African history

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: cachibatches


Sorry, but you're the one not seeing the forrest for the trees here. You're focusing on Greece's lack of fertile farmland to the detriment of all other resources. Yes, their wealth was built on trade but to obtain that trade required a navy. You can't have a navy without lumber, without a way to feed your standing armies and navy, to pay them and to cloth them, you simply don't have them. You're neglecting the big picture and focusing on specific details.

As for Rome being reliant on Egyptian grain... not anywhere near to the extent you seek to insist. Rome stretched from North Africa (Carthage) to Britannia long before the death of Caesar, the triple alliance, civil war and eventual ascendency of Augustus. They did quite well for hundreds of years prior to incorporating Ptolemaic Egypt into the blossom of Rome.

As to your thoughts on domestication in Africa, particularly Zebras... morphological similarities are where their affinity with Equus ends. Taming them has only happened on a small scale and domestication has never been successful. They've never been ridden, they are morphologically too small to support the weight of a grown man. Sure, with several thousand years of selective breeding it could have been accomplished similarly to horses, but Zebra have some unique personality traits as a result of their close quarters contract with predators and created a unique set of behaviors not found in horses. When a horse is spooked, it kicks randomly and tries to get away. When a zebra gets scared or kissed off and kicks, it looks down between it's legs, aims, and goes for the head. Just to provide context, Zebras kill lions with kicks to the head, either immediately or because they break the lions jaw and it starves to death. No horse has ever killed a lion! And even "tame" zebras will inflict vicious bite wounds on their handlers. They are simply far more aggressive than horses and have a social hierarchy based on dominant females. Horses have no such thing. To keep comparing the Zebra to a horse and insist it should have been easy is born of notnloking at all of the facts.

And just to quickly touch on your hypothetical evolutionary scenarios... it's a really over simplified and dumbed down approach by saying tribe A went north into Europe, tribe B. Went East into Asia, Tribe C. Went to the Americas and so on and so forth. We know by studying genomics that human migrations and admixture events are a much more complicated scenario than what you are describing in vastly over simplified terms.

You are simply repeating things that are factually incorrect, and I can only repeat myself so many times.

A) Greece has notoriously poor soils. This is why they became colonizers. Fact. It is NOT debated by historians.

Egypt was the most fertile land of the ancient Mediterranean world. Fact.

Egypt became the bread basket of the Roman empire. When grain shipments from Egypt were held held up from Egypt, civil unrest ensued due to the empire's dependence. They "did quite well" before the empire as it became was guilt. Fact. None of this is debated by historians.

Zebras have been both tamed and bred by Europeans, meaning that they can be domesticated. FACT. If it had been done thousands of years ago, there would be docile breeds due to selection. FACT. That is how genetics works. Indeed, there used to be a more docile sub-species that is not extinct.

These are just things that you need to research.

You seem to be confusing the end result with the initial conditions. As I recall, the OP discussed the initial conditions and not what happened 5,000 years later.

A) Greece has notoriously poor soils. This is why they became colonizers. Fact. It is NOT debated by historians.

I'm not sure what you mean by "colonizers" here. What era and which Greek groups are you talking about?

Egypt became the bread basket of the Roman empire. When grain shipments from Egypt were held held up from Egypt, civil unrest ensued due to the empire's dependence.

Grain shipments to Rome itself, not to the empire See Wikipedia - bot other sources go along with this.) The empire itself didn't depend on Egyptian grain (Wikipedia, for convenience which also mentions that they exported grain an that grain came in and moved through the Silk Road.)

Re zebras: I agree with Peter Vlar, having done some research on this topic recently. Rothschild only used them as carriage animals because they were not sturdy enough to ride nor could they be driven past other zebras (source) There are hybrids that are more suitable but these aren't pure zebras and in some cases are very far removed from zebra parents.

See also Slate - I have other links from people who have owned them and sell them that say basically the same thing.


Do you have some links to back your frequent statements about historians? Peter and I always appreciate a good link.

originally posted by: cachibatches

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: cachibatches


Sorry, but you're the one not seeing the forrest for the trees here. You're focusing on Greece's lack of fertile farmland to the detriment of all other resources. Yes, their wealth was built on trade but to obtain that trade required a navy. You can't have a navy without lumber, without a way to feed your standing armies and navy, to pay them and to cloth them, you simply don't have them. You're neglecting the big picture and focusing on specific details.

As for Rome being reliant on Egyptian grain... not anywhere near to the extent you seek to insist. Rome stretched from North Africa (Carthage) to Britannia long before the death of Caesar, the triple alliance, civil war and eventual ascendency of Augustus. They did quite well for hundreds of years prior to incorporating Ptolemaic Egypt into the blossom of Rome.

As to your thoughts on domestication in Africa, particularly Zebras... morphological similarities are where their affinity with Equus ends. Taming them has only happened on a small scale and domestication has never been successful. They've never been ridden, they are morphologically too small to support the weight of a grown man. Sure, with several thousand years of selective breeding it could have been accomplished similarly to horses, but Zebra have some unique personality traits as a result of their close quarters contract with predators and created a unique set of behaviors not found in horses. When a horse is spooked, it kicks randomly and tries to get away. When a zebra gets scared or kissed off and kicks, it looks down between it's legs, aims, and goes for the head. Just to provide context, Zebras kill lions with kicks to the head, either immediately or because they break the lions jaw and it starves to death. No horse has ever killed a lion! And even "tame" zebras will inflict vicious bite wounds on their handlers. They are simply far more aggressive than horses and have a social hierarchy based on dominant females. Horses have no such thing. To keep comparing the Zebra to a horse and insist it should have been easy is born of notnloking at all of the facts.

And just to quickly touch on your hypothetical evolutionary scenarios... it's a really over simplified and dumbed down approach by saying tribe A went north into Europe, tribe B. Went East into Asia, Tribe C. Went to the Americas and so on and so forth. We know by studying genomics that human migrations and admixture events are a much more complicated scenario than what you are describing in vastly over simplified terms.

You are simply repeating things that are factually incorrect, and I can only repeat myself so many times.

Or you can support your assertions with citations. Simply writing fact in all caps doesn't make something a fact. I'm not repeating anything incorrect. I'm sorry that you disagree, but it's not up to me to disprove your thesis. It's up to you to support it.

A) Greece has notoriously poor soils. This is why they became colonizers. Fact. It is NOT debated by historians.

Again, citations please. Please reread what I wrote about Greece. You can not build ships of the type built by the Greeks (though as Byrd points out, your rather ambiguous on the time frame you are referencing so I'm not sure if you're referencing Bronze Age or Iron Age Greece)) without the resources to do so. That my friend is a fact. You can not feed, cloth and supply an army without the resources already in place. Military tactics 101. Supply lines are vital, without them you fail just as the Persians did unde Xerxes. And where did the geeks colonize again? You're not talking about any particular time frame and are throwing around wild overgeneralizations

Egypt was the most fertile land of the ancient Mediterranean world. Fact.

Perhaps you could explain then, why the North African provinces provided twice the amount of grain that Egypt did after annexation by Augustus. You're also completely ignoring the first 700 years of Roman history where a large amount of grain was supplied by Sicily and Sardinia prior to Egyptian annexation. This can all be found in multiple sources of contemporary Roman writers, including Josephus.

Egypt became the bread basket of the Roman empire.

Again, even after annexation by Augustus, North African provinces supplied twice the grain that Egypt did. And this applied to the city of Rome and nearby areas. Not the entire Republic/Empire ( you aren't being specific as to time frames so I don't know which periods you're referring to and you're all over the place).

When grain shipments from Egypt were held held up from Egypt, civil unrest ensued due to the empire's dependence.

They "did quite well" before the empire as it became was guilt. Fact. None of this is debated by historians.

Yelling that it's a fact and saying historians support it is rubbish without citations. I've read what Josephus and others have to say, the actual Roman sources. What are your sources? If I'm wrong, I'm always happy to learn something. IF you can provide links to support your blustering.

Zebra have been both tamed and bred by Europeans, meaning that they can be domesticated. FACT.

Taming and domestication are two drastically different things. They've been tamed and bred in Africa as well. They still haven't been domesticated. And again, Zebras are too small to suppprt a human rider and they have a very strict female driven social hierarchy. If a female lower on the totem pole were to try to move past a female in higher social standing, there would be an all out attack by the higher ranking female. This was all proven by the 2nd Baron Rothschild when he tried to domesticate them himself. He was a little eccentric and whacky, but a hell of a zoologist.

If it had been done thousands of years ago, there would be docile breeds due to selection. FACT. That is how genetics works.

That's exactly what I said above. FACT

Indeed, there used to be a more docile sub-species that is not extinct.

Used to be implies they no longer exist. Not extinct means they're still here. I think you're a little confused. Are you referencing the hybridization experiments to create more docile forms of zebras? Those aren't actually zebras though.

These are just things that you need to research.

I've done the research and my answers are based on many years of both formal and autodidactic education. You're the one making the claims. The onus lies with you to support them. FACT

a reply to: punkinworks10

Pangaea was a supercontinent that existed during the late Paleozoic and early Mesozoic eras. It assembled from earlier continental units approximately 335 million years ago, and it began to break apart about 175 million years ago.
Homo sapiens sapiens have been shown to have been around for about 3.5 million years. If you are willing to take the totality of the disregarded (yet kept) archeological finds that are available for study (The Unabridged Forbidden Archeology). O yeah debunked, not disproven, as the wealth of evidence is just to great. A subtle difference, but still a difference.

a reply to: JarridSinn

Probably longer than that and of course that would mean either we are not apes despite biological similarity's or that the species were created or seeded many time's over from a set of standard templates of some kind, a gene bank even.
groups.google.com...#!topic/talk.radio/DlG9BvX1dZ8

This does not mean they were us, but it does mean that something very similar to us, created/seeded by the same source as we were existed then.

God, alien's, colony ship's, Gene Bank's, a race knowing it was going to go extinct placing something out there, a periodic visitor back to the solar system that would re-seed there home world in the hope that some day there race would survive and not die out or self destruct.

Who know's just speculating but a subject I love and I do not obviously buy into the whole primate ancestry evolution which is not to say that I do not believe in evolution as a mechanism because I am certain it does work as such but I do not accept that we were ever primates given the evidence to the contrary even if that evidence is deliberately ignored or even hidden.


One of my pet idea's is that the human race may not even be from here, the earth was seeded and perhaps many time's over and perhaps there is even a cyclic reason for this.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: JarridSinn

Probably longer than that and of course that would mean either we are not apes despite biological similarity's

Biological similarities... you mean like sharing a statistically significant portion of each other's genome? The evidence for commons ancestry goes far beyond biological similarity and I think you probably know that.

or that the species were created or seeded many time's over from a set of standard templates of some kind, a gene bank even

But why are H. Sapiens so special that they're the only species that rates such special treatment? And then there's the drought of evidence for any such event actually occurring, but I'm honestly more curious why you think our species rates such special treatment and no others have been a part of you're hundreds of millions of years long breed HFM program.

groups.google.com...#!topic/talk.radio/DlG9BvX1dZ8

Link doesn't work as is and when I got to the site you linked, every one of their links to whatever purported evidence they claim was DOA and have nothing viewable.

This does not mean they were us, but it does mean that something very similar to us, created/seeded by the same source as we were existed then.

Without any actual evidence shown, there isn't actually anything to comment on. I would have loved to have seen the alleged photos they believe are all the evidence needed to overturn 160 years of increasing evidence.

God, alien's, colony ship's, Gene Bank's, a race knowing it was going to go extinct placing something out there, a periodic visitor back to the solar system that would re-seed there home world in the hope that some day there race would survive and not die out or self destruct.

It's a fun bit of mental gymnastics, certainly. But I find it difficult to believe that we have such a genetic affinity with every known organism on Earth yet our origins lie elsewhere...?

Who know's just speculating but a subject I love and I do not obviously buy into the whole primate ancestry evolution which is not to say that I do not believe in evolution as a mechanism because I am certain it does work as such but I do not accept that we were ever primates given the evidence to the contrary even if that evidence is deliberately ignored or even hidden.

I must have missed it, could you fill me in on what evidence exists showing that we don't actually share a MRCA with other apes that is being deliberately hidden and ignored?

It's interesting that you believe that evolution is an actual biological mechanism yet refuse to believe that HSS share common ancestry with Great Apes or far more broadly, as you put it, primates.

One of my pet idea's is that the human race may not even be from here, the earth was seeded and perhaps many time's over and perhaps there is even a cyclic reason for this.

If this were true, how do you explain the genetics? I'll ignore the fossil record, biological and anatomical data. I'm just curious how you reconcile the concepts in your own mind.

a reply to: peter vlar

Just one question on what seems to be an absolute point. i ask because it is very difficult, if not impossible, to find the answer. here goes nothing, in all the study of genetics has any other mammal been found to have a fused gene, or what might be the catalyst for such a gene?

originally posted by: JarridSinn
a reply to: peter vlar

Just one question on what seems to be an absolute point. i ask because it is very difficult, if not impossible, to find the answer. here goes nothing, in all the study of genetics has any other mammal been found to have a fused gene, or what might be the catalyst for such a gene?

Yes

www.els.net...

Gene fusion is a process by which the complete or partial sequences of two or more distinct genes are fused into a single chimeric gene or transcript, as a result of deoxyribonucleic acid‐ or ribonucleic acid‐derived rearrangements. This phenomenon is widespread and has been observed across all domains of life.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: JarridSinn

Probably longer than that and of course that would mean either we are not apes despite biological similarity's

Biological similarities... you mean like sharing a statistically significant portion of each other's genome? The evidence for commons ancestry goes far beyond biological similarity and I think you probably know that.

or that the species were created or seeded many time's over from a set of standard templates of some kind, a gene bank even

But why are H. Sapiens so special that they're the only species that rates such special treatment? And then there's the drought of evidence for any such event actually occurring, but I'm honestly more curious why you think our species rates such special treatment and no others have been a part of you're hundreds of millions of years long breed HFM program.

groups.google.com...#!topic/talk.radio/DlG9BvX1dZ8

Link doesn't work as is and when I got to the site you linked, every one of their links to whatever purported evidence they claim was DOA and have nothing viewable.

This does not mean they were us, but it does mean that something very similar to us, created/seeded by the same source as we were existed then.

Without any actual evidence shown, there isn't actually anything to comment on. I would have loved to have seen the alleged photos they believe are all the evidence needed to overturn 160 years of increasing evidence.

God, alien's, colony ship's, Gene Bank's, a race knowing it was going to go extinct placing something out there, a periodic visitor back to the solar system that would re-seed there home world in the hope that some day there race would survive and not die out or self destruct.

It's a fun bit of mental gymnastics, certainly. But I find it difficult to believe that we have such a genetic affinity with every known organism on Earth yet our origins lie elsewhere...?

Who know's just speculating but a subject I love and I do not obviously buy into the whole primate ancestry evolution which is not to say that I do not believe in evolution as a mechanism because I am certain it does work as such but I do not accept that we were ever primates given the evidence to the contrary even if that evidence is deliberately ignored or even hidden.

I must have missed it, could you fill me in on what evidence exists showing that we don't actually share a MRCA with other apes that is being deliberately hidden and ignored?

It's interesting that you believe that evolution is an actual biological mechanism yet refuse to believe that HSS share common ancestry with Great Apes or far more broadly, as you put it, primates.

One of my pet idea's is that the human race may not even be from here, the earth was seeded and perhaps many time's over and perhaps there is even a cyclic reason for this.

If this were true, how do you explain the genetics? I'll ignore the fossil record, biological and anatomical data. I'm just curious how you reconcile the concepts in your own mind.

Right explain to me why the Vatican, the Smithsonian and many other institutions have been complicit in a cover up of giant human remains - these were NOT gigantopithecus, why a wall in Texas exists that is NOT a natural formation but with the town of Rockwall built in part of it, why a wall was found in nearly 300 million years old coal in a mine which was then closed permanently also in the US, why there has been extreme resistance to the many sunken ruins around the world even though they are geologically for the most part definitely within the accepted time frame for modern human's, why there is argument about the age of the Sphynx and that is definitely NOT sand erosion on the enclosure rock walls that is actually RAIN WATER and that longer age too is within perfectly acceptable normal history.

You know full well why, because the information we are being fed about the past is a pile of Crap, humanity is both far, far older and we may not even be the first human race, why for example to Geologists (real Scientists) most often have to bow to the opinion of Archaeologists and Anthropologists as in the case of that rain water erosion.

Why homosapians, well has it occurred to you that the FIRST human race were probably just that.

You know how deep this indoctrination goes, I have heard medical lecturers during human dissection's direct there student's to compare nerve path's to those in animal's and use that to justify there own personal (and probably also indoctrinated view) that these animal's and human's have a common ancestor, guess what we are all alive and that is our common ancestor LIFE, not some tree swinging monkey though Yes I did climb all the tree's I could see as a small boy and fell out of most of them - did not make me a bloody great ape though did it (Debatable because I have been called a great apeth more time's than I care to remember).

Ever considered the concept of Viral transference of genetic material between species.

Why, how - Pathogenic homogenization of host species is GOOD for the Pathogen such as Virus and allow's them to hop from domesticated species such as Pig's to Human's and back thus allowing the Virus to survive longer, virus are parasites that reproduce by REPROGRAMMING the cellular DNA and over time many of them end up as Endron's while other's are incorporated into the next generation's Core cellular programming, did your evolutionary lecturer even take that into account, did Darwin whom did not even know what a virus was back then.

So Of course if exposed long enough to one another and with enough shared viral pathogen's you and a pig would homogenize, I doubt a pig would get up and start typing on a computer keyboard but for example over enough time a pig's skin would become an excellent substitute for a burn's patient to cover there burned flesh until it had healed enough.

But hey mate I am NOT a FLAMING half Banana and Neither are you - I hope that would kind of promote cannibalism with a hoard of spear carrying Vegan's chasing you now wouldn't it.

Stomp your foot in capital letters all you want, but going by gene types and counts, you are MORE than half banana, regardless of what you prefer to believe.

Over 60% banana, in fact.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

We shall have to disagree on that point Harte, you know that the star child skull which so many of you hate and believe was a child with encephalitis or a related condition, well I do remember Pye before he died did indeed have it tested and that had the same endron's but was completely different otherwise which of course would suggest a common ancestor VERY far back indeed, you could even argue a different batch if you like.

And I know they DISPROVED the claim but I personally find it very dubious that the Disproof only came out AFTER Pye had passed away so that he could then NOT dispute it and bring yet more tests to prove his point against there's so I actually see that post Pye supposed proof as damage control and even a cover up.

Personally Harte though, if you really want to be a Banana/Plantain or whatever they are really called that is up to you, I would rather be one of those carnivorous plant's, at least they have the start of a nervous system or an analogue of one, hey remember the claim's about Roswell in the MJ-12 Document's (believe them or not that is up to you), the plant like alien's with a chlorophyll like blood base.

But also remember Evolving from a pool of amino acid's is even in the most energetic and electrically charged atmosphere such as the early earth may have had is actually like water flowing up hill, it is against the laws of conservation for a bloody pool of chemicals to just randomly become like a life form and even more difficult for it to then turn into a host of tiny self replicating versions of itself complete with a membrane to protect them and yet again even more unlikely for some of them to develop the ability to survive indefinitely when dried out or frozen in spore form, cell's are amazing little machines but how many universe would you have to watch come and go before one day a random happenstance even came close to accidentally creating one.

Never mind getting into the incredible complexity of life as we know it today.

Here is another thought Harte, those ancient king's and modern human's whom are sometime's born with six or seven digits on appendage which are these day's in most western hospital's routinely removed after birth, well what if they are actually throw back's to a group that indeed DID come from somewhere else, and Sitchin need not apply this is just for a point.

Well they find themselves in an ecosystem for whatever reason trying to survive, that eco system has some compatibility but they have to adapt to the intensity of the ecosystems own immune system, the biosphere of molecular sized pathogen's, bacteria (possibly nano bacteria but the field is still out on that) and virus, what if over time that process worked on both sides of that divide as those pathogens homogenized this alien species and absorbed it into the greater eco system.

What IF the bare amount of data upon which analysis of the earth's atmosphere over 2 billion years ago is wrong?
Because those stones' they are analyzing were by necessity either deep underground so not exposed to that atmosphere at that time OR they were only peripherally exposed for a short time so did not absorb enough atmospheric isotopes and chemically react enough with it to provide a solid and dependable data core upon which to base a genuinely reliable analysis upon them so that idea about the earth's lack of Oxygen at that time is therefore only really educated Guess Work and supposition - just like Archaeology - and what if it is wrong.

What if during the Snow Ball earth Epoch - If it happened 2.2 billion B.C. (And it most certainly does not mean Common - the calendar is based on Christ's date of birth give or take a few years so were do a bunch of politically correct gobSh53S get off it calling Before Common Era - flaming idiot's) to about 750 million B.C. there were a series of inter glacial period that may have lasted up to several hundred million years each, enough time for entire eco system's to come and go and of course you know planet surface (re) cycling takes about 650.000.000 years (on average about a hundred million less than that 750 million years cut off for the end of the snow ball earth epoch - unless we are just in another inter glacial period and I am not talking about our current epoch's ice age's either but global one's) so any large fossil's if any did survive would be extreme hard to find and very unlikely to survive both the geological cycling of most of the planet's surface during that time frame AND the glacial scrubbing of the potentially planet wide glaciation which is theorized to have occurred during this epoch.

What if a clever bloke living in that period of even before it had fled with his people to Mars or even Venus when it was still cool enough to have liquid water on it's surface and What if when in turn those planet died the survivors from there whom were then descended from the survivors from here (that had fled the Planetary Glaciation - and Atmospheric die off with oxygen reduction that most likely occurred with it) had then fled back here, what if that Star Child skull is the remnant of just another branch of them and hey what if some of them even reached as far as Proxima Centauri and set up a colony there - becoming grey skinned from living mostly underground and developing large saucer like eye's.
What if those UFO reports' you and other's take with a bulldozer sized shovel of Salt are in fact Humanity's own relative's and not Aliens at all.

a reply to: LABTECH767

See, people have identified and counted the genes we have in common with bananas.

The fact that you personally haven't done this in no way impacts the factual nature of the findings.

So protest all you want. You will still have over 60% of the genes in your body in common with bananas.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

So Harte were these Banana guy's your relatives by any chance?.

What a pile of Crap, you History - what you have been indoctrinated to believe and what you have indoctrinated other's to believe, most of it in the more recent period is definitely fact and no one will dispute that but beyond that point your argument's are smoke and mirror's, nothing but supposition and accepted view's shared by a group whom actually know very little or in fact no more than a guy spending his life in a temple in India whom will of course have a completely different view.

Me I was science Harte, I switched from chemistry and biology which I was at AS because I did not actually like them and not because they were hard because they simply were NOT, I switched to electronic's and took that to bachelor level then had head injury's which left me unable to sleep for literally several month's afterwards, I felt tired and fatigued but not sleepy and simply could not sleep, eventually I force myself into a deep still minded state and after a long time of doing this I actually learned how to sleep again, also for several years I would continue to trip up stairs, over small objects and walk into door posts, my speech was and is slurred and I had no ability to concentrate, a sheet or rudimentary equations such as Fourier analysis or plas (laplace) transforms which we used in electronic's simply became gibberish to my mind, prior to this I had actually switched over to electronic engineering because it was so much simpler and I could do it without thinking, that all happened to me because I walked into the wrong pub as a 19 year old and a gang picked a fight with me, I was alone and there were six of them, strangely I remember that in perfect detail and was actually more frightened of hurting them than being hurt by them so as you american's say go figure.

So Harte I have an excuse and am no were near as thick as you would like to paint, you on the other hand, well say no more and like I say if you want to be a banana be a banana it's a free world after all, personally I like the lady's myself but hey.

You know Harte snide comment's and joke's aside the time you were at your smartest and this is not a lie was actually before you thought you knew everything, back when your brain was still growing because we all at that age had more synapses and many of them redundant, we all keep the processes that we use as we get older but that excess processing power is actually lost as our brain's lose the number of active brain cell's, that is one reason when you were young a day felt like an eternity but now it just fly's by, not because it is flying by but because you and I have less brain cell's than we did back then and as a logical consequence we use those we do have more which mean's our thought process is actually slowed down due to this loss in neural processing grunt.

I am sorry that I can no longer respect you as I did but to be frank you have been a bit of a hole on quite a few thread's - not specifically to me but on thread's were I have watched - and that is simply a fact, when I started on this site you actually acted in a more pleasant manner and would even try to educate and that I truly did find a respectable attitude.

It is not like anyone here is claiming the moon is made of cheese but they have different opinion's to you and that does not make those opinion's wrong when the fact is no one actually KNOWS.

As an example were you there when they built the pyramid's, do you have first hand observation and knowledge or is the graveyard and a few inscription's naming people as builders of the pyramid's and a few worn back vertebrae enough to convince you to the point were instead of a supported hypothesis it simply becomes irrefutable fact for you that they did build the pyramid's and therefore you can ignore the dream stele and it's message about restoring the Giza plateau.

Often attributed to Winston Churchill but most likely far older and I am certain the Chinese had a similar saying, especially given Quin's massacre of the scholars the saying that the Victor Writes the history should also NOT be forgotten, how many great sites around the world may actually be older but have been attributed to later cultures that used those site's and likely also renovated them extensively.

How many of those meso american pyramid's may contain core site's from cultures of which we know nothing even though we may know something about the later cultures that then occupied those site's and indeed how many ruin's of un-categorized civilization's and cultures may have been wrongly cataloged, dated more recently than they really are and are sitting in plain sight that we simply do not see because after all we all have billy blinkers on don't we.

What do we really know Harte - any of us, you dig into a deposit and find clay pottery fragment's in that layer so you automatically date them to that period, great if the site has not been plowed over umpteen time's and is undisturbed but how many time's has one layer been mistaken for another one because the old top soil and layers have been removed leading to an erroneous dating of that layer.

How many time's has an archaeologist digging fallen to the temptation to automatically date fragment's simply because they look similar to fragment's he know's from other site's.

But nevertheless we are stuck in that rut and I am well aware that Archaeologist DO do there very best to be as accurate as they can in spite of the fact they are having to surmise most of the time and then give there opinion yet the like's of Schliemann do crop up from time to time, perhaps he did indeed destroy a lot of more recent archaeology at the site of troy to prove his theory but that was a man whom truly believed something and went arse over tail to prove it, in the event he was lucky because he was proven correct and troy went from being regarded as a fable like Plato's Atlantis is actually thought to be to being regarded as a fact.

But did he really discover king Priam's treasure or was it another king's, surely priam would have been looted by the Greek's, in fact though we know or rather believe that the city he found far beneath the ruins of later greek and roman citys on the same site was actually the troy of Priam it is more likely that the gold he discovered was from a tomb beneath and even older troy, perhaps even one that also was in ruin's when the troy of the Trojan wars was first built upon it.

What I am pointing out Harte is that Archaeology much like history is just a collection of ACCEPTED theory's, I shall not call them fact's because I was not there to witness them and neither were you, it is a jigsaw of remain's and there are simply not enough to draw a true view of those distant time's and only a vague impression of that era can therefore be created, yes it can be elegantly constructed but like any house of card's the fact is that it can grow very big and still not be correct but unlike a house of cards that automatically collapses when the weakest layer is destabilized in this case the house of card's is held up often long after it has already been disproved or cast into doubt by later find's - because once a belief - an accepted reality - becomes that it is very hard to dislodge it as you well know, perhaps far more than most.

a reply to: LABTECH767
They are related to everything else, just like we are.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

The truth is Harte we are simply men - and woman - whom want to know the truth, why we have this drive I do not know but perhaps it is all about sight, seeing gives advantage, not seeing is a dangerous disadvantage and in that we share at least one goal even if our charted route to it may differ.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Harte

The truth is Harte we are simply men - and woman - whom want to know the truth, why we have this drive I do not know but perhaps it is all about sight, seeing gives advantage, not seeing is a dangerous disadvantage and in that we share at least one goal even if our charted route to it may differ.

I think it's the curse of big-brained consciousness.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Ha sorry for the late reply and you are most probably correct - also I DO respect you Harte - just don't always agree AND likely most of the time then I am wrong as well so what I am saying is sorry to have gotten a bit short with you, had this song going through my head and it ring's so true to so much in life.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Harte

Ha sorry for the late reply and you are most probably correct - also I DO respect you Harte - just don't always agree AND likely most of the time then I am wrong as well so what I am saying is sorry to have gotten a bit short with you, had this song going through my head and it ring's so true to so much in life.

I understand perfectly well the allure of some fringe claims.
I've been there myself, several decades ago now.

And I don't begrudge anyone their beliefs. I have a personal grudge against all those fringe authors that pulled the wool over my eyes back then by outright lying about the past.

You might have noted that I usually only break out the guns when somebody states as fact something that I know to be untrue.
Other times, I'm just trying to insert actual known facts into some of the more flighty conversations that take place here.

Look, if a person wants to think that there existed some ancient advanced unknown civilization at some point in the distant past (for example,) then that person would be well served to not state false claims as factual.

IOW, use the facts that are known in order to build a case, not some made-up crap from those fringe author P.O.S.s

Harte