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

originally posted by: JamesChessman
So it's not quite exactly mentioning the Libyan site, but it IS mentioning Younger Dryas Impact sites relatively-close by: both below, on the same continent, in S. Africa, and also, above: Syria's Younger Dryas Impact site containing GLASS, very close to it.

Syria is closer to the location of the Libyan desert glass (some 1500 Km) but on a different continent.
Like I said before, being in the same continent means nothing.

I think this is extremely compelling and suggestive that the Libyan site can obviously just be from the same Younger Dryas Impact, as these other neighboring sites.

Again, only if you ignore the dates.

And I (and I suppose most people) wouldn't use the word "neighbouring" for two places separated by 5000 Km.

a reply to: ArMaP

I'm just quickly glancing at the thread:

Syria is closer to the location of the Libyan desert glass (some 1500 Km) but on a different continent.
Like I said before, being in the same continent means nothing.

Ok but... relatively nearby sites of Younger Dryas Impact, are relevant for their relative-closeness, to the Libyan Desert site.

Because the relative closeness suggests that the Libyan glass site might ALSO be remnant from the same YD Impact event around 11,000 yrs ago.

Again, only if you ignore the dates.

Actually I just don't trust the dating methods as necessarily being accurate / true.

Obviously non-organic matter can't be carbon-dated, which is probably the most common, most accurate, and most trusted form of dating things, usually.

So putting aside carbon-dating, I'm just much less trusting of the other dating methods. I know there's measurement of radiation, but I just don't believe that it's necessarily accurate.







So if you take a step back from ASSUMING that we know the millions' years' history behind these different ancient sites:

Then take an honest assessment, there are two ancient melted-glass sites, relatively close to each other, one is dated to the Younger Dryas event (Syria), and the other site (Libya) seems to share the same characteristics of melted glass impact remnants.

It's suggestive that the Libyan site could be the same impact remnants from the same YD event, which is supposedly established for the Syrian melted glass site.

And I (and I suppose most people) wouldn't use the word "neighbouring" for two places separated by 5000 Km.

It's relatively speaking "nearby" when we're discussing Younger Dryas Impact sites, of which there are only a handful in the world (AFAIK), and especially for figuring out the age of the Libyan glass site, it's absolutely relevant that there's apparently 2 established Younger Dryas Impact sites, both south of the Libyan site, and also, north of it.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Ok but... relatively nearby sites of Younger Dryas Impact, are relevant for their relative-closeness, to the Libyan Desert site.

Because the relative closeness suggests that the Libyan glass site might ALSO be remnant from the same YD Impact event around 11,000 yrs ago.

Are you thinking of only one impact?

Actually I just don't trust the dating methods as necessarily being accurate / true.

But you trust the dating of the Younger Dryas locations...

So putting aside carbon-dating, I'm just much less trusting of the other dating methods. I know there's measurement of radiation, but I just don't believe that it's necessarily accurate.

I suppose you know that Carbon 14 dating is one method of radiation decay measurement.

Then take an honest assessment, there are two ancient melted-glass sites, relatively close to each other, one is dated to the Younger Dryas event (Syria), and the other site (Libya) seems to share the same characteristics of melted glass impact remnants.

It's suggestive that the Libyan site could be the same impact remnants from the same YD event, which is supposedly established for the Syrian melted glass site.

Why that fixation on the need of the Libyan desert glass being part of the Younger Dryas event?
And, as I asked above, are you thinking about only one impact or several?
One doesn't make much sense, several doesn't need them to be close to each other.

It's relatively speaking "nearby" when we're discussing Younger Dryas Impact sites, of which there are only a handful in the world (AFAIK), and especially for figuring out the age of the Libyan glass site, it's absolutely relevant that there's apparently 2 established Younger Dryas Impact sites, both south of the Libyan site, and also, north of it.

Don't forget the Earth is more or less a sphere, for any point of view there are more areas that are not visible than those that are visible, so for an impact in South Africa, for example, perpendicular to the ground, the Libyan desert is almost on the horizon, making it less likely to be part of the effects of that impact.

a reply to: ArMaP

Are you thinking of only one impact?

^I think that's a good question. We know there are several YD Impact sites around the world. (So obviously there's not just one YD impact site, rather, there are several such sites, spread around the world, practically everywhere.)

^So it's not a question of number of Impact sites (several). But it IS a good question if the several sites are from ONE EVENT or not.

And yes, I typically think of the several Impact sites coming from the same ONE ancient nuclear war, around 11,000yrs ago. Which gave us the several Impact sites, from the one world-ending war.

There might have been multiple weapons blasts too, maybe, as part of the one world-ending cataclysm, but so even then, it seems part of the same one world-ending war.




By the way, I mentioned it earlier, but ancient Indian / Hindu scriptures DO report exactly that: Ancient war that destroyed the previous advanced civilizations.

So everything I've talked about is accurate to THAT, and it's also a huge indicator that mankind's current dating methods and assumptions are wrong. The scriptures themselves are tracing back THOUSANDS OF YEARS more than the modern concept of dating things.

So Indian texts alone, are at odds with the modern dating methods, because the Indian texts record MORE THOUSANDS of years, more than our current dating methods, and the Indian scriptures even spell out the world-ending doomsday nuclear war, from thousands of yrs ago.

Which I find absolutely more compelling (than modern dating methods) because the Indian texts are the ACTUAL CURRENT RECORD of the ancient history, including its ancient nuclear war.

It's real recorded history, stretching thousands of yrs further, than modern science acknowledges that civilization even started. They're 2 timelines, and one is wrong.











Brahmastra : Was it the ancient Sanskrit equivalent of nuclear missile or atom bomb?

By Mala Chandrashekhar

May 25, 2022
cultureandheritage.org...

originally posted by: JamesChessman
And yes, I typically think of the several Impact sites coming from the same ONE ancient nuclear war, around 11,000yrs ago. Which gave us the several Impact sites, from the one world-ending war.

Then what's the problem with at least one of the locations not being from that event? Why should that supposed ancient nuclear war have exclusivity over desert glass?

So everything I've talked about is accurate to THAT, and it's also a huge indicator that mankind's current dating methods and assumptions are wrong. The scriptures themselves are tracing back THOUSANDS OF YEARS more than the modern concept of dating things.

If you assume the "scriptures" are right.

Which I find absolutely more compelling (than modern dating methods) because the Indian texts are the ACTUAL CURRENT RECORD of the ancient history, including its ancient nuclear war.

It's real recorded history, stretching thousands of yrs further, than modern science acknowledges that civilization even started.

OK, if those texts are real records of what happened, that means that there were still people alive to record those events, right?
If they knew what happened then they also knew some thing about that civilisation, like today's people know. Some of them should be familiar with how some of the things were done and so they should have been able to keep some kind of civilisation. For example, if our civilisation like we know it ended tomorrow and I survived, I know some basic things, like how to make bricks and a basic mortar, how to make rude tools to be able to cut small trees, etc., so I alone would have enough knowledge to make a basic house. Other people would have knowledge of other things, like how to work with iron (my knowledge about that is too basic, I don't think I would be able to do it), etc. A basic knowledge of agriculture would also be a big help, as not only it would give better food but also things like cotton, linen and wool from which to make clothes.

That's one of the reasons I find it unlikely that things happened that way, I don't think it would be possible that a destructive event would be able to destroy completely a civilisation while leaving survivors.

Unless they had special weapons that only left the idiots alive.

They're 2 timelines, and one is wrong.

Or both.

a reply to: ArMaP

Then what's the problem with at least one of the locations not being from that event? Why should that supposed ancient nuclear war have exclusivity over desert glass?

Because there are several indications that the Libyan glass field is from the Younger Dryas ancient nuclear war.

1. It's relatively close to two established YD Impact sites, and the Libyan glass field is relatively in-between the 2 YD Impact sites. That proximity ALONE suggests that it's ALSO from the same Event as the 2 other Impact sites.



2. I haven't looked up images yet, from the Syrian melted-glass site, but the physical description sounds the same: desert melted-sand-glass fields. The physical similarities suggest that both relatively-close sites, with apparently the same qualities, are likely from the SAME cause: The YD Impact, which the Syrian site is established as. The Libyan site is relatively nearby with the same characteristics.




3. Egypt has ample ancient evidence of nuclear war, as I mentioned: Exploded statues, and exploded pyramids. This ALONE suggests ancient nuclear war. And this also probably nails down the Libyan site, which is relatively close, as also being FROM that same YD nuclear war. Also, the Egypt nuclear war damage, should probably nail down the timeline of the Event as around 11,000yrs ago, because that's already thousands yrs earlier than mainstream science acknowledges civilization existing... and AFAIK it's the most recent doomsday event that we could blame for the destruction.



4. The Indian texts report ancient nuclear war, destroying past advanced civilizations, and that ALONE should be enough to consider it as the possible cause, when we find ancient sites of doomsday destruction, like the Libyan site, and it's also enough to consider that mountains that resemble pyramids, just might be actual pyramids, from that past advanced civilization that the ancient Indians recorded.



Like the Bosnian pyramid, it's just obvious and self-evident that it's a buried pyramid:


Same for the OP's featured buried pyramids, they're obvious & self-evident pyramids, including damage that one is exploded, the other blasted through:









5. King Tut's chest-piece is obviously worshipping / revering the glowing translucent beetle, carved from the Libyan Desert Glass. Which is either a totally meaningless random object, OR if you look for a meaning in it, the chest-piece is bragging of his nuclear weaponry that CREATED the melted-glass beetle.

a reply to: JamesChessman

with a winter temperature range of -10c to -40c and with monthly averages around -11c here during the winter and a yearly average of -3c.

A yearly average of -5c means throw on extra layer and stay out of the wind.
All depends on what the body gets use to ask the Inuit.



gov heating

a reply to: ArMaP

Canadian southern prairie mean average temperature is -3c. So a -5c is not cold Thompson is -9c

a reply to: puzzled2

I don't think you're really saying much though.

You're talking about below-freezing temperatures, and yes, it's cold, it's enough to kill life without sufficient barrier against the cold, and without sufficient heating.

America uses Fahrenheit but in Celsius, it's famous that water freezes at 0.

So all your examples are below-freezing.

Plus, the entire topic of the Younger Dryas event was that climates suddenly changed, mostly turning colder and plunging into the last Ice Age.

I quoted more specific info about this, earlier in the thread.

But anyway, yes the last Ice Age was cold, and it's a matter of climates being suddenly disrupted and changed, mostly turning drastically colder, rather immediately.

It probably killed most life, in general, including cold exposure, starvation from lack of food, plus a bombardment of natural disasters caused by the sudden disruptions of climate, & disruptions of warm/cold air currents: hurricanes, floods, etc.

a reply to: JamesChessman

But here's the thing still clean water freezes at 0c but does moving non-pure water and to what depth.

Proof that people can survive the extreme cold is the Inuit, proof that "Sudden" in climate terms is decades in length. which gave people the opportunity to adapt.

As there was not Billions of people dependent on supermarkets and tied to a location but were self-sufficient and mobile. They would adapt or move the same as animals do. The frozen hunter Otzi showed how they learnt to insolate with grass.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Because there are several indications that the Libyan glass field is from the Younger Dryas ancient nuclear war.

Supposed nuclear war.

1. It's relatively close to two established YD Impact sites, and the Libyan glass field is relatively in-between the 2 YD Impact sites. That proximity ALONE suggests that it's ALSO from the same Event as the 2 other Impact sites.

It does not. First of all, it's not close to South Africa, as much as you try to make it. Second, unless you are talking about one large impact, proximity is irrelevant.
What do you think is more likely in case of a nuclear war, the use of a giant bomb that destroys everything (and if it fails that whole area will suffer nothing) or several smaller bombs, with a higher probability of success?

2. I haven't looked up images yet, from the Syrian melted-glass site, but the physical description sounds the same: desert melted-sand-glass fields. The physical similarities suggest that both relatively-close sites, with apparently the same qualities, are likely from the SAME cause: The YD Impact, which the Syrian site is established as. The Libyan site is relatively nearby with the same characteristics.

So, you do not know the characteristics, but you say they are the same.
Really?

3. Egypt has ample ancient evidence of nuclear war, as I mentioned: Exploded statues, and exploded pyramids. This ALONE suggests ancient nuclear war.

I have yet to see those.

And this also probably nails down the Libyan site, which is relatively close, as also being FROM that same YD nuclear war.

In fact, the Libyan desert glass location is in Egypt, at least according to the map you posted and this book, from which the map came.

Also, the Egypt nuclear war damage, should probably nail down the timeline of the Event as around 11,000yrs ago, because that's already thousands yrs earlier than mainstream science acknowledges civilization existing... and AFAIK it's the most recent doomsday event that we could blame for the destruction.

Any destruction could only have happened after whatever was destroyed was built, so if we know the build date we know that the destruction cannot be older.

4. The Indian texts report ancient nuclear war, destroying past advanced civilizations, and that ALONE should be enough to consider it as the possible cause, when we find ancient sites of doomsday destruction, like the Libyan site, and it's also enough to consider that mountains that resemble pyramids, just might be actual pyramids, from that past advanced civilization that the ancient Indians recorded.

Only if you are trying to force everything to fit your idea.

Like the Bosnian pyramid, it's just obvious and self-evident that it's a buried pyramid:

Only if you ignore the geology of that area and of the "pyramids", they are obviously natural.

Same for the OP's featured buried pyramids, they're obvious & self-evident pyramids, including damage that one is exploded, the other blasted through:

Same for those, they look natural to anyone that knows a little about geology.

5. King Tut's chest-piece is obviously worshipping / revering the glowing translucent beetle, carved from the Libyan Desert Glass. Which is either a totally meaningless random object, OR if you look for a meaning in it, the chest-piece is bragging of his nuclear weaponry that CREATED the melted-glass beetle.

Or has some other meaning.
I find it funny how people that know nothing about a subject talk about it as if they are experts.
Do you know the meaning of the lotus flowers? Or the beetle? Or of any other element of that chest-piece?
Some people have studied those things for many years, it's not like was just brought by an Alien to Earth and we know nothing about the civilisation that created it.

a reply to: puzzled2

It's cold, but it doesn't make it impossible to live.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
It probably killed most life, in general, including cold exposure, starvation from lack of food, plus a bombardment of natural disasters caused by the sudden disruptions of climate, & disruptions of warm/cold air currents: hurricanes, floods, etc.

There aren't any signs of that "bombardment of natural disasters", only signs of a drop in temperature.

a reply to: ArMaP

It does not. First of all, it's not close to South Africa, as much as you try to make it.

S. Africa is south of the Libyan site, the Syrian site is to the northeast of it. The Libyan site is in-between these 2 established YD sites.

Second, unless you are talking about one large impact, proximity is irrelevant.
What do you think is more likely in case of a nuclear war, the use of a giant bomb that destroys everything (and if it fails that whole area will suffer nothing) or several smaller bombs, with a higher probability of success?

Well proximity could suggest different sites being related from the same events. And sure there were many different bombs / impacts.

So, you do not know the characteristics, but you say they are the same.
Really?

They're both nearby sites of ancient melted sand.

In fact, the Libyan desert glass location is in Egypt, at least according to the map you posted and this book, from which the map came.

^
It's not overlapping the ancient Egyptian ruins, as far as I know, so I referred to it as nearby the ancient Egyptian ruins.

a reply to: ArMaP

Any destruction could only have happened after whatever was destroyed was built, so if we know the build date we know that the destruction cannot be older.

I don't think there are any clear, definite build dates of any of the Egpytian pyramids... whereas the YD Impact Event is supposedly pretty well established around 11,000 yrs ago. And it was the most recent global catastrophe AFAIK. So it's a good candidate when there's sites found of ancient impact destruction.

Only if you ignore the geology of that area and of the "pyramids", they are obviously natural.

Same for those, they look natural to anyone that knows a little about geology.

Suit yourself, lol. Enjoy your knowledge that pyramid-shaped mountains absolutely can't be ancient pyramids.

Or has some other meaning.
I find it funny how people that know nothing about a subject talk about it as if they are experts.

Well if artwork is MEANT TO BE INTERPRETED, then I did what it was meant for.
I guess your superior expertise would be... not trying to interpret it, then.

I also didn't think it was overly obscure, it has a glowing translucent beetle carved from melted-sand glass from explosions... seemingly 4 lights with cables running from the beetle, seemingly tucked-in wings, and obvious rockets on the bottom.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
S. Africa is south of the Libyan site, the Syrian site is to the northeast of it. The Libyan site is in-between these 2 established YD sites.

Not really.

(As I don't know the locations in Syria or South Africa I marked the whole countries in red. I also marked in red the approximate area where the glass was discovered in the Libyan desert)

Well proximity could suggest different sites being related from the same events. And sure there were many different bombs / impacts.

But South Africa is not close to the Libyan desert or Syria.

They're both nearby sites of ancient melted sand.

They have slightly different geologic characteristics.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Suit yourself, lol. Enjoy your knowledge that pyramid-shaped mountains absolutely can't be ancient pyramids.

Shape is only one characteristic, you are ignoring all the others, like lack of signs of being man-made and signs that they are natural limestone (or similar) formations.
The video shows the internal structure of the cave walls, do the look artificial?
To anyone that knows a little geology, that's an obvious natural site.

The same can be said about the Bosnian pyramid.

Well if artwork is MEANT TO BE INTERPRETED, then I did what it was meant for.
I guess your superior expertise would be... not trying to interpret it, then.

Artwork is not meant to be interpreted, it's meant to be admired, with each person getting their own feelings about it.
In this case, we don't know if that is only artwork or if it had some kind of use (art is not supposed to have any other use besides being admired), in which case it would not be just an artwork.

But if it was an object with a specific meaning made with artistic care then it would have been made with specific things in mind and followed some guidelines, with some parts representing specific things.
To interpret those specific parts and the whole you can either use only your imagination or look at what the people that have been studying these things for decades think about it.

I also didn't think it was overly obscure, it has a glowing translucent beetle carved from melted-sand glass from explosions... seemingly 4 lights with cables running from the beetle, seemingly tucked-in wings, and obvious rockets on the bottom.

That's your interpretation, biased by both your wishful thinking and your modern knowledge.
To understand the meaning of ancient things we need to know how the people that made them thought and how they viewed their world.

For example, if you see a simple drawing of a man in a full body suit, boots and a round helmet, what do you think about, an astronaut or a diver?
Things are not black and white, specially when human actions and thoughts are involved.

PS: although I never studied art I have helped my elder sister in many of her works while she was taking her 5 years art course, so I do know a little about art and art history.

Came across this thought I would add it here.

China needs to stay out of caves and avoid bats