Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Desertrat56

Glen Rose, Texas, USA

62 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Piney
1 hour ago, Harte said:

Ramtha says my autistic son is disabled because he deserves to be disabled.

Harte

Pretty much. 

Ignorance is so ignorant. :mellow: 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
jaylemurph

I’m not sure whether to be sad or angry when people embarrass themselves speaking that way. 

But I know for damn sure I’d rather spend a day with Harte Jr or Piney than that [redacted]. 

—Jaylemurph 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coil
15 hours ago, Kenemet said:

Okay, I'll bite.  Which scientist said this and when?


This is just an article in Russian in which American scientists without surnames are simply indicated. Look at the statues and their smooth surfaces and imagine how much time you need to polish the stones so that they are smooth. And in order to beat the pieces off the rock, how much time is needed and it is impossible to beat off so smoothly because the basalt stone crumbles easily.

 

15 hours ago, Kenemet said:

If science can't discover it, how do you know it's true?  

If you say "a religious/spiritual teacher told it" then how do you know that THIS spiritual teacher is right and not the ones of the Australian aborigines or any other group with spiritual teachers who all contradict your information?


The records of all races were preserved or some people with supernormal abilities could read historical events as they are recorded in the mental archives of our planet. Science will not open it because there are no physical remains or were flooded with oceans. So who has the faith will find such information.

11 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

I think you’ve confused history for a volume of 1930s sub-Lovecraftian pulp. 

Which sounds exactly on-brand for you. 

Do you actually believe this malarkey or are you just having us on, collectively?

—Jaylemurph 


It is unlikely that science can disprove this information as it is necessary to see exactly how it all happened, but they cannot see it, unlike initiates and psychics.

In the end, if it all comes down to faith, then it’s hard for a person who doubts or a scientific mindset to believe it.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

Regarding my boy, be careful what you wish for.

He's quite demanding.

Harte

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
1 hour ago, Coil said:


This is just an article in Russian in which American scientists without surnames are simply indicated. Look at the statues and their smooth surfaces and imagine how much time you need to polish the stones so that they are smooth. And in order to beat the pieces off the rock, how much time is needed and it is impossible to beat off so smoothly because the basalt stone crumbles easily.

The records of all races were preserved or some people with supernormal abilities could read historical events as they are recorded in the mental archives of our planet. Science will not open it because there are no physical remains or were flooded with oceans. So who has the faith will find such information.


It is unlikely that science can disprove this information as it is necessary to see exactly how it all happened, but they cannot see it, unlike initiates and psychics.

In the end, if it all comes down to faith, then it’s hard for a person who doubts or a scientific mindset to believe it.
 

There is no such thing as "the mental archives of our planet". That is what is known as story telling. It is made up stories and serve only as entertainment.

Science as you point out is not involved in story telling and making up stories for entertainment purposes. Science does not involve frauds called psychics. There is nothing that has ever been revealed by a psychic that has been of use. They fool people that want to be fooled. They easily trick the gullible into believing them. They are frauds. They are frauds because they pretend to get the information through means other than what they actually use. If they stated they were going to amaze you then they would not be the frauds they are. They are frauds because they claim to connect to things that do not exist and are not the means they use to state what they do.

Your ideas are faith based. You believe without any evidence to support your beliefs. 

Here are things that are wrong in your post:

Fallacy: " it is impossible to beat off so smoothly because the basalt stone crumbles easily"

At best this suggests that this is not the technique used. Polishing is rarely done using impacts. Would you polish a car with a hammer? I doubt it. You'd use a cloth and a fine abrasive leaving a shiny look. Stones are often rubbed against other stones to leave a polished look. They might even employ a fine abrasive powder.

Appeal to incredulity: "Look at the statues and their smooth surfaces and imagine how much time you need to polish the stones so that they are smooth."

Here you imagine how much time was required. I think that people did invest time to do these things. At best your argument might wonder how much time people invested in this effort instead of applying their efforts to food production or other necessities of life.

People learn about these ancient objects by attempting to replicate the objects. They do  not need to show a completed effort as much as they need to show that it is possible and to determine some bounds on the work effort required.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coil
18 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Fallacy: " it is impossible to beat off so smoothly because the basalt stone crumbles easily"

At best this suggests that this is not the technique used. Polishing is rarely done using impacts. Would you polish a car with a hammer? I doubt it. You'd use a cloth and a fine abrasive leaving a shiny look. Stones are often rubbed against other stones to leave a polished look. They might even employ a fine abrasive powder.

Traces of machining are left on the stones, which means that it was not a native civilization who did this.

Faith is absentee knowledge in which science can not believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
26 minutes ago, Coil said:

Traces of machining are left on the stones, which means that it was not a native civilization who did this.

Faith is absentee knowledge in which science can not believe.

There are no traces of machining unless they were made after the fact from people attempting to remove the statues. The original statues were made with lithic technologies. That means stone on stone.

Faith is believing just for the sake of believing. Faith is often in denial of facts because the facts interfere with the belief. This is seen in flat earthers, chem trail believers, and creationists.

Absentee knowledge is a made up term to pretend something once existed. That term is a crutch for the believer to lean on when they have nothing of value.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coil
Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, Kenemet said:

 

In his writings on Easter Island, the Norwegian traveler Thor Heyerdahl hypothesized that the islands of Polynesia were settled by American Indians.

By exploring Easter Island, Heyerdal supported his hypothesis with several arguments. First, he argued that the technique of erection of Rapanui ahu and moai is similar to the technique of erecting such structures in the Andes. He found the greatest similarity between Ahu Vinapa on Rapa Nui and several buildings in Cuzco (Peru), which date back to the pre-Inca period:

Spoiler

Ahuvinapu.jpg

 

Machu Picchu

machu_picchu_image011.jpg

Bad Valley megaliths (Indonesia):

stone_11.jpg

 

And the most ancient structure of megaliths is Turkey Gebekli Tepe 12 millennium BC. That is, the construction of megaliths is known for a long time than the islanders settled Easter Island, which suggests that a certain common civilization and culture united them. And who could swim in the oceans? This could be done by the Atlanteans, who in turn adopted the culture of the Lemurians. As the continent of Lemuria stretched from Indonesia, it skirted the Indian and Pacific Ocean.

Spoiler

scale_600-1-.jpg

Another version of the mainland Lemuria:

JmWhLPm-W7v-Ba1MFh0OiVKJapnXtHgERqrcuqoi

 

 

 

"For the first time the light of knowledge ignited Lemurians, gloomy giants. The Atlanteans lifted him up to the sky!"
V. Bryusov.

 

 

Edited by Coil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
Posted (edited)

Not only is there the use of a fictional land bridge from the Indian Ocean, but now we have that land bride moved to another location.

There has never been a place called Lemuria. The proposed land bridge was suggested as a way to explain the distribution of lemur fossils.

In the 1950s the emergence of plate tectonics as an explanation for horizontal movement of land masses the notion of land bridges doing their vertical motions went away. Land bridges were not due to the vertical motions of land masses, but to changes in sea level. The 1940s brought in the large scale bathymetric studies needed in WWII.  The maps show no land masses below the surface of the Indian Ocean.

Fallacy: "As the continent of Lemuria stretched from Indonesia, it skirted the Indian and Pacific Ocean."

Lemuria connected the places where lemur fossils are found, i.e. Madagascar and India. This claim of Indonesia is the wrong location for the once suggested land bridge. 

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/fossil-lemur-aye-aye-bat-madagascar

Fallacy: "This could be done by the Atlanteans, who in turn adopted the culture of the Lemurians."

Not only are there no people living on the fictional Lemuria, there is no Atlantis and Atlanteans. Mixing fiction does not make the story any more real. It simply makes for more fiction.

 

The plate tectonic explanation for the distribution of lemur fossils also explains the existence of cichlids in India.

Edited by stereologist
more info
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
khazarkhum
3 hours ago, stereologist said:

Not only is there the use of a fictional land bridge from the Indian Ocean, but now we have that land bride moved to another location.

There has never been a place called Lemuria. The proposed land bridge was suggested as a way to explain the distribution of lemur fossils.

In the 1950s the emergence of plate tectonics as an explanation for horizontal movement of land masses the notion of land bridges doing their vertical motions went away. Land bridges were not due to the vertical motions of land masses, but to changes in sea level. The 1940s brought in the large scale bathymetric studies needed in WWII.  The maps show no land masses below the surface of the Indian Ocean.

Fallacy: "As the continent of Lemuria stretched from Indonesia, it skirted the Indian and Pacific Ocean."

Lemuria connected the places where lemur fossils are found, i.e. Madagascar and India. This claim of Indonesia is the wrong location for the once suggested land bridge. 

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/fossil-lemur-aye-aye-bat-madagascar

Fallacy: "This could be done by the Atlanteans, who in turn adopted the culture of the Lemurians."

Not only are there no people living on the fictional Lemuria, there is no Atlantis and Atlanteans. Mixing fiction does not make the story any more real. It simply makes for more fiction.

 

The plate tectonic explanation for the distribution of lemur fossils also explains the existence of cichlids in India.

Keep in mind that plate tectonics wasn't fully accepted until the 1970s. When first proposed, it was, at best, the victim of ridicule and scorn. People wouldn't touch it, out of fear of having their careers ruined.  To this day there are people bickering about the Beringia land bridge. But there's still no evidence anywhere for Lemuria.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
9 minutes ago, khazarkhum said:

Keep in mind that plate tectonics wasn't fully accepted until the 1970s. When first proposed, it was, at best, the victim of ridicule and scorn. People wouldn't touch it, out of fear of having their careers ruined.  To this day there are people bickering about the Beringia land bridge. But there's still no evidence anywhere for Lemuria.

I like your username and the gaited horse in your avatar. :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
10 minutes ago, khazarkhum said:

Keep in mind that plate tectonics wasn't fully accepted until the 1970s. When first proposed, it was, at best, the victim of ridicule and scorn. People wouldn't touch it, out of fear of having their careers ruined.  To this day there are people bickering about the Beringia land bridge. But there's still no evidence anywhere for Lemuria.

I realize that. I wonder if there is confusion of continental drift with plate tectonics. The previous concept did receive quite a bit of ridicule and for valid scientific reasons. The acceptance of plate tectonics by the 70s was due to good evidence for the movement of the plates. As I pointed out  land bridges such as the Beringia land bridge were due to changes in sea level. The original land bridges were proposed assuming that land made vertical changes.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.