revisionist history.

And spare me the "true believer" motive you pejoratively ascribe to me for writing these pieces. This is my work. I am not quoting Hapgood, Hancock or anybody else. So feel free to claim I am not "credible" because I am not credentialed. 

That argument works well in a court room but not in a debate where truth is more important than sophistry. 
No, I DO NOT think that ET gave Piri the map info. LOL! ET would have space age mapping photographic quality accuracy. The Piri Reis map DOES NOT have that level of accuracy, but there is NO QUESTION that the coastline is South America's east coast. And time travel is impossible, as far as I'm concerned. I think we can agree that the Columbus mapping ships were not time machines.    Columbus did NOT map the coastline of eastern South America below 10 degrees north latitude.

What you SHOULD be doing now Ashvin, instead furiously Googling "Piri Reis map fraud" and "pseudo history of Piri Reis map" (and so on) is asking yourself WHERE did Piri Reis get the indisputably accurate, according to modern maps, coastline map information of eastern South America below 10 degrees north latitude. Cristofero Columbo never went there.

But I know you well, Ashvin. You are going to bring up good old Amerigo Vespucci. You are going to bring up the serious scholarly claim that Vespucci DID map the coast of South America from Guyana on down between 1500 and 1502. And then you are going to put two and two together and get the 1510 "historically accepted level of knowledge" that Spain had of South America.

You are going to claim that Amerigo Vespucci, named by the king to be top dog on "New World" (that term Cristofero was allergic to) exploration procedure and authorized by said king to set up a school to teach explorers how to map and how to navigate, of course shared this South American map knowledge with Cristofero Colombo and his brother Bartolomeo, who shared the work of running the the same "taller" (map workshop) the Colombo brothers ran.

The last link in this trail of serious scholarly logic is that after Cristofero's death in 1506, Bartolomeo made a few (more like a LOT!) of pesetas selling a copy (Maps were INCREDIBLY EXPENSIVE and tenaciously guarded in those days of early exploration because of the ORO and PLATA filled lands explorer/conquistador/plunderers who had them could navigate to.) to Piri Reis. 

My, what a gem of reasonableness and plausibility. Is that is your "best" explanation? With a few insignificant variations, that is what serious historians claim.

The accepted historical paradigm that, in 1510, the knowledge of South America indisputably displayed on the 1513 Piri Reis map was the level of mapped knowledge by European civilization at the time is inaccurate. It is a fairy tale. It is a willful denial of the evidence. It is a deliberate distortion of the truth in order to defend the claim that Piri Reis got his info from the Spaniards. It is an absolute scandal that they persist in this fantasy.


1) There are some serious scholarly historian issues with Amerigo Vespucci. While alive, he was QUITE secretive about what he knew and who he shared his mapping info with. This was, of course, normal for that time period.

I present that fact to you in order for you to understand the context of the data that historians question. You will find that one of his "voyages" is considered fictitious by historians due to letters Vespucci allegedly wrote of his "four" voyages, conveniently discovered many years after his death, that turned out to be forgeries. So the exact details of his voyages are STILL, unlike Cristofero's voyages, a matter of historical conjecture.

But aren't his maps evidence of his voyages? Somewhat, but they are a BIG FAIL in confirming he had anything to do with the Piri Reis map.  I told you I'd get Vespucci's RUSH JOB and now we are here.  ;D

There is a 1507 map ( a German one) that claims the data for "America" (what is now South America) and the Caribbean came from Vespucci (and Colombo too). It does not show the track of the voyages of Vespucci or how many of them there were. And by the way, that's how South America was the first to receive the name "America".

Waldseemüller’s 1507 map of America re-drawn on an equirectangular projection and on the same uniform scale as that of Schöner of 1515, so as to be readily comparable (E.G. Ravenstein, Martin Behaim: His Life and His Globe, London, George Philip & Son, 1908, p. 36).

Here's another one from 1515 (a little late for Piri Reis and looking just as coarse as the Waldseemüller 1507 map)..

Schöner’s 1515 map of America re-drawn on an equirectangular projection and on the same uniform scale as that of Waldseemüller of 1507, so as to be readily comparable (E.G. Ravenstein, Martin Behaim: His Life and His Globe, London, George Philip & Son, 1908, p. 36).

2) If the above two maps showing South America ARE from Vespucci's mapping efforts, as serious historians have accepted, it is evidence of a RUSH JOB. But serious historians don't accept it was a rush job. I wonder why.  ;) As I previously mentioned, the mapped coastline is far too lengthy to have been mapped at the required detail in in time to get the data to Spain and Piri Reis before 1513.

3) Even if the above two points could be explained away somehow, there is the further "problem" for the serious scholars that the Andes mountain chain is accurately portrayed for a distance on the Piri Reis map. Balboa was somewhat near there between 1510 and 1513 when he discovered the Pacific Ocean but he was too far away to sight the Andes in his location in Central America. The Andes were NOT discovered by Balbo. Pizarro discovered and began mapping them in 1533.

4) The Piri Reis map shows that the Amazon river tributaries begin on the east side of the Andes mountain chain and join to make the Amazon river. Yes, the distance from the mountains to the delta is inaccurate. So? The point is there is no way Vespucci could have guessed the Andes were there or that the head waters were west-southwest of the delta.

Yes, Vespucci mapped the Amazon river delta. But he probably did not know it was a delta for sure.
... the mouth of the Amazon is so huge (over 200 miles across) that early explorers navigating the Atlantic coastline of South America simply didn't recognize the mouth of the river as a river!

The fact that the headwaters of the Amazon river are just east of the Andes was not discovered until 1541 and not confirmed as the headwaters, despite reaching the Atlantic Ocean on 26 August, 1542, until many years later.

Despite the fact that indigenous people had been living in the Amazon for at least 10,000 years, and possibly for as long as 15,000 year, the Amazon River itself was "discovered" by a Spanish explorer and conquistador.  Don Francisco de Orellana left Quito, Ecuador in February of 1541 in the role of lieutenant to the company of Gonçalo Pizarro ...

But not only is successfully imagining a mountain chain like the Andes rather far fetched, placing imaginary or speculative land marks was NOT standard operating procedure for a cartographer of that day.

As you can see from much later maps, like this detailed southern South American Dutch map from 1675, cartographers did not 'make things up' inside a land mass that they did not know precisely where to locate.

1675: Wit, Frederik de. “Tractus australior Americæ Meridionalis, a Rio de la Plata per Fretum Magellanicum ad Toraltum.” Copperplate map, with added color, 48 × 54 cm. From Wit’s Orbis maritimus ofte zee atlas. Amsterdam, 1675.  Reference: Martinic, Cartografía magallánica VIII, 121. Historic Maps Collection

Drawing scenes of this and that may be okay to add a little razzle dazzle, but locating a mountain chain AND river tributaries for aesthetic effect was not acceptable then or now. Cartographers were/are fastidious about landmarks, Ashvin. When a landmark position is not certain but still claimed by an eye witness, the cartographer will so state on the map. The Piri Reis map does NOT state that the Amazon tributaries, the Amazon river OR the Andes are speculation.

5) The Piri Reis map accurately portrays the Malvinas (The Falklands for the Brits). Portuguese cartographer Pedro Reinel, in about 1522, produced the very first map to show the Falklands AFTER the Piri Reis map. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_history_of_the_Falkland_Islands

Vespucci turned north about 400 miles north of Tierra de Fuego. He never sighted or mapped the Malvinas.

Piri Reis map with detailed South American east coastline, a portion of the Andes mountain chain, Amazon river headwaters not discovered officially until much later and accurately portrayed Malvinas islands pointed out by A. G. Gelbert.

The probability that Amerigo Vespucci, in a mapping voyage that took LESS THAN two years, mapped, at the Piri Reis level of detail, 10,000 km PLUS of the eastern coast of South America and "got lucky" positioning a large part of the Andes he had never seen, the headwaters from them that feed the Amazon river and the accurate portrayal of the Malvinas is ZERO.

Serious scholars in their ivory towers are allergic to paradigm shifts.    So are you. I understand.

Except for the quotes and links, I, A.G. Gelbert, wrote all the above.

Among the pseudo historians, there is a subset that I belong to of "pseudo" historians that are serious, truth searching amateur historians who labor to expose the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help us God.     I am a man of respect and integrity. I am not credentialed but I am credible.

Anyone reading this is free to publish it, send it to a university, shout it from the rafters (and so on) with, or without, attribution. I am unconcerned if the "serious" scholar historians print this on a roll of toilet paper. If they do, at least it shows those stuffed shirts have a sense of humor.  ;D

I freely give this authority to readers in order to nip in the bud, so to speak, any spurious and defamatory claims of pecuniary motives on my part. Of course some may try to claim I am a pseudo-historian fishing for a book contract like any "good" con artist. Anyone that claims that is engaging in libel and is also suffering from glial cell colonization by fecal coliforms. Have a nice day.   8)
« Last Edit: February 13, 2015, 03:51:52 pm by AGelbert »
This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles.. -- Psalm 34:6


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24046
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Lost Cities and Civilizations
« Reply #43 on: February 16, 2015, 10:13:44 pm »

Wallace's Line separating southeast Asian and Australian fauna today, and around 50,000 years ago ...

Snippet from an article with the above graphic in it. Aside from the "subspecies" groundless speculation about interbreeding, it points to some type of hominid species that was NOT Homo SAP.

A study of ancient DNA suggests that a mysterious sub-species of ancient human could have reached Australia after crossing Wallace’s Line in southeast Asia over 100,000 years ago.

The Denisovans are the newest addition to the human family tree following the  discovery in 2008 of a 40,000 year-old finger bone in the Denisova cave in Siberia’s Altai Mountains.  Scientists were stunned when analysis of its mitochondrial DNA revealed that it was genetically distinct from modern humans and Neanderthals.  They were further amazed when they found that some modern human populations carried traces of Denisovan DNA, the relic of ancient interbreeding between the two subspecies.   

Puzzlingly, the traces of Denisovan DNA in modern human genomes appear to be confined to indigenous populations in Australia, New Guinea and surrounding areas, but absent or at very low levels in populations on mainland Asia where the fossil was found.

Agelbert NOTE: I don't know how advanced or how primitive they were.
However, I think it is arrogantly biased to automatically assume the Denisovans were brutes that could only follow the animals they hunted over land to Australia and were too 'unevolved' to know how to make boats!  :( Regardless of the patronizing prejudices they have been branded with by our scientists, there is no question that they existed more than 16,500 years ago when sea levels were lower.

Were there OTHER hominid species besides the Denisovans and Neanderthals out there then? How advanced were our ancestors and/or other hominid species we shared the planet with?

The answers, never mind the QUESTIONS, have not been addressed with much rigor by our scientific community. They seem to be rather comfortable with their view of human history and have no wish to have it revised by embarrassing evidence. Consequently, researchers like Graham Handc ock, that question the consensus of history AND provide evidence that it needs revising, are either ridiculed or demonized. So it goes with the turf defending stuffed shirts in academia.  >:(   

A LOT of antediluvian civilization got flooded when sea levels rose. A moron can see that humans have a habit of building coastal cities! A person with an IQ of 80 or better can figure out that when ice caps melt, coastal port cities will be flooded and disappear from the historical record. With a few more IQ points, they can even look at modern civilization and SEE where most of our population AND HIGH TECH is concentrated. DUH... The COASTAL mega cities. So if you tell a scientist/archeologist that if you want to look for ancient advanced civilizations and possible high tech, the OBVIOUS place to start is the location of coastlines in the three melt surges post ice age, WHY do they look at you cross eyed?  ???  It's either because they are stupid or they are in to arrogant turf protection. I don't think they are stupid.  ;D

According to modern science, the world wide coastal flooding post ice age occurred in three major surges. The lowest sea level before the ice began to melt was 16,500 years ago. That was the pre-flood civilization. But since the three periods of surges were separated by thousands of years, there were technically three levels of pre-flood coastal city civilizations. After each massive flooding event, mankind would build cities on the new coasts.

Map created by Martin Vargic, an amateur graphic designer from Slovakia.

'It is the first map of its kind on such a scale and level of complexity, and depicts our planet as it looked during the late glacial maximum of the last ice age, 14,000 years BCE,' he told MailOnline.

The world 16,000 years ago was in many ways radically different to the present; because large amounts of water were concentrated in the massive ice sheets covering the majority of North America and western Eurasia, sea levels were about 110 meters lower when compared to today.

This exposed massive land bridges, most notably Beringia, Sundaland and Sahul.

Martin Vargic said,

 "I was genuinely surprised about how the climate and geography of the world has changed in only about 16 thousand years (only a fraction of time when compared to Earth's history)".

The two maps below show the weather now versus the weather 16,000 years ago. Also please note that in this type of projection, Antarctica's coast line is severely distorted.


If the scientific community ever does decide to seriously address the possibility of advanced antediluvian civilization, the answers will probably be found in ancient submerged cities.

Here for your edification and enjoyment is some research done by Graham Handc ock in the company of scientists. These videos are about scientific evidence for pre-flood cities and civilizations. Enjoy!

Underworld - Flooded Kingdoms Of The Ice Age (part one)

Underworld - Flooded Kingdoms Of The Ice Age (part two)

Flooded Kingdoms of the Ice Age: A Vedic and India Perspective by David Frawley

SNIPPET (relating to the research in the above videos):

Vedic literature describes its homeland on a long lost river called the Sarasvati, which according to Vedic descriptions flowed east of the Indus from the Himalayas to the Arabian Sea. Modern satellite photography has clearly indicated the existence of this great river, as have numerous geological and ground water studies conducted over the last few decades, which show that the Sarasvati was once over ten kilometers in width and flowed from the mountains to the sea, dwarfing the nearby Indus. As the Vedas say, the Sarasvati was the largest river of the region at the time. It was the center of a great civilization and the vast majority of ancient Indian and Harappan ruins have been found on the now dried banks of the Sarasvati.

 As the Sarasvati River dried up around 1900 BCE, the Vedic civilization which describes the river as its immemorial homeland must be much older.

Graham Han**** breaks down this anti-India barrier and elevates ancient India back to the forefront of ancient civilizations. He shows that the spiritual foundation of the Vedas cannot be divorced from the earliest civilization of the region. He quotes the Vedas to show how they reflect a great flood and the establishment of a new civilization after it. Han**** shows how the Vedas reflect a maritime civilization which developed amidst the crashing glaciers that produced the waters to make the now dry Sarasvati the largest river in India. Marine archaeology shows a number of submerged sites off the coast of Kachchh and Cambay in what would have then been the old Sarasvati delta region.

A Gulf of Cambay urban site has recently been dated by Indian archaeologists to 7500 BCE. This would totally change our view of history as we now date cities only after 3500 BCE. It is here that Han**** is now seeking what he calls the holy grail of his quest for this older civilization of the pre-Ice Age era. It is here that we can look for the tradition of Manu, the Hindu flood figure and first king and law giver, and the great sages, the Angirasa and Bhrigu rishis who were traditionally connected both to Manu and to the sea. This earlier civilization was preserved in India in two traditions. The first is the Vedic tradition, which grew up on the Sarasvati River at the end of the Ice Age. The second is the Tamilian tradition, which reflected pre-Ice Age cultures off the coast of South India.


Mankind does not just have over 250 flood "myths"; we have MASS AMNESIA about our past! 
« Last Edit: February 17, 2015, 02:34:43 pm by AGelbert »
This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles.. -- Psalm 34:6


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24046
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Lost Cities and Civilizations
« Reply #44 on: February 17, 2015, 01:24:04 am »
I researched the Chinese maps. Unlike Piri Reis, the dates cannot be authenticated. Consequently, they cannot be used as evidence of Chinese pre-European discovery of the Americas.  :emthdown:

UB said,
Agelbert, thanks for the time taken producing the above posts, kindly cue the cat in the labcoat, it needs to be my new signature.

The cat in the lab coat?

You mean THIS ONE?

WHOOPS! That's the one that comes later.... 

You are welcome.

I hear what you say about Antarctica and Piri Reis. But you have to look closely at Cape Horn (in the right twist distortion) versus the location of the Malvinas on the Piri Reis map. That is BIG deal. WHY? Because Cape Horn looks like the stretched, flattened Antarctic coast that a modern map like the one below shows.

Now check out the other map that shows what the world looked like before the ice melted 16000 years ago. It is quite interesting that the South American tip begins to swing RIGHT as the ocean level gets shallower.

Does that mean Piri Reis data down there was that old? I don't think so BECAUSE the Malvinas would be bigger.

 They aren't bigger than when they got officially mapped by some Dutch dude in 1524 or so. Nevertheless, I agree the Dutch were not letting on what they knew (the Dutch have a historical HATRED for Spaniards). I'll dig up that Dutch 1524 map if you like. Here's a modern close up map of the area:

At any rate, Piri Reis and the Dutch were probably NOT pals either. My hypothesis is that the ancient knowledge came from the middle east. I've got some leads but no proof. So, for now, I am simply TOTALLY convinced that Europeans did not make Piri Reis.

Ashvin,  Let me get his straight. You think that JESUS CHRIST was referring to a LOCAL flood when he was discussing Noah and the Ark?

Do you want the Gospels in Greek (as supposedly they were originally written in) and the old testament in Aramaic, Hebrew and whatever to accept that JESUS was raised in the JEWISH faith and read and believed the Scriptures that do not say BEANS about the flood and Noah being allegorical, a parable, some children's scary story or a warning? Your NON-answer is absolutely BREATHTAKING!

Let's take it from the top. Jesus Christ is GOD, right? He comes into this world in the flesh and His knowledge gets downgraded (according to the New Testament). He did not have the FULL PICTURE that GOD has. The specific passage is where it says he GREW in KNOWLEDGE.

God does NOT need to do that. But J.C. needed to do that because he was part Homo SAP. The point is that he LEARNED and BELIEVED the Pentateuch, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Judges, Chronicles, Samuel I and II and so on. He was a smart guy, RIGHT? He probably had a photographic memory, RIGHT? Of course! He may have been human but here is no question that He was a GENIUS when He walked the earth.

You and I have taken pains trying to explain to RE and others that J.C. was NOT ACTING in a play. That is why he had his data base Homo SAP sized when He came here. Otherwise it would have been just theater. He HAD to feel DOUBT about who He was/is or he was doing theater.

But maybe you have never wanted to delve into the divinity/humanity mix all that much. Fine. Me neither. I just KNOW the Gospel says He LEARNED and He INCREASED in KNOWLEDGE. There is no way to dance around that fact. And I don't believe you want to so I will assume you agree that J.C. learned his Scriptures like a good Jewish boy.

Fast forward to Mathew 24:37-39. Here the overall context is His RETURN when He won't be Mr. Nice Guy. He is using a historical reference (Noah, the ark and the flood that drowned every non-aquatic creature on EARTH, according to the scripture (the date it happened is not the issue, Ashvin - it's WHETHER it happened or not on a global scale that IS the issue AND the reason I said anybody claiming J.C. did not believe in global flood is mistaken.).

 J.C. is predicting what some Homo SAP civilizational conditions will be when He RETURNS. It's a prophecy. It's a rather IMPORTANT prophecy, is it not? Do you HONESTLY think Jesus Christ  would use a LOCAL FLOOD (where Noah and family got warned and survived while the bad people in a limited area drown)  comparison to HIS RETURN to JUDGE the EARTH?

Do you think He was planning to drop in on the same area as that LOCAL FLOOD and to hell with the rest of the planet?

Perhaps I am not understanding you, Ashvin. Would you please clarify your position on Noah and the extent of the flood? GO was kind enough to state right out that he thought it was a parable. He considered it a myth. He may still consider it a myth but he promises to ponder the issue. There is an honest response. Is that your opinion too?

And by the way, I'm surprised you did not immediately point out to GO that "image and likeness" of God has absolutely nothing to do with our biology and everything to do with our spirit. Or do YOU labor under the erroneous view that our bodies are what was made in the "image and likeness" of God too?

Back to Jesus Christ, we have enough trouble in forums like this to get people to believe Jesus Christ Himself came even the FIRST TIME, never mind returning! Look at all the hoops you jumped through when that article about J.C. being a myth was dropped here by Da godfader for fun and jollies over a year ago. I was so disgusted with it I could not bring myself even to comment on it. I am indebted to you for fighting the good fight then.

But now I'm very unsatisfied with your response about J.C. and Matthew 24:37-39. J.C. was not whistling Dixie, to put it mildly. He was talking about the most important event in Church Prophetic Teaching History. You CANNOT just gloss over that and concentrate on the cross, salvation and leave it at that. The Early Church got through those awful times with help from the Holy Spirit, sure. But the HOPE of His RETURN was one of the main forces in keeping the early Christians united.

That biblical passage is a HUGE deal! I caution you, JD and GO and any other believers reading this, to not pretend Jesus Christ was making an "unimportant" comparison between Noah's life saving ark and Jesus Christ's return.

Of course you could chase down King James' translators and do a bit of hairsplitting about what J.C. said and how He said it. I'm sure you and Ka could discuss the matter for weeks. But there is no way you can extract Noah and the ark from Jesus Christ's return to "kick ass and take names" for non-obedient and the reward of the obedient for His sheep.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2015, 02:48:56 pm by AGelbert »
This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles.. -- Psalm 34:6


+-Recent Topics

Doomstead Diner Daily by AGelbert
June 19, 2019, 11:00:56 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
June 19, 2019, 09:34:29 pm

War Provocations and Peace Actions by AGelbert
June 19, 2019, 06:48:41 pm

U.S. History & Politics, Climate Change, Trump Impeachment & Standing Rock: CONTEXT by AGelbert
June 19, 2019, 04:37:57 pm

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
June 19, 2019, 03:52:03 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
June 19, 2019, 03:36:47 pm

Large Sea Creatures by AGelbert
June 19, 2019, 03:12:12 pm

🦕🦖 Hydrocarbon 🐍 Hellspawn Mens Rea Actus Reus modus operandi by AGelbert
June 19, 2019, 01:28:42 pm

Apocalyptic Humor by AGelbert
June 18, 2019, 07:15:38 pm

Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field by AGelbert
June 18, 2019, 05:50:04 pm