Evidence of cooking 780,000 years ago rewrites human history

originally posted by: XipeTotex

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: XipeTotex
a reply to: TrueAmerican

Well there are hawks that start fires to drive out prey animals from the bushes, so most likely we have been using fire a lot longer than we think.

As for megaliths, Joseph Davidovits has many lectures that one can find and watch, in one of them he goes in to great details on how and where these cultures sourced all the materials needed to create all kinds of geopolymer concretes and aggregates, and all of his theories make perfect sense, just need a couple of rocks and the right type of activators, through trial and error. Kinda the same with huasca, thousands upon thousands of plants in the jungle, but combine the right ones you suddenly have created a religion that will last for eternity.

Much easier to lift baskets of crushed stone than a whopping boulder.

The problem is you have to crush the stone, then carry it up, make a mold, then bring up water. You then have to let it set and then remove the mold. Despite what Davidovits says we don't have evidence of them doing this. We see them cutting rocks out as blocks, they have tool marks on them, and they aren't uniform, and don't show mold marks, etc.

Crushing stone is much easier than forming them with a chisel, also easier to carry baskets full of crushed stone and the activator, and to do the molds, than it is to lift up giant blocks. there is evidence, nanoscale silica spheres are present in egyptian blocks, and those are not found in the surrounding natural stones. molds do not mean uniform, using molds does not mean there would be no tool marks, using a mold does not mean there must be mold marks, i know, i have used geopolymers myself, made the molds, finished the casts, used all kinds of stone in them. they are cured in 24h.

The limestone that makes up 99% of the Giza pyramids breaks out of the quarry in the shapes we see with just a few wedges and a little pounding.
You can't pretend they were all "formed with a chisel."

Take a look at these stones and tell us - why are they all different sizes?


Note the prep for more wedging you can see in the stone to the left in this limestone quarry:


Harte

a reply to: Harte

I did not say all of them are this or that, many different methods have been utilized. Different sizes mean nothing, quite simple to do with molds.

As for the quarries, i dont know what to tell you, an exceptionally talented scientist says it does not hold up under closer inspection, many of the pyramid stones do not match the stones of the quarry.

One obvious reason for this is that they measured it out in the quarry,much easier than actually weighing the materials needed. Got blocks out, crushed and carried to casting stations.

They probably had a pretty good idea how much does a square M weighs for example, makes the mixing more efficient.

Your points prove nothing.

That last picture you showed, with the squared out grid actually builds a better case for me, that looks perfect for streamlining production, nice even squares.


Going to take an opportunity here to also point out, that people have been using alkaline and acid solutions for thousands and thousands of years, originally used for leather for example, it was only a matter of time before they figured out it can be used as an activator.


The theory has been peer reviewed by the scientific community, and has support.

Archaeology is stuck in its own fantasy, just playing in the dust, pretending to be indiana jones, refusing to work with actual scientists.

originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind

originally posted by: TrueAmerican
But this also has even more religious implications, showing stronger evolutionary human history dating back far, far beyond what had previously been known. So is there a biblical explanation for this?

I think there is a biblical explanation for it.

In Genesis chapter 1, verse 26, it says:
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth

...

You'll notice is says "over all the earth."

Genesis chapter 1, verse 26 was probably the work of source P or source J - en.wikipedia.org...; en.wikipedia.org..., composed at some time during the 1st millennium BC.

What would the concept ""over all the earth" have meant to someone from the Near East writing in the 1st millennium? What would they have understood by the (translated) term "earth"?

a reply to: TrulyColorBlind
just chiming in TCB

yes you explained it well - but you couldn't know that the scroll
has been corrupted in order to hide the theme 'the other Reality' ;
the problem with old-Hebrew is that there's no such term as 'earth'
[=by which we understand this planet] , only 'land' is used and 'ground' :
the latter is (-adme) in the same cluster as 'Adam' (-adm)
and most often has to be interpreted as 'Eden' (-odn) ;

and by the use of certain phrases you can see whether 'this land [=earth]'
is ment or 'the [eden-] land' or 'the land of the demons north of eden'
for example this earth is often said as "the land far away"
or as 'the fortress' or "fotressed land"
and most often by the Dual-term "Jerusalem [=earth] and Judah [=this world]"

therefore the eden paradise was NOT 'on this earth' but in the deep S-East of us ,
at the top of a mountain called 'My sacred montain' - as if carrying her

... for the same reason Cain was an evil [=non-Adamite] type soul
having aquired an eden-type [most gorgeous-] body :
it's a long story but that is why the Egyptians - and that group today -
write how Cain [QÂN] is their father
and you will find Cain depicted in the [egyptian-] Book of Gates
having a dna-like chain around his neck]

Cain therefore did not go to 'Nod' but to 'the region in the north'
namely that of the demons. Cain was a type of '5 column', an intruder ;

Adam saw the possibilities of that and also went 'to the north'
[the Isaiah 14 chapter is about him]
and put our souls on this earth NOT made by God
in a body NEITHER made by Him

in fact , this body is an incredible ugly 'mixture'
of Neanderthal aspects and eden aspects --
and this is the real problem with 'science' [and also 'creationism'] :
they project it back as if 'we' were here for 100,000 ds of years
while we came here but say 12,000 years ago

originally posted by: XipeTotex

As for the quarries, i dont know what to tell you, an exceptionally talented scientist says it does not hold up under closer inspection, many of the pyramid stones do not match the stones of the quarry.

If the stones were made out of reconstituted, crushed, rocks then none of them would match any rock in any quarry, either in terms of stratification or chemical composition. You wouldn't need to be a geologist to readily see the difference.

Oddly, however, none of the geologists, who have been able to determine exactly which quarries the various stones originated from, have noticed this.

ooops , forgot the OP article -
it may or not be true ;
problem is ofcourse that 'science' is very biased :
hiding themes as 'giants' etc yet trumpeting these

but if you know for whom much of science works
- namely for that same club that does not want you to know
about the other reality since at that point God will end them -
it is even móre credible that this was just another intent to confuse
and promote the 'we all came from 1 ape in dark Africa' ...

a reply to: AndyMayhew

Only thing i am going to say about this matter is, that it bothered me for years, how are some of those blocks and statues made? Some statues even have magnetic pin points, like the belly of a frog or the nose of a jaguar, then i spent years studying mold making&materials, went trough everything Davidovits wrote, conducted my own experiments with great success, and they dont bother me anymore, now i know how all of it is possible, even the magnetic points etc. without relying on basically stories from the bible, where current archaeology seems to be based.

Its doable, no aliens, no ramps bigger than the pyramid itself, none of that nonsense. You only need a lot of people that are able to crush and carry, then a few alchemists and engineers and you are done.

Even managed to recreate those tiny bubbles/holes you can see in some olmec heads, it was some kind of chemical reaction and the bubbles attached to the edge of the molds, looked cool, but was not wanted.. Happy accident anyway. Oh, and some ancient artifacts sweat this kind of dust, one experiment did that too, the object just keeps sweating dust, might be useful if you want to create a self repairing material.

originally posted by: XipeTotex
a reply to: AndyMayhew

Only thing i am going to say about this matter is, that it bothered me for years, how are some of those blocks and statues made? Some statues even have magnetic pin points, like the belly of a frog or the nose of a jaguar, then i spent years studying mold making&materials, went trough everything Davidovits wrote, conducted my own experiments with great success, and they dont bother me anymore, now i know how all of it is possible, even the magnetic points etc. without relying on basically stories from the bible, where current archaeology seems to be based.

Its doable, no aliens, no ramps bigger than the pyramid itself, none of that nonsense. You only need a lot of people that are able to crush and carry, then a few alchemists and engineers and you are done.

... perhaps you could do it XT
but you overlook the goal 'they' had in constructing the thing

the pyramid 'anchors' a concept existing in the other reality upon earth ;
the central theme are 'two dimensional gates' connected by 'that stairway'
which represents 'the Nile'

the pyramid itself is , as it were , standing over/on eden ,
to imagine that : as 'carrying this solarplane in his top'
[hence the topstone is glyph BENBEN where the 'B' means 'solarplane']

'the [dimensional-] Nile' as river brings the stolen eden aspects to their north ,
as aspects stolen from the eden gate in the south
which first enter their [dimensional-] gate at the so-called king's chamber ,
before those 'cleaned' aspects enter their paradise in the solarplane

... in prophets the pyramid is called 'you evil mountain ,
you will become a burn-out mountain'
and in a Pyr Text [560 or so] the operator describes it as "working"
lieterally as "it works speech"
what that means is a bit unclear - 'speech' often means 'creational speech'
as having power to also command materials
[and in wider sense perhaps 'to create an altered type (sorcery-) dimension]
bý the very shape of the pyramid ; hence the Nile is 'inside it' ?]
so
methinks that the guys having built this thing could do the same here ...

originally posted by: MetalThunder

Cool video and I tend to agree with its premise, most of it is driven by ideology and theory rather than fact with its proponents using any science to try to back up their claims as fact rather than farce while ignoring or denying contradictory evidence that goes against their perceived reality.

Often, they will wait until the finders of such out of place artifacts have either sold them or are dead before character assassinating them or claiming their finds were creations, forgeries or otherwise but in general stooping to any level to dismiss or deny evidence that does not go along with their own belief in what is essentially a new religion based around as this video correctly points out materialistic interpretations of reality.

originally posted by: Hanslune

Cooperton: "there's no convincing evidence that the site is 780,00 years old


Hanslune: "Nope they have a date based on oxygen isotope stage 19. I have link below that explains what that is."

www.jstor.org...

www.sciencedirect.com...

Relying on oxygen isotope ratios is a great example of why we shouldn't just blindly trust scientists when they claim super old dates for geological strata or archaeological sites. Consider the following graph that shows variations in O18/O16 ratios over time:

www.researchgate.net...

Notice that knowing the ratio would not allow you to tell the difference between the multiple other maxima and minima in the data set. For example, you could not tell the difference between 100,000 , 200,000 , 300,000 , or 400,000 years old due to them supposedly having the same ratio. This also assumes they are correct in their calibration of relating these Oxygen ratios to particular year ranges, not to mention the unpredictable variability in these deposition rates depending on the substrate.

This is why I said there is no conclusive evidence that what they're saying is true. Sedimentary rock can form very quickly, so there's no reason to assume this region is old at all. Consider how fast a brick turns into a stone simply from mud sitting in the sun for a few days.

originally posted by: lonerpt

originally posted by: XipeTotex
a reply to: AndyMayhew

Only thing i am going to say about this matter is, that it bothered me for years, how are some of those blocks and statues made? Some statues even have magnetic pin points, like the belly of a frog or the nose of a jaguar, then i spent years studying mold making&materials, went trough everything Davidovits wrote, conducted my own experiments with great success, and they dont bother me anymore, now i know how all of it is possible, even the magnetic points etc. without relying on basically stories from the bible, where current archaeology seems to be based.

Its doable, no aliens, no ramps bigger than the pyramid itself, none of that nonsense. You only need a lot of people that are able to crush and carry, then a few alchemists and engineers and you are done.

... perhaps you could do it XT
but you overlook the goal 'they' had in constructing the thing

the pyramid 'anchors' a concept existing in the other reality upon earth ;
the central theme are 'two dimensional gates' connected by 'that stairway'
which represents 'the Nile'

the pyramid itself is , as it were , standing over/on eden ,
to imagine that : as 'carrying this solarplane in his top'
[hence the topstone is glyph BENBEN where the 'B' means 'solarplane']

'the [dimensional-] Nile' as river brings the stolen eden aspects to their north ,
as aspects stolen from the eden gate in the south
which first enter their [dimensional-] gate at the so-called king's chamber ,
before those 'cleaned' aspects enter their paradise in the solarplane

... in prophets the pyramid is called 'you evil mountain ,
you will become a burn-out mountain'
and in a Pyr Text [560 or so] the operator describes it as "working"
lieterally as "it works speech"
what that means is a bit unclear - 'speech' often means 'creational speech'
as having power to also command materials
[and in wider sense perhaps 'to create an altered type (sorcery-) dimension]
bý the very shape of the pyramid ; hence the Nile is 'inside it' ?]
so
methinks that the guys having built this thing could do the same here ...

On the contrary, i am well aware of the fact its a symbolic mountain that acts as a portal to somewhere else, many places most likely, there usually is a stream too, right beside it or under it.
The rituals they did there must have been really something. Mind blowing probably.

originally posted by: sarahvital
i wonder if they had
a prehistoric hell's kitchen?

caveman ramsey, lol.
or a mammoth cook off every year?! @ bernnieJgato.


i bet food was a big driver in developing a society, bringing tribes together.

cooking foods made digestion easier and safer to eat.

Some theorized that our language and culture were derived in part from people sitting at night around a fire, watching the sky and eating. their thousands of years of discussions led to civilization.

Actually no it isn't it a lot less work to bash them out. One interesting note in 19/20th century when they cleared the quarries on Giza guess what it was full of? Limestone chips, why would there be chips if they were using them to make stones?

here is evidence, nanoscale silica spheres are present in egyptian blocks

Evidence?

One thing that IS in the limestone are fossils - its is limestone - if you crush the rocks there would be no intact fossils.

Sorry, but I don't believe you. there is no evidence for mold use and extensive evidence of hand tools

originally posted by: XipeTotex
a reply to: AndyMayhew

Only thing i am going to say about this matter is, that it bothered me for years, how are some of those blocks and statues made? Some statues even have magnetic pin points, like the belly of a frog or the nose of a jaguar, then i spent years studying mold making&materials, went trough everything Davidovits wrote, conducted my own experiments with great success, and they dont bother me anymore, now i know how all of it is possible, even the magnetic points etc. without relying on basically stories from the bible, where current archaeology seems to be based.

Its doable, no aliens, no ramps bigger than the pyramid itself, none of that nonsense. You only need a lot of people that are able to crush and carry, then a few alchemists and engineers and you are done.

Even managed to recreate those tiny bubbles/holes you can see in some olmec heads, it was some kind of chemical reaction and the bubbles attached to the edge of the molds, looked cool, but was not wanted.. Happy accident anyway. Oh, and some ancient artifacts sweat this kind of dust, one experiment did that too, the object just keeps sweating dust, might be useful if you want to create a self repairing material.

Sorry but your personal belief in Davidovitts ideas doesn't alter the evidence or the reality.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Hanslune

Cooperton: "there's no convincing evidence that the site is 780,00 years old


Hanslune: "Nope they have a date based on oxygen isotope stage 19. I have link below that explains what that is."

www.jstor.org...

www.sciencedirect.com...

Relying on oxygen isotope ratios is a great example of why we shouldn't just blindly trust scientists when they claim super old dates for geological strata or archaeological sites. Consider the following graph that shows variations in O18/O16 ratios over time:

www.researchgate.net...

Notice that knowing the ratio would not allow you to tell the difference between the multiple other maxima and minima in the data set. For example, you could not tell the difference between 100,000 , 200,000 , 300,000 , or 400,000 years old due to them supposedly having the same ratio. This also assumes they are correct in their calibration of relating these Oxygen ratios to particular year ranges, not to mention the unpredictable variability in these deposition rates depending on the substrate.

This is why I said there is no conclusive evidence that what they're saying is true. Sedimentary rock can form very quickly, so there's no reason to assume this region is old at all. Consider how fast a brick turns into a stone simply from mud sitting in the sun for a few days.

So your answer is ' I don't believe it'. Okay no one needs your permission or agreement for something to be evidence. Your appearing to be a creationist means you don't actually follow science but beliefs. There is evidence despite what you claimed.

originally posted by: lonerpt
deleted

So you seem to be suggesting that pyramids are dimensional portals? Is that correct?

isn't pyramid construction drifting from the thread subject?

unless one can tie them to a bbq pit a million yrs ago or something like an alien stove?

even if the nile flowed in front of it.
how many boats with 2 ton blocks were in service at once if they placed a block every 2 minutes?

originally posted by: XipeTotex
a reply to: Harte

I did not say all of them are this or that, many different methods have been utilized. Different sizes mean nothing, quite simple to do with molds.

As for the quarries, i dont know what to tell you, an exceptionally talented scientist says it does not hold up under closer inspection, many of the pyramid stones do not match the stones of the quarry.

The guy isn't a geologist, but he is making pronouncements about geologists - essentially saying geologists can't identify stone.
He doesn't know enough about geology to know that his findings are typical for limestone in the area.
Also, he postulates a kind of geopolymer, but has been unable to duplicate it.
In other words, you're beating a dead horse. Try addressing the fact that each block is unique. That's a lot of different sized forms, isn't it?
And remember, there is mortar between the layers so if cast they must have let them cure before placing them - they certainly couldn't have been poured in place with mortar between the layers.
So there goes that so-called advantage.
Davidovits reminds me of that homily, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Harte

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Hanslune

Cooperton: "there's no convincing evidence that the site is 780,00 years old


Hanslune: "Nope they have a date based on oxygen isotope stage 19. I have link below that explains what that is."

www.jstor.org...

www.sciencedirect.com...

Relying on oxygen isotope ratios is a great example of why we shouldn't just blindly trust scientists when they claim super old dates for geological strata or archaeological sites. Consider the following graph that shows variations in O18/O16 ratios over time:

www.researchgate.net...

Notice that knowing the ratio would not allow you to tell the difference between the multiple other maxima and minima in the data set. For example, you could not tell the difference between 100,000 , 200,000 , 300,000 , or 400,000 years old due to them supposedly having the same ratio. This also assumes they are correct in their calibration of relating these Oxygen ratios to particular year ranges, not to mention the unpredictable variability in these deposition rates depending on the substrate.

This is why I said there is no conclusive evidence that what they're saying is true. Sedimentary rock can form very quickly, so there's no reason to assume this region is old at all. Consider how fast a brick turns into a stone simply from mud sitting in the sun for a few days.

So your answer is ' I don't believe it'. Okay no one needs your permission or agreement for something to be evidence.

No I gave specific empirical points as to why their conclusions are not based in any clear unambiguous science. In your own words, Why do you suppose Oxygen ratios can unambiguously determine a date for this archaeological site?

originally posted by: sarahvital
isn't pyramid construction drifting from the thread subject?

unless one can tie them to a bbq pit a million yrs ago or something like an alien stove?

even if the nile flowed in front of it.
how many boats with 2 ton blocks were in service at once if they placed a block every 2 minutes?

Because the time flow is based on a false premise. The person who made up 2.3 million blocks didn't realize that the GP has about 23% of bulk from the ridge line that was incorporated into it. The calculation also assumes a solid GP. It isn't and contains 500,000 tons of Gypsum mortar and the core exhibits a great many 'gaps'.

The number of blocks is between 500-960,000. The blocks for the core appear to have come from the quarries on Giza, just granite and the cladding, high quality limestone from Turah, was brought over as explained in Merer's diary.

This is an image of the upper tier of the GP the only tier we can see clearly to get an idea how sloppily it was put together. i.imgur.com...