7 ms·

> Put it another way, if we had a 3000 year ice age start tomorrow, that was ended with a comet impact that melted the ice in a couple of months with biblical f

> Put it another way, if we had a 3000 year ice age start tomorrow, that was ended with a comet impact that melted the ice in a couple of months with biblical flooding (or any of a host of other possible apocalypses), how confident would you be that remnants of our civilization would be traceable 15,000 years hence? Very. We found paintings and cut flints from the tiny number of humans living during the last Ice Age; the foundations of London and NY and Beijing and Sydney are a bit harder to miss! More to the point, I don't think HNers need to keep an open mind over whether someone whose most basic claims about the site (perfect compass orientation) can be refuted with a casual glance at a contour map (and who also writes books about Hitler living in an Antarctica base!) might have some great understanding about the cosmic significance of the site everyone else has missed. Except him whilst appealing for government funding excavations that would "break a cloud of negative energy" It's the difference between believing that extraterrestrial intelligence plausibly exists and is possibly even likely, and believing that ET is a documentary

keepamovin 3y ago
I agree with you, we would find stuff. Especially large foundations. And that's what I think some of these megalithic sites are. The large foundations of buildings or previous small-scale civilizations on Earth, human or not. From way back in time, much longer than just 15,000 years. Also, as these megalithic foundations could conceivably last 100,000s of years we don't really know from how far back they could originate. I'm not sure what you're referring to with your references to 'compass navigation', 'Hitler in antartica', 'cosmic significance' and 'negative energy'--do you have sources for these claims?--but in any case it's never wise to judge someone's work by their other work (if such ad hominem is what you are suggesting). A simple example that we could all probably relate to: on Monday you made a series of very poor commits, but that was the best you could do at the time. But on Wednesday you did stellar work, representing the best of your capabilities at any time. It's incorrect and unfair of me to doubt your Wednesday work because of your Monday failure, and unfair and incorrect of me to judge you a poor programmer because of Monday. I can see you are a good programmer, who is human! :) Perhaps a more pertinent example: think of Newton. Would you be so bold as to disagree with his physics and discount his laws because he was also passionate about alchemy? Or would you expand yourself to also admit alchemy could be as valid as Newton through it could be? Or would you pick and choose, selecting only those ideas which you deemed to have merit, or not, based on how they stand on their own, rather than against generalities you may be inclined to make across the body of work as a whole, or, in an ad hominem sense, about the person whose work it was? I think it's clear which is the most sensible course there, but I also understand that you could differ, and that's fine, and interesting! I look forward to knowing your perspective, if you'd like to share it! :) I like your simple analogy, between accepting the ET reality, but not the film ET as reality. I think it captures quite a lot of stuff well! Indeed, perhaps more than you intend, as I think often, all disciplines and theories are want to become captive to the narratives we tell ourselves--and obsessed as we get with those narratives, we may miss out on the truth! :) So, I think, judicious and critical consideration of the facts, and the narratives, and open minded exploration, is essential to finding the truth (as hard as that is), and is a good way forward. Finally, regarding finding more evidence of prior civilizations--consider that during/before the last ice age sea levels were 120 meters lower and that often, civilizations form around rivers and deltas which are typically in low lying regions. These regions are most likely to be the first to be flooded. So, evidence of other cultures may be there, it just may be located under the ocean. Even so, very distant civilizations may not leave many traces at all, besides their very durable megalithic foundations.

keepamovin 3y ago

I agree with you, we would find stuff. Especially large foundations. And that's what I think some of these megalithic sites are. The large foundations of buildings or previous small-scale civilizations on Earth, human or not. From way back in time, much longer than just 15,000 years. Also, as these megalithic foundations could conceivably last 100,000s of years we don't really know from how far back they could originate. I'm not sure what you're referring to with your references to 'compass navigation', 'Hitler in antartica', 'cosmic significance' and 'negative energy'--do you have sources for these claims?--but in any case it's never wise to judge someone's work by their other work (if such ad hominem is what you are suggesting). A simple example that we could all probably relate to: on Monday you made a series of very poor commits, but that was the best you could do at the time. But on Wednesday you did stellar work, representing the best of your capabilities at any time. It's incorrect and unfair of me to doubt your Wednesday work because of your Monday failure, and unfair and incorrect of me to judge you a poor programmer because of Monday. I can see you are a good programmer, who is human! :) Perhaps a more pertinent example: think of Newton. Would you be so bold as to disagree with his physics and discount his laws because he was also passionate about alchemy? Or would you expand yourself to also admit alchemy could be as valid as Newton through it could be? Or would you pick and choose, selecting only those ideas which you deemed to have merit, or not, based on how they stand on their own, rather than against generalities you may be inclined to make across the body of work as a whole, or, in an ad hominem sense, about the person whose work it was? I think it's clear which is the most sensible course there, but I also understand that you could differ, and that's fine, and interesting! I look forward to knowing your perspective, if you'd like to share it! :) I like your simple analogy, between accepting the ET reality, but not the film ET as reality. I think it captures quite a lot of stuff well! Indeed, perhaps more than you intend, as I think often, all disciplines and theories are want to become captive to the narratives we tell ourselves--and obsessed as we get with those narratives, we may miss out on the truth! :) So, I think, judicious and critical consideration of the facts, and the narratives, and open minded exploration, is essential to finding the truth (as hard as that is), and is a good way forward. Finally, regarding finding more evidence of prior civilizations--consider that during/before the last ice age sea levels were 120 meters lower and that often, civilizations form around rivers and deltas which are typically in low lying regions. These regions are most likely to be the first to be flooded. So, evidence of other cultures may be there, it just may be located under the ocean. Even so, very distant civilizations may not leave many traces at all, besides their very durable megalithic foundations.