China: Ancient Pyramids + Explosions: "Underground Forests in Mystery Holes of Guangxi"

originally posted by: JamesChessman
So my statement there is: We can't assume we know the limits of such natural processes.

We may not really what can happen, but we know what has happened, as we can see it and measure it and understand how and why they happened.

Regarding buried buildings, we have lots of examples and there are lots of clues that can be used to think something is buried in some place, like different plants growing in those places, something archaeologists have know (at least) since the 19th century. Nothing on the images show any sign of artificial buildings being buried by soil and vegetation.

Then the 2nd thing is whether aliens can build stuff on Earth. It's obviously something that's physically POSSIBLE, and that's proven by mankind visiting the moon, and planting the flag. That's humans building stuff on the moon, so there's really no question whether it's POSSIBLE for physical creatures to visit other celestial bodies and build stuff.

Physically possible if aliens exist and have the capability of come to Earth, we do not have any real evidence for either.

And then also, my inclination to interpret things that way, does have realistic reasons behind it. The existence of Egypt's pyramids and Sphinx etc. is more than enough reason to wonder if such structures exist elsewhere, and they're just buried from nature over thousands of years.

The existence of pyramids in Egypt (and other countries in that area, Egypt is not the only one with pyramids, Sudan, for example, has several, besides other types of pyramids in other places of the world) is a good reason to expect the existence of pyramids or other constructions in other places, but thinking every hill that looks like a pyramid from a certain angle is a pyramid covered in vegetation is a big leap.

Some pyramids (and the Sphinx) in Egypt were buried in sand, some pyramids and other buildings in Central and South America are covered by vegetation, but never in the way the supposed pyramids in the video are covered in vegetation. One of the reasons is that natural rock is not as smooth as rock cut by humans and used on construction, so vegetation doesn't get attached to it as easily, although erosion would affect those artificial structures and would make it easier for the vegetation to cover the structures.

Everything is realistically POSSIBLE.

Not everything, we should base our possibilities in reality, not on imagination.

Which means that modern humanity is living in new layers of soil and vegetation growth... over the ruins of ancient advanced civilizations.

Archaeologists have known that for a long time.
Where I live, Almada, we have tanks for making garum (a fermented fish sauce) from the Roman times and some signs of occupation by Phoenician people before them, more than 2000 years ago.
A little more to the south we have signs of pre-historic occupation.

And then another reason to suspect aliens is because most humans are just primitive creatures, even today.

The average person is probably similar intelligence to a chimpanzee if we're honest about it. Present company excluded, haha, but if we acknowledge that most of humanity is basically living like animals: Well I can barely imagine most MODERN people accomplishing anything at all, let alone ANCIENT humans building giant pyramids.

Many people fall into that trap: just because we do not know how they did things it doesn't mean they couldn't have done it.

Sometimes, what we see as big problems have a simple solution if we are not expecting to solve them with modern tools.

It's a fact that humans are creative creatures, capable of creating plans to achieve their goals and to create tools to help them achieve those goals.

Just looking at the stone age, do most people know how to make a stone axe? Or a bow and stone-tipped arrows?
Does their ignorance in those subjects mean people in the past were not capable of doing it?
Why don't you apply your idea of "everything is realistically possible" to them?
Why consider them uncapable of doing those things?

Anyways, if we believe in an ancient civilization, MORE ADVANCED than modern humanity:

I do not, as we haven't found any evidence of one.

Either way, there's no connection between modern-day mankind... and the long-past ADVANCED civilizations, which built pyramids. imo.

Opinion noted and understood, but I think you are terrible wrong by considering previous human civilisations as incapable of those works.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
The "composition" of the "pyramids" is referring to different shapes of ancient structures, accumulating differently, correct?

No, I was talking about physical composition. As I said, the area appears to be composed of limestone, a kind of stone in which the appearance of sink holes is common, as it's a kind of rock that is easily corroded and creates caves with stalactites and stalagmites and that general "molten" look.

And there's also that EXTRA accumulation from the Young Dryas doomsday dust clouds, if we really need an extra reason why nature could bury something like that...

Your imagined "Young Dryas doomsday dust clouds", as far as I know there are no real signs of them anywhere.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Does that mean that you mentioned the Bosnian pyramids as NATURAL? Because if so, then tripadvisor disagrees with you on that...

It's another case of a natural formation with no signs of artificiality (except those created on purpose by some of the proponents of the pyramid theory).
Geological processes explain cases like this. Talk to geologists and you will see.

a reply to: JamesChessman

Don't forget that the positions of stars as we see them from Earth change with time, 4000 years ago many stars were in different positions and some constellations didn't look like they look now.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
There are plenty of ACTUAL EXPLODED PYRAMIDS and statues, IN EGYPT, all which strongly suggest ancient cataclysm. It can be blamed on nature but I think these topics are usually OBVIOUS TRUTH sitting and hiding, in plain sight.

Then I suppose you can post some of those examples...

Another great example suggesting ancient cataclysm / ancient warfare, is: Africa's Sahara Desert contains certain areas that are covered in sand, but underneath, there is flat expanses of glass. From melted sand. This can again be blamed on meteors etc. but it also resembles ancient bomb blasts.

How do people know about those underground flat expanses of glass? Could you give some examples of those?

Haven't you heard of such examples, and didn't you know that the Young Dryas Event was a doomsday Event, even if you keep to natural explanations?

I prefer to avoid sensationalistic terms like "doomsday event" and keep to technical terms.

And yes, I have known about the Young Dryas Event for some time.

a reply to: ArMaP

What nuclear warfare? It was a climate change, of which there are evidences. There are no evidences for a dust cloud covering the whole world.
A climate change doesn't change the fact that the north is colder than the south (on the northern hemisphere), while a global dust cloud would slow the development of all life forms for several years across the whole world, and there aren't any evidences of that.

Honestly I'm not sure if any evidence could please you, though.

I won't try to debate whether or not there's evidence of nuclear dust cloud 11,000 yrs ago, because I can easily imagine that science might not properly recognize it, even if there was solid proof of it.

But taking out the "nuclear" aspect: I would have expected the NORMAL science to acknowledge some kind of period of overcast clouds, of course. Just keeping with the normal science. The global climate SUDDENLY CHANGED, it would absolutely create chaotic air flow patterns, and that ALONE would create hurricanes everywhere.

I can't imagine how that doomsday event WOULDN'T involve the Earth being shrouded in dust clouds for at least SOME length of time.


I mean, how long do YOU think the Earth was engulfed in darkness and dust, from the Younger Dryas Event? It had to be SOME bit of time, right?

A climate change doesn't change the fact that the north is colder than the south (on the northern hemisphere)

Well actually I think that IS the idea, that the Earth shifted dramatically and suddenly, for some reason, which CAUSED the Younger Dryas Event.

So I think that IS the whole idea, the cold places suddenly became warm, and warm places cold, there'd be CHAOS everywhere between hurricanes and violent flooding, etc.




I thought this was pretty well-known, and pretty normal MAINSTREAM science, re: the Younger Dryas Event.

So I'm guessing you're just unfamiliar because I think these are pretty established facts of that Event being a doomsday.

It can be blamed on meteors & asteroids, if we must force natural explanations, but I don't think we can deny the doomsday zone of the Younger Dryas Event.










...Also it just might be that you're impossible to please with the real actual proof. Like, maybe it didn't extinguish 100% of life, so you think it didn't happen. But maybe it only killed 50% or 75% or something short of 100%. Then you wouldn't have the 100% proof of the doomsday, I suppose, if there was always at least a little bit of life surviving.







Also, I think if you want to speculate about the Younger Dryas Event being a doomsday zone:
I think one of the MOST IMPORTANT things to consider, is the progress of human civilization, and how it would correspond to the notion of the Younger Dryas Event being a doomsday.

...So I just Googled: What was the first human civilization?

Answer:

The Mesopotamian Civilization. And here it is, the first civilization to have ever emerged. The origin of Mesopotamia dates back so far that there is no known evidence of any other civilized society before them. The timeline of ancient Mesopotamia is usually held to be from around 3300 BC to 750 BC.xt

storymaps.arcgis.com...#:~:text=The%20Mesopotamian%20Civilization.&text=And%20here%20it%20is%2C%20the,33 00%20BC%20to%20750%20BC.




So the absolutely pathetic history of human civilization, ABSOLUTELY DOES fit with the concept of Younger Dryas Doomsday Event.

11,000 years ago: Total destruction (or almost total destruction). Assuming some small segment of human survivors, the natural CHAOS ALONE would be enough to regress humans into the state of animals, at that time. Floods, storms, hurricanes, starvation, maybe meteors, etc. would reduce humans to our most PRIMITIVE state. Hiding in caves, starving, dying, etc.

Humans were essentially regressed into cavemen, at that time. Life would have been nothing but desperate, primitive survival efforts, amidst global chaos!








Alright so normal history timeline cites the FIRST human civilization as 3300 BC.

That's essentially 5,000 years ago (that human civilization is supposed to have formed).





So it completely fits the timeline of the Younger Dryas Doomsday Event.

The Event killed most life, and reduced humans to stupid, grunting monkeys. 11,000 yrs ago.




And so then: If: Civilization formed 5,000 yrs ago, then that means... there was 6,000 YEARS after the doomsday Event, before civilization formed.



So I don't know how / why you'd think that the timelines don't work. I think it works fine.

It's apparently a 6,000 year gap, between the Doomsday, and then the birth of civilization.

So it was 6,000 years' time:

I think that's PLENTY of time for the natural doomsday events to eventually settle down, and then afterwards, I think there'd be an extended period of after-effects, to slowly settle (like obviously, some period of darkness and dust enshrouding Earth, as after-effects of all the explosions and natural catastrophes).

So that's 6,000 yrs for the natural doomsday to settle, and then for its after-effects to settle. And then for humanity to slowly pull itself up out of primitive, animalistic life. Because human advancement requires some STABILITY of life, in the first place, before humans can START to become more advanced.





So... what parts of these timelines do you find problematic?

Wasn't 6,000 YEARS enough time for humans to hide from the elements, during the doomsday, and then later, re-emerge into a more stable world, and start to slowly become more advanced, again?

Its basically 6 thousand years, for humans to start as cavemen, and then eventually only START civilization again.



If anything, I think 6 thousand years was MORE THAN ENOUGH time for humans to slowly, slowly become more advanced, and start civilization.

I actually think it sounds WAY TOO LONG of a time period, that humans were stuck living like animals. Like why the heck would they need to be stuck for 6,000 yrs.

Our species is absolutely disgusting, primitive animals.

Let's face it, humans are really just a bunch of filthy, stupid monkeys that just happen to be slightly more advanced than the rest of Earthly life. The big thing is that we can talk, so we're just talking monkeys. But anyway let me know what you think is wrong with the described timeline.

a reply to: ArMaP

Then I suppose you can post some of those examples...

Yes, I can. But right now, I need space away from the thread. These are all very interesting, important topics, and we've just touched on like A DOZEN really huge topics.

And I've already poured AN ABSURD number of hours, in this thread, already, haha.

I need to take a day or two away.

Anyways, yes I can post pictures of the ancient Egyptian signs of ancient cataclysm. Statues blown up, temples blown up. I'm surprised if you're really unaware of this.

So sure I can post such things, but then obviously, you'll blame everything on meteors and asteroids exploding all the examples that I might post.




The desert FIELDS OF GLASS from ancient incineration, THAT is pretty convincing of cataclysm, even if we blame it on fiery exploding space debris. So I could post pics of THAT but it can ALWAYS be argued as natural causes. But that should be evidence of at least the NATURAL cataclysm. It's extremely rare to happen and the giant glass fields in the Sahara, really suggest fiery incineration, which doesn't usually happen in nature.






And then more evidence is the Indian ancient texts which LITERALLY REPORT THE HISTORY OF ANCIENT WAR on Earth.

But of course, then THAT gets dismissed as fiction.





Well I'll check back later.

ArMaP aren't you already familiar with the examples I mentioned though?

I mean, I know you don't believe it was ancient WAR, but aren't you familiar with the examples I gave?

And also, isn't it pretty well established that the Younger Dryas Event was a very cataclysmic time period?

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Honestly I'm not sure if any evidence could please you, though.

Any would be better than none...

I won't try to debate whether or not there's evidence of nuclear dust cloud 11,000 yrs ago, because I can easily imagine that science might not properly recognize it, even if there was solid proof of it.

Dust clouds covering the whole planet for a relatively long time would have to eventually land somewhere. That would mean those particles should exist around the whole planet and the layer they would form could easily be dated to more or less that time period, so yes, it's possible for science to recognize something like that, like in the event of a huge volcano eruption.

But taking out the "nuclear" aspect: I would have expected the NORMAL science to acknowledge some kind of period of overcast clouds, of course.

Science can only detect the effects of that, as cloud coverage does not get recorded in any natural way, at least that I know of.

Just keeping with the normal science. The global climate SUDDENLY CHANGED, it would absolutely create chaotic air flow patterns, and that ALONE would create hurricanes everywhere.

No, a sudden (on a climate scale, as it took as few decades) decrease in temperature would not create hurricanes everywhere, hurricanes are created by hot air, not cold air.

I can't imagine how that doomsday event WOULDN'T involve the Earth being shrouded in dust clouds for at least SOME length of time.

One of the possibilities is a change in ocean currents in the Atlantic, as they influence the climate in Europe. The fact that different locations have slightly different dates for the start and end of the Younger Dryas appears to point more to a climate change than something else that happened globally and changed the climate.

I mean, how long do YOU think the Earth was engulfed in darkness and dust, from the Younger Dryas Event? It had to be SOME bit of time, right?

Wrong. Why are you talking about darkness and dust when there's no evidence of that?
The main evidence points to a rapid decrease in temperatures that lasted some 1200 years or so and ended with a rapid increase in temperatures. That can be seen by the thickness of ice and snow accumulated in places where the ice still remains, like Greenland. If there was a huge dust cloud the remains of that dust cloud should be visible in the ice "records" as thin dark layers.

Well actually I think that IS the idea, that the Earth shifted dramatically and suddenly, for some reason, which CAUSED the Younger Dryas Event.

So I think that IS the whole idea, the cold places suddenly became warm, and warm places cold, there'd be CHAOS everywhere between hurricanes and violent flooding, etc.

No, it was a global decrease in temperature (around 15 degrees decrease according to Greenland ice cores), not the chaos you imagine.
Where did you get that idea?

...Also it just might be that you're impossible to please with the real actual proof. Like, maybe it didn't extinguish 100% of life, so you think it didn't happen. But maybe it only killed 50% or 75% or something short of 100%. Then you wouldn't have the 100% proof of the doomsday, I suppose, if there was always at least a little bit of life surviving.

A little evidence would be interesting, but you present none, only what you imagined happened.

So the absolutely pathetic history of human civilization, ABSOLUTELY DOES fit with the concept of Younger Dryas Doomsday Event.

The Younger Dryas ended more than 10000 years ago and lasted for some 1200 years or so. If there was a previous advanced civilisation, 1200 years would not be enough to erase all it's traces. In fact, if we today find human remains that are millions of years old, why don't we find any signs of that previous civilisation?

11,000 years ago: Total destruction (or almost total destruction). Assuming some small segment of human survivors, the natural CHAOS ALONE would be enough to regress humans into the state of animals, at that time. Floods, storms, hurricanes, starvation, maybe meteors, etc. would reduce humans to our most PRIMITIVE state. Hiding in caves, starving, dying, etc.

That's a good idea for a book, but that's not what happened.

In fact, I don't see how humans can regress back to the state of animals just because of that supposed chaos, if they survived some of their knowledge would have survived.

Alright so normal history timeline cites the FIRST human civilization as 3300 BC.

That's essentially 5,000 years ago (that human civilization is supposed to have formed).

Correct.

The Event killed most life, and reduced humans to stupid, grunting monkeys. 11,000 yrs ago.

Explain how that can happen. Do you think people lose all their memory of how things were done before that supposed chaotic period? Imagined that it happened today, would you forget that fire existed? That we have agriculture, industry and commerce? Would you forget about every thing you see and use in your daily life?
I seriously doubt it.

So... what parts of these timelines do you find problematic?

My problem is not the timeline, is your interpretation of what happened.

If anything, I think 6 thousand years was MORE THAN ENOUGH time for humans to slowly, slowly become more advanced, and start civilization.

If there was a previous civilisation, 6000 years is way to long to get back to civilisation, as people would already know that one had existed and how to start one.

The big thing is that we can talk, so we're just talking monkeys.

Monkeys, like most advanced animals, can communicate with each other, that's not something only humans have.

But anyway let me know what you think is wrong with the described timeline.

As I said above, the problem is your interpretation of what happened, not the timeline.

a reply to: JamesChessman

well oddly schiehallion is a scot gaelic name and it means fairy mound of the caledonians or the mountain of the faeries , or mountain hall of the faeries
the daoine sith , and it just so happens to be pyramid shaped.

it was also used in an important physics experiment due to its shape and density

here is a link to some stories about it Schiehallion mysteries

a reply to: ArMaP

Any would be better than none...

^There are definitely several examples, of ancient Egyptian structures, which show damage from ancient cataclysm. There are temples and statues which seem to have been obviously blown-up, thousands of years ago.

So in the future, I can and will post such examples, if you're really interested. But I thought it was well-known already.

Well, so be it, I'll post examples in the future, and then you'll blame everything on explosive space debris hitting those structures. But that's good because it would be validating the Younger Dryas Event as a cataclysm... but I also thought that THAT was well-known already, too.

So I just need space from the thread in general, including that I need a moment to wonder about this strange direction of the thread. For example, I didn't expect to be debating whether the Younger Dryas Event was a cataclysm or not, I thought everyone agreed that it WAS, even if we want to blame it all on natural causes (like space debris bombarding Earth).

Likewise, I thought the damage signs were well-known, the exploded statues and pyramids in Egypt, the desert fields of glass that came from extreme heat explosion in the distant past.

Actually I believe that meteors and explosive space debris... is actually the NORMAL explanation for what caused the Younger Dryas Event, that Earth just got bombarded, and destroyed, from meteors and space debris.

...So I'm honestly really surprised that there's disagreement about the Event being a doomsday, because I thought that that was the normal, established concept of it.

a reply to: ArMaP

In geology people do study how the geological process can create that kind of features and how other geological and atmospheric processes can change them.

For example, a period of lower temperatures would create an ice cover that, even thousands of years after its disappearance would leave traces, the better known being the typical rocks broken by the weight of the ice above them that mark all ancient glaciers.

^I'm now brushing up a bit on the Younger Dryas Event: WIKI LINK

Younger Dryas DID trigger sudden cold temperatures, with warm climates turning frozen.

So you were dismissing the cataclysm, as not having happened, because lack of evidence, but this is NORMAL, established science (which acknowledges Younger Dryas as a cataclysmic Event, based on scientific evidence).

Wiki:

General description and context

The presence of a distinct cold period at the end of the LGM interval has been known for a long time.

Abrupt climate change

Temperatures derived from EPICA Dome C Ice Core in Antarctica
Since 1916 and the onset and then the refinement of pollen analytical techniques and a steadily-growing number of pollen diagrams, palynologists have concluded that the Younger Dryas was a distinct period of vegetational change in large parts of Europe during which vegetation of a warmer climate was replaced by that of a generally cold climate, a glacial plant succession that often contained Dryas octopetala.The drastic change in vegetation is typically interpreted to be an effect of a sudden decrease in (annual) temperature, unfavorable for the forest vegetation that had been spreading northward rapidly. The cooling not only favored the expansion of cold-tolerant, light-demanding plants and associated steppe fauna

^So no offense to anyone, but I think you're just not familiar with the actual normal science and history of the time period, it was indeed sudden cataclysm, and it's established in mainstream science.

In Great Britain, beetle fossil evidence suggests that the mean annual temperature dropped to −5 °C (23 °F),[19] and periglacial conditions prevailed in lowland areas, and icefields and glaciers formed in upland areas.[20] Nothing of the period's size, extent, or rapidity of abrupt climate change has been experienced since its end.

^Great Britain was plunged into BELOW FREEZING TEMPERATURES.

^It's mostly amazing that ANYONE survived at all. I expect that MOST people must have died off. The cold alone, the resulting food shortages & starvation.

The remaining FEW, scattered humans, would have been absolutely reduced to animals, struggling for survival. People must have spent MOST time HIDING from the COLD... and food shortage, plus MOST people dying, seems an equation for cannibalism, just for the few survivors to make it.

Later the wiki blames... water currents that broke:

Causes
The current theory is that the Younger Dryas was caused by significant reduction or shutdown of the North Atlantic "Conveyor" – which circulates warm tropical waters northward – as the consequence of deglaciation in North America and a sudden influx of fresh water from Lake Agassiz. Geological evidence for such an event is not fully secure,[100] but recent work has identified a pathway along the Mackenzie River that would have spilled fresh water into the Arctic and thence into the Atlantic.[101][102] The global climate would then have become locked into the new state until freezing removed the fresh water "lid" from the North Atlantic. However, simulations indicated that a one-time-flood could not likely cause the new state to be locked for 1,000 years. Once the flood ceased, the AMOC would recover and the Younger Dryas would stop in less than 100 years. Therefore, continuous freshwater input was necessary to maintain a weak AMOC for more than 1,000 years. Recent study proposed that the snowfall could be a source of continuous freshwater resulting in a prolonged weakened state of the AMOC.[103]

An alternative theory suggests instead that the jet stream shifted northward in response to the changing topographic forcing of the melting North American ice sheet, which brought more rain to the North Atlantic, which freshened the ocean surface enough to slow the thermohaline circulation.[104] There is also some evidence that a solar flare may have been responsible for the megafaunal extinction, but that cannot explain the apparent variability in the extinction across all continents.

Also mentions the POSSIBLE cause (of the Young Dryas Event), being meteors and space debris, bombarding the planet, and destroying everything, like Earth's climates, but ALSO there would be DIRECT IMPACT DAMAGE from the space debris, as well.

Impact hypothesis
Main article: Younger Dryas impact hypothesis
A hypothesized Younger Dryas impact event, presumed to have occurred in North America about 12,900 years ago, has been proposed as the mechanism that initiated the Younger Dryas cooling.[107]

Among other things, findings of melt-glass material in sediments in Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Syria have been reported. The researchers argue that the material, which dates back nearly 13,000 years, was formed at temperatures of 1,700 to 2,200 °C (3,100 to 4,000 °F) as the result of a bolide impact. They argue that these findings support the controversial Younger Dryas Boundary (YDB) hypothesis, that the bolide impact occurred at the onset of the Younger Dryas.

^Wiki then explains that those findings are controversial... but then it gives NEW evidence supporting the Impact Theory:

New support for the cosmic-impact hypothesis of the origin of the YDB was published in 2018. It postulates Earth's collision with one or more fragments from a larger (over 100 km diameter) disintegrating comet (some remnants of which have persisted within the inner solar system to the present day). Evidence is presented consistent with large-scale biomass burning (wildfires) following the putative collision. The evidence is derived from analyses of ice cores, glaciers, lake- and marine-sediment cores, and terrestrial sequences.[115][116]

Evidence that adds further to the credibility of this hypothesis includes extraterrestrial platinum, which has been found in meteorites. There are multiple sites around the world with spikes in levels of platinum that can be associated with the impact hypothesis, of which at least 25 are major.[117] Although most of these sites are found in the Northern Hemisphere, a study conducted in October 2019 has found and confirmed another site with high platinum levels located in the Wonderkrater area north of Pretoria in South Africa.[118] This coincides with the Pilauco site in southern Chile which also happens to contain high levels of platinum as well as rare metallic spherules, gold and high-temperature iron that is rarely found in nature and suspected of originating from airbursts or impacts.[119][120][121] These Southern Hemisphere high platinum zones further add to the credibility of the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis.

a reply to: ArMaP

No, because the "pyramid" doesn't look exploded, an explosion would leave ejecta around it.

Well I think 11,000 years would be ample time for nature to cover over some exploded pieces of rock, so that the soil builds up and smoothes-out the landscape.

I fully expect that there are chunks of exploded pieces buried in the ground, underneath grass and trees. But it's probably not something that anyone will seriously search for, and excavate such pieces, out of the ground.



So putting aside a lack of obvious fragments, because they're presumably buried in 11,000yrs' soil accumulation:

Well otherwise, the shape itself absolutely DOES look like an explosion happened.

The one commenter suggested that it could be the empty shell of an old volcano, and the caves would be from lava flows. I think it's a great natural explanation for the formation.


But I don't think it makes sense to just deny the obvious shape of some kind of explosion happening there.

Aside from a volcano, and aside from alien nuclear bombs on pyramids: There's also the natural explanation of explosive space debris, that just happened to strike that particular object, and make it explode.




So I think the exploded shape is undeniable, whether we want to blame meteors or volcanoes or other stuff.


^There even seem to be flat chunks of the pyramid walls, still intact: The left side wall still has its flatness, so does part of the right side wall.

I absolutely believe it's an exploded pyramid with 11,000 yrs' soil accumulation and plant growth over it.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Younger Dryas DID trigger sudden cold temperatures, with warm climates turning frozen.

So you were dismissing the cataclysm, as not having happened, because lack of evidence, but this is NORMAL, established science (which acknowledges Younger Dryas as a cataclysmic Event, based on scientific evidence).

I was dismissing the "doomsday dust clouds", the "chaotic air flow patterns, and that ALONE would create hurricanes everywhere", the "Earth was engulfed in darkness and dust", the "This absolutely suggests all kinds of natural disasters happening everywhere, just the cold- and warm- air masses, suddenly getting scrambled up", etc.

^So no offense to anyone, but I think you're just not familiar with the actual normal science and history of the time period, it was indeed sudden cataclysm, and it's established in mainstream science.

A sudden (10 or 20 years) decrease in temperature its a very specific thing, something I wouldn't call a cataclysm. Earthquakes? Sure! A decrease in temperature? No.

^Great Britain was plunged into BELOW FREEZING TEMPERATURES.

^It's mostly amazing that ANYONE survived at all. I expect that MOST people must have died off. The cold alone, the resulting food shortages & starvation.

If they didn't move then it's highly likely they suffered from famine.

The remaining FEW, scattered humans, would have been absolutely reduced to animals, struggling for survival.

People must have spent MOST time HIDING from the COLD... and food shortage, plus MOST people dying, seems an equation for cannibalism, just for the few survivors to make it.

I disagree, you just have to look at the places where famine is widespread today and you will see that people do not act like animals or cannibals.

Later the wiki blames... water currents that broke:

They do not "blame" water currents, they say it's the "current theory".

Also mentions the POSSIBLE cause (of the Young Dryas Event), being meteors and space debris, bombarding the planet, and destroying everything, like Earth's climates, but ALSO there would be DIRECT IMPACT DAMAGE from the space debris, as well.

Exactly.

^Wiki then explains that those findings are controversial... but then it gives NEW evidence supporting the Impact Theory:

But it's still an alternative theory because it doesn't have enough evidence to become the preferred theory.

Also, if you look at what they say, they never mention "doomsday dust clouds" or that the "Earth was engulfed in darkness and dust".

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Well I think 11,000 years would be ample time for nature to cover over some exploded pieces of rock, so that the soil builds up and smoothes-out the landscape.

Yes, soil build-up and erosion would smooth-out those remains, but they would still be visible, like they are on craters that are millions of years old.
Another thing is that sides of a crater created by an explosion also show signs of the explosion, and we see nothing like that on the images.

Well otherwise, the shape itself absolutely DOES look like an explosion happened.

Not to me or to the guy in the original documentary, starting at around 09:07 and 20:05, when he explains how (probably) the cave was formed.

(click the images to watch the video)

The one commenter suggested that it could be the empty shell of an old volcano, and the caves would be from lava flows. I think it's a great natural explanation for the formation.

I disagree, as the area doesn't look volcanic, all the area looks made of limestone, as I said before.

But I don't think it makes sense to just deny the obvious shape of some kind of explosion happening there.

It makes even less sense to ignore geology...

Aside from a volcano, and aside from alien nuclear bombs on pyramids: There's also the natural explanation of explosive space debris, that just happened to strike that particular object, and make it explode.

Again, no signs of an explosion, regardless of cause.

So I think the exploded shape is undeniable, whether we want to blame meteors or volcanoes or other stuff.

And I think you are completely wrong.

^There even seem to be flat chunks of the pyramid walls, still intact: The left side wall still has its flatness, so does part of the right side wall.

Limestone formations are like that...

a reply to: JamesChessman

-5c is not cold, heck government heating allowances don't kick in unless its -7c or below for 7 days. -10c is a warm and comfortable day here in January to March.

You also have to remember there was fewer humans and more fish, eels in clean rivers with abundant wildlife. Plus the use of wild herbs and plants termed in modern day as weeds.

originally posted by: puzzled2
a reply to: JamesChessman

-5c is not cold, heck government heating allowances don't kick in unless its -7c or below for 7 days. -10c is a warm and comfortable day here in January to March.

You also have to remember there was fewer humans and more fish, eels in clean rivers with abundant wildlife. Plus the use of wild herbs and plants termed in modern day as weeds.

Below-freezing "is not cold?"

...Yes, it is, and it's enough to kill people, plants, and animals, creating food shortages, etc.

Also I have no idea what place you're describing that below-freezing temperatures are "warm and comfortable" through the winter... nor am I familiar with government heating allowances, kicking in at whatever sub-freezing temp you mentioned...

Also: The Younger Dryas Event, and its resultant time-period of sudden FROZEN-planetary conditions: It's actually considered the last stretch of... THE LAST ICE AGE.

The Last Glacial Period (LGP), also known colloquially as the last ice age or simply ice age, occurred from the end of the Eemian to the end of the Younger Dryas, encompassing the period c. 115,000 – c. 11,700 years ago.

Wiki link: Last Glacial Period



So if people want to debate whether it was a doomsday or not... we are literally talking about THE LAST ICE AGE.

I think people must not be realizing that, or else it would be impossible to ACTUALLY be arguing about whether the Ice Age was a period of destruction, or not... lol.

The Ice Age ALONE was already an epoch of frozen destruction...

originally posted by: JamesChessman
I didn't plan this out at all, but I am excited that I just published a new video RESPONSE to this crazy documentary here: "The Underground Forests in Mystery Holes of Guangxi," which was published by "Our World."

To be crystal clear, I have nothing to do with this video, but I'm embedding because then, I have some responses to this wild documentary vid:

To me, the MOST interesting aspect is that the mountains are convincing that they're ancient pyramids, FROM A LOST, ADVANCED CIVILIZATION... just buried in the sands of time, quite literally. (That is, the pyramids became buried under thousands of years of wind blowing sediment and soil, over them, to the point that they almost look like natural mountains, covered in grass and trees!)

But the mountains show their artificiality, in their sizes and shapes, being WAY TOO CONSISTENT, for natural mountains. Rather, it indicates that underneath the soil layer, the fundamental shapes are extremely consistent artificial pyramids.

We can see these principles in Egypt: It's probably easy to overlook the fact that the world's most famous, and best-preserved pyramids, are IN A CLUSTER of pyramids, with consistent angles & sizes:

I think these mountains in China... are basically the same as Egypt's famous pyramid cluster. Underneath it all:

Apparently it just comes down to CLIMATE, whether such ancient pyramids are preserved perfectly in the dry desert (Egypt), whereas in MOST PLACES, the same structures will apparently accumulate sediment and soil, and grow greenery over it.

I think that's why Egypt's pyramids seem so unique, it's just because the desert preserves it, best in the world.

I think there are probably DOZENS of other equivalent pyramids, all around the world, but they're hiding under sediment layers and grass / trees. So that they are mostly regarded as natural formations.








The "Underground Forests" in the title, is really nothing. There are caves with plants growing near the opening, because it receives some sunlight. So it's a fantastic wilderness landscape, that would be amazing to explore.

But it's not really a big deal that there is such plant growth, in cave openings. It's not really "underground," and it's not really doing anything different from any other NORMAL plants and trees in nature.





The "Mystery Holes" are interesting though, because apparently they really are a mystery, re: how / why they formed like that. (Obviously people can make-up different natural excuses for these "mystery holes," but the fact is, that these holes are strange and mysterious, even just in nature.)




The doc shows two main "mystery holes" and let's acknowledge what they look like:
First, we see what looks like... an ancient, EXPLODED pyramid.

It obviously resembles a bomb's impact crater, even after thousands of years' sediment and plant growth over it. The SIDES of the "mountain" show sections that appear straight and angular, probably, underneath the soil layers. It's the twisted, angular sides of a blown-up pyramid.




Hmmmm... Well, uploads have stopped working for me, in the middle of creating this post, haha. So I wanted to embed a pic of that described mountain, looking like an exploded pyramid.

I emphasized it in my video, including pointing out that there are several caves, inside the exploded bomb crater. This means that the caves are probably just the tunnels and passageways, originally built inside the pyramid, which we are now seeing, inside the crater.




And then there's the "mystery hole" in the image I already posted. Looks like another impact site of an ancient weapon of mass destruction. But here, instead of blowing up, it seems a hot ball just melted right through the stone pyramid. It's a smooth hole, even with vertical streaks of where the rock was melted.

PLUS, the heat bomb... seemed to expose a gigantic tunnel system of caves, probably built within the network of pyramids. The hole seems to fall into blackness of never-ending depth. The network of tunnels might run through the entire world, and we humans would never even notice it.

(Given the huge size of these tunnels, I'm inclined to think that they're passageways meant for flying ships.)






*Sorry that the uploads broke for me, or else I would have posted more pictures.
And later, if uploads starts working for me again, I will post the remaining 2 or 3 photos that I was trying to.

Finally, if anyone is interested to see / hear my video, it has THE SAME information that I just explained:

Have you ever seen Giants Causeway ?
Mother Nature is awesome & that is who build those mountains. There would be a quarry near by with a 3 mile deep hole just to provide the amount of stine to build all of those pyramids… ? So were is the giant quarry to support your theory ?
Being ATS , Im sure someone will be along to claim it was Bigfoot & Aliens who built these hidden pyramids as well on Antarctica .

originally posted by: ArMaP
Dust clouds covering the whole planet for a relatively long time would have to eventually land somewhere. That would mean those particles should exist around the whole planet and the layer they would form could easily be dated to more or less that time period, so yes, it's possible for science to recognize something like that, like in the event of a huge volcano eruption.

Indeed. We can date ancient volcanic eruptions from the traces left in ice cores.

For example, the Mount Toba eruption ~75,000 year ago

cp.copernicus.org...

We can prove the Storegga tsunami (~8,000 years ago) from deposits left along British coastlines

www.researchgate.net...

btw a "sudden" change in temps at the onset of the Younger Dryas means it happened over just a few decades. We are talking geology here. It didn't happen overnight. We're actually experiencing a similar rapid change right now (albeit warming rather than cooling).

And whilst it may have been the most extreme, notable, and well studied, such event, it was by no means the first

ocp.ldeo.columbia.edu...

There is also evidence that in parts of Europe, at least, summers during the YD were not actually much colder

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...