Ancient Global Civilization

originally posted by: reject
This guy "Jimmy" compiled similarities of ancient sites.

This guy has a million followers! Holy Nubs!

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect

originally posted by: reject
This guy "Jimmy" compiled similarities of ancient sites.

This guy has a million followers! Holy Nubs!

*

I have been flogging this reality here on ATS under the name Cyclical Global Continental Displacement Wave Events....all roads do NOT lead to Rome....they lead to the CGCDWE.

Slowly but surely we are seeing the people who are destined to bring forth this reality stepping into their placeholding positions.....no one knows their names no one knows where they live no one knows whats behind their predilictions….the most incredible thing of all is the THEY DONT HAVE A CLUE WHY THEY ARE DOING WHAT THEY ARE DOING.

WWG1WGALL....ITS WASNT BREAKING THE fEDS….IT WASNT DISCLOSING UFOs.....It wasn't Policy conflict....it was about T-R-U-T-H.

ONCE RELEASED FROM THE BONDS OF MSM BRAINWASHING AND PROPOGANDA....THE MASSES NATURALLY GRAVITATE TO THE ONLY REMANING REALITY AVAILABLE WHICH HAPPENS TO BE THE TRUTHFULL ONE.





www.abovetopsecret.com... Dude tries to save the Town from a CGCDWE/Noah Flood.

originally posted by: one4all

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect

originally posted by: reject
This guy "Jimmy" compiled similarities of ancient sites.

This guy has a million followers! Holy Nubs!

*

I have been flogging this reality here on ATS under the name Cyclical Global Continental Displacement Wave Events....all roads do NOT lead to Rome....they lead to the CGCDWE.

Slowly but surely we are seeing the people who are destined to bring forth this reality stepping into their placeholding positions.....no one knows their names no one knows where they live no one knows whats behind their predilictions….the most incredible thing of all is the THEY DONT HAVE A CLUE WHY THEY ARE DOING WHAT THEY ARE DOING.

WWG1WGALL....ITS WASNT BREAKING THE fEDS….IT WASNT DISCLOSING UFOs.....It wasn't Policy conflict....it was about T-R-U-T-H.

ONCE RELEASED FROM THE BONDS OF MSM BRAINWASHING AND PROPOGANDA....THE MASSES NATURALLY GRAVITATE TO THE ONLY REMANING REALITY AVAILABLE WHICH HAPPENS TO BE THE TRUTHFULL ONE.

www.abovetopsecret.com... Dude tries to save the Town from a CGCDWE/Noah Flood.

Trying not to go off-topic but to me, the "masses" are systematically being dumbed down to only have any regard for self-image, social media status, large screen TVs and how much food they can buy, out of season as cheap as possible. Feed them the BS and fake news then watch them lap it up in ignorance of reality.

Those who dare to question mainstream science and history are labelled as 'fringe' and told they have all their facts and figures totally wrong or are deliberately distorting the facts for their own confirmation bias. This may be true in some cases, however, not every 'fringe' researcher can be tarred with the same brush.

Believe what you want to believe and question the things you doubt to be the truth. Nobody should be criticised for that.

originally posted by: fromtheskydown

Those who dare to question mainstream science and history are labelled as 'fringe' and told they have all their facts and figures totally wrong or are deliberately distorting the facts for their own confirmation bias. This may be true in some cases, however, not every 'fringe' researcher can be tarred with the same brush.

I think you don't really now what you're talking about.
There exists no great wall of "Mainstream Science." Science is constantly questioning itself. But those questions come from people that are aware of the known facts - the data - or the artifacts, as the case may be.

In Paleoarchaeology, the scientists go with the facts they actually have in hand, or artifacts found elsewhere, or known deposits of rock, etc. They're not going to abide a "questioning" from someone that is utterly unfamiliar with the field, just like an auto mechanic isn't going to abide a "questioning" from someone that doesn't know how timing, fuel injection, etc. work. That's not some kind of barrier, it's a person that knows something having their time wasted by someone that doesn't.

Also, I would maintain that every (professional) fringe researcher that opines on Humanity's past knows better than what they're saying, leaves out known factual evidence in order to promote their "theory," and flat out lies to whoever is listening to them, whenever required.

I put it that way because "fringe researcher" is what is the broad brush here. You use a term like "researcher" - that covers a lot of ground, including my own self.

originally posted by: fromtheskydownBelieve what you want to believe and question the things you doubt to be the truth. Nobody should be criticised for that.

Ordinary "researchers" aren't usually criticized for that. Usually, posters here (in this genre) are criticized for dismissing other people's arguments without evidence - in order to maintain their Ancient Civilization house of cards.

I won't watch the video because of what the OP said about it:

The ruins in America, for example,were probably already ruins when the Inca came upon them and co-opted them for their own use.

Same thing with the megalithic sites in Turkey.

You ignore the written accounts of the Spaniards who saw the Inca building techniques, saw the Inca using those techniques, and actually hired the Inca to build for them.

Also, it looks like you don't know much about Turkish megaliths. That's not so bad, no one really does. But claiming they're old ruins taken over by someone else is incredibly ignorant.

Then there's Dwarka underwater in the bay of cambay in India that's at least 9K years old; of course there are the legends of shambhala also.

Dwarka is not in the Bay of Cambay (Khambat.) Next bay north of there. Just offshore of a city named... Dwarka.

The age of Dwarka has yet to be firmly established, but we do know it sank in the Medieval Period - you know - the Middle Ages. This is because of some of the masonry found there.

Anyway, which is older? Egyptian or Hindu civilization?

Egyptian. Of course, that might depend on your definition of "civilization."

I think this all goes back to Atlantis.

There exists no evidence that Atlantis ever existed, so there is no reason whatsoever to think it did.

Plato cited Egyptian high priests as his source on Atlantis.

Er...
No he didn't. Have you not read Plato? That would be typical if you haven't.

Supposedly, ancient Egypt claims lineage from it.

No they don't. Not in any way at all. Maybe you should read what the Egyptians actually believed.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

Plato cited Egyptian high priests as his source on Atlantis.

Er...
No he didn't. Have you not read Plato? That would be typical if you haven't.

Harte

Thank you for your response.

I'll just respond to the most GLARING error of your critique.

Plato claimed to have learned about Atlantis from a very aged Egyptian priest whom Plutarch in Life of Solon identified as Sonchis of Sais (The Saite).

Until you can prove YOUR superiority to these most ancient of sources, I will choose to defer to to them.

Ok, other obvious error.

You said, "The age of Dwarka has yet to be firmly established, but we do know it SANK in the Medieval Period - you know - the Middle Ages"

Could you please provide a citation/link for a catastrophic sea level rise during the middle ages that would have SUNK dwarka in the bay of cambay 120 feet underwater?

Legendary SUNKEN City of Dwarka

keyword: SUNKEN

Also, the Incan workmanship is an inferior attempt to replicate the older megalithic structures on which they built.

unbelievable!

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect

originally posted by: reject
This guy "Jimmy" compiled similarities of ancient sites.

This guy has a million followers! Holy Nubs!

He has been at it for a while now. And he's very good at what he does. I certainly don't agree with some of his conclusions (like Atlantis being the eye of the Sahara), but brings a lot of good research into it. Not always in a way where it proves or even helps his point, but it's still good research. Use it for what you will.

I always learn a lot of things I didn't know about the topics discussed. That's just plain good reporting, no matter what crazy hypothesis it might be umbrella'd to.

originally posted by: Harte

The ruins in America, for example,were probably already ruins when the Inca came upon them and co-opted them for their own use.

Same thing with the megalithic sites in Turkey.

You ignore the written accounts of the Spaniards who saw the Inca building techniques, saw the Inca using those techniques, and actually hired the Inca to build for them.

I'm kind of skeptical when it comes to accounts written by Spanish explorers and conquistadores, though.

I think a lot of what those writers wrote was based on rumours they got second hand from native people who were trying to impress or kiss up to them in order to get favors.

For example: stories about Aztecs having a bearded white god, central to their religion. Or being descendants of a sea nation of Aztlan (which just amazingly sounds like "Atlantis".) A lot of catholic priests, and local would-be dictators hearing what they wanted to hear.

I think this all goes back to Atlantis.

There exists no evidence that Atlantis ever existed, so there is no reason whatsoever to think it did.



There's really no reason to doubt it, though.

In it's raw form, the story isn't really all that exceptional. An Island nation with a capital city built inside three concentric calderas. With elephants, and fairly large army for its time.

Big deal.

Plato didn't say they had lasers, or flying air ships, or anything crazy like that.

Plato cited Egyptian high priests as his source on Atlantis.

Er...
No he didn't. Have you not read Plato? That would be typical if you haven't.

He cited Critias, who was citing Solon, who was citing the priests.

He was also like a fourth or tenth (or some number like that) descendant of the real life Solon. (Who also did, in fact, journey to Egypt.)

Supposedly, ancient Egypt claims lineage from it.

No they don't. Not in any way at all. Maybe you should read what the Egyptians actually believed.

Harte

I am curious where that rumour started.

People always act like Atlantis was the only thing going during its time. There's nothing about Plato's account that really suggests that. For all we know, Atlantis could have been learning its tech FROM the Egyptians, rather than the other way around. (Nothing about Timeas and Critias really tells us Atlantis had any special technologies at all.)

The Egyptians do claim a lineage that goes back to the time of Atlantis, though. But their god-rulers do not include Poseidon, so they can't really be Atlanteans. They're more into following Hermes. (AKA Thoth, according to Manetho.)

originally posted by: reject
originally posted by: Harte

Plato cited Egyptian high priests as his source on Atlantis.

Er...
No he didn't. Have you not read Plato? That would be typical if you haven't.

Harte

Thank you for your response.

I'll just respond to the most GLARING error of your critique.

Plato claimed to have learned about Atlantis from a very aged Egyptian priest whom Plutarch in Life of Solon identified as Sonchis of Sais (The Saite).[;/quote]
Actually, Plato never made such a claim in any way. I'd set you straight (like I've done for a thousand others here - you do know there's a search function, right?) but it's too much fun watching you put your foot in your mouth.

I already told you what to do - read Plato. Obviously you haven't, and I certainly don't wonder why.

Harte

a reply to: reject
Any major civilization with far ranging contacts that worth it's salt, borrows and gave techniques to other civilizations, yes local development of similar ideas and design do not exclude borrowing techniques from others, and it doesn't have to do with some singular pre historic defusion from Atlantis, look at it this way , at one time all our ancestors lived in Adobe type buildings with Thatched rooves , does that mean that such structures came from a single source??? .

originally posted by: Spider879
a reply to: reject
Any major civilization with far ranging contacts that worth it's salt, borrows and gave techniques to other civilizations, yes local development of similar ideas and design do not exclude borrowing techniques from others, and it doesn't have to do with some singular pre historic defusion from Atlantis, look at it this way , at one time all our ancestors lived in Adobe type buildings with Thatched rooves , does that mean that such structures came from a single source??? .

Yep and to expand on that thought:

Spears, knives, shields and many other common tools or items all resemble one another?

That helmets were the first defensive armor developed by almost all cultures and civilizations?

That most societies invented weaving and wicker baskets?

Similar problems were often solved in the same manner by people thousands of kilometers and years apart.

lmfao.
anytime its about 'atlantis' they lose me.

atlantis was not as important as one man claimed it to be.

didnt this all start from the greek philosopher?

for sure, i think there were ancient civilizations.
on ancient aliens they said within 1000 years of no humans all the buildings would be gone? i doubt that, because there are still the buildings in rome.

but i guess, if its 100,000 years between civilizations?

the only thing i can hope for, is somehow they build a quantum camera, which can 'read' the past and we can see the cool pre-human beings living here. see what their buildings looked like.

but if their technology only got the concrete buildings, they did not go too far.

im betting the house in 100,000 some USB drive will survive, and some future peoples will be able to see someone's instagram feed.

a reply to: Harte

I think you don't really now what you're talking about.

Well, that's a really arrogant way to dismiss someone's opinion. I never said I was "expert" on the subject but I can hold a belief based on my personal opinion from what I have read and the path I choose to believe, contrary to being told by "experts" that I am totally ignorant of the facts. I don't hold you in any less respect for your beliefs and I do realise you probably have studied possibly even made a career out of it.

The age of Dwarka has yet to be firmly established, but we do know it sank in the Medieval Period - you know - the Middle Ages. This is because of some of the masonry found there.

I looked and found this...

The highest global sea level of the past 110,000 years likely occurred during the Medieval Warm Period of 1100 - 1200 A.D., when warm conditions similar to today's climate caused the sea level to rise 5 - 8" (12 - 21 cm) higher than present.

Source...
www.kwaad.net...

You ignore the written accounts of the Spaniards who saw the Inca building techniques, saw the Inca using those techniques, and actually hired the Inca to build for them.

I tried to find examples of the Spanish written accounts but don't have the resources, so maybe a source or a link may be handy in this case.

Jimmy did a great job on that video. What I find fascinating is when you combine that video with the recent TED post on this forum talking about the unusual Earth Orbit above our ancient past, the mystery gets even deeper.

originally posted by: fromtheskydown
a reply to: Harte

I think you don't really now what you're talking about.

Well, that's a really arrogant way to dismiss someone's opinion. I never said I was "expert" on the subject but I can hold a belief based on my personal opinion from what I have read and the path I choose to believe, contrary to being told by "experts" that I am totally ignorant of the facts. I don't hold you in any less respect for your beliefs and I do realise you probably have studied possibly even made a career out of it.

I don't concern myself of what people that post this crap think of me. Finding out I had been blatantly lied to multiple times each by these fringe "authors" has led to my attitude toward the entire field.
Not a career. I was a believer like you until the internet first put the resources in my hand to find out the facts of most of these matters.

originally posted by: fromtheskydown

The age of Dwarka has yet to be firmly established, but we do know it sank in the Medieval Period - you know - the Middle Ages. This is because of some of the masonry found there.

I looked and found this...

The highest global sea level of the past 110,000 years likely occurred during the Medieval Warm Period of 1100 - 1200 A.D., when warm conditions similar to today's climate caused the sea level to rise 5 - 8" (12 - 21 cm) higher than present.

Source...
www.kwaad.net...

But, you see, that city is still underwater today, even though sea level has retreated. India is very active geologically speaking due to the fact it is currently crashing into Asia. The site sank, in other words. It wasn't sea level rise.

I'm not gonna address Dwarka further than that in this post. You can use search terms like "Dwarka Medieval Period" or "Dwarka Archaeology" to find out all you want about it. Or, you can search right here at ATS, but I'd recommend using a site-specific google search. Just add the words site:abovetopsecret.com at the end of your search terms and you'll get all ATS has to say about it (last I checked, the search function here wasn't that great.)
Check a map too. Dwarka has nothing to do with Hancock's tall tale about an ancient civilization at the bottom of the Gulf of Khambhat.

originally posted by: fromtheskydown

You ignore the written accounts of the Spaniards who saw the Inca building techniques, saw the Inca using those techniques, and actually hired the Inca to build for them.

I tried to find examples of the Spanish written accounts but don't have the resources, so maybe a source or a link may be handy in this case.

I admit they're a little obscure. But I found these two volumes for you from a chronicler I remember reading - could be you can find it in there. Link1 Link2
If not, wiki has a list of four or five of theses chroniclers of that time. You could look up their works. If all else fails, Jason Colavito probably has the source and probably even provides translations to the pertinent parts. You'll have to look for yourself though.

Harte

originally posted by: reject
Plato cited Egyptian high priests as his source on Atlantis.

In the long run we ALL know this IS what happened. The priest was the original link in the story chain. One can waste their time getting technical about it but without the priest then we would not have Plato's version of the story.

Unless of course you think Plato lied, or Critias lied, or Solon lied, or the priest lied. Plato did not think so, because he tells us at least 3 times that the story is true.

Anyone who is certain that Atlantis never existed you should not be here wasting their time reading and talking about it.

I see no reason to think that Atlantis did not exist. Therefore at one time there were lots of Atlantis stories. But none of them survived down to our time. I blame that not on Plato making it up, but on the burning of the Alexandra Library, which probably had several books on Atlantis.

So the point then becomes that the priest got the story from the writings that were on the temple walls.

I believe the map on one of those walls ~ the one that the Romans brought back to Europe with them, the one that was redrawn in the 1600's ~ I believe that map is the real thing. Because it seems to show The Great Meteor Seamount, which as far as we know, was never above water.

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect

originally posted by: reject
Plato cited Egyptian high priests as his source on Atlantis.

In the long run we ALL know this IS what happened. The priest was the original link in the story chain. One can waste their time getting technical about it but without the priest then we would not have Plato's version of the story.

Unless of course you think Plato lied, or Critias lied, or Solon lied, or the priest lied. Plato did not think so, because he tells us at least 3 times that the story is true.

So, Plato's source was NOT an Egyptian priest then. Just like I stated and was rebuked for so doing.

In the Egyptian Delta, at the head of which the river Nile divides, there is a certain district which is called the district of Sais, and the great city of the district is also called Sais, and is the city from which King Amasis came. The citizens have a deity for their foundress; she is called in the Egyptian tongue Neith, and is asserted by them to be the same whom the Hellenes call Athene; they are great lovers of the Athenians, and say that they are in some way related to them. To this city came Solon, and was received there with great honour; he asked the priests who were most skilful in such matters, about antiquity, and made the discovery that neither he nor any other Hellene knew anything worth mentioning about the times of old. On one occasion, wishing to draw them on to speak of antiquity, he began to tell about the most ancient things in our part of the world-about Phoroneus, who is called "the first man," and about Niobe; and after the Deluge, of the survival of Deucalion and Pyrrha; and he traced the genealogy of their descendants, and reckoning up the dates, tried to compute how many years ago the events of which he was speaking happened. Thereupon one of the priests, who was of a very great age, said: O Solon, Solon, you Hellenes are never anything but children, and there is not an old man among you.

Fourth hand information, in fact:

Then listen, Socrates, to a tale which, though strange, is certainly true, having been attested by Solon, who was the wisest of the seven sages. He was a relative and a dear friend of my great-grandfather, Dropides, as he himself says in many passages of his poems; and he told the story to Critias, my grandfather, who remembered and repeated it to us. There were of old, he said, great and marvellous actions of the Athenian city, which have passed into oblivion through lapse of time and the destruction of mankind, and one in particular, greater than all the rest.

Both quotes from Timaeus
Plato never claimed to have spoken to ANY ancient Egyptian priest. Solon (supposedly) recited a poem about Atlantis at the Feast of Apaturia. I would leave you to find out what that festival is, but it's obvious nobody here cares enough about facts to even look it up. So, that festival celebrated the passage of young boys into the various phratries - boys born since the previous feast, so quite young.
At this festival it was common for "moral" stories like that of Atlantis to be recited before the children. That's why Plato used that particular festival for the setting of Solon's recitation.

There is much more to Plato than Timaeus and Critias. You mention that Plato stated several times the story is true. You understand, I hope, that Plato has no lines in any of his dialogues? It was Critias that said the story was true. Also, Plato used the same "true story" literary mechanism in at least 3 other dialogues - one of which had no survivors to even relate the story, but he said it was "true" anyway.

There is not a whit of evidence in ANY AE writings for the story. There is no "legend" of Atlantis, just the one story told in two dialogues written by a philosopher who was not even trying to be an historian.

originally posted by: spiritualarchitectAnyone who is certain that Atlantis never existed you should not be here wasting their time reading and talking about it.

You're skirting being reported if you're saying I can't be here shooting down your ridiculous fantasy world.

originally posted by: spiritualarchitectI see no reason to think that Atlantis did not exist.

This tells us you don't bother looking because you enjoy living in fantasyland.

originally posted by: spiritualarchitectTherefore at one time there were lots of Atlantis stories. But none of them survived down to our time. I blame that not on Plato making it up, but on the burning of the Alexandra Library, which probably had several books on Atlantis.

One of the most ignorant statements I've ever read. I suppose all the stories of the Trojan War were also burned in that Library?

And regarding Plato's "lies," Plato himself (in the voice of Socrates in "The Republic," IIRC,) celebrates lying as a means of educating the young. So, Plato even admits to lying for that purpose.

I tried to say people should actually read what Plato said. Nobody cares to do this because nobody wants to live in a world where Atlantis never existed. That's the fantasyland I mentioned. You don't care enough about the validity of Atlantis (or lack thereof) to even look into it beyond what some fringe website is telling you as it leads you by the nose down the primrose path. No, no, much better to stay in your Atlantis hole with your pals, nodding and winking at each other in calm assuredness that you are in on some "big secret" that others don't know about.

They call that self-imposed ignorance, and it's the worst kind. This site's motto is "Deny Ignorance." That's what I'm doing and that's why you saying I shouldn't waste my time here is out of line.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: fromtheskydown
a reply to: Harte

I think you don't really now what you're talking about.

Well, that's a really arrogant way to dismiss someone's opinion. I never said I was "expert" on the subject but I can hold a belief based on my personal opinion from what I have read and the path I choose to believe, contrary to being told by "experts" that I am totally ignorant of the facts. I don't hold you in any less respect for your beliefs and I do realise you probably have studied possibly even made a career out of it.

I don't concern myself of what people that post this crap think of me. Finding out I had been blatantly lied to multiple times each by these fringe "authors" has led to my attitude toward the entire field.
Not a career. I was a believer like you until the internet first put the resources in my hand to find out the facts of most of these matters.

originally posted by: fromtheskydown

The age of Dwarka has yet to be firmly established, but we do know it sank in the Medieval Period - you know - the Middle Ages. This is because of some of the masonry found there.

I looked and found this...

The highest global sea level of the past 110,000 years likely occurred during the Medieval Warm Period of 1100 - 1200 A.D., when warm conditions similar to today's climate caused the sea level to rise 5 - 8" (12 - 21 cm) higher than present.

Source...
www.kwaad.net...

But, you see, that city is still underwater today, even though sea level has retreated. India is very active geologically speaking due to the fact it is currently crashing into Asia. The site sank, in other words. It wasn't sea level rise.

I'm not gonna address Dwarka further than that in this post. You can use search terms like "Dwarka Medieval Period" or "Dwarka Archaeology" to find out all you want about it. Or, you can search right here at ATS, but I'd recommend using a site-specific google search. Just add the words site:abovetopsecret.com at the end of your search terms and you'll get all ATS has to say about it (last I checked, the search function here wasn't that great.)
Check a map too. Dwarka has nothing to do with Hancock's tall tale about an ancient civilization at the bottom of the Gulf of Khambhat.

originally posted by: fromtheskydown

You ignore the written accounts of the Spaniards who saw the Inca building techniques, saw the Inca using those techniques, and actually hired the Inca to build for them.

I tried to find examples of the Spanish written accounts but don't have the resources, so maybe a source or a link may be handy in this case.

I admit they're a little obscure. But I found these two volumes for you from a chronicler I remember reading - could be you can find it in there. Link1 Link2
If not, wiki has a list of four or five of theses chroniclers of that time. You could look up their works. If all else fails, Jason Colavito probably has the source and probably even provides translations to the pertinent parts. You'll have to look for yourself though.

Harte

you won't discuss sunken City of Dwarka because YOU KNOW YOU'RE WRONG when you put your foot in your mouth when you denied it's in the bay of cambay and you claimed it only SANK during the middle ages.

I don't care how much you suffer from Wobegon effect, at least get your basic geography and history right because it's ANNOYING!

legendary SUNKEN City of dwarka

Or else provide links to your STUPID alternate reality.

Why do you insist on Plato's source on Atlantis not being ancient Egyptian priests?

The mythology is atlas (king of Atlantis) was chief king among 10 siblings (either twins or sets of twins) and each was king over their own country AND EGYPT WAS ONE OF THEM.

I'm just doing these things from memory and I do not claim to be superior or an ultimate infallible authority.

YOU ARE ANNOYING!

a reply to: reject

I'm giving this thread a S & F for topic resurface and in plain language expression by clipping the tips but...


I'm a Omnivore, Some in-depth meat on them bones would be appreciated.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: fromtheskydown

Those who dare to question mainstream science and history are labelled as 'fringe' and told they have all their facts and figures totally wrong or are deliberately distorting the facts for their own confirmation bias. This may be true in some cases, however, not every 'fringe' researcher can be tarred with the same brush.

I think you don't really now what you're talking about.
There exists no great wall of "Mainstream Science." Science is constantly questioning itself. But those questions come from people that are aware of the known facts - the data - or the artifacts, as the case may be.

In Paleoarchaeology, the scientists go with the facts they actually have in hand, or artifacts found elsewhere, or known deposits of rock, etc. They're not going to abide a "questioning" from someone that is utterly unfamiliar with the field, just like an auto mechanic isn't going to abide a "questioning" from someone that doesn't know how timing, fuel injection, etc. work. That's not some kind of barrier, it's a person that knows something having their time wasted by someone that doesn't.

Also, I would maintain that every (professional) fringe researcher that opines on Humanity's past knows better than what they're saying, leaves out known factual evidence in order to promote their "theory," and flat out lies to whoever is listening to them, whenever required.

I put it that way because "fringe researcher" is what is the broad brush here. You use a term like "researcher" - that covers a lot of ground, including my own self.

originally posted by: fromtheskydownBelieve what you want to believe and question the things you doubt to be the truth. Nobody should be criticised for that.

Ordinary "researchers" aren't usually criticized for that. Usually, posters here (in this genre) are criticized for dismissing other people's arguments without evidence - in order to maintain their Ancient Civilization house of cards.

I won't watch the video because of what the OP said about it:

The ruins in America, for example,were probably already ruins when the Inca came upon them and co-opted them for their own use.

Same thing with the megalithic sites in Turkey.

You ignore the written accounts of the Spaniards who saw the Inca building techniques, saw the Inca using those techniques, and actually hired the Inca to build for them.

Also, it looks like you don't know much about Turkish megaliths. That's not so bad, no one really does. But claiming they're old ruins taken over by someone else is incredibly ignorant.

Then there's Dwarka underwater in the bay of cambay in India that's at least 9K years old; of course there are the legends of shambhala also.

Dwarka is not in the Bay of Cambay (Khambat.) Next bay north of there. Just offshore of a city named... Dwarka.

The age of Dwarka has yet to be firmly established, but we do know it sank in the Medieval Period - you know - the Middle Ages. This is because of some of the masonry found there.

Anyway, which is older? Egyptian or Hindu civilization?

Egyptian. Of course, that might depend on your definition of "civilization."

I think this all goes back to Atlantis.

There exists no evidence that Atlantis ever existed, so there is no reason whatsoever to think it did.

Plato cited Egyptian high priests as his source on Atlantis.

Er...
No he didn't. Have you not read Plato? That would be typical if you haven't.

Supposedly, ancient Egypt claims lineage from it.

No they don't. Not in any way at all. Maybe you should read what the Egyptians actually believed.

Harte

I suggest you sit your opinionated self down & watch a few of randall carlson videos son. He's one of them academics that you are not & he clearly says exactly as the poster you poo pood said was going on is going on & only very slowly & recently starting to change.
Oh dear all that cut & pasting you done as well ? Too bad, so sad !!!!

originally posted by: fromtheskydown
Those who dare to question mainstream science and history are labelled as 'fringe' and told they have all their facts and figures totally wrong...

I don't believe a single word science FICTION says anymore any more than I believe any thing that politicians or cult members say. Scientific fundamentalism IS in fact a cult masquerading as the truth. Replace scientific "discoveries" with religious testimonies in "holy" books. TPTB found a way to hook the non-religious...with science. Same trick, smarter dog. A MASSIVE form of mind control no different from the "news"...

"The model of human prehistory built-up by scholars over the past two centuries is sadly and completely wrong, and a deliberate tool of disinformation and mind control. ...they demonstrate a systematic destruction of proofs that show another reality than that the official story. Falsifications and even destruction of such proofs has been common for more than two hundred years." LINK

Science - The Illuminati Religion and Mind Control Tool for the Masses

originally posted by: Harte

(...) scientists go with the facts they actually have in hand, or artifacts found elsewhere, or known deposits of rock, etc. They're not going to abide a "questioning" from someone that is utterly unfamiliar with the field, just like an auto mechanic isn't going to abide a "questioning" from someone that doesn't know how timing, fuel injection, etc. work. That's not some kind of barrier, it's a person that knows something having their time wasted by someone that doesn't.
Harte

When interpreting this correctly, it could mean that Barsoum and Davidovits, who proposed the theory of cast stones, ultimately came to the conclusion that egyptologists are just wasting their time and they then just moved on once they made their case. Same with Robert Schoch and other scientists who are experts in their particular fields (geology, geopolymers etc.).