# Some Criticisms and Questions I Have Regarding Alternative History Theories/Theorists



## Horstmatt (Oct 14, 2020)

So these are just some questions and observations that i brought up on the introduction thread, and that i was asked to reformulate on a different thread.

- Where to start?
As someone who as of yet disagrees with most of the arguments being advocated for on these forums, I have had trouble finding organized data and sourced evidence regarding the issues discussed here. I am aware that Korben Dallas' original post on Tartary has been considered by some as the basis for that whole line of hypothesising, but is there anything more exhaustive? I understand that new evidence and arguments are made every day but the whole subject matter of Alternative history, to me at least, seems to be difficult to access.

- Is there any common ground with mainstream history?
While i am new to SH.net, I have been engaging with the topics discussed here for over a year now, and have had this reoccuring problem in my conversations with alternative history researchers: There are usually a few layers of presupposition required for certain propositions to work. This makes dialogue quite difficult and I often end up finding that mainstream history arguments and evidence being ignore purely because of the fact that they are mainstream. While this inherent distrust of academia can be justified in certain cases, I have found that it has prevented any real dialogue between alternative history theorists and mainstream students of history like myself. So is there anywhere where the mainstream coincides with the alternative?

- Perceptions of mainstream historical narratives.
Among those that i have spoken to, a common feature that i have noticed is that they usually started their journey into the alternative history rabbit hole by noticing "holes" and "contradictions" in the mainstream narrative. Now this would be logical if said anomalies that they believed to have discovered truly were anomalies. All too often, however, I have come across these anomalies being based in very simplified versions of mainstream historical narratives or even in pop-culture misconceptions of history, rather than in actual academic writings. An example of this sort of thinking that i have seen multiple times is that "X people, according to mainstream history, were too primitive to do X thing, but also capable of building fabulous marvels of architecture" Now this sort of thing would indeed be problematic, were it not for the total misunderstanding of historical priorities, societies, and power structures required for that argument to work. This also feeds into my next point.

- Knowledge of mainstream history vs. alternative history.
Many theorists that i have talked to claim to have done very large amounts of research into the mainstream interpretations of the historical topics on which they are conducting "independent research". I have always wondered to what extent this is true, because those same people will also use arguments like the example that i gave in my previous bullet point when describing manistream perspectives. How much time do you guys actually spend researching mainstream explanations compared to the time spent looking for alternative perspectives on the same issues? Is there a point after which you decided that mainstream history could not be trusted? Are there any examples of this that some of you could give so that i could better understand the thought process behind comparing different theoretical perspectives?

These are just some of the things that i have observed. If you have any questions regarding my personal reasons for staying mainstream, feel free to ask me but i did not want to add too much more to this post as to not dilute my other points. I am open to criticism and if you have any arguments against my obesrvations and answers to my questions i would be glad to discuss them in the replies.

Thanks for your attention,
Horstmatt


----------



## Worsaae (Oct 14, 2020)

I will not delve into the evidence for the various threads here, because those can be found in the threads presented on this website. Please feel free to contribute to those threads with your own input, even if it can be perceived as mainstream, although be ready to provide evidence for the claims. 

Tartaria is the most well documented falsefied part of mainstream history, so you ought to start there. Please note that even chinese historical documents refer to them as tartars, so it is not a western word as mainstream historians want to claim. Old persian sources translate to modern english from literally tatar to mongol in their history books. 
Mainstream to me is the political correct establishment approved version history, whereas SH 1.0 engages in history from an evidence based approach. Provide evidence and people will entertain the idea. One thread does not have to fit into the chronology of any other threads. 

I am Danish, so I've always known that mainstream history is politically motivated. We're basically taught two contradictory things during elementary school. 1) Columbus was the first to discover the Americas and 2) The vikings discovered the Americas 500 years earlier.

I personally don't bother much with mainstream history. I bother reading the actual sources. The mainstream historians are trying to sell a product and a story, while the sources speak for themselves. I try to be openminded but I don't read, watch or listen to anything mainstream if it can be avoided.


----------



## Citezenship (Oct 14, 2020)

It is not just history that we mistrust, it is the whole idea of society because we have found out that we have all been tricked into representing a commercial entity so that a very few can profit and control us through the promotion of proparganda and shaming techniques, this used to be of mostly the religious nature but now it moving into other area's with alarming speed.

For myself i started to question the narrative of the megalithic structures, now i know the sources of most of that info can be considered to be authentic and academic but at some point you realise that 200 ton block of very hard stone can not be shaped using copper chisels and stone hammers, but yet that is still the academic viewpoint! So why should we trust that.

So we then look at the people who promote these narratives and the mistrust gets transposed to almost all area's, science, art, history, language, geography.

As a test of the willingness to blindly follow a particular narrative i once asked an archaeologist(he said he was) in the Bristol museum if the dinosaur he had on display was the real thing, yes said why yes of course it is, he did not know i was testing him, i then said, so it is not a plaster of paris copy of the bones that you may have locked out the back, he tried to convince me that it was real so i said your trying to tell me you have this big old dinosaur that is worth millions of pounds out here with all the elements but yet the stuff that is worth 1000 pounds are locked in cabinets, he got very frustrated and had me removed from the museum, this is one of the reasons i do not trust academia.

Maybe as you say we are all just a little too mistrusting but most of us have very good reasons for not just taking the local vicars word for it.

History is always, within our currant paradigm, written by the victors and until we stop fighting for profit that will continue!

Ask yourself where that really leaves history!


----------



## JWW427 (Oct 14, 2020)

Horstmatt

You have some good points.
Im as guilty as anyone here for stretching theories too thin and not backing them up with solid research, I.e.: the nuts and bolts of a certain topic like 19th century steel ships and engineers not being able to construct certain buildings during a specific time period.

But that's the nature of this beast. It's imperfect and irreverent. We are considered outlaws and intellectual anarchists. Thats why I think the original forum was attacked and shot down––we were over sensitive targets and caught major FLAK.

Topics get beaten to death, skewed, and aggrandized (Mea Culpa), and some threads are derailed with non-essential minutae.
I believe you said you were still in graduate school? If so, you may still be in your twenties, and that's a great thing, a great time of life.
But it takes years of experience and study to even get a baseline knowledge of history, then as one goes along, some of us with open minds and harsh experiences wake up to the notion that a massive cover-up has been going on since the Renaissance. Just remember how demonized Galileo and da Vinci were by the religious PTB.
Are you sure you want to defend the Vatican?

Im 59 years old and have been privy to great power, PTB wealthy folks, military brass, bishops and religious leaders, royal idiots, and politics here in Wash. DC for my entire life. You do not want to know them. Most look down on the vast majority of people with extreme distaste and arrogance hidden under a thick veil of charm and grace. They want you compliant, wholly ignorant, an inebriated debt slave, starving, or dead.
My Dad was a powerful Senator and he lied to me on so many important topics it made my head spin. Most of the lies were not his, he just naively regurgitated them from other dimwits. The blind leading the blind. Secrecy at all costs. National Security at all costs. Trust the CIA, DoD, NSA and the Pentagon....at all costs.

From 1972-1981, I went to a religious school and they weaponized religion against us. Inflexible dogma was thrust down our throats instead of logic and critical thinking. Conformity was worshipped as a virtue on the altar of ignorance. Pedophilia was hushed up. Cutting edge science was considered suspicious. Viet Nam and Watergate were not to be discussed. Ever.
I was labeled as a heretic. A troublemaker. A "dangerous thinker."

My point is....Ill bet dimes to doughnuts many on this forum can claim similar experiences, that's why we are here. We don't like being pushed around by shallow-thinking people who claim false authority. We don't care for "historians" who regurgitate and parrot other mainstream texts. We want solid answers, but no one else in the mainstream will provide them. We've all tried. This is a lonely business.

After 9/11, I knew the lies were real––no jet engine debris or wings at the Pentagon. Probably a cruise missile.
Engineers came out and said both NYC buildings were demolished by explosives, a controlled demolition. I saw building seven go down with my own eyes. I still cry about it having lost a friend.
WMDs? The second Iraq war? Dick Cheney and Haliburton? Blackwater? The Baghdad Museum looted? Business as usual.

Many of us on this forum have discussed the philosophical subject of the _Dark Night of the Soul_. It's a game-changer. Philosophy, metaphysics, Theosophy and the study of the occult are necessary topics to understand if one wants to get much more of a clear view through the fog of history, at least in my dinky opinion. Mainstream academia considers all of the above as non-essential "fringe" topics, but why did the ancients revere them? Why was Socrates given poison? Because he spoke truth to power.

Add up all the media lies, distraction, and cover-up, all the BS academia skullduggery, all the educational BS, all the political lies and warmongering rhetoric, all the religious crimes, and a giant puzzle begins to take shape. Millions of pieces are missing, so along with many others out there we are trying our best to find & fit those pieces, but it's far from an exact science.

Mainstream academia has some good science and postulations, but the lion's share is corrupted and truncated data, physics especially. Most of the problem is that vast amounts of important archeological and historical issues are simply and purposefully IGNORED. Ask yourself: Why?

For those of us older folks who grew up without the internet, its implementation in the 1990s was profound. The sheer volume of information and research by whistleblowers and awakened academics was stunning. But you have to be old enough to remember when it was very difficult to find alternative views on anything, just a few books and periodicals, plus a tiny portion of TV specials that winked and nodded at alternative subjects (Ex: _In Search Of_, with Leonard Nimoy). It was a night and day sea change. Satellite photos have revealed so many worldwide ignored anomalies it will drop you like a bag of hammers. Look up the thread "Grids without people."

Take your time and think critically. Its hard, its scary at times, but you will be rewarded.


----------



## JimDuyer (Oct 14, 2020)

Horstmatt said:


> So these are just some questions and observations that i brought up on the introduction thread, and that i was asked to reformulate on a different thread.
> 
> - Where to start?
> As someone who as of yet disagrees with most of the arguments being advocated for on these forums, I have had trouble finding organized data and sourced evidence regarding the issues discussed here. I am aware that Korben Dallas' original post on Tartary has been considered by some as the basis for that whole line of hypothesising, but is there anything more exhaustive? I understand that new evidence and arguments are made every day but the whole subject matter of Alternative history, to me at least, seems to be difficult to access.
> ...


Perhaps I could offer a very few words to help in this situation.  Stolen history can be defined as that history which, however true, is not being reported on, or is reported according to some agenda.  
The evidence of those repeated thefts is not readily apparent nor easily obtainable.  This forces most investigators to work on the preponderance of evidence method, and to ask others to provide any suggestions, ideas, tidbits or factoids, etc., that they may possess, in order to finally come to some type of a reasonable and plausible conclusion.  And all of this work gets done while under attacks from the established parties to the lies, which includes both traditional scholars and governments.  And then on the weekends we party..


----------



## Horstmatt (Oct 14, 2020)

Worsaae said:


> I will not delve into the evidence for the various threads here, because those can be found in the threads presented on this website. Please feel free to contribute to those threads with your own input, even if it can be perceived as mainstream, although be ready to provide evidence for the claims.
> 
> Tartaria is the most well documented falsefied part of mainstream history, so you ought to start there. Please note that even chinese historical documents refer to them as tartars, so it is not a western word as mainstream historians want to claim. Old persian sources translate to modern english from literally tatar to mongol in their history books.
> Mainstream to me is the political correct establishment approved version history, whereas SH 1.0 engages in history from an evidence based approach. Provide evidence and people will entertain the idea. One thread does not have to fit into the chronology of any other threads.
> ...


I fully intend to contribute to the threads that i find I have relevant knowledge about, to me being mainstream is not necessarily a bad thing, though i'm not sure if my sources will be taken seriously unless they are primary.

Thank you for the info i'll explore Tartary en particular.

Your point about the Americas does corroborate my point regarding the contradictions though, because no serious historian claims that Christopher Collumbus was the first European in the Americas, what he did do was create the first permanent links between America and Europe. It is now accepted that the Vikings were the first known Europeans to establish contact America, this is because of a Viking settlement in Nova Scotia and Norse artifacts found in Native American settlements. The reason these two things were taught in elementary school is because the part about Columbus is largely a remnant of the old eductaional system, especially considering the Viking presence in America was only discovered in the 60s and has had a lesser impact on World history. 

I suggest reading mainstream history as well because many of the primary sources are difficult to interpret properly without the proper context, analyzing documents from centuries past through a 21st century perspective can completely warp interpretations of History. Unfortunately I have seen the phenomenon quite a few times in regards to alternative historians who have, for example, seen Medieval society through the lens of modern social structures instead of in the way it truly was.

	Post automatically merged: Oct 14, 2020



Jim Duyer said:


> Perhaps I could offer a very few words to help in this situation.  Stolen history can be defined as that history which, however true, is not being reported on, or is reported according to some agenda.
> The evidence of those repeated thefts is not readily apparent nor easily obtainable.  This forces most investigators to work on the preponderance of evidence method, and to ask others to provide any suggestions, ideas, tidbits or factoids, etc., that they may possess, in order to finally come to some type of a reasonable and plausible conclusion.  And all of this work gets done while under attacks from the established parties to the lies, which includes both traditional scholars and governments.  And then on the weekends we party..



How do you establish what is a lie and what is not?
Also, the methods you described are unfortunately very much condusive to confirmation bias and cherry-picking. What can easily happen is a situation where people find data to fit their conclusions rather than coming to conclusions based on all the available information.


----------



## JWW427 (Oct 14, 2020)

Mainstream academia invented confirmation bias and cherry picking, therefore we are only using their own weapons against them.
No one on this forum claims to have hard conclusions, only new theories. We question, not confirm.

*Examples of historical lies uncovered:*

• Mainstream archeology maintained that human civilization was only 5700 years old for two centuries or more. That was a rock solid truth not to be questioned by anyone. If you did, your career was over.
Klaus Schmidt uncovered a very advanced, megalithic, and organized Gobleki Tepe in Armenia and dated it to 12,500 years ago with geologists. Thus organized high civilization had to be older than the Great Flood, aka: Meltwater Pulse 1-B.

• Vatican denies having a secret bank for centuries, and said it had no dealings with Nazis in WW2. (A lie).

• Zahi Hawass and the Egyptian government maintained that the Giza pyramids and the Sphinx were not older than 5700 years. Geologist Robert Schoch proved that the bathtub trench for the Sphinx had been eroded by water over many centuries. The last time the Giza plateau was under a few feet of water was 12,500 years ago. Rock doesn't lie, so-called academics do.

• The US Pentagon and DoD maintained that UFOs did not exist for 70 years. Then in 2017, the world's newspapers and news channels covered the US Navy Nimitz UFO footage from 2004. Thus, the Pentagon had been lying.

• Clinton/Lewinski affair, Watergate, The Pentagon Papers, Catholic Church pedo cover-ups, bank fraud, where does it end?

The real question is, who would you believe?


----------



## Horstmatt (Oct 14, 2020)

Citezenship said:


> It is not just history that we mistrust, it is the whole idea of society because we have found out that we have all been tricked into representing a commercial entity so that a very few can profit and control us through the promotion of proparganda and shaming techniques, this used to be of mostly the religious nature but now it moving into other area's with alarming speed.
> 
> For myself i started to question the narrative of the megalithic structures, now i know the sources of most of that info can be considered to be authentic and academic but at some point you realise that 200 ton block of very hard stone can not be shaped using copper chisels and stone hammers, but yet that is still the academic viewpoint! So why should we trust that.
> 
> ...


I cannot speak for your total distrust of society but i appreciate your perspective.

As for megalithic structures, there are a variety of methods that are speculated to have been used for their construction ranging from the use of friction to blunt force, but the specifics are generally not agreed upon, all i can say is that they did not only have copper and stone tools at their disposal. The leap from "We don't really know for sure how they did this" to "Ancient advanced mega-civilization from the Ice age" is what troubles me.

For your example regarding the museum in Bristol, I would be surprised that an archaeologist would no about the authenticity of Dinosaur bones in a museum, considering dinosaurs are the study of paleontologists, it would be like asking a neuro-surgeon to do a dentist's job. I am aware that many delicate fossils are stored in musuem archives, but keep in mind that most fossils are basically bone shaped rocks, and some are quite resilient to the elements. I don't know about the particulars regarding the dinosaur you were reffering to but there is a chance that it was real. 

History is not inherently political, and in my experience, while doing my own research with authentic primary sources, I have found that the mainstream explanations for most of our recent history to be satisfactory. There is more evidence for the claims made by mainstream historians, and i find that claiming that the evidence that would prove them wrong was destroyed, all the while leaving other evidence alone to be far too convenient for their detractors.

	Post automatically merged: Oct 14, 2020



JWW427 said:


> Mainstream academia invented confirmation bias and cherry picking, therefore we are only using their own weapons against them.
> No one on this forum claims to have hard conclusions, only new theories. We question, not confirm.


You are right, but as the field of mainstream history is not a monolith, this sort of practice is often found and shut down. Are some areas of MSH total arrogant circle-jerks? Yes of course, but their explanations are often the best thing that we have. 

I do have a problem with the questioning but not confirming things line of thinking, because it very often makes it so that people can make claims without actually having to fully back them up because "It's jsut a possibility" many of the "questions" that i see asked have very clear implied answers, but due to their nature as rhetorical questions, their authors can avoid any accountability for the claims that they imply. 

p.s. I'll get to your first response to my post and i appreciate the time you spent on it but it'll take some time due to the sheer volume of points to respond to.


----------



## Citezenship (Oct 14, 2020)

Horstmatt said:


> For your example regarding the museum in Bristol, I would be surprised that an archaeologist would no about the authenticity of Dinosaur bones in a museum, considering dinosaurs are the study of paleontologists, it would be like asking a neuro-surgeon to do a dentist's job. I am aware that many delicate fossils are stored in musuem archives, but keep in mind that most fossils are basically bone shaped rocks, and some are quite resilient to the elements. I don't know about the particulars regarding the dinosaur you were reffering to but there is a chance that it was real.


https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/aug/30/what-exhibits-in-a-museum-are-genuine
I hope this is mainstream enough for you, it was  a big bugger and i knew it was not real and i was kicked out of the museum for pointing that out!

	Post automatically merged: Oct 14, 2020



Horstmatt said:


> History is not inherently political, and in my experience, while doing my own research with authentic primary sources, I have found that the mainstream explanations for most of our recent history to be satisfactory. There is more evidence for the claims made by mainstream historians, and i find that claiming that the evidence that would prove them wrong was destroyed, all the while leaving other evidence alone to be far too convenient for their detractors.


I am sorry but history and politics are and have forever been inextricably intertwined and will continue to be.


----------



## Felix Noille (Oct 14, 2020)

Horstmatt said:


> All too often, however, I have come across these anomalies being based in very simplified versions of mainstream historical narratives or even in pop-culture misconceptions of history, rather than in actual academic writings.



We've all been to schools, colleges, universities etc, and are all familiar with the mainstream narrative because it's been programmed into us. We are here because we are critical thinkers who have found our pre-programming sadly lacking. When we research we don't go looking into simplified versions of the mainstream or pop-culture for information - what would be the point of that? We examine all sources that are available. Even the really complicated academic ones with scary long words that have lots of syllables don't scare our feeble little minds.


----------



## dreamtime (Oct 14, 2020)

Beyond what's been written on the forum, you could start with reading Fomenko, Illig, Heinsohn, Johnson, Topper, Hardouin, Newton, Tschurilow, which are classical chronology critics.

When it comes to discussions in this forum, you can simply look at the countless topics and provide your specific counter-arguments.

In this post you are generalizing without providing any actual argument to discuss.

For example, go to the Pompeii thread and pick the arguments apart. There are 9 arguments in total for the theory that Pompeii didn't get destroyed in 79 A.D. and you are free to dissect them all.


----------



## Horstmatt (Oct 14, 2020)

Felix Noille said:


> We've all been to schools, colleges, universities etc, and are all familiar with the mainstream narrative because it's been programmed into us. We are here because we are critical thinkers who have found our pre-programming sadly lacking. When we research we don't go looking into simplified versions of the mainstream or pop-culture for information - what would be the point of that? We examine all sources that are available. Even the really complicated academic ones with scary long words that have lots of syllables don't scare our feeble little minds.


It's great if you do the things that you describing, reading academic papers and books is vital to developing a good understanding of mainstream narratives and i commend you for doing so. However, what i described in the main post, while maybe not applying to you, has even been done in this thread. I would also add that critical thinking, as it is a term that people like to use here, does not necessarily mean that you will reject the mainstream.


----------



## Jetsam (Oct 14, 2020)

I don't believe/agree with many subjects discussed here; I'd need to see it with my own eyes but since my eyes can be tricked, I'd question it even then. Many subjects discussed here have contemporary sources that we can read and see for ourselves and while some of them may be fabricated as well or mistaken, they contradict the mainstream narrative so we see there is more than one opinion about the "facts" and therefore we should look closer. Sure there is plenty of speculation when contemporary sources are unavailable, whether hidden or destroyed, and sure once we get this puzzle put together we'll find a good bit of the pieces are missing. It's better imo to know that something is a lie even if we don't know (maybe never will) the truth of it than to go on believing a lie. Once you realize something you've believed all your life isn't true, you start to look around and see much more that isn't true and your world starts falling down around you. You shouldn't try to rebuild your house on a damaged foundation, you need to pull that down too and start again. It's more than scary, its depressing, but it's better than thinking you have a stable home that may actually blow over with the next big wind.


----------



## Horstmatt (Oct 14, 2020)

dreamtime said:


> Beyond what's been written on the forum, you could start with reading Fomenko, Illig, Heinsohn, Johnson, Topper, Hardouin, Newton, Tschurilow, which are classical chronology critics.
> 
> When it comes to discussions in this forum, you can simply look at the countless topics and provide your specific counter-arguments.
> 
> ...


I'm familiar with Fomenko but i'll check the others out, are you referring to Isaac Newton?

The reason i voiced my mild frustration regarding discussions when it comes to specific topics is that often times, instead of trying to refute my points when i engage in specific issues, people tend to respond by ignoring my arguments and pivoting to another point, and other times people will also ignore my arguments and say things along the lines of "But history is fake." which is hardly productive.

I did not present any actual altenrative history arguments to discuss because that is not the intention of the post. I am not arguing against any of the claims made by this community here, the purpose of the thread to discuss the observations about the methodology and attitudes towards the mainstream that i have made over the year or so i have been interacting with this community on different platforms. 

I'll take a look at the Pompeii thread, i have to say that the early modern period is the area in which i have most knowledge though.


----------



## Worsaae (Oct 14, 2020)

Horstmatt said:


> I fully intend to contribute to the threads that i find I have relevant knowledge about, to me being mainstream is not necessarily a bad thing, though i'm not sure if my sources will be taken seriously unless they are primary.
> 
> Thank you for the info i'll explore Tartary en particular.
> 
> ...



The point of me bringing up the discovery of the Americas was to document the politically motivated contradictions in the history that we're taught. I am well aware that no serious historian claims that Columbus was the first and I've never claimed that either.

If there is a crime that modern historians commit it is selectively analyzing documents from centuries past through a modern perspective. This is exactly why I enjoy this website. Most threads present primary sources and evidence seen from a new perspective that truly challenge my own biases.


Horstmatt said:


> the purpose of the thread to discuss the observations about the methodology and attitudes towards the mainstream that i have made over the year or so i have been interacting with this community on different platforms.



This community is on this platform.


----------



## Horstmatt (Oct 14, 2020)

Citezenship said:


> https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/aug/30/what-exhibits-in-a-museum-are-genuine
> I hope this is mainstream enough for you, it was  a big bugger and i knew it was not real and i was kicked out of the museum for pointing that out!


Yeah that's sufficient, it pretty much confirms what i said about some fossils on display being real and other being fake on account of their fragility.


Citezenship said:


> I am sorry but history and politics are and have forever been inextricably intertwined and will continue to be.


I never said that they weren't link, I was simply pointing out that there is such a thing as apolitical history


----------



## dreamtime (Oct 14, 2020)

Horstmatt said:


> I did not present any actual altenrative history arguments to discuss because that is not the intention of the post. I am not arguing against any of the claims made by this community here, the purpose of the thread to discuss the observations about the methodology and attitudes towards the mainstream that i have made over the year or so i have been interacting with this community on different platforms.



But whats the point? You will find lame arguments and pseudo-arguments on all sides of the spectrum.


----------



## Horstmatt (Oct 14, 2020)

Worsaae said:


> The point of me bringing up the discovery of the Americas was to document the politically motivated contradictions in the history that we're taught. I am well aware that no serious historian claims that Columbus was the first and I've never claimed that either.
> 
> If there is a crime that modern historians commit it is selectively analyzing documents from centuries past through a modern perspective. This is exactly why I enjoy this website. Most threads present primary sources and evidence seen from a new perspective that truly challenge my own biases.


You could interpret it as political but there is no political gain in claiming Columbus discovered America for most countries, If it was only Italy or some Latin American countries it would make far more sense. To me it's more of just slow and shitty educational systems, but either way i'm interested in what historians say not what elementary schools say.

To my knowledge when this occurs the historians in question are ridiculed, the only use of applying modern concepts to historical figures and decisions is when trying to compare them to the modern day. It is good to have many perspectives on history, but some are correct and others aren't which is what historians are supposed to determine.


Worsaae said:


> This community is on this platform.


I meant that before joining here i was active on the various subreddits pertaining to alternative history and also on the SH.net discord, unless those don't count as part of this community.


----------



## Citezenship (Oct 14, 2020)

Horstmatt said:


> Citezenship said:
> 
> 
> > https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/aug/30/what-exhibits-in-a-museum-are-genuine
> ...


I think you have misunderstood why i put that there, not because of the content but because of the contradiction in the headline,






Visitor are often confounded by the idea that some specimens are not originals, but this does not mean they are fake or guesswork,
if they are not originals they they are by definition fake because they would be original otherwise, we see this slight of hand language all the time with the mainstream, it's called sophistry which is one of the reasons that contribute to our mistrust, like when Nasa says we have a picture of the globe but it's photoshopped, but it has to be!

Although things are complicated they do not need any further muddying!


----------



## Jetsam (Oct 14, 2020)

I have long thought "historians can't be this dumb" and I think that's true.


----------



## trismegistus (Oct 14, 2020)

Horstmatt said:


> The reason i voiced my mild frustration regarding discussions when it comes to specific topics is that often times, instead of trying to refute my points when i engage in specific issues, people tend to respond by ignoring my arguments and pivoting to another point, and other times people will also ignore my arguments and say things along the lines of "But history is fake." which is hardly productive.



The only way you will find this true or false in this community is to go into specific topics and present your counter argument. Shame the comments section of the original posts haven’t made it over, some of the best content on the site were KorbenDallas and JD755 duking it out over Expositions, wireless electricity, etc. 

Without diving into your specific issues you have with alternative history researched on this site, you come off as complaining that people into alt history research are just blowing off information you believe to be true for the sake of their own beliefs. Regarding that - I do agree that many in the “conspiracy community” (I hate implying that there is a community with agreed upon views and beliefs, but so it goes) are lazy, armchair researchers who will believe anything they feel is counter to the mainstream narrative. Often times these people are the most dogmatic and confrontational about their held beliefs, even if they have no real way of proving it. Regardless of whether or not you believe the earth is flat, it is undeniable that there is a “FE community” that is anti-intellectual and toxic. Unfortunately, it seems as if in the past year these same FE folks have latched on to the hidden history research, so now topics like Tartaria and mudflood are wrapped up with FE, Qanon, and my new personal favorite: all mountains are melted buildings. Whether this was an actual attempt by TPTB to ruin the credible research many have made in the hidden history area, or if it is just a depressing byproduct of gaining popularity in the alternative circles, I don’t know.

All of this to say: I understand where your frustrations come from, I am also frustrated that there are many who see this kind of research, decide they are an expert, and then get on their Facebook page and post hundreds of black and white images of buildings with half windows and call it Flat Earth Tartaria Great Civilization Mudflood confirmed. I have (mostly) kept myself out of feeling like it is my responsibility to attempt to educate and add nuance to their nonsense, as it is just a waste of time.

I hope what you will find with this site is that most of the folks who have been creating content and doing research on these topics aren’t the people I described above. Your input is welcomed here, provided that you don’t plan on using Wikipedia and the first few pages of google to attempt to “debunk” the research done on this site.


----------



## Jd755 (Oct 14, 2020)

Makes for interesting reading. Impressive coverage for one so young.
https://www.reddit.com/user/Horstmatt/comments/


----------



## trismegistus (Oct 14, 2020)

kd-755 said:


> Makes for interesting reading. Impressive coverage for one so young.
> https://www.reddit.com/user/Horstmatt/comments/



Very prolific. Shame that absolutely no claims made in any of those comments are sourced to primary documents or even relevant books related to the subject. I fear that if this is the level of counter argument we are to expect from you @Horstmatt it will not take you very far here. Though I always reserve the right to be surprised.


----------



## Horstmatt (Oct 14, 2020)

dreamtime said:


> But whats the point? You will find lame arguments and pseudo-arguments on all sides of the spectrum.


I was hoping, maybe naively, that if people saw this they might refrain from doing what i discussed in future arguments.


----------



## dreamtime (Oct 14, 2020)

You criticize Hancook, who is definitely a fraudulent researcher in my opinion.

The users on this forum are aware that the alternative megalithic history model is similarily problematic as the mainstream model. It's easy to refute Hancock, Younger Dryas and Göbekli Tepe myths, but this forum has a lot of topics that go way deeper than what Hancock writes about. I look forward to you refuting the arguments in the Pompeii thread.


----------



## Worsaae (Oct 14, 2020)

Horstmatt said:


> You could interpret it as political but there is no political gain in claiming Columbus discovered America for most countries, If it was only Italy or some Latin American countries it would make far more sense. To me it's more of just slow and shitty educational systems, but either way i'm interested in what historians say not what elementary schools say.
> 
> To my knowledge when this occurs the historians in question are ridiculed, the only use of applying modern concepts to historical figures and decisions is when trying to compare them to the modern day. It is good to have many perspectives on history, but some are correct and others aren't which is what historians are supposed to determine.
> 
> I meant that before joining here i was active on the various subreddits pertaining to alternative history and also on the SH.net discord, unless those don't count as part of this community.


I am interested in what we're taught, what historians say and how our media presents the history. I consider all three of those components of what I call mainstream history. 

We will have to agree to disagree on wether historians are ridiculed if they present absurd interpretations. In my world, they're heavily promoted if they serve the political agenda of TPTB. This is not a subject that I want to discuss on this site, because it will quickly devolve into modern politics and I think  this website and community has been especially good at separating modern discussions from the objective of the community: our stolen history. 

I don't know those communities that you talk about, so I can't speak to them. I look forward to reading your posts in the other threads. It is an honour having a mainstream historian with us and I am certain that your contributions will be greatly appreciated if they're well-supported and presented in good faith.


----------



## Horstmatt (Oct 14, 2020)

trismegistus said:


> Very prolific. Shame that absolutely no claims made in any of those comments are sourced to primary documents or even relevant books related to the subject. I fear that if this is the level of counter argument we are to expect from you @Horstmatt it will not take you very far here. Though I always reserve the right to be surprised.


Yeah my reddit arguments aren't fantastic, many or my responses are quite lazy and the sourcing is non-existant. In my defence many of these comments were in response to random photos with no context and vague rhetorical question titles, for which I did not expect to get productive responses. Even then i should have still cited my sources as a matter of principle.
I hope that I can surprise you on here.



trismegistus said:


> The only way you will find this true or false in this community is to go into specific topics and present your counter argument. Shame the comments section of the original posts haven’t made it over, some of the best content on the site were KorbenDallas and JD755 duking it out over Expositions, wireless electricity, etc.
> 
> Without diving into your specific issues you have with alternative history researched on this site, you come off as complaining that people into alt history research are just blowing off information you believe to be true for the sake of their own beliefs. Regarding that - I do agree that many in the “conspiracy community” (I hate implying that there is a community with agreed upon views and beliefs, but so it goes) are lazy, armchair researchers who will believe anything they feel is counter to the mainstream narrative. Often times these people are the most dogmatic and confrontational about their held beliefs, even if they have no real way of proving it. Regardless of whether or not you believe the earth is flat, it is undeniable that there is a “FE community” that is anti-intellectual and toxic. Unfortunately, it seems as if in the past year these same FE folks have latched on to the hidden history research, so now topics like Tartaria and mudflood are wrapped up with FE, Qanon, and my new personal favorite: all mountains are melted buildings. Whether this was an actual attempt by TPTB to ruin the credible research many have made in the hidden history area, or if it is just a depressing byproduct of gaining popularity in the alternative circles, I don’t know.
> 
> ...


You put it very well, the crowd i'm referring to are also the ones that tend to throw the term shill around. I plan on using the best data I can find, and to argue in good faith.

	Post automatically merged: Oct 14, 2020



Worsaae said:


> I am interested in what we're taught, what historians say and how our media presents the history. I consider all three of those components of what I call mainstream history.
> 
> We will have to agree to disagree on wether historians are ridiculed if they present absurd interpretations. In my world, they're heavily promoted if they serve the political agenda of TPTB. This is not a subject that I want to discuss on this site, because it will quickly devolve into modern politics and I think  this website and community has been especially good at separating modern discussions from the objective of the community: our stolen history.
> 
> I don't know those communities that you talk about, so I can't speak to them. I look forward to reading your posts in the other threads. It is an honour having a mainstream historian with us and I am certain that your contributions will be greatly appreciated if they're well-supported and presented in good faith.


I agree that modern politcs shouldn't be discussed
I would also like to clarify that i am not a historian, yet.


----------



## 6079SmithW (Oct 14, 2020)

Horstmatt said:


> Citezenship said:
> 
> 
> > It is not just history that we mistrust, it is the whole idea of society because we have found out that we have all been tricked into representing a commercial entity so that a very few can profit and control us through the promotion of proparganda and shaming techniques, this used to be of mostly the religious nature but now it moving into other area's with alarming speed.
> ...


Please read the book Dead Men's Secrets.

You can find copies online for free if you search for dead men's secrets PDF

Then come back and tell us more about the megalithic structures.

	Post automatically merged: Oct 14, 2020



Citezenship said:


> Horstmatt said:
> 
> 
> > Citezenship said:
> ...


Maybe the museum's lost the technology to display the original bones and it's a painful process building it back again.


----------



## Horstmatt (Oct 14, 2020)

JWW427 said:


> *Examples of historical lies uncovered:*
> 
> • Mainstream archeology maintained that human civilization was only 5700 years old for two centuries or more. That was a rock solid truth not to be questioned by anyone. If you did, your career was over.
> Klaus Schmidt uncovered a very advanced, megalithic, and organized Gobleki Tepe in Armenia and dated it to 12,500 years ago with geologists. Thus organized high civilization had to be older than the Great Flood, aka: Meltwater Pulse 1-B.
> ...


- While i cannot speak for the flood stuff, i would say that the probable reason for which civilization was believed to be only 5700 years old is because there was no known evidence to indicate otherwise. If you wanted to claim that there were older civilization before the discovery of Gobekli Tepe, you would have had to do so without evidence, which would rightfully end your career as a historian. Historians were proven wrong by the discovery of conclusive evidence at Gobekli Tepe, the extent of which is not yet fully known i believe. While those hypothetical historian who claimed that there were older civilizations before Gobekli Tepe's dicovery have been proven right, they are right by pure luck, and the new discoveries have nothing to do with their claims or evidence.

- The Vatican is a politcal entity not a historian, and historians/journalists are the ones that proved that the Vatican was lying.

- The Sphinx erosion controversy is still very much a debate, but i'm open to the possibility of the pit being older than the rest of the Giza compound. Also i believe that the theory states that the cause of erosion was rain and not it being under water, though i'm not sure. Zahi Hawass is a strange character, and it's very much possible that his popularity has gone to his head. Though I don't believe the entire historical community should be judged by his actions.

- For the Pentagon, White house, and Catholic church stuff, i'll repeat my point that verification of claims is important. While politcal entities are prone to lying for political reasons, and it is likely that some recent historical events like war crimes are still being covered up or hidden. But to make the leap of judgement from that to saying that all of history is a lie and that historians and archeologists have worked as a monoithic entity to creat an extraordinarily complex fake history, most details of which offer no political gain to anyone, is a bit too much. Keep in mind also that it is much harder to make claims than to deny them, as can be seen by the fact that all the examples you gave showed the denial of certain events and not the creation of totally new timelines to hide the truth. I would also like to add that most of the cover-ups you mentioned were open secrets, and those that weren't were exposed very quickly (like watergate and the Monika Lewinski scandal).


----------



## Jetsam (Oct 14, 2020)

My favorite part about mainstream history is when they say so and so for sure happened at this place and time. Even such things as "there was no evidence to suggest..." I guess they were able to go back in time to see for themselves? Or they can remote view the past?


----------



## Oracle (Oct 14, 2020)

"Are there any examples of this that some of you could give so that i could better understand the thought process behind comparing different theoretical perspectives?"

Carbon dating.

Sorry for my brevity,I am on my way to work I will come back later and add further thoughts.

Edit: I really shouldn't have replied to this thread as I am far too busy IRL to participate usefully in any thread at the moment,but you asked for examples and that popped straight into my head as I was reading earlier.
  My point being,the methods of identifying events in history are being called into question all the time,another example being tree rings.
I could launch ten's of links in your direction to help clarify but you can search for them yourself and find them ( provided you don't use google as your search engine or wikipedia as your source).
You have your hands full here as it is with other responders who do have the time,and I'm sure you're starting to realize you may have bitten off more than you can chew if you wish to still have the time for your tertiary studies. ?
   Years do matter as life experience counts and one does start to question when what you see doesn't equate to what you've been told.
I hope you don't take this as condescending as it is the simple truth,I know 30 years or more ago I would have snorted "stupid old fuddy duddy" if someone spoke like that to me
but it's just the way it is when you've been around a long time, you've read,lived,and learned a lot.
  All the best to you and welcome to SH, I will bow out now gracefully (I hope) and leave you all to it.


----------



## JimDuyer (Oct 14, 2020)

Horstmatt said:


> JWW427 said:
> 
> 
> > *Examples of historical lies uncovered:*
> ...


Do you believe that the Egyptians created the pyramids, or were they simply not as honest as the Olmec and Maya who related truthfully that they did not create their own, but simply moved in and occupied the work of others. And yes, I have evidence that they said this.
Do you follow a 12,000 year old creation of Puma Punku based upon the fact that
certain physical features, such as docks and canals, could not have been of any use
much later than that date, based upon their location in the general area of the Lake
Titicaca, and the names they adopted which translate into very much older people
as being the builders?  Including one temple named for camels, which were indeed
extant in Bolivia and Peru, but went extinct about that period?


----------



## Whitewave (Oct 15, 2020)

I can not for the life of me remember the name of the article by KD about their being no original documents. All historical documents we currently have are copies of earlier "lost" documents. 
If anyone remembers which article I'm talking about, did it make it back to SH? It's a good starting point for all other arguments about "conspiracy" historical narratives.


----------



## trismegistus (Oct 15, 2020)

Whitewave said:


> I can not for the life of me remember the name of the article by KD about their being no original documents. All historical documents we currently have are copies of earlier "lost" documents.
> If anyone remembers which article I'm talking about, did it make it back to SH? It's a good starting point for all other arguments about "conspiracy" historical narratives.



It wasn’t a KD post but it’s a classic.

The History of Rome has no Surviving Sources.


----------



## Whitewave (Oct 15, 2020)

trismegistus said:


> Whitewave said:
> 
> 
> > I can not for the life of me remember the name of the article by KD about their being no original documents. All historical documents we currently have are copies of earlier "lost" documents.
> ...


Thanks for the clarification and correction.


----------



## SuperTrouper (Oct 15, 2020)

"Are there any examples of this that some of you could give so that i could better understand the thought process behind comparing different theoretical perspectives?"

The Big Bang Theory. The basis for ALL further deceptions, "invented" by a Jesuit priest for nefarious reasons.

“We are asked by science to believe that the entire universe sprang from nothingness, and at a single point and for no discernible reason. This notion is the limit case for credulity. In other words, if you can believe this, you can believe anything.” ― Terence McKenna

Do yourself a favour: 


_View: https://youtu.be/OT-bjR8Dxak_


?


----------



## luddite (Oct 15, 2020)

Horstmatt said:


> As for megalithic structures, there are a variety of methods that are speculated to have been used for their construction ranging from the use of friction to blunt force


Please make a presentation of these methods. Go into your backyard, find some 200g rocks and try on them. Then scale it up 10,000 times to a 200 tonne single rock. Try to avoid mistakes because starting again on a 200T rock is kind of frustrating.



Horstmatt said:


> all i can say is that they did not only have copper and stone tools at their disposal.


You agree with @Citezenship on that point then.



Horstmatt said:


> The leap from "We don't really know for sure how they did this" to "Ancient advanced mega-civilization from the Ice age" is what troubles me.


 What troubles me is that your mind is seemingly closed to possibilities. This leap troubles me also, insofar that the belief in "We don't really know for sure how they did this" but they do... copper tools and banging a rock ... it's agreed. You agreed these are part of the variety of methods. Case closed! No further investigation required.


----------



## Felix Noille (Oct 15, 2020)

Horstmatt said:


> i have to say that the early modern period is the area in which i have most knowledge though.



And so it goes. Compartmentalisation... (8 syllables!) If your focus is isolated on one specific area, you will never make connections that might enable you to see a wider picture, recognise patterns and give you the ability to make comparisons. At your tender age you probably haven't had the time or desire to de-compartmentalise (9!).

None of the good folk here claim to be 'Historians'... well, 99% anyway. We all have various fields of interest that we share with the group. We get de-compartmentalised, whether we like it or not and we learn from each other, we get to see a wider picture, recognise patterns and make comparisons. Some of the ideas that emerge as a result might be highly 'out-there,' in which case one or more members will usually shoot them down in flames. Others will fly. The last 'Academic Messiah' we had on SH1 in the 'Ask Pro' sub-forum, he specialised in 20th century Irish prisons.  I felt quite sorry for him.


----------



## Horstmatt (Oct 15, 2020)

Felix Noille said:


> Horstmatt said:
> 
> 
> > i have to say that the early modern period is the area in which i have most knowledge though.
> ...


I would like to clarify that it's not because i'm particularly interested in a certain historical period that I will ignore things that may relate to it from other periods, I simply have done more research in that era (Which i define to be from 1492 to 1815 more or less). Specializing in 20th century Irish prisons is definitely quite an interesting choice.

	Post automatically merged: Oct 15, 2020



SuperTrouper said:


> "Are there any examples of this that some of you could give so that i could better understand the thought process behind comparing different theoretical perspectives?"
> 
> The Big Bang Theory. The basis for ALL further deceptions, "invented" by a Jesuit priest for nefarious reasons.
> 
> ...



I'll check out the video, but the Big Bang theory is by no means established, it's more of a temporary place-holder for lack of a better explanation. But considering that most of history has been documented befor the advent of the big bang theory, it would hardly be affected by whatever scientists say caused the creation of the universe.

	Post automatically merged: Oct 15, 2020



trismegistus said:


> The History of Rome has no Surviving Sources.


This one seems very interesting.


----------



## Felix Noille (Oct 15, 2020)

Horstmatt said:


> the Big Bang theory is by no means established



_"If it’s called a theory, it’s the same as a hunch: That’s true sometimes, when you’re just beginning to look into a phenomenon. But after a while, the word merely means that you didn’t actually see the event play out—even if all the evidence tells you what happened. The theory of evolution? *A fact*. The Big Bang theory? *A fact*. But unless you’re 13.8 billion years old, you weren’t here to witness it all."_ *Jeffrey Kluger March 7, 2014 Editor, Time Magazine.*​​


----------



## Horstmatt (Oct 15, 2020)

Felix Noille said:


> _"If it’s called a theory, it’s the same as a hunch: That’s true sometimes, when you’re just beginning to look into a phenomenon. But after a while, the word merely means that you didn’t actually see the event play out—even if all the evidence tells you what happened. The theory of evolution? *A fact*. The Big Bang theory? *A fact*. But unless you’re 13.8 billion years old, you weren’t here to witness it all."_ *Jeffrey Kluger March 7, 2014 Editor, Time Magazine.*​


It's true that the Big Bang theory has been established in the mind of the public as a fact, hence why Jeffrey Kluger, a magazine editor and author with no astronomical or historical background, assumes it to be so. He's not remotely qualified to count as part of the mainstream scientific community, so I don't see why you're quoting him.

edit: I would also like to point out that he is misrepresenting academic methodology here.
edit #2: turns out he specialized in science journalism, which still does not make him a scientist, but at least he should know better thant to characterize the Big Bang theory as an established fact. Science Journalism in general is really iffy in my opinion.


----------



## Citezenship (Oct 15, 2020)

Horstmatt said:


> Felix Noille said:
> 
> 
> > _"If it’s called a theory, it’s the same as a hunch: That’s true sometimes, when you’re just beginning to look into a phenomenon. But after a while, the word merely means that you didn’t actually see the event play out—even if all the evidence tells you what happened. The theory of evolution? *A fact*. The Big Bang theory? *A fact*. But unless you’re 13.8 billion years old, you weren’t here to witness it all."_ *Jeffrey Kluger March 7, 2014 Editor, Time Magazine.*​
> ...


You make it sound the words are written by some kind of heretic, doe's not matter the author because the words speak for themselves, it is just a theory, unless of course you can prove otherwise??

And although it is not a fact it is taken as fact by almost all branches of science just as the theory of evolution is.

When i was in school(1988) we had a history class and the lazy ass teacher wheeled in a tv with a vhs recorder and we watched a bbc documentary on a subject called the Piltdown Man, a prehistoric man who was preserved in a bog in England(details may not be correct here, long time ago), he was said to be the missing link that proved evolution, taught as fact.

Now the cynical thing about this is that in the 1950's this was proven to be a hoax by the palaeontologist Charles Dawson and his mate, they had stuck a jaw from an orang-utan onto a human skeleton with the intent of fraud.

They were still teaching this as fact when i was in school!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man


----------



## Horstmatt (Oct 15, 2020)

Citezenship said:


> You make it sound the the words are written by some kind of heretic, doe's not matter the author because the words speak for themselves, it is just a theory, unless of course you can prove otherwise??


I am simply pointing out that he can't speak for mainstream astronomists. The word theory is an incredibly broad term, and can refer to incredibly variable levels of certainty, there are things that we are 99.99% sure about, but we have to call them theories because there is the technical possibilty of something coming up that could prove it wrong. There are other theories where certainty has hardly been achieved. Unfortunately the term theory has been diluted by people seeking to give their claims legitimacy when in fact what they are really pushing hypotheses. The Big Bang is not a certainty, not even a very near certainty like evolution, but as of yet there is no better explanation for the beginning of the universe, which is why it continues to hold a position of prominence.

	Post automatically merged: Oct 15, 2020



Citezenship said:


> And although it is not a fact it is taken as fact by almost all branches of science just as the theory of evolution is.
> 
> When i was in school(1988) we had a history class and the lazy ass teacher wheeled in a tv with a vhs recorder and we watched a bbc documentary on a subject called the Piltdown Man, a prehistoric man who was preserved in a bog in England(details may not be correct here, long time ago), he was said to be the missing link that proved evolution, taught as fact.
> 
> ...


Well that's just evidence of a shitty educational system?
Do you believe that evolution is fake?


----------



## Felix Noille (Oct 15, 2020)

Horstmatt said:


> The word theory is an incredibly broad term, and can refer to incredibly variable levels of certainty, there are things that we are 99.99% sure about, but we have to call them theories because there is the technical possibilty of something coming up that could prove it wrong. There are other theories where certainty has hardly been achieved. Unfortunately the term theory has been diluted by people seeking to give their claims legitimacy when in fact what they are really pushing hypotheses. The Big Bang is not a certainty, not even a very near certainty like evolution, but as of yet there is no better explanation for the beginning of the universe, which is why it continues to hold a position of prominence.



With these paragraphs you are revealing that your 'methods and perspectives' are no different to those that you seem to despise in what you call 'our community.'



Horstmatt said:


> Is there a point after which you decided that mainstream history could not be trusted? Are there any examples of this that some of you could give so that i could better understand the thought process behind comparing different theoretical perspectives?



Maybe you could help us to understand the thought processes by which the Big Bang Theory is "iffy," but evolution is "a very near certainty," from your "early modern period" point of view?


----------



## Citezenship (Oct 15, 2020)

Horstmatt said:


> There are other theories where certainty has hardly been achieved. Unfortunately the term theory has been diluted by people seeking to give their claims legitimacy when in fact what they are really pushing hypotheses.


And this is the crux of the matter, no one here is making any "claims" we are just discussing our own thoughts and feelings and how they apply to the narrative that is given, but yet you seem to want to hold us to the same standards that you feels we should have.

We have outlined why we feel the way we do, if you want to try to convince us that we have it all wrong because of the methods we may or may not use please start some threads of your own to demonstrate to us how we can get it right!

You see we do not trust the official narrative and nothing you say is going to change that because this mistrust has been grown with experience not just study!

	Post automatically merged: Oct 15, 2020



Horstmatt said:


> Do you believe that evolution is fake?


Yes i do, found any of those transitional fossils lately, last time i looked most of those were fake, just like the missing link the piltdown man!


----------



## Horstmatt (Oct 15, 2020)

luddite said:


> What troubles me is that your mind is seemingly closed to possibilities. This leap troubles me also, insofar that the belief in "We don't really know for sure how they did this" but they do... copper tools and banging a rock ... it's agreed. You agreed these are part of the variety of methods. Case closed! No further investigation required.


I'm not closed to possibilities, i'm just annoyed that people seem to underestimate the abilities of ancient peoples, when you put it the way you did "copper tools and banging a rock" you are diminishing the complexity of what can be acheived with such tools. To assume that something is being hidden based on the the assumption that "They couldn't possibly have built this using these flimsy looking things" is one thing, and i believe that it is wrong, but going from there and concluding that it couldn't have been them that built the megaliths and that it must have been another super advanced and hidden ancient civilization is ludicrous the steps being skipped to make such "discoveries" are all too apparent and a sign that there is a desired conclusion.
But let's imagine that I am wrong, and that those megaliths were beyond the known abilities of the people mainstream historians say built them. Without evidence, any claims or speculation regarding what tools were actually used or who actually built them have now weight. But it seems that people seem to see the lack of total and complete certainty on the part of MSH as a sign that there Hypotheses, however wild and unsubstantiated, have the same relevance. While a multiplicity of theories is always good, not all theories are created equal.

	Post automatically merged: Oct 15, 2020



Felix Noille said:


> With these paragraphs you are revealing that your 'methods and perspectives' are no different to those that you seem to despise in what you call 'our community.'


I'm not sure what you mean, are you saying that mainstream methods are the same as yours because we base cannot establish total certainty? the point of that paragraph that you quoted was to explain that people tend to exploit the semantics of the word theory in order to elevate their ideas. Are you saying that MSH do the same?


Felix Noille said:


> Maybe you could help us to understand the thought processes by which the Big Bang Theory is "iffy," but evolution is "a very near certainty," from your "early modern period" point of view?


I used the term "iffy" in relation to the legitimacy of science journalism, due to its tendency to sensationalize and misrepresent academic finding in order to be more interesting to the reader as it is "pop-science". The Big Bang is the best explanation i know for the start of the universe, but it's subject to a larger degree of debate than evolution. there is a better consensus on evolution than on the big bang, there is also a larger quantity of evidence for evolution.
The fact that i know more about the early modern period than i do about other historical periods has absolutley nothing to do with my views on the big bang or evolution, and i can't help but feeling that you put that last bit about it in there because you thought it sounded arrogant (but that's just a hunch).


----------



## Felix Noille (Oct 15, 2020)

To assume that something is being hidden based on the the assumption that "They built this using these flimsy looking things" is one thing, and i believe that it is wrong, but going from there and concluding that it couldn't have been another super advanced and hidden ancient civilisation that built the megaliths is ludicrous - the evidence being ignored to make such "discoveries" is all too apparent and a sign that there is a desired conclusion.

Rest easy. That was my last word in this thread. ?


----------



## Horstmatt (Oct 15, 2020)

Felix Noille said:


> To assume that something is being hidden based on the the assumption that "They built this using these flimsy looking things" is one thing, and i believe that it is wrong, but going from there and concluding that it couldn't have been another super advanced and hidden ancient civilisation that built the megaliths is ludicrous - the evidence being ignored to make such "discoveries" is all too apparent and a sign that there is a desired conclusion.
> 
> Rest easy. That was my last word in this thread. ?


Alright then i'll close with this. My problem is not that people might entertain the possibiity of ancient super advanced civilization, it is that some people will attach themselves to that extreme conclusion, and use the lack of evidence to 100% prove the mainstream theory on the subject to declare that they must be correct, using rhetorical questions to imply their conclusions without actually having to defend them with real evidence.

I do agree that this thread has probably run its course and that i should probably start making actual evidence based arguments rather than whtever this has become. I am statisfied with the range of responses that i got.


----------



## Citezenship (Oct 15, 2020)

Horstmatt said:


> Do you believe that evolution is fake?





Horstmatt said:


> using rhetorical questions to imply their conclusions without actually having to defend them with real evidence.


My last words also on this thread, thanks!


----------



## Horstmatt (Oct 15, 2020)

Citezenship said:


> Horstmatt said:
> 
> 
> > Do you believe that evolution is fake?
> ...


Actually i was legitimately curious whether you did believe in evolution or not, I don't know if that's a common opinion on here so I didn't want to assume so. I was referring to questions of the style of History Channel shows like "Could it be? That the templars did bury their treasure on this Island?" If you get what i'm talking about.

Thanks for engaging with me and I hope to discuss other matters on different threads with you in the future!


----------



## codis (Oct 15, 2020)

Horstmatt said:


> Actually i was legitimately curious whether you did believe in evolution or not,...


As a matter of fact, proponents of evolution have failed to come up with one demonstrable example of macro evolution (a new feature not resulting from damage/degradation).
Both in real experiments (within about 20.000 generations of the drosophila fruit fly species), and in simulation.


----------



## JimDuyer (Oct 15, 2020)

Horstmatt said:


> Citezenship said:
> 
> 
> > Horstmatt said:
> ...


Realistically, while evolution may be the answer in regards to many animals, it does not seem to be definitive in respect to humans.  Nothing in his theories can explain the event that provoked man's brain to shrink in size, in Boskop man, in Neandertal, in Cro-Magnon to modern man, etc. I've seen some lame excuses posited to prop up evolution, such as smaller brains require less energy to maintain, but in all actuality this was surely written by a smaller brained example.  So, general purposes or a framework to examine, as far as man goes, possibly, but there are others that deserve equal treatment, and yet once mainstream scientists grab hold of their baby, they don't let it go - even when the baby is eligible for social security.  Another is the Bering Straight nonsense, first proposed by a Jesuit over 400 years ago, and even lacking any evidence they still push that crap out to our kids.  Out of Africa, same thing.  I could go on and on, but this is my last post on this topic as well.


----------



## JWW427 (Oct 15, 2020)

I agree with Jim and Citizenship.
Dr. Lloyd Pye proved (in my opinion) that primates, Neanderthals, and proto-humans are not Homo sapiens, they do not pack the gear for speech or higher consciousness. Darwin's evolution of species is ridiculous.
Many species of fauna and insects die out suddenly while others appear as if by magic in the Amazon. Science has no explanation for this occurrence so they IGNORE it.

"We may never know how they built them or the reasons why." This is a mainstream "conversation-ender." It's been used for countless subjects of history, it's a weapon to promote compliant ignorance. So many have said it about pyramids worldwide I've lost count.

Attempting to explain history's mysteries by using only mainstream sources and trusted theories is akin to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Mainstream academia and their iffy historical narratives is a sinking ship, the many holes too numerous to count. Using only left brain book learning instead of expanding one's right brain imagination, sixth sense, and intellectualized intuition is akin to sealing up the gash in Titanic's hull with balsa wood planking.
But hey, thats just crazy ol' me.


----------



## Judy.Rugburn (Oct 15, 2020)

Our purview is shaped by the lens of the dominant paradigm in which we live — namely patriarchal colonialist, capitalism. But then it’s filtered through individual experience which creates a narrative that is unconsciously colored by our repressed emotional bodies.

We don’t have the capacity, on this plane of existence to do anything other than speculate & wonder.

Truth cannot exist without Deception


----------



## JimDuyer (Oct 15, 2020)

Judy.Rugburn said:


> Our purview is shaped by the lens of the dominant paradigm in which we live — namely patriarchal colonialist, capitalism. But then it’s filtered through individual experience which creates a narrative that is unconsciously colored by our repressed emotional bodies.
> 
> We don’t have the capacity, on this plane of existence to do anything other than speculate & wonder.
> 
> Truth cannot exist without Deception


And deception ceases to exist when there is no longer a truth to hide.


----------



## luddite (Oct 15, 2020)

Horstmatt said:


> you are diminishing the complexity of what can be acheived with such tools.


You just described all history. 

I offered you a way out via experiment "Go into your backyard, find some 200g rocks and try on them. Then scale it up 10,000 times to a 200 tonne single rock. Try to avoid mistakes because starting again on a 200T rock is kind of frustrating. "

^^^ Do this and you shall have the answer(unless you live in an apartment with no backyard which would make sense).


----------



## asatiger1966 (Oct 16, 2020)

JWW427 said:


> Horstmatt
> 
> You have some good points.
> Im as guilty as anyone here for stretching theories too thin and not backing them up with solid research, I.e.: the nuts and bolts of a certain topic like 19th century steel ships and engineers not being able to construct certain buildings during a specific time period.
> ...




That my friend was one of your best comments.

	Post automatically merged: Oct 16, 2020



Horstmatt said:


> Felix Noille said:
> 
> 
> > To assume that something is being hidden based on the the assumption that "They built this using these flimsy looking things" is one thing, and i believe that it is wrong, but going from there and concluding that it couldn't have been another super advanced and hidden ancient civilisation that built the megaliths is ludicrous - the evidence being ignored to make such "discoveries" is all too apparent and a sign that there is a desired conclusion.
> ...



My Army career started at seventeen years of age. I joined the paratroops for adventure. One year later my butt was in Indochina with the 101st Screaming Eagles, Ist battalion 327 Airborne Infantry, Long Range Recon Patrol. know as Tiger Force 1966.

I witnessed many men split open by motor fire and after working inside another mans body to help him live, the complexity of the human body overwhelmed me. No way evolution is real.

A super advanced civilization did it exist, Yes. There is some room for definition of what that means but, I spent years of my life recovering technology for the Army Security Agency, we spent millions of dollars on each mission, some of the missions ended in firefights with other countries that had arrived to claim the artifacts for themselves.. The knowledge you may have gained access to , school,is slightly bent to prevent discovery of the true extent of what is happening world wide.

The community will help you with understanding but you never will grasp what we know because you weren't there and my kind does not trust easily.


----------



## luddite (Oct 16, 2020)

asatiger1966 said:


> I spent years of my life recovering technology for the Army Security Agency, we spent millions of dollars on each mission, some of the missions ended in firefights with other countries that had arrived to claim the artifacts for themselves


Sounds like a terrific thread (or movie plot).


----------



## JimDuyer (Oct 16, 2020)

luddite said:


> asatiger1966 said:
> 
> 
> > I spent years of my life recovering technology for the Army Security Agency, we spent millions of dollars on each mission, some of the missions ended in firefights with other countries that had arrived to claim the artifacts for themselves
> ...


Perhaps the powers that be have an Erasure Institute - designed to remove any history that
unseats them from power.


----------



## JWW427 (Oct 16, 2020)

Jim Duyer said:


> luddite said:
> 
> 
> > asatiger1966 said:
> ...




Its called the CIA, NSA, NRO, DIA, and Delta Force retrieval units.


----------



## Whitewave (Oct 16, 2020)

Jim Duyer said:


> luddite said:
> 
> 
> > asatiger1966 said:
> ...


Yes, it's called the Smithsonian Institute. See the thread Smithsonian: Suppressed Archaeological Finds


----------



## Horstmatt (Oct 16, 2020)

asatiger1966 said:


> My Army career started at seventeen years of age. I joined the paratroops for adventure. One year later my butt was in Indochina with the 101st Screaming Eagles, Ist battalion 327 Airborne Infantry, Long Range Recon Patrol. know as Tiger Force 1966.
> 
> I witnessed many men split open by motor fire and after working inside another mans body to help him live, the complexity of the human body overwhelmed me. No way evolution is real.
> 
> ...


If true, your what you're saying would be absolutely groundbreaking. What kind of technology? And what is your definition of super advanced? Are these artifacts from known civilizations, or from unknown civilizations?

This is the first time i've hear of someone actually claiming to have taken part in state-run artifact gathering for the purposes of hiding the truth. And it's very interesting. I have family that served in Indochina (for the French), and i've heard of the horror of the war there.


----------



## _harris (Oct 16, 2020)

Horstmatt said:


> I'm not closed to possibilities, i'm just annoyed that people seem to underestimate the abilities of ancient peoples, when you put it the way you did "copper tools and banging a rock" you are diminishing the complexity of what can be acheived with such tools.


pretty certain we're all pro advanced ancient knowledge and abilities on this forum.
it's easy to doubt the "agreed upon" narrative of how these places were made, when we're told they could cut megalithic granite blocks with a copper saw, and cut out giant obelisks by bashing with rocks... (yes that is a mainstream theory. sounds silly right?)
not saying it's aliens... it probably wasn't.
but there's plenty of evidential ancient sites (which you seem to have some awareness of), which show a highly advanced level of stonework, by what must be previous civilisations, prior to even our oldest writings... who did them, if not a lost civilisation?
unless an alternative true history has been obfuscated or hidden?!?

	Post automatically merged: Oct 16, 2020

also, @Horstmatt  it almost seems that you're arguing both sides here!?

you're saying an ancient advanced civilisation is not proven, yet admitting the ancient people who built these megalithic (and some monolithic) sites were advanced enough to build them.. 

surely that is precisely an ancient civilsation, with advanced stone cutting/moving/placing/carving technology?


----------



## Whitewave (Oct 16, 2020)

"unless an alternative true history has been obfuscated or hidden?!?"

Or lost and forgotten? Any global cataclysm would have the survivors just trying to survive and rebuild. Survival mode could have lasted a long time depending on what kind of cataclysm they endured.
Just considering more possibilities.


----------



## Horstmatt (Oct 17, 2020)

_harris said:


> but there's plenty of evidential ancient sites (which you seem to have some awareness of), which show a highly advanced level of stonework, by what must be previous civilisations, prior to even our oldest writings... who did them, if not a lost civilisation?
> unless an alternative true history has been obfuscated or hidden?!?
> 
> Post automatically merged: Oct 16, 2020
> ...


The thing is that the advanced nature of some stonework is overestimated, and the versatility of the "primitive tools" is underestimated. As experimental archaeology has shown, much can be achieved with such tools and a good knowledge of mathematics and things like friction.

Yes, an advanced civilization is not proven, but my point is that these megalithic sites did not necessitate particularly advanced tools to create, it is more the way in which those tools were used that is the mystery, which is why we have experimental archeology, to try and help fill in the holes where no records exist (Though it is not remotely reliable enough to be the sole basis of a conclusion). My point is that the contradiction of MSH as you described it where megalithic structures are very advanced, but the people that are thought to have built them were not is not a contradiction at all, and is based on an exageration in pop-culture of both of these traits. The structures, while incredible marvels of architecture and engineering, especially for their time, are not impossibly advanced, and the people who built them, though limited in the materials they had available to them, were far less limited in the way they used those materials (they weren't just hitting things with copper and stone tools).

People say that mainstream hsitorians underestimate ancient peoples, but they are the ones underestimating the mainstream estimation of  the abilities of ancient peoples.

Edit: I'd like to add that i'm not denying the possibility of undiscovered civilizations, it's incredibly likely that there are. Just that they were super-advanced mega-civilizations is very unlikely.


----------



## Jetsam (Oct 17, 2020)

I guess you're saying that its impossible that these folks, our folks, had tech or otherwise that we don't know about. I don't think we're underestimating their abilities. I think we're saying they had abilities that we aren't being told about, which isn't just logical, it's also obvious. We want to know, therefore, why the lies? Are you legitimately looking for education here or are you just trying to make noise?


----------



## luddite (Oct 17, 2020)

Jetsam said:


> just trying to make noise?


+1


----------



## asatiger1966 (Oct 17, 2020)

Jim Duyer said:


> luddite said:
> 
> 
> > asatiger1966 said:
> ...



Without a doubt they have a device that will block your memory. Navel Intelligence used it during their debriefings.

	Post automatically merged: Oct 17, 2020



Horstmatt said:


> asatiger1966 said:
> 
> 
> > My Army career started at seventeen years of age. I joined the paratroops for adventure. One year later my butt was in Indochina with the 101st Screaming Eagles, Ist battalion 327 Airborne Infantry, Long Range Recon Patrol. know as Tiger Force 1966.
> ...




Learn to listen and observe your surroundings. learn to breath from your lower abdomen, slow your heart rate down. Try to walk on the earth often. Everything on this marvelous planet is connected by communication with  each other.

Go live in solitude for a time and learn to see and hear.

I was witness  to many events that you would say are not real, and knowledge of many more. The time frame of advanced people is difficult at best, my opinion says that the conquering people erased their history.

My experience says that the older tools are not mechanical in nature, but  a combination of minerals and sound frequencies.
Also one must consider that our planet is based on iron, what if it was silicon based a million years ago.

Groundbreaking, no. Tens of thousands have this knowledge.

This area of research is vast, so pardon my wandering

Old memories


----------



## Armouro (Oct 17, 2020)

Your topic is broad. In fact, it is all-encompassing. This is and will be a problem; because the breadth of our past is too large to encompass a single argument, point-by-point. 

You have a solid arguable stance, when you say (approximately) that mainstream history is ignored, and that is a problem. 
I agree. 

Mainstream history has a lot to teach all of us, as does alternative history. Imagine the first human to take a sharp stone and decide that instead of using it for killing animals for food; it could be used to carve a pretty face into a surface. 

This idea is at the core of all histories. There is more than one way to view an object, a purpose, a significance; and even an occurrence. 

The import of alternative history, is that while there is an established and accepted explanation; other explanations do exist, can be found, and have been brought to light. 

There is no piece of history that is unflawed in the retelling. There is no tall tale free of embellishment. 

The idea of alternative history is, in part, to re-analyse those tales and embellishments. 



For singular examples and proper dialogue, however; this needs to (yet again) be reformatted with a narrow example. From there we may go point-for-point on it's merits and iniquities.

Mainstream or no, curiousity is what binds us. 

Let's see where that leads.


----------



## _harris (Oct 17, 2020)

@Horstmatt it sure seems like you're agreeing with me but trying to disagree. i don't think you understand the point.

mainstream actually tells us they used stone to bash other stone, and copper to finish it.
they didn't have technology like we do, but they definitely had some more advanced stone working/moving knowledge (and therefore technology to do so) that either we don't have, or we _aren't allowed_ to have... technology doesn't just mean electricity and computers and power tools


			
				DICTIONARY said:
			
		

> *TECHNOLOGY*
> -the branch of knowledge that deals with the creation and use of technical means and their interrelation with life, society, and the environment, drawing upon such subjects as industrial arts, -engineering, applied science, and pure science.
> -the application of this knowledge for practical ends.
> -the terminology of an art, science, etc.; technical nomenclature.
> ...


so if we can't recreate how they made something, does that not make their technology in that field, more advanced than ours?


Whitewave said:


> _harris said:
> 
> 
> > unless an alternative true history has been obfuscated or hidden?!?
> ...





_harris said:


> who did them, _*if not a lost civilisation*_?
> unless an alternative true history has been obfuscated or hidden?!?


 hehe


----------



## Horstmatt (Oct 17, 2020)

Jetsam said:


> I guess you're saying that its impossible that these folks, our folks, had tech or otherwise that we don't know about. I don't think we're underestimating their abilities. I think we're saying they had abilities that we aren't being told about, which isn't just logical, it's also obvious. We want to know, therefore, why the lies? Are you legitimately looking for education here or are you just trying to make noise?


No, i'm saying that it's *very unlikely* that these folks had tech that we don't know about yet. Because many of the structures do not necessarily reuire advanced tech, but advanced understandings of maths and (at least certain concepts of) physics. I don't think advanced tech is a logical or obvious conclusion to come to, but that's just a matter of opinion. I find it interesting that you seem to think that i only have two options here, to be educated on the truth or to "make noise", which is basically another way of saying that i'm either here to agree with you or i'm a troll.


----------



## EUAFU (Oct 17, 2020)

When a person believes in the Theory of Evolution, he or she really has a long way to go.


----------



## Horstmatt (Oct 17, 2020)

_harris said:


> @Horstmatt it sure seems like you're agreeing with me but trying to disagree. i don't think you understand the point.
> 
> mainstream actually tells us they used stone to bash other stone, and copper to finish it.
> they didn't have technology like we do, but they definitely had some more advanced stone working/moving knowledge (and therefore technology to do so) that either we don't have, or we _aren't allowed_ to have... technology doesn't just mean electricity and computers and power tools
> ...


Well then you're almost agreeing with the mainstream here, because i don't deny that if you're refering to unknown methods with known resources, then it's almost a given that there are unknown technologies of that sort (unless you're talking about starforts being frequency driven power cells or something). What i disagree with you on is the forbidden aspect that you seem to assign to this hypothetical technology, but that's more of a political issue in my opinion. 
Do you have any examples of things we can't reproduce with modern technology (this isn't rhetorical I'm legitimately curious of what examples you might have)? Sometimes there is confusion between things that we can't do and things that we don't do because there is no incentive to.
Because in that case by all definitions you would be right, they would be more advanced than ours.

p.s. I appreciate the good faith in your arguments.

	Post automatically merged: Oct 17, 2020



Armouro said:


> Your topic is broad. In fact, it is all-encompassing. This is and will be a problem; because the breadth of our past is too large to encompass a single argument, point-by-point.
> 
> You have a solid arguable stance, when you say (approximately) that mainstream history is ignored, and that is a problem.
> I agree.
> ...


I agree, but the intent of this thread is to discuss methodology and perspective rather then specific examples. As this is my first threat on this forum, my intent was to create a small list of what i perceive to be flawed argumentative methods and bad faith approaches. This way i can refer back to this post if I find that these are being used against me in discussions regarding more specific alternative history topics.

I am currently working on a response to the KD post about Pompeii as it was suggested to me on this thread.


----------



## JWW427 (Oct 17, 2020)

The largest ship building crane in the world––Big Blue–– at Newport News naval shipyard in VA has a maximum lift capacity of 1100 tons.
The pregnant woman stone at Baalbek is 1400 tons, and the unfinished stone next to it is an estimated 1600 tons.
Do the math.




Stone is crystal. The bigger it is the more piezoelectric / telluric energy it can store.
Thats why the ancients probably went to such lengths to keep it massively megalithic.
Otherwise the Trilithon (Temple of Jupiter) makes no sense. Many smaller stones would have sufficed.

https://hiddenincatours.com/baalbek-in-lebanon-insanely-large-stonework-of-the-gods/


----------



## _harris (Oct 17, 2020)

Horstmatt said:


> Well then you're almost agreeing with the mainstream here, because i don't deny that if you're refering to unknown methods with known resources, then it's almost a given that there are unknown technologies of that sort


only almost, because we're looking at the same places
certainly unknown methods... given that we don't even know what the people who built a lot of really ancient places looked like, what language they spoke, when they existed, or what they were building for.. but when any dating is done that is not agreeable to the mainstream guesswork (it's all educated guesswork on both sides), it is considered false... it's why there's such a divide between mainstream and fringe, though the balance seems to be shifting as some of what were "fringe" ideas now have the scientific backup to qualify in the eyes of mainstream.


Horstmatt said:


> Do you have any examples of things we can't reproduce with modern technology (this isn't rhetorical I'm legitimately curious of what examples you might have)? Sometimes there is confusion between things that we can't do and things that we don't do because there is no incentive to.


well, there's definitely no incentive to build megalithic structures, or monoliths... and 100% a difference between _can't_ and _don't_
the people who do have the resources to do so have no interest in leaving any sort of legacy for us, should there be global destruction
BUT - up until very recently, humans (as we know) didn't even have _any_ sort of technology remotely capable of creating the sort of megalithic masonry we see all over the world
the really ancient unknown stuff is really unfeasible to have been built using simple tools. (youtube user vlad9vt has many picture slide show vids of global megalithic sites)


Horstmatt said:


> p.s. I appreciate the good faith in your arguments.


you're welcome!


----------



## Horstmatt (Oct 17, 2020)

JWW427 said:


> The largest ship building crane in the world––Big Blue–– at Newport News naval shipyard in VA has a maximum lift capacity of 1100 tons.
> The pregnant woman stone at Baalbek is 1400 tons, and the unfinished stone next to it is an estimated 1600 tons.
> Do the math.
> 
> ...


Thanks! I'll look into this.


----------



## Forrest (Oct 17, 2020)

Horstmatt said:


> Citezenship said:
> 
> 
> > Horstmatt said:
> ...



Darwinian evolution, natural selection by gradual changes, doesn't hold up. Saltation Saltation (biology) - Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core , the immediate rise of new kinds of forms, is the only type of evolution we can sometimes verify. I've identified four distinct kinds:

http://www.castaliahouse.com/otherscience-stories-the-pleistocene-murders-part-3/1. Invention of the First Kind. _Ab initio_, _ex nihilo_, absolutely mysterious. The stuff of many religions.
2. Invention of the Second Kind. Two parents make a child.
3. Invention of the Third Kind. Morphic field, for lack of a better term. Convergent evolution is the mainstream dodge.
4. Invention of the Fourth Kind. I didn't call this one out explicitly in The Pleistocene Murders, it's implied:
_The mighty new iron-based horse had to charge... First we broke the grass, only then could we break the bread... Our ascended satellites watch it growing_

	Post automatically merged: Oct 17, 2020



Horstmatt said:


> _harris said:
> 
> 
> > @Horstmatt it sure seems like you're agreeing with me but trying to disagree. i don't think you understand the point.
> ...



"Do you have any examples of things we can't reproduce with modern technology...?"

Yes. I put these in two classes, one for things we might be able to produce with great effort and relatively high tech, and then the absolute stumpers that we can't reproduce at all. A few examples:

*The maybes-*

Saqqara Boxs. Chris Dunn shopped this one around to stone fabricators, nobody could do it in a single piece. We could build special machines with diamond-grit drills, grinders, lasers, etc- and hope we don't shatter the work piece in the process.

Diorite vases. Needs a special lathe tool, sort of like a cylinder hone, that can expand to carve out the inside.

Aswan Quarry. The tool marks on the walls do not resemble anything we have, but might be replicable... with big iron and big motor.

Facing stones of the Great Pyramid. Due to the size, accuracy, and quantity (20,000-50,000 pieces) required, this would cost billions of dollars to reproduce, and machines the size of houses to get it done in a reasonable amount of time

*The absolute stumpers-*

Circular, thin, Egyptian schist doo dads. Or maybe these were molded?

Random cuts in hard rock in the Andes. Some sort of man-portable tool, like a side grinder with a diamond-*tooth* blade?

Core drilling granite. Etc.

The pre-Incan, Egyptian, Easter Is., etc. polygonal stonework.


----------



## JWW427 (Oct 18, 2020)

Don't forget the foundation stones of the 3 great pyramids at Giza.
Pretty massive in themselves.



https://www.megalithicbuilders.com/africa/egypt/lower-egypt/giza-plateau-pyramid-complex


----------



## Whitewave (Oct 18, 2020)

The antikythera machine is another bit of ancient tech that took us way too long to even figure out what it was or what it did. How did an illiterate, backwards, unsophisticated people who, (we're told) believed in a flat, earth-centric universe ever come up with an astronomical computer-like model of a heliocentric, predictive globe model? How did they make the many intricate parts? How did they have the advanced math skills to figure out such a high degree of accuracy? 

There are many, many examples of previous advanced societies that had to have had an technology rivaling our own (if not exceeding it). Architecture is the most enduring but ooparts abound to challenge our historical narrative claiming a linear progression of technological advance culminating in our current iteration as the pinnacle of all that has preceded us.


----------



## JWW427 (Oct 18, 2020)

antikythera machine

My thinking on "Ooparts" such as this one is that someone in power (blackmailed and disgruntled) may have decided to hand out some clues to our genuine historical narrative. A balance of power move.
They could have easily destroyed this one or put it in an archive somewhere.


----------



## Whitewave (Oct 18, 2020)

JWW427 said:


> View attachment 1398
> antikythera machine
> 
> My thinking on "Ooparts" such as this one is that someone in power (blackmailed and disgruntled) decided to hand out some clues to our genuine historical narrative.
> They could have easily destroyed this one or put it in an archive somewhere.


It's claimed its purpose was not even known for a long time after it's discovery. It was just a curiosity, a novel artifact. Probably true or it might well have been locked away or destroyed.


----------



## asatiger1966 (Oct 19, 2020)

JWW427 said:


> View attachment 1398
> antikythera machine
> 
> My thinking on "Ooparts" such as this one is that someone in power (blackmailed and disgruntled) may have decided to hand out some clues to our genuine historical narrative. A balance of power move.
> They could have easily destroyed this one or put it in an archive somewhere.



I think that nothing new can be envisioned or created. All discoveries were already here in some other form. Test name something "new" and explain how it does not connect to what we may know now?

That's why one of the creators of our atomic bomb said that, when a reporter asked him how it felt to create the first one, he answered we were the first to create one in the modern era.

I think that there are many that have more knowledge that reported. Some may think that releasing that knowledge would lead to another catastrophe as before. This is a very old planet.


----------



## Judy.Rugburn (Oct 19, 2020)

asatiger1966 said:


> JWW427 said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 1398
> ...


I agree with you, but I also think that there are ways we can act & choose to behave that are different from what we have been taught & conditioned throughout our lives, micro & macro, to think & believe.

Uncertainty, for example, uncertainty is constant & we’ve built entire belief systems on the “certainty” of what comes after death, on history on science! But life is filled with uncertainty, & most of us cling to the egoic safety of needing to know or control or protect a story that really doesn’t serve us. Becoming comfortable with the uncertainty of life without constantly being re-triggered & acting from a place of fear, instead of sitting with it, listening to it & doing that which scares us, but is in our highest & best, anyway. The outcome of our actions does not always have be the same, but that terrifies a lot of people.  

This is a very personal way to make change, but change always comes from within, first. I think those of us who have the privilege of free time, who have enough survive (even if only just barely) have a duty to the rest of the world’s population to make these personal changes.


----------



## asatiger1966 (Oct 20, 2020)

Horstmatt said:


> Felix Noille said:
> 
> 
> > To assume that something is being hidden based on the the assumption that "They built this using these flimsy looking things" is one thing, and i believe that it is wrong, but going from there and concluding that it couldn't have been another super advanced and hidden ancient civilisation that built the megaliths is ludicrous - the evidence being ignored to make such "discoveries" is all too apparent and a sign that there is a desired conclusion.
> ...



I am very satisfied with your discourse. Just in a few days you have displayed large areas of knowledge and your input is much appreciated.


----------



## Forrest (Oct 20, 2020)

JWW427 said:


> Don't forget the foundation stones of the 3 great pyramids at Giza.
> Pretty massive in themselves.
> 
> View attachment 1395
> ...



The basalt pavers of the patio of the Great Pyramid are an interesting case, something of a cross over from the understandable to the mysterious.

http://ronaldbirdsall.com/gizeh/petrie/c6.html#28*28. "*The basalt pavement is a magnificent work, which covered more than a third of an acre. The blocks of basalt are all sawn and fitted together; they are laid upon a bed of limestone, which is of such a fine quality that the Arabs lately destroyed a large part of the work to extract the limestone for burning. I was assured that the limestone invariably occurs under every block, even though in only a thin layer. Only about a quarter of this pavement remains _in situ,_ and none of it around the edges; the position of it can therefore only be settled by the edge of the rock-cut bed of it. This bed was traced by excavating around its N., E., and S. sides; but on the inner side, next to the Pyramid, no edge could be found; and considering how near it approached to the normal edge of the limestone pavement, and that it is within two inches of the same level as that, it seems most probable that it joined it, and hence the lack of any termination of its bed. "

Chris Dunn proposes that the saws that cut the pavers and the rest were giant circular saws mounted in the "Boat Pits". This is an end-on view of that concept-






*Construction of the Saw*
Instead of Dunn's pillow blocks, the bearings could be made of granite or diorite, with a shaft of the same. Lubrication could be tallow or lard. The bearings need not wrap completely around the shaft as shown. The weight of the circular saw, together with a careful control of the feed rate, could suffice to hold it down. The bearings in this case would be half-cylinders.

The greater part of the circular saw blade itself, the brown element in the image, could have been wooden, at least in its thicker sections. Only the last few feet of its radius need to be thin, probably metal.

A saw this size, say 30-50' diameter (37' in one of Dunn's estimates) , would be massive enough to act as its own flywheel. This rotational inertia reduces the jitter of the cut. The shaft might lead out to a belt drive or direct drive that was human or animal powered, since the major part of the power input is only going into the sawing action itself. Even turning slowly, the rim speed is quite high.

*Evidence of the Circular Saw*
Dunn has a photo of the bottom of one of these pits, which appears to show a circular cut, as if made from a saw that wore out its bearings and jumped downward, the feature marked as "D" in the photo montage below. There is another photo of this feature in close up somewhere. GizaPower:::Abu Rawash







Flinders Petrie proposed emerald, diamond, or sapphire for the teeth of the saws that cut the granite and basalt, set into saw blades made of copper or bronze. There is a very easy way to test these ideas, by sampling the detritus at the bottom of these Boat Pits. We would be looking for fragments of emerald, diamond, and sapphire, as well as basalt dust. The elemental and isotopic signatures of some of the dust should match the basalt pavers.


----------



## JWW427 (Oct 20, 2020)

My gut feeling tells me that iron, steel, and a host of other alloys have been around for hundreds of millions of years.
Somewhere, there is a locked room with some of these old tools.
The rest were melted down or rusted away.
The "Iron Age" and "Bronze Age" are just labels to festoon a jury-rigged archeo timeline.


----------



## asatiger1966 (Oct 21, 2020)

Horstmatt said:


> _harris said:
> 
> 
> > but there's plenty of evidential ancient sites (which you seem to have some awareness of), which show a highly advanced level of stonework, by what must be previous civilisations, prior to even our oldest writings... who did them, if not a lost civilisation?
> ...




Where does the attached photos fix in with mainstream history. Found a few years ago by local boy tending livestock. I have read ages from 5,00- 12,000 years


----------



## jojofelix (Oct 21, 2020)

JWW427 said:


> Stone is crystal. The bigger it is the more piezoelectric / telluric energy it can store.
> Thats why the ancients probably went to such lengths to keep it massively megalithic.
> Otherwise the Trilithon (Temple of Jupiter) makes no sense. Many smaller stones would have sufficed.



makes no sense _to you._ but maybe they had reasons you're not aware of?


----------



## Horstmatt (Oct 21, 2020)

asatiger1966 said:


> Where does the attached photos fix in with mainstream history. Found a few years ago by local boy tending livestock. I have read ages from 5,00- 12,000 years


Is there more conext for these images? All i see here is underground something in the northern Caucasus.


----------



## JWW427 (Oct 21, 2020)

jojofelix said:


> JWW427 said:
> 
> 
> > Stone is crystal. The bigger it is the more piezoelectric / telluric energy it can store.
> ...




My point was that it is far easier to build with smaller blocks. So why didn't they?
Whoever built the "Temple of Jupiter" had very good technological reasons for using the biggest blocks we know of at present for reasons we do not fully understand in the public sector. Unless you have access to a secret archive or USAP or SCIF somewhere that has those answers, we must speculate. Hence my guess of some sort of piezoelectric or electromagnetic telluric energy manipulation, storage, or amplification.
Not to mention one hell of a stable foundation.
What are your speculations?

Or are you here to join forces with "Hazmatt" in the fruitless search for the mainstream mundane, the endless pursuit of establishment mediocrity?
The production of "logical" Royal Society-style cement to smooth over the inconvenient cracks we are creating?
This forum is about pushing limits and breaking them, the destruction of outdated paradigms. And that only comes from wild speculation and unhinged suppositions. If we cant imagine new ideas there will be no new answers.


----------



## Forrest (Oct 22, 2020)

Piezoelectricity - Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core is a property of some materials, and to widely varying degrees..

"The first demonstration of the direct piezoelectric effect was in 1880 by the brothers Pierre Curie and Jacques Curie.[7] They combined their knowledge of pyroelectricity with their understanding of the underlying crystal structures that gave rise to pyroelectricity to predict crystal behavior, and demonstrated the effect using crystals of tourmaline, quartz, topaz, cane sugar, and Rochelle salt (sodium potassium tartrate tetrahydrate). Quartz and Rochelle salt exhibited the most piezoelectricity."

There is a list there of piezoelectric materials and some common uses.

In particular, it's not a source of energy, it's a storage mechanism, like a battery, or the water behind a dam. Squeeze a piezoelectric material and some of the resulting, stored strain energy is converted to an internal electric field (a reciprocating TEM wave, that is), which is measured as a voltage across the two faces of the applied stress.. When the external stress is removed, the voltage drops back to zero. No energy is being generated, only transduced.

One place that this effect becomes interesting is the granite beams above the King's Chamber in the Great Pyramid. These have no structural purpose at all- they don't hold the roof up or add any strength to it. The granite is high in quartz content, and the beams might be cut and tuned, as Chris Dunn suggests. If for example, an earthquake occurs, the mass of rock surrounding the beams exerts cyclical forces on them. They should then resonate at their tuned frequencies. If an electromagnetic wave, whether cyclical or pulsed, is applied, the beams would expand and contract at the same, tuned frequencies, an example of the reverse piezoelectric effect. The sound they make might even be audible.


----------



## asatiger1966 (Oct 22, 2020)

Horstmatt said:


> asatiger1966 said:
> 
> 
> > Where does the attached photos fix in with mainstream history. Found a few years ago by local boy tending livestock. I have read ages from 5,00- 12,000 years
> ...



Syvil at New Earth and Megalith.o made videos of their trip to the site.


Horstmatt said:


> asatiger1966 said:
> 
> 
> > Where does the attached photos fix in with mainstream history. Found a few years ago by local boy tending livestock. I have read ages from 5,00- 12,000 years
> ...



Sylvie at Ancient Megaliths and Historic sites went to the site and made a video,. The subject was brought up on SH in 2018.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWW1uLX3ClY_
 this is Sylvie video.

Searched for same and found this off the wall site, but it has some info. Ancient Underground City Found In Russia? (VIDEO)


----------



## jojofelix (Oct 25, 2020)

JWW427 said:


> jojofelix said:
> 
> 
> > JWW427 said:
> ...



I'm all for speculation. I objected because it looked like you were saying "if they weren't using these giant stones because of their piezoelectric properties, these megalithic buildings make no sense".


----------



## JWW427 (Oct 25, 2020)

I said: "Probably."


----------



## sandokhan (Dec 10, 2020)

The largest granite block at Baalbek weighs almost 2,000 tons. 

However, the largest block in the world weighs ten times as much: 20,000 tons.





https://web.archive.org/web/2016103.../Erich von Daniken - Chariots Of The Gods.pdf
Our imagination is unable to conceive what technical resources our forefathers used to extract a monolithic rock of more than 100 tons from a quarry, and then transport it and work it in a distant spot. But when we are confronted with a block with an estimated *weight of 20,000 tons*, our imagination, made rather blase by the technical achievements of today, is given its severest shock. On the way back from the fortifications of Sacsayhuaman, in a crater in the mountainside, a few hundred yards away, the visitor comes across a monstrosity. It is a single stone block the size of a four-storey house. It has been impeccably dressed in the most craftsmanlike way; it has steps and ramps and is adorned with spirals and holes. Surely the fashioning of this unprecedented stone block cannot have been merely a bit of leisure activity for the Incas? Surely it is much more likely that it served some as yet inexplicable purpose? To make the solution of the puzzle even more difficult the whole monstrous block stands on its head. So the steps run downward from the roof; the holes point in different directions like the indentations of a grenade; strange depressions, shaped rather like chairs, seem to hang floating in space.

Who can imagine that human hands and human endeavour excavated, transported and dressed this block? What power overturned it?

What titantic forces were at work here?

_The quarries for the stones are located 9 miles and 20 miles away, on the other side of a mountain range and a deep river gorge. Within a few hundred yards of the complex is a single stone that was carved from the mountainside, moved some distance, and then abandoned. The stone contains steps, platforms and depressions, probably intended as a part of the fortifications. It now sits upside-down, the size of a five-storey house. _

http://www.ancient-wisdom.com/perusacsahuaman.htm

	Post automatically merged: Dec 10, 2020

Cyclopean blocks around the world (best collection):

https://el-libertario.webnode.es/en/piedras-ciclopeas/
Here is another monstrous block of stone that few researcher have knowledge about (bridge of the giants, eastern europe; locals say it was built by Hercules):


----------



## Broken Agate (Jan 29, 2021)

Horstmatt said:


> ...no serious historian claims that Christopher Collumbus was the first European in the Americas, what he did do was create the first permanent links between America and Europe. It is now accepted that the Vikings were the first known Europeans to establish contact America...



A great many things are claimed and accepted, that doesn't make them true. What got me started on alternative history was the presence of millions of buildings partly buried in the ground, with not a single historian explaining why, other than the extremely silly, "That's just how they built things back then," or "cultural layers." I look at Google satellite maps and it's glaringly obvious that the remnants of entire cities are buried under the ground. How did they get there? Why are no mainstream quackademics addressing this issue? Why do archaeologists always insist on "restoring" certain ruins, without even knowing what they originally looked like?

It is a fact that Joseph Scaliger added about a thousand years to the historical timeline. Calendars are changed frequently. Why are there all these shenanigans surrounding the dates and times of historical events? If history is set in stone, why does everyone lie about when it happened? They tell us about civilizations 4000 years ago, while simultaneously being unable, or unwilling, to tell us why there are photographs of cities in the 1800s that are half-drowned in mud. It's things like this that convince me that historians can't be trusted. They don't know the truth, they only know whatever propaganda they've been told.


----------



## treeza (Mar 11, 2021)

dreamtime said:


> Beyond what's been written on the forum, you could start with reading Fomenko, Illig, Heinsohn, Johnson, Topper, Hardouin, Newton, Tschurilow, which are classical chronology critics.
> 
> When it comes to discussions in this forum, you can simply look at the countless topics and provide your specific counter-arguments.
> 
> ...


thanks dreamtime love your reaction and ccomments!!!!


----------



## asatiger1966 (Mar 13, 2021)

Horstmatt said:


> Citezenship said:
> 
> 
> > You make it sound the the words are written by some kind of heretic, doe's not matter the author because the words speak for themselves, it is just a theory, unless of course you can prove otherwise??
> ...



Yes and no?


----------



## luddite (Mar 13, 2021)

Horstmatt said:


> Do you believe that evolution is fake?



It is as fake as space. My favorite part is how Penicillin is produced when growth of the fungus is inhibited by stress. Since 1940, this stress hasn't evolved anything. Yet, it is part of massive production systems, year after year where this stress is created. Yet, nothing. No change.

The same with bacteria, mice, rats, fly's etc, in lab experiments. They never change, in fact that is why they are used. The are a standard reference point....because after billions of generations there has still not been any change for these smaller, shorter lived things. 

Darwin was wrong. He was simply trying to retain his importance and much needed funding....very similar to science workers now.


----------



## gkelly (Mar 13, 2021)

I think the threads where people simply raise questions and then present the possible evidence that might disprove the official accepted facts are the best.  Using the Bible to prove things has always seemed very shaky at best.  And don't get me started on the lizard people and David Icky.


----------



## Worsaae (Mar 13, 2021)

luddite said:


> Horstmatt said:
> 
> 
> > Do you believe that evolution is fake?
> ...


It is actually a problem in research that mice, rats, etc they do change, because then they don't correctly represent normal mice, rats etc.


----------



## Whitewave (Mar 13, 2021)

Worsaae said:


> luddite said:
> 
> 
> > Horstmatt said:
> ...


Curious. Do they change after being experimented on or freshly unpacked?


----------



## luddite (Mar 13, 2021)

Whitewave said:


> Worsaae said:
> 
> 
> > luddite said:
> ...


The only change is that they die.


----------



## Worsaae (Mar 16, 2021)

Whitewave said:


> Worsaae said:
> 
> 
> > luddite said:
> ...


Now it is some time since I looked into it, but basically the breeding process is different from nature. Researchers want as many subjects as possible, which over generations shortens a part of the chromosome which I forgot the name of, then after time, the lab rats/mice do not resemble the natural rats, which is a problem for researchers, because they rely on the rats to be a good representation of the natural rats. It is not the experiments per say that changes them, but because they breed too much, too young compared to natural rats/mice.  

Evolution definitely works on a microlevel but I understand the criticism against macroevolution.


----------



## ViniB (Jul 7, 2022)

This is a pretty late replay but i think it's worth, here de have 2 great examples of good old nonsense being passed as hardcore truth:

A 2k years old Agate bowl carved and polished to cnc machine level of accuracy, and a over 3k years trousers! The bowl is in the same category of other egyptian items, alledged carved with copper tools & wood hammers

But those trousers, i need a better theory other than "arid environment preserves stuff well"......

Dating methods


----------

