I agree, but I dont think these past civilisations were 2.5-3k years ago, but more like 10K. The ancient Greeks did not have any fancy technologies, and I think the ancient Egyptians we know, did not build all of the pyramids (some I think).
Certainly not be me.
There isn't a scrap of physical evidence anywhere on this planet that supports such a belief.
I agree that we are relatively young in relation to this planets history. The dinosaurs were here for 150 million years, 50 million years ago, long extinct before we showed up - there is certainly plenty of hard evidence that THEY were here, how come we can't find any of those elusive Atlantians or bits and pieces of their advanced technology?
Last edited:
Are you saying that you don't believe it, or that you didn't destroy them?
150 million years existence vs at most a few 1000, that's why.
And of course the dinos didn't have aliens to help them cover their tracks....
(oh yes, and the dinos were generally much larger then the Altantians.)
people see what they want to see, thats true for both sides of the story. To claim there is no scrap of evidence that we had prior civilisations on Earth merely says to me that you just havent bought into someones elses interpretation of the evidence we have. I dont think its that far fetched.
Who claimed that? No Rome? No Greece? No China? No Egypt? No Aztec? No Maya? Nobody has ever suggested that.
The notion that we had prior civilizations with nuclear capability is, however, bat**** crazy. As are the nutty and unsubstantiated claims that there were no manned lunar landings. That's crazy AND quite stupid.
Dubious.
A small comet or meteor impact; much more plausible, though that is speculation too. (cf Tunguska explosion of 1908)
Well, the first thing is to establish the destruction as historical rather than legendary before spinning explanations. There's an audio analogy here...
You are playing it straight (no smilie) so I'll do the same: Generally you would respond to a sentences subject - the subject of the sentence in question is: " ..that it is believed that.. " and I answered: " Certainly not by me ".
Thus ends English lesson 211A
-Surely you're joking!...
-No, I'm not joking and stop calling me Shirley!"
As Sy pointed out, there were plenty of civilizations before us - they just weren't as advanced as we are. That is the subject that I'm referring to: advanced civilization (apparently I need to perhaps double the number of words I use to say something, so that there is less of a chance it will be misinterpreted by those with poor reading comprehension).
Please show me the physical evidence that was discovered that will prove the existence of an ancient advanced civilization, one that is equal to or more advanced than us.
Last edited:
A "Correct Grammar" analysis of your post revealed this:
"
Your text contains one or more long sentences. Long sentences can be difficult for the reader to follow. In general an average sentence length of 15 to 20 words is considered very readable. It is not necessary for all your sentences to be this length; variety in sentence length can help to keep your writing interesting.
Flesch Reading Ease Index: 48.9 (fairly difficult)
% U.S. Adults who understand: 54%
Flesch-Kincaid grade level: 12.1
"
I am making the joke, of course. We laugh. ha ha ha.
Here you go, John.
This very image has been used as evidence to support a certain audio-related tweak. I'm sure it's just as relevant in this context.
- Godfrey
Attachments
Last edited:
You see Scott, that was just the trouble. The ancients spent far too much energy on building pyramids, atomic bombs, spacecraft and the like. They almost completely neglected medical science. That neglect killed them.
Bravo John! Both my parents were English teachers, so I certainly appreciate and applaud your fine understanding of the language.
Funny about the long sentence thing. There is a lot of recent fretting and hand wringing about the loss of the long sentence in English writing. It seems that our writing style has taken on an MTV style.
In my second language, French, there is no fear of the long sentence. Au contraire.
Bravo John! Both my parents were English teachers, so I certainly appreciate and applaud your fine understanding of the language.
Funny about the long sentence thing. There is a lot of recent fretting and hand wringing about the loss of the long sentence in English writing. It seems that our writing style has taken on an MTV style.
In my second language, French, there is no fear of the long sentence. Au contraire.
First, yes, obviously the ancient Greeks were well beyond us in hand-fitting stone blocks. They created a marvel without the simplest benefit of a common measurement standard among the laborers. It's a lost technology, which is the greater point. Your perspective that we're the pinnacle of history standing on the shoulder of rubes is precisely the perspective that fuels wacko theories around ancient engineering achievements like the pyramids and Apollo.Who said easy? What do YOU want to believe, that the ancient Greek were more knowledgeable than us? Or perhaps the old help from an alien civilization is more to your liking?
Dear John (MJL21192)
The fact that no one yet has directly responded to your question, is a good indication that you are generalising over the top (in other words, unacceptably so).
Please get into the trouble to think of how broad the term “civilization” is or can be.
Then, try to ask this same question to yourself, after adding your metrics (e.g. “Please show me…one that is equal to or more advanced in technological terms than us”).
You may then find yourself digging for a long time to answer in a honest way this very specific –thus useful- question.
rdf
Thank you for providing the link to this very good video NOVA | Secrets of the Parthenon Video Iowa Public Television
I had the privilege to hear twice Prof. Manolis Kores in speaking as an invited Honoured Guest about the Architectural and Technological aspects of Parthenon.
He is a fastidious researcher, his deep knowledge spans into a lot of disciplines, yet his appearance and behaviour is the definition of (extreme) modesty.
He is treated by his peers in a most respectful way, but he never refuses to answer general public questions about the “mysteries” of Parthenon construction.
The problem (for many) is that it takes some 3-4 hours (if he is given that time) for him to lay down in a meticulous way the scientific findings which wipe out the “mystery theory” from the case.
Best Regards
George
There are still talented stone masons, there just aren't as many. There are things that you are obviously not considering when you look at this - first, the massive, cheap and expendable workforce that was deployed to build that structure. Second is some of the everyday construction tricks employed by craftsmen even today. If you want things to be the same size, you don't give an illiterate stonecutter a set of drawings, you give him a measuring stick or story pole - it has all of the measurements on it.
The technology isn't lost - it is just too frakking expensive to build anything that way anymore. People need to be paid (and paid well) and they generally want to avoid being killed on the job. Don't underestimate how much slower construction is today because of all the safety protocols.
My perspective is right on the money. I never did downplay the achievement, certainly I would NOT have liked to have been involved in such a monumental and colossally dangerous project. To do it all with hand tools and simple non-powered machinery is truly impressive.
My point now, as it was before is that we can do what they did accurately and quickly, with less loss of life and with fewer people involved.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.