200,000 year-old African City Found? Wow...

[soundbarrier]

Why is a 'better idea' necessary? We don't need to make anything up. There is no big mystery to solve. There is no evidence of a city with a population of 200,000 AT ALL except in the author's wild flight of fancy. Even if we back away from this particular issue to humanity in general there is no need to invoke space aliens or major world catastrophes, or ancient far-advanced civilizations to explain much of anything.

I firmly believe, based on the evidence I have, that there was a fairly well advanced civilization, localized near India and the Middle East, but not worldwide, about 14,000 years ago that got wiped out by 'the Flood.' I suspect they were near-Renaissance in their capabilities and understandings, but I see no evidence that they carried around iPhones. We've done chapter and verse on this stuff before. In the greater scheme of things, it didn't slow us down much.

However, the evidence we do have points to humanity's rise over a couple of million years, out of Africa (perhaps several times) and branching out over Europe and Asia. We have plenty of skeletal and other archaeological remains, all corroborated by genetic studies (a completely different field that just happens to agree in every detail with previous findings). Within this framework there is still plenty of room for 'mystery' in the form of Atlantean or proto-Egyptian civilizations, and these do not on any way contradict the broader picture I have outlined here. It still fits--quite nicely.

The last 4000 years seems like a gargantuan leap compared to the past, but that is not really the case. Take a look at Ray Kurzweil's "singularity' hypothesis for a statistical explanation: Wikimedia Error which is exactly what we have seen in the rise of civilization.

I agree with you and you make some good points. I do think it's interesting that you bring in the "iphone" as a measure of advancement. I do understand that you were only making a point but we all have to broaden our views and consider "technology" in areas we never even dreamed of.
All our lives we are conditioned to "think" a certain way. All of us. Sometimes we stretch our minds and come up with invisibility machines, or anti gravity machines, etc. . But maybe there is a whole other direction to take. I don't have answers, only questions. And the older I get the more questions I have. So maybe one day we can just imagine whatever we want and it's there. Won't need to build anything. No cities, cars, planes, and the like. Just picture it and you have it. When you're done with it it's gone. Now there's no remains at all. Just blogging ! Happy day all .

 

[Artyom]

But maybe there is a whole other direction to take. I don't have answers, only questions. And the older I get the more questions I have. So maybe one day we can just imagine whatever we want and it's there. Won't need to build anything. No cities, cars, planes, and the like. Just picture it and you have it. When you're done with it it's gone. Now there's no remains at all. Just blogging ! Happy day all .

And now I have to agree with you You are talking about nano-tech in its extreme and it implies energy manipulation we can't even grasp on at this point . It is a pity. We still struggle with coil and oil...

 

[soundbarrier]

Amen \"til then my friend

 

[Kevin Daly]

Tellinger must be crediible, he's backed up by a fireman!

Actually, any article that includes the phrase "Is Sitchin right?" can be safely discounted, given that (despite the way he is fawned over by many in the paranormal horde) Sitchin does not have any credible background in the subjects he claims to be an expert in.

 

[soundbarrier]

Kevin Daly

Re: 200,000 year-old African City Found? Wow...
Tellinger must be crediible, he's backed up by a fireman!

Actually, any article that includes the phrase "Is Sitchin right?" can be safely discounted, given that (despite the way he is fawned over by many in the paranormal horde) Sitchin does not have any credible background in the subjects he claims to be an expert in.



but again I say, does anyone have a better idea ?/ Believe Sitchen or not, his stuff adds up, at least after book 1
​

 

[Schuyler]

but again I say, does anyone have a better idea? Believe Sitchen or not, his stuff adds up, at least after book 1

And again I say, why is a better idea necessary? You don't need Sitchin to 'explain' anything. The evolution of humanity (AT LEAST from Homo erectus and many would say from Homo aferensis) and the rise of civilization can be explained within the parameters of the evidence we have (in terms of time elapsed and artifacts) without resorting to 'aliens from space,' planetary collisions, or any other paranormal theory out there. It simply isn't necessary. Further, there is plenty of room within the evidence we know for a few other 'civilizations' to have emerged and died out. So if you insist on Atlantis, there's plenty of room to stick it in the overall scheme of things and it wouldn't change that scheme one iota.

It's very frustrating to come across an article such as the one that started this thread, show how much BS it is, then have folks come back and say, 'well, maybe there's this other technology we don't know about and maybe we could just create stuff from thought alone, etc.'

Maybe. Speculation is good. Speculation is good even if you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back that speculation up. But at some point, if your speculations are to be taken seriously, you absolutely must show evidence why your theory might be true. Making grandiose claims does not constitute evidence and it doesn't make this 200,000 year old city pop into life. It's still all BS.

 

[Red]

but again I say, does anyone have a better idea ?/ Believe Sitchen or not, his stuff adds up, at least after book 1
[/INDENT]

soundbarrier,
Here is an interesting critique of Sitchin: Zecharia Sitchin. It is written by a doctoral candidate who studies the same languages that Sitchin purports to.

Maybe. Speculation is good. Speculation is good even if you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back that speculation up. But at some point, if your speculations are to be taken seriously, you absolutely must show evidence why your theory might be true. Making grandiose claims does not constitute evidence and it doesn't make this 200,000 year old city pop into life. It's still all BS.

Schuyler,
On an interesting aside, have you read Julian Jaynes? Interesting hypothesis how we may have evolved into consciousness. I found it much more compelling than any of Sitchin's work.

 

[Schuyler]

Schuyler,
On an interesting aside, have you read Julian Jaynes? Interesting hypothesis how we may have evolved into consciousness. I found it much more compelling than any of Sitchin's work.

That's the bi-cameral mind guy, right? I read that book a very long time ago. Kinda fuzzy now. I should probably go take another look. Thanks.

 

[Red]

That's the bi-cameral mind guy, right? I read that book a very long time ago. Kinda fuzzy now. I should probably go take another look. Thanks.

That would be him. I read it last spring and I found it very compelling.