Fascinating new theory for Nazca Lines

[SexyGreyFox]

I think is about this. Keeping an open mind and apply logic to the things we see over there. Rejecting every theory just like that won't help at all even if it's a fake theory

I think there's a big difference about the main theory in Fingerprints Of The Gods and just drawing circles around the globe.
Hancock had the theory that all the major ancient sites/civilisations came from one common people which isn't that daft when there are pyramids and reed boats in Egypt and pyramids and virtually identical reed boats in South America, even I'm open minded about that and I'm the biggest sceptic going
It isn't exactly Aliens did it.

 

[Angilion]

I think there's a big difference about the main theory in Fingerprints Of The Gods and just drawing circles around the globe.
Hancock had the theory that all the major ancient sites/civilisations came from one common people which isn't that daft when there are pyramids and reed boats in Egypt and pyramids and virtually identical reed boats in South America, even I'm open minded about that and I'm the biggest sceptic going
It isn't exactly Aliens did it.

I can think of three possible explanations for similar objects made by people in different places in the past:

1) People with similar problems to solve and similar resources available to them independently invented similar solutions.
2) A world-spanning civilisation at least 10,000 years ago that was on a par with ancient Egypt at its height and which disappeared without a trace.
3) Such a society existing far earlier, from which people travelled all over the world and founded every civilisation on Earth.

I think (1) is by far the most likely. Especially since we know it has happened repeatedly.

 

[Malevolence]

revealing that in our ancient history there were people on Earth who were more advanced that we are today.

Really, Giorgio? So where is all their advanced machinery and computers? If they were so advanced why did they build everything out of stone and rock, why not metal and concrete?

 

[SexyGreyFox]

I can think of three possible explanations for similar objects made by people in different places in the past:

I'm not even going to read your replies but even though I have an open mind about civilisations my favourite is that if you have reeds by a lake you are going to build something very similar, if you have stones you are going to build them up into a height to get nearer your Gods so you don't need it to come from an older source.

 

[Angilion]

I'm not even going to read your replies

Including the one you have just read, replied to and quoted part of?

but even though I have an open mind about civilisations my favourite is that if you have reeds by a lake you are going to build something very similar, if you have stones you are going to build them up into a height to get nearer your Gods so you don't need it to come from an older source.

Which is the same thing I said.

 

[wolfie138]

Really, Giorgio? So where is all their advanced machinery and computers? If they were so advanced why did they build everything out of stone and rock, why not metal and concrete?

what's wrong w/ stone and rock? you are aware of the pyramids and stone henge etc still standing after thousands of years aren't you? Check out the Antikythera too.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Which is the same thing I said.

but I didn't read your 3 replies and still haven't so if one is the same as mine then excellent.
It was 00:30 in the morning while I was sitting on the bog so a very quick reply to your first sentence.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

what's wrong w/ stone and rock? you are aware of the pyramids and stone henge etc still standing after thousands of years aren't you? Check out the Antikythera too.

Yes but the absolute vast majority have fallen down or in a right state.
If Stonehenge was so great why doesn't it still look like how it was built because it's a mess?

 

[gord]

Some Roman buildings are believed to have been built on the ruins of some civilization time has forgotten. (massive stone monolithic blocks as a foundation, then tiny Roman blocks making up the buildings)

I'm intrigued, can you link us up to some sources please.

 

[Blackjack Davy]

This group has come up with a theory

Oh god not another one.

 

[Angilion]

but I didn't read your 3 replies and still haven't so if one is the same as mine then excellent.
It was 00:30 in the morning while I was sitting on the bog so a very quick reply to your first sentence.

I've never even thought of posting on forums while sitting on the bog. People do that now? Maybe I'm just behind the times. Eh, when I were a lad the toilet was only for doing toilet things

 

[SexyGreyFox]

I've never even thought of posting on forums while sitting on the bog. People do that now? Maybe I'm just behind the times. Eh, when I were a lad the toilet was only for doing toilet things

I was going to bed and had a notification so replied very quickly.
I was only having a posh wee.

This could be it's own thread "Do you read or use your smartphone while doing a poo?"
My answer would be that since it takes me 30 seconds to have a poo it's pointless.

 

[arknor]

I'm intrigued, can you link us up to some sources please.

https://www.ancient-origins.net/opinion-guest-authors/forgotten-stones-baalbek-lebanon-001865

 

[Quartz]

Pyramids and the sphinx are more than likely older than the Egyptians are.

No, they're not. Both were constructed by the ancient Egyptians.

 

[Mr Jack]

Their stats are wrong because they don't apply any correction for multiple hypothesis testing. Also their method is pants-on-head and so is their theory.

 

[olivier renault]

Come on guys, be nice.

Some Roman buildings are believed to have been built on the ruins of some civilization time has forgotten. (massive stone monolithic blocks as a foundation, then tiny Roman blocks making up the buildings)

Same thing with the Incas, and whoever came before them. I'm still quite puzzled by the central american architecture. Their old stone work make no rational sense. Seems to be a lot of effort for just being slightly better at dealing with earthquakes. There's the theory that their stones aren't really stones, but more like some form of hot concrete. Dunno, but just by the look of it, how they are arranged, how smooth they are, their shape, and how perfect the joints are, it could be. Unless it is proven that the stones are actually quarried stones, and not some sort of fine aggregate.

I doubt people were more advanced than we are today, but I suspect something happened that did set back civilization to a much lesser advanced way of life than had been before it.

It's not improbable. They sure love to move giant stones around instead of, you know, breaking them down to make it easier. Some pre-civilisation architectures look pretty crazy.

 

[seth1969]

No, they're not. Both were constructed by the ancient Egyptians.

The sphinx was there long before the Egyptians

 

[seth1969]

It's not improbable. They sure love to move giant stones around instead of, you know, breaking them down to make it easier. Some pre-civilisation architectures look pretty crazy.[/QUOTE]

I think they did this because it was easy for them, how ever they did it...

 

[Quartz]

The sphinx was there long before the Egyptians

The rock formation yes; the carved creation, no. It was carved by the Egyptians. It had a pharonic beard and it has an Egyptian headdress.

 

[Skunkworks]

Pareidolia

Really, Giorgio? So where is all their advanced machinery and computers? If they were so advanced why did they build everything out of stone and rock, why not metal and concrete?

There's a really detailed documentary on this called The Flintstones.