Youtube comments of World of Antiquity (@WorldofAntiquity).
-
4300
-
265
-
245
-
Here is the account of the building of Sacsayhuaman in the Crónicas del Perú by Pedro Cieza de León, chapter 51:
"The city of Cuzco is built in a valley, and on the slopes of hills, as I explained in the first part of this history, and from the edifices themselves run broad terraces on which they sow their crops, and they rise one above the other like walls, so that the whole slopes were formed in these andenes, which made the city stronger, although its position is naturally strong. For this reason the lords selected it, out of so many other sites. The dominion of the kings was now become extensive and powerful, and Inca Yupanqui entertained far- reaching thoughts. Notwithstanding that the temple of the Sun, called Curicancha, had been enriched and beautified by himself, and that he had erected other great edifices, he resolved to build another house of the Sun which should surpass all existing temples, and to enrich it with all the things that could be obtained, as well gold and silver as precious stones, fine cloth, arms of all the different kinds they used, munitions of war, shoes, plumes of feathers, skins of animals and birds, coca, sacks of wool, and valuables of a thousand kinds, in short, all things of which they had any knowledge. This work was begun with such lofty aspirations, that if their monarchy had endured until to-day it would not yet have been completed.
The Inca ordered that the provinces should provide 20,000 men and that the villages should send the necessary pro visions. If any fell sick, another labourer was to supply his place, and he was to return to his home. But these Indians were not kept constantly at a work in progress. They laboured for a limited time, and were then relieved by others, so that they did not feel the demand on their services. There were 4,000 labourers whose duty it was to quarry and get out the stones; 6,000 conveyed them by means of great cables of leather and of cabuya to the works. The rest opened the ground and prepared the foundations, some being told off to cut the posts and beams for the woodwork. For their greater convenience, these labourers made their dwelling-huts, each lineage apart, near the place where the works were progressing. To this day most of the walls of these lodgings may be seen. Overseers were stationed to superintend, and there were great masters of the art of building who had been well instructed. Thus on the highest part of a hill to the north of the city, and little more than an arquebus shot from it, this fortress was built which the natives called the House of the Sun, but which we named the Fortress.
The living rock was excavated for the foundation, which was prepared with such solidity that it will endure as long as the world itself. The work had, according to my estimate, a length of 330 paces, and a width of 200. Its walls were so strong that there is no artillery which could breach them. The principal entrance was a thing worthy of contemplation, to see how well it was built, and how the walls were arranged so that one commanded the other. And in these walls there were stones so large and mighty that it tired the judgment to conceive how they could have been conveyed and placed, and who could have had sufficient power to shape them, seeing that among these people there are so few tools. Some of these stones are of a width of twelve feet and more than twenty long, others are thicker than a bullock. All the stones are laid and joined with such delicacy that a rial could not be put in between two of them."
207
-
167
-
165
-
135
-
134
-
119
-
117
-
103
-
98
-
94
-
92
-
91
-
91
-
89
-
86
-
82
-
79
-
79
-
78
-
70
-
68
-
68
-
67
-
67
-
66
-
66
-
65
-
65
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
60
-
59
-
58
-
57
-
57
-
56
-
55
-
55
-
54
-
51
-
50
-
50
-
49
-
47
-
46
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
Okay, Martin. I have time now to respond to your criticisms.
1) "The first test, as I admit, is subjective. But not in the way you describe."
In what way then? You said it was not properly scientific, and since this is the only test you have that tests your Gobekli Tepe hypothesis (well, a part of your hypothesis), then we may conclude that you do not have a properly scientific test for your claims about Gobekli Tepe.
2) "Your test is invalid because you make up your own constellations. We discussed this at great length in advance, and I made it clear you had to compare the animal symbols with the constellations (points and lines) in Stellarium. You decided to make up your own lines, but this is not allowed."
Then you have changed the nature of the test. It no longer tests how well the animal symbols match to the ancient Greek constellations and now merely tests how well the animal symbols match to the modern constellations as seen in Stellarium.
3) "For the second test you object to my 'cleaning' of the data. But your objections are weak." English is the language of science. English language journals have, in general, the best peer review.
Those aren't scientific reasons. Those are subjective opinions. A true scientist would engage with the data and accept or reject it on scientific grounds.
4) Clearly, I cannot use either data point for a cave painting if they are mutually inconsistent. Rejecting both is the safest option.
I never argued it wasn't safe.
5) And I give good reasons for rejecting the underwater data at Cosquer - because there is good evidence the data is inconsistent, for the same painting, as data from above water. This is described in my paper.
It sounds like you're using the conclusion of your study to determine what should be considered consistent in the data you put into it.
6) Finally, your objection to my use of a threshold uncertainty is untenable. It is absolutely necessary if we are to see any signal above the noise in the data.
I never argued it wasn't necessary to see a signal above the noise.
7) "Ultimately, given your weak criticisms, you should agree with my hypothesis."
Um, no. My objection to what data you included in the test is not my reason for rejecting your test. My reason for rejecting it is because it doesn't actually test your Gobekli Tepe claims. Your test may say something about cave art. But it has no bearing on whether your Pillar 43 claims are factual. I made that very clear in the video.
8) "Suppose we had 10 more radiocarbon data points for the cave paintings. And suppose 9 out of 10 were consistent with the zodiacal hypothesis. Would that convince you?"
No. See #7 above.
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
34
-
Scot, he DOES try to establish the truth of a lost advanced civilization. My statement is factually correct. He DOES believe that a comet wiped out an earlier advanced civilization. His hypothesis directly argues for this. It's not implicit. It's explicit. Dr. Sweatman says repeatedly that the people of GT and of Paleolithic Europe had knowledge of precession, which requires knowledge of the spherical shape of the earth and the technology to pass on this information for tens of thousands of years.
As for the Greek catalog, we can both agree that he assumes the existence of the entire Greek Zodiac plus additional constellations from the Greek catalog and that as time has passed, he has added more Greek constellations from that catalog to that system. I think it was fair, therefore, to say, "The claim that the full Greek catalog existed this far back is anachronistic."
As for Graham Hancock, you do realize that I brought him up in the video, because Dr. Sweatman brought him up. In fact, he brought him up more than once. And he is clear that Hancock inspired his ideas.
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
@myquantumstate2668 Regarding Kikata, the information I gave you came right out me Googling it, so I don't know why you are telling me to Google it. I did, and that is what I found. You did not address what I wrote. It is impossible for two people to have a rational discussion if you just ignore what the other person says. So please answer this question for me: Did the Rig Vedic people live near Magadha or no? If not, how did they know about Kikata, and why was it relevant for their song?
What you say about Uralic and about the names of the gods fits in just fine with the language family tree that scholars have reconstructed from the linguistic evidence, so I don't know why you are sharing this information with me. Those gods go back to our Proto-Indo-European ancestors.
As you probably know, the main word for rice is vrihi. Your argument about odana would only prove your point if odana MUST mean rice. But the word has several meanings, including "porridge," "grain mashed and cooked with milk," "any palp or pulpy substance" and as a generic for food. If the RV used vrihi, then that would increase the chance that odana means cooked rice, but since it does not use vrihi, then that decreases the chance that odana means cooked rice.
The word yava in the Rig Veda refers to barley, so you are mistaken that it is not in there.
https://spokensanskrit.org/index.php?tran_input=%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%B5&direct=se&script=hk&link=yes&mode=3
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
Martin, as you keep saying, this is your hypothesis, not anyone else's. Since it is contingent on the idea that the lines of the constellations in Stellarium are not modern, but ancient, it is your responsibility to prove that. So prove it. You can't just say, "I say it is so, and if you disagree with me you are obviously illogical." That doesn't demonstrate anything. It can't be a mere possibility. It has to be a fact, or else the results of your test are only a possibility. And remember, we are talking about the lines, not the constellations themselves. The lines.
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
@Kitties of Doom You can say whatever you want. They can say whatever they want. The reality remains, none of them can do what builders in Egypt and Peru did.
That is because the skills and techniques have been lost to time, not because they had power tools.
Would love to hear explanations of (your) stone guys (that are in odds with me) of the polygonal work in Peru and Valley temple.
What about it needs explaining?
My position is, I don't know how they did it, and it is highly sophisticated.
That's my position. Your position is: I don't know how they did it; therefore someone else did it.
Your position is, ' I know how they did it, a primitive culture using primitive tools!'
I don't think the Egyptians were primitive, and I don't know exactly how they did it. There are many workable theories out there.
Do you realize how much onus is on you with that notion.
That is not my notion. You strawmanned me.
Youve got to show me now, you can't just yap about it.
I'm a historian, not an artisan, and I don't do demonstrations on demand. Nor have I been trained in the ancient techniques. Nor have you, for that matter.
Replicate, even a fraction of the work.
Which work are you referring to specifically? Moving heavy stones? Been done. Shaping granite with ancient tools? Been done.
Do you believe we are the most sophisticated species to ever walk the planet?
Do you know of another?
Do you believe there is no mystery in construction of Egypt and Peru?
See above.
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
@TangieTown81 it is when you are using granite and have only stone, copper, bronze and flint to work with
Why would that make a difference?
as you scale up in size you increase exponentially in difficulty.
No, it is very linear in difficulty.
Nipon Corporation proved this very specifically when they used all of mainstream Egyptology to guide their plan to reconstruct a scale model of Giza in Egypt.
Please provide the evidence that the difficulty was exponential. You seem to think that, if it was hard to do, it was exponential. But that is not what exponential means.
Even after abandoning the ancient methods and switching to modern tools and equipment Nipon continued to fail at every level finally producing a pathetic construction with no granite.
I find it really strange that you (and some others) think that it is possible to prove a negative. Where is the logic in saying that, because an experiment failed, this is proof that something couldn't be done? This is fallacious reasoning.
My point about the Sphynx is simply to say we have no idea how much renovation has occurred at Giza over the millennium it has been there. The base of the pyramid has, by necessity, been there the longest and been least likely to have been maintained over that time span.
And? What does this have to do with the topic of our conversation?
Granite, with the tools available, can only be chipped away.....and the larger the stone the more unlikely you are to ever be capable of maintaining the precision demonstrated at Giza.
It's like you didn't even watch this video. You have no clue what you are talking about. And you claim that I am the ignorant one. Funny.
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
Scot, I did not imagine my own asterisms. I used the asterisms that Dr. Sweatman chose, just not the modern lines. Think about it. Dr. Sweatman is arguing that the lines, which are demonstrably modern, were known by the people of Gobekli Tepe. There are only two possible explanations for that (unless you can think of another): (1) modern scientists coincidentally guessed what lines the people of GT used for their constellations before GT was discovered, or (2) the people of GT successfully prophesied what lines that modern scientists would devise.
I interacted with the ranking table, because on Twitter Dr. Sweatman insisted that I do so.
In answer to your question whether I would change my mind if the gap was a few hundred years instead of a thousand, please note that his experiment doesn't include any data from GT. Therefore it does not test GT. Even if GT were itself a European Paleolithic cave, it still isn't in the test. You could make an educated guess that, because GT was a cave among many others, that the results could also apply to it, but that does not constitute proof.
Now, add on top of that the fact that GT is removed by thousands of years and thousands of miles, and that even the mere animal symbols of Pillar 43 are absent from the experiment, and you are even further removed from objective proof.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
You begin by praising ancient India’s achievements, likely to position yourself as neutral and objective. Clever... but transparent.
Have we met? You act as if you know me. But I expect you haven't seen another video on this channel. Chances are that you just get angry when someone contradicts your deeply-held beliefs. If you think I was not neutral or objective in this video, please point out an example.
You claim that the Indo-Aryans brought Vedic Sanskrit and culture to India.
I most certainly did not.
what is Sanskrit’s parent language? Where was it spoken? What proof exists?
These are things you can look up for yourself. The information is readily available.
Why embrace a "hypothetical theory" without scientific backing while dismissing the opposing view as mere Hindutva ideology? What’s your logic here?
Now I am getting the feeling that you barely watched even this video. The vast majority of it is me presenting scientific paper after scientific paper and simply summarizing the conclusions. I even list them below the video. Go and see for yourself.
Your intentions are also clear. For instance, you attempt to sound knowledgeable by dismissing Abhijit’s argument with, "Yeah, higher genetic diversity means the R1a haplogroup of that cluster is older, but that’s because of India’s larger population." Sure, it could be true, but on what historical population data are you basing this claim?
I am pretty sure I told you in the video. It's the conclusion of the geneticists.
The real purpose of your video seems to be offering a "white man’s validation" of Abhijit’s perspective—an approach that’s, at best, questionable.
When you can't present evidence, play the race card. It's so much easier.
Early in the video, you ask, "Why is he talking about the Aryan Invasion Theory when it’s been debunked?" A little research would reveal that the theory remains politically and academically relevant in India.
It might be politically relevant, but it is academically irrelevant, and that is what I was talking about.
You don’t need the backing of a thousand scholars to prove a point; one solid piece of scientific evidence is enough.
A thousand pieces of evidence are in the papers I shared.
History is full of cases where new theories were initially outnumbered by opponents. In science, this is often the norm. Yet, you dismiss arguments by merely pointing out that the majority of scholars disagree.
See here: https://youtu.be/ytltvDRPErY
P.S. Citing Audrey Truschke and Romila Thapar as references was the final blow to your credibility.
Audrey Truschke isn't a historian of ancient history, and she is not someone I recommended for that. Thapar is one of the most renowned scholars of ancient India in the world. And I have read her book, which is excellent. Have you read it? Don't bother answering. I already know you haven't.
Excessive sarcasm doesn’t make you smart.
Good, because there isn't excessive sarcasm in this video.
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
@Sweta Sharan Hi Sweta. I use words as most people understand them. All around the world, people use the word "religion" to refer to worship of gods, whether those gods are real, fake, human, semi-human, not human at all, or anything at all. Gods do not need to be "supernatural." If people worship Donald Trump, people would call that a religion. People use the word "religious" as the opposite of the word "secular." But knowing, as I do now, that some take offense to that word, I will, in future, try to avoid it and use the word "spirituality" instead, though I am confused why you are okay with the word "spirituality." It is a Western word too.
On the other hand, I have not been given any convincing reason yet why the words "sacred" and "myth" are inappropriate. "Sacred" means "dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of a deity or considered worthy of spiritual respect or devotion; or inspiring awe or reverence among believers." And the technical definition of "myth" as I was taught in school, and as I teach it in school, is 'a traditional story that explains the origins of something with the use of deities.'
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
It looks like you edited your comment after I replied to it, so my comment got deleted. So here I go again...
One of your key contentions is that the book could be fictional;
In my video, I state quite clearly that, for the purposes of the discussion, I am willing to assume the war happened.
I find that the fictional element is very low in the narrative of the original Mahabharata, especially considering that no script was in use in 5561BCE and considering the still-oral tradition of narrating the Vedas and Itihasas (i.e Ramayana and Mahabharata) Canto to Canto accurately.
You believe that oral tradition preserves information better than writing? Then why does the Mahabharata show evidence that it was added to over the centuries?
Moreover, how can over 300 astronomical references point to a single period?! That itself shows that the author(s) of this ancient text was not fooling around!
Mr. Oak doesn't discuss over 300 astronomical references. And I challenge your statement.
Your intro that Nilesh Oak does not know much Indian history is to say the least, laughable. You would have meant " Nilesh Oak does not swallow ( like me?) history spun by Bible-slave or Marxist historians
I follow worldwide scholarship, completely unrelated to any religion or economic system. Mr. Oak does not.
On the "ifs" /assumptions: I think we should be knowing that every single scientific theory has assumptions;
Not like that. No scientific theory based on unfounded assumptions can hold up.
How many of us question the preposterous assumption of "objective materiality'' that forms the basis of each scientific paper?
I don't know what you mean by "objective materiality." When I Google it, nothing comes up.
The basis of your disagreement appears to stem from a massive underestimation of the ancient civilizations and a strong confirmation bias to the timelines suggested by the Eurocentric - Christian "missionary" Historians of yore; the ones who have tried hard (and lost) to squeeze in old civilizations to post the Biblical creation date of 4000 BCE!
The basis of my negative assessment of the book stems from Mr. Oak's failure to provide evidence for the assumptions underlying his thesis. I don't follow any timelines created by "Eurocentric - Christian 'missionary' Historians of yore." History is based on the research and interchange of a global community of experts in various fields. They consist of scholars from various ethnicities and cultural backgrounds, who have agreed on universal and consistent methods of study that everyone can agree with.
Come on, we now know Homo sapiens started settling and building civilizations north of Africa around 75000 BCE! We even have proof of man-made fire and tools from around 15000 BCE in the Indian subcontinent itself!
I don't know where you are getting your information from, but the world's oldest known settlements are from the Natufian culture, and they don't go back to 75000 BCE. Anyway, what does that have to do with the book?
We know the Hindus have been observing the sky from at least 10000 BCE People have been observing the sky since the beginning. What does that have to do with the book?
The assumption that Mr. Oak makes is that a SPECIFIC astronomical system was used in the Mahabharata. He doesn't back up that claim with independent evidence.
On why the Ancient Greeks and Hindus wrote stories on astronomical events, please refer Raj Vedam's TEDx talk on Ancient Star gazers
Raj Vedam is not an expert on ancient Indian astronomy. I suggest you read someone like B. V. Subbarayappa.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
The 3 great pyramids, and the various temples and outdoor stone floors are made up of over 10+ million, individual multi ton stone blocks.
How did you come up with that figure?
Each was cut, and placed with extreme precision, we're talking 100th of an inch.
That is extremely incorrect. Hardly any of them are. Someone fed you some bad info.
And they chose to use the hardest of natural stones.
The pyramids are constructed mostly of limestone, not even near one of the hardest of natural stones.
They claim that these were the 1st structures built in Egypt, around 5500 years ago.
Who does? Not Egyptologists. There were many structures built before the pyramids of Giza.
We know the 3 great pyramids we're not built any time after 5500 years ago, because there's documentation of their existence dating back that far.
5500 years? Definitely not. Only 4500 years.
And there is absolutely no mortar, glue, mud, or anything holding any of these stones together.
Yes, there is mortar. Lots of it.
They are all cut, and placed perfectly together. Water tight.
That's false.
Before you draw any conclusions, you first have to get the facts straight.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
FYI Manu is one of those fringe amateur theorists who believes the Sphinx was created by a lost civilization. He thus needs to twist science to make it fit with his preconceptions. He then tries to bolster his claims by talking about how much more intelligent he is than the majority of the members of the historical, archaeological, or geological professions.
So, for example, note how he summarizes the paper by Hader Sheisha et al. First he capitalizes the words "relative" for you. All this means is that the Nile rises and falls each year as part of its seasonal cycle. Each year the Nile rises 7 meters on average. This is just the normal seasonal flooding. So the researchers need to look at the average level of the river at flood season. But when Manu relays this info to you he capitalizes those words so that this puts doubt in your mind about how accurate the findings are.
Then he tries to make sure you know that the study only cover the last 2500 years of the Humid Period. Why would he make this point? Apparently to instill further doubt, perhaps to make you wonder if there is a possibility that water levels were lower during the earlier part of the Humid Period (as if this matters as far as the Sphinx is concerned).
Then he says the paper made two main points, and he invents his own points instead of summarizing the paper.
Here are their actual conclusions:
1. Our score-based reconstruction shows that the water level of the Khufu branch (termed K-1) was higher during the African Humid Period, with a local termination estimated at 3550 ± 80 BCE (5500 ± 80 BP) and a later peak recorded at 2950 ± 80 BCE after a significant drop at 3450–3250 ± 80 BCE.
2. During the first half of the Old Kingdom of Egypt (2686–2440 BCE), the level of the Khufu branch of the Nile remained relatively constant, characterized by a level at ∼40% of that reached during the African Humid Period.
The Khufu branch of the Nile is important, because that is where the Sphinx is.
Manu claims that one of the main points of the study was: "The Nile floods were up to 2.5 times higher during the last 2500 years of African Humid Period, but these peak floods were interrupted due to a climate-altering effect caused by volcanic eruptions (Volcanic Forcing). In fact, for most of the tail-end of the AHP, the Nile flooded to a level less than this peak in the summer season." In fact, this is not one of the main points of the study. The study merely explains why there are points in the chart where the average Nile level drops. Even in those drops, as can be clearly seen, the Nile level is still higher than it was in the time of Khufu. But Manu is trying to obscure this.
Then Manu draws this conclusion: "in the most extreme scenario, a prehistoric summer season Nile flood during the tail-end of the African Humid Period, undisturbed by Volcanic Forcing, elevated the Nile to 10 meters." If that is the case, since the Sphinx sits at the intersection of the cuesta and the water table, and since the sections of the Member II limestone are so soft it can be crumbled between your fingers, the Sphinx, had it existed, would have been exposed to the full erosive force of the Nile. The soft weathered limestone of the neck would give way, decapitating the Sphinx.
But there is no geological bathtub ring on the Sphinx enclosure, meaning that the Nile never flooded the Sphinx enclosure.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
There is no argument over how old the Sphinx is between 'genuine' Geologists who aren't being threated with funding cuts or career destruction by peer pressure!
Who are these ghostlike genuine geologists you're speaking about? There isn't a single geologist other than Schoch who thinks geology can be used to date the Sphinx. And this talk about "funding cuts" and "career destruction" has no basis in fact. It's just the product of conspiratorial imagination. Robert Schoch hasn't had his career destroyed now, has he?
Anyone with an open mind can see the significant degree of 'Water Erosion' on the sides of the Sphinx enclosure, an enclosure that was 'Buried In Sand' for thousands of years.
Any statement that begins with "anyone with an open mind can see" is as unscientific as statements come. It promotes the idea that no study is required, no analysis needed, no data taken, no experiments performed, and no research necessary - all you need is to go and gape at it like a caveman, and you're all set!
We all understand, no one, including the Old Kingdom of Egypt would 'Restore' something that had 'Just Been Built', IE. Band New.
When did anyone ever say that they restored something that had just been built?
The only people 'disagreeing' with the irrefutable 'Material Evidence' are people who say things such as 'I don't believe in Radar', a quote courtesy of Zahi Hawass, former head of Egyptian Antiquities, and people who run YouTube channels dedicated to upholding the academic 'Status Quo', such as 'World of Antiquity'.
Haha oh really now?
Academically trained and intelligent people who aren't influenced by 'Funding' or 'Peer pressure', sucah as Brien Forester, Ben from Uncharted X and Praveen Mohan...
Those people make WAY more money from their tours and books than academics do. If anyone is compromised because of funding, it's them.
Gobekli Tepe, including the new and even older finds coming out of Turkey have 'Forced' a very reluctant 'Historical Academia' to reassess the current time lines of Human civilization and development in that area.
Every discovery makes academia reassess. It comes with the job.
So, why is it so 'Difficult' for 'Historical Academia' to embrace Geologists, Engineers, Professional Stone masons etc. to 'reassess' the time frame and the constructions of ancient Egypt based on their new and compelling evidence a lot of the new evidence, such as the 'Water Erosion', has years of sound scientific research supporting it.
It is interesting you say that, as you are dismissing what most geologists say. It sounds like your approach to history is:
1. Decide what you want to believe.
2. Find people who confirm this belief and uphold them as the correct ones.
3. When you hear people contradict this belief, dismiss them as corrupt, ignorant, or pressured.
Here is the path I follow, which I believe is superior:
1. Approach a subject with an open mind.
2. Gather all the evidence on the subject there is, from every point of view.
3. Choose the interpretation that best fits the evidence.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Hi Mark. In response to your questions:
There are stone carvings inside the Fifth Dynasty attempts, but not any from the Fourth in the Great Pyramid? How does that represent progression?
How does it not? Wouldn't the addition of writing be progressive?
And no dedication stele? Seems to me that it would be highly disrespectful, especially since he was known as a bit of a tyrant (To the victor go the spoils and history is a fiction, agreed upon, come to mind.)
I have never heard of a dedication stela being used for a pyramid.
Plus, why would Sneferu want three pyramids built and then not be entombed in any of them?
My understanding is that he was entombed in the Red Pyramid.
Imhotep, who supposedly was the architect, was elevated to god-like status, yet we have no idea who Khufu’s architect was, and it’s the last surviving wonder of the world.
Hemiunu. Look him up.
I know that the “how” is not a big concern of yours, so I won’t go into the tools, because they obviously had them, at some point, but the amount of skill required to create these monuments using copper and stone hammers, is so sophisticated, the artform had to be around for a very long time. But where’s the evidence?
Copper and stone tools have been found. Not every single kind, but the evidence is there.
As for your math, here are my thoughts:
- In your calculation of how many men to lift a rock, are you taking into account tools that would mitigate the weight?
- A hill has been discovered under the Great Pyramid by scanning. This means there were far fewer than 2.3 million blocks.
- The average weight of the limestone blocks is 2.5 tons, and they get smaller up the pyramid. They also are roughly cut and very sloppily placed.
- Your calculation seems to assume that the shaping, transportation and placing of the stones occurred consecutively, rather than simultaneously. All these tasks would have been performed by separate work crews at the same time. I estimate that one limestone block could have been placed in 15 minutes or less. And there probably would have been numerous crews placing blocks around the pyramid.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
4:20 - Based on what evidence are you saying here that speakers of Vedic sanskrit intermingled with indigenous people?
The evidence of the language itself. Go ask a professional linguistic historian. They'll tell you all about it.
The claim that Indo-Aryans brought Vedic culture to India is unproven and primarily based on the superficial resemblance between Sanskrit and some European languages, which led to the speculative Proto-Indo-European (PIE) language, proof of which is nowhere to be found.
The world's linguists disagree with you. When I am faced with a choice between going with the consensus of the world's experts on the subject, or your comment, guess who I choose?
The idea that Vedic culture developed within the Indian subcontinent is increasingly accepted and backed by all scientific evidence, especially with recent archaeological findings.
Then we all agree. Did you think that I don't believe Vedic cultures developed within the Indian subcontinent? I do.
The Vedas themselves, with references like the Saraswati River—once the most prominent river in India but long dried up—suggest they were composed by people who had been living in the region for millennia, not by some traveler or a group of migrants.
The science on the Saraswati does not support your assertion. See my video on the Rig Veda.
Dr. Neeraj Rai is the head of one of the leading Genetics lab in India. He is one of the fellow who proposed that OIT could be a possibility based on the comparative study of DNA he did on skeletons found in Turkmenistan, Iran and IVC sites as you yourself talked about in your video.
Show me his published peer-reviewed paper that supports your claims.
Some of the ASI (Archeological survey of India) members also have talked about possibilities of OIT based on some recent excavations they have been doing (Some papers are under peer review I believe).
I will wait. It sounds like you are jumping the gun. Maybe you are putting ideology before science?
33:07 - What kind of logic is this?? I mean, yes its a possibility that the origin could have been in the middle of the two clusters but why its the biggest probability? Care to explain?
If there was migration from one place to another, it is less likely that there would be a big gap in the middle of the trail and more likely that the original homeland would be depopulated. Migration is caused by need. I think a child can understand that.
Also, the paper you present here by Anatole A. Klyosov et. all - it was published in a journal which isn't even considered a serious publication and often has criticism for the lack of peer review as it is an open publication.
The work can be judged on its own merits. I went through every paper, and you are complaining that I went through every paper.
53:30 - Your bias is glaringly evident here. You quoted a passage from the paper suggesting that IVC cline people might have spoken proto-Dravidian and later spread it. However, you conveniently ignored the alternative possibility mentioned in the same paragraph: "An alternative possibility is that proto-Dravidian was spread by the portion of the ASI’s ancestry not from the Indus Periphery Cline, but from the south and east of peninsular South Asia."
What does this have to do with the spread of Indo-Aryan languages? You are over on the side of the road looking at squirrels. I don't care whether the IVC spoke Dravidian or not. I am tracing Indo-Aryan languages.
your logic seems quite biased as you clearly accept here that people might have been moving out of IVC but you're so against the idea that they could have carried culture/language with them which would support OIT.
They would have to have spoken an Indo-European language that led to all other Indo-European languages. That's what OIT says.
1:10:00 - In the video, you addressed two key arguments used by OIT supporters: one is a paper suggesting the Indian subcontinent might be the origin of R1a, and the other is the DNA match between Harappan burials and Iranian samples (though Turkmenistan was not mentioned). Both studies, conducted by reputable scientists and one published in a peer-reviewed journal, and both clearly say that more data/study is required to establish anything concretely. What exactly about these two points was "pseudo-science, pseudo-archaeology.. work of non-experts etc. etc."??
I didn't say the papers were pseudo science. I said OIT was pseudo science. Those papers do not establish OIT.
In your grandiose conclusion you call OIT lacking (which it is), but portray AMT as if it is already proven and has no lacking??
I don't portray AMT as proven. I portray it as the most reasonable of the choices.
The most important piece of paper you used for supporting AMT i.e. "The Formation of Human Populations in South and Central Asia by Vagheesh M. Narasimhan et al" also has many shortcomings but of course you chose to ignore it because it goes against your "firmly held believe which is so dear to you".
You are welcome to share these shortcomings.
it didn't even use core IVC DNA and that too is small sample so it also suffers from issues with admixture dating techniques used as they require bigger sample size for better accuracy.
I can agree with that. But the point is that, as of right now, AMT is clearly the most reasonable conclusion. The other two theories have been debunked.
why in your right mind would you share a video of Audrey Truske as a reference when you’ve admitted she’s neither an ancient historian nor a geneticist?
Because her observations about how scholars are treated by people of Hindutva are important. Not many people know how scholars get attacked, and how their academic freedom is limited by those with a political agenda.
She’s been discredited for a long time now.
Discredited about what she said in the video? No, she hasn't.
Same applies for Romilla Thapar, a well known Marxist with a Left view of Indian history. How is this neutral?
She isn't a Marxist. You are just making stuff up. You know nothing about her work or very little about her as a person. You make me laugh.
If you were genuinely curious to know the current status of AMT/OIT you could have simply tried arranging a nice debate/discussion with people from both sides and let them have a civilized go at each other
Are you kidding? This is like saying I should have arranged a debate between globe believers and flat earthers to see who is right. No, if you want to know what is right, consult the subject experts, not amateurs.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Your review was pathetic. It highlighted your lack of background knowledge of culture, history & science of life people related to very easily in India. You acknowledged that partly in later part of video and that was good.
The principles by which I critiqued the book are universal. They would apply to any historical subject.
If you apply same standards to other, especially western historians in dating & inferring Indian history, you will find them falling much before that of Oaks.
How so?
The principles you apply to contemporary scientitic projects cannot be applied to antiquity research for obvious reasons, as they are not available to be tested as current project would be.
I do not understand what you mean. Good reasoning can be applied to antiquity research, even if scientific tests cannot always be applied. Mr. Oak only tests the latter part of his thesis (the structure) and not the earlier part (the foundation). But even if he could not test the earlier part, he still could have provided good reasons and evidence to establish his assumptions. He didn't even try.
Personifying planets & elements to humans, animals & Gods is very ubiquitous style in Indian literature/history so what you refer is reading between the lines or reading into it is how it is conveyed and if you are unfamiliar with that style, naturally you will find it odd.
Tell me, is every instance of a character's name ALWAYS to be taken as a celestial object? If there are times when it is not to be taken as a celestial object, then that means there must be a method to tell the difference between the times that is is referring to a celestial object and the times that it is not.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@spiritof6663 the original researchers (Balabanova and her colleagues) were not fools; they absolutely looked for other possible explanations for their results
Yes, and they allowed for other possibilities, as seen in what they said during the Edlin interview. I should add that someone like Mark Kearney, who is also in the field, is no fool either.
they concluded that the evidence overwhelmingly showed that both the nicotine and cocaine had been ingested by the deceased and in concentrations greater than can be explained by the use of nicotine-laced insecticides or of incidental smoking/cocaine use around the mummies
They never described the evidence as "overwhelming." And as I pointed out, only the stomach of one mummy was above the margin of error for cocaine. And that test wasn't even part of the original test. The hair and bones did not pass the test for cocaine.
the test results were NOT relegated only to the 9 original mummies that formed the basis for Balabanova's first paper. Because of the the controversy over that first paper, she ended up testing 71 other mummies and found that 79% of them also showed cocaine and nicotine ingestion!!
These tests were mentioned. They were part of the second article (the one from the Lancet). The mummies had come from around the world, not just Egypt. And they were from the collection of the Munich Museum. And again, NONE of the Egyptian mummies in that second paper passed the minimum threshold for cocaine.
even Miano admits were the world's leading experts in their field
I said they were among the leading experts, not THE leading experts. And their expertise is in forensic testing, not in Egyptian mummies.
Australian aboriginal DNA has now been found in various tribes of the Amazon rain forest. And while a trade route between Australasia and South America would be different from that required for the Egyptians to get in on the action, it does at least make the possibility of such trade routes more than mere fantasy.
I don't follow your logic. How does the presence of Australian aboriginal DNA, which is dated to long before the time we are considering, increase the probability of Egyptian seafaring to the Americas in any amount whatsoever? Lead us through the steps in your reasoning.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Hi Rock King. Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Since you put in the effort to engage with the topic critically, the least I can do is give your 7 points a fair response.
1) I will look into Talegeri's arguments. Thank you for the reference. I do not believe that Aryans brought the Vedas into India, nor do I think most historians believe that. Their position is that SOME of the hymns of the Rig Veda had already been composed orally before entrance into India, but that most of the Vedas were composed within India. I talk about the Sarawati in my Part 2 video.
2) Historians today do not believe that the Aryans radically changed the culture of India. They believe only that they had an influence. That's all.
3) Yes, I mentioned this in both of my videos.
4) Yes, I am sure foreigners visited and even resided in the Indus Valley Civilization.
5) I look forward to reading the results of the new DNA study and comparing it with the others.
6) The Out-of-India theory has been used politically too. But that doesn't matter. How a historical event is used politically has no bearing on whether the event is true. For example, here in the US, people point out crimes committed by immigrants in order to further a political agenda to keep immigrants out of the country. But just because these events are twisted and used politically, that doesn't mean immigrants never committed crimes.
7) Yes, people have interpreted history for evil purposes. But see #6 above.
I should add that no historian today believes that the Aryans who migrated into India were blond-haired, blue-eyed Europeans.
7
-
Hi Rock King. It's hard to read your comment, because there are very few grammatical marks (no periods at all), but I will try to respond as best as I can understand you. In regard to your first two points:
1) All historians accept the fact that the Harappans traded with other countries and had immigrants living in their culture.
2) Although there are many dialects in India based on Sanskrit, there is not much diversity of the Indo-European dialects. This means that the majority of Indian dialects all come from Sanskrit, which is only one tiny part of the Indo-European language family. There is more diversity of Indo-European languages outside of India.
In regard to your seven other points:
1) I am not aware of any pre-Harappan cities on the Saraswati. Could you point them out to me?
2) If you show me where to find the article by Dr. Shinde, I will read it. But let me say that we do have a very important footprint left by the Aryans: the Vedas. We know the Aryans from their language.
3) Are you talking about evidence of iron smelting? Or are you just talking about finding an iron artifact? Remember, the Harappans traded with other countries, so an iron object could have been imported. We need to see evidence of iron-making in India in order to know that they had the technology. One way is by finding iron smelting furnaces, and another is by finding a whole bunch of indigenous iron artifacts.
4) I don't understand how you can say that people of other colors could have come into India, but not people with different DNA. Different colors ARE different DNA. Also, different peoples would have had different languages.
5) I have not heard of any horse remains other than a possible tooth. Could you show me where to find these evidences, so that I can look at them?
6) It is hard to understand what you are saying here, because the whole paragraph is only one sentence. I am sure that there have been many bad English translations made, especially in the 19th century. But what does that have to do with Aryan migration? (By the way, no one believes in an AIT anymore. They believe in an AMT. So from now on, say AMT.)
7) I have no argument with that. I said in my video only that the Vedas do not use a sidereal calendar.
I have a question for you: Why is it so important to you that the Aryans did not come into India from elsewhere? What is so upsetting about that?
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
At 10:10 regarding the mistake with the saw. It would not have been made by men with a manual saw, who said, whoops we made the cut in the wrong place, bro.
You misunderstood me. I didn't say they made the cut in the wrong place. I said they were cutting a stone that was sitting on top of it. What I meant is that as they reached the bottom of the stone that was on top, they had cut partly into the stone below.
But a power saw spinning at a high rate, who then realized a mistake was made.
They didn't have electricity.
It's like the core drill sample in the Petrie museum that has a fine spiral groove - that was not done by hand - that Lehner tried to palm off as being done manually, who could not break off his sample without cheating.
Core drilling has been demonstrated by hand in several videos. You can see some in my Historian Reacts video.
Like black granite statues - how were they carved? Certainly not with manual tools and labor.
Granite can be cut with manual tools and labor. It has been demonstrated.
Note how incredibly finely detailed they are and such artistry.
You don't think they had finely detailed artistry in ancient times?
You'll need diamond tipped power tools at the minimum or something more exotic, like high powered lasers?
That would be overkill.
A lot are crudely worked over with added inscriptions, added centuries later.
According to what evidence?
And what about the diorite stone bowls and vases. No one can explain how were these made?
Not only can they be explained, they have been replicated. Again, see my Historian Reacts video.
7
-
7
-
7
-
@donotreadthis26 Oh, I see you misunderstood what this video was about. The title should have given it away. In this video, I assess the arguments of UnchartedX and see whether they have sufficient evidence to support them and are well-argued. It is not a video where I prove him wrong, nor does anyone need to prove him wrong. He needs to demonstrate that he is right, and he failed to do that. The burden of proof is on him, not on me. But if I have a hypothesis of my own, then yes, I would need to demonstrate it.
Remember, you can't prove a negative.
As for the questions you raised, I am happy to answer them for you as best I can.
the question is raised whether the ancient egyptians had tools or 'advanced' capabilities to shape stone to the precision seen on screen.
It is impossible to show precision "on screen," because, as UnchartedX says, it is not visible to the human eye. And he never provided evidence of such precision even mathematically. I looked at every example, and it was either simply asserted without evidence, or flimsy evidence was given. So I cannot answer a question about precision that was never shown to exist. I have never seen a "higher technological complexity than would be expected" by any person who knows ancient Egypt. You might as well ask me if the Egyptians could have bred unicorns.
Do you believe the tools we know the 1st dynasty had are capably of creating an object like the disc of sabu?
Yes. Why wouldn't I?
If yes, can you provide proof?
Yes. All the thousands of round objects that have been made out of stone throughout human history. I even provided demonstrations in the video that showed round vessels being made out of stone.
Has anybody ever replicated the object with said tools?
You mean the disc of Sabu itself? I don't know. Why is that important?
If no, is it possible they had tools we do not know of?
Definitely.
If yes, can we infer what these tools were from available evidence and do these inferences fit into what we know about the 1st dynasty?
Yes, and yes.
Is it too far a stretch that it was made by an earlier culture that had more advanced capabilities than the 1st dynasty egyptians and that we have no knowledge of because it was utterly wiped off the face of the earth? If no, why not? If yes, why?
No. Capabilities greater than that of the 1st dynasty are not needed. Occam's Razor. You are suggesting we invent a new civilization for no reason.
None of these questions are addressed by you
I think every single question you asked was addressed, except for specific questions about the disc of Sabu, but UnchartedX barely said anything about the disc of Sabu, and the general points apply to it just as much as any other artifact.
and you provide zero proof that the object or any precision object for that matter were actually made by the people they are conventionally attributed to.
See my first point above.
(And I assume you know what is meant by a "precision object" since you have watched the videos you are responding to)
Yes, and they don't exist, at least not in the way that UnchartedX is asserting.
You're answer to the point raised (that there are no records of tools or methods capable of shaping precision-objects) is literally just "No U", pointing to the fact that UnchartedX also has no records of any tools or methods that would be capable of making these objects
It sounds like you didn't watch more than 20% of the video.
which completely misses the fact that the object itself is proof of capabilities the 1st dynasty did not have
No, it isn't. That was all made up.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Thank you for your comment.
1. I am not sure what the point you are making is. Are you suggesting that the only acceptable evidence for chariot use is intact chariots?
2. Hmm yes, you do seem to be suggesting that the only acceptable evidence for chariot use is intact chariots, since you are continuing to dismiss all other kinds of evidence. You also seem to be rejecting the idea that the Sinauli burials are warrior burials, which conflicts with #3 below. And you also seem to be suggesting that solar symbolism is unique to Vedic culture, which is not true.
3. Here you seem to be suggesting that, no matter what the date of the chariots at Sinauli, we should assume that the Copper hoard culture had chariots since the very beginning. You also are contradicting what was pointed out in the video, namely that the equid bones found at Harappan sites have not been verified to be horses. You also seem to be assuming that the Sinauli site was part of Harappan culture, when it was, in fact, adjacent to it.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
The good doctor you interviewed didn't even gave a hint on how they would transport the obelisks to the raft. Of course, that is a mystery.
Not even a hint? He gave a detailed description. 28:37
If the ancient Egyptians can transport a 1,200 ton obelisk by water through a raft, they must have knowledge of buoyancy. Yeah, buoyancy was discovered by Archimedes around 200 bc, but the ancient Egyptians were smart, they can carve a 1,200 granite by use of fire and pounding stones, so they obviously have known buoyancy even before Archimeded discovered it.
Buoyancy was discovered when boats were invented.
now all they have to figure out is how to build a platform to minimize water displacement to make that raft and it's load float
Why do you need to go into all that, when we have visual evidence on the walls of Egyptian temples of them transporting obelisks on boats and documentary evidence of them transporting two obelisks, which we know weigh over 900 tons, on one boat?
I got a hammer and checked it juz a few minutes ago. Nope, I pounded it several times and it's not brittle
Dr. Kelany's experiments are documented below the video.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Merely changing invasion to migration doesn’t change anything.
It was far more than just a name change. 1:09:39
1)The fact that he keeps using the word Aryan and Dravidian ,which in itself are misnomers. They do not exist in our texts
I use the designation Indo-Aryan, not Aryan. Both Indo-Aryan and Dravidian are actual terms for language groups. Real, actual terms. Arguing that they are misnomers is like arguing that the name New York is a misnomer. It's what it is called.
2)The assumption of a PIE theory itself is suspect...The language families are conjecture,the field of comparative linguistics,which postulated language families, itself came about after Aryan-Dravidian (PIE/AIT/AMT) was popularized.So using a linguistic tool,which was invented only to prove a theory cannot be used as evidence of the theory.
Linguistics is a real field of study, and it can be found in universities around the world. It has a consistent methodology that it uses on ALL languages. You can't just dismiss a field of study simply because you don't like one of its ideas.
3)Vedic descriptions of the land are completely ignored by these people as they match Indian geography and geology dating back at least 7000 years,native flora ,fauna etc.
This is a video about the genetics. Talking about geography and geology does nothing to the genetic evidence. It remains the same.
4)bringing in current politics and name calling ..Hindu nationalists /red flag.
Abhijit brought up Hindu nationalists. Stating a fact, or giving a description, is not "name-calling."
5) Ignoring the complete lack of Material culture commonality between steppes and India.
This is a video about the genetics. I can do material culture in another video, if you like.
6)Nobody denies that a mixing episode happened between central Asians and Indus valley people.
The genetic material of the IVC that was found has no Central Asian DNA.
The argument is that our language and culture (Vedic) did not come from there as postulated by the AMT and predates the mixing.
Just language. Some Vedic culture came from the IVC. It is unclear how much.
They will still not acknowledge that the vedas were initially dated based on the Bible and it is faulty, but want to stick to it at any cost.
It has nothing to do with the Bible. And you are under the mistaken impression that scholars date things according to what was said before. They reexamine their reasons ALL THE TIME. They never stop reexamining. Ever.
7)All genetic studies can only be used and are used as ‘proof’ of vedic introduction into India based on previous assumptions stated above. Otherwise no genetic data can be used as evidence of language and culture introduction, even the very elaborate genetic data he has shown.
Anyone who has read the studies, or even who has paid attention to this video, would know that this is a false statement. It is time to do some reading.
Genetics is not false but has no broader implication than to prove mixing of people.
It can show when and from where.
8) Archaeological evidence of urbanization in any direction is inversely proportional to its distance from the IVC.Greater the distance more recent the urbanization.
Only for a finite distance. Cities already existed elsewhere before the first IVC city developed.
9)Things check out in multi disciplinary science (archaeological,geological,textual and genetic),if Sanskrit is tested as a native language not part of the IA language family introduced from west to east(remember that the families are conjecture).
Show us the evidence then. You can start with the genetic.
We do not have to cherry pick evidence as this guy is doing…over emphasizing some studies…ignoring other studies
What studies did this video ignore?
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
You dont need just technical evidence, you need practical evidence, a saw being constructed by the methods explained, a tested prototype. If you can replicate the stone cuts with the methods in the image, then you can say that method is correct.
Can I then assume you have told UnchartedX the same thing?
But showing an image without any practical evidence and saying you have an argument is just plain wrong and weak, you are not being robust enough with your methods.
I strongly disagree. Do you know that large construction projects are done on paper, so that when it comes down to doing it, no mistakes will be made? How do you think they know it can be done without having done it yet? Easy: the processes can be calculated mathematically. It is already known what the tools are capable of, and the same is the case here. Experiments have been done to establish, beyond doubt, that a copper saw with a stone abrasive can cut through basalt and granite. When you know how the processes work, you can figure out how much time and labor will be needed.
you would realize that the mere suggestion that bronze blades coud produce that level of precision is a silly fantasy based on ignorance and internal biases.
What level of precision? Seriously. What level? Tell us.
We invented diamond tipped blades to cut hard stone in the early 1900s.
And yet hard stone was cut all through ancient times and the middle ages. How do you think that happened?
Can you explain how that whole was made with your methods?
Exactly as shown in the video. Did you not watch it all?
you dont have experience in construction, but you need to provide a method of construction for your theories to be considered, and a drawn image is enough?
Yep, you definitely commented before watching it all. Watch the whole thing, and then comment. Otherwise you are just wasting words.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Thank you for your comment. Here are my thoughts:
Your statement that Mystic teachings and scientific research cannot coexist is flawed seriously. Not only is that only your damned opinion. It is short-sighted and devoid of the construct that scriptural references have taught me as much if not more about things such as quantum physics then quantum physics books have.
You have not given me a reason to accept what you are saying, except for pointing generally in the direction of scriptures and quantum physics. Nor have you shown me an example of science and mysticism properly integrated.
Unless you have some unusual idea of what mysticism is, which I don't necessarily ascribe specifically to mysticism but I have found that many of what people call mysticism is quite a valid observational paradigm for expanding ones understanding of the laws of nature.
My comment was not about the validity of mysticism, but on whether it can be integrated with science. It cannot.
If both paradigms have supporting evidence, then they both have something to offer to someone seeking knowledge or understanding.
I didn't say that is impossible for someone to use both methods. A person can definitely use both, but only if they are kept separate. I said you cannot integrate them, because as soon as mysticism enters science, it is no longer science. Science will not allow for mysticism within it, because it is a method that requires objectivity. Mysticism is subjective.
This piece of evidence happens to be an ostrich shell that has a known age.
If you are interested in the ostrich shell, you will find excellent info about it in this video: https://youtu.be/UltdYgniPRY
What I could not understand is assertion that the pyramid at Sakara which was a mud brick pyramid was the first one that they built . How they increase in a short amount of time from being able to form basically an adobe structure to being able to cut Granite with copper chisels which is still an impossibility to this day.
There is cut granite in the Saqqara pyramid. Also, the Egyptians cut granite with stone tools, not copper ones. The remains of an Old Kingdom granite workshop were found right next to the Great Pyramid in the worker's village.
If they could do it by laying 100 Stones a day it still would have taken them a little over 60 years.
The estimate of the number of stones in the pyramid is incorrect. A lot of it is just fill.
Plus the salt residue that was on and inside each of the pyramids indicated that they were existent at the time of a great deluge. Which places them about 9000 BC when they already existed.
This is coming from pop literature, not from geology.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@everythingisalllies2141 It goes back to a time when the idea of civilization and cities and impressive stone works was unknown.
No, it does not. It goes back to a time when it was known.
The Egyptians did not just spring up spontaneously from the earth fully intact, with the ability to make megalithic structures and demonstrate advanced methods of stone masonry.
Correct. The archaeological record shows a slow advancement of Egyptian technology for many centuries.
So all traces of the thousands of years that the first Egyptians must have NOT known how to work in stone, must have passed while they slowly developed their obvious amazing skills.
Correct.
So during that time and prior, they can only be described as ALL early peoples were, as nomads, hunter gatherers, primitive tribes.
During that time and prior? No, just prior. By the time they made the Great Pyramid, they hadn't been "primitives" for a very long time. You need to study Egyptian history, because you are confused about the time that things happened.
Then without leaving any trace of the history of gradual development of the skills required to work in stone to the level of the pharaohs (claimed) they very quickly became masters at the trade, also creating a full blown civilization in the process, along with central governance and a unifying religious dogma.
Incorrect. They left a clear trace of gradual development of skills.
So, like I said, by calling them primitives, you demonstrate you have a low opinion of the ancient Egyptians.
Agreed, some of the earliest work in Egypt is the most impressive.
You must be talking about Nabta Playa or something, because the pyramids were not even close to their earliest work.
So this fact alone lends itself to the idea that the "Egyptians" simply took over a region that was originally someone else's civilization, and the Egyptians simply reverse engineered what they were finding, but doing it with inferior abilities.
Someone who knows Egyptian history would never come to this conclusion.
Latter stone work repairing earlier work is of obviously a far poorer grade of work.
You're going to have to be more specific, because I have no idea what repair work you're talking about.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Here is a translation of Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta. https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section1/tr1823.htm The translation of the sentence you shared is: "May they all address Enlil together in a single language! Enki, the lord of abundance and of steadfast decisions, the wise and knowing lord of the Land, the expert of the gods, chosen for wisdom, the lord of Eridug, shall change the speech in their mouths, as many as he had placed there, and so the speech of mankind is truly one." It is a hope for the future, not a reference to the past. Moreover, this legend does not purport to describe the history of the Sumerian people or where they came from.
6
-
6
-
6
-
@gimmethepinkelephant3685 There's still scientific research being carried out when it comes to Atlantis
Really? Where?
and also the massive flooding that may not have only caused the destruction of Atlantis but also the destruction of many other towns and city sized encampments around the world near that time period.
Before Atlantis can be destroyed, it must exist first. So looking for evidence of its destruction before looking for evidence of its existence seems to me to be out of proper order.
And I think it's a matter of opinion in stating whether Gobekli Tepe, Carahan Tepe, or Catalhoyuk are less impressive than Egypt. I certainly believe them to be more impressive.
An uncommon viewpoint, but you're entitled to it.
To be able to create the pillars of the size seen at Gobekli and Carahan with the amount of rock carvings added to them and to also be able to create a basic underground heating system is pretty impressive.
For its time, yes. But compared to what was done in later times, it is very basic.
And it's a pretty massive complex as well.
Compared to what?
Especially considering the fact that it's supposed to be seven or possibly even eight thousand years older than the Pyramids and the Sphinx.
It's also about 7-8,000 years less advanced.
But I don't see how Egypt is all that much better by comparison, at least when it comes to the building structures.
Wow. I don't know what to say.
You have to keep in mind that these structures have thousands of years worth of erosion and have probably been through numerous earthquakes and God knows what else. And all of this was taking place many millennia before Egypt was even thought of.
Reversing weather and earthquake damage doesn't turn a pillar into a pyramid.
And these places are still in decent enough shape to be excavated and even somewhat restored to their original form. Which is more than can be said for some of the Egyptian sites found scattered around northeast Africa. Most of those are in complete and utter ruin.
You need to decide whether the structures at Gobekli Tepe are too damaged to see their real impressiveness or whether they are hardly damaged at all and are therefore impressive.
But there's no reason to think that something similar to what we've seen popping up all over the Medeteranian and Middle East for thousands of years or more may be possible.
We're not talking about possibility. We're talking about probability.
And more proof is coming out every year that human civilization is obviously much older than we previously thought.
I haven't see any yet.
And we also know for a fact that there are cities and towns sitting under water just off the coastlines of some of the most ancient civilized areas in the world, including Egypt and off the coastline of India where the Indus Valley would have been.
I did a whole video on it. I think you may be reading too many tabloid articles. https://youtu.be/Loi0tFdtO6U
We're just not doing enough right now.
If you knew how much archaeologists were doing, you would be impressed. More is being done now that ever before in history.
But that doesn't make it pseudoscience. It just makes it lazy and not kept up to the standards that modern scientific research should be held to.
You just defined pseudoscience.
But it seems the richer these people get, the more lazy and dogmatic they start to become.
That's what pseudoscientists say when their pet theories don't get accepted. What they don't consider is that their ideas are not well supported.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@cristiangalvan9219 You may say that, but the layperson would assume you're framing your argument as such, and you should know that because you didn't do much of anything to make the distinction
That was done by Carlson. You should be criticizing him for that, not me, who was just following along with what he was saying.
You didn't do much here to discredit his claims
I let the viewers judge, and I going by their responses, I did a decent job.
further discredited yourself by framing his credentials as a geologist and an architect as a word salad that again leads people to assume they are 'self-described'.
They are self-described.
you have a white, Greco/Roman, romanticized definition of civilization that requires writing to be considered civilization at all.
The definition of English words are generally white. It's a language developed by white people. But I am using the technical definition used by historians and archaeologists. That makes sense, since I am a historian. But if you or Carlson would like to dispense with the word and use a different one that has clearer meaning for what you want to say, I encourage it. What word do you suggest?
The sheer amount of evidence for organized societies this leaves out of your rigid definition doesn't do you any favors.
Why don't you just say "organized societies" then? Oh, wait, you can't. Hunter-gatherers had organized societies. Carlson clearly doesn't want to include them.
By that metric Gobekle Tepe is not evidence for foundational civilization, and dulites your argument to nothing more that semantics over hunter gatherers and sedentary agriculturalists.
Ah, so you mean "sedentary agriculturalists." How about using that term? The thing is, I don't think Carlson would agree to it. He clearly means something bigger than that.
Nomads can build civilizations too.
Oh shoot. We're back to where we started. Nomads are neither sedentary, nor agriculturalists. So I still don't know what type of society you are claiming Carlson is referring to.
You just supposed that the civilizations I just mentioned dont have record keeping because they didnt write, and that is laughable more than it is insulting.
Record keeping doesn't have to use writing. I mean, it usually is writing, but it doesn't have to be.
Their records are still told by illiterate bards and shamans in the Amazon today
Oh, no, no. Oral tradition is not record keeping. To be a record, it needs to be recorded, obviously.
On the decaying of artifacts, you need to understand the fundamental differences between the catastrophist and gradualist woridviews represented by the arguments of Carlson and yourself.
What don't I understand? I think I have a pretty good handle on it. The people that don't have a good handle on it are those who say they don't believe in gradualism. Everybody believes in gradualism. Both before and after a catastrophe, tech evolves.
Moreover, how will we find anything by supposing it doesnt exist before we start looking?
Do you know how sites are chosen? They are chosen because there are physical indications that something might be there.
That is the same logical fallacy that kept archaeology locked into the debunked Clovis first theory for almost a century.
No, that is not correct. The Clovis First theory was discarded as soon as there was sufficient evidence to convince people that it was incorrect. That is how it works in science and history.
Pyramids have been found off the coasts of the Azores and Canary Island already, and structures off the coasts of Long Beach, California.
Yeah? Show me the photos of these pyramids.
We've already found 7000+ year old mummies here, so imagine what we would find. The evidence already exists in the Old World in places like Diraniku and the underground cities (yes, cities) of Egypt.
You've been led astray by pseudoscientific reports. Don't be so quick to jump on the bandwagon. Check your facts.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@earthexpanded It IS humanly possible to approach such a wide spectrum and high resolution awareness of reality by becoming acquainted with many subjects, sufficient so as to approach an understanding indistinguishable from "expert in every subject" due to a distinctly greater understanding of all subjects emerging.
I can think of no person who fits such a description. Instead of saying, "becoming acquainted with many subjects sufficient so as to approach an understanding indistinguishable from expert in every subject," all you had to say was "becoming an expert in many subjects." And don't think I didn't notice how you changed "every subject" to "many subjects."
If I do, it's because I sufficiently agree with the logic and reasoning and it is NOT because of their credentials or place in society from which they speak the words.
Logic and reasoning is not what makes an expert an expert. Knowledge does. And if you don't have it, you cannot judge.
There are people who are better electricians than licensed ones, and if I witnessed their capacities through evidence, I would not give a single ounce of weight to their lack of a license.
That's fine. But the point is, you don't always have time to witness their capacities through evidence. So you defer, just as you would when you ask a lawyer a legal question, if you don't have the time to research the subject yourself.
You also say you never advocate for titles, but obviously you are dismissive of outside ideas and thus DEFER to titles, whether you speak the words or not.
I am not dismissive of outside ideas. I am dismissive of bad ideas. Many of these bad ideas I can see as BS immediately.
There are countless things that are STILL WRONG THAT WERE NOT CORRECTED.
Sorry, but why should I defer to your opinion?
I am proof of otherwise.
I think you are simply full of yourself.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Hi John. Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Regarding the Thunderstone, according to the math done at the time based on its dimensions, the stone weighed 1500 tons prior to transport. Parts of it were chipped away en route, and by the time it got to its destination, it weighed 1250 tons, which is the weight I gave in the video. This comes from Alexander Schenker's book on the subject, The Bronze Horseman. You are right that it was an impressive achievement. It is the largest stone ever moved! Had the Stone of the South and the new one found at the Baalbek quarry been moved, they would have been the largest. But alas, no. It may be that the Romans bit off a little more than they could chew, so to speak. You are right that they did not use log rollers. The machine that was made to move it did use copper balls, however, which are rollers. And there were capstans as well, as I said. Yes, there were also some other elements, including guide rails. But I really think you are downplaying the intelligence and capabilities of the Roman engineers, who were astoundingly great at what they did, and who sent their people all over the empire to build. I am not sure how much you know about them, but it is a topic worth researching.
In answer to your question: WHY did the Romans use stones this big? I think there is more than one theory, but the one that makes the most sense to me is that the ground under that end of the podium was susceptible to erosion, and they felt that larger stones would prevent the podium from future collapse. But please keep in mind that not having a definitive answer to the WHY question in no way negates the evidence for the WHO and WHEN questions.
I don't believe I said that the stones of the north and south were oriented towards the temple. I said that the slope of the mountain descends towards the temple. Just looking at Google Earth you can tell this, but I got my information from the archaeologists who worked in the quarry. I provided a link to their report in the notes to the video. It does appear, however, that the temple is not northwest of the quarry but almost directly north, and in the case of the stone of the south, northeast. So you are right about that. But, of course, the important point is that the stones did not have to be taken uphill.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@iamscoutstfu The Sumerians actually said this. They credit the Annunaki with their very creation and that creation was denoted as being in service to those gods. Further, the Abkallu are directly credited with teaching mankind the arts of civilization.
The Anunnaki are a high gods, a small subset of the gods. The Apkallu are demigods. They are not the same. There is no overlap. Not only that, both of those names are Akkadian, not Sumerian. If you want more info, see my video here: https://youtu.be/Ub3FBLUgxfY
We can make an educated guess that the globe trotting PIE speaking peoples journeyed to Mesopotamia and influenced the Sumerians, rather than make assumptions that Sumerians either journeyed to Eurasia or were so influential on the PIE peoples that they, essentially, redefined their entire mythological structure.
It's a guess, but it certainly isn't educated, because it isn't based on evidence. I don't understand why you would choose to believe something without having sufficient evidence for it. What would be the reason for the belief?
Simply because the Sumerians are the oldest civilization yet discovered, does not make them primordial, in any sense.
No, but it does make them earlier than PIE civilization.
This ones easy: PIE speaking diaspora.
That is a language group, not a race.
I doubt Robert considers Persians, white, or Indians as white, but he's referred to them several times as members of the Aryan diaspora. He also acknowledges the Yamnaya invasion, which goes against the assertions that the Aryan peoples derived from European "white" peoples.
The word "white" does not strictly refer to Europeans.
Sure, you don't [have much in common with your great great grandparents], but that's due to their choices in partners. The same cannot be said for other people, it's specific to the individual.
You don't know who their choices in partners was. But that is not my point. My point is that, no matter who the choice in partners, every generation is going to remove you further from the genes of your ancestors. You have little in common with your ancestors a few hundred years ago, except for some basic superficialities, and much less thousands of years ago.
in modern times
No, the reason why the word "Aryan" is not applied to all Indo-Europeans is because in ANCIENT TIMES, it appears as a term used only in the Indo-Iranian subfamily.
A symbols meaning does not change. different meanings can be attributed to it.
If a different meaning is attributed to it, that is a change. It happens all the time. So, for example, what we now call the Confederate flag was once the battle flag of the army of northern Virginia, but it does not mean that anymore. It has become a symbol for other things.
But those attributions of different meanings unique to each respective "sub-culture" does not annihilate the intrinsic genetic, ethnic, and cultural link between Europeans, Mediterranean people , Persians, Indians, etc. etc.
The links you speak of are independent of the symbol.
So you can add meanings to a symbol, but you cant strip the meaning of a symbol from people.
If those people do not look at the symbol in the same way, then clearly yes, you can.
I don't think he is. Rather, he seems to be speaking broadly, generally, and you are speaking specifically and as pertains to individuals.
When he argues that a blue-eyed statue of the Buddha, or blue-eyed statues of Egyptians, indicate that they were Caucasian, then yes, he very definitely is assuming that blue eyes in art are indicating a heritable genetic trait.
Because the trait for low melanin is recessive, it's highly unlikely a baby born to two parents, one with the gene for high melanin and one for low, will express the low-melanin trait ie. blue eyes.
Yes, but both parents could have brown eyes, and if they both have the blue-eye allele, they can still produce a baby with blue eyes. It is the presence of the allele in the gene that matters, not the color of the parents' eyes.
It's important to keep in mind, here, that blue eyes cannot be coded for, positively. There is no "blue eyes" gene. What causes blue eyes is lower levels of melanin. higher levels of melanin are coded for via a "dominant gene." That is, if one parent's genes code for high melanation, then the other parents genes are irrelevant, assuming the "high melanin" parent is able to pass on that part of their genetic information to their offspring.
There is an SNP allele within certain genes (HERC2 and OCA2) that determine eye color.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Thank you for your comment.
When Alfred Wegener first proposed the original plate tectonics theory he was mercilessly ridiculed and mocked by guys like David here and his mainstream friends.
I can't find any record of Wegener being fired from his position as professor of meteorology and geophysics in Graz. As I said in the video, criticism is to be valued, and it only makes us stronger. That is why I let people such as yourself mercilessly ridicule me here.
I was taught Clovis First was fact and they supposedly hunted all the megafauan into extinction in North America in just a couple of thousand years and anyone who claimed differently was mock about that too. We were also taught back then that the oldest civilizations could only be dated back to about six thousand years or so ago. The milky-way was the only galaxy, us modern humans were only about 120k years old the list goes on and on.
Yes, as I said in the video, science and history are forward-moving. As discoveries increase, knowledge increases. It's a progression, and the fact that we have been wrong in the past and have corrected those errors demonstrates that the methods are working. If we never corrected mistakes, then it would be dogma, and then you should be worrying! (By the way, no cities have been found from before 6,000 years ago, so civilization still is only that old. Civilization = cities.)
If you want to believe that modern humans spent 94% or more of their existence chasing game and digging for roots to survive and that global cataclysms couldn't reset or civilization, you be you.
This is a strawman. No one believes that. Please keep in mind that possibility is not the same as probability.
Many of these wonders can't realistically or easily be duplicated even to this day like the great pyramids or Sacsayhuaman to name just two.
Yes, the methods have been lost to time. You may be surprised to know that this can be said about some things built even a hundred years ago. People have forgotten the methods, and they can no longer be replicated. If the skills and techniques are not passed down, we lose the knowledge.
There are ancients quarries all around the globe that have been proven they could not have been quarried using picks or chisels and the mining marks left perfectly match the modern mining machines used today.
Someone has been feeding you some baloney. Don't believe everything they tell you.
Without question the best real estate available to our early ancestors is 400' under water now and to pretend or ignore that that isn't or wasn't where we started our civilizations is short sided at best.
Civilizations are usually built near fresh water like rivers (Nile, Tigris and Euphrates, Yellow, etc.) But again, possibility is not probability. Saying that there COULD be something there doesn't mean there IS something there. Believe in it when it is found.
look beyond what is preached and lectured to us by the ones proven wrong decade after decade then act like they knew it all along after being proven wrong.
How does this make sense? The people who have discovered scientists to have been wrong are other scientists. And how can they act as if they were right all along, if they are the ones who showed it to be wrong?
6
-
@dirk7816 What does him not being fired have anything to do with what I said? You seemed to have missed the point entirely or more likely purposely to deflect the point made. I said he was ridiculed by guys like you and you responded by saying he wasn't fired, that makes no sense.
I said this because you seemed to think the case of Wegener somehow contradicted what I said in the video. It doesn't. As a said in the video and in my comment, if someone's ideas get criticized or ridiculed, who cares? It doesn't harm the progress of science. It strengthens it.
A substantial amount of your videos are there to mock and try to debunk other researchers. This is stifling the so-called progression of knowledge you like to use as an example when it suits you and you claim understanding benefits from which it does. This isn't about correcting mistakes, it is about suppressing ideas and research?
It is not. Progress is made through debate. Lack of debate inhibits progress. I would be willing to bet you have no problem with "alternative" researchers "debunking" and even mocking mainstream archaeologists. Am I right? You're just trying to protect one side.
Mainstream pretends to know how these enigmatic structures were built, more or less and who actually built them when in fact they have no clue.
If it were true that they pretend to know how the structures were built, then they would not be debating it with each other. And yet they are. So you are gravely mistaken. But you are correct that they claim to know WHO built them. The evidence for that is strong.
What I stated is a fact, picks and chisels could not have quarried those sights, that's per experts not "Historians"
If by "experts" you mean people who work with picks and chisels, I have had such people confirm to me the opposite of what you are saying. But please tell me the names of the experts you are talking about and where I can find their proof.
That basically means we can assume things can be logically correct based on logic and observable known facts. Those now submerged lands where the best real estate man had access to without question.
Lay out for me the logic about how civilizations probably did exist because they possibly could have.
He was mercilessly mocked to his death but then proven to be correct decades later.
Now he was mocked to his death?? You are embellishing the story more and more.
Only then did the mainstream gatekeepers of knowledge accept his findings and incorporate that into modern understanding including the ones that ridiculed him.
Exactly my point. It was mainstream scientists who finally accepted his findings after doing more research. The system worked just as it is supposed to.
I didn't even watch this video by the way, I made these comments based on the title
I can see you are interested in learning. Thank you for wasting my time.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
The vast majority of scholars do not believe that the Vedas are the oldest scriptures, so I am surprised to hear you don't know that. It might be a good idea for you to read more scholarly literature. I left some links in the description below the video. The pyramid texts are much older than the Vedas.
The Indus script is contemporary with cuneiform and Egyptian hieroglyphs, so you are mistaken that it is older. Also, the Vedas are not written in the Indus script, so the age of the Indus script has nothing to do with the Vedas being the oldest scripture. We don't even know for sure that the Indus script is a written language.
It's true that Mesopotamian and Egyptian writing STARTED as pictographic writing, but cuneiform is a complete writing system and is not pictographic. And hieroglyphics are a full writing system and only partly pictographic. And how do you know that the Indus script is NOT pictographic?
It is possible, even likely, that the Vedas were recited orally before being written down, but their contents help us to date them.
Some of the other points you bring up, which have nothing to do with the Vedas being the oldest scripture, are referred to in some of the other comments in this section.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@jimmcluhan2455 he states that " if such a cataclysm were to happen today, archeologists might be sifting though the rubble in 10,000 yrs looking for any kind of evidence that we had ever been here." Next you present the images of a modern 21 century city and of course that makes the proposition look unreasonable and far fetched. However there is no criteria for an ancient technologically advanced society, as to what form and to what degree it may have been advanced.
That image was in response to his statement about TODAY's civilization. It was perfectly appropriate for his remark.
It might be that we are looking at advanced lost technology in remains found in Egypt, the 30' diameter radial saw cuts, a cutting tool with extreme travel on the drill core samples, the obvious use of lathes before the wheel was introduced, documented by Petrie, and so on. It raises questions without answers. Egyptologists and historians like yourself either dismiss such evidence as non-factual or just plain ignore it,
No evidence is dismissed. It simply doesn't exist.
however engineers, Egyptians among them, when trying to understand the work and how it was carried out admit to some mystery and are left theorizing about such things as large stone saws with quartz crystals embedded.
Why people would think some random engineer would automatically have expertise on the subject, I don't know. The fact is, they are drawing conclusions based on an incomplete and superficial understanding of the subject.
The accidental discovery of Göbekli Tepe is an example of Neolithic technology that moved the known record of organized society back several thousand years. There might be more examples to come taking us deeper still into the human story.
None of that has anything to do with a catastrophe or cataclysm.
Abandoning the Clovis first idea is another example of how the more science we learn, the more the story of man changes.
Yes, and it is science that comes to these conclusions. Science, by its very nature, is progressive. You can credit science with the realization that Clovis wasn't first.
The disappearance of mega fauna and the ridiculous idea that hunter gatherer populations hunted them into extinction is a great example of how mainstream academia can lose its way explaining our history.
That is not my subject area, but you seem to be unaware of the fact that academic scholarship discovers its own errors and corrects itself. That is how the process works.
My point is there is room for the likes of Randall Carlson, Steve Dunn and the George Howards of this world. Let them do their research and cast their ideas like seeds on the fertile ground of our imaginations. If the ideas are legitimate, they will bear fruit.
That's fine. But the evidence should always come first. When the evidence is sufficient, then ideas will change. But people who put faith in an idea BEFORE sufficient evidence is presented are neither scientific nor wise.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@Akhand Bharat I meant that the mythologies present in the Rig Veda like the fighting between the Dasas and Indra, are present in European mythologies as well. So that cannot be interpreted as wars between the Dravidians.
I already told you I never said the Dasas were Dravidians. In European mythologies, as well as mythologies all around the world, there are instances of a group of people being represented by a god. So, for example, when one country fights another country, it is sometimes described as two gods going to war. Sometimes it will be a god waging war against a people. And in the case of RV, Indra fighting the Dasas can be interpreted as the people who worship Indra fighting the Dasas. That is perfectly reasonable.
the Harappan symbols show not only Vedic practices and meditation, but also show Rig Vedic characters like Vasishta and Agastya.
I have seen no evidence for this, other than someone saying, "Hey, that head kind of looks like Vasishta." You don't know really who it is.
Also, Harappan seals portray Puranic stories, which means that Puranas and Vedas were composed before the Harappans lived
I have seen no evidence of this.
If you want the location of river Sarasvati, please open Google maps and open the Satellite mode. You can easily see a dry river bed in the north west of India.
That is an educated guess. Anyone can put something into Google maps.
the Rig Vedic people showed great affinity to India, describing Indian geographical features as their own mother
I already said, both in the video and in my last comment, that the Rig Vedic people lived in India. Please don't make me repeat myself again.
I already demonstrated to you how the movement of the Rig Vedic people was from east to west, and not the other way around.
You did not DEMONSTRATE it. You TOLD me and expected me to believe it. I would appreciate it if you did demonstrate it.
the Rig Vedic people did live in northern and central India (they mention the Narmada river). Why shouldn't they live in northern India?
Do I have to say it again?
However, they do not mention that they are from a far away homeland which they left and migrated to India, and met with Indian natives.
Why should they? Does the RV contain every thought they ever had and a description of everything they ever did? You are using an argument from silence.
please read about the Painted Grey Ware culture and the new excavation that had been done in Alamgirpur (its older name was Kampilya sorry). It shows that the Painted Grey Ware was present in India for thousands of years, with no significant change in 1500 BCE.
One of the things that it is important for anyone interested in archaeology or science should know is that one study, or one piece of data, doesn't establish anything. PGW culture didn't exist only at one site. It is a broad culture that covers many sites, and dates were acquired at all these sites. PGW is dated overall by a combination of ALL this data. One anomalous date doesn't mean anything. All you have shown me is that there is an exception to the rule.
As for the genetic arguments, there is too much data to be discussed in the comments section. I am planning on doing a video which discusses ALL the evidence.
The oldest evidence of Sanskrit ever found in the world is in the Mitanni kingdom in Syria, which dates back to 1380 BCE or thereabouts. It was a horse manual written by Kikuli.
It's not in Sanskrit. It is in Hittite and uses Old Indo-Aryan loan words (pre-Sanskrit).
The Rig Veda was written in India.
You're doing it again.
It also describes the Sarasvati river, which dried up 4000 years ago. And it also describes a time when the Sarasvati river shrunk, which according to geologists is many tens of thousands of years old, approximately 24000 years old.
I already answered this too. We don't know for sure which river it is talking about. Please - it will make writing much easier for me if I didn't have to keep repeating myself.
Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra 18.44 mentions a king called Amavasu, who migrated westwards into Gandhara (Afghanistan), Kambhoja (Persia) and Aratta (Turkey and Armenia).
Please see here under "BSS 18.44 translation controversy": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baudhayana_Shrauta_Sutra
The Bhagavata Purana mentions the king Puru, who died. The council chose Puru's younger son Janmejaya as his heir, which disappointed his elder son Pravira, who left India and travelled westwards. He settled in a river valley which he called 'Itra' or 'inferior'. Pravira's son Manasyu conquered the entire river valley and established his kingdom. It didn't take me too long to find out that this particular story was actually describing the beginning of the Egyptian civilization.
This is not scholarship. This is just you being creative and using your imagination. Does it say how far he traveled? No. We don't even know if Puru was real.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. Most of what you say is not about archaeology, but linguistics, which will be the subject of a future video. But I will give you my overall thoughts briefly.
I don't see any problem with the idea of some people leaving India and going west. This may indeed be what happened in the case of Mitanni. However, I do not think the Avesta shows evidence of this. The arguments that you use are not logical to me. So, for example, the reason why the Vedas are used to study the Avesta is not because the Avesta comes from the Vedas, but because the languages are similar, and we understand the Vedas better than we understand the Avesta. Plus there is more of it. So we use the one we understand better and with the most information to figure out the one we understand less so. We already know the word Arya was used by the Iranians, so the name of their homeland is not necessarily connected with India.
There is no mention of a homeland in the Vedas, because the composers are not from that homeland. It was their ancestors who came from elsewhere, not them.
As for migration away from the Saraswati, the Ganges river was much closer. Not Iran.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@bobpeter1620 Known ancient historians don't know Sanskrit and they rely on secondary sources and people who know Sanskrit can easily prove them wrong. So, please follow people who themselves know Sanskrit language and they have better accuracy with the analysis or research.
You don't seem to understand that ancient history is multidisciplinary. This means that experts in many field come together to do the research. What I share with you comes from Sanskrit scholars too.
This is mentioned in the first chapter of Surya Siddhant, please read it.
The first chapter does not give the date of the book.
I am not under mistaken as normal people don't know or understand. Only some thousands who are researchers and some few Millions who are viewers know such details.
You are talking about thousands of amateurs and internet warriors. I defer to the experts, the people who have spent their lives studying these topics. BV Subbaryappa, for example, who was a learned expert in the history of science in India, says the Surya Siddhanta probably comes from the period: 8th-12th century AD. I respect his opinion more than yours or Nilesh Oak's.
Surya Siddhant's chapters mentions many important details, and according to that, writer/astronomer observed these details around 6000-7000 BCE, and it should seen with your own eyes only, that too by a person who has understanding of astronomy of that time.
You got this information from people who have very little understanding of astronomy at that time.
If we reject this observation and say it must be written later, then we have to assume that, people had computers and used that to write about the past dating which is not possible.
There is nothing in the Surya Siddhanta that would require a computer to calculate if it was written later.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Hi Philip. Thank you for the thought-provoking questions. Here are my off-the-cuff reponses:
-Could podium 2 and the trilothons been extant at prior to the building of the temple of jupiter and been deemed unnecessary to its construction and destined to be later quarried for another use?
Yes, the podium had to exist before they put the temple on it. No podium, no temple. So it was necessary for the temple's construction. Of course, it only had to exist for a few minutes before they started building the temple on it. I don't know what you mean by "later quarried for another use."
-Could podium 2 been left to provide a covered walkway around the base between podium 1 and podium 2?
I'd have to see some evidence of that first.
-Why is there no use of such megalithic construction in other roman remains?
The Romans used plenty of large stones in building. These are the biggest known, but of course, there is always going to be a biggest. No avoiding that. I do believe that the nature of the Baalbek quarry made it easier to make larger blocks. I am pretty sure I address this question in the video.
-Why would the Romans use such huge stones in just this one area and not construct the whole building in such manner if they were able to do this?
The whole building? Surely that would make a very utilitarian and ugly building, wouldn't it? No one makes a building with parts all the same size. No one makes anything with parts all the same size. Every part has its own purpose.
-Has an archeological shaft been dug beneath the area of the trilothons to see if the signs of prior habitation are visible to there?
I don't think you could dig underneath the trilithon without everything collapsing. But since the edges of the earlier settlement have been found beyond the trilithon (further out), that means it extended all that way.
-The stone column drum beneath the wall of podium 2 could well have been placed much later to shore a hole dug post roman period. The Romans would barely consider such shoddy workmanship.
That's possible. I would need to get a better look at it, and so far I have not been able to find great photos. I hope to visit there one day soon. In the meantime, I can reach out to Jeanine Abdul Massih and see if she has any information she can share.
-The South stone cannot be verifiably dated due to lack of organic material and could be much older, evidence can be seen that other megalithic blocks at this site were used as resources for cutting of building stone, sections having been removed and cut marks evident.
Much older than what? It can't be older than the trilithon. They were quarried in the same manner (the Roman manner).
-The typography of the site is not a direct downhill from the quarry to the temple but a series of rises and falls.
As long as the temple is lower in elevation, the Romans would not have had difficulty forming a road moving gradually downward the entire way.
-The cutting of a 900 ton block at above 15 degrees would have been highly hazardous and difficult to manage but not impossible.
I don't think people who did this for a living would have found this any more hazardous than a lot of other jobs at that time, and although the larger stone may have required more pre-planning, the principles of physics they knew well and already employed regularly would have made the job relatively easy.
-But why do it? Was this to provide a massive raw material at site by its own downhill momentum, a sort of megalithic slalom? Unlikely.
I don't understand what you are saying here. Did you see my interview with Margarete van Ess? We discuss it a bit.
-Is there a contextual correlation between this methodology and that seen at the Chinese yuangshan quarry (apologies if I misspell this name or have used an incorrect location but I hope you ken where I mean).
I'm afraid I don't have much knowledge about that quarry. I would have to do some research.
-I assume the debate continues?
No, I think it is pretty much resolved. But of course, I am sure there will be some who won't let it go. :)
5
-
@earthexpanded Why would someone believe someone without first looking at their reasoning and thus understanding it and becoming an expert themselves?
Because it is humanly impossible to become an expert in every subject. It is called "division of labor." There are all kinds of subjects you already defer to experts about. All kinds.
The whole question you pose even assumes that SOMEONE knows ancient history; there is no space for "we don't know so lets find out."
I was very clear that this is not the case.
either do the research yourself (inclusive of considering what others are saying across the whole spectrum) or don't propagate opinions on matters without building the necessary framework of understanding
Well, that would exclude people like Graham Hancock and Brien Foerster from propagating their opinions. You see, the problem with this point of view is that people who have not built the necessary understanding often think they have. They read a couple of articles, and they think they are in the know.
The scientific method should be the epitome of considerate
Yes, but people are people. They will behave as they have been raised to behave.
ANYONE can be an expert. So why do we need to defer to titles and credentials and other accolades rather than just working together as one people on figuring out what is actually happening?
I never advocated deferring to titles. But would you trust a licensed electrician more than an unlicensed one? Nine times out of ten, yes.
Paradigms shift, like changing a channel, and the "consensus" will no longer resemble present consensus whatsoever.
Didn't I say this in the video I linked?
When we got things wrong in the past, and did not go back to correct...
We always go back to correct. Every assumption is challenged by every new generation.
It is actually possible to become an expert in many fields, and even the world's leading expert in many fields.
Two or three, tops. And most people can't even become the world's leading expert in one.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@robertrenbris2334 1. I still think it is plausible that it could have gone totally under our radar, for various reasons
I'd say possible, but not plausible. We always leave footprints.
The younger dryas cataclysm was quite devastating, cities such at as atlantis was totally washed away, even down to the bedrock. It is reasonable to think that absolutley nothing was left.
All the date indicates that the Younger Dryas sea rise was slow and gradual. It was not the cataclysmic event people on the internet are telling you.
The sea rose by 130 meters worlwide, sinking most larger cities into the sea. Any metal in the sea will simply dissapear after 11k years.
Metal is not the only material that they would have used.
Any metal object still in possession by humans, would probably have been repurposed by the survivors of the younger dryas.
What about metal not still in possession by humans?
Even if you do find a surviving object from before the cataclysm, such as stones, some metal machine part or say a perfectly shaped glass lens, unless you find them in the correct context, there is no way telling them apart from any artifact from our age.
There most certainly is. See my video on how artifacts are dated.
If you work from the assumption that anything sophisticated from before year 5k is impossible, then all of your finds will be dismissed as "contaminations" and not even recorded.
Not true. People may be skeptical, but we have many methods of dating artifacts.
as long as the scientific world is dogmatic about their 5k year civilization story, it is never going to happen.
There is no dogma in science. Individual scientists may have biases and be wed to their own ideas, but science itself is anti-dogma. This is why it constantly updates.
Egyptians still have kings lists written in stone, indicating that their history goes way back. But for some reason mainstream archeology randomly decided that kings older than a certain age are fictional.
You appear to be misinformed about this. We have king lists, but they don't go back as far as you think.
But those huge stone boxes, their placement, their precision just seems too advanced to have been created by a stone age culture. There is simply no proof that bronze age people could have done it.
The ancient stone industry was very advanced. You seem to have credulously accepted narratives about impossible "precision" from people online. Don't believe everything you hear.
If a stone age people found some awsome statues that they did not have the tech to replicate, isnt it very likley that they just copied that hairstyle and clothing just to look cool?
People don't just give up their culture because they think a statue looks cool.
There are islands in the pacific that imitate western objects for example.
Show me one that gave up their own culture.
I think the key issue here is burden of proof. The scientific community think that just because their theory is "the standard theory" they do not need to prove things, and yet they ask for proof from people that have other theories.
Do you know how a theory becomes standard? It must go through a rigorous process of continual peer review. We are talking about intensive scrutiny over many decades. Every idea is put through the ringer. Only after it stands up to every test is it finally accepted. Just because someone with no knowledge of a subjects comes along and says, "Prove it to me," this does not mean that the process needs to start all over again. Anyone who wants to offer a new theory, however, must go through this same process.
Like for example how to replicate the stone vases up to the right precision using bronze age tech. Unless they can do it, their theory is still not solid!
1. Precision is not a method of dating.
2. No one has demonstrated that the precision of these objects is any different from any other object.
3. All other evidence solidly place these objects in the proper place in the stream of time.
And also, no mainstream archeologist can falsify the lost ancient technology theory. All you can do is say well maybe I think it sounds unlikley, but can you really prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Atlantis was not the eye of the sahara? No, you cant!
It is not necessary to falsify it. All that is necessary is that the Atlantis proponents justify it.
So because of this I think mainstream archeologists needs to humble themselves and realize that their theory is no better than the theory of ancient technology.
I think the Atlantis proponents need to humble themselves, realize their knowledge is incomplete, and acknowledge that their theory is much inferior to the standard theory.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
The complaint is that historians and archaeologists are not carrying out scientific tests, and when they do they don't keep the general public informed.
If there is a specific subject that you feel there aren't enough tests being done for, that could very well be true. But to say that they don't do scientific tests in generally directly contradicts what we see in academic publications.
There tends to be a politically correct position of history and ancient times and nothing is allowed to challenge those entrenched views. For example quarrying, cutting and constructing with 800 ton blocks of stone is not possible with the tools and technology archaeologists claim were used.
First of all, processing stone has nothing to do with politics, so what the heck does it have to do with political correctness? Second, yes, it was possible with the tools and technology, and this has been demonstrated many, many times.
Because archaeologists have not discovered all of the right answers they persist with the false claim that men can carried out such incredibly difficult tasks with primitive tools, stone axes and human muscle power.
I'm sorry, but that's just plain old prejudice against the abilities and intellect of ancient people. The evidence that they did it is overwhelming.
People that challenge the status quo rarely claim to be archaeologists. They ask questions, make observations and sometimes propose their own propositions of what may have occurred. Involving the world in solving the mysteries of the past is a bit of intellectual fun and keeps history alive.
As I said in the video, archaeologists challenge the status quo all the time. No one who merely repeats the status quo gets published in academic journals. New information and new ideas are valued more than the same ol' same ol'.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Hi Manu. Thanks for your comment.
Are there, or are there not any paradoxes left when it comes to explaining the know-how behind the making of ancient Egyptian monuments and art?
I do not know of any. All the ones that people bring to me don't check out.
If there are none, and historians are happy with how they have explained things—drag saws and tube drills initially made from arsenical copper, then bronze, then iron using abrasives also used to polish and oil finish, and given a still reasonable amount of time—then we are done here, are we not?
Yes, it seems to me we are done when it comes to the assertion that the Egyptians were incapable of doing it. But there is still much to figure out about the exact methods. And that part can be fun. We don't need lost civilizations to fill in the gaps.
I want to mention that there is now paleo-botanical evidence for a cyclical pattern to cultural evolution arguing against the orthodox linear model that proposed that environmental pressures pushed stone-age people to invent settled agriculture and begin to live in urban societies.
My understanding is that archaeologists abandoned the idea that agriculture preceded settlements years ago. But this cyclical pattern you speak of sounds interesting. Prehistory is not my field, but if you can point me to the evidence for the cyclical pattern, I would be interested in seeing it.
Alternative historians lament the fact that sometimes such evidence is met with dogmatic bias delaying a fair an even-handed appraisal.
It looks to me more like alternative historians don't realize the weakness of their evidence, and this causes them to misinterpret skepticism as dogmatic bias.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
I can understand why Ben wouldn't want to debate you because you do really ask some very petty questions in the first ~20 minutes so I can see him not watching beyond that if he only saw this video.
Every single question is important to the discussion, and not only I, but everyone else, needs Ben to answer them.
If he got to your chart at ~30 minutes he'd rightfully be annoyed at how you've ridiculed him by putting the distant past on the same tech level as modern day (which you also do later in the video).
Modern day was not in the chart.
He goes back to the likes of Flinders Petrie for raw, maybe even 'pure' information I think without any 'modern baggage' and also because Flinders covered a lot of things at once.
Petrie believed that Egyptians made these things, not some lost civilization. And if you think that archaeology should not learn as it discovers new things, I don't know what to tell you. We can bury everything again, if you want, and then you can go on believing the archaeologists of a hundred years ago.
I'm sure that he would argue that there isn't enough investment into digging deeper so of course you won't find evidence of his mythical civilisation.
When archaeologists do an excavation, they dig all the way down to the earliest level of occupation.
See how deep they had to dig to find the bottom of layer of inhabitation at Troy and that's not younger dryas tier.
They went to the earliest layer of occupation. There's nothing underneath.
He'd also likely argue for their zones of inhabitation being in different areas too (younger dryas earth looked very different afterall) so really you wouldn't win unless you were a billionaire with money to throw at hundreds of new digs and even then it would be a case of "oh we missed the ruins again" rather than there's nothing to find.
Archaeologists are constantly digging and finding new things, year in and year out. I am sure you must be aware that paleontologists and geologists go back a long, long way. Millions of years.
There is undoubtedly a major funding issue when it comes to proving their side.
No scientist, archaeologist or historian tries to prove a side. They search and see what they find, and they draw conclusions from their findings. It is only the pseudo historians that try to prove a side.
If you're the head honcho in an archeology department are you really going to argue for starting a random 40m+ dig in the Sahara because someone said that in the younger dryas that area MAY have been a desirable location for inhabitation based on ancient dried riverbeds?
Probably not. They want to go somewhere more promising.
He'd probably ask for a very high quality LIDAR scan of the entirety of the Sahara, North Africa & Mediterranean if you gave him a blank cheque for one campaign to find more megalithic evidence.
I am sure such scans are forthcoming. But they would be looking for anything and everything, not just megaliths.
I think he's going off the idea that a lot of academics would have to essentially go back to school and would lose prestige in the process if his theories were true due to the magnitude of the claims.
Not at all. I am an academic and can assure you that this is a silly conclusion. Academics don't lose prestige if history changes. They expect it to change.
You're no longer the expert you once were if suddenly the history of the certain Egyptian structures is pushed back to 13,000 years ago or w/e he claims.
If you update with the new discoveries, then you remain an expert. That's how expertise works.
Your books were used to teach history across the country? Well too bad, they're not being bought anymore due to being 20% wrong now.
That is how it has always been and always will be. You were the one saying we should be going back to Flinders Petrie. You seem to be unable to make up your mind whether history updates or it doesn't.
Such discoveres may end up only benefiting the minority in the field whilst just making a lot of extra work for everyone else.
It's their job, haha. They know this before they even start. Why do you think anyone would become a historian if there is nothing left to do?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
If the oldest evidence of Sanskrit you give is in the middle east, and in india it is found later; then it means that Brahmins are ancestrally from the middle east and then they migrated to india later.
Please re-watch the part where I said that writing and language are two different things.
You show evidence of rigvedic deities in middle east, that doesn't mean that Sanskrit was present at India also at that time since you find the evidence of it in India much later.
It's not merely Sanskrit. It is Vedic Sanskrit.
If horse training manual by Kikkuli has similar words to Sanskrit, then it could be that Sankrit is derived from that language as the evidence of that language is in 1400BC much before any Sanksrit inscription.
The language is not derived. It is very much the same.
Its true that Sankrit texts were carried orally but for how long? for 2000 years? In that duration, language changes, meaning of words evolve. That means the Vedas today are totally different back then.
Yes, the Sankrit of the Vedas is Vedic Sanskrit, which comes before Classical Sanskrit. They are not the same.
The oldest written evidence can only show latest possible date and not the earliest, but it certainly gives the approx idea when was the language founded.
No, it does not.
Is there any foreign travellogue dating near the time of rigveda's composition which says that there existed a group of people who orally transmitted stuff and didn't write even though there existed a script?
Travelogues did not exist yet.
Why did they didn't write the Vedas and orally transmitted till 1464AD even though scripts existed thousands of years before?
The answer is in the video.
If you find the oldest church of Europe to predate oldest church of India, it means Christianity arrived later in India.
No, it does not.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Your video is no different from that of Abhijit, which you are reviewing or criticising.
The difference is that his views are contradicted by the genetic evidence, and I simply present what the genetic evidence is.
People can fit different lines within it.
There is a limit as to what can fit, and Abhijit's views go beyond that limit.
1. Rig-Veda was written on the banks of Saraswati. It dried in 1800 BCE. By 3000 BCE it had become weak and fragmented. It was flowing full in, say, 6000 BCE, as described in Rigved. So, Rigved was not composed 1200 BCE.
The identification of the Saraswati is disputed.
2. Rig-Veda contains certain astronomical observations that record events of 4500 BCE.
No, it does not.
3. How is that Yamnaya created Rig Ved, Sanatan Dharma, varna in India but nowhere else. In fact their footprints stop at northern borders of Afghanistan.
That is like asking why the Yamnaya created the Avesta in Iran but nowhere else. Different people who live in different areas create different things.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@philatkins5081 If the ancient Egyptians were able to build a raft that can carry a 1200 ton cargo, they must have known the law of buoyancy. Of course, just knowing that natural phenomenon and understanding some of its barest principles, they can do it through trial and error.
Agreed.
Because drawings on the walls alone doesn't constitute concrete evidence, it could mean anything, most probably an idea put on by the ancient Egyptians on how and why obelisks are there.
You're reaching now. They clearly are depicting themselves doing it and describe it in words.
My challenge to you is interview a naval architect, see if it is possible to build a raft that could transport a 1200-ton obelisk based on materials of that era, and on what depth is it possible for that raft and cargo to traverse the flooded terrain on that area. If he/she could show it's possible, you win, and you get more fans.
Sounds like a good idea.
Btw, what documentary evidence do you mean transporting obelisks over 900 tons on one boat?
33:18
My only disappointment is that while they provided illustrations on how to shape granite, the photographs only show shattered remains of granite. If his findings is really doable, why haven't they fashioned out an obelisk even at a smaller scale like say in a one-ton granite slab using their aforementioned method, make documentation and show the world how it is done?
Money, I expect. But just as a naval architect could calculate whether it is possible to build a raft that can carry an obelisk without actually doing so, so it can be calculated how long it would take to carve out an obelisk using the fire method.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Your response to the edict, despite being 150+ years later, implies that it makes it more credible. The Historia Brittonum was written about as long after the supposed existence of King Arthur. And we still don't if he was real. Very true. And I say in the video that we don't know if the Buddha was real.
Referencing historic figures and local ecology doesn't mean anything either, You considered the narrator/s as 'skilled fabricators' when there is nothing about those details that imply any skill. All that needs to be done is to hear about character and an idea. Studying history requires no skill? I'm offended! 😉Studying geography takes no skill? Well, that's an interesting point of view that I have to disagree with.
Like a game of telephone, details will be added and embellished. That's basically what I said in the video.
The character is most likely NOT built from whole cloth as you put it. There is no deliberate fraud necessary when the idea of a character is meaningful. I agree.
You also argued it's either a committee or a insightful philosopher that would have started such a movement. I didn't say it was either-or. I gave two possible scenarios.
Neither of those need to be true. No one person, for example, is responsible for anti-war movements. I could be completely isolated from all politics and still experience war and come to the same conclusion and find others like myself. Nobody needs to start a movement by convincing others. Movements can begin by finding groups of people that already came to the same basic ideas on their own. Are you suggesting that Buddhism happened to be invented independently by several people at approximately the same time in history?
Even if the character was made up, you would still expect the text to be a more human character and aggrandized over time. It still doesn't provide evidence that a mythological character is real. I would not expect an idealized character to start out as non-ideal.
But lastly, and this is my own philosophy, let's pretend someone like Buddha was based on a real person. When those stories become aggrandized then you are simply not talking about the historical figure any more. I completely agree.
That person does not exist any way you look at it. ANY way you look at it? I disagree. My question, "Did the Buddha exist?,
is another way of asking, "Is the Buddha based on a real person?"
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
limestone blocks could have been sent for repair or other ongoing improvements/buildings, mortar could easily be repairs
How would you get to the limestone blocks when the pyramid had casing stones and a plaster exterior? The mortar between the interior stones goes all the way around the entire pyramid.
Naive to assume to food and pottery or whatever found at the site must be from the original builders - people continued to live on these sites for thousands of years
I cited carbon dating of plants only in reference to when the kings reigned.
also there are issues with dating wood precisely. Wood and granite can be cut or felled way before their use and can also be reused later.
In such a case, wood can only be younger, never older, than the carbon date. And what you said does not apply to granite. Granite is thermoluminescence-dated, not carbon dated.
anyway, the average of the dates for the granite were nearer to the fourth millennium BC. The only tangible evidence you mentioned (the dating of the granite) seems to point towards 4,000 - 3,000 BC not 3,000 - 2,000 BC - I wouldn’t say the case is that strong, I might even say it’s a tad flimsy
It could be anywhere in the range listed. It cannot be significantly older.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
you seem to project a narrative of him that if you actually watch his videos isn't accurate
What about it isn't accurate? Please explain.
He doesn't attack anyone personally
Neither do I.
all he does is make observations about physical objects that seem to defy the explanation offered by "experts" that don't physically work in the areas they are dictating the process of.
But the experts do work in these areas. And I have provided the explanations right here in this video for him.
You cannot seriously look at the big polygonal masonry that is usually the bottom parts of these constructions and think that the top parts that are obvious repairs and are clearly a completely different style and level of ability were done by the same civilization "just because".
What does this have to do with Tiwanaku? Are you talking about a completely different site made by a completely different people?
All Ben is claiming is that the timeline of, and explanation for, the megalithic architecture and statuary found around the world wouldn't be practical for the time period/civilizations that have been assigned to them given the technology available to them according to the accepted historical narrative. Beyond that one thing, he makes no claims.
Why are you telling us what Ben is claiming about Tiwanaku, when I played his words for you in this video? He says MANY things about Tiwanaku, not just this. Everyone can see that what you are saying is false.
all these assertions that he's just a grifter that is lining his pockets with money from people he duped is kind of dumb
Show me where I said this.
I've never once heard him say anything that remotely resembles telling people to give him money for all the answers of the universe like you make him out to.
He makes money from people watching his videos. And videos with this topic get a lot of views. But I never called him a grifter.
Basically you are such a sarcastic, vindictive, and to be honest kind of petty jerk in your videos
Just because I present facts that contradict what your heroes say?
As a craftsman that uses a process to manipulate the shape and appearance of a physical element that can be extremely hard under the right circumstances, but soft under others, and an eye for skilled craftsmanship vs. unskilled, what Ben is saying makes perfect sense to me.
If you have any criticisms of anything I said in this video, let me know.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
NO ONE talks about limestone sculpting!
So then you agree with what I said in the video: "The first two claims are not controversial." But alas, people in my comments DO talk about limestone sculpting.
The 'talk' is all about the quarrying, transporting, and shaping of gigantic blocks of granite and similarly-hard stone.
And this video covers the shaping part.
along with 40,000 stone vessels, many or most of which are very petite, just a couple inches tall.
I have seen many of these vessels. Most of them are far larger than a couple inches tall. Where are you getting this from?
They are flawless and quite delicate
They are neither flawless nor delicate.
Surface relief is not in the same category as huge 3-dimensional statues in granite.
They are in the exact same category. The only differences is mass.
Pounding chips off of edges is hardly related to perfectly forming a flawless statue that weighs up to 1,000,000 pounds.
When you find one of these flawless statues, let me know.
the tools and human muscles remain the same size regardless of the size of an object.
Exactly my point.
The Hindu hole pounding fails to mention that the long main chisel is made of hardened steel, not available in pre-dynastic or Old Kingdom Egypt.
You weren't following the video very well. That was in the section about iron tools.
As for the Russian experimenters; their results cannot explain 'cuts' that are no more than the thickness of a credit card.
I have never seen a cut no more than the thickness of a credit card. Perhaps you are thinking of two stones that were fit together after they were cut.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@marttoom5903 1) the great pyramids were built over 10,000 years before the time of the ancient Egyptian state. Thus, they were not built by the Stone Age
10,000 years before the time of the ancient Egyptian state is smack dab in the middle of the Stone age. Look it up.
The sphinx has suffered severe water damage, and Egypt last had enough rainfall to cause such erosion somewhere around 8,000 BC.
See my Sphinx video: https://youtu.be/DaJWEjimeDM
2) See my Baalbek video: https://youtu.be/QUiNoAgijpc
3) I will stick with the findings of the experts on this one. It's not my time period.
4) the walls of Egyptian granite quarries are polished. Fact.
Not by human hands. Think, Mart, think. Why the heck would someone polish stones in a quarry? In case, they had company come over? A quarry is a place where they dig stones out and take them elsewhere.
The picture is the same as in modern granite or marble quarries, where giant circular saws or chainsaws cut large blocks of stone.
They don't polish stones in a modern quarry either.
After removing the necessary rock from the quarry, the quarry walls remain scraped smooth in the same way as the stone blocks mined out. Egyptian quarries look nearly same. According to official history, the Egyptians used stone tools at that time.
It has already been demonstrated that stone tools can make those kinds of marks.
5) Flinders Petrie stated that all the ancient facilities in Egypt were built by white people.
Yeah? Show me.
6) I don't know what you mean by unified.
7) Nothing you said shows that they are not mountains.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Take 11:25 for instance: It’s clear that the tight fitting, polygonal blocks – as compared to later repair – is what your target is putting forward, but instead of addressing this very real conundrum, you chose to lecture us about the use of the term »open mind« going so far as to provide a silly illustration!
He didn't make any point about polygonal masonry. He just showed an image of Cusco for a few seconds. There was no argument about polygonal masonry even to address! Come on now.
Another deception of yours is the critique of his »unfair advantage«: How can he ascribe his chosen items to any known culture or era, when the whole premiss is that this is unknown and unattempted?
How is that deceptive? I stated the truth. And if he doesn't have a better explanation for what we see than the theories that are generally accepted, you should not have any expectation that someone who cares about evidence is going to change their mind.
why would that prevent him or anyone else from pointing out jarring inconsistencies for you professional scientist to manage and explain better?
He does a lot more than just point out inconsistencies. He makes definitive statements about the age of the artifacts and the tools that were used.
If this is the level of your rebuttals, you’re a complete waste of time, and if it isn’t, you should make much shorter, much less self-indulgent videos, which gets directly to the core issues
It doesn't appear you even got past the introduction. You have no idea what evidence I present.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@CrimsonNblack I have heard your argument and to be fair your argument was weak in terms of proving any aryan migration.
The whole point of this video, and something that I went out of my way to make clear, even making the statement several times, is that the archaeological evidence neither proves Indo-Aryan migration nor OIT. Even thumbnail makes it extremely clear that this video is about OIT. It was never intended to prove any Indo-Aryan migration. So how anyone could come away thinking that, I don't know. Wow.
You argument of calling rig vedic society as a society primarily involved in horse breeding is false.
I never said primarily. I'm really getting the impression that you didn't pay much attention.
horse is important as it is a metaphor for elegance, virility, power, speed and regality. It isn’t the most sacred animal
I never said it was the most sacred animal.
Linguistic evidences suggests that rig veda was written over hundreds of year if not thousands. One can linguistically create a chronology of rig vedic mandalas.
Please cite the peer-reviewed linguistic paper that says the linguistic differences show it was composed over thousands of years. And why are you talking about linguistic evidence on an archaeology video. This comment belongs over on my Rig Veda video: https://youtu.be/ZvTlJDWG0lM
Rig vedas have no memory of being outside the indian land they mention saraswati as a roaring wide river not possible in 2000BC.
You're just rehashing old arguments covered in the video above.
The BIGEST PROBLEM is that the rigvedas define their geography as Sapta sindhu the exact geography of the Harrapan civilisation.
That is not true. Rigvedic society lived in the upper reaches of those rivers, not the central and lower parts, which is where Harappan civilization was.
Never ever in history anyplace else this has been the case that a language which comes from outside completely replaces the existing language without any trace of the vocabulary of the earlier languages Rigvedic sanskrit has in total 40 odd words which come allegedly from dravidian and munda in total.
Then it did not completely replace those languages. In fact, those languages have traces outside of the RV too. Are you not aware of how Indo European languages replaced many, many languages? It used to be a small language family. Now it is the largest language family on the planet.
Without replacing the population in majority a handful of foreign group of people without invading and capturing anything completely replaced the existing culture as well as language. How stupid that sounds.
Have you ever heard of something called religion? Anyway, no one claims that existing culture was completely replaced. That's a strawman.
There are thousands of other arguments.
Do you have one good one?
But I can not certainly say that some aryan people migrated into india and made everyone vedic and sanskrit speaking all at once.
Who said it happened all at once? That's another strawman.
You need to know veda to even discuss this argument and most historians don’t.
That is why we look to the work of Sanskritologists and Vedic scholars.
One more thing AIM is not a new theory it is a reduction and diluyion of Aryan invasion myth.
The only similarity between them is that Indo-European language originate outside of the subcontinent. That's it. And that is based on linguistic evidence, and it has the consensus of the world' linguists - western, eastern, northern, and southern.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Hi Andrew. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Please note that the title of the video is not "I Solved the Mystery of the Sumerian Handbags." It's titled "Mystery of the Sumerian Handbags Solved." I worded it that way on purpose. I am merely sharing what I have learned from others. I take credit for none of it. To be honest, the identity of the "handbags" has been known for a very long time.
The remains of buckets look almost identical to the ones in the reliefs, especially the ones carrying the same image as the image of some of the buckets in the reliefs. They also come from the region. They are not from thousands of years later, but from the same general time period (within a few centuries). I can't understand why you wouldn't think that characters bringing buckets to a garden would NOT be using them to water the plants. As for their ritual significance or symbolic meaning, hey, I am open to ideas. My video's purpose was to identify what they ARE, not what they symbolized.
In regard to sources and my use of Berossus, you are right that I acknowledged it was not an ideal source of information, but it was still from a Mesopotamian priest, who was speaking of Mesopotamian myth, and that is far better for shedding light on Mesopotamian beliefs than a source from another country. Please keep in mind also that I was not using Berossus to identify the buckets. By the time I got to him, I had already identified the buckets and was merely letting the audience know as much background information as I could about the figures holding the buckets. I could very well have left it out. I was adding color.
I discuss Gobekli Tepe in Part 2. Let me know what you think!
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
3D symmetry requires mapping points in 3D space which you cannot align using a 1D reference (like a rope or ruler or 2D protractor).
Agreed.
Some yet unaccounted for measurement system must have been used.
Must have? Why must it have? If, as you say, proper measuring has not been done, then you cannot draw such a conclusion.
BTW: It is actually on YOUR burden to replicate the experiment if you are claiming it can be done.
I am examining the claims of UnchartedX. He is the one presenting hypotheses. This is a reaction video, as can be seen in the title.
If the experiment and method (procedure] cannot be replicated, then the hypothesis was not supported.
If you mean replication of individual procedures, I agree with you that a hypothesis about how they did it cannot be supported without it. This has been done by experimental archaeologists, but it has not been done by UnchartedX or anyone with his views.
Additionally, delicate features like ear lobes proud of the head (as shown on Ramses/ Ramesses) would break away if blunt pounding was used.
Um...blunt pounding is used by sculptors today on sculptures that are far more delicate.
Even iron tools with low carbon metallurgy would have problems here. It is a matter of stone cleaving along molecular planes, and surface area compared to force applied.
Interesting hypothesis. Can you support it? It sounds more like personal musings to me.
Who's responsibility is it to prove it can be done? Yours or whoever holds that hypothesis.
Well, since UnchartedX is the one making the claims, then he is the one who bears the responsibility.
You would ask someone to prove it cannot be done? How would they prove a negative in this case?
I was speaking of his positive claims. But you are right that it is not possible to prove that the Egyptians could NOT make certain things. And yet he makes that assertion anyway. He doesn't merely say he doubts that the Egyptians could have done it; he says it is highly improbable (and in some cases he uses the word impossible) that they could do it. All that experimental archaeologists need to do is show that it was possible to do it within a reasonable amount of time (which they have), and this assertions falls flat.
If you can't replicate it, even cutting and shaping ONE earlobe, even using professional sculptors.... Then your hypothesis cannot be claimed as Theory.
First of all, cutting and shaping of granite with stone tools has been replicated. Second, it is NOT necessary to replicate it in order to establish the hypothesis the Egyptians made it. There are many converging lines of evidence that the Egyptians did it. It can be established they did it without a single replication.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
This latest release must be in response to criticisms you received from it however, I wager?
Not that one in particular. I have been getting comments like these for years.
I noticed that none of the video you supplied, showing people working granite w/ pounding stones, produced tool traces that in any way resemble the "Scoop" marks we see at Aswan? You still think those repeating, linear concavities were produced by repeated pounding with stones?
I haven't seen anything to suggest they couldn't. But see my video on the Unfinished Obelisk for more info.
How about the test pits descending meters into the bedrock, which barely allow a man room to turn much less swing a stone?
You might find SGD's video on this helpful: https://youtu.be/Z-Ji2jPZtoQ
How about the "scoops" on the undersides of the two obelisks, were those done by men lying on their backs with pounding stones?
I doubt it. They probably swung up underhanded. How do you think the men were positioned?
The first is where you examine a stela and remark, something to the effect that, 'how could someone actually believe that these [stela] were made from reused stone, cut by a theoretical ancient civilization, when they were tailor made for the inscriptions that they bare?' Well how about the 'Dream Stela?' Was that text not carved into a repurposed door lintel removed from the structure in front of G2? Clearly repurposing ancient, flat, granitic stones was being done during the Middle Kingdom?
It is not difficult to tell the difference between a door lintel and a stela. And a door lintel has a different purpose than a stela. So your example does not fit with what I was talking about.
I wonder why old Amenhotep didn't just go have his masons cut him a custom piece of fresh granite for his famous stela, placed in front of the Sphinx, if it was such an easy thing for them to do?
It was Thutmose IV, and it was expensive and would have taken a long time. They went the cheap and fast route. Considering that we have plenty of evidence of granite working during the New Kingdom, how do you explain the presence of both cheap and expensive work at that time? How do you explain the coexistence of cheap and expensive work today?
I watched you point several, of these overcuts, out on the basalt paving stones outside of G1. If we take the times given, in the various clips from this video, for cutting through igneous or metamorphic stone, using any of the techniques employed, then how do you explain the multitude and depth of these overcuts?
This was explained in the video, but maybe I was not clear enough. I suggested that a stone had been placed on top of these stones, and when the sawers reached the bottom of the stone, the saw penetrated into the stone below.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I appreciate your perspective & look forward to more of your videos.
Thank you.
While I agree that a hunter-gatherer society MAY have been able to produce such structures, it is unlikely given what we know about such societies. Gobekli Tepe, and the other Tepe sites, indicate a level of sophistication beyond what is expected of hunter-gatherers.....an understanding of architecture, geometry, organizational skill, logistics, etc, at a time when such skills were supposedly non-existent
I don't see how architecture, geometry, organizational skill, logistics, etc., or anything like that indicates a society's manner of food acquisition. I can see how some of those things might make for a more efficient manner of food acquisition, but not how it would determine whether a society was agricultural or hunter-gatherer. Could you explain?
Not to mention that these Tepe sites were, apparently, DELIBERATELY buried some 10-12K years ago, an amazing feat of logistics, engineering, & organization in itself. Care to expand on that?
Again, I don't get the connection between that and a society's manner of food acquisition. It sounds like you are suggesting that agriculture is sophisticated and hunting/gathering is unsophisticated, but that is not true. That's a cultural bias to be wary of.
Randall routinely presents his materials in a way that indicates a thorough level of research on his part as well as as a clear articulation of what he believes based on his research (easily referenced by the way). He presents photographic evidence in support of his positions as well as numerous peer reviewed publications from researchers that support his positions.
How is this relevant to the video? You do realize that the video is not about what Randall is routinely good at or bad at, right? Look at the title. It doesn't say, "Why Randall Carlson is Wrong About Everything." This is a video about one thing that he is wrong about. That's it.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The power that a teacher has over a student is an institutional arrangement. It doesn't apply to the general populace. So it couldn't possibly be what Ben is referring to. He is talking about power in a wider sense.
An academic who is teaching and researching established and prevalently accepted material is going to wield a greater power of authority (and influence) than one who is teaching/researching controversial and theoretical material.
Do you really believe that? Look at how many books alternative researchers sell compared to academics. They blow them out of the water. Look at how many videos views alternative researchers get compared to academics. Again, no competition to speak of. You seem to be speaking, again, about authority in a classroom, which is narrow. And even there, what gets taught is the academic consensus, not any one individual's view.
This "alternative" researcher is not only going to be more criticized by peers, but also find it much harder to receive funding and tenure if their views challenge what the establishment is teaching (and perhaps what it has been teaching for decades).
Everyone gets criticism. Everyone. Bad ideas get criticized more, and good ideas get criticized less. But there are many scholars whose ideas don't become accepted by the wider academic community, and they still get tenure and funding, because they use sound methods of scholarship. It is only the kooks who don't know how to do science and who haven't done their research that get rejected.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Most of your comment has nothing to do with this video and are about things that happened a hundred years ago, but I will reply to the parts that do relate to the video.
My comments gets removed and taken off.
Not by me. Sometimes they do not go through. Everyone has this problem.
But your references to Gandhi and Nehru on this topic is totally irrevelant
I never mentioned Gandhi or Nehru.
No, Vedas which for generations before script was passed orally, esp Poetry cannot be authentically translated, there is no equivalent english words to certain philosophical context.
All words can be translated. If it requires more than one English word, so be it. And considering that Sanskrit is the descendant of earlier languages, there was a point in time where "philosophical context" was added. It seems likely this was after the composition of the Samhita.
question how much Saraswathi river is projected in comparison with a known current river Ganga or Sindhu (Indus) & other rivers around?
I don't understand the question, but if you are asking why the composers praised the Saraswati instead of others, it is because the Bharatas lived by the Saraswati river.
Migration must have happened many millennia prior to Vedic Period, that they did not even refer to their ancestors, given the high praise to every thing around or related to them proves it beyond the doubt.
I don't follow your logic. High praise for gods is not the same as high praise for ancestors. And are you suggesting they didn't have any ancestors?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Akhand Bharat Hey, I did some research about Dasa, and it turns out that they are not Dark skinned Dravidians. They are serpents because the Rig Veda describes them as 'Anasa' 'Apada' and 'Ahasta'.
Did I say they were Dravidians? No, I did not. Tell me: how do you determine which expressions in the Rig Veda are literal and which are symbolic? It seems to me like you are picking and choosing whatever you prefer, whatever suits your preconceptions. Am I wrong? I gave direct examples in the video of passages in the RV where the dark skin appears to be literal. This is not to say that EVERY time they are spoken of as dark, it is literal. It is only to say that SOMETIMES it is literal.
The fact that these mythologies are present in both Europe and India clearly proves the fact that they have been taken from India into Europe.
Huh? I don't follow your logic. And what mythologies are you talking about, anyway?
they should have described a migration into India in the Rig Veda and a far away homeland. But instead, they describe the east as their homeland and show a migration to the west.
Why should they have described any of it? They can sing about whatever they like. And while they do once or twice talk about moving around, they don't talk about a major migration ever. Do you think I believe that once people arrived in India, they only ever traveled in one direction? That would be silly now, wouldn't it?
The family books describe the Sarasvati as a grand river and the non-family books describe Sarasvati as deteriorating. Based on this information, we can date Mandala 6 to be the oldest, followed by 3 and 7.
No one knows for sure the location of the Sarasvati.
The first Mandala describes animals like Hippopotamus, Rhinoceros, etc. It mentions Ganga more than Sarasvati, and even if it mentions Sarasvati, it does not mention anything to the west of it.
So? As I mentioned in the video, the RV peoples lived in northern India.
You also have no archaeological evidence of a migration as well. In archaeology, a person can tell when a particular change happens, and till date, we have not found a single archaeological site which can be distinguished as built by Aryans in India.
When you say, "Aryans," do you mean the Arya of the Rig Veda? Or do you mean speakers of Indo-Aryan languages? Anyway, archaeology doesn't show a migration out of India either.
They found a grave in the Swat valley of Pakistan, which they named as Gandhara Grave culture. Its pottery is similar to the Harappan culture, and they are genetically very similar to the Harappans. But they are Aryans because they have horse remains.
That makes sense. They lived between cultures, so they would have been influenced by both.
according to a new excavation in the city of Kampilya, the Painted Grey Ware culture stretched as far as 2300 BCE, and there is no significant cultural change in 1500 BCE.
Can you please link me to the archaeological report? It goes against the evidence from dozens of other sites.
Also, there are hundreds of evidences for Hinduism and Vedic culture being practiced in the Harappan civilization.
This is addressed in the video. Did you watch it?
there is no written or archaeological evidence for the existence of a Proto-Indo European language, and the oldest Indo-European language found till date is Sanskrit.
Extinct languages can be reconstructed from the evidences of existing languages. It is done with every language family. Anyway, the oldest Indo-European inscription is in Hittite. But of course, that doesn't mean Hittite is the oldest language. That would be a silly conclusion, because it would assume that language began at the same time as writing.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Just less than 100 years Ago, before you found IVC, what was your history saying about India??
My history? It's not MY history. Anyway, history is just like science. When something is found, then we adjust our views. For example, when a new planet is discovered, then we put it in our list of planets. When a civilization is found, then we put it in our list of civilizations. This is as it should be. Do you agree?
How do you know that There is Nothing older than found settlements in IVC?
I don't. But now let me ask you a question: Should historians say that something exists BEFORE it is found? Or should they find it first and THEN say it exists?
Have you really read Vedas and Brahmanas? Do you know/read about the Yajna which used to be performed at the bank of Drying Saraswati river banks?
Some. But that doesn't matter, because these are not my ideas. They are the conclusions reached by experts on the subject.
Do you know that, Yamuna, leaving Saraswati and Satluj leaving Saraswati is also mentioned in Vedas? and you better know these periods i hope.
No, they are not mentioned in the Vedas. But if you want to prove me wrong, show me the verses.
here is the problem statment for you.- Even when Satluj also left saraswati it became a rain fed river. and slowly it started dimnishing, and the time what you are talking about (1200-1500) this entire channel has no water.
I presented the studies that show that you are in error.
you will have to read the Brahmana, and the Yajna performed at the bank of Saraswati river, there are many names mentioned, like vinasana, where dried saraswati river ends and goes underground ( yes you can do dwelling and you will find sweet himalyan water on the paleochannel of this river after vinasana and in the desert area.)
It sounds like your dispute here is not about the science, but about interpretation of texts.
The main problem is, once you accept this, your entire history will collapse. and you will need to re write many things.
Sorry, but I will stick with the consensus of the world's Sanskrit experts, rather than fringe interpretations. I hope you don't mind.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@paulbird4 The precision is self evident in the flatness of mating surfaces, in other words it is obvious.
Wait just a minute. Are you saying it is obvious to the human eye? If so, the Egyptians had eyes, so why wouldn't they be able to tell how flat it was?
The term 'power tools' can encompass machinery driven by water power, compressed air, even machinery driven by large beasts etc. It is unclear to me why it's so incredible that the original builders used power tools.
Okay, but UnchartedX is not referring to the kind of power tools the ancient Egyptians could have possessed. If you are, then why are we arguing over this?
No, the point is that perfectly flat, gargantuan blocks of granite and other igneous rocks which bear clear marks of machine work cannot be achieved with copper chisels and non power tool driven abrasive ropes/sand. Other methods were used for which there appears to be no record which is perplexing.
I went into great detail in this video to show that there are no clear marks of machine work. So I don't understand why you are pressing this point still. If you have evidence for machine work that UnchartedX didn't present, then please present it.
So you have no actual real life experience. But have consulted with stone masons who are able to replicate the granite masonry of, lets say the Osirion complex, with copper chisels, diorite balls and abrasive rope? I'd be very interested to see them demonstrate this especially inner 90 degree cuts - that would truly amaze me.
I am curious why you are insistent on the replication of the entire building. Can you explain that? The only thing that needs to be replicated are the specific processes involved.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@ might I suggest you do a video about convincing evidence of sophisticated prehistoric cultures, which, thus far, you have ignored or won’t examine?
I am not a prehistorian. I have said this many times in my videos. This is even why I do not announce prehistorical archaeological discoveries in my Archaeological news videos. If you would like to discuss prehistory with someone, there are other channels for that. Stefan Milo has some good videos on prehistory.
Troy was entirely fictional… maybe, based only on the sound and documented historical evidence, you would conclude the existence of Atlantis is accurate?
I read this over several times and cannot figure out what you are asking.
On what basis do you discount Plato’s documentation of that culture?
Documentation? Would you call Lord of the Rings "documentation" of Middle Earth? If you change that to Plato philosophical dialogues, then I would tell you that I do not discount them.
Do you apply this to all documented claims, absent discovered evidence?
It depends on what type of writing you are talking about. That goes without saying.
A learning video, rather than a teaching video, seems in order. Maybe try that?
Learning precedes the making of videos.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@everythingisalllies2141 Why? I thought you were an expert on this?
You are all over the place, man. I ask you what repair work you are talking about, and you say, "Well, if you don't know, I'm not going to tell you." How am I supposed to know what you have in mind? You're dancing so you can't be pinned down.
There are dozens of people and groups that investigate ancient megalithic sites worldwide, but don't agree with the story you are telling, and they have presented their findings and their concluding guesswork to anyone interested, on Youtube.
Yeah, I am aware that a bunch of uninformed people are going around thinking they know lots of stuff. That still doesn't tell me what is in your mind.
Any of these alternative history researchers who are no less intelligent than you, have hours of first hand video footage showing ruins that clearly show a progression of repairs and additions to base structures, and in every case, on several continents, the repairs and additions probably done by the current local inhabitants and their ancestors, is progressively inferior to the base structures.
Wait, so when we were talking about Egypt, and you said, "Latter stone work repairing earlier work is of obviously a far poorer grade of work," you were referring to other parts of the world? Why? Besides, do you know how many archaeological sites show evidence of inferior work below? THOUSANDS. So just because some researchers have found three or four places with inferior work above, that says nothing about a general trend. Nor does it tell us the date of the work.
And I've watched "authorized" archaeologists videos that purport to be showing some gradual evolution of the Egyptians abilities of working in stone, to try to make a convincing case that it was the Egyptians all along that did everything we see in Egypt, but the evidence is sketchy at best
That's only because you are determined not to be convinced.
Let me ask you a question, "Why are you so dead set against the concept that the Egyptians did not simply wander into that land, and find those megalithic works already there, having been abandoned for god knows how long. and then decide to set up permanent camp there, and later ascribing the impressive stone works as their own history for the purposes of propaganda?"
Because we see the Egyptian's own work gradually leading up to it, from simple to more complex over time.
Such as those blackish polished statues that are in the Museums when there are crude scratching on the sides, claiming that some Pharaoh was responsible for the statue. The scratching are so obviously added much later than the stature was made, and the quality of work is like comparing the work of DaVinci with that done by a crayon bearing kindergarten rug rat.
You're not thinking this through. We see high quality hieroglyphic writing (not crude) on many artifacts. So when a person comes across some crude instances of writing, could they reasonably conclude that the Egyptians were incapable of making high quality writings? Not a thinking person. That would be like a person listening to Nickelback and concluding that all Canadian music is terrible. You see, what archaeologists and historians do is examine ALL of the pertinent evidence to reach a conclusion, not just the evidence that they cherry-picked.
Not long ago, you and your expert mates were adamant that the oldest civilization was about 4000 years BC, but now they found that site in Turkey, and now you have to admit that you were wrong on that one, but all that time, you never paused to condemn anyone who hinted that there might be earlier civilizations.
Incorrect. The experts said that the oldest cities were from about 4000 BCE. They said the oldest settlements were from 13000 BCE.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@neil9457 It would be impossible to maintain the same burial practice across a vast geographical area & over a broad timeframe without them having a common religious book.
I have seen burial practices maintained without a common religious book. It's rather common.
The always north-south facing burials, the 5:4 ratio town planning, and the shapes of ritualistic altars suggest it is likely a post-Rigvedic Shatpath Brahmana society- a text that is generally dated in the AMT at the 8th century BCE, only if you remain silent on astronomical reference that puts it over 3000BCE.
These astronomical references are open to interpretation. Anyway, similarities such as these are interesting, but they do not necessarily indicate identity of culture, especially when there are also many differences.
Heggarty et al. (2023), in a peer-reviewed paper from the Max Planck Institute, establish the Indo-Aryan language 6000 years before in the Indian Subcontinent. S. Yang et al. (2024) repeated the same.
No, they do not. I suggest you read the papers again.
Steven Bonta recently showcased his partial decipherments of the Indus script, which, after more than three decades of research, he claims to be an early form of Sanskrit.
When his proposal goes through peer review, I will be interested in what everyone has to say. Until then, no one who is not a linguist has any reason to accept his theory.
Moreover, all efforts to uncover a migration route in Rigvedic literature have either failed or can be readily refuted using the same text
Why would the Rigveda have a migration route?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
You started this video with the disingenuous assumption that Carlson expects to find a space age industrial powerhouse civilizations at the turn of the Pleistocene and into the Holocene.
No, I didn't. In fact, every time I mentioned this supposed lost civilization, the images I showed were of premodern ancient civilizations. The only time I showed an image of a modern civilization is when he was talking about our modern civilization.
We arent going to find spaceships and electronics as such, and therefore can only expect to find diamond and quartz arrowheads, megalithic stone monuments, beautifully crafted small items like what youve deacribed
I don't follow your logic. Why wouldn't we find anything else?
to assume these artifacts have decayed rather than been washed under massive mud deposits that are demonstrated across the world and are dated to the termination of the Pleistocene as ice dam outbreak floods literally washed the old way away isnt a fair counterargument.
Carlson assumed they decayed. He was pretty explicit about that.
"Civilization" is a relative term when you step out of the Western paradigm.
It is generally used to refer to urban society. Are you saying that Carlson understands it to be a biodegradable or nomadic society?
The sites in India, Peru, Anatolia that you imaged sourced have cultures ascribed to them that survive today, and you trampled their testimony that they are more ancient than you and those of your persuasion insist they are.
My persuasion? You mean the people that study ALL of the evidence instead of just a portion of it?
Every ancinet culture the world over is EXPLICIT in its assertions that civilization existed before recorded history.
By definition, writing is an identifying feature of civilization. Without record keeping, it's not a civilization. But that being said, you are overstating the matter. Plus, these legends are contradictory.
The evidence is found all around us. In the mound cities of the US that were bulldozed to build Wal-Marts and McDonalds, in the megalithic stones of Baalbeck and the Dome of the Rock that have no credited engineers, in the Serapeum of Egypt which itself has an extant record of royal lineage stretching back 40,000 years, and in Peru which kept a concice record of its history in oral tradition mirrored in precise astronomy that exists today.
The Dome of the Rock? I've never heard that one before. But check out some of the videos on this channel. I have done some on Baalbek and the Serapeum.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I have friends with PhD’s. They lecture in apparently noble fields of research. They don’t actually achieve anything of consequence.
Is that what they would say, or is that your "expert" opinion?
If they asked the right questions they would swiftly find themselves out of a job.. I can provide evidence if you wish.
Yes, please do.
(The “Facing ‘OUR’ past” project, Carefully designed to deflect blame away from those few who, up until 5 years ago, were still receiving hereditary financial compensation/gain from their ancestors direct involvement in slavery, Is an absolutely killer example..It was partially funded via tax deductible philanthropic contributions from appallingly awful, eye wateringly wealthy individuals, with vested interests..Which resulted in 20 ‘professors’ spending significant time and energy researching precisely the wrong things.
Your friends with PhDs are in the Facing Our Past Project? And you are saying they would be fired from their universities if they asked the right questions? Or do you just mean fired from the Facing Our Past project (which isn't a paid position anyway, I expect)? I am well aware that there are historical research projects that people have pet peeves about. Hey, I have some of my own. But historians should be allowed to have the freedom to research whatever they want. Just because you or I don't agree with it, that shouldn't change anything. What we were talking about is whether historians who ask the right questions would swiftly find themselves out of a job, and this is not a "killer example" of that, at least not how you've explained it.
You are demonstrably not immune from being reeled in, and ridiculed.
I don't know what "reeled in" means, but historians are always criticized. It comes with the territory. As I always say, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Let's take the statement that the altitude is a difficult environment and even today the locals contend daily with the challenges, you dive straight into a straw man argument he didn't even create, Ben goes on to explain how they must have used specific types of farming and that the shoreline was likely closer answering the question, Why was it built here? You say they invented/used farming techniques, so does ben and shows literal diagrams. Like what are you even arguing for?
Oh no, he definitely makes the statement (more than once in the video) that the environment, as it was in the period archaeologists date Tiwanaku, was not conducive to holding a large population. I did not take him out of context. When he speaks of successful farming, he is referring to the time period HE is dating it to.
Next fallacious statement, you take the time to correct Ben RE Pumapunku and Tiwanaku being separate sites and that they are actually part of the same larger site. Ok you are right, which is probably why later in the video Ben explains that it's a common misconception for tourists to think that they are separate sites and this is not actually true.
Great. But as I said in the video, it is a common misperception, so I stopped to clear it up. Not everything I say is a direct attack on Ben. Nothing fallacious about it.
You jump on to answer a question he literally answers in his video making it seem like he is trying to drum up some sort of mystery? Instead of taking an honest view, perhaps giving credit where it's due to Posnansky who dedicated a lifetime to this, another opinion of an actual scholar. Your general condescending tone comes of unintelligent and desperate.
I did give due credit to Posnansky. I did that as soon as he was brought up. All three of your examples are at the very beginning. How far did you get?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I am happy to answer your questions:
1/ Who is paying you? And/or—
I am paid by Google Adsense for the ads you watch on the videos. I also am paid by my patrons on Patreon, who contribute to me monthly. This is all. Times are tough right now, so please consider becoming a patron at patreon.com/WorldofAntiquity
2/ If you can't get on the wagon yourself, then you just try to kick the wheels off?
Wagon? Do you mean the alternative history bandwagon? It is a mixture of woo-woo and conspiracy theories. I prefer to stick with hard evidence. And I feature it here in this series, because I want to show how it misleads people.
3/ Do you have anything to offer that may help innocent bystanders (like me) to a better understanding?
Yes. Information. This information is presented in the videos and also in citations and links below the videos. This helps people to educate themselves.
4/ If all that Foerster asserts is dubious, then you do well to point it out; you would do even better if you offered something better. Can you?
Yes, and I do. It's called evidence. For example, in this video you get a significant amount of information on the Roman granite industry and column construction.
bearing in mind that heavier-than-air flight was impossible for Mankind not so very long ago; and when Mother Shipton (circa 1500-ish) offered that "Around the world mens' thoughts will fly, faster than the twinkling of an eye" she was (a) hilarious, and (b) just a wee bit exactly spot on. I don't know if the Holy Inquisition ever got hold of her, I just hope not. Now ... what's an 'alphabet group'?
You lost me. You'll have to clarify your question.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Thank you for your comment. My thoughts:
1. Those guys are only asking questions, none of them are saying"this" or "that" is a "fact". It is only reasonable to always put in doubt what current studies say. "if" no one asks questions today we would still believe earth is flat.
Maybe some people only ask questions, but the guys you see writing books and making videos most definitely are making positive assertions. They make assertions about what archaeologists are wrong about, and they make assertions about what they are right about.
2. As much as I admire your work, you only try to debunk them but no effort to make questions yourself I see. Please remember that as time passes, something could be uncovered and maybe you could be remembered as one of those who pushed back on new ideas.
As I said in the video, any new ideas of my own I publish in academic journals for peer review. But you should know that the only "new ideas" (they're actually old) that I push back on are the ridiculous ones. The new ideas that people propose using real science and real archaeological and historical methods (and there are many) I don't push back on at all, even if I am not convinced by them.
3. Just got back from Peru, none of current explanations make any sense whatsoever. I am far from qualified to even try to propose an idea but my friend, a civilization who did not even have written language did not do those first structures.
Who did you learn the "current explanations" from? I suspect they were explained to you by someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. As far as the requirement of a written language to make structures, if you look at prehistory, you will find that this is absolutely untrue.
4. Yes there is no conclusive evidence of an advanced civilization, but it is clear that information have been hidden from most of the population.
Sorry, what? What makes it clear to you? In my several decades as an ancient historian, I have never come across evidence for this. Are you in on some secret?
Let them be, if they are wrong fine, but what if something comes out right and true, wouldn't that one bit be just wonderful?
Yes. But a necessary component of historical scholarship is to allow one's own ideas to be subject to scrutiny. I would NEVER expect that I should be able to publish my ideas and that no one be permitted to make any critical comment about it.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@iamscoutstfu How does this contradict my position?
Because you said "The Anunnaki is the largest subset of gods." I pointed out that they are a small subset. That's how.
Wherein do you provide a rebuttal to the assertion that the Sumerians assert, in contradiction to your protestations, that they were educated in their civilized art by the gods?
That is not what I was rebutting. First I rebutted your original statement: "the Sumerians allege they were taught their civilized ways from foreigners," which is not true. And then you responded by saying: "They credit the Annunaki with their very creation and that creation was denoted as being in service to those gods." Please note that you have now changed "foreigners" to "Anunnaki." But even this second statement is incorrect, because the Sumerians never credit the Anunnaki. Then you add, "the Abkallu are directly credited with teaching mankind the arts of civilization." The Apkallu are not relevant, because they are neither foreigners, nor Anunnaki, nor gods. They are mere demigods or genii.
I don't actually accept your premise that the Anunnaki were "high gods" or that there was no overlap between them an Apkallu.
You can imagine whatever you wish to be true. But I have read the primary sources about both the Anunnaki and the Apkallu, so I speak from knowledge of the subject. How many of the primary sources have you read? The fact that you haven't admitted to a single error tells me you are not approaching this conversation in honesty.
You haven't provided any support for the assertion of the existence of "high gods" vs "low gods", and you fail to highlight any other sort of gods that actually exist.
I told you to watch a video on the subject of the Apkallu, which has references too. Have you availed yourself of any of these supports?
You also fail to address the position that "Anunnaki" is a titular label, not a description of species.
The Sumerians don't have a concept of a species, nor do they have a word for it. On the other hand, they have a fully developed theology, and their gods are clearly linked with the forces of nature: the sun, the moon, the stars, the earth, the sea, etc.
You appellation of "high and low" is a work of fantasy based on anachronistic views of their civilization., not fact
They are not my appellations. They are the Sumerians'.
Also the Akkadians and Sumerians had vast overlap between their mythologies, cultures, living spaces, and genetics. They were contemporary, intimately intertwined people and Sumerian gods had Akkadian names (Inanna: Ishtar, for example) So it doesn't militate against a position to point at labels as being Akkadian, especially when we have seen Apkallu on Sumerian Stelles.
Yes, there was overlap. But it doesn't mean you can call something Sumerian when it is Akkadian. Why have two different words if they are synonymous? There are two different words because they are NOT synonymous.
Please address the fact that Sumerian records contradict you.
Which Sumerian records? You haven't cited a single one.
We have abundant mythological evidence.
Please provide it. I am sure people reading this would like to see it.
It's this evidence that compelled you to assent to the existence of a relationship between PIE speakers and the Sumerians.
I didn't assent to anything based on mythological evidence.
the Sumerians are not known, at all, for traveling outside of Mesopotamia while the PIE speakers are literally famous for being a globe-trotting, multi-ethnic, multi-national culture which creates and influences civilizations, the world over.
How do you think influence travels? There doesn't have to be mass migration, you know. History testifies to the movement of ideas, technology, and culture very often through trade. Objects from southern Mesopotamia have been found everywhere from western Anatolia to India.
Do you have any evidence for this claim [that Sumerian civilization is earlier than PIE civilization]?
Yes, it's readily available for anyone who wants to look. The earliest cities are in southern Mesopotamia. Urbanization there dates back to c. 3700 BCE. I have an interview here on the channel with an archaeologist who worked at the ruins of Uruk, the world's first known city: https://youtu.be/4rXl1rEh7cU
Just before this you state that PIE peoples were a civilization
PIE peoples may have made a civilization or civilizations, but they are not themselves a civilization. They are a language group. Look it up.
By any measure. The descendants of PIE speakers share a mythology, linguistic root, genetic affinity, and cultural history with the ancient PIE speaking civilization. So the idea that PIE denotes the existence of a race, is something which no serious anthropologist or historian contests.
The descendants of PIE speakers have a whole array of mythologies, languages, genes, and cultures. You can't just swap out a word that specifically means a language and identify it as a race. Do words have no meaning to you? Come on. Would you ever say that everyone who speaks English is of the same race?
Who are the "white" people who are not of "European" descent?
Depends on who you talk to, but in the US the term has in some contexts included Hispanic people, South Asians, West Asians, and North Africans.
Do you have any evidence for this [that we have little in common with our ancestors]?
Genetics. Try out 23andme, and you'll see how much DNA you share with relatives.
Robert contradicts this assertion [that the word Aryan was used only by a subset of Indo-Europeans]. Please address his claim directly, if you assert it is untrue.
I addressed it very directly in the video. If Robert wants to show that it was used by all Indo-Europeans that's up to him. You can't ask me to prove a negative.
If I paint a car blue, then paint it red, has the color blue underneath the color red changed? no.
If no one can see the blue paint, then it isn't there. You're basically arguing for the existence of something in spirit, rather than in reality.
The confederate flag is still the civil war era battle-flag of west virginia.
The civil war era is over. It is NOT still the battle flag.
Do you have any evidence for this claim [that the genetic, ethnic, and cultural link between Europeans is independent of the swastika]?
Yes. The evidence is in the meaning of words. A symbol is not a gene, nor an ethnicity, nor a culture. It is the product of a culture, yes, but the culture can exist without it.
What evidence do you have that Robert thinks EVERY Instance of blue eyes MUST be a heritable trait?
I refer only to his use of it in specific cases in the video. In those instances, he assumes that. I am saying he can't do that. You seem to have misunderstood my statement, "Sepehr cannot assume that every instance of blue eyes in art must be a heritable genetic non-pathological trait." I did not say Sepehr assumes that every instance. I said he CANNOT assume that every instance. I have not changed any claim.
As for the blue-eyes genetic argument, we seem to have gotten caught in the weeds. Your original statement, which I took issue with, was that having blue eyes "requires that the majority of ancestors are of European descent, so their genetic contributions represent the majority of the data for the individual descendants DNA." I wanted you to provide the scientific studies that showed this, but you haven't. So instead of us going back and forth on it, I will just wait until you do.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
why not simply present the facts and discuss theories as models and then we can all look at the merits or lack thereof of the models.
That's exactly what I did.
You havent addressed here the fully empirically presented reasearch paper made by IIT Delhi team, which shows the genetic data from Rakhi Garhi as conclusively showing out of India Migration and not into India.
Yes, I did.
There is no evidence for any group of anyone moving to Bharata and developing the Vedik culture. This is all absolute nonsense, which is only coming from outsider scholars like yourself, who impose their outsider ideas, based on the same politically motivated nonsense as the ait.
It is the consensus of global scholarship, and that includes Indian scholars.
There is ample geological, astronomical, linguistic and genetic data, which corroborates the historical documents of Bharata itself. The chadragupta maurya dating itself is such a big load of manufactured nonsense, that the entire indology school should be booted.
It sounds like your ideas about history were learned either at a religious institution, in books written by ideologues, or off internet blogs. It certainly doesn't come from the subject experts.
There is no culture in the world whose antiquity and scientific contributions can compare. And yet its a black out in the world wide centralized "education"/endoctrination system.
Real history does not argue for the superiority of one's own culture. That's politics.
I think academically oriented people are better of studying science empirically - focus on facts, instead of making theories, which are maintained because of attachment and popularized belief, instead of established cause and effect.
I agree. But it also is what non-academically oriented people like yourself should do.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Thank you for your comment. Here are my thoughts:
Western pseudoscholarship in this field has repeatedly parroted the same nonsense over and over again, now for over 200 years incessantly, despite lack of any evidence qnd sometimes even in the face of contrary evidence.
You will be happy to know that the information I provide comes from WORLD scholarship, which includes scholars and specialists also from India. And maybe it's because you haven't studied much history, but your claim that it hasn't changed in 200 years is strange. If you read a history of India from 200 years ago, it looks nothing like a history of India written today. In fact, the IVC wouldn't even be in it.
1. There is not a shred of evidence that these so-called chariot riding, aggressive Indo-European "Aryans" "invaded" the poor Indus valley Dravidian weaklings who were "pushed" southwards into the peninsula.
When did I say any such thing in the video? You might be surprised to hear that historical scholarship abandoned the idea of a mass invasion of "Aryans" long ago.
What is narrated often is that these pacifist Dravidians had no weapons, therefore they were wiped out from the North. Now not a single proof of any such battle has been found - either in archaeology or in folklore.
Narrated by who? Certainly not any historians in the last several decades.
b. The word "Arya" means nobleman, quite similar to the medieval European titles "gentleman" or "monsieur". Now obviously there is no race of people called "gentlemanians". Why then, there should be a group of people called "Aryans".
Where in the video did I mention a people called "Aryans"? Are you confusing this with the term "Indo-Aryan," which is the designation of a language group?
c. The word "Dravida" is a Sanskrit term for "Damila/Tamil", and it was used as a topographical marker for people living around the Kaveri. Again I guess, there is no racial connotation involved.
Who is giving it a racial connotation? Not any historian that I know of. "Dravidian" is the name of a language family, not a race. Please don't confuse the etymology of a word with the current meaning of a word.
2. A person speaking English doesn't automatically become white. Likewise, language has no connection whatsoever with skin colour or physical features.
True. What does this have to do with the video?
3. If the "Dravidians" were "pushed" downwards, why do you actually have Tamil mythology talking about migration from the opposite direction, i.e. from a lost continent called Kumari Kandam in the South.
Do you believe that Kumari Kandam existed? It is disproven by earth science. So the story couldn't possible be true, could it? Anyway, this story is set long before the time we are talking about.
the Southerner "Dravidians" should have been more resistant to Vedic influences, and huge amount of force would have been required to make them receptive.
I disagree, and so would people who are familiar with how religion spreads.
4. Even today, the very same IVC area speaks Punjabi, Sindhi, Gujarati as well as Haryanvi and Rajasthani dialects. And this is in the age of railway connectivity. Why then, thousands of years ago, would this huge geographical area speak a single language- whether Dravidian or not?
I said explicitly in the video that it did NOT speak a single language.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
First, let me welcome you to YouTube. People get what they pay for, just as for any product or service. What is your job, by the way. Do you do it for free? Second, grifting is when a person says things they do not sincerely believe to get money or views. I do not do that, because I say my honest opinions, so no, the word doesn't fit at all.
If you want to criticize me for not asking Hawass about something that YOU care about, and I don't, then that's your right. But it has nothing to do with shilling or grifting. Best not to call people names, the meanings of which you do not know.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
If we follow mainstream archeology, civilization started 6,000 years ago. Therefore, those settlers in Nekhen in 3,000 BC - the culture who built the great pyramid and other monumental structures in Egypt, only has 1,000 years after the Stone Age to develop practical sciences in order to do so.
As I mentioned in the video, practical sciences are probably not needed to be considered a city/civilization.
Fast forward to the foundation of the Roman Era approx 750 BC or about 2,250 years later, technology didn't improve much, it actually digressed as far as building monumental structures are concerned.
It improved greatly.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I think it would incorrect to state that I based my "entire argument" on the Buddha being intentionally created, unless you only caught one part of my video. I never argued that one person created the Buddha myth. I argued that one person could have started Buddhism. If you don't believe that one person could create a philosophy, then you don't believe in Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras, Zeno, Pyrrho, Epicurus, etc. Moreover, I stated very clearly that many people added to the Buddha tale over the centuries, just as you are saying.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
There is, in fact, evidence that the Great Pyramid and the things around it are contemporary. For example, carbon dating, and the fact that there is graffiti in the Great Pyramid that is contemporary with the people who are buried in the nearby tombs, and the worker's camp next to the Pyramid. As for the sarcophagus, we know it is one, because we have sarcophagi from the same period that are made the same way. Check out my Machining and Precision videos to hear more about sarcophagi.
As for your final comment, give it further thought. If you are going to posit an exception to the rule (and this goes for anything), then you have the burden of proof. It would be like saying, "Yes, the people of the 21st century tell us that refrigerators were for keeping things cold, but they don't tell us that ALL refrigerators were used for that purpose."
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
All very good, so people that don't do all the work shouldn't have a view or opinion?
People who don't do the work shouldn't make assertions, publish books, and give public lectures, saying that they know better.
And those that do the work at the coal face should be listened too and simply because they have a digging implement in their hand?
That's a strawman if I ever heard one. Did you deliberately misrepresent what is said in the video, or was I not clear enough?
We are all people and whether you have all the training and education in the world, you can still be wrong.
As I said with emphasis in the video, "The word pseudoarchaeology has nothing to do with whether a theory is correct. It’s not the what that matters. It’s the how."
This is why we should keep our minds open to all theories and ideas without dismissing them or accepting them simply due to someones training.
I agree.
You are simply labelling people in order to denigrate their views and elevate your own, my opinion and I'm allowed it, aren't I?
Yes, you are allowed to have both correct and incorrect opinions. This video is not about people's opinions or views. I am beginning to think you didn't watch it.
Just saying, we should be inclusive to all as that next breakthrough could come from a pseudoarcheaologist?
Only through luck or clairvoyance.
Don't see someones views as illegitimate just because someone isn't one of your peers.
I don't. Anyone can do archaeology. You don't need a degree. This is about whether someone actually does archaeology, not who does it.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Uncharted X asks for more research all the time
Why is he asking instead of doing?
Ultimately we are ALL trying to find reasonable explanations for seeming inconsistencies, the incredible precision, and in terms of the 1000's of those stone jars, how were they "lathed" out, sometimes to the point of translucency, when they were often of different material and hardness.
First it is necessary to SHOW inconsistencies and incredible precision. THEN they can ask for an explanation for it. And the reason why some are translucent is because they are made out of naturally translucent stone.
My point is that the answers are OUT there, we just gotta help each other FIND them, and stop treating it like, "My hockey team is better than yours, and you're an idiot"
I don't play in a team. I judge each claim on its own merits. Nor do I call anyone an idiot. But if I hear a silly statement, I will say so. And if I see someone deliberately committing cultural vandalism and denigrating historians and archaeologists for money, I will call it out.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
While it is true that there are a number of videos on YouTube uploaded by fantasists, others with alleged theories pulled out of the sleeve, it remains that in many cases, it is not possible to sustain with certainty, that those who present their doubts before archaeological traces with techniques difficult to copy until today, are wrong
Don't worry. I only make these videos about the fantasists.
"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" we usually say in the scientific world.
Yes, and the absence of evidence is also not evidence of existence.
If behind a "supposedly" scientific interest in informing the readers, a religious barrier is subtly hidden, tending to make people believe that the whole history of civilizations and their advanced techniques began more or less six thousand years ago (as the biblical scriptures point out, perhaps), we fall into the same error of those who criticize.
This is a secular channel.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@bierdlll "Gobekli Tepe is not a settlement, it's only a sanctuary" - TEDxPrague 2014.
Finally. Thank you. This is the very first time you have given an example of an archaeologist making a claim of this sort. So why you accused me of side-stepping earlier, when you didn't back up your statement, I don't know. Yes, I agree that this was an inappropriate statement. He should have prefaced this statement with words like: "According to what we can see at present..."
Making claims based on incomplete evidence. Is it pseudoscientific, yes or no? If no, why not?
No. There was one main point that was the takeaway for this video, and you seemed to have missed it. I tried to hammer it in several times. Pseudoscience or pseudoarchaeology is a practice (or lack of a practice). It is not about what beliefs anyone holds or what conclusions anyone reaches. That is what I wanted all viewers to remember. So the question is: Did Klaus Schmidt perform proper archaeology on the site? Answer: yes, he did. He reached an inaccurate conclusion, based on his limited knowledge, but that doesn't mean he didn't do archaeology or didn't do science.
Imagine a medical researcher collecting only 10% of the required data, and saying that this conclusion is true based on this 10%.
You are making a serious error in equating 10% of the site with 10% of data. The fact is, a 10% uncovering of an archaeological site reveals more than 10% of information about it. When he made that statement, archaeological investigation of GT was already in its 20th year. So to frame this as too premature is unfair.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
You claimed that these old lingams were found in the Vedic region.
I couldn't find good photos, but this is what archaeologists have said. I showed what I could find. Whatever the case, where do you think the southerners got the idea of lingams from?
Dismissing BB Lals illustrious career and research work & being disrespectful to him, just because his conclusions did not fit your narrative, is uncalled for.
Nobody dismissed his career and research work. In fact, Disha said his work prior to 1992 was excellent. But even I can see a decline in B.B. Lal's work (and an increase in political interest) during his later years. It happens to the best of us when we get old.
BB Lal, in his books, had only given evidence for cultural & civilizational continuity (that’s his conclusion) - how is this different from what Disha said?
It's different because he explicitly argues for OIT.
But if you throw genetics at me to prove Aryan invasion, I will show you evidence for r1a present in our tribal, traditionally forest dwelling communities.
Everyone already knows about that. The question is when did they get it?
I had never used any of the evidences that you debunked in the video (except for the horse evidence that can be argued one way or the other). My argument was always about cultural & civilizational continuity.
Continuity was discussed in the video.
No one ever claimed that the Harappan civilization is exactly the same as Vedic civilization.
Lots of people have. Wow. I am surprised to hear you say that.
We are only against your conclusion that some kind of migration changed the language, culture, spirituality and religion of the native people all of a sudden (or the migrants replaced the native people and built their own settlements)
I don't know who "we" is. And no one on the entire planet says that migrants replaced the native people. So you are arguing against nonexistent people. And I have never heard anyone say it happened "all of a sudden" either. But to be against processes that happened everywhere in the world, as if your own country is immune from everything, is unreasonable.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@r.a.zekauskas8109 In order for me to answer your question about "essential truths" and "meaningless chaos," I first need some clarification. What exactly do you mean by "essential truths"? Do you mean simply that facts exist? Also, are those the only two choices? I do think you and I are capable of understanding an Assyrian artist, or at least come close to understanding him with enough information. I don't think the Assyrian artist is capable of understanding us. He's dead. And when he was alive, he never met us.
In regard to Gobekli Tepe, I am not wedded to the idea, but right now, with the information we have, I think the interpretation that the images are buildings is more reasonable than that they are handbags or baskets. My mind could be changed. It's true we haven't found buildings at the site yet, but we know buildings existed in that time period within the region.
I don't entirely understand your Olmec question. Why would the image give me pause? Bags and buckets are so universal, that finding them in many places is not remarkable. It's to be expected. They are basic tools that anyone can invent.
I have the nicotine mummies on my list of topics to tackle. My research has been superficial up to this point, so I will wait until I have more information before making an assessment.
As for Matt, I am happy to see that, as he has continued to research and find more information, his conclusions have been much more reasonable. He is still less "mainstream" than I am, so I wouldn't say he has gone too far. :)
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
its seems wise to acknowledge the limits and restrictions born of uniformitarianism, particularly in anthropological or sociological studies.
Huh? Uniformitarianism is a geological term. It is used to refer to natural processes.
AMH progression and achievement of sophistication is thought to only occur once in the last 315,000 years.
Sophistication in what way? Are you talking about the evolution of the brain? You realize that language cannot occur until speech is developed, and writing cannot develop until after speech, etc, right?
this evidence of sophistication is resting before our eyes in the features of the Great Pyramid
Oh, you mean sophistication in building. Hmm. Building stone monuments was never an inevitable destination of our species. It is very possible it may have never happened. Anyway, since the date of the Great Pyramid, based on numerous intersecting lines of evidence, is solidly no earlier than 3000 BCE, I don't see what your point is.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@gouravdey497 #2: You don't think it sounds realistic that it takes time for ideas and practices to spread around? That's weird.
You wrote, "In the words of Annette Wilke, the Sarasvati had been reduced to a 'small, sorry trickle in the desert,' by the time that the Vedic people migrated into north-west India." I would love to see the actual article in which she wrote this, so that I can see the context. I would agree that by the time the later Vedas were composed, the Sarasvati had dried up, but I am not so sure about the Rig Veda.
You should know that I judge arguments by what they say, not by who says them.
What kind of evidence would I need to see to doubt the AMT? If the Indus script were deciphered, and the people identified themselves as the Vedic people in some way, or if the language was clearly identifiable as Sanskrit or proto-Sanskrit, then I would change my mind.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@San_Vito Refering to Kerkwyk et al as "dudes" and "fringe archeology channel" right off the bat is an ad hominem
A dude is another word for a guy. I'm a dude. They're dudes. We're all dudes. And they absolutely are a fringe archaeology channel. There is no question about it. It is a very accurate description. He talk about archaeology. He is anti-mainstream. He is, by definition, on the fringe.
Most of your complaints are about how I characterized his arguments. Those are my honest assessments, and I think they are 100% accurate. You don't like my tone? Too bad. I like my tone.
While your proposal of how this kind of research should have been conducted instead is representative of typical scientific procedure, the way you're using it to contrast what Kerkwyk et al chose to do instead is suggestive of an appeal to tradition
No, no. It is the scientific method. There is no other way. If it isn't done scientifically, it isn't science. The method was invented for a reason. But if you have another proven method, please share it.
When you say things like Kerkwyk believing that ancient artifacts had precision greater than what human eye can achieve, as he was judging it by his human eye, it may be pithy and a fun sound bite, but that's more fighting words than anything else.
No, it's true, and it's a valid point. In fact, it is one of the most important points of the video. He keeps saying "precision" without any evidence.
he clearly had and stated many more other reasons than how things looked to his eyes for his beliefs.
Really? What reasons? It sound like you are making the argument that if he makes a bad argument, he should be excused for it on the grounds that he has other arguments.
"pseudoscience", or pseudo-anything, isn't a well-defined term
Yes, it is. I made a whole video on it. https://youtu.be/hnoImxaa69g
since you state almost everything you're saying as simple facts, you aren't making it clear to what extent any conclusions of archaeologists are only probable assertions. That constitutes an appeal to authority.
There are appeals to authority, and there are fallacious appeals to authority. It is important to know the difference. But if there is a fact I stated, and you want to know how I know it, just ask.
The brief mocking monologue toward the end ridiculing Kerkwyk's ideas is definitely over the line
Over what line? It's funny. I'm not allowed to have a sense of humor? If you would rather have ChatGPT do the video, let me know.
What's worse is you on one hand calling the study of sacred geometry valid, but then immediately calling the concept itself "hippie woo".
I think I made my point clear, but it seems to have gone over your head. Studying about a subject is not the same as believing in it.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@navajasrs2402 Is the Ministry of Antiquities in Egypt not famously reluctant in allowing artifacts and sites to be explored / measured / investigated with modern technology?
You are no longer talking about archaeologists being forbidden from collecting artifacts. Now "forbidden" has turned into "reluctant," and collecting has turned into investigated with modern technology, and a blanket statement has now just become one country. The reasons Egypt might not give permission are several: damage to the artifacts, competition with others who also want to investigate there, having to close down tourist activity for the research to take place, and rights to the site being given to another group already. Just to name a few. It has nothing to do with being against modern tech (as modern tech has been used there many times). It has nothing to do with preventing things from being found either. They love it when things are found.
it seems a lot of these hypotheses could be quickly debunked once and for all would they to be more open about loaning / licensing out things like these stone vases with universally accepted provenance.
The money is better spent on other things. Besides, I expect they love the mystery. It brings in more tourists.
For instance, Ben's most recent two videos cover EXACTLY the kind of measurements using EXACTLY the kind of tools you demanded of him and theorists of his like. What's the establishment response? No True Scotsman. That's not a REAL stone vase.
The vase is unprovenanced. No one even knows where it came from.
Ok, well, let us measure one of your real stone vases, please and thank you.
Yes, please do. It is up to the people making the bold claims about it to do the work.
No, you can't have one.
I don't even think they've asked. At least they have not tried very hard. These vases can be found in many museums. If a metrologist requested access to one, I do not think they would have much trouble getting permission. And if one museum says no, go to the next one. But knowing Ben and those like him, if they measure a vase and it does not measure as accurately as they would like, they would never show it to their audience.
Whether Ben and his team are correct in their conclusions or erroneous, whether that vase is authentic or fake, whether the measurements are falsified or legit, people like you look like dogmatic assholes with something to hide, and they look like plucky heroes fighting the establishment.
Because we won't do other people's work for them? Please.
Seems from the outside looking in that Hawas et al. have come down on anyone daring to whisper contrarian conclusions to the official narrative like Al Capone on a freelance bootlegger for decades.
Just the fact that you think there is such a thing as an "official narrative" is a red flag. I believe what I want, and so does every other historian and archaeologist. If they agree on something, that is because there is good reason for it.
Want to study Khufu's pyramid? Sure, as long as you don't use this list of devices and you agree to come to the following conclusions.
Baloney.
When people ask of Egyptologists, "Hey, wait a minute. You know what? How DID they plan to lift that 1000+ ton obelisk out of that quarry? How DID they maneuver the massive Serapeum blocks down that hallway and lower them into their alcoves?" I'd suggest having ready a set of intuitively convincing answers preferably with some kind of demonstration.
Demonstrations cost money. But see my video on the Unfinished Obelisk, which talks about experiments being performed. And there is a great discussion by Ancient Presence on the moving of the Serapeum sarcophagi.
The best answer to ancient engineering I had ever seen was Houdin's, and, BIG SURPRISE, establishment Egyptology shut him down and out with prejudice.
What makes it "with prejudice"?
You talked in your video about it not being good enough to change minds just to say, "Your hypothesis doesn't make any sense" without providing a better explanation.
There are dozens of better explanations.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@c.odubhlaoich2948 Pale skin blonde hair and blue eyes is not really a generic description, it's a pretty specific one.
Name me the ancient stories that speak of men with pale skin, blonde hair, and blue eyes contributing significantly to another culture. I think you would be hard-pressed to find more than one.
If they are stories passed down over thousands of years by the people who are trusted to be keeping records of a culture's history, are they not primary sources?
No. Primary sources come from the actual time. But I don't even think you will be able to find what you describe.
some "gods" have more than one expression.
Why did you put gods in quotation marks? When people speak of gods, they mean gods.
historians from up to 2500+ years ago whether it's Josephus or Herodotus etc. mention different groups of people like the Israe lites or Assyrians or Medes and others moving into Europe and taking on names that we today know as European groups.
Please show us the quotations from these historians.
Also people that know Hebrew could tell you the surprising similarities with Irish, or how English speakers can sound out sentences in ancient Heb rew in some ways just by tilting the marks one way or another to look more like English letters,
Any linguist can tell you that Irish has no relation to Hebrew. And the Latin alphabet (which English is written in) is related to the Aramaic alphabet (which Hebrew is written in), but an alphabet is script in which a language is written. It's not the language itself. Potentially you could use an alphabet to write ANY language.
or speaking of, you can read from Josephus saying that all the tribes were indistinguishable from Greeks,
Indistinguishable in what way? Citation please.
and you can look at the 2000 year old floor mosaics and see a bunch of people who are not your typical brown skinned brown haired occupant in these areas today.
Mosaics from where? Areas colonized by Greeks?
they are typically the kind of person that thinks Europeans were always just a bunch of scattered primitive tribes that never had any notable history until after the fall of Rome.
Greeks and Romans were European, and they had fabulous civilizations. I go by the evidence, not by what I wish to be true.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Having been a graduate student and then a fledgling scholar in ancient history, all I can say is I did not experience the things that you describe. I did see some older scholars vehemently defend their own points of view. But that is to be expected, and there is nothing wrong with it.
You speak of archaeologists being "blacklisted." This is not true at all. If an archaeologists does archaeology poorly, and they get called out for it, even ridiculed (if their ideas are ridiculous), the only person they have to blame is themselves. I have seen many archaeologists challenge the consensus, even radically, but if they do their job well, they are still highly respected in their field. Your descriptions do not align with anything I have ever seen or experienced or read about. The real problem is that some people cannot stand it when their ideas do not get accepted, so the only way their egos can accept this is by concluding that it is the other people who have the problem. Yes, ideas must pass through the fire in order to survive. I think that is a good thing. It means all ideas that have reached a consensus have gone through this experience.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Hi Dale. Check out the links in the description concerning Roman archaeology. Massive amounts of research have been done on the subject, which covers all of your questions about time, manpower, engineering, tools, labor, management, logistics, etc. And if after reading all that, you need more, I can find it for you. This is an area of research that has been studied for a long time.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@nickjewell1 Still to no avail am I finding anything that says definitively they had the capability to lift and move these 1million kilogram stones.
Your thinking is too 1 to 1. You don't have to find direct evidence of the specific thing you are looking for. You use the evidence that exists to determine what the capabilities were, and then you can deduce all the things that were possible.
It’s easy to say it’s possible when you don’t have to worry about ever replicating this yourself.
You can work out what is possible from the evidence without replicating. Do scientists have to go to a black hole to prove that they discovered one? Do scientists have to replicate the expansion of the universe to prove that it is expanding? No, you work it out from the clues left.
I work in stone industry and I understand the absolute mammoth of a task of simply moving this stone 5ft.
I get hundreds of comments from people who work in the stone industry, who are on both sides of this issue. They each tell me they know they're right.
Why the immense effort for just 5 stones out of the whole complex?
The quarry determines the size of the stones you can make and how many of them you can get. I didn't say it didn't take immense effort. After all, they succeeded only in getting 3 there. Why you are focusing on the ones they didn't move, I don't know.
The pillar and column work is evidence of 2 periods of construction. Originals being single piece bohemoth granite pieces and Romans being sectioned columns.
Not true. The Roman used single piece columns all the time. See my other Baabek video: https://youtu.be/Ri__Dlox36I
You can not look past the precision laying of these stones which I don’t see you even acknowledge.
It's excellent work, very much in line with the other excellent work the Romans did.
The oldest stonework in our world is by far the most technologically advanced with some particular stones found especially in Egypt with precision and symmetry that my machine can barely match with CAD design.
Sometimes handwork can do a better job.
I think you overestimate the ability of hand tools and masons.
I think you underestimate it.
If not I would be interested to know over how long of a period did it take the Romans to build this temple start to finish? And with how many men exactly as this is very important.
It wasn't finished. It probably took a few years, but I don't know the exact numbers. I also don't know why this is "very important." .
Finally why create the greatest stone architecture in the world so far away from the capital of your empire?
You think it is better, why? Because it has bigger stones? That doesn't make it better. Besides, when I say it was made by the Romans, I don't mean people who lived in Rome. I mean people who lived in the Roman Empire. Baalbek was made by the people who lived in the region.
Rome has no stones that even come close to 1,000,000kg!
The reason why such stones are there is because there happened to be a quarry that allowed the making of such stones only a half mile away.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
So it looks like you did a lot of research for this presentation but it's still not addressing what Graham Hancock was trying to say.
It directly addressed what he was trying to say.
Not to mention all of your info is coming from mainstream archeology, which is questionable to say the least.
This is where Graham Hancock's info comes from too. And just because an amateur questions an expert, this does not make it questionable.
It's the mainstream archeology that says hunter gatherers were not capable of doing much of anything but eating, baby making, and trying to live past 30yrs old.
This is incorrect, as I made clear in the video.
Graham was saying these people were much smarter and able to do things as a community.
Archaeologists said it first.
That these so called hunter gatherers time line needs to be pushed back.
Hunter gatherers go back to the beginning of humans. How much further back can it be pushed?
That there was a type of human that needs to be fitted in these missing years that were capable of building massive structures and that most of them died after they buried that site, not for funeral use, but to be frozen in time to return to after the floods receded from earth being hit by a massive meteor 11,600 years ago.
There is zero evidence that they all died after they buried the site. And the science that a meteor hit the earth 11,600 years ago is suspect.
That these people that also built the Sphinx and great Pyramids had died. Then thousands of years later the population finally came back and they took over these great structures.
Science fiction.
Side note, unless you were there doing the archeology, then you shouldn't say "we" when referring to their opinions.
I am part of the academic community.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@vikranthalkandar4178 Mr Shrikant Talagiri is a linguist who has shown that using existing linguistic rules it is proven that Sanskrit is the mother of Indo European languages.
He is an amateur linguist that doesn't know what he is doing, and he hasn't proven what you claim.
Please remember that the theory of Aryan people came from outside of India was based on linguistic arguments so it should be proven by linguistic arguments first.
It has. Just because I haven't done a video on it, that doesn't say anything about the state of the field.
If these people migrated from outside of India and traveled thousands of mile but have not written a single verse or line commenting on it.
It is not a single generation that traveled thousands of miles.
There is not a single reference that we i.e. Aryan people came so far in thins land. How you will explain that? These people according to you had a proto European languages to express themselves so why not?
They had no written language yet.
If these people walked for thousands of miles and not a single verse on the journey and experience but once they enter India these people have written 4 vedas, 18 puranas, aranyakas etc. suddenly? how you will explain that?
After they arrived in India, they gradually developed a written language.
How come there is not a single reference of existing culture of IVC and its interaction with Vedic culture? Care to explain?
The IVC was gone by the time most of the Vedas were written.
All the Vedic gods and goddesses are of brown skin but if these aryan people were of fair skin then why their gods and goddesses are brown skinned.
ALL the Vedic gods and goddesses? Every single one? How do you know that?
In vedas the migration is from south to north and from east to west. But if these people came from outside India through Indus Valley it should have been west to east and north to south. Care to explain?
I think I did already. The Vedas were not composed at the time of the Indo-Aryan migration.
Rigved deals with river Saraswati, so does Mahabharata. But according to geological researchers river Saraswati dried completely around 5 thousand years ago but then why on earth rigved talks about it. If we consider your narrative these people entered India after at least thousand years later so why mention of river Saraswati which was not even visible to these people?
You're talking about the lower course of the Saraswati. The upper course still ran.
My point was just by mentioning few Indian scientists you can not state credibility of any research.
The credibility of the research speaks for itself. But if even a small number of Indian scientists worked on it, by criticizing it, you are criticizing them too.
You are using Aryan and Dravidian terms so onus is on you to justify it.
No, I do not. Do I have to justify every word in the English language? I use the words that are commonly used.
Islam and Christianity’s spread is well documented. Both have encountered the resistance from existing religions. Such accounts are completely missing in vedas.
That wasn't the point. You argued, "It is illogical to think that migrants despite being a minority were able to impose their culture on the highly civilised and advanced majority." I gave examples to show that your statement is incorrect.
In your video you have clearly stated that the r1a DNA is found in Europe and India so it is logical, according to you, to place the DNA sources in between that is in steppe regions. On what scientific study you are basing your statements?
None. That was a statement about what a reasonable person might conclude. It was not a summary of the evidence, nor was it important to the video.
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in his book who are the Shudras have rejected the Aryan people came from outside. He was by no means Hindu religious. So please don’t state anything about rewriting history by religious extremists.
There will always be exceptions.
Genetics can’t explain which language and religion particular person belongs to. So stating DNA evidence to push essentially linguistic assumptions is baseless.
That's not what the geneticists are saying.
You have quoted Majumdar to justify diversity in India vis-a-vis Europe in R1a DNA but there is no independent scientific evidence to prove that.
Majumder was summarizing the work done by others.
David Reich has taken DNA from Andaman tribal people and counted it as South Indian which is ridiculous. Hence the difference between Aryan and Dravidian people but if you remove those DNAs then David Reich’s theory fall flat on his face.
No, it does not.
Dr. Raj Vedam has explained it beautifully in his video. I have already pasted the link for his video. Take a look.
In fields in which I am not an expert, I follow the scientific consensus. I recommend you do the same. It is always wiser.
I request you to read all the evidence before making any video.
I did.
And if you are just focusing on genetics then don’t draw any conclusions and especially do not make fun of anyone.
Why would I not draw any conclusions, if the scientific studies themselves do?
Please don’t pick popular targets but select scholars from the field if you are making any video.
The purpose of this series it to correct popular misinformation. My audience is the general public.
My point of intermarriage between Aryan and Dravidian people is if these people came from outside and started mingling with existing population then why on earth suddenly they decided that intercaste marriages are not allowed.
That came later. You believe that too, right?
Recent genetics research shows that Irish people were once brown skinned. It shows reverse migration that is out of India migration. How you will explain that?
I don't understand your point. What does Ireland have to do with India?
If your narrative is accepted then even the existing Vedic literature cannot be fitted into the such short span of 2000 years alone.
2000 years is a very long time.
You have not mentioned Hittani and Mittani tablets which are in Sanskrit.
I don't know what Hittani is, but Mittani tablets are in an Indo-Aryan language, but not Sanskrit.
This conversation has already taken a lot of time, and I have much else to do, so this is my final post.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I asked him what he means by "advanced" because I didn't know, and he never said. Are you suggesting it is wrong to ask for clarification? I later found out that he believes this civilization is more advanced than our own society today. Every single question I asked was a sincere question that I either needed an answer to in order to understand his position, or to get him to think back on the foundations of his proposal in order to show he skipped some steps.
You also rarely explained WHY he was wrong or offered the missing pieces of evidence that would put his arguments to bed.
After his 20 minute introduction, when he finally started making his arguments, that is practically all I did. Try watching.
A good example is where you challenge his comment about "clearly ancient" ridiculing the statement, but not ever saying he was wrong (noting that it is generally accepted that the artefacts mentioned are indeed "ancient" & contemporary with other, low-quality work.
The whole basis of science, or any field of study, is to ask how we know something. Yet when I ask how UnchartedX knows something, this is somehow bad because you didn't stick around to see the refutation?
Without offering a contrary view (or evidence) it was an unnecessary comment intended to belittle & came across as soothing a hurt professional ego.
Asking how someone knows something is not only necessary, it is mandatory.
You also made some bad-faith arguments to discredit him (eg: sometimes he says rounded cuts mean a reciprocating cutting technique, sometime he says straight line mean a reciprocating cutting technique. Anyone who has used a circular saw would know what he means, but you play semantic games to score points.)
Please explain, because I still don't understand.
Honestly, the number of times I was frustrated with your approach would be enough to write a thesis.
The old "I have so many criticisms, but I won't bother telling you what they are" argument.
3
-
The exceptionally flat and parallel horizontal surfaces between each horizontal row of stones, which were stacked one and the top of the other in about two hundred rows, for each of the Giza plateau big pyramids, was an essential necessity for their compact structures to last for eternity, as intended by the pharaohs who built them, from human attempt to disintegrate them.
Ironically, the stones that were best fit (the casing stones) were the first to go. The less compact and well-placed stones are the ones that have survived.
Each of the stone blocks, about two and half ton each, as components of each row, have the same precise width between the two perfect horizontal surfaces. This makes impossible even for a credit card to fit horizontally between them.
When you have a stone sitting on top of another stone, you won't be able to fit a credit card between them. They don't need to be very precise.
This perfect flatness, without any warping, on two opposite sides of each stone can be seen on the plateau surface near the pyramid, couldn't be achieved by a saw and wet sand method.
They are not perfectly flat. And also they were not cut with a saw. They were roughly broken off a larger rock and chiseled.
How about applying that described cutting method to the much bigger stones perfectly joined in the Grand Gallery, Quinn Chamber or King Chamber, of 50 to 80 tons each?
Those may have been cut with a saw. Fortunately it is size of surface, and not weight, that has a bearing on how long it took.
Also, was not mentioned the diagonal "star shafts" of the Great Pyramid cut through the stone blocks all the way to the exterior. How were they made?
They were made with limestone blocks. They left an opening as they built around them.
There are also question marks about the technology used for the perfectly smooth flat surfaces of the big sarcophagi made out of the hardest granite.
You can see me touching the sarcophagus in the King's Chamber. It wasn't perfectly smooth. They got better making sarcophagi in later times. If you want to see a discussion of the ones in the Serapeum, see here: https://youtu.be/Zd8AN9Vwiiw
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The AMT has its own time limitation because of western migration dates. These limitations get imposed on Rig Veda dating.
Yes, as I explained in the video, the linguistic evidence helps us to narrow down the date. If you have any further evidence to bear on this question, let me know.
There is a lot of circular logic applied where "scholars are said to have given so and so dates".
Where was this applied? Maybe you can provide the timestamp. But as I recall (and I recall well, because I wrote the script), all the dates given were derived from the evidence, not what from a scholar said.
And the great effort to tone down the Nadi Sukta in the Rig Veda is hilarious.
It is not toning it down. It is refraining from reading the text literally, out of respect for the text.
If indeed the poem was written during the time Saraswati was several miles wide flowing from the mountains to the sea, how would it have been worded?
Speculate all you like. But this is not a relevant question, because the point is that the praises of the river cannot be used to date it.
And why other rivers, Indus, Sutlej etc are not so praised?
Because the Bharatas lived on the Saraswati.
They were perennial around 1500 BC where as Saraswati was not.
Did you miss the part of the video where it was shown clearly that the Rigvedic people lived near the part of the Saraswati that was perennial?
And why are the western rivers not mentioned in the earlier mandalas, which they should have been for a migration from west to east?
Because the Bharatas were not migrating. They had been there for some time already.
Why not go by the simpler interpretion that Rig Veda was composed when the Saraswati was perineal flowing upto the sea? Will that force the learned historians to modify the AMT and even do the unthinkable and consider OIT?
Look up the term "preponderance of evidence." An misguided interpretation of the text does not cancel out all the other evidence pointing to the date of the text.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@damion1757 You clearly do not know what you are talking about. I hate to bring this to your attention, but it clearly says Solon visited Sais which is in the Delta of the Nile.
It's tough to carry out a conversation with you on this, since I covered this in other videos, but you are making a fatal error. You say "it clearly says," but who is "it"? You're acting like you are reading an encyclopedia or history textbook. This is a work of philosophy and a made-up dialogue. It's fiction.
The priests according to Plato's writing as told by Solon told/showed him the story as preserved in their temples, again Egyptians are WELL known for hieroglyphs on their walls... is this really a stretch?
It's a stretch, yes. Even in the story, Solon never tells Plato anything. It's not Plato speaking. It's Critias, one of the characters.
As for the meaning of the statement, "they have all been written down by us of old, and are preserved in our temples," what is the natural meaning of the words "us" and "our"? The Egyptians, of course. "They (stories about Greece and Egypt) have been written down by us (the Egyptians) of old, and are preserved in (inside) our (Egyptian) temples." So even in this fictional tale, no one says that the story of Atlantis specifically was written down specifically on the walls of the temple at Sais. They say only that writings about Greece and Egypt can be found inside Egyptian temples. Which temples is not stated.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Actually, first point in the video is pure supposition. You say he doesn’t know where Hancock got the figure from, but he’s quite sure it’s wrong and therefore misleading.
I am quite sure it is wrong, because he explicitly says it is from the Last Glacial Maximum until the present day.
He is using the meltwater pulses as his source of supposed overnight sea level rise. As I recall, Hancock is relying on the younger dryas impact and resultant flooding, with the definite potential of significant C rise “overnight“
The problem is that the measuring of the water rise does not change when you add in a comet impact. It still measures the same. He is speaking of "permanent" water rise, not temporary, remember.
This leads to his third point, namely that Hancock’s claimed tsunamis could not of resulted from meltwater pulses. It is therefore also an incorrect objection.
My point about water level returning to normal after a tsunami still stands.
the author of this video has clearly not seen the evidence for huge numbers of such stories.
Of course I have. If there is something you think I am missing, please present it.
As for the claim that lack of distribution of the stories to certain significant regions indicates lack of global impact, not everyone everywhere experienced the Younger Dryas impact and its affects in the same way.
You seemed to have missed the point that the YD impact is not the only catastrophe people have experienced. Therefore, there is nothing to link the stories with the YD specifically. And why would Hancock be emphasizing the similarities between the stories, if everyone everywhere had different experiences?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The problem with your video, as with many others, is that, well, it's pure talk. All you did, was inform us of what the Romans themselves claim they could do, written accounts of their own adoration for themselves. You call that hard evidence?
See the plethora of references below the video. Also, you might want to visit this video: https://youtu.be/GZYNL0-KHC4 It goes over the historical method and how it works.
For example, you can try to enlighten yourself by googling "Yangshan Quarry". The Chinese claim to have had excavated this 10,000+ tonned single block granite monolith in the Ming Dynasty, which, is simply impossible given that the Chinese did not even possess the tools nor machinery to excavate hard stones even close to 1/10th of that scale.
Says who?
You want to prove that the Romans, with their contemporary hand tools could have made these giant granite columns right? You want to prove that they not only excavated, but quarried a 1,600+ ton monolithic stone block all the way to Baalbek?
I've done several videos on Baalbek. Check them out. FYI, the heaviest stone moved to the Baalbek temple was 800 tons. The quarry was a quarter of a mile away and up hill.
With the immense resources and funding that you mainstream academics have, hire professional stonemasons to excavate these rocks, and build columns out of it using only Roman hand tools.
Hahaha immense resources and funding?? Funniest joke I've heard today!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Thank you for engaging with the video. I have a few responses to your points:
"why aren't there precursor myths of atlantis?" cause you didn't look.
That's quite an assumption, and it isn't true. Scholars have examined every extant myth in detail.
there werent like a lot of them, but there were roughly 7. idr off hand if all of them were precursors, but they were sorta contemporaneous.
Please name them.
"it is like saying that georgewashington had an iphone" that is disingenous if not willfully dishonest. presuming you are refering to aquaducts, babylon had them. Babylon didn't exist 9,000 years before Plato.
how many bad decisions have been made from reading it? what is the relationship of the scale or popularity of the bad decisions, and the significance of the badness? what then is the fade rate or halflife, and how does it relate to the scale and significance of the bad decisions? I don't follow your reasoning.
* timbuktu had pretty accurate recolection of solar eclypses and weather events going back far before they were written down.* How far back? I would like to see the proof of this.
remember in greece, students were expected to memorize the entirety of the classics. photographic memory could extend to verbal memory, and it is entirely plausible for a small portion of a population to be knowitalls who can absorb knowledge. That would be true only for as long as the institution of the "knowitalls" exists. How do you know that Plato was a member of this group, and that the group was founded 9,000 years previously?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
1:35 "I understand the appeal". Very condescending to assume people who disagree with you are driven by emotion.
People who are driven by an honest desire to know the facts cannot hold the view for very long.
2:40 So you start off by lumping together the argument for an advanced lost civilization with ancient aliens. Great...
On the contrary, I clearly differentiate between the two by saying some people believe x and some people believe y.
3:30 The common arguments are that they were built after the fall of Atlantis under the guidance of its survivors. Or that they simply point to there being advanced civilizations across the world much earlier than thought. Not that they all were built by the same people.
Wouldn't everyone be a survivor? Anyway, if the advanced tools were destroyed in the cataclysm, how could artifacts made with advanced tools have been made by survivors?
3:50 Not only that they are impressive, but also the fact that the most advanced constructions are very often found beneath much simpler constructions. The most advanced buildings are often the oldest.
That is almost never the case.
4:00 Also their hardness and the location of their quarry.
Point taken. The latter would only be significant if the stones were heavy.
5:00 "Almost never", so how do you explain them when you do?
When I see them, they are in isolation, so there isn't any way to get the full picture of the entire object.
5:45 Now you seem to be arguing against the ancient alien argument. The question isnt wether ancient people could do it, its when they did it.
They are connected in the argument. The only way to redate the object is to first argue that the ancient people (presumed by the mainstream) couldn't do it.
And how advanced were they? Its funny that you counter with what medieval europe built because that is usually the level of technology people attribute to this proposed lost time in history.
Medieval Europe used technology that was only slightly more advanced than what was used in the ancient period.
7:25 Why do you assume that people on the other side are not familiar with ancient tools?
Because if they were, they would know the ancients had the capabilities to create the structures.
7:50 I hope you realize the irony here.
It would be ironic if I used such an argument, but I do not.
9:00 Again, irony. This is exactly what you get wrong with the story of Atlantis.
The genre? No. What genre of writing do you think Plato's Timaeus is?
9:42 You fail to mention most of the similarities, you seem to only have a surface level understanding of the position youre arguing against.
What similarities are you referring to? Please don't give me anything generic.
10:00 Oh come on... that is not the only similarity between the pyramids. Dont resort to ridicule, it weakens your argument.
What other similarities do you see?
11:10 It is not based on a significant amount of evidence at all. In fact, its laughably miniscule and unconvincing.
Only someone who hasn't done the necessary research would say such a thing.
3
-
@piskmanne No, the alien argument is that pre-industrial humans arent likely to have been able to do it at all. Somtimes they dont even think post-industrail humans could have.
That argument was not discussed in this video. This video examined the arguments used by both groups.
It only has to not fit the proposed time period, because they are obviously at least as old as that.
What makes it obvious?
For example, if the pyramids were unlikely to have been built by dynastic Egypt, they must have already been there when those people arrived.
Later dynastic Egypt had technology on par with, if not superior to, that of medieval Europe.
The evidence is strenuous at best, so when there are glaring holes in the interpretation I would argue there is plenty of reason to doubt it.
I think you mean tenuous. I am pretty darn sure you have no idea what the evidence even is.
Compared to the carvings, you can see the difference with the naked eye.
Haha! You are talking about the first draft of a set of hieroglyphs on one sarcophagus, aren't you? A person who truly is interested in the facts would look at ALL examples of Egyptian writing on stone to make an assessment on what they were capable of. They wouldn't cherry-pick examples to try to support their pet hypothesis.
How about this part?
As I said, modern repair.
I'm glad you are presenting your argument, the only thing I'm getting "bent out of shape" by is the arrogant and belittling way your doing it.
It's impossible to demonstrate someone to be incorrect without sounding arrogant to someone who doesn't like being contradicted.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
There is no way of determining when Lehner's organic samples were deposited on the exposed core.
Yes there is. Wait, did you not even read the studies? I left them for you below.
Attic Graffiti, by Vyse, can be an entire forgery.
Highly improbable, as this would required dismantling the entire roof of the king's chamber without bringing the whole pyramid down.
"Ahket Khufu," and Merer's papyrus, mentions nothing about the stone being used on G-I. The "horizon of Khufu," could be referencing the entire Plateau, not G-I.
We know how the Egyptians named their pyramid complexes. It most definitely refers to Khufu's pyramid complex. No doubt about it. Now yeah, the name could refer to other elements of Khufu's pyramid complex too, but since the white limestone was only used on the exterior of his pyramid, it can only refer to that.
intentional placement of the Great Step at 141' above pavement, within G-I, contradicts the Old Kingdom dating.
How so?
The Old Kingdom did not, could not have constructed G-I, they did not posses the sophisticated knowledge, right triangle knowledge, or the pyramid volume formula, required to build the structure.
You have no way of knowing what they did or didn't know.
Also, there are about 10 or so masonry features with no contextual antecedent in the pyramid building era, including the eight sided nature of G-I.
It doesn't have 8 sides. That is an illusion. Look at the bottom. It has four sides.
The nature and masonry technology of G-I does not fit the Archaeological context of the pyramid building era.
It fits very neatly.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
And i don't think it is quite right to say, that if you used your own methods to draw different conclusions form archaeologists, that that would mean you were doing psuedo archaeology, that would depend upon the character/content of your methods, and whether they had substance and sound scientific principles behind them, as long as this is the case, it is science.
Scientific methods are what archaeologists use. If someone uses different methods, then it isn't science.
For example if you disagreed with the dating of some temple in egypt, akd you maintained that the carbon dates were biased, because you found a text talking about the reconstruction of the temple, and it being spoken about as ancient,
Biased? How are carbon dates biased exactly? Do you have a scientific reason for judging them as biased?
and you thought based on such a text for example that trying to get biological material from the foundation of the temple, but excavating mortar from a different part of the temple for example and carbon dating this mortar.
This is not a sentence, so I don't understand exactly what you are saying. But if proper scientific methods are being employed, then it is not pseudo archaeology.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Hi Janith. Well, remember that I pointed out not merely that bags look different in different places, but also that they are not all bags. Some are bags, some are buckets, some may be buildings. This alone tells us that they are not the same. But even in cases where two bags look similar in art, we should keep in mind that, unlike stringed instruments, which can be made in many different forms, there aren't that many ways to make a bag. You can make a bag with handles, or you can make one without. You can make them large or small. And that is about it. And simple artwork is not going to make the small details evident, which we might be able to see if we looked at the bags themselves. It would be similar to how we see cups or plates or bowls shown in art. These are very basic implements that every culture that has ever existed has possessed, and they are drawn very similarly. It doesn't mean a whole lot. And remember: to tie two cultures together, we would need to see many similarities, not just a similarity in one object.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I've just learned about this suppression campaign from Jeffrey Armstrong in his video "Ancient Greece and Rome were civilized by India".
Wait, you believed a content creator who said, "I am being suppressed, so that is why I don't have more views"? That's the oldest trick in the book! 😆 Did he say he was "shadowbanned"? haha
The point he makes that these religiously based institutions have to kowtow to their religious paymasters, which means they have to promote the superiority of Biblical Christianity and deny any suggestions of known influences of Indian culture on the West.
Here is how Oxford University is funded. Show me the part about the "religious paymasters." https://www.ox.ac.uk/about/organisation/finance-and-funding
Oh wait, don't tell me: it's a secret conspiracy!
And then you can show me how those institutions get YouTube to suppress Jeffrey Armstrong.
I presume your income is derived from a University? So you are not an independent researcher and you have to be careful not to deviate too far from the accepted norms, which is exactly what you are doing.
Most of my income comes from YouTube. My pay from my college is not dependent on what I teach or say. I am a 100% completely independent researcher, as most historians are. It's the principle of academic freedom. Read up on it.
So far as the records of the ships to India from Rome, no, of course I don't have a reference for that. It's from Armstrong's video. But the point he makes that we've never been told this is well taken. I'd never heard of it, you clearly haven't.
Wait, so you have never seen these records, and yet you take Armstrong at his word. Why is that?
maybe you were aware that Rome traded with India. I certainly wasn't.
It's common knowledge among historians of ancient trade. Do you think it is reasonable to suppose that everything we know about everything should be taught to kids in school? If that were the case, you would never leave school.
You're telling me the Romans could do it? I don't believe it.
Make up your mind. Do you believe it happened or not? You just got through insisting to me that they sent 150 ships per year! I can't wrap my head around the fact that you think India had fabulous ships at the time, and that they sailed to Roman territory, but somehow the Romans never got a good look at the ships, so that they couldn't copy them, nor rode in the ships so that they knew how to get back and forth. For Pete's sake, we have documentation not only of Hipparchus' discovery of the route, but also first hand accounts of Greek and Romans in India.
And what's the point at issue? It's that India has had a huge influence on Western culture that has been actively suppressed.
In other words, something completely irrelevant to this video. All India's contributions to Western culture are readily acknowledged. But you want people to accept the fake contributions too. And then when people point out that you have no convincing evidence for it, you cry: "Suppressed!"
Regarding the Taj Mahal, because it's very illustrative of all the lies and deception that's being going on, who deemed it to be an Islamic structure? The British, of course.
You're still hanging onto this silly notion that historical ideas are based on authority. But any historian knows that they are based on evidence. Once you come to realize this, you will make progress in your understanding.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@bridgermauchley6179 I looked it up, and here is the rundown:
KHUFU
Valley temple: local limestone, fine limestone
Causeway: local limestone
Pyramid temple: fine limestone, alabaster, basalt
Pyramid: local limestone, fine limestone
Substructure: red granite
SAHURA
Valley temple: local limestone, fine limestone, red granite, basalt
Causeway: local limestone, fine limestone
Pyramid temple: local limestone, fine limestone, alabaster, basalt, red granite, granodiorite
Pyramid: local limestone, fine limestone
Substructure: fine limestone, red granite
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
So it sounds like what Mr. Lee is saying, is that to a people so accomplished at shaping these amazingly precise almost jigsaw-like patterns in the extremely hard stones they were using, making rollers out of wood that were uniform + grading a road was more trouble than dragging a 40 ton irregularly shaped boulder through the jungle sometimes (in the case of machu pichu) up a steep mountain at 12,000 ft. elevation?
Some people find it easy to ignore the historical documentation and physical evidence for the moving of the stones. Mr. Lee is not one of them.
Also, when you say attributing these works around the world to an older civilization requires ignoring when they're dated? The conventional archeological wisdom involving the age of these sites has been established for quite awhile now; long enough that the only method of dating a site was through radio carbon dating, correct?
Not correct. There are a dozen or more ways that the dates can be ascertained.
When you consider that there are examples of this megalithic polygonal masonry in Egypt, Japan, Easter Island, Central/South America, Lebanon, etc. that are as identical as something constructed out of irregularly shaped objects can be, it's not altogether hyperbolic to theorize that maybe the crackpots are onto something.
But they are not identical. They are quite different.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
My approach is not Euro-centric. It's global.
As you said in the beginning that writing system was "invented" way after Mahabharata was written, which doesn't fits to the timeline.
I am not sure what writing system you are referring to. Do you mean the nakshatra system? This is an astronomical system.
But that doesn't mean Mahabharat's writing was written after, why not just adjust the timeline, discovery of basic things like Fire, writing system and farming will never be same everywhere.
History is based on evidence. We don't just imagine what could have been. We look for evidence, and then we form our history based on that evidence.
2ndly when you doubt about the discovery of planets in our solar system was known in Ancient India, I would like to emphasizes on an important thing, we pray the Nav Graha's (9 Planets), astronomically India was way more advanced than any civilization, there are ancient books like Suryasidhanta which are way-way advanced work on astronomy .
The Surya Siddhanta is from after the time of the Mahabharata. And I am pretty sure all 9 planets are not mentioned in it anyway.
There are tons of evidences to proof Mahabharat did happened
Can you name a few?
there are thing where historians just believe in a certain thing on the basis of 1 one thing
No, they need many corroborating evidences.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Thank you for your comment. I see there are a few misunderstandings I ought to clear up.
6:40 - so you're saying that someone came along and dropped imitation 10+ tonne artifacts at an ancient site later on?
The hypothetical situation I presented was to show that IF such a thing happened, there would need to be some way of telling the age of the object. No matter what the weight of an object is, if it is found on the surface, stratigraphy cannot work. Nor can its proximity to other artifacts. So I asked UnchartedX what his method of determining the age of an object is, because he does not reveal his method. Keep in mind that he points at many objects of varying sizes and weights, many of them light (such as the Schist Disk or vases), and somehow he concludes they are older or younger or the same age as other things.
However, you make a contradiction to this at 20:40, saying that if an archaeologist finds an artifact in a certain geographic location and incidates belonging to a certain civilisation or time period, that it should be the default position to believe it came from said, location, civilisation or time period.
Please note that in this instance I state very clearly the methods by which the archaeologists have dated the artifacts (and I list a bunch). As you can see, I am consistent on the point that there need to be methods of dating artifacts. Yes, the time indicated by these dating methods should be the default position unless somehow demonstrated to be inaccurate.
27:15 - imagine if it was proven beyond doubt that they were wrong about who built the pyramids, time period etc. - they would then lose the trust of people to believe them and nobody would listen to what they have to say anymore.
Anyone familiar with history and archaeology (and science, for that matter) know that these are being constantly revised and updated. This is the nature of these branches of research. As new discoveries are made, history is revised. Every article in every academic journal proposes a new way of looking at things. The job of a historian is to find errors and correct them. This has been going on since the beginning without any problem. And the reason it is not a problem is because it is the known and accepted nature of the profession. The only people I have encountered who have "lost trust" in historians are the ones who have a strong desire believe something else.
29:26 - you acknowledge the possibility of building ontop of older civilisations,
Possibility is not probability. We go with the explanation that best fits the evidence.
58:37 - if these marks were indeed made by a drag saw as per the illustration you referenced at 56:20 and your logical conclusion at 58:25, how does a drag saw make these marks on the inside of the box?
They weren't. See here: 01:19:54
59:05 - so they spent 28 thousand hours (1166days or 3.19 years) just to make this one artifact - correct me if im wrong, but this would be equivalent to 15.45% of the great pyramid being built based on the main hypothesis that they placed 1 block on the pyramid every 5 mins. For perspective, that works out to 148,867 blocks that have been quarried, cut, transported and placed.
I can't tell if you are being incredulous about the sarcophagus or the Great Pyramid. Surely 3 years is not unreasonable for a sarcophagus. This video is not about the Great Pyramid, so we will set that aside. But I want to emphasize that personal incredulity is not an argument. And when calculating any task, do not assume there was only one team of workers in operation at one time. Saying 1 block was placed every 5 minutes is equal to saying that 10 teams placed 10 blocks in 50 minutes. In other words, each team would take 50 minutes to place 1 block.
59:43 - you claim sir petrie concluded they were cut with a drag saw, however at 1:08:00 he states it was made with a circular saw, which contradicts this.
You are confusing the cutting of the sides of a sarcophagus with the cutting of basalt pavement stones.
1:03:56 - again, 42mm per minute, average 1.5m blocks x 6 sides = 214 minutes per block - 8000 tonnes of granite divided by average 2.5tonnes per block = 3200 blocks x 214minutes per block = 684800mins (475 days) This implys they cut 3200 granite blocks, in 1/3rd of the time it took them to the make 1 granite box as referenced above. Again, please correct me if im wrong.
Here you are taking the estimates of Moores and comparing them to the estimates of Stocks. As I mentioned in the video, the 42mm is probably too optimistic. Stocks' estimates are more reliable. Also, when did we ever talk about 8000 tons of granite? You have me confused.
1:13:20 - the logic is the cutting edge is 3mm while the top of the blade that follows it is 1 cm, meaning that the cut isnt wide enough to allow the blade to follow it into the stone, the blade would end up getting wedged at the start as there is no friction on the wider part of the blade for it to be reduced.
That is not what would happen. The slope on the blade is gradual. What would happen is that the sides of the blade closest to the edge would constantly be wearing down. And the edge would constantly be wearing back.
1:17:58 - these results show a depth of 8cm over 30 hours thats 3.75cm or 37.5mm per hour, which is 0.62mm per minute. This is slower not faster.
Slower than what? Moores' measurement? Yes, we all know that.
Doing the math in cm3 is misleading as it incorporates the progression through the width of the stone to make it seem like more, when really the progression of the blade through the stone isn't any quicker. So, applying the same math as above to this data, to cut 3200 granite blocks would take 774000 hours or 88years.
Again, I don't know what 3200 granite blocks you are referring to.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ my main point here is that I often hear critics of this theory trying to use strawman arguments about flying machines or UFOs and all sorts of other nonsense that no one in the "Impact Circles" have used in their narratives.
Then you should have said that. Instead you said, "When people say Advanced Civilizations they mean advanced for the time period." And I pointed out that no, they mean much more than that.
they're not exactly speaking of an empire in the way that we see empires today but more or less that these were large nomadic groups who shared information, technology, and some people shared cultural ideas with one another.
As I mentioned earlier, the sharing of information is believed to have occurred after the civilization had ended. The original civilization is not described as "nomadic."
Gobeklie Tepe is 6 thousand years more advanced than scientists previously thought.
Yeah, before they carbon dated it, they thought it might be medieval. But I am not sure how that applies to what we are talking about here. GT is not from the advanced civilization, even according to advanced civilization proponents. We've got settlements going back a lot older than GT too, but none of them are of the nature described by proponents of a lost advanced civilization, and that goes for GT too.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
it is not being assumed that tools capable of precision cuts in extremely hard stone must have existed: it is being POSITED because the alternative is far more abhorrent than the two options you have presented.
Anyone who says this cannot have been paying attention. It is 100% absolutely being argued (not merely posited) that tools capable of precision cuts in extremely hard stone must have existed. It is also being argued that these tools were used by an advanced civilization that existed some 15,000 years ago. It is a thesis that UnchartedX is trying to substantiate. And when you come to realize that he (and those like him) BEGAN with the opinion that this civilization existed, and then they went around looking for evidence for it, matters will become clearer to you.
UncharteredX is very reasonably positing that since the stones could not have been cut in this manner with the tools that have been found, and since the stones really did not cut themselves (I hope we can agree), the only remaining rational conclusion is that we have not yet found the tools that were used.
As I indicated in the video, it is not the only remaining rational conclusion. This tech could come from any number of other civilizations, in Egypt's past, present, or future. But since he never demonstrated in any convincing way that the Egyptians couldn't have done it, that they did do it still remains the most rational conclusion.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
1. You fail to consider the scope of the work at Gobleki Tepi. Yes, there's a round building here and a round building there. Yes, there are some similarities. But the sheer scope of the work at GT evidences a project orders of magnitude bigger than any you cite to. GT is flatly inconsistent, just in scale, with the occasional similar building or carving you point at as similar. This is a minor point.
But I did mention the size of Gobekli Tepe. When comparing it to other sites with T-shaped pillars it is certainly larger, but surely you realize that one site is always going to be the biggest. I am not sure how this injures the idea that they had the technology to make it. Is the culture that made Albany unable to have made NYC?
2. More importantly, youre comparing at a level of generality that really shows nothing. Of course various cultures in a hot, dry climate built half underground. That's how you air condition a house in a hot climate. And, of course various cultures built round structures; try to make a right angle wall with gathered and stacked raw stones and you'll quickly understand why so many buildings were round. All you really demonstrated with these comparisons was that the builders from all the cultures you discussed were smart people who came up with the same solutions to the same problems.
Semi-subterranean buldings became above-ground buildings after a few centuries. Round buildings turned into rectangular buildings after a few centuries. Pillars for roofs were no longer used. So no, these are not the only way to make things. This is the development of technology.
3. Most importantly, you failed to present any evidence of transmission. You literally did not present a single shred of evidence that the GT builders inherited any knowledge from the Natufians or anybody else. Jericho is a cool site, but utterly irrelevant unless you can show some evidence suggesting that the GT builders learned from the people at Jericho.
The evidence is the actual technology itself.
Circumstantial evidence would be sufficient. Some quirk of design that was unnecessary that was replicated from Jericho to GT.
I showed you that.
DNA evidence showing a close relation between the groups.
If we get some good samples, we can add this to the body of evidence.
Evidence of the evolution of engineering or art from Jericho or the Natufians to GT.
I showed you that.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Thank you for your comment. I will respond to the points you say I got "totally wrong."
1. Even if we had a lost high tech civilization prior to younger dryas cataclysm, we would not find any high tech items from it.
This is incorrect. Please see my video on the topic here: https://youtu.be/WCpPg4FHP1Q
2. A theory has to explain all evidence. The current theory for history cannot explain the petri-core drill with spirals on it.
As was made clear on the video you just commented on, the drill has been thoroughly examined and been shown not to have a spiral. No other drill core or drill hole has been shown to have a spiral either.
3. You often refer to a "totally new civilization", but we know exactly what that civilisation this was don't we? The egyptians even say it themselves, that they are ancestors from a colony of Atlantis. There are a lot of evidence that supports the theory of Atlantis existing in the eye of the Sahara.
The Egyptians never said they are ancestors from a colony of Atlantis. The only person who said that is a Greek, who was writing a fictional dialogue. As for the Eye of the Sahara, please see my video on the topic here: https://youtu.be/BqhMGVLUSB0
4. Also you fall for the fallacy that just because a Egyptian king puts his name on something, like the Sarapheum, that is proof he built it. That is clearly too simple. You assume all egyptians were truthfull about such things? But they are not truthful when they say they are ascendants of atlantis?
I do not make that assumption. But you certainly are making the assumption that he did not build it. If you want to know the evidence for who made the Serapeum, see my video on the topic here: https://youtu.be/bop_AMJno64
The idea is that all of those statuse are inherited from a prior culture. The only thing the egyptians did to those statues was hack their writings into them using far simpler tools than was used to originally create them. Do not missrepresent Bens argument in this way, he never said the statues were egyptian made.
I am saying the statues are Egyptian made. I'm sorry but this idea is ridiculous, because it supposes that the Egyptians did not have any culture of their own, that all of their culture was in imitation of an earlier one. Even their clothes and hairstyles they did not invent. There has never been a culture in the history of the world that has done this.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Thank you for your comment, Michael. I will respond to your four points as best I can off the top of my head. I certainly respect the fact that you have been in construction for over 30 years and probably have a ton of knowledge about modern construction methods, but I have found that too many people think that their knowledge about modern methods makes them an authority on past methods - which were completely different. While it is certainly true that some things are constant (e.g. physics, chemistry, etc.), it is a mistake to think that people in the past approached problems the same way that we do. They had different tools and resources at their disposal and would have tackled a project with a completely different mindset. If there's one thing I know about human ingenuity, it's that they will do everything in their power to accomplish what they want, and they can think their way around huge problems. Considering that it is already known that the Inca did it, any theory that proposes how they did it must take into consideration what they had available to them.
1) you can't get tolerance today that even as close to those back then -- scribing in 3D on 12 sided stones? I don't think so
I am assuming you have never scribed a stone. So how can you be so certain? By the way, Mr. Lee made it clear that the scribing would only have been done on 2 sides. It would be a rare stone indeed that would have to be scribed on more than 2 sides, and in those cases, the stone would have been smaller.
2) How do you explain the small protrusions left on some stones, but not others? If it was so easy to "bash" the rock, why not bust off the nodules and make the rock look more perfect? I heard one explanation that these were signature marks left to identify the mason who did the stone work -- not sure about that theory.
I asked Mr. Lee about this, and he suggested that they were meant to be knocked off, and some were, but the job was never completed.
3) How do you explain the -- what looks like "pushed in marks" on the lower section of some stone but not others? Did they simply get over "bashed" and an indentation was left? I don't think so
Assuming I know which marks you are referring to, Mr. Lee explained those as the spots where the wooden supports were placed.
4) How do you explain the outside rounded corners as well as some inside rounded corners with near perfect radius? "bashing"? No way
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by inside and outside corners, but since the scribing would have been done on 2 sides, I would expect rounded corners would have been easier. Near perfection, by the way, was not an issue in ancient or medieval times.
I've been to Peru many times -- look at sites like Huacas or Ollantaytambo -- there is evidence of tools marks all over the place -- saw marks, cored perfect holes, edges that look similar to how you cut Styrofoam with a hot wire to make molded forms, etc. etc. None of those markings were "bashed" in.
Mr. Lee has been to these places many times too. I did not get a chance to ask about these other sites. Sacsayhuaman was the subject of this video. But I must warn against the "it looks like it" form of analysis. Because we are biased towards our own time and how we do things now, it will be easy for us to associate what we know with things that we see and be misled in such a way. Inca history is not my area, so I can't give you an explanation for the holes, but I would be willing to bet they aren't "perfect."
it had to be 1) fairly easy for them to do -- not the toil, brute force, 80 men lined up with ropes getting whipped by a guy standing on the rock as they dragged it along (side note, why would the foreman be standing on the rock adding more weight to it and making it even that much more difficult to move? Makes no sense.
I don't know. That is something to ask the fellow who drew it. But I am very curious why you would think that something would have to be fairly easy to do. My experience with history has shown many times that humans have undertaken very difficult projects. The difficulty did not stop them. I also know that something that might prove difficult to begin with ends up proving easier as skilled craftsman get better and better at their job.
2) these rocks were somehow temporarily liquified and them shaped as needed
I can't just take your word for it. I would need to see the evidence.
3) they had to have had the ability to levitate the stones and be able to move them effortlessly like something in outer space with no friction of gravitational forces. Perhaps moved by a single hand guiding the rock along a path 3 feet above the ground and over the water.
Okay, this is getting a little bit too woo-woo for me now. You ought to be giving people something MORE believable than what is in this video, not less.
You can obviously see the difference in workmanship between the different layers or sections of the walls at every site in Peru-- the lower section is always a completely different technique then the upper layers --- the upper was done by the Inca -- lower section done by civilization perhaps 1000s of years older then Inca.
The video already demonstrated that this is not the case with Sacsayhuaman.
Inca found the sites, were just as perplexed mystified as we are today
This also is false. The Inca told the Spanish exactly under which Inca kings these places were built.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@AveragePicker Africa, the continent that gets treated as a single country.
It gets treated as a region, as the other sections also do.
You can fit Europe, Japan, China, the US, and India into the amount of land Africa covers.
Okay, but how many books prior to the year 1000 have been preserved from Africa? I'm an ancient historian, remember. If there were ancient books from other places in Africa, I would most certainly have given them due coverage. Anyway, I did not have Japan, China, the US, or India as sections in the video.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The scale is incredibly important. The knowledge, equipment, coordination required to build large objects or large structures does not scale linearly.
Agreed. This can be calculated mathematically, I am sure.
Strength of materials comes from their composition and arrangement of atoms— this does not scale up as you use more of the material.
Also agreed.
Many of the most technically difficult to create objects are attributed to early dynasties.
This conclusion isn't really supported by the material evidence. Yes, there are SOME objects made in earlier periods that were technically more difficult to make than SOME objects from later periods, but, for the most part, the material record indicates a progress in technology over time.
The later dynasties would fail to produce more technically impressive objects of that type— perhaps they were capable and choose not to, or perhaps those objects did not survive for whatever reason.
In general, craftsmanship in later periods was superior to craftsmanship of earlier periods. But really, as you suggest, there are other factors that come into play. For example, in periods when the government had more wealth, power, and resources, it was able to complete more impressive projects than in periods when it had less.
3
-
* @Jacob Perhaps their actual capabilities but not the known capabilities.
Yes, known capabilities. I think you may be confusing capabilities with methods. Methods unknown. Capabilities known.
If you think the items Ben points at can be explained by the tools we have record of you are completely out to lunch.
I provided research and experiments galore, with many references below the video. How much of these did you see?
We can and should collectively speculate at how it was done. Ben’s doing this.
His speculations include truly outlandish suppositions that necessitate the rejection of the material record, the rejection of the written record, the rejection of scientific dating methods, and the assumption of a civilization that has never been discovered.
And you yourself agreed there are some out of place objects.
I did not say they were out of place. Technically superior and technically inferior objects can be made in the same time period, because there are people with different skills.
If we found a steel knife in some Stone Age village we should think “where did they get this from? It doesn’t appear to be something they made”. Just stating “well, they HAD it so obviously they MADE it” is not an answer.
If an object is found in a certain land and a certain time period, and it doesn't match any other known culture's work, the default position is that it came from that land and that time. The opinion should change if and only if, another culture is discovered that made such objects, and it can be confirmed that they were in contact with, or could have been in contact with, the culture in whose land the object was found.
3
-
The word for pyramid in Egyptian/Kemet language (MEDU NETER) is Per-Neter, which translates to "House of Nature, or House of Energy"
That's incorrect. Medu Netjer means "word of god" and per-netjer means "house of god." The Egyptian word for pyramid is mer.
There's no documentation found anywhere that has the Egyptians claiming to have built the pyramids at Giza.
That's because papyrus doesn't usually last for thousands of years. But we have found records of the Great Pyramid being constructed.
Have you Never wondered why the oldest pyramids are the Best?
The oldest pyramids are the Step Pyramid of Djoser, the Meidum Pyramid, the Bent Pyramid, and the Red Pyramid. They are not the best.
Have you noticed the pyramids after the pyramids at Giza look like a 2nd graders art project?
How can you tell? They've been mostly destroyed. The parts that survive are excellently made.
No burial tombs were found in any of the 3 pyramids,
That's incorrect. Burial chambers with stone coffins inside were found.
there's also no hieroglyphics in any of them. (We all know the Egyptians liked to write all over everything)
They did not write all over everything in early times.
Wouldn't they want to make it known that they, in fact, built them?
Make it known to whom? The tombs were intended to be sealed forever.
Geology shows that the date of the Sphinx is Way off... So the best bet is that everything is incorrect.
According to one rogue geologist. Other geologists disagree. See my video here: https://youtu.be/DaJWEjimeDM
Whoever built them is lost in time, as our current understanding in archaeology does not extent past the Sumerians... even though there are example of Cities built long before. Göbekli Tepe is a perfect example!!
Gobekli Tepe is not a city.
Just a few years ago they found a 10,000 year old city near Jerusalem... which proves civilization/cities did not begin with Sumeria.
No, they didn't.
Have you ever watched someone try to cut granite with a copper saw? How about a copper saw + sand? It doesn't work!!
Yes, and yes. It does work.
It would take them a week to cut one side and the cut wouldn't have been straight.
None of the cuts are straight.
Every time I've watched a video of someone trying to cut granite with copper, the video ends without them ever accomplishing the feat.. so that theory is Bogus.
Since you didn't see it, it must be bogus? I have references below this video showing the experiments being done.
Why should we believe archeologist or even scientists that have lied to us continually?
They haven't lied to you. The people who told you all the things above are the ones who have lied to you. Almost everything you have said is false.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I'm 5 minutes in and it's all straw men.
How many arguments do I make in the first 5 minutes?
Why does he have to attribute it to a civilization?
Ask him.
Do all historians have an issue saying they don't know something?
They do it all the time.
Nonsense to purport that this gives him any advantage. A straw man.
It gives him a great advantage, an advantage that historians do not have.
Then yet some more of the purposely misinterpreting Bens arguments.
All my interpretations are sincere.
He's talking about pieces that weigh in the tens of tonnes in weight. The analogy of a fake artefact is redundant and a purposeful straw man.
He talks about many artifacts that are not heavy. I want to know how he dates artifacts. Artifacts can be out of place, or they can simply be out of context, so if he claims they are from a certain date, he must have a way of determining the date. Yes?
What does he mean by "Advanced"? If this isn't nit picking I don't know what it.
You can't be serious. Knowing what he means on this point is crucial, absolutely crucial, to understanding his entire argument.
It's patently obvious he is talking about them being more advanced than the historical record
I have people in the comments here telling me it is patently obvious that he means more advanced than our modern civilization.
and it's provable by the precision
Yeah, well, if you watched the whole video, you would know he isn't able to provide a single bonafide example of this precision.
but some elements may be more advanced than even our civilization.
Oh, so even you cannot make up your mind on the level of technology.
My god, he's making the point that the tools aren't in the record hence they shouldn't be attributed to tools that can't do the work.
But they can do the work.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@chicoti3 What you read aloud may not be the words the other person thought of when writing down, e.g. a Cantonese speaker reading a text composed by a Mandarin speaker.
Same pronunciation is not required. But I am glad you agree that it can be read aloud. Therefore the writing represents speech.
And sometimes one might not even be able to read aloud the text at all, such as when reading old documents, even though the meaning is still conveyed.
But it could be read aloud at the time it was written.
Those all support the idea that the characters represent the idea behind the speech rather than speech itself. That is to say the characters record the idea in a pre-language state, which is then interpreted and converted into speech by the reader.
Then you will need to explain why, when people learn Mandarin, Chinese writing is a crucial component of the process. Chinese writing system is logosyllabic, which means that a character represents a syllable in spoken Chinese, but these are combined into words of multiple syllables. It's true that some characters represent ideas, but for the most part, Chinese writing represents speech.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Chinese-writing (check out pars. 5 and 6)
3
-
3
-
3
-
Your commentary is full of so many untruths that it became jarring to continue.
You say that, but you didn't give any examples of an untruth that it contains.
Ben, in fact, almost always says what civilisation he is talking about in his videos (many of which are in Egypt, so... Egyptian, I guess!).
Wait. If he always says it, then why are you guessing? The fact is, he never calls the lost advanced civilization Egypt.
Always stating what country he is in and the precise location of the site he is at.
He says what country he is in, but he does not always state the precise location. And when he didn't in the video, I mentioned it.
He offers examples and shows modern attempts to replicate ancient stone work with copper tools, always failing.
He gave one example, and it did not fail. I gave more examples.
He does show good evidence of the reverse technology, you discuss, by showing things such as walls in ancient Peru etc., where the more advanced stone work is at the bottom of walls and the less sophisticated work on top (I suspect even the ancient Peruvians cannot build walls from the top down, with centuries between the stages of construction).
None of that has anything to do with this video.
Showing an area of fallen and scattered stone work as proof that he doesn't give good examples is disingenuous at best.
When did I do that?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Thank you for your comments, Roxy. Just a few thoughts.
This video is about debunking others just for the sake of it.
Just for the sake of it???
The fact that people claim to be able to do it with those tools diminishes the Egyptian's capabilities of greatness.
Saying that the Egyptians could do it is not diminishing their greatness. Saying they couldn't do it is diminishing their greatness.
If one person can or has replicated the porphyritic stone vessels or the King Thutmose III statue at the Luxor Ancient Museum to the micrometer using the tools mentioned in this video, this debate will be put to rest.
This comment is confusing. The statue itself is not accurate to the micrometer, so why are you talking about micrometers? And if the processes that created the statue can be recreated, why does the entire statue need to be replicated. This is the same logic as if someone said that you had to recreate Michelangelo's statue of David to the micrometer to show that Michelangelo could do it.
It is too symmetrical, smooth, and exact.
Says who?
How can the predynastic stonework with their tools be more polished than the 2023 custom-made stone on my kitchen island?
Polishing is not difficult. It is, in fact, very easy. Anyone who has polished stones knows this.
And in case someone thinks their work is a one-time thing, more than 3,000 vessels were found, and they are one of those "you have to see it to believe it" type of things.
I have seen them too, including their many imperfections. Did you miss them?
My opinion is based on what I saw and nothing more.
Can you see down to the micrometer?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Ben never claimed to know who the pre-civilization builders were, and him not knowing what they were called isn't a very strong criticism. Ben isn't trying to be "unfair" by not naming them. Even mainstream historians often talk about ancient cultures they don't know the name of, such as the Sea People. Would it really make that much of a difference if we new their name anyway?
It's not the NAME that matters. It's the fact that he cannot point to one. If he wants a current theory to be discarded, he needs to provide a better one to replace it.
He isn't the one making up the older dates for those more advanced carvings, he's saying that even egyptologists attribute older dates to them
He is rejecting the date given by Egyptologists and saying they are older.
Was that an argument from incredulity? You haven't shown that such a pre-younger-dryas culture couldn't have existed.
I am saying it doesn't fit the archaeological record.
You complain that Ben doesn't reference modern archaeologists, implying that the questions he poses have been answered, but then you don't cite any modern archaeological answers either. You just leave it open ended and hand-wave his questions away as though they have been answered.
The point of the video (see the title) is to look at the evidence he presents. But yes I do cite modern archaeology. I do it throughout the video.
The "historian's fallacy" (I've usually heard it called "presentism") is something to be wary of, but it doesn't change the fact that, as far as I'm aware, archaeologists can't explain how these structures were built either, so asking engineers, geologists, etc, sounds very reasonable to me.
That's also what I said. And that's what archaeologists do.
My understanding of these books, though admittedly I haven't read them myself, is that they talk about the known building techniques such as splitting stone by wetting wood, etc, but not the specific techniques Ben is talking about. Perhaps giving some examples from those books would have been helpful, instead of "go read these tomes and get back to me".
Watch the rest of the video.
Ben clearly isn't arguing that the method of dating an artifact itself is necessarily wrong,
Yes, he is.
he's arguing that assuming that this copper chisel, for example, must have been used to make the nearby giant granite column, is circular.
No one says granite was carved with copper chisels.
You can list all the dating methods you want, it still doesn't prove that just because you found a tool near a work that it must have been what was used to make the work.
History can't be proven. It is simply the best current explanation we have for the evidence that we have. Let me know when Ben comes up with a better explanation.
yes, you are wrong, because you are grossly misrepresenting Ben's point
I don't think I am. If you do, you will need to explain it.
so far, you have failed to convince me that you aren't invested in the status quo, and that you aren't employing cheap rhetorical tactics to dismiss and misrepresent Ben's arguments.
All of my questions and concerns are honest.
In other words, I feel like all you've done is the rhetorical version of correcting someone's grammar instead of addressing their arguments head on.
Seeing the timestamp you left off on, you only made it to the end of the introduction.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
There is the exact same "logic" to say something is older because it comes from older sites, and say "what is more advanced is newer". We have a number of examples in technology from our lifetime that shows what is more advanced is left behind because other constraints are involved, as lack of funding, lack of scalability, lack of users non specialized enough to justify extensive use.
My point was not that advanced technology MUST be later, but only that it often is, and UnchartedX dismisses the possibility out of hand.
It is the old problem with these interpretations, like anything people are not sure what the purpose of something is, they say it must be religious, fertility or sacrificial, because they think it is an actual argument to say these are default uses for things.
No, if something is interpreted as religious, it is because there is evidence for it. It may, for example, correspond with known religious beliefs, or it might be similar to other objects known to be used for that purpose.
IF something is less advanced, less elaborated, and even less useful, but it is built under the assumption that another existed, then the less advanced is newer.
Sure, but how often can this assumption be witnessed?
Also the host makes some, unintented I guess, straw man. He says that the guy is aaying that the findings should not be attributed to the people, but he is not.
Yes, he is. He repeatedly suggests that the Egyptians appropriated items from an earlier culture.
He is saying that, like the host is actually doing himself, using a circular argument that if that people made that thing, they must have used the tools they had to do something known to be impossible to do with those tools.
Setting aside the fact that it has been demonstrated NOT to be impossible, the tools of the Egyptians are not fully known.
That is circular logic because the reason of those tools being used is the fact that other things were made with them, and the evidence that they were made with them is because that was the only thing they SAID they had.
My position is NOT that they were made with the tools that the Egyptians were known to have. I mean, come on, I posit a saw that has never been found. Most Egyptians writings have not survived until today, so no conclusions can be drawn based on what they fail to mention.
Honestly, you can show consistently that you dont need lasers, and dont need ELECTRIC POWER TOOLs to have power tool like results, just like the example I said before I made MYSELF and used.
Yes, and that is why the only thing that needs to be demonstrated is that it was possible, and UnchartedX's case crumbles. He is arguing that it was impossible for the Egyptians to make it. I am not arguing that it was impossible for a lost advanced civilization to make it. I am only arguing UnchartedX has no convincing case for it.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@charleygnarly Please explain Sacsayhuamán, in all your great knowledge- and don't pass it off to one of your predecessors and ask me to read their book. How did they build it?
Sacsayhuamán has nothing to do with Tiwanaku and the Puma Punku. It's from a later time period. I did do a video on it though: https://youtu.be/_5AplOCegMA
When Francisco Pizarro came to Peru and marveled at the ruins of Tiawanku, Puma Punku, Sacsayhuamán, it was made clear to him by locals that this was not the work of the Inca. It was the work of someone else ages before them.
Under my Sacsayhuaman video, I pinned the account from the Inca, and how they told the Spanish that they built Sacsayhuaman. They even provide details on the people involved. But of course, Sacsayhuaman was not built by the same people as the ones who built Tiwanaku. If you have the source about what the people told Pizarro, please share it. If not, I have to assume you just read it somewhere on the internet and never fact-checked it.
I'm particularly disturbed by the complete dismissal of Incan oral history who truly believed the ruins were not theirs.
You speak as if you know a lot about Inca oral history, but you didn't even know they claimed to have built Sacsayhuaman.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The video dismisses the vase due to it being unprovenanced. However, many significant artifacts lack context due to looting or past colonial practices. Dismissing them entirely risks ignoring important evidence.
You might find this article informative: https://www.rap.udl.cat/export/sites/Arqueologia/ca/.galleries/Documents/RAP-30-Bouso.pdf
Provenance is not needed to conduct material analysis.
But it IS needed to draw reliable conclusions about the material analysis.
The video claims the vase owners picked evidence to fit a hypothesis. But documenting anomalies that challenge the mainstream can be scientifically valid. Evidence should be assessed on its own merits regardless of who found it.
It's not about WHO found it. It's about the fact that the item was removed from its archaeological context, and thus necessary information has been lost. That is why we do not know if this vase is authentic. How can you determine if an object is an anomaly if you don't know if it belongs to the group? And even if it were authentic, picking out objects that you hope will fit your hypothesis is cheating. It is like deliberately polling only people you think would hate a movie in order to determine if the movie is any good.
The video says the vase does not prove claims about ancient technology. But a single contradictory data point can falsify a theory.
If that is true, then the lack of symmetry in parts of the vase, such as the lug handle holes, would invalidate UnchartedX's hypothesis. Do you accept this?
If the vase evidence is accurate, it may be enough by itself to challenge prevailing views. More scans would bolster the case, but are not absolutely required.
Not true. If the vase is only accurate in some ways and not in others, this fits the prevailing view just fine.
The video implies current theories on ancient technology are definitive fact.
No, it doesn't.
The video critiques the vase analysis for lacking peer review. However, groundbreaking research often meets initial resistance to new ideas within the establishment.
That happens to ever idea. Why should some ideas be exempt? The prevailing view has already been through the mill. It would be unfair if a new idea should be protected from scrutiny.
The video alleges bias and lack of neutrality among the vase researchers. But all researchers have perspectives. Their biases do not necessarily invalidate empirical measurements and data obtained through rigorous metrological methods.
Everyone is biased, but they need to follow proper procedures to protect against the bias. If, in this case, actions are taken that do not follow proper procedure, the bias will affect the result.
The video assumes mainstream archeologists are unbiased and agenda-free.
No, it doesn't.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@lokihve6591 I get hundreds of comments every day. I can't respond fully to long essays. It's too much!
Actually, it was the first that Gobekli Tepe was not considered/acknowledged as a settlement. Now things have changed and they definitely believe it is a settlement
Surely you do not think they should call it a settlement BEFORE they find evidence that it is a settlement.
in fact more and more it is becoming likely it was a permanent settlement that COULD prove to be a city.
Possibility is not probability.
I would not EXCLUDE the possibility of Gobekli tepe being a city.
Who's excluding the possibility? But you said Gobekli Tepe is "concrete proof." Concrete proof of what?
My point is, that they didn't just one day decide they will start doing all of this heavy lifting, and architectural work Let us not forget 15.000 - 17.000 years ago we had the so-called first cave paintings of Lascaux. I went to personally see those paintings. The time that has passed between those things and some of the settlements in this Turkish area is absurdly small on one hand, we have a bunch of people hiding in caves, and on the other, we have people erecting tons and tons of pillars.
Why are you talking about something hundreds of miles away with no known connection to Gobekli Tepe? All you have to do is look in the region. There are many sites around Gobekli Tepe, not only from the same time, but from before its time. There are many earlier sites showing more rudimentary building. And then there is the Natufian culture before that with even more rudimentary building. So you are correct: they did not just decide one day they will start doing all this heavy lifting. It was a progression.
This is far from a joke and far from me thinking lowly of them.
So then you agree that hunter-gatherers were capable of this?
And I have heard your words in regards to weight being the factor of age. No the biggest factor of ave is not how they did it.
I am confused. When did I say weight is a factor of age?
I think that it is actually the current archeology that is perhaps underestimating that very purpose and is simply plastering words like. Sacred grounds, a temple for animal worshiping, and none-sense like that.
More recent work is suggesting these were habitations. You are welcome to disagree, but I think the archaeologists working there know more than you do. So I will take their opinion over yours.
Titanic has, based on estimations, AT MOST a couple of decades left before it will be completely and utterly be decomposed into nothingness.
How does one example show that ALL material that isn't stone will be gone, or even that all metal will be gone? No one is arguing that everything survives. They are arguing that SOME things will survive, and some things HAVE survived. Many things, in fact. Things that are not stone.
no one here is claiming some high-tech advanced civilization was there.
Bright Insight is.
IT IS NOTHING WRONG TO SAY THAT WE DO NOT KNOW and it is NOTHING WRONG TO PRESENT THE EVIDENCE that is DISPUTING OUR CURRENT BELIEFS.
I agree. But there is something wrong with getting offended when people point out the evidence is weak.
If people don't buy the current way of the text books, that does not make them conspiracy theorists.
If they say that there is a coverup or that archaeologists are getting paid off by higher authorities to mislead people, then they are conspiracy theorists. And if they are putting faith in fringe theories simply because they like the sound of it better, they are gullible.
the sad part is that current acrheology has many of those who believe in the current text books like it is a bible.
Archaeologists don't get their information from textbooks.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@albertosierraalta3223 She talks about how far the pyramids are from the equator and the % of people that lives south of them. This is completely irrelevant to the point.
This directly addresses the question of what indications there are, other than the numbers, that the Egyptians were interested in the equator. We need corroboration, you see. How can you show that there is not a coincidence? By having corroborating evidence that shows some kind of interest or connection to the equator other than the numbers themselves. It is an important point, and I am glad I included it.
She then says that she get why would the Egyptians would actually care about this but then again dismiss this because there are better ways to codify the dimension of the earth. Again this is not relevant because you're assuming that you know exactly what people thought thousands of years ago (in the same way Carlson assume).
No, there are objectively better ways to convey information. Hiding it so that it is difficult to find, and making it open to a hundred interpretations, is a terrible way of encoding the information.
She talks about how the distance traveled by a fix point in the equator is what Carlson says regarding HIS definition of a second? What is she implying here? That this only works with his and only his definition of a second?
Yes. He uses a half second and two seconds as units of time, not one second.
He using the universal accepted definition of a second so...
Except that the second hadn't been invented yet. Were these people also time travelers?
She then (both of you actually) dismiss the argument talking about the Babylonian kings and what not. You're both are missing the point.
No, you are missing the point. Carlson went out of his way to show us these king lists to establish his sacred number, which he uses in his equations.
The earth's circumference at the equator (according to Wiki) is r= 40,075.017 km. So in half a second, a point in the equator would travel 231.916m (assuming a day has exactly 24 hours, which is imprecise to be fair but no Babylonian kings in this calculation). The average base of the pyramid, according to the image shown in 27:00 is 230.348m which is pretty close (<1% error). You don’t actually have a real counter argument to this point.
But Carlson uses the sacred number. So we did have a counter argument to his point. This is YOUR point. Anyway, is it surprising that you can divide the circumference of the earth by a number of your choosing to get close to the number 231.916? Not at all.
Regarding why the half second or 2 seconds instead of 1, well the pyramid would have to be way bigger in order to codify the distance traveled in 1 second and maybe this wasn't feasible to construct.
You are reasoning backward from your conclusion.
Again, I'm not saying that the Egyptians actually codify this in the pyramids but the counter arguments are not really there
The counter argument, which was repeated numerous times, is that there are so many numbers to work with that finding a match is not difficult.
Regarding the factor of 10 and 100 you have to understand first that in numerology, the number 0 is usually ignored so for example the number 47, 470, 4700, 47000 are seen as equivalent in some sense, but that's beside the main point.
Numerology invented by whom?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Just like a school child that has not done his home work he says, well if you had done yours you would know that gobeki tepi had agriculture around it, the first ever known evidence of farming,
I'm afraid you're misinformed. No evidence of agriculture has yet been found there.
also the size of the site along with all the huge stone monuments would require organization, skills, and people something that is developed over time you would think, all this was 12.000 years ago, so if they were hunter gathers what time would they have to do this as its not like prey is just sitting there to be had, it takes time then they bury the whole site too.
You seem to be under the misunderstanding that hunter-gatherers have no organization or skills. In this period, hunter-gatherers were storing up food. Just because they weren't farmers, that doesn't mean they were incapable of doing any of this.
also your metal talk is rubbish iron can begin oxidizing within days. I've been in abandoned tunnels in England that were constructed and abandoned after ww2 and I've seen leftover cars metal drums that were barely recognisable due to rust.
See my video on that here: https://youtu.be/WCpPg4FHP1Q
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
There is public knowledge of fresh water deluges from the ice in North America that ran into the oceans, which are global in nature when they happened.
How would the public know it was global?
North America is carved out by the evidence for this, and is geological fact by your own standards. Hancock does exaggerate, that is a given.
It is not a given until it is scientifically established.
But Plato even gives the answer why not every people has flood stories. In Timaeus, he goes so far as to state that the world is round, AND gives an accurate account of the world, detailing the Atlantic and Pacific (which he states is large enough to make the Atlantic as small as the Mediterranean in comparison).
How anyone could think the Timaeus is accurate, I have no idea. It is full of fanciful and silly notions that should be obvious to anyone who reads it.
It is hard for me to take white people seriously when you don't take your own history seriously.
I take it very seriously, as is evidence by the fact that I don't just believe things because I want to believe them. I look at the evidence and let it lead me to most accurate conclusions possible. I also don't judge people by the color of their skin.
You can find comparisons to your myths in DNA.
??
Hancock takes those myths too literally, but you need to take it more seriously.
I take myths more seriously than Hancock, because he doesn't respect the genre or the intentions of the people who made them.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
1. Vedas date you mentioned was determined well before IVC. It is just based linguistic theory. So date has to be revised based latest archaeological evidence
If you have any archaeological evidence for the date of the Rigveda that wasn't covered in this video, please share it.
2. Your argument about Saraswati looks hollow. Since you can’t justify existence that river and date you took different route saying that poetic, goddess not river
This would have been the conclusion about the meaning of the text without any debate about the Saraswati river. In fact, this was always the scholarly view about the text. It was only in more recent times that people started imposing a literalist scientific interpretation onto the text.
3. Why would anyone will have pride with dying river they would have picked other river Indus, Yamuna or Ganga. So your argument doesn’t make sense. So pick and choose
As I explained in the video, people have pride in their home. Saraswati was their home river. And it is unreasonable to think that they knew the future of the river. Now tell me, does it make sense for them to call Saraswati the mightiest of rivers, when it never was the mightiest of rivers? Explain that. The Indus was always bigger.
4. Same argument can me made for any hymns (contextual) get what ever the meaning you can get
The meaning is determined by the genre, the context, and authorial intent. This goes for any literary work.
5. You missed very important point how saraswati is missing ( or less number mentioned) in latest hymns vs older. Pl check this. Why is that so?
There are only three hymns to Saraswati in the entire Rigveda. She was always a minor deity. And all three are in the Bharata collection, so you know who she was important to.
6. You mentioned Vedic people can from outside of India - if so why no mention of their . People normally proud to mention their home land. Don’t look for birds, trees etc.
The people who composed the Rigveda were born in India.
6. India we believe saswathi disappeared and flows underground (guptagamini)ganga and Yamuna at prayaga. The civilization memory is not lost.
Yes, this belief comes from later times.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Are you a builder, carpenter, block layer , stone mason, geologist?
The information in this video comes from such people.
You really don't know what you're talking about. What is a superimposed load? What is an eccentric load? How do you calculate elasticity and apply it to eccentric loading in monolithic construction?
Since none of these subjects was discussed in this video, either by UnchartedX or me, maybe you can tell us why you are asking about them.
How many psi does it take to crush a cedar log?
This also is completely unrelated to this video, but I answer that question in this video: https://youtu.be/1dHNq8SURTU About 11 min, 52 seconds in.
How many men does it take to lift just a seventeen ton granite block, how are they placed? How are they placed in an enclosed hallway with only 13 inches on either side and 2 feet overhead.
So far, none of your questions have anything to do with the subject of this video. Are you trying to throw red herrings at us? Maybe you can explain the relevance first, because I don't even know what scenario this is supposed to be referring to.
How do you carve a full body statue by hand, to be within 10,000th's of an inch of perfect symmetry, at any point on ether side.
As this video made clear, no such statue exists. I am beginning to think you didn't even watch the video.
How do you maintain near-perfect symmetry during construction on an eight-sided pyramid?
It's called geometry. But see my Giza video. There is no pyramid with 8 sides. That's a myth.
How do you move stones in excess of 20 tons, into an overhead position that can only be accessed by going up and over 20 ft and then back down 20 ft, with less than an inch space all around? How many men would it take to just lift a 20-ton stone block? How is it possible to get that many men to fit around any of the 20-ton blocks at the Giza site, or any site for that matter? How about to carry it 500 miles? silly.
If you believe that people were too stupid to know how to move a mere 20-tons, I don't know what to tell you. But personal incredulity is not an argument. https://www.logicalfallacies.org/personal-incredulity.html
If you can think of any questions that are related to this video, let me know.
3
-
3
-
I wouldn't call people who suggest it took 78 men to move a stone block "more reasonable." I would consider it very unreasonable indeed, and so would, I surmise, most physicists.
As for your example of possible proof, if the author is admitting that it is circumstantial evidence, then he is not using it as proof, so it wouldn't fall into that category.
You made the statement: "I don't consider Lehner's work reliable for the following quote he made." May I ask, are you saying that, if a scholar has made a poor judgment on a matter, then nothing they say should be trusted? If so, that would mean no one in the world can be trusted. In fact, your assessment could be an example of possible proof, if by it you mean: 'It is possible for Lehner to be wrong; therefore Lehner can be considered wrong all the time." But if I am misjudging your position on this, please clarify.
And I think it should be noted that it was not Egyptology that said that the Great Pyramid was built in 20 years. That was Herodotus. There is not a 20-years-deadline in Egyptology. The deadline is the length of the reign of Khufu, which was 26 years according to most estimates (although some say 46 years).
I have not checked out Orbetello. This is the first I've heard of it.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
how many times have you heard Archeologist say something & state it as a factual statement & been like Oh that's interesting and then what do you know they make a new discovery and it ends up what they initially state before as factual statement was completely wrong
All conclusions in history, archaeology, and science are tentative pending further evidence. It has always been that way. It is to be expected. There should be nothing disappointing about that. New discoveries reveal new things.
it's just frustrating because I feel like with certain subjects archaeologists and the whole field of archaeology is very close minded.
I can see how someone might feel that way, but it is in the nature of all these fields that conclusions need to be based on evidence, and the stronger the evidence, the more convincing the case. Archaeology is not just speculation. Oftentimes someone will come to archaeologists and say they have a new idea, but it isn't well-supported by the evidence, so archaeologists dismiss it. And then the person will think archaeologists are close-minded. What the archaeologists really want is for the person to make a good case.
I just wish they'd be a little more willing to admit that this is what they believe is the most probable explanation, but they cannot be 100% certain, and there is a possibility that they could be wrong
I hear archaeologists say this all the time. In fact, it is an understood basic premise of archaeology. I don't know who you heard saying, "This is a 100% certain fact," but I have rarely, if ever, heard an archaeologist say that.
Most of them aren't willing to have an honest conversation like you can bring up a perfectly plausible theory that is maybe not likely, but certainly possible and they won't even entertain the idea, let alone have a debate.
Maybe it is not as plausible as you might think. Which archaeologists have you approached and they did this to you?
Like is it out of the realm of possibility that maybe we don't know exactly how they built the great pyramid, and that they might've done it differently than what archaeologists think that they did like possibly use some kind of tool I'm not talking about even anything super advanced
There are several competing theories about how the Great Pyramid was built, and many kinds of tools and methods are hypothesized, so I am not sure what you are talking about.
what about how long the great pyramid took to construct are we sure they got it all finished within 25 years how does one know for sure!
Archaeologists say they aren't sure either.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
You took the time to make such a long and thoughtful comment that I feel I ought to reply. Many of the things you bring up I have addressed in videos, but I realize they are not always easy to find.
Remains matching our currently appearance and brain size have been found to be dated as far back as 170,000 years. What were we doing for 97% of our history? What could have been possible during that missing 165,000 years?
There was nothing inevitable about urbanization. It didn't need to happen. People got along just fine before that and could have gone on indefinitely that way.
The smoking gun? Sea level. Today, 90% of our world’s population lives within 400’ of sea level. People live near the water. Historically, it appears that they always have, and probably always will.
They live near sources of fresh water, not salt water, and there are many regions well inland that are within 400' of sea level. Last I checked, 60% of the world's population lives further than 100 kilometers from the coast.
So what would have happened 12,000 years ago, at the end of the last ice age, when the sea level rose almost 400’? In my opinion, people cannot breath underwater, so either they had to drown or move upland. So which was it?
The sea level did not rise almost 400 feet. It rose 197 feet from 12,000 years ago to 7,000 years ago. That averages 1.68 inches per year. So my answer is: they moved upland. Hardly anything that would destroy civilizations.
Well the problem is that there is no evidence that it was a slow melt either, so why the immediate adoption of a slow rise?
Because it took 5,000 years to rise that much.
None of our world flood myths talk about that kind of flooding. None of them.
None of our world flood myths are about that sea level rise or that period of time.
Randal Carlson, and many other scientists over the last century have been criticized by the main stream for suggesting a quick sea rise. Why?
Because their arguments are weak.
I have watched Randal Carlson’s evidence of a great flood at the Scablands in North America. As many others before him, he has studied this area for his entire career. The main stream belief is what has been created there happened over as many as eighty different floods. Randal has proven without very much doubt in my mind that that was impossible, and the scars in the earth had to have happened at one time. And if they did happen at one time, then the flood was biblical in dimension.
Even if this were true, that has nothing to do with the sea level rise we were just talking about, nor is it evidence of a global phenomenon.
It could have been a wall of rushing water 2,000 feet high and miles across. This kind of flood could have been the most significant reason for sea rise around the world.
How are you (or he) getting from A to B? Where are you getting the 2,000 feet high figure from? And how much water do you think would be needed to make the global sea level rise one foot? I'm not sure you have thought all this through.
In my opinion, a megalithic site is large stone structures cut and arranged by no less than dozens or even hundreds of humans. Before about 5,500 years ago, all we were small bands of hunter gatherers, incapable of feeding those types of numbers without agriculture.
There are megalithic structures from many different time periods in history, each with their own unique characteristics. And it is important to note that hunter-gatherers existed in large numbers in many places and even had settlements. We knew this long before Gobekli Tepe was ever discovered.
But then comes along Gobekli Tepe, a megalithic site that has been confirmed to be some 9,000 years old or more. The only reason that this site can be dated accurately is because it was intentionally buried, preserving it until now.
Yes, but it was destroyed before it was buried.
That is why we can’t date other sites to be that old, because they have remains on top of remains that are much newer, like Puma Punku and others.
Yes, we can date them.
Without the evidence of agriculture at the site, I do not believe enough hunter gatherers could have been brought together and fed to build those megaliths.
I do.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
When a ruler has the ego to compel his people or any people to endure such a monumental endeavor to glorify his reign, would there not be engravings of spells and maybe his name?
I am not following your logic. The people would not be allowed inside the tomb. Do you mean outside the tomb? Unfortunately the exterior is missing on the Khufu and Khafra pyramids. We do have part of the exterior of Menkaura's and there are engravings on it, as you saw in the video.
The bareness of the walls leaves one to wonder why a living god king would take any chance that those who came after him would not know who this structure was meant to celebrate.
Visitors did not enter the tomb. They were sealed for all eternity. Did you miss the part about the how the tombs were sealed shut?
I would think that he would have had his name carved deep into the finished stones and as often as possible.
Your first mistake is assuming that the ancients thought like you think. The only way to know how they thought is to study them. Then maybe you might get an understanding.
The tombs in the valley of the kings are covered in glyphs telling stories of that ruler and spells meant to guide and protect his or her afterlife.
Those tombs are from a THOUSAND years later. And no, even they do not tell stories of the rulers, and the spells are written in books that were placed in the tomb.
These are the only tombs that I am aware of that are a mystery when it comes to who it was built for.
They are not a mystery. Ancient Egyptian documents identify them. This was brought out in the video, so I am wondering how you missed that.
The foundations of Egyptology come from the 19th century and those who came first depended on funded campaigns that demanded discovery and concrete facts about the distant past.
The foundations of Egyptology are in the material evidence.
This, just like climate scientist who depend on outside funding, makes their claims questionable.
Here we go. Why is it that rejection of science in one area seems to follow rejection of science in another?
There are many things in Egypt that defy explanation or do not fit with the mainstream explanations.
When you find something, let me know.
Personally, I believe the early Egyptians found the pyramids and crafted their society around them, even trying to replicate what they found without ever reaching the brilliance and precision of the ancient works.
What is your evidence for this? Considering that you are so skeptical of the view of the historians and scientists, your belief must be based on much stronger evidence. Right?
Bottom line is that nobody really knows, so maybe don't crap all over theories that do not align with the accepted literature.
Now you are slipping into philosophical skepticism. Knowledge is not possible. Any belief is as good as any other.
How will we ever know if we are not open and honest and logical.
I do not think you are being any of these.
I would like to see these folks debate the Uncharted X bloke.
https://youtu.be/n_NguZUDku4
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Hi Byron. The fact is, I teach Western Civ, because the college I work at wants it taught. It's a holdover from years past. Most universities have switched or are switching over to World History as a required course instead. I actually prefer teaching that, even though I have more to cover and can't go as deep. I think wider and broader is better in a survey class. When I teach Western Civ, I use the definition of "West" that is most common: Europe and its intellectual, colonial, and genealogical descendants. But people of color are included in that. The course I teach also explores how the West was created, and for that reason I discuss a lot of cultures that were instrumental in its development. This includes not only Greece and Rome, but non-western cultures as well. I do still see value in a Western Civ course, because it has had the most influence in our country, but I also think it ignores other important influences. And I largely agree with what you are saying about misunderstandings it perpetuates.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@marieclaire3670 So let me just postulate a little. Isn't it possible that Khufu, if he was indeed the builder of the Great Pyramid, would ask his chief architect, how would do the funeral procession go inside the tomb?
Where no one could see it? I doubt it. Funeral processions are for public spectacle.
And they would tell him, well, they would have a funeral parade up to the pyramid entrance, then STRUGGLE to carry his body through, in your own words, a "...cramp ascending passage" which is approx ONE HUNDRED THIRTY long, after which the rites would be continued at the King's Chamber.
I don't think there was any struggle.
If I was Khufu, I would certainly ask my architects, why in Dr. Miano's name can't you just build the ascending passage higher so the pallbearers wouldn't have to struggle through a 130-foot long tunnel carrying my body?
Pallbearers? No, men could have been pulling the coffin with ropes. They didn't even need to be in the passageway.
I was actually thinking that the dimensions of the ascending passage was a compromise for structural stability, but I couldn't find sources for it. Or probably, it's a symbolic passage to the afterlife, but can't find any material for that either.
These aren't bad hypotheses. Also, the passageway had to be sealed with a granite block. The larger the passage, the larger the block would have to be.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@krtodd1 get away with what exactly?
Read the title of the video, and all will become clear.
The problem with both sidesing everything, is it gives cover to bad ideas/intentions and obfuscates the reality of any issue.
If by "both sidesing, you mean showing how both left and right politicize ancient history, then that is a strong disagree from me. This is like saying that pulling the blanket off of two people gives cover to one of them.
If you have a normal person on one side and a pathological liar on the other that are debating any issue, you pick. It would not be valuable to say hey.... both of you lie sometimes, both sides do it.
I guess we think differently. In my opinion, if somebody murders a child, I don't think to myself, "Well, is this person a pathological liar or a normal person? If they are otherwise normal, I will give them a pass." That is irrelevant. I don't care if they spent their entire life feeding the homeless. They still committed a crime.
It's not just a coincidence that we have so much more science denialism and conspiratorial thinking these days.
I hate to break this to you, but there are anti-vaxxers and 9/11 truthers on the left too.
On another note, I absolutely love your content and I wish I could join you on your trip to Egypt! That's a real bucket list thing for me.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ampelogardenboy The idea that the Greeks got the geography of earth fairly right is not correct. The globe I shared on the video was that of Crates of Mallos, who lived in the 2nd century BCE, so a bit after Plato. But his view is informative. The Mediterranean people only knew about Europe, West Asia, and North Africa. After Eratosthenes had calculated the circumference of the earth, the Greek philosophers estimated the known land masses of the world only occupied a quarter of the globe. They didn't like the lack of symmetry. Crates solved the problem on his globe by drawing three other land masses ("continents") to provide the necessary "balance." The landmasses he added to the other quadrants were: the land of the Antoikoi, 'dwellers opposite', south of the known world, the land of the Perioikoi, 'dwellers round' in the other hemisphere, and the land of the Perioikoi, the Antipodes, to the south of them. He didn't know Africa extended south of the equator. Yeah, he kind of got North and South America right, but totally by coincidence. Now, of course, Plato lived prior to Crates, so he didn't necessarily think of the world in the same way, but then again, he never mentions two continents on the other side of the world. He only imagines one. So his view matches reality even less than that of Crates.
As for the timing of the event, the various myths of the world, which talk about catastrophes, are dated to all kinds of different time periods in the distant past. The chances, therefore, that one of them will match up with the Younger Dryas is pretty good. Keep in mind, too, that the description of the sinking of Atlantis doesn't really match what happened during the Younger Dryas at all. Neither is there mention of a comet in Plato's story. So what exactly matches? Nothing, really. The sea level rise in the Younger Dryas was not something that happened in a single day, and yet Plato says, "In a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea."
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Thank you for your considered comments. Here are my thoughts:
0:11:00 The work has been totally open sourced for this very reason, and Ben regularly asks Museums to do their own scans. Feels like the point you make here totally disregards this hard to miss aspect of his work.
Ben says the work will continue, but he also says he already has enough evidence to be convinced. So my point stands. And Ben should not be asking museums or anyone else to be doing his own research for him.
0:12:00 In this case, when they are making the argument (as Ben repeatedly mentions) that there is a mistake in the sampling, that artefacts are being attributed to periods for poor reasons, it makes sense to select (from that pool of poorly identified pieces) the ones that obviously look out of place, they don't need to test obviously wonky to the eye vases as they clearly can see they aren't the objects they need to test.
If Ben only wants to find a few "out of place artifacts," then fine. But if he wants to make claims about where "40,000 vases" came from, then he can't cherry pick. Taking objects out of context is not the way to do historical or scientific analysis.
0:24:00 Wow, its hard to believe you felt it wise to show the footage of the tools these guys were using lol. This is a strong demonstration of your lack of understanding of precision, which I believe is your primary bias.
You can see that these tools measure to the hundredth of a centimeter, and this is enough to show that the vases are not of high accuracy.
Not to mention how Ben has now scanned several more vases and that it is exactly this kind of work that must be done to challenge the museums into doing their own (serious) studies.
No, it is not. This is Ben (or more accurately Adam's) research project. They must see it through to the end and publish the results, just like any archaeologist or scientist would.
You have even included a clip of Ben asking Museums to replicate while continuing to act as though he doesn't want that work done?
If he doesn't want to do it himself, he is the lazy one, not them. It's not their project.
0:40:00 nice, technically correct, the best kind? For people trying to grasp at straws I suppose it is. Yes he isn't a machine with perfect memory recall, his point they this was from some of the earliest periods is correct, but you make it sound wrong by focusing on that it wasn't "THE" earliest period. Still talking the dates he actually shows numbers for 4000-5000 years.
No, he thinks that because archaeologists call the vases "predynastic," that this gives him the right to date them to any time in the predynastic, and then he assumes the predynastic goes way, way back, which it doesn't.
0:41:00 precision can be determined from one object by measuring its own surfaces against one another. Just because it doesn't meet your commercial definitions doesn't mean it can't be measured for in single objects.
Then call it what it is supposed to be called: accuracy.
Another, of many, convoluted points to stretch this video out
It was a side point. That should have been obvious when I said, "Just to be clear here..."
you don't actually dispute their data at all so far, give them the benefit of the doubt and debunk that if you want to make a useful debunking video?
The data is irrelevant if the vase isn't genuine.
0:45:00 He is putting the challenge out for ANYONE to make it, even with modern tools, to the same degree of accuracy, this is because the degree of accuracy they have found exceeds what they believe even modern artists could achieve, with only the best machinists potentially being capable at great cost, so far nobody has responded to this in many years of it being discussed, clearly it's not cheap.
Baloney. All he has to do is get some known fake stone vases and measure them. Then he will have his answer.
Honestly surprised you are including that reference to the soft stone being done, it's very impressive work, and really emphasises Ben's point at the difficulty, but she attempted a hard stone years ago and has yet to show any significant progress, several years later.
She finished it. But I honestly am surprised that you think that a method for making a stone vase would be any different for granite or diorite than it would be for limestone or other softer stone, or that you think accuracy would be affected by the hardness of the stone.
even in the soft stone, she is miles off from the data they've published, you can see it by eye alone.. you have to fight the data, talk to machinists about the claims at least.
Um...I presented the scan of her diorite vase in the video.
0:50:00 his regularly cited source is an Egyptian stone mason and guide.
This man is a known charlatan and grifter.
1:01:01 yeah so other than you sounding like a know it all bully here, I'm curious do you have any reason to believe their claim that they've been denied is false, or do you just feel it's cool to mock peoples ability to do basic paperwork and call them liars based on nothing?
I am asking for the evidence of it. I don't trust the guy.
1:02:16 yeah he does on lots of his videos that cover this subject. Anyway aren't you supposed to be debunking, didn't you say the information is readily available? Show us how this could be done in the 60s.
He is the one making the claim that it couldn't be done in the 80s. The burden of proof is not on me.
1:03:23 extreme precision can not be "measured" by the naked eye. That does not mean you can not perceive the beauty of a perfectly machined object, to pick out for testing. More padding.
You just gave an excuse why he shouldn't have to use the scientific method.
1:06:30 back to origin questions, I wonder if the rest of the video will be you reiterating the issue Ben already addresses in his own video.
You call that addressing it?
1:07:40 "only based on a vase" disregarding all the other evidence that has been collected around this subject.
I have a three-hour video addressing "all the other evidence" here: https://youtu.be/n_NguZUDku4 Conclusion: there is no other evidence.
does two holes being not perfectly symmetrical to one another discredit all the other measurements?
It discredits the idea that the vase is accurate or precise. If you want to say the vase has some accurate parts, I would agree to that. But as a whole, no.
1:19:00 and neither have you, why do we not see vases crafted for sale like this today?
Who says we don't? I mean, yes, the authorities have been cracking down on forgeries, but I wouldn't be surprised to see these for sale.
1:21:10 it appears you have quickly skipped over the part where he goes over the cryptographers assessment about symmetry and design choices following consistent patterns which leads him to that conclusion, but by now what's it matter.
The "cryptographers assessment" is bollocks, as any mathematician will tell you.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Methods for dating artifacts include relative dating methods, like stratigraphy, typological sequences, linguistic dating, climate and environmental sequences. Absolute dating methods include calendars and historical chronology, annual cycles (tree-rings, varves [lake sediment deposits], speleothems [sedimentation in limestone caves]), radioactive clocks (carbon dating, potassium-argon dating, uranium series dating, fission track dating). We also have genetic dating (estimating time spans in terms of human lifespans). Oh, and I should add that your reference to a "primitive people theory" is confusing. I never heard of such a theory, and if the people had the technology to do impressive things, they weren't primitive.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
An Archaeologist trying to explain an engineering problem such as the construction of the Great Pyramid is doing pseudoengineering,
Trying to explain what engineers have discovered is not pseudoengineering.
in later years engineers are being more and more interested in this subjects because they know their craft
Yes, that is why I share information not only from archaeologists, historians, anthropologists, linguists, geneticists, physicists, and geologists, but also engineers, architects, stone masons, and movers.
for many many years the archeologist tell us that it was built using a ramp bigger than the pyramid itself
Which archaeologist? There is more than one theory.
Jean Pierre Houdin a fellow French architect have a great theory , supported by Japanese radar studies on the structure and a 3D working model of the engennering side by an advanced simulation firm , and yet is dismissed
By whom?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@yathishk8529 Saraswati is both the river and a goddess. "Many of the deities are associated with natural elements, forces, or phenomena, as is the case with Saraswati, being associated with the river. " "It refers not merely to the might of the physical river, but to the power of the goddess, the power to answer the prayers of the people." "The power of the goddess, represented by the waters, is seen in how she bestows blessings on the people, and not merely blessings that literally come from having a river, but many other things too."
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Thank you for your thoughts, Phil. At first glance, your concerns seem to make a lot of sense. But here are a few things to keep in mind:
1. There was a village right on site. People lived there. The village contained all the usual things villages have not only to make life livable, but also comfortable. And the river, full of fresh water, ran right next to it. This was not the desert. There was also a huge city (Memphis) a short distance away. So your concerns about food and potable water are unnecessary. People were at home here. No one needed to cook for them. They could go home for supper.
2. Copper was not the most commonly use material used for tools. Stone was. And it can be found here in abundance. A large amount of wood also was unnecessary.
3. One of the traps people fall into when they calculate how much time was needed is not to consider that many jobs were being conducted simultaneously. They always seem to do the math as if only one work team was in operation at one time. If, as you say, 250 stones had to be placed each day, you could have as many as 20 or 30 work teams placing the stones. Assuming 25, that would mean that each team would have to place only 10 stones per day. That means one stone per hour during daylight hours. Keep in mind also that the quarrying and shaping would be happening at the same time by even more work teams. And now that scans have revealed a natural mound under the Great Pyramid, we now know that there are far less than 2.3 million stone blocks in it. Probably half that.
4. When we judge the value of worth of a project based on our own values, we commit what is called the "historian's fallacy." This should be avoided at all costs, and the way to do this is to learn more about the values of the culture being studied.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
If you ever run across someone, anyone who feels assured that our current theories/findings adequately describe the true history of mankind, take such claims with a grain of salt.
Let me know if you ever run across someone like that.
The entire premise of you video is so flawed it makes me wonder if anything relayed in it has merit.
The premise that all conclusions should be based on evidence? That seems like a sound premise to me. What am I missing?
Without researchers out there pushing the limits, unbound by the compromised politicization of the institutions of higher learning...
I think you mean "unbound by the limits of evidence and of the scientific method."
we would be stuck in a stagnant space with no researchers/scientists daring to take on projects that might actually provide proof to the contrary of the established understanding of our history, continuing only to cherry pick projects and evidence that supports their current theories
Hmm, then why is it that history is constantly being updated without the input of kooks?
There are so many examples of this now and the increase in discovery rate based on Google Earth findings and amatuer explorers getting out in the field is only providing to increase this leaving our current understanding of the world markedly different 50 years from now.
Google Earth is great, isn't it? You can explore the world without every having to excavate anything, read anything, or do any scientific experimentation, and you can know all! And I assume that by "getting out in the field," you mean going along with a tour group to an archaeological site (after 80% of the evidence has been removed to labs and museums).
Hell, findings from the James Webb telescope are going to rewrite large portions of how we understand the universe to work, even calling into question the "big bang" theory itself.
Which amateur explorers built the James Webb telescope?
I feel the current accepted theories regarding Egypt and South America are inaccurate
Well, if you feel it, that is all that matters, right?
and feel there is enough info out there to challenge the established view of it
Info garnered from conspiracy websites and tabloids?
but revising the history of Egypt as it was determined in the 1950s has been impossible for many reasons
You might want to compare a history book from the 1950s to one from now before you embarrass yourself by saying such a thing.
the hubris of man being chief among them.
Because there is only one Egyptologist in the world?
I was to err on one side or the other, an open-minded system of amateurs working together or an isolated silo of researchers and scientists bent only on keeping their existing theories in place, I'd choose the former every time.
If I was to err, I would side with the consensus of the experts who actually have done the legwork instead of with couch potatoes who want sci-fi to be true.
https://youtu.be/ytltvDRPErY
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@toniprince4192 Why have you completely ignored the part of my reply where I point out that Brien Foerster recognises that he may not always be correct? Why do you choose selective information rather than the whole of my argument to attack me?
I agree with Foerster on that point. Nothing there to disagree with you about, and it has no bearing on your argument. Just because he says he may be incorrect, that doesn't give him immunity from criticism.
Why do you treat criticism with such dismissive scorn
You are imagining scorn where there isn't any. Try reading my comments in a nicer tone of voice.
and why do you assume a) that "progress in knowledge" is linear
I am not sure what part of the video you are referring to. I believe progress is incremental, but not linear.
and b) that you/we are in the forefront of this 'progress'?
I am confused as to what you are talking about. Can you give me a timestamp of the part of the video where I said something like this?
You can argue that the Romans had the capability to fashion and transport large granite structures from the historical evidence you briefly give but that doesn't end the discussion, it needs more investigation and research.
I never claimed the discussion was over, and I never claimed research and investigation was finished. However, there is enough evidence to know beyond reasonable doubt that those pillars were made in the Roman period.
Instead of referring to anyone who might be sceptical about some aspects of your argument in this video as a "hypocrite", why not consider the possibility that at least some worked stone at Roman sites may have been repurposed - a common and widespread practice in virtually all cultures and societies in history, after all - and that this may include some material from pre-C12 BCE civilisations?
I never called anyone a hypocrite. You are putting words in my mouth. As for repurposing, I am open to that. But I am not open to the idea of the material coming from any imaginary civilizations. We must go with the theory that has the best evidence. Until someone can present a theory with better evidence, then I will stick with the one that is the best. That's reasonable, don't you think?
I asked you whether you were happy for insulting comments to made about the person that you criticise in this video, not whether you were going to censor them or not.
But I never made any insulting comments about anyone. I only insulted ideas. I told you that already.
Do you think it's okay to call Brien Foerster a "nut job" and/or a "quack"? I don't find comments like this on related sites - generally people are sufficiently respectful not to attack others in such a crass way.
People call me all kinds of names. I let their comments stay on my videos, because people should be allowed to express their opinions freely (as long as they don't say anything inciting hatred towards a race, ethnicity, gender, etc.).
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@michael4250 Can you direct me to a CREDIBLE determination of the dates for Abydos?
If you leave this question for me at speakpipe.com/DavidMiano , maybe I will answer it in a video.
If you are defending absurd claims, ridicule and dismissal are always safer than a straight answer.
That is why I don't defend absurd claims.
Syntax quibbles? "...no engineers were allowed in (to test) the theorizations. Clearer now?
What good would that do? How would the tests benefit from having an engineer there instead of actual stone workers? I can understand if you wanted an engineer there for the moving of an obelisk, but not for stone working.
Why call it a lie? I have seen it DISPROVED. Have you seen it proved?
You can't have seen it disproved, because you can't prove the marks can't be made. Think about it. What kind of experiment would prove that the marks can't be made? You can only prove that they CAN be made. And yes, the experiments have made similar marks, so the only reason someone would reject the findings of those experiments is if their ideology was preventing them from accepting it.
Or the other claims that you are failing to debunk, like polygonal masonry made with copper chisels?
Huh? What polygonal masonry?
Yeah, some engineers will say anything. That is why filters are so important.
And what filter is that? Would you agree that "if the engineer says something that I like, I believe it, and if he says something I don't like, I reject it" is a poor filter?
I must have missed the part where they picked it up from the hole it was in, how they lifted it up enough to insert something bouyant enough to raise it to the waiting raft. Did you see that part?
I was responding to your claim that "he has no idea." You just moved the goal posts.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Ok, now other Assyrian texts tell you all the technological progress was taught to them by some demi-god. This is dismissed outright, as it doesn't fit into the paradigm.
Wait, what? Are you saying that the reason historians don't believe in the existence of demi-gods is because it doesn't fit a "paradigm"? You do realize that people all over the world, numbering in the billions, don't believe in demi-gods, right? I'm kind of surprised to hear you say this. Do you believe in leprechauns, fairies, or unicorns? If not, I don't expect that is because you are adhering to a paradigm. I also think it is unreasonable to expect that historians should be open to the possibility that creatures once existed that had the bodies of men with the heads of birds. If a piece of ancient art is found with the image of, say, a flying elephant, yes, the idea that such a flying elephant existed will be dismissed immediately. That being said, if a number of fossils were found to establish the existence of flying elephants, then we would reconsider the possibility that the art is depicting a real animal. And, if in future, we find solid evidence for the existence of bird-headed humans, then we will change our minds about these images. But until then, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that these are the products of human imagination.
You do not see it as possible that Assyrian technology was handed down
I do believe that technology is handed down. It is handed down from one generation to the next.
Maybe the technology was handed down from an as of now un-discovered civilization or proto-civilization?
Maybe. Demonstrate the existence of such a civilization, and then the idea will be taken seriously. We base our ideas on what we find, not on what we haven't found. And I think you would not be happy with a history profession that did otherwise. Could you imagine if we printed in textbooks a description of past events for which we have no evidence? People would have a conniption.
Don't misunderstand, I am not saying that there were demi-gods from Atlantis in Assyria, but I am saying that maybe there was a sage / scholar from a different, as of yet undiscovered civilization that through generations was interpreted as a demi-god because of his comparatively advanced technology and knowledge and the idea shouldn't be dismissed outright because it doesn't fit into your theories.
Show the evidence. Anyway, this thesis is not even needed. The development of technology is traceable in the archaeological record, and we can see it develop and grow over time. The evidence is at odds with the thesis that it suddenly appeared.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Critical comments are always welcome. I do feel like a reply is merited.
I am compelled to address the fact that Graham Hancock has always stated that he is only offering an alternative hypothesis based on evidence that gives an opportunity to anyone with an unbiased eye and an open mind to ask questions of mainstream academia.
Since this was pointed out in the video, I am not sure why you feel compelled to say it again.
We must never forget that academically 'settled' history and science has inevitably given way, generally reluctantly, and too often psychologically and/or physically painfully, to new concepts
History, just like science, updates. That is its nature. This also was said in the video. And who is that brings the new concepts? Other scientists. If you know of a case where a journalist brought a new concept that overthrew 'settled' scientific concepts, please share it.
i.e. Galileo Galilei, was put under house arrest for life for daring to hypothesise that the earth orbited the sun, and Bruno Giordano was burnt the stake for hypothesising the earth was round.
Both of these are examples of Church persecution, as you say. So I am not sure how it applies.
As such, gatekeeping by any person, organisation, institution, government, etc., must always be questioned, specifically in terms of what agendas are at play.
Sure, but fortunately, archaeology is not an institution. It is very decentralized. So really the main problem would be individual. And problems have been pointed out all through its history by insiders. They know a lot more about it than people who write fantastical books for profit.
You don't have to agree with Graham Hancock, however, I strongly suggest that we be grateful that there are still people such as he willing to fight and take an increasingly difficult stand in simply questioning the mainstream narrative as they are the ones who later down the line of history may very well be recognised as the harbingers of change, hopefully for the better.
There are people who do it much better and for far less selfish reasons.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@morzineskiandmtb3896 However, just because we have evidence that they moved similar columns, the Pantheon in Rome for example has similar columns, there is no evidence at all that they moved them to Baalbek.
The evidence that they moved them to Baalbek is no different from the evidence they moved them to the Pantheon.
Clearly I don't know that they didn't mention the temple complex in some lost records, I'm just saying that they didn't mention it in the records that have survived.
That's fine, but you can't use an argument from silence. We don't know if there were records, so we can't say we know there were, and we can't say we know there weren't.
With regards to the location of Baalbek, it was a fairly distant Eastern province and it is a fair question to ask why they built such a magnificent complex in such a location?
As I said, it was a highly populated area. Los Angeles is far from Washington D.C. Would you ever ask, "Why build something magnificent in so far a location from the capital?"
Back to Baalbek, do you also feel that the Romans built the original u shaped platform upon which the Temple of Jupiter etc is built? If so, what evidence is there to support that?
I cover that in my other Baalbek video. https://youtu.be/QUiNoAgijpc
Also, can you also offer some insight into how they managed to move and so accurately position such unimaginably large stones?
Also in the same video.
With regards to the so-called megalithic age, you don't address my point that many of the sites built using huge megaliths come from a similar period ie 2500-4500 bce.
Do they? I think there may be more outside of that period than within it. And the vast majority of them are in Europe and probably stem from the same culture. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/02/stonehenge-other-ancient-rock-structures-may-trace-their-origins-monuments
They are mostly uninscribed, the builder culture is often not known, there is often no developmental phase before it eg building with small stones first, there are frequently astronomical alignments, they also appear all over the world with these shared characteristics, stonehenge, carnac, the ruins of Malta, the dolmens all across Europe, the 4th dynasty pyramids and temples in Egypt etc etc etc
Stonehenge has developmental phases, and it is said that Carnac has the same cultural origins, the ruins of Malta have developmental phases, the 4th dynasty pyramids and temples have developmental phases before them. Hasn't the thought crossed your mind that maybe the alternative history theorists deliberately choose uninscribed large stones so that they can date them to whatever time period they like?
Why does the archaeological record suggest that in many places cultures just started building these huge, complex and logistically incredibly difficult structures?
If they did it at different times, then what is strange about that?
Finally, why is Gobekli tepe, and the other similarly aged sites that have more recently been discovered in Turkey, not forcing academia to question the current model? Eg Hunter-gatherers don't/can't build huge monuments etc
I have never heard any academic say that hunter-gatherers don't or can't build monuments. Have you? Stonehenge and Carnac were built by hunter-gatherers. As soon as GT was found, academics revised their account of the past. They revise after every discovery.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Odd that you ask another to prove the Romans couldn't put those stones in place but yourself offer no explanation other than "they did it". Sure, but how?
I discussed the process of quarrying and movement at length in the video, beginning 24:09. Did you not watch the whole video?
Where else in the Roman empire did they move such huge stones,...when they didn't have to, even at Balbek? Makes no sense that the Romans would undertake such a huge endeavour only there, only then, when they didn't have to.
Is there another place in the Roman empire as close to this quarry? Give me an example of somewhere that it would be easier to move the stones, not more difficult.
The real question is not could they have moved them if they wanted to, that's a diversion, but rather, why would they even if they wanted to, when there was no reason?
There was a reason. The stones make the foundation of the structure more sound.
And yes, those blocks are complex
Not complex in shape.
cutting them out of bedrock, removing them, transporting them and lifting them...very complex; so much so, modern engineers can't do it.
Says who?
I stopped watching after a while because your arguments are mundane and you offer no proof, just speculation and opinion and criticism.
Ah, that explains why you don't know what I did or didn't talk about. Do you often judge matters without hearing the whole case?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@pannobhasa The existence of color is an empirical reality, not just a cultural construct, as everyone who is not colorblind sees color.
Yes, this is why I said, "The categories we invent are based on actual physical characteristics."
So to say that races (or species, or colors) are merely a cultural construct because of lack of universal consensus on exactly where to draw the lines between them, and thus they are not to be used, would be silly.
You just put color (which is a physical characteristic) on the same level as race and species, which are not physical characteristics. This is where you go wrong. Race and species are inventions.
The argument "race is merely a cultural construct" tends to be conflated with the idea that there are no races, and everyone is essentially the same
Race exists only because we say it exists. No other reason. We could divide people by hair color. We could divide people by height. We could call the categories Skiddlebops. It's simply a convenient invention. And no, it does not mean everyone is the same. It is just the way we CHOOSE to classify people.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@gurnidarsingh2830 I am going to explain this to you one last time, because it doesn't seem to be registering in your head--maybe because you aren't reading my comments, or because you don't understand English very well--I don't know. But this will be the last time, because I don't want to waste my time saying the same thing over and over again. Okay?
The study, as you well know, looks at DNA BEFORE the time of the proposed Aryan migration, so it can say nothing about what happened after the time that the Rakhigarhi people died. The Rakhigarhi DNA is from at least 500 years before the time of the proposed Aryan migration. You seem to be assuming that there can be only one time in history that people came from Iran into India, which is completely false. But not only that, the Aryan migration theory doesn't say that the Avesta people are the ancestors of the Vedic people. It says that they both have the same immediate ancestors. Those ancestors probably came from the Steppe.The Rakhigarhi DNA had no Steppe ancestry, and that means people from the Steppe must have come into South Asia after the IVC. These could well have been the Aryans.
If you read this article, which I cited under the video and asked you to read, you would know that the scientists, even the ones who worked on the paper together, are in disagreement over how the study related to the Aryan migration. Shinde has the most radical interpretation, and that is the person you are siding with. Niraj Raj and Nick Patterson both said they disagree with Shinde. https://scroll.in/article/936872/two-new-genetic-studies-upheld-aryan-migration-theory-so-why-did-indian-media-report-the-opposite
If you read the other comments here, you will see that more than once I addressed the "evidence" for the IVC being Vedic and show it to be no evidence at all. The same can be said about the Brahmi script, which could have been adapted from the IVC script by people that never lived in the IVC.
I want to thank you for commenting so many times on this video, as it tells the YouTube algorithm to recommend my video more. So you have helped more people to see it. But I have many other commenters to engage with, and I have given you a lot of time, so this is my final comment on this thread. I suggest you read all the comments here and all my references under the video before saying anything more, because it probably has been answered already.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
it looks like your basing your entire opinion on this point. "The oldest known citys we have dates for is 6000 years old" This is your problem.
My entire opinion about what?
We have clear and proven skeletal records of anatomical accurate homosapiens, just like us, existing over 100 thousand years ago. Do you see the problem? If not, it doesn't surprise me of your conclusion.
No, I don't see a problem. What problem?
Theres also direct evidence now, beyond a shadow of doubt that the sea level raised 400 feet around 11 thousand years ago.
Over how long a period of time? Take the rise and divide it by the number of years. Then you will know how fast it rose each year.
Theres also proof positive evidence in the genitic records that all humans almost went extinct during this time, theres a massive genitic pool gap that happens, look it up. These are not made up facts.
Okay, then please show us this proof for this near genetic extinction 11,000 years ago. I looked it up and could not find it.
When you have aerospace engineers today saying "we cant make this vase, this accurate with our tools today" I question your expertise sir.
You might as well say a sanitation engineer. What would an aerospace engineer know about how ancient stone vases were made?
But you can't have it both ways, they used copper to carve stones harder than copper, or they had more than copper, which is it?
They had more than copper. They had stone.
Your quite the hypocrite, calling him out for siting archeologists from the past, like you don't site old masters, despite more "relevant information" being available?
I cite both.
So many straw man and red harrings, I can't even beging to figure out where to start with you.
You can start with one.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
You continually, throughout the video, use phrases like; "I don't think" or "I think"! Yet, you are saying (with quite a demeaning tone, I might add) how wrong the presenter is.
When I think something, I say, "I think." When someone is wrong, I say they are wrong. It is as simple as that.
And Chris Dunn is an actual stone mason and engineer. He is exactly the type of person that should be brought in to assess the stone work and even the construction of the Pyramids at Giza.
Denys Stocks also is an engineer. And his work was brought in to assess the stone work. So what's the problem?
Robert Schoch, a geologist has shown that water erosion alone, dates the Sphinx for example, to be far older than what mainstream archeologists/Egyptologists. This is a geologist, someone who studies these patterns for their lively hood, yet Egyptologists not only disagree but try and rip the man's credential apart because he (RS) goes against what mainstream is saying.
Geologists themselves disagree with Schoch. He is in the minority. See here: https://youtu.be/DaJWEjimeDM
We have to also understand that many old texts have been burned, destroyed, buried, "lost", by the invading forces at the time.
Yes, many texts have been lost. Let me ask you: Should we imagine what texts existed and what they said, or should we wait to find evidence of their existence first?
This is not a complete story in Egypt.
Yes. Does this give us license to make up whatever history we like? No, because we need to bring our ideas into harmony with the available evidence.
A child would even ask the question (Dendera for example) why is it so massive?
It's just a building of normal size.
And they aren't even taking into consideration that life back then was much harder and survival was almost a daily fight. To take the time to build such enormous structures screams to me, it was easy to do. Yet we would struggle with much of our equipment today, to move some of the structures around.
This is all just your imagination from your personal experience. With study and research, things will become clearer.
Closing, I would like people to understand that the 3 main pyramids at Giza and the Sphinx, are absolutely on whole different level of engineering.
Before you can start teaching people, you need to teach yourself.
There are many other pyramids around the area that are built buy actual Egyptian people. They crumble and fall apart and are no where near the size of the 3 main pyramids on the Giza plateau!
What about Sneferu's pyramids?
By the way, there was no blue print left behind on how the main 3 were built?! Why? Wouldn't you want to share that information with something as masterful as that?
Read your own comment above about "many old texts have been burned, destroyed, buried."
Nope! There has NEVER been a body found in the Great Pyramid (which is said to be a tomb for pharaohs)!
But there has been found a stone coffin.
Research people. Don't just believe whatever you're told.
Yes, please do this, and don't believe everything you read on the internet.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@sarah-jaynemcdonald2594 are you saying that because you don't agree with most of things that come from him?
I'm saying that because I can see with my own eyes that it doesn't look like cuneiform.
What if I told you ot was on a TV network?
Doesn't matter.
And experts had verified it?
Hardly likely.
no offence, I know it would perhaps have an impact on your career if you ever agreed with anything like this, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence right.
I say what I do, because it is what I actually think.
I did find you a bit dismissive of Ben's work too, a bloody saw couldn't carve a curve like that in granite mate!
It has already been shown to be able to do that.
Anyway, sorry, lol, is there ANYTHING in ancient history that has EVER made you pause and think, wait a minute, perhaps we don't know it all
All the time.
and there could have been a marvelous advanced worldwide civilisation, say before the YD?
Not yet.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Hi Lessure. Yes, I know of Thor Hyerdahl. He showed what was possible, but keep in mind that showing what COULD have happened is not the same as showing what DID happen. If someone wishes to make the claim that objects were not made by the people who lived in the place the object was found, which is the simplest, most natural conclusion, then the burden of proof is on them. So far, you have not pointed to any proof. If, for example, I argued that something in your house did not belong to you, it wouldn't be enough for me to argue that you COULD have borrowed it, or that someone COULD have snuck into your house and put it there, I would need more than that.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
When he said, primitive and nomadic, he also mentioned that culture came from outside India. However you only picked the primitive and nomadic part but didnot counter that the culture came from outside India. That's Cherry picking and poisoning the well, like you put it, to make your arguments more convincing.
If he says something inaccurate, I can say so. Besides, I address the other point elsewhere. Everything important is covered.
In Rig Veda, there's mention of horses and Chariots, even the recent excavations in Sinauli have found chariots, carbon dated to be atleast 5000 year old.
4000 years old, not 5000, and that is not old enough to disprove a migration.
Even the R1A haplogroup is found in India in highest frequency with most diversification and the highest diversification in gene is only found at the source. Which means India is evidently the source of R1A haplogroup aka the European DNA.
See my video on the DNA evidence here: https://youtu.be/NQX5LlJ7YXg
So, I will put an alternate hypothesis, west is scared that their origins might have Indian roots, rather than trying to trying to claim that white skinned Aryans were the original inhabitants.
The information I am presenting is not western scholarship, but global scholarship. And nobody says that "white-skinned Aryans" are the original inhabitants of India.
Aryans is an Indian Sanskrit word, Sanskrit is more identical to alleged Dravidian languages like Tamil, Telegu and Kannada, than alleged Aryan family languages like Spanish, Arabic or Latin.
This is in direct contradiction to the linguistic evidence. Sanskrit belongs to an entirely different language family than Dravidian languages.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@shashiprabha-xd2zk My questions to you are in no way related to how the Greeks got their knowledge from hindus ,they were independent questions.
What was your purpose in asking them?
1)agree that genetic evidence points out to Africa but you haven't understood the scope of any of the questions I've asked you,when I ask who they were I mean they gotto have a name ,they surely didn't call themselves European.
Well, yeah, wrong continent. They would be Africans. But you might want to ask someone who does prehistory. I do ancient history. And I have no idea why you think this is important.
2)what was the theology of people living in present ' Europe' before 2020 years ..I feel this question is quite explicit ..your answer is lacking here too..
You just changed the question. Your original question was about my ancestors, and I haven't traced my family lineage back 2,020 years. I don't know who my ancestors were back then. But now you seem to have changed it to Europe. Most Europeans were pagans 2,020 years ago.
3)yes all humans do have similar intellectual capacities but it is thinking and quality of thoughts that spur civilisations into greatness or oblivion..your answer is lacking in understanding the scope of my question..how did a society that had NO mathematical background come up with Newton?
When you say "a society," are you referring to the Greeks? The Greeks had a mathematical background. That you would say they didn't means you don't know Greek history. But then you say "Newton," and he wasn't Greek. Newton lived recently. By his time, math had been around for thousands of years.
Who were the people who taught him? Or you mean to say if he was self taught who were the intellectuals that preceded the so called greats of Europe? Are there any at all?
Yes. STUDY HISTORY, and you will know. Every culture in the history of the world has its share of intellectuals.
What was their work? How far back do these people with relevance in scientific work belong to? What are their timelines?
This is something that needs to be read in many books. It can't be summarized in a YouTube comment. Go to a library.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@matveyshishov I'm kicking myself that it took me so long to realize you aren't really interested in discussion. It took me until now, when you've basically said, "I'm the one asking the questions here," and you've resorted to a fancier version of the "I know you are, but what am I" argument, for it to dawn on me that you just want to use my video's comments section to preach. You aren't talking to me; you're talking to my audience. I should have realized it when you wouldn't keep to discussing your original claim but kept moving the goal posts. So I won't be wasting any more of my time dancing around with you. At least you got to post links to everything you want people to click on. Most of my audience will see that you've just repeated the same old tired arguments that alternative ancient history people make. We've heard it a hundred times before, especially the "these two marks are the same, therefore the cultures must be correlated" argument. I will leave with these four points:
1. My reason for entering this discussion was to engage with your claim that my arguments about who built Baalbek cannot stand unless a supposed global phenomenon is first considered. You have attempted to get me off that topic numerous times by pointing to things unconnected to Baalbek, but I am simply not interested in discussing those other points, because I have discussed them so many times already with other people.
2. No pick axe marks like those at Baalbek have been found in Egypt, nor shown in Curious Being's video, so your point about chisels is irrelevant.
3. As I said before, none of the features except the pick axe marks have you shown to be at Baalbek, and so Baalbek cannot be "strongly correlated" to any supposed global phenomenon on the grounds of those features. They are red herrings. That is why I have ignored them.
4. I have never argued that people around the world didn't have similar tools. Showing that they did doesn't make any significant connection between Baalbek and a non-Mediterranean culture, so it is irrelevant to this discussion.
I will let you have the last word.
2
-
2
-
@harshnaik6989 But whats the proof that Rig vedas were composed by Aryans and not by Harrapans?
The society described in the Rig Veda does not match Harappan society.
Identification of a mighty physical Rig Vedic Sarasvati with the Ghaggar-Hakra system is therefore problematic
Yes, that's true too. And that means it might not be the Saraswati. But even if it is, the Sarsuti may be part of the same river, and the Sarsuti still flows.
As Aryans were from steppe, why would they not mentioned or given a single hint of there motherland?
Who says there are no hints?
my point is IVC was not only spreaded across whole of north India but they were well conencted with each other ( as same bricks size and mesurements, pottry were in used ) by having such Large populations, how can Few Arayans Influenece Such Large amount of People?
The Indo-Aryans are not thought to have entered the area in significant numbers until the IVC was in decline.
did Aryans brought Hinduism?
No. They would have brought some of the seeds of Hinduism. Some of the other seeds were already there.
Did Arayans were created vedas?
The Vedas are Sanskrit, which is an Indo-Aryan language.
Infact we dont even have a proper proof that there is something called Araynas tribe.
We're talking about a language family.
Even if few Aryas would have came from Steppe there is No way they could have Influenced an Biggest and Largest civilization on planet Earth.
The IVC was already in decline. The Indo-Aryans did not move into the IVC cities.
British, persian, Greeks, Mughas, Turks , Hans, each empire ruled whole India for over century Still they are not able to Change our Culture or Language
They had influence.
How can anyone belive that if a tribes came from steppe and landed on most advanced and most populated civilization on Earth and these steppes gave people of IVC knowledge of Complex Sanskrit, Vedas, complex Rituals etc.. ?
They didn't do much of anything to the IVC. They may have traded with them. Not much more than that.
Early Historian were absoluty said that a group of Aryans came from west and waged a war on Indian clture and changed the entire culture of India ( Fact ), they changed there naratives gradually as people came up with more evidence and more questions.
That's how history is supposed to work.
the narative is that Rig vedas were composed by Aryans, how can be they able to create such sophisticated language like Sanskrit
The language wasn't created. It evolved.
If Aryans were soo highly knowledable and skilled group of people then why there is no mention about them In any other Civilization of this planet?
We have very little ancient writings. They don't survive unless people copy them or preserve them.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Hi Pluto Planet. Keep in mind that my last comment was a direct reply to your argument: "If it is not reasonable to assume the reliefs are not bags based on the fact that the handles only traverse 2/3rds the rim then it is also not reasonable to assume they represent buildings with roofs that only cover 2/3rds of the structures top, especially if we are calling the rounded roof domes corbel or cupola arched roofs which require a supporting wall or column."
Your statement above suggests that the two positions are equally unreasonable. My comment about the possibility of interior walls was to show that it is more reasonable to assume interior walls on buildings than it is to assume interior whatevers to hold one of the sides of a bag strap. That's all I was addressing in that comment, and nothing more. You never responded directly to that, so I still don't know whether you think assuming an interior wall is reasonable, but maybe you can if you reply again.
As for your new point, that you do not believe prehistoric humans had the ability to make corbeled roofs, you are mistaken that this technology is only a thousand years old. We have examples from the Neolithic period; for example, the Newgrange passage tomb in Ireland, and the chambered cairns of Scotland, corbelled burial vaults have been found at Ebla, Hazor, and Megiddo, and there are many from throughout the ancient period. So yes, it is reasonable to assume they did have the know-how. Again, I am not saying that the images on the pillar are definitely buildings, only that it is a more reasonable hypothesis than that they are bags.
It appears you are assuming that the existing circular foundations at GT would have been the buildings that had the arches. But since the images are rectangular, I do not think that those would have been the buildings. So we can't make assumptions about the viability of the corbel arches based on those foundations.
Your hypothesis that the images represent baskets for grain is intriguing. Maybe those are bundles of wheat above and below. If they were inside the baskets, that would clinch it.
My answer to your final question is: I think that if they would have put the clan images directly onto the buildings, then that would imply that the buildings themselves had those insignia. By putting the images next to the buildings, they made it clear that the images were symbolic, not literal.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"There isn't a single stone made and moved by human hands that needed modern technology to move. Not one. At least, if you believe in physics." Never mind the fact that if they moved it by hand, then it didn't need technology to move, just tautologically.
I am pretty sure I did not say "and moved." I simply said "made by human hands."
I don't think I've seen a single alternative history person make any claim that these feats were not possible. They almost always recognize a method or two suggested by Egyptologists, but then question the feasibility (ie: "yes this is possible, but could it be done 100 times in the given time frame?").
Oh, I get A LOT of people saying moving certain stones was impossible.
The comment about "belief in physics" without any immediate explanation of the physics will do one of two things for a viewer: they will either like what you say and reinforce their opinion that these alternate history quacks don't even believe in in physics, or they will scoff at the point you made
I made it clear it was a side point and was not the subject of this video.
Considering your giant column and statue sections are near the end, this is a pretty big gap to leave out further explanation.
What gap are you referring to?
And you also don't even get into the physics it seems?
I wasn't given a reason to. I can't prove a negative.
When he says, can you imagine this being done with copper chisels, you take it in bad faith and ask why he's asking us to use our imaginations and that what matters is how precise it IS. But that's exactly what he's saying. It was a rhetorical question first of all, and he's saying that it's far too precise to assume chisels and stone work. I would say this is a fair assessment.
How does he know it is far too precise? That was my point.
I don't get why you're siting date to disprove his point. It has nothing to do with the analysis he's giving of the technology he thinks was used, and to him that's evidence that the date is different. To dispute his point because the date is different kinda ignores everything he's saying.
I am not sure I follow you. The reason he is pointing to the evidence of technology is so he can redate the objects. But since we have other evidence already establishing the date of the objects, it does not matter about the technology. Even if he could demonstrate a higher tech was used, it would not redate the object. It would only change our understanding of the technology available at the established date.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@trevorwesterdahl6245 Many of your views about machining I address in this video: https://youtu.be/n_NguZUDku4
Re: the "Dark Ages," I fully agree that there are drops in technological levels in various parts of history, but never do we see it drop all the way to the bottom.
When you mention "sources", I could mention the Abydos King's List which is interesting by itself. It is written on the walls in the temple of Seti the first that lists the history of Egyptian rulers. It is used to help identify time periods. However, it goes back too far to have the entire list be "accepted". There is also the Turin Kings List which is an ancient papyrus that does the same thing. With both, the parts that go back further than "accepted" are summarily dismissed, again, as "story telling". Its not just the Egyptians, for example, its also the Sumarians.
Yes, but one thing we find is that the lists get longer as time passes. In other words, they get added to - and I don't mean just at the end. I mean at the beginning. This is because cultures were competing with each other over who could be the oldest. So they invented longer pasts. There is a clear difference between the later parts of the lists, which sound historical, and the earlier parts, which sound mythical.
I do not recall the name of the city while i am sitting here that had the hieroglyphs, but I am positive they are real and do, essentially, claim that Egyptians moved from a more advanced city/location due to a cataclysm.
How can you be positive about something you don't remember? Do you even remember who told you? I have looked into every claim like this, and there is nothing.
Its also interesting that Plato's entire story of Atlantis is actually a re-telling of what was passed on by Egyptians. I am not one of those that takes the Plato story and then expects to accept it, line by line, as detailed accurate facts. Anyone who played the game telephone knows that "facts" passed on via word of mouth can go awry. However, the essence of it I find very plausible.
The essence of the Atlantis story is not plausible, as the main part of it is a war with Athens. Athens didn't exist at that time.
I like how you dismissed Younger Dryas. That event is crucial. We now know it was real, not fantasy, nor a just "story".
The Younger Dryas was a cooling of the earth's temperature. It has nothing to do with anything we are talking about.
We know that multiple ancient cultures refer to a global flood, the sky being on fire, and in general tell stories that match what really happened from Younger Dryas. I do believe it wiped out previous civilizations and do believe it set human evolution back.
There is no evidence for a global flood at any time during or immediately after the Younger Dryas. And if there were a global flood, that does not constitute evidence for an advanced civilization.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
There is no such thing as irrefutable evidence in history. All we can do is go with the theory that is best supported by the evidence. So I ask you, does the evidence better support the idea that the pyramids were built by the Egyptians or by an unknown civilization that has never before been discovered? Which is more strongly supported?
Logic shows that you generally work from smallest to largest and not the other way round
Would the same logic dictate that the simpler, cruder pyramids were built before the more refined ones?
Anyone can scratch or paint their name on a rock, however it doesn't prove they built it.
Again, nothing is ever proven. And fortunately, that is not the only way, nor even the chief way, that objects are dated. But I have to ask you: if you saw a building downtown that had a cornerstone with the date of construction on it, would you immediately dismiss it as not worthy of any credence whatsoever?
where's the written evidence of the pyramids construction in Dynastic Egyptian history? Please show me.
What other period would they have been built in? Would you rather they be dated to a period during which no construction was going on? Or when the technology, resources, manpower, and logistics were insufficient? Remember: we always go with the theory that is best supported by the evidence. Please see my video on the True Purpose of the Pyramids: https://youtu.be/asJneqxPnjU
And while you're at it, explain how there is water erosion on the Sphinx enclosure that is unaccounted for.
Please see my video on the Sphinx: https://youtu.be/DaJWEjimeDM
2
-
@peterblood50 When I asked, ""Would the same logic dictate that the simpler, cruder pyramids were built before the more refined ones?" you responded, "Not if the pyramids made of stone were made at a much earlier time and that the Dynastic Egyptians were trying to 'copy' the work of those who actually cut, polished and moved massive numbers of of limestone and granite blocks in order to shape the Great Pyramid." That doesn't really answer my question though. All you did was find an exception to the rule. It would be like me answering your question, "Logic shows that you generally work from smallest to largest and not the other way round," with "Not if you worked from largest to smallest."
It appears the technology to acquire a successful conclusion to such a project just wasn't present when the later pyramids were built from mudbrick. What happened to it?
What technology are you referring to? I don't see the disappearance of any technology.
And, if it was available, why weren't the later pyramids built from large stone blocks?
For the same reason that we don't make cars of the heavy material we did in the 1940s. We got better at it. Sure, today's cars pale in comparison to old cars when it comes to sturdiness, but they are better in other ways. Are you the sort of person that think objects that were once made of metal but are now made of plastic is an indication of the decline of technology?
Actually, it IS the chief way that 'objects' (speaking of the pyramids here) are dated. They find a small statue of a pharaoh in a chamber or a painted cartouche that has not been shown to be of contemporary origin and immediately claim they've discovered the builder of the pyramid.
I'm afraid you are gravely misinformed.
Where is the proof of these claims in the archeological record?
You can start by watching my True Purpose of the Pyramids video: https://youtu.be/asJneqxPnjU
The Egyptians rise from the stone age and, more or less, suddenly have the vison, the will, and the technological know-how to create the most complex construction ever devised by humans.
Again, you have been misinformed. The material record very clearly shows gradual development over time.
Instead, consider an older civilization, stretching back, not 5000 years but 20,000 or 30,000 years.
I will give it serious consideration when I am provided evidence for its existence. As it stands, the evidence points away from its existence.
A catastrophe so devastating to the planet that only huge monuments made from solid stone were able to survive it.
A catastrophe that preserves nothing of the culture except stone monuments would have to be magic. We have material evidence of cultures going back way before that, which includes more than just stone.
I watched you presentation on the Sphinx and the conclusion that dew created the erosion on the Sphinx enclosure is pretty far fetched and is noted by many of the scientists you quote as being so.
Some geologists agree with you, and some don't. But it is geologists' opinions I take seriously on the matter, not yours. No offense. And the consensus among geologists as a whole is that geology CANNOT be used to date the Sphinx.
The other explanations of swelling ground water caused the erosion even before the sphinx enclosure was cut could be easily proven by cutting a hole in the bedrock and seeing whether this weathering is present at the time of the cutting.
Yes, but it can also be clearly seen in the cross-section. It also can be clearly seen that little water erosion is on the Sphinx's body.
Without any evidence other than conjecture, albeit academic, the hypothesis that it was ground water that caused the erosion has not been proven.
Fortunately, it isn't only conjecture. You might want to ask yourself if you are being equally critical of Schoch's ideas as you are the other ones.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You admit that river Saraswati did exist as a non perennial river ( and was not reaching to Sea ) to the east of Sindhu when Aryans composed Rgveda.
A point that was emphasized in the video is that only PART of the river was non perennial, but that the upper and lower reaches were perennial. The area where the Rigvedic people settled was in the perennial upper reaches. I am surprised you missed this! Also during rainy season, the river would have reached all the way to the sea.
Logically putting all the above points together, you would have to admit that RgVeda composers were aware of the existence of Sindhu River, which was mightier than Saraswati at the time of composition of RgVeda.
In our opinion, yes. In their opinion, no. And please note that, if we consider "mightiest" to mean the largest and strongest flowing river, the Sindhu river was mightier than the Saraswati IN ALL PERIODS OF HISTORY.
Here is the question, logically one would expcted that RgVedic people would praise the mightiest of the River they would have seen attributing all the glories they eulogized in “Nadi Sukta” to a comparatively larger and mighty river Sindhu and not to the tiny non perennial river Saraswati.
As I said above and in the video, the Sarswati was perennial, and the Sindhu was always larger. Anyone familiar with the contents of the Rigveda would know that the praise of Saraswati is not merely the praise of a physical river.
In other words, why did not RgVeda praise Sindhu which logically would have been the ideal candidate for all their praise due to sheer size and grandeur when compared with tiny non perennial Sarasvati.
Since the Sindhu was ALWAYS mightier than Saraswati from a physical perspective, I could ask you the same question. What is your answer? Why did the Rigveda composers praise the Saraswati over the Sindhu?
Also please note the important point that RgVedic people would have seen mighty Sindhu much before they saw puny Saraswati, since according to scholars Aryans moved from west to east.
You seem to be confused. It was not the composers of the Rigveda who migrated. It was their ancestors.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Wait, his whole argument is that there must have been a civilisation that pre-dated the Old Kingdom and had sufficient technology to construct things that the Egyptians would not have been able to based off our knowledge of their material science and technology levels. Your argument is that he isn't attributing these facts to a known civilization. That's kind of a circular argument, don't you think?
How is it circular? Since there is no known civilization with the technology he is describing, then it seems like a reasonable point to me. If you want to make a radical claim, such as that the technology levels fit a different civilization better than the Egyptian one, then you need to show us the better choice. The only possible way the physical evidence could support his claim without showing us a better candidate is if he demonstrated that it was IMPOSSIBLE for the Egyptians to have made it, and IMPOSSIBLE for any other known civilization on earth to have made it at any time in history. Only then, by process of elimination, could we surmise there was an unknown civilization that did it. But he has not come even close to doing that.
The level of symmetry, the scale and the ability to shape, into precise geometries some of the hardest stone we know of, with nothing more than copper chisels, pounding stones as well as silica abrasion is staggeringly short-sighted and ignores the fact that that shaping a 100 ton granite block into perfect geometries with interior right angles is either going to take time-frames that were unrealistic for practical use or be outright impossible.
Yikes, I just realized you didn't watch most of the video.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
the distinction between myth and history is culturally and historically conditioned. From my experience with Indigenous histories, but also looking at ancient European societies, there are usually some different types of literature or stories that are set aside as "sacred truths" and there is usually an element of realness to these that cannot be dismissed. To say that they contain or provide access to insights about "real history" is not untrue, but a great many of them must be understood as eternal (if you catch my drift).
Yes, I understand. But my comments were directed towards people who simply take myths as if they are main purpose is to be historical. They are definitely more complex than that. Many ancient myths from the same country contradict each other in a historical sense, and yet the ancients accepted all these contradictory myths as true. It shows that historicity was not really a big concern.
Perhaps a better interpretive framework for some of these things (on the European side esp.) would be the four sense of scripture used in medieval monasteries, where you had the literal, allegorical, tropological, and anagogical modes of reasoning being combined to create a greater understanding that integrated all four aspects.
Perhaps, but I have to wonder how far up on an ancient person's priority list the literal understanding would be.
I also wonder whether you think it's possible that the Younger Dryas occurred without anybody (or rather literally everybody) taking note of it in some way.
Even leaving out the impression it would make on the mind, for a person living on the ground at the time, many of the changes would have been imperceptible, because it moved slowly.
It seems highly unlikely to me that these "sacred truths" (i.e. being stories whose integrity is vouchsafed over millennia by protocols) do not hearken back to this era in some way. My Elders tell me that this is so, and time and time again our Elders have been proven right where written historical documents have been wrong.
It seems to me that some of these confirmations (like giant animals) may just be coincidence. I wouldn't doubt that natural disasters can be remembered for a long time, but knowing which disaster they are speaking about would be difficult to determine.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@flingonber "So our ancestors saw colors exactly the same way we do..."
My video is not about what colors they saw. It is about whether they had a word for the color blue.
He's not claiming that they couldn't see light reflected on the spectrum that we would consider blue, he's saying that color is NOT an inherent property of any object.
I never disagreed with this point.
You actually support his point at one point when you refer to Sanskrit "nila", which was one color to them but refers to a number of different colors to us on a spectrum from blue to black. It's similar with all of the other examples you gave, they might cover a range of color that includes what we would consider blue, but that doesn't mean that they identified blue as a color.
Incorrect.
You assume that the colors named meant blue because they appear to have referred to natural objects that we perceive as blue, but that's not a valid assumption because perceiving something visually is not a passive activity nor is the image created independent of our minds.
I don't follow your logic. If they saw blue, and they named it, they had a name for blue. They could name it anything they wanted.
Many ancient cultures did not distinguish between blue and other colors (often purple or green) but had names for shades that we don't distinguish from other shades now - this even happens right now, in the present, with some indigenous groups that have named and can distinguish between hundreds of shades of brown and/or green.
This does not contradict anything I said in the video.
One last example - you give the Hebrew word tekhelet as evidence that there was a word for blue, and it seems that way superficially because it's often compared to the sky, but the Talmud also compares tekhelet to grass, to lapis lazuli, and to indigo. All of those things are perceived by us as radically different colors ranging from light blue to green to dark purple.
Saying that tekhelet can include some of another color in its blue is not an argument that it doesn't refer to blue.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bircruz555 Some local archaeology has always been performed in Africa. But relative to the crucial information that the continent hides and is poised to give up - information that we now know is fundamental - current African archaeology is nothing to write about.
I am sure you are right that there are more archaeologists working in other parts of the world than in Africa, but there still is work being done in Africa. I get the impression that you are saying this because you are wishing something will be found that hasn't been found yet. Am I right?
Egyptology has been in possession of the information. But it has yet to bring itself to terms with it.
I thought you just said that the information has yet to be found. I am confused. Do you mean that archaeologists have already found this information and that there is a conspiracy to hide it?
Africa is the taproot of the archaeological issues that in recent times have populated YouTube. They talk about Atlantis, they talk about Gobekli Tepe, they talk about Karahan Tepe, and many other places. But none of these videos addresses where the people that settled them came from, and in the case of Atlantis, where it "is".
Every channel that I have seen which deals with prehistory and the development of humans says that humans came from Africa. The Out of Africa theory is the consensus theory among anthropologists. It is true that many channels cover these other places, but you are talking about pop channels run by members of the general public. Anyway, no serious scholar cover Atlantis, because all the evidence suggests it is just a made-up story. I have several videos on this.
In any case, the common viewer would strain to cite a single archaeological breakthrough that they can correlate with Africa.
Egypt is in Africa.
Archaeology is a conflicted discipline, and it has no one to blame for the spread of the pseudoarcheology and pseudohistory that is in vogue now but itself. The discipline has yet to understand that Africa is the taproot.
I am not sure I understand. Are you saying that you believe no one talks about Out of Africa enough, or about how Egypt was one of the earliest complex societies in the world, and that this is the reason for the spread of pseudoarchaeology? I don't agree with the premise, nor do I see how one leads to the other.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@rexsceleratorum1632 My question was about a nomadic tribe gaining enough power to become the elite in a civilization and father innumerable children with subject women.
You are speaking as if you think the very same individuals who entered the country were the ones who became elites. You do understand that this occurred over centuries, right? The only ones who were nomadic would have been the first generation. The elites were elites when they came in, because they were elites over their own people already. They were a small minority of the Indo-Aryan speaking people. The lower classes were the ones doing most of the intermarrying, not the elites. Since the lower class men brought few women with them, the only possible scenario was for them to marry local women. The locals did not need to be subjects for that to occur. And guess what religion the family embraces when an Indo-Aryan man marries a local woman?
IVC elites were replaced by the Arya regardless of whether they "converted".
IVC elites migrated south before most of this even happened.
I said "theoretical" equals.
Let's stick to reality.
In fact, the emperor or patricians who converted were socially superior to the average Jewish Christian, which proves my point. On the other hand, being an Arya or Aryaputra (son of an Arya, a common honorific that perhaps downplayed an indigenous mother) one was expected to have Aryan genes -- light skin and often tawny hair according to ancient texts (Patanjali's Mahabhashya).
Being of the upper class in Rome was by birth. I don't know what verse in Patanjali's Mahabhashya you are referring to, but that is from more than a thousand years after the events we are referring to.
I don't think you understand the dynamics. The brahmins were freely offering their superior seed to improve the stock of the lower castes until recent times.
Explain to me why DNA studies show that brahmins have a much higher percentage of R1a1 than any of the other varnas. They clearly were intermingling less.
Only the eldest son in a brahmin family was allowed to marry brahmin women, taking multiple wives. The younger brothers instead had multiple relationships with lower caste women who stayed in their homes, with their offspring remaining lower caste.
You are talking about things that happened AFTER power was already achieved. I thought our discussion was about how power was achieved in the first place. The rules of reproduction you keep citing are rules established by those in power.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@herbertzulu5284 in regards to the white supremacy conclusion that you like to jump to: according to the same logic, future historians who report on the european colonization of south africa are also white supremacists, simply for pointing out what they believe to be a historical fact
First of all, Sepehr is propagating falsehoods, not facts. Second, in your example, what if the person made it seem like the colonization showed racial superiority? That's more than just pointing out a fact. Third, there is a difference between pointing out one instance of white people colonizing other people and claiming that it happened in all instances.
you may have a problem with the term "aryan" that he frequently uses, and draw your slanderous conclusions from there.
My problem is that he doesn't know what it means. I would say that about any word he misused.
one could argue that you are imposing your own white supremacy ideals on other cultures (including the iranians who robert sepehr descended from) by refusing to acknowledge and use the term aryan, a self-denomination which has evidently been used for thousands of years until this day.
If he (or you) use it as the Iranians did, I would have no problem with it.
instead, you use the fabricated term "indo-european", which has no history or meaning at all
I use the terms that the experts in the field use. The age of a word is irrelevant. New terms are invented every year. Their value is in how well they describe what they are referring to.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
you outright dismissed we've lived on earth for hundreds of thousands of years. Being reset by cataclysms several times.
In order to believe in these resets, I needs to see convincing evidence for them.
Look at all the archeology that has legitimate dated 20,000 - 40,000 - 250,000 years ago. Mainstream dismisses these as screw ups by the archeologist in retrieval or lab dating it.
What archaeological remains are you talking about?
And they shut that archeologist down so they can't continue their work.
Every archaeologist needs to seek and obtain funding, and the competition to get funding is fierce. If they don't get the funding, that doesn't mean they are 'shut down.' Also, archaeologists don't fund each other. They have to get the money from elsewhere.
They do all they can so their find doesn't see the light of day.
That's not true.
Cultures don't digress.
If that were true, we wouldn't have different cultures.
Therefore if the advanced technology signs and finishes and hieroglyphics are more advanced than Egyptians it was obviously a prior culture.
They're not more advanced.
You can't place one block on a pyramid every 5 mins for 20 years.
I never claimed I could. And why would we be talking about what one person alone would be able to do?
Can't be done by us even today.
Anything that was built in ancient times can be built today.
Geologists and engineers are far better trained to comment on the things he talks about than any archeologist.
Every one has their field of expertise. Geologists aren't better trained to talk about saw cuts and masonry. Engineers are not better trained to talk about what has been found within an ancient culture.
And the erosion around the sphinx predates it, depending on who you listen to, 12,000 to 40,000 years. You can't get erosion with no rain during the time they claim it was built.
https://youtu.be/DaJWEjimeDM
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
When you are mentioning that the Greek version of the Bible contains more years in the genealogies than the Hebrew one, are you referring to the Septuagint VS the Masoretic?
Yes.
If so, the conclusion that they made their genealogies longer to make their lineage appear more ancient seems to me very far-fetched at best, and most like impossible. Far-fetched because a 660 years discrepancy wouldn't change much against some Egyptian and Sumerian kings lists dating to a way earlier past if I remember correctly.
Manetho's history of Egypt placed the beginning of the first dynasty 1,600 years before the Flood. And the Septuagint tries to bring its history more in line with this. As for Mesopotamia, Berossus' history starts 432,000 years before the Flood, but Jews of the time were interpreting his years as days. This would come out to 1,183 years.
there is a very compelling argument for the Masoretic text to be the one that dropped the hundreds years from the original text, where the Septuagint didn't.
I have a discussion of this in my book, Shadow on the Steps, considering every possible scenario.
And I have to disagree with your view on how academics welcome new data. Have you heard of David Rohl?
Yes, I have a couple of his books. Chronology is my main area of interest.
In the case of M. Rohl's findings, the problem isn't so much about new data, but about mistakes about the old data.
I used to think he was onto something, but I have discovered data that contradicts his views (and errors in his reasoning).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@shardula-ai4ourkids169 For some strange reason that I can't determine, you ignored my questions. You listed "observation" as a type of scientific analysis, and when I asked which observations of Mr. Oak you were referring to, you did not answer. You listed "inference" as a type of scientific analysis, and when I asked what inferences of Mr. Oak you were referring to, you did not answer.
If you could share your work of dating something - available in open source, I can explain these concepts with reference to your work.
I want you to explain them in reference to Mr. Oak's work. That is what we are discussing. We are not doing a comparison. We are analyzing Mr. Oak's book on its own.
Based on your work, I see you have invested heavily on Christian dating.
Christian dating? Never heard of it. When I provide dates for things, I commonly go by secular global scholarship. Please note the words secular and global.
If you could share your work on when was Jesus born. Point is NOT whether Jesus was born.. Point is how you date an event.
The date of Jesus' birth has nothing to do with the dating of the Mahabharata. Stay on topic.
Secondly, let us avoid words like "We (means who) disagree , I believe etc. Lets be objective. LEts say I diagree because of 3 reasons which are as follows.
That's a wonderful idea. You haven't done that. For example, I said I covered the most important points. I told you why the points I covered were the most important (because they are the foundation upon which Mr. Oak's argument rests), but when you said that I skipped the most important points, you did not give a reason why you think other points were the most important.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1. Graham Hancock has never claimed to be an Archaeologist, matter of fact he makes a point to state that he is a Journalit, Researcher, Author, and that he is not an Archaeologist. 2. Graham Hancock has every right to present and discuss/write about any subject, Theory, or alternative Theory. He expresses the facts with Resources + References and he is clear on the points of "his perspective".
That you for repeating and emphasizing what I said in the video.
If, at any time, an Academic attempts to belittle, slander, or threaten your reputation, that is the "Subject" that should be addressed, and it should be brought before the Administration and with a Qualified Academic Advisor, one that has a degree in Sociology, with a speciality in Behavioralist/Human Behavior, and with a full comprehension of the "Standards of Science and Research".
Someone like yourself?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Thank you for your comment. It is probably best you have unsubscribed, because this channel is full of information that exposes the falsehoods of fringe theorists, pseudo archaeologists, conspiracy theorists, and grifters. It sounds like you would hate that. There are other channels that will tickle your ears and tell you that what you already believe is the truth. But as a courtesy, I will take the time to respond to your statements.
You provide no proof that any of these tribes built the original monument.
The title of this video is "The Age of Tiwanaku." This information was fully provided in the video with references to the scientific studies that demonstrate this.
although the C14 decay rate is constant, the amount in the atmosphere available for uptake by living organisms can change in volcanic regions and can give an unreliable reading.
This is accounted for in C14 dating. Anyway, you do not seem to be aware that volcanoes skew the dates older, not younger.
Your claim that the Kalasasaya was built inaccurately as an observatory by its original builders is simply not believable.
That also is UnchartedX's claim. He thinks that, if the people who lived there at the time the carbon dates indicate built it, they would be unable to do it accurately. Yet you swallow this hook, line, and sinker without any pushback.
Posnanski's assumption that the Kalasasaya was built very accurately to record an ecliptic of 23° 8' 48" is a reasonable assumption
It was built accurately enough, just not as accurately as he and you wish it were.
and consequently the age of the construction of the Kalasasaya of 15000 BC is also a very reasonable assumption.
This is the most unreasonable assumption of all, as it requires ignoring all the other evidence that exists.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tonedumbharry I don't have any problem with your argument that Carlson's statement that, should our civilisation disappear today, there wouldn't be any evidence of it's existence in a few thousand years is false.
Well, that's good, because that is what the video was about.
His statement wasn't intended as a revalation of a deeply held truth. It was more of a "fancy that" QI type comment that was wrong. Nobody's perfect.
I totally agree.
I do have an issue with is your assertion that Carlson is promoting the idea that there was an advanced civilisation comparable to that of today, destroyed by catastrophy. The claims that your presentation goes on to debunk are not his. This is the "strawman" I am talking about.
I am sure there is no such assertion in the video. And the reason such an assertion isn't there is because I do not believe, and never believed, that Carlson is promoting the idea that there was an advanced civilization comparable to today. He does, however, believe it was advanced compared to what archaeologists say existed back then.
The claims that your presentation goes on to debunk are not his.
The information I provided concerns any and all materials that anyone might think could survive. I included it because people might wonder about such materials. But my main focus was on metal, which is what Carlson talked about, and bone, wood, etc.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Thank you for your comment.
First of all , your starting arguements demean the ancient indian astronomy which was very advance from its time, please read text like surya siddhanta and many more.
Ancient Indian astronomy was very advanced for its time. The issue is whether the system described in the Surya Siddhanta was used in Mahabharata times. Mr. Oak never established this in the book.
After that i think u did not read this book, you just pick heading pf the book and just joking on oak's scholarly work.
I read the whole thing. But it was built on a weak foundation, as I said.
In his books first chapter, he provides the date of mahabharat war and than explain from multiple arguements. Like position of arudhanti and bhisma nirvana etc. These arguements fits very accurately wiith modern astronomical facts. Yes , he said he used assumption , but he proved very well in his theory.
If argument A is weak, and argument B and C and D are built upon it, then no matter how strong B and C and D are, they do not hold. They fall.
After all, u did not mention any specific points which against oak's arguments. His data n dates match with modern astronomy.
They only match if his assumptions at the beginning are true.
So, before debunks his facts u need to - 1. Read his book page by page
I already did. I don't do book reviews on books I haven't read all of.
2. Please remove stereotype about ancient indian astronomy
What stereotype?
3. If you want to debunk someone's work than first read properly about base underling subject and provide specific facts
I already did read properly about the subject. I don't need to provide facts, because I don't have a theory. He has a theory. So he needs to provide facts.
4. Like Hitchens said if u want to disprove something u need provide opposite arguments
That is not what he said. He said, "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Oak made assertions without evidence, so we can dismiss them without evidence.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ObjectiveFairminded You are not getting my point. People who are proponents of Hindutva and are happy to declare themselves as Hindutva followers are arguing that the AMT is defective, and they point out the flaws.
They point out what they THINK are flaws.
Then they propose OIT with some facts and logic.
OIT has so many flaws that the worldwide community of archaeologists, historians, linguists, and geneticists don't even consider it a valid alternative. It is on the same level as Atlantis or Kumari Kandam. No one takes it seriously. That is why I talk about it on my Myths series, which I reserve for only the worst and kookiest ideas.
Why not just argue with them on the merits of their case.
I do.
Instead, when you impugn and focus on their motives and therefore feel that you do not need to address their facts and logic, they do the same to you.
You have a strange idea of what focus is. I would like you to count up the minutes from this video in which I talk about Frawley's motives, and then count up the minutes I talk about the facts. Tell me what you find. And then count up the minutes that HE talks about the motives of others, and compare. If you go to his original talk, you will find he spends even more time on this.
Why can we not organize a seminar or a set of seminars taking one area at a time and inviting proponents of each side to participate. The sessions should not mention one word on the historical racist behavior of the Western scholars or the supposedly biased perspective of the Hindutva group. Only facts, please.
Go ahead and organize it. I will come.
As the AMT people are attacked, they take diversionary tactics and make more assumptions. For example, the AMT people have trouble dealing with the Vedic texts and Saraswati so they ignore it or make some assumptions -- some pretty preposterous assumptions.
See my video on the Rig Veda.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Ok, as Hunter gatherers, you cannot develop “specialists”, bc you spent most of your time hunting l, every member of the tribe focus on that occupation only.
Hunters and gatherers are themselves specialists. You are assuming that every single person in the community must either hunt or gather. But in fact, only SOME people had to hunt and gather, and they gathered enough food, so that OTHERS could be fed and do other things.
Btw, this is from contemporary anthropology, not some pseudoscience.
Yeah? Please provide a reference.
The skills required to build the Gobekli Tepe would require two main components: 1. Artisan specialists 2. The establishment of apprenticeship, which would infer the population could sustain the luxury of supporting these artisans and to have the spare manpower to inherit those skills across generations.
They had that.
according to what I studied, hunters gatherers are limited to about 10 people per group.
I don't know what old book you read this out of, or if it was referring to hunter gatherers from a different time and place, but the fact that we have settlements in the Natufian culture with known populations of hundreds of people, this cannot possibly be true, can it?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@patricktilton5377 When I was a wee lad (born in '65), I remember that the consensus view was that human civilization didn't really get moving until about 4000 BCE or so, when the Sumerians and Egyptians started building cities and leaving behind artifacts with carvings on them. Aside from some so-called 'Venus'-figurines, little else was thought of as evidence that Mankind was anything other than an utter savage before then.
Yes, we no longer refer to prehistoric cultures as savages, but interestingly, to this day we still have not found evidence of urban society before 4000. Uruk in Mesopotamia is still the oldest known city.
The discovery of Gobekli Tepe -- a purposely buried site in Turkey dating back about 10,000 BCE or so, (iirc). should have forced the experts to admit that their then-prevailing views were short-sighted.
When GT was discovered, the history books were revised. But to have expected the history books to be revised BEFORE it was discovered, well, I wouldn't say that is reasonable. History is evidence-based. Anyway, GT hasn't moved the beginning of civilization back, because it isn't a civilization. (Keep in mind that civilization refers to urban society.)
2
-
@patricktilton5377 there has been a difference-of-opinion regarding whether or not History in general should be viewed from the perspective of Gradualism or from Catastrophism. 'Mainstream' historians tend to fall in the former camp. Tales of 'antediluvian' civilizations that were wiped out in our prehistory are often dismissed as legends or myths not founded on 'evidence'.
That's because the material record stretches back through all catastrophes. The ground carries an account of the past. You are representing gradualism and catastrophism as mutually exclusive, but they aren't. There are many extinction events that are generally accepted. Even with catastrophes, gradualism exists. I mean, if people had to start again after a catastrophe, how do you think their technology would progress? Gradually, of course. How do you think technology would come to be in the first place? Gradually.
it wouldn't surprise me if many of the Deluge myths that have survived all around the world are survivals in story -- oral tradition -- from then, evidence if not proof.
Since catastrophic floods have happened and continue to happen, you need something to tie them together in order to assume they refer to the same event. The fact is, the world's flood stories are not dated to the same time period, and the details are not the same (except in Western Asia).
I have to admit, though, that the suggestion that GT (and other similar sites in the region) was made -- and later PURPOSELY BURIED -- by something that WASN'T "a civilization" is . . . well . . . just laughable.
I'm confused. Do you think people didn't know how to bury things yet? Why would you need a city before you could bury something?
It wasn't just ONE GUY, or even a very small group, who did all that work, seemingly with all the time in the world to devote to that project!
Communities existed that numbered in the hundreds, even low thousands.
Who's to say that GT wasn't in fact their city, their urban setting for who knows how many years, before they decided to bury it all -- maybe in anticipation of returning to it later on, but not getting the chance -- and moving elsewhere for some reason or other?
We say there was a city when we find the remains of a city, not before.
Why can't we call GT a 'city', an 'urban center' once inhabited by a population of folks who wanted to preserve it for later, burying it so that other marauders wouldn't be able to take advantage of their perhaps sacred site, intending to dig it all up later on after migrating during the interim so as to avail themselves of game which they perhaps had depleted in that region?
Because no homes have been found, for one. It doesn't have any of the characteristics of a city. That's why.
Maybe they buried it too well, their descendants returning to the area being several generations removed and unable to find out exactly where they had buried it.
We say there was a city when we find the remains of a city, not before.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@srirj44 don't the events depicted in the Mahabharata have a bearing on establishing the time period in regard to the Chronology of our past.
Yes, the events do. But Oak is not talking about events. He is claiming that there are dates encoded in the text, dates that are not explicit, but implicit.
If you read the description of the unique astronomical phenomena depicted in the Mahabharata (for example in the Bhisma Nirvana section) and verify if in fact such phenomena occurred...
The Mahabharata says it is unique (supernatural), but Oak say it is natural. This is where he disagrees with the text. If I must choose between the text and Oak, I will choose the text. In other instances, Oak must make an interpretation of the words that goes beyond what the words say.
then would it not prove that people were recording such observations at that particular date/time period and then establish that at least part of the narrative is true and thus attesting its historicity.
If I wrote a book today, and I put the date "January 1, 500 AD," does this mean that my book has historicity? If I looked up what the stars looked like on that date, and I described them, would this make my book have historicity?
I have read the book and watched several videos, but I didn't fully understand the minutiae which is why I watched your review in the first place.
Don't worry, the minutiae do not matter, because they rest on a faulty foundation. It would be like worrying about the furniture in a house that is sinking into the earth.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@k-matsu I recommend that you search for terms like Dwarka, Murujunga, Yonaguni, Bimini, Mammalapuram, Godavaya, Atlit Yam, Trincomalee, Pohnpei, Le Thuy, Korčula, Ambalantota, Malden Island, the Khambat Cultural Complex.
I have already done all that. All of these are either fake, not large manmade structures, or not from 10,000 BC.
You know what I think? I think you haven't read the archaeological reports yourself. You just read this on someone's blog, heard it on a forum, or saw a YouTube video.
Until YOU start making actual efforts to study the evidence, you will be just as lost as the nutjobs.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Sorry, i think it's not that easy with new theories. Because there actually are a lot of lunatics, those people who find new theories are always in danger to be called that way.
Not true. If the methods and reasoning are sound, the person's theory will be respected, even if disagreed with. I know several controversial scholars, who although their opinions are in the minority, are still respected professionals in their fields.
Especially if they're outsiders or newcomers, they can cite so many history books, put the finger on so many black holes and dark ages in history, if they contradict common belief amongst historians, they are dismissed as not worth talking about.
If an outsider or newcomer's scholarship is good, they will not be dismissed. If they are dismissed, it's because their reasoning is poor, or their knowledge of the subject is lacking.
Babylon was accused in the bible concerning a time long before Nebuchadnezars time.
Accused of what?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
putting to rest the stubbornness of some factions of historians that think civilizations can only be 6 or 7 thousand years old
It is not that historians think civilizations CAN only be 6 or 7 thousand years old, it is that they have only FOUND civilizations that are 6 thousands years old. And by civilization, they mean complex urban states. No evidence of such a state has been found at Gobekli Tepe. If it later is, then history will be revised. It is as simple as that.
After all, we have both the Egyptians and Sumerians that have recorded kings list that go back much further than that.
These are secondary sources, written long after the times they describe. For a discussion about how historians approach sources, see here: https://youtu.be/GZYNL0-KHC4
And there are the universal flood myths that all ancient societies seem to share, along with a few other ones, that mark their 'worlds' or 'ages '.
Flood stories are universal, because floods are universal. There is no reason to believe they all are talking about the same flood.
I'll take the Plato account of Atlantis as probably authentic as the Egyptians themselves scribed an account of their founders coming from an island that was sunk by the sea, on one of their temple walls.
We have no first-hand account of this. But one thing we do know is when Egyptian writing was invented, and that was LONG after any such event would have taken place.
Imagine what we might have known about ancient societies if the Library of Alexandria had never burned.
History is not based on imagination.
There are great cities submerged in the Mediterranean and around India and Indonesia that we know of
Not from the time you are talking about.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@piskmanne They are two very different arguments, one says that humans could not have built certain structures, the other says that the attributed civilizations are very unlikely to be the builders.
No, they both say that the attributed civilizations are very unlikely to be the builders. And that is the argument I address in the video.
This shows that what youre arguing against is not the most widely held view. By "advanced" most researchers mean advanced relative to the attributed culture, not relative to us.
I realize that. I never said otherwise. But to claim that high-speed precision power tools were used (which most do), that is well beyond medieval. Keep in mind that, if any of them acknowledge that the tech was available in any time period after the end of the last ice age, they can't by process of elimination posit a pre-cataclysm civilization. For it to work, it can't fit any other time period.
So just because its possible theres no reason to doubt it?
Not when all the other evidence points to it being correct.
Even the most impressive carvings on granite in Egypt come nowhere close to the precision of the boxes and statues.
The precision of the boxes and statues has never been demonstrated. So you cannot make such a statement.
Take Ollantaytambo for example, the polygonal masonry at the bottom and the sloppy stonework on top are attributed to the same civilization.
I don't know which part of Ollantaytambo you are talking about, but let me ask you: when you see a bad repair job today, do you conclude the repair was done by a different civilization?
I suggest you climb down from your high horse and actually read and listen to the people presenting an alternative view.
I presented my honest opinion in this video after studying the subject for several years and listening to everyone else's argument. I can't understand why you've gotten so bent out of shape that I dared to express it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This is what the narrator ACTUALLY said: "I am a bit wary of putting full faith into the opinion of modern engineers about ancient tech. Now, as I said, I definitely see value in getting their assessments. Because many engineering principles are timeless, I am sure they have some insights to offer, which can be added to the expertise we gather from others. This is, after all, an interdisciplinary investigation. But relying exclusively on the testimony of modern builders, or almost exclusively, can result in some untrustworthy conclusions. I say that because of my awareness of what we call the historian’s fallacy. Have you ever heard of it? It’s a fallacy in reasoning that historians have learned to beware of. The historian’s fallacy is committed when someone judges the past according to present standards. It’s a cognitive bias that we all have and we all need to keep in check. Now, this fallacy can be committed a number of ways, but in this case, we have people accustomed to modern methods of construction, and they are assessing how ancients did construction. When that is done without the accompaniment of knowledge about the times being examined and knowledge of how the ancients did things and thought about things, faulty conclusions can be reached. We will continue, nevertheless, to give due consideration to the perspective of these modern builders."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
David, as with your other videos, pl gather factual unbiased info before making a video.
Please see the references below the video. Guess who read them all? Yes, me.
First you need to define aryan as when you say info-Aryan it looks like they are two distinct cultures.
I did. "Indo-Aryan, if you don’t know, is a language group, a subset of the larger Indo-European language family. So the term Indo-Aryans refers to people who speak Indo-Aryan languages." Did you miss this? It was near the beginning. And then later, I said this: " Aryan is sometimes used as shorthand for Indo-Aryan, and I myself have used it as such in the past. But the preferred term among linguists today is Indo-Aryan, and so that is what I will use to name this linguistic group from now on. Plus Aryan has been used by some as a racial epithet, and I don’t want to confuse people by using it. We are talking about a language family." This is also something you can look up.
If so why all Vedic/culture went to India and a very little towards Europe?
Vedic culture did not go to India. Vedic culture arose in India.
Btw, AIT is still taught in US and Indian schools.
Please show me a current textbook that teaches AIT.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Claiming that "pseudo-scientists" are determined by a lack of academic credentials has gotta be one of the absolute worst things I've ever heard attempted to be argued
I know, right?
considering that most experts now agree that modern academia is largely untrustworthy.
Um...what experts are you talking about? Chances are they are academics.
Here is an NPR/Freakanmoics podcast interviewing experts in Sociology about just how bad it's gotten - "Why Is There So Much Fraud in Academia?" thats the name, it's from NPR.
Well, yeah, that's Sociology.
And here's one just for you archeologists! "Clovis First" which despite the lies of many academics was actually taught as fact as late as 2013 despite being proven conclusively false in the 90s (although the papers proving it false were heavily criticized and refused to be published and smeared the authors names).
I talked about this in a video. You got the story wrong.
I will never understand why supposed academics, who worship "science" and "truth" above all else, completely ignore all the truth and facts and numerous accredited individuals who are positively shouting from the rooftops about how untrustworthy modern academia is.
Accredited individuals? You mean academics? It's interesting how you trust people in academia to tell you this.
The current system breeds falsehood and lies, thats not my words it's top experts in most fields including hard sciences like Chemistry and Medicine not just social sciences (which are much worse statistically, including Archeology/Anthropology).
Worse statistically? What does that mean?
There is no way to research this topic and not know about all the fraud and lies in academia today, so why do people like yourself ignore it or even downplay/attack those who try to address such issues? It makes you look like you're in some kind of pyramid scheme.
You seem to draw far-reaching conclusions from very little evidence. You hear complaints by people in academia that certain problems need to be fixed, and you conclude that academia is all lies.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Clearly, you do not know the meaning of the word ‘pagan’ that you are using.
I know the meaning very well.
She ate a fruit and conceived, so that is Virgin Birth.
But nothing like the described birth of Jesus.
Immaculate conception is indeed mythologically synonymous with virgin birth.
No, it isn't.
Immaculate conception means conceiving without sin
No, it means BEING conceived without sin. And in Christianity the term is applied to Mary, not Jesus.
do your research, and you will find that communication between Greece, Persia, and India was very common in the Bronze Age. Look up Græco-Buddhist Art.
Greco-Buddhist art begins in the Iron Age.
There are several passages in Saint Paul’s letter to the Galatians look nearly same as those in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.
I say baloney, but please provide your references, so we can fact check.
Zeus is God. Dionysis is therefore the Son of God.
You should make sure to distinguish between descriptions and titles, and capitalize accordingly.
You are wrong. This is no conflation. This is a division. It is the same god, not two different gods.
Well, there are many scholars who disagree with you.
Mithras, Mithra, and Mitra, are the same thing, and they are divination of the Covenant.
You speak as if you know, and yet scholars are divided on this issue. But that is not really the important thing. The important thing is when the customs in Mithraism, which are similar to Christianity, were first introduced. You cannot assume that they existed in Persian religion unless you have evidence for it. Religious beliefs and practices change over time.
The Romans may or may not have understood the Zoroastrian beliefs, but they very well understood the Vedic interpretation of Mithra, which is Covenant.
Please provide your primary sources that demonstrate this.
It has been long established that Mithraism preceded Christianity
If someone argues this, it does not mean it is "established." It is not established until it become the global consensus.
You need to read more.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The biggest popular myth that exists amongst academia and main stream archeologists is that ancient civilizations did not 'INHERIT' large portions of their infrastructure from previous, as yet unidentified civilizations.
That's the first I ever heard someone say a myth was something that didn't happen. Not only that, your statement is untrue. Historians and archaeologists FREQUENTLY identify artifacts and architecture that were taken from, or copied from, previous cultures. All that needs to be there is evidence for it.
Examples 'Polygonal walls at Sacsayhuaman, inherited by The Inca in Peru, The Pyramids, including polygonal masonry inherited by the Ancient Egyptians, The Polygonal Walls on Easter Island inherited by the Rapa Nui.
The polygonal masonry in Peru is completely unique and bears little resemblance to that found in other parts of the world and from entirely different time periods. Anyone can see that.
Even more astounding, every one of these civilizations/peoples cultural/historical writings and religions describe 'Inheritance or gifting', the people themselves do not take credit for building the structures found on there lands and used by them.
Really? Give me a couple of examples of descriptions of inheritance or gifting.
For example, not one single set of Hieroglyphs in Ancient Egypt has been found that describes how the pyramids, or even similar buildings were constructed.
This is not a description of inheritance or gifting. This is an argument from silence. You're just saying that something hasn't been found. Considering that 99.99% of Egyptian records have been lost forever, this is not surprising.
There are no pictorial drawings of Loin Clad Egyptian slaves pulling 70 ton Granite blocks on wooden rollers up huge ramps made from 'sand'. And yet every school child in the western world is 'brainwashed' with this information as if it were 'established fact'.
Find me a single book that says that Egyptian slaves definitely pulled 70 ton granite blocks on wooden roller up huge ramps. Every single book I have seen says this is just an educated guess.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You repeatedly refer to one "authority" or another on the topic you address, as if only those individuals saw through the befogged lens of the past correctly.
The only authority in history is evidence. So that is why I focused on that. I do not argue any points based on who said what. If I cite someone, it is the evidence that they provided that matters, not them.
Truth is, humans have existed as "homo sapiens" for as long as 100 to 200 thousand years, according to DNA researchers. This is about 20 to 40 times as long as the history we "know" about, however poorly. In fact, we barely know 2,750 years of the 5,000 +/- years we claim as our "ancient past".
When you have time, go and check how far back archaeological evidence goes. You may be surprised to know that we have an archaeological record of material evidence going back much further than 200 thousand years.
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but humans are easily bored, inveterately curious, and incurably suspicious. To assume that only our culture had the necessary skills and abilities to develop the world we take for granted is stunningly arrogant and incredibly naive.
If I am understanding your point correctly, you seem to be saying that humans should have developed a world like ours long before our own time. Is this right? You will be happy to know that I do not believe that humans of only the past 5,000 years had the capability. But I also do not believe that the traits you describe automatically result in civilization, nor do I believe that humans need always have had these traits. They could, in fact, be culturally developed. And I do not think that civilization was inevitable. It need not ever have happened at all.
Many things are possible. But it is important to distinguish between possibility and probability. History is not a story of what COULD have happened. It is a story of what probably happened. And probability is determined by the evidence that has been left behind. Myths and legends are not the only evidence we should be looking at. In fact, there are many forms of evidence far more reliable. Nor should we be imagining evidence that existed in books that were supposedly burned without any evidence for the contents of these books.
A look at Google Earth will show the disbelieving a heavily-scarred Earth, with signs of massive floods on a scale never seen in modern times, twisting and turning stone into extremely strange shapes
I'm sorry, but looking at Google Earth is not geology. Go find some geological studies, and then you'll have something. I'm sorry, but I can't take what Joe Shmoe found while surfing the internet as strong evidence of anything.
Your conclusions seems to be "Because we don't know, we can't know", but we do have "anecdotal" evidence, the stories passed down by survivors.
My position, which is the position of all historians, is that we cannot conclude something happened until we have convincing evidence for it. We entertain all feasible possibilities, but we can't draw a conclusion if it is not sufficiently supported by what we find. And of all possible conclusions, we go with the one that best fits the available evidence. We update as new evidence comes in.
As for stories, keep in mind that you yourself said, "the ancient past is littered with catastrophes." Indeed, catastrophes happen regularly every year up to the present. It would be unreasonable, therefore, to conclude that all or most of the ancient stories about a catastrophe (such as a flood) refer to the same catastrophe. Statistically this is unlikely.
Do you have anything to say about any of the evidence presented in the video?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jaideepreddy13 - No unmistakable evidence has been found yet that proves that the Vedas were composed outside of India so to claim that they have been is factually inaccurate.
Excellent. Since I never said the Vedas were composed outside of India, this is an unnecessary point to make.
- No evidence has been found that clearly links any particular migration into India with the Vedic Sanskrit and the Vedas and adjoining Vedic philosophy so to claim otherwise is being willfully ignorant and the reason I do not like these kind of videos is because that association is made every single time with no proof whatsoever.
You're incorrect about this one. Historical linguistics has presented plenty of evidence that Sanskrit comes from the Indo-Iranian language subfamily, and its parent language is also the parent language of Avestan. This means that the ancestors of Sanskrit-speaking people once lived outside of India.
- None of us can be arrogant enough to claim to know the full truth when it comes to ancient history, even scholars are making "best guesses" and speculating based on evidence found which in most cases but especially in this one isn't complete and compelling.
I am in full agreement that we can't claim to know the full truth. But I find the genetic evidence presented in the scientific studies I surveyed to be very compelling.
- No evidence has been found linking the IVC script with so called Dravidian languages. It hasn't been deciphered at all. So any such claims are untrue.
Ah, so you are in agreement with what I said in the video at 08:30. So then why are you bringing this up?
The key point in contention is not whether migrations took place into India, the key question is whether this particular migration (between 2nd and 1st Millennium BC) brought with it Vedic Sanskrit and Vedic texts or were the Vedas compiled entirely in India (not to be confused with the entity known as a India today since that geography now belongs to multiple political entities today, so it would be better to refer to it as the Indo-Iranian geographical entity).
No, that's not the point at all. It may be that some of the hymns of the Rig Veda were possibly composed (orally) before Sanskrit speakers entered India, but by far the vast majority of the Vedas are believed by scholars to have been composed in India, and certainly written there.
In every video of yours you keep ridiculing ppl for referring to the Aryan Invasion theory and trying to debunk it.
I didn't ridicule anyone.
The reason you do that is because you have no idea/sense of the fact that this is still being taught in most school textbooks and history books in India, is commonly believed and is used by politically motivated groups to cause divisions in India.
That's a shame. But it doesn't change the fact that scholarship has moved on from it. Blame the textbook writers, not the historians and archaeologists.
It's great that scholars don't believe in it now but it's insensitive of you not to understand why these guys are still trying to debunk it.
Oh, I see. So you think I should be more understanding of that. You may have a point. But Abhijit Chavda clearly knows that scholars have moved on from it, and yet he chooses to obscure that fact. This seems dishonest to me, and I don't think I am wrong for calling him out on that.
Since you keep mentioning the "consensus position" and you value an evidence based approach, what was the evidence on the basis of which the AIT was the "consensus position" for more than a century?
Historical linguistics chiefly, and some limited archaeological evidence that seemed to suggest a conquest of the IVC (which turned out to be incorrect).
Scholars instead of starting from evidence and what made logical sense twisted it to form a narrative that suited them and have left it future scholars to keep trying to disprove this position and keep changing it.
I disagree. While I acknowledge that scholars were (and are) often influenced by their own biases, I do not think this was conscious. I think they were working with the evidence they had at their disposal.
Currently it is the AMT which I'm positive will be fully debunked in the future. So to keep using the weight of the "consensus position" to support your argument isn't enough.
You can find my thoughts on that here: https://youtu.be/ytltvDRPErY
You cherry pick research papers that suit your narrative and if papers do not support your argument you dismiss them for some reason or state that there are exceptions.
I went through every single paper on video, even the ones that pointed away from Indo-Aryan migration. There was no cherry-picking. I was as honest as I could be about their contents. If you have a specific example that indicates otherwise, please give it.
Pls show me one instance in the Vedas where castes are classified as "higher, middle and lower". You won't find any.
Why? Do you disagree with what I said at 09:53?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@BeaJai-xl5he All Dravidian movements have the same goals & narrative - that the Dravidian south indians are racially & culturally different from the North Indians. - that the Brahmins and other UCs were originally Aryan migrants from outside of India, and that they imposed their language, Sanskrit, their religion and heritage on the Dravidian people.
These are ideas, not goals.
- Dismantle Brahmans& their foreign religion
This has nothing to do with creating a separate state.
The movement you are talking about by Periyar added few more items to the list - a separate Dravida Nadu state - rejection of Indo Aryan languages / revitalization of Dravidian languages - Dismantle Sanatana Dharma
So you agree that it is a separate movement with different goals. You have confirmed what I said.
None of these movements were triggered by Hindutva! It already existed. In fact it started way earlier!
Not nationalism. I can't comment on what triggered what. That is something Disha said. Take it up with her.
What’s the root cause of this division? Aryan Invasion theory & missionaries going around spreading it!!!
Aren't you glad historians abandoned that theory decades ago?
Historically, during the Chola, Pandya etc, there was no such division between Tamilians and North Indians.
That's what Disha said.
British colonialists and their historians created this narrative about Tamil being a separate language, older language, separate culture and therefore superior to Sanskrit, etc etc
That's what Disha said.
I speak the so called Dravidian language Malayalam. 70-75% words in my language are Sanskrit words. Telugu is also 75% Sanskrit.
That is from influence, not ancestry.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Instead of taking cheap shots at strawmen, why don't you try giving the same treatment you gave this video to any of the 99 documentaries from the UnchartedX channel? Try dismantling his Serappeum series, or his Ancient Engineering series, or his documentary about the ancient tube drills or the precision stone jars...
I already have. https://youtu.be/n_NguZUDku4
I'm only 13 minutes into this video and I've already lost count of how many times you've cherry-picked, used the strawman, circular reasoning, the continuum fallacy, false dilemma fallacy, red herrings, appeal to authority, and on and on.
Please point them out, and let's see if you're right.
Btw, you mention Chris Dunn, have you ever even read his book "Lost Technologies of Ancient Egypt?"
Yes, and I address his arguments in the video I linked above.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Brien never said it was impossible for humans to build these.
I never said he did.
He does get advice of geologists, industrial engineers, etc.
Not nearly enough.
The granite blocks and columns show machining techniques.
Yeah, machines the ancient had.
They could NOT have been made with primitive copper chisels, etc., or even poured concrete like the Romans used.
I never said otherwise. Did you even watch the video?
My husband, who is an engineer, and I agree with Brien's assessments. Many college educated people agree with Brien.
How many of those people know anything about ancient (I repeat, ancient) engineering? You do realize things are done differently today, right?
I laugh at those who think the Romans and Greeks had this technology to work with granite on this scale so precisely.
The evidence that they did is overwhelming and impossible to dismiss.
I understand "peer-reviewed" academics. They never go out their circles.
I don't know what you mean by "circles," but interdisciplinary research is done all the time.
They pat themselves on their backs, sit behind their desks and make stuff up to obtain grant money.
Mr. Foerster is someone who makes stuff up for money, and he makes more than an academic does.
I've yet to see anyone recreate even just one 800-1000 ton block or granite column that size to prove their "theories" that the Romans built the "original" Baalbek.
Why do you think someone without training in the ancient skills would be able to do that?
These ancient sites show several layers of building over top of even older constructions. Most archaeologists will tell you this.
Indeed they do. Baalbek, for example, has layers underneath the large stones that date to the Iron Age and Stone Age.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
he didn't say they didn't come from the Egyptians he said they seem to be beyond what they were capable of. Didn't and seem do not mean the same thing.
He definitely did say they didn't come from the Egyptians. He dates them to a period before the Egyptians were there.
besides Alexander the Great did burn down the library of Alexandria, so maybe that library had all the information of who built what and how they built it.
History is based on evidence that we have, not on evidence that we don't have.
I don't think we will ever know for sure since even experts dating is off because carbon dating has been proven to not be exact.
The margin of error on carbon dating is not thousands of years off.
if it was simple for the ancients to build these structures with basic tools wouldn't common sense say that we could replicate what they did with ease due to being more advanced than they were as far as having machines, lasers, diamond cutters, cranes, a better understanding of engineering, a better understanding of mathematics etc?
No, because it would cost a lot of money, and the methods have been lost, and the skills are no longer there.
2
-
@jonathanmcmullen3324 You can't tell me that of all the experts on the planet, out of everybody who studies these things, of all the ancient texts we have that NOBODY knows building techniques that the ancients had
With so much missing information, our knowledge is limited. We can know some things, but not other things.
and besides you missed the part where I said that the people who claim to know how it is built haven't replicated it.
Replication of the entire object is not necessary. Only the individual processes need to be replicated, because all that needs to be shown is that it was possible. So, for example, you don't need another Notre Dame cathedral built exactly like the original just to be able to know that Notre Dame cathedral could be built. That would be a silly thing to expect, would it not?
For example you mention that Moss guy in the video who has evidence that the blade was a slight curve etc etc. He puts this information on a book showing how he thinks it would have worked, but fails to actually build something like that and show us.
That is because he is not a stone worker. But other people have done the experiments.
You say history is built on what we have not what we don't have, but we don't have anything proving that they didn't have technology that could rival ours, but yall are quick to dismiss it.
You're playing with words. That's a double negative.
The guy in the video did say it seems as though the technology is beyond what they had he says it right at the beginning.
It seems like that only to someone who doesn't know anything about ancient Egypt.
Carbon dating isn't thousands of years off? Then why is it when an ancient temple or whatever is found they give it a couple thousand year cushion of time when it may have been constructed.
Not true.
Example (not factual just an example) Puma Punku is 4 to 6 thousand years old. That's a 2000 year gap there.
If the example isn't factual, then you just made it up. Give a real example.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@riccardodececco4404 what do you mean by "relative" versus "absolute"?
Sorry, I should have explained. Relative means the chronological order of the artifacts without regard to any dates. Absolute means the actual dates given to the artifacts.
The artefacts are referred to a certain time frame, the tools as well - however, all practitioners agree that you can´t work and achieve refined results in the objects with the tools referenced here
This is not so. I have spoken to many practitioners who say you can work and achieve such results with the tools referenced. It all depends on who you talk to. Opinions vary.
You simply CANNOT work on granite with copper chissels
You can work on them with stone chisels.
I also checked some of the literature you presented here - a lot of assumption in there, not proofs, like for the big stone saw, "indicators" but not evidence.
You must be referring to Stock's work. He conducted experiments to help shed light on the question. He never claimed to prove exactly how it was done.
To be sure: stone saws existed (like today), though probably not on the scale simply ASSUMED in that article, but you can´t achieve the practical results presented here. Not to mention the time investment, as was tested repeatedly with practical experiments.
That's not what I got out of those experiments. They told me that it was achievable. If a guy can, with a handful of experiments, accomplish that, what could a team of master craftsmen, receiving training from the previous generation and devoting years of practice in the methods, accomplish?
The snobbery of people who are simply paper pushers over practitioners with decades of work experience in practical fields always astounds me.
I see it a bit differently. It seems to me that modern practitioners looking down their noses at ancient practitioners is a bit snobby.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
In India Dwarka in Gujrat Coast is almost 7k years old city as per Archilogists carbon dating.
I investigated that. See my Dwarka video: https://youtu.be/5cX_IF5YFo4
Kashi or "Varanasi" is not one of the oldest, but the Oldest countinuously living city in the world, which also has mentioning in Rig Veda, which was written approximately around 22k years back (Read Nilesh Nilkant Oaks Timeline of Saraswati River, Ramayana and Mahabharat).
Nilesh Oak's ideas contradict archaeology, linguistics, genetics, anthropology, history, and are based on flawed reasoning. He is not a credible source. The archaeological findings at Varanasi don't go back further than the 1st millennium BCE.
Srinagar in Kashmir is almost 15k year old city, as it has a mention in Rig Veda
The Rig Veda is not that old.
Rameshwaram - It is almost 14k + years old region, where Sethu Samudram or Adams Bridge (Name given by Christian British, who artifically added a story of Mr Adam :D), we call it Ram Setu (Ram's Bridge). "Ramayana" has a story of how it was made. This book as almost 200 Astronomical and Geological evidences of all that was happend during the time of Ram.
Again, Nilesh Oak is not a credible source.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@LVSJT Okay, so how far back in time am I allowed to go with examples? If we go back to a time when there were no states with legalities related to immigration, we might have to go back to before written documentation. I can give you many examples from recent times (Pakistan taking in millions of refugees, millions of German moving to different countries after WWII, etc.), and I can give you many ancient examples (Dorians moving into Greece, Visigoths migrating to the Balkans with the permission of the Roman emperor, the Romani moving to Europe from the Middle East, the Jewish diaspora, etc.), but I have a feeling that no matter what example I give you, you are going to give a reason as to why you think it should be excluded from consideration. You're also not taking into account that the population of the world was considerably smaller back then, and there were huge unoccupied tracts of land. I'm not stating my own theories. I am just explaining to you why the historical consensus has changed.
2
-
2
-
@LVSJT Ah, I see now what the crux of the issue is. In the case of both the Hyksos and the Indo-Aryans, it has become increasingly clearer that the immigrants, before rising to power, adopted much of the regional culture (in addition to retaining some of their own). The Hyksos adopted much of Egyptian culture (language, customs, etc.), and the Indo-Aryans adopted elements of local South Asian culture (customs, religious practices, etc.). This indicates the passing of time, and it may be that several generations passed before they gradually took control over certain areas. In order for us to call it an invasion, we would have to assume that the conquest accompanied the migration. But if conquest followed later, then we cannot call the migration an invasion.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@standupp2885 You're just going to keep changing the topic until you find something that sticks, huh?
You people would have us believe that mankind existed for approximately 250 thousand years, as "hunter/gatherers", with no progress at all, beyond simple mud hut villages. Then within the space of a a few hundred years, all of a sudden they develop, written language, stone temples and buildings, commerce, art, agriculture with domesticated animals and plants.
I don't know who "you people" are, but no. I have never said that, nor has any anthropologist, archaeologist, or historian that I know. In fact, they say all those things developed gradually over a long period of time.
In addition to this they also had advanced knowledge of the solar system and knew about Neptune and Uranus.
That is factually incorrect.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Thank you for your lengthy comments. I am confused why you are referencing the Vedanga Jyotisha, when, as you acknowledge yourself, it comes from a thousand years after the time we are considering. You claim: "While there is no precise estimation, it is likely that astronomical practices in ancient India can be traced back to several centuries or even millennia before the composition of the Vedanga Jyotisha." But you provide no evidence for this claim. No historian accepts that the astronomy of the Vedanga Jyotisha can be traced back millennia before its composition, so where are you getting it from? No one has ever traced it back that far.
Also, I never said that mathematics were not used in the Vedic period, so I don't know where you got that from either.
All of the information I share about Sanskrit comes from Sanskrit experts, so whether I know the language or not is irrelevant.
As for Romila Thapar, I have never been shown any evidence of her spreading misinformation. The only thing that anyone ever refers to is the dispute about the origins of the Ayodhya temple, and she stands by what she said, and other historians agree with her about it. I have her book on ancient Indian history, which I am sure you have not read, but I have, and it is excellent work.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@cristiangalvan9219 Because Klaus Schmidt, the original excavator of the site, found contemporaneous archeological evidence to point to the builders of Gobekli Tepe being the buriers as well through carbon dating of animal bones soot and the like within the artificial deposition, which he himself asserted was placed all at once.
You're mistaken on that point. Pillar 43 and the pillars like it are from the earliest level of the site, not the latest.
Revelations of the Pyramids popularized this astronomical clock claim, and perhaps an examination of that documentary would make for another great video for you.
Yes, I have been considering addressing some of the claims of that movie for some time.
I dont agree with most of your conclusions on the grounds of omission of important complimentary evidence for many of the theories you seek to disprove, but the content I do agree with you on has landed you a respected sub.
Thank you for the sub. I appreciate that. Yes, whenever I make videos on a particular subject, people often say, "But what about this?" and "What about that?" They are always things somewhere else and somewhen else. You have to be patient. I can't cover every single subject in one video.
The book " The Secret of the Inca" by William Sullivan blew this new look at the Andean understanding of precession and astronomy wide open.
Okay, thanks. Here is a review of the book that might interest you. http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1997JHAS...28...88A/0000088.000.html
2
-
@cristiangalvan9219 When I said 'artificial deposition' I and Schmidt as well as his team referred to the sediment that was placed by human hands to bury the structure after its use had expired.
Yes, that is what I was talking about too.
You and I both know that the quality of the enclosures at GT deteriorated over time, and GPR of the surrounding area (which also traces out the geoglyph of the Taurus bull) doesn't seem to show that any of the enclosures are much bigger than the Enclosure D.
Right. So I reminded you that the so-called time capsule came from a time much earlier than the burying of the site. The makers of the pillars are not the same as the people who buried the site. You said the builders were the buriers. Not true.
Whoever gradually lost the inherited knowledge of the site as the years dragged on saw fit to bury it, and we know this because the same bones and organic remains found within the artificial deposition that human hands buried the site with have been carbon dated to the end of the site's use
Exactly what I am saying.
I suppose the biggest qualms I have with some of the content you propose is your insistence discrediting the usual suspects in this field of archaeology without ever addressing the core tenets of evidence within their theory that ties it all together, like Gobekli Tepe lying within a geoglyph of what we now interpret as Taurus with the largest enclosures representing the Pleiades, and with this knowledge knowing the builders of the site likely intended such a representation.
That bizarre proposal is not addressed in this video. The question is: Did my criticisms of Dr. Sweatman's proposal have merit? All you are doing is pointing to someone else's hypothesis and complaining that I didn't put that in this video too. That's called "Whataboutism." If you want me to address a different proposal, point me to a video that presents it well, and I can tackle that in another video. Dr. Sweatman did not appeal to this geoglyph proposal as support for his hypothesis. Even if this geoglyph proposal were true, it doesn't make Dr. Sweatman's argument any better. He still uses poor reasoning. That doesn't change.
As to Revelations of the Pyramids, all I will say is that you'll do a service to yourself and your critics by approaching your analysis on the basis of geomancy, which like mathematics was discovered, not invented.
I am perfectly open to the idea that the people of the time could have practiced some form of geomancy. The problem is that too many people think that if they can demonstrate the a geomantic interpretation fits, that is proof. It isn't. It's very similar to the number games I talk about in my Pyramid Magic Numbers video.
I still attest to the 'unbelievable mother culture' teaching these cultures this truth on account of the sheer similarity.
People keep telling me about these "sheer similarities," and I still haven't been shown anything remarkable. Maybe one day I will.
2
-
@cristiangalvan9219 I dont see the point of arguing over semantics here.
I don't remember ever arguing over semantics. I have only been disagreeing with actual points you are making.
As far as we can deduce, there was was direct cultural line from the builders to the buriers of the complex,
What evidence makes you deduce that?
and a proposal has even been made that GT was akin to the kivas of the American SW in that the pillars acted as supports for a sort of roof.
Not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that two cultures in different parts of the world couldn't have thought up pillar supports for a roof independently?
This wouldnt be far from credulity considering near identical sites like GT (t shaped dual central pillars and all) have been found in in places like Malta and dated to millenia after GT was buried and show evidence of having roofs.
Again, nothing proprietary about a roof. And no, the sites are NOT near identical.
for you to assume they were not the same culture is like saying the French didnt build Notre Dame because the builders weren't the ones that accidentally burned it down a few years ago.
Go back and read my comments. I did not say they were a different culture. I said we don't know whether they are the same culture. I find your position ironic, considering that the people you are defending often argue that many ancient cultures appropriated the stuff built by earlier cultures all the time. Why the inconsistency?
The cultural evidence for direct lineage is there, even in the earliest deposition.
Tell me what the evidence is.
The buriers understood the significance of the site and wanted it buried for reasons as yet unknown.
You yourself said there is a decline in quality over time. So obviously, even if this were the same culture, that are not doing a good job of transmitting knowledge into the future, are they? And yet you want to assume that the builders of the site successfully passed down instructions a thousand years into the future for people to bury their time capsule.
Lets not assume that a new hypothesis is hogwash because you made a string of videos attempting to disprove something that may turn out to be true.
No, no, no. If you watched this video, you would know that it was about how Dr. Sweatman miserably failed to demonstrate his thesis. It is not about how I came to a conclusion that was better than his. If someone else came and did a good job of demonstrating that the Zodiac was used at GT, I would be persuaded to accept the thesis. I am not invested in any particular conclusion. I, and other people who care about evidence, just need to be convinced.
The geoglyph hypothesis is supported by ariel view of the glyph itself through the positioning of the enclosures within it.
That's it? This sounds like the "it looks like it, therefore it is" method of interpretation. Did you see my first video on the Zodiac, in which I discuss the Zodiac supposedly found in the English landscape?
You open yourself up to criticism with every video you produce, and this criticism pertains rather heavily to this video in particular.
So far, even though you have written a lot, the only criticism you have given me is 'What about the unproven geoglyph?' and 'a time capsule isn't such a far-fetched idea, you know.' Did I skip anything? The geoglyph is irrelevant to whether Dr. Sweatman's argument is any good. It objectively is not. And a time capsule is still far-fetched. Sorry, that's my honest and sincere opinion.
Why are you saying such things? It just makes it sound like youre trying not to account for evidence that may stand against your proposals.
I didn't make any proposals. My only argument is that Dr. Sweatman failed to produce evidence and argumentation that holds up under scrutiny.
Its not bizarre to propose the enclosures stand inside a geoglyph that can easily be seen from above.
I have no problem with any hypothesis being proposed. Just back it up. If not, then don't expect anyone to believe it, except those who do not care about evidence.
You cant just assume a proposal is false before anyone even attempts to analyze the glyph for a hint of a dating.
I don't assume it is false. I just don't assume it is true.
2
-
@cristiangalvan9219 Which point? There have been many and it seems you only want to concentrate on the ones that don't directly refute your video.
I thought that is what we were talking about. You didn't indicate otherwise. You kept saying the geoglyph hypothesis should have been considered in the video.
Whataboutism the hypothesis that the vulture and orb actually represents the constellation Cygnus and the celestial North Pole, which was in the vicinity of Cygnus during the time of the structure's building, which would timestamp the structure and imply knowledge of precession, no? Have you even heard of this hypothesis?
No, I haven't. As I asked before, please link me to the best presentation of this hypothesis that you are aware of.
Or are you talking about the geoglyph? Or the Taurid meteor stream hypothesis that would have lit up the night sky like a Christmas tree around that time?
Either. I am unfamiliar with both.
GK's landmasses have remained largely untouched compared to England, so I find the comparison silly.
Pareidolia is pareidolia. It doesn't need anything to change.
Im not nearly as concerned with convincing you than I am with publicly writing down hypothesis you omitted to rush to a half baked conclusion.
You're not listening. My only conclusion was that Dr. Sweatman didn't make a convincing argument. I covered every part of his argument. This was a comprehensive consideration of his case.
I'm not convinced of your conclusions in the slightest,
So you think Dr. Sweatman made a convincing argument?
so unless you're implying that your deductions are somehow worth more than someone else's because you read a few books and got a piece of paper from a university I'm not sure what youre getting that.
What deductions are you talking about? That Dr. Sweatman used bad science?
What is so hard about saying you omitted important complimentary evidence?
If this evidence was important, why did Dr. Sweatman not include it? Shouldn't you be faulting him for omitting it? I was judging his arguments, and ONLY his arguments.
We're both repeating ourselves, so it doesn't look like either of us have anything further to add.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
There are no measurements that have ever been made that say anything about what the highest rate could have been in any short time period.
Exactly my point.
Hancock is advocating a theory that an asteroid impact caused a sudden melting of glaciers which led to a sudden rise in sea level change. The measurements you refer to support that this is possible – they do not show that it is impossible.
If you look through the entire video, you will never see me label something Hancock said as "impossible."
Your comment about sea levels receding after a tsunami caused by a landslide is incorrect. The sea level rises by a volume directly equal to the displacement of the landslide that caused it. It’s just that this is normally small enough, that the change in sea level is not noticeable. This would not be the case for an entire ice cap melting.
But since we already have record of what the sea level was over the long term, this point has little relevance.
trying to say the description proves the land descended rather than the water level rose is a bit ridiculous.
If you're going to use the story, you can't change it to suit your whims.
This is a relative effect. Where would someone be observing from where they claim the land mass descended? At sea level? Which is changing? Unless the ancients had some independent elevation datum, akin to the GPS ellipsoid, they wouldn’t be able to make that distinction.
If the only thing that sank was the island, and this is what the story says, then everything else stayed put. It would have been easy to tell that the island sank when compared to every other land mass.
There are also theories that if a significant enough weight is removed from a land mass (say the removal of an ice cap), then it can rise, and a distant part of the Earth will correspondingly descend.
Please give us the names of the scientific studies that have established this.
You claim that the flood myths not having the same features implies there was no single great flood. Why?
Because these descriptions can apply to a whole host of floods, which have occurred throughout human history.
If there was a single great flood, and someone in the Mediterranean put his family in a boat and someone in South America climbed a mountain – how does that negate that a flood happened?
I never said a flood didn't happen. I said many floods happened.
Yes, every civilization having a flood myth doesn’t mean they are all the same event. But it also doesn’t mean they’re not.
And considering that there have been tens of thousands of major floods, what do you think are the odds that all the stories refer to the same event?
A catastrophic global flood would wipe out vast amounts of low elevation civilization, but it wouldn’t affect everyone.
Correct. It wouldn't affect higher elevation civilization. But take out the word "global," because if it doesn't go everywhere, it isn't global.
Atlantis wasn’t a global civilization
Then why does Hancock find its remnants on almost every continent?
You are often conflating absence of evidence for evidence of absence.
No, I don't. I never say that Atlantis didn't exist. I say only that there is no evidence for its existence.
2
-
@andrewhopkins3397 You are the one that brought up research on sea level to make the point that sea levels could not have risen fast. That is just wrong. You cannot draw that conclusion from those studies. That is the point you made – that the research you presented show that sea levels only rose at a certain rate.
Yes, and that is why I said in my last comment: "since we already have record of what the sea level was over the long term, this point [about an ice cap melting] has little relevance.
You did not make the point that there are no studies supporting a higher sea level rise. If anything, those studies support that higher sea level rise rate could have occurred.
Show us.
The story says a landmass sank. It does not say it was the only landmass that sank and no other landmass sank.
The story says that Greece and Egypt continued to exist. This clearly is not a global phenomenon. What you are trying to do is fit your beliefs into an existing story, instead of taking the story for what it says and only what it says.
Yes, the stories “can” apply to multiple events – your word. And they “can” apply to a single event. You can’t use it as an argument one way or the other
Um...the point of this video was not to provide an alternate theory to Hancock's. It was not to argue that the flood myths could not possibly refer to this one event. It was only to show that it is highly improbable for all these myths to refer to one event, and statistically speaking, it is highly improbable. You can tell me all you want that there is still a remote chance that it could be true, and I would agree. A very remote chance.
To say that a major, rapid change in sea level that affected every coast line isn’t a “global” event is incredibly disingenuous.
There is no evidence of a major rapid change in sea level that affected every coast line.
Your claim was that Atlantis wasn’t global – a conclusion you incorrectly drew.
When did I say "Atlantis wasn't global"?
There are multiple examples in your video of you using the absence of evidence to make a definitive statement about the absence of that thing.
There isn't a single example, because I made no definitive statements that something did not exist.
Egyptians saying that Atlantis controlled the Mediterranean, and then you stating that means they were not a global power is exactly an example of that. Just because the Egyptians didn’t include a statement that “they may have controlled other regions, but we just don’t know” doesn’t mean that Atlantis couldn’t have. That is an explicit argument you make in your video.
This is a statement about what the story says. It is not a statement about whether Atlantis really controlled more than the Mediterranean. The story reads: "there was a great and wonderful empire which had rule over the whole island and several others, and over parts of the continent, and, furthermore, the men of Atlantis had subjected the parts of Libya within the columns of Heracles as far as Egypt, and of Europe as far as Tyrrhenia." Any reasonable reader would understand this as a description of the extent of the empire of Atlantis. Only someone who wants it to mean something else would twist the words to make them fit their beliefs.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@nomdaploom You sure write a lot without actually saying much. Try to be more concise.
Yes, why would Zawi Hawass visit Bosnia to view a recently discovered pyramid that is much larger than the one he claims to know the origins of?
Yes, lest we forget, he is an Egyptologist, not a pyramidologist.
If "others" have already debunked the idea that they are not pyramids, they must be right. Especially if they are "qualified" to hold an opinion. But what about those who are similarly qualified who have not?
No one with any expertise on the subject has identified them as pyramids. But it has nothing to do with qualifications. It has to do with evidence.
Your obvious scorn for the "alternative history" community is unsurprising.
Not being convinced by them isn't scorn. Sorry, they just don't make a good case.
After all, these people don't have the relevant academic qualifications to hold opinions, or reputations to burnish, so what do they know?
As I said above, it has nothing to do with qualifications. It has to do with evidence.
I won't even begin to remind you of the exhortations to have a new and untrialled substance, never before used upon humans, injected into their veins which would provide protection against catching and transmitting the virus, which subsequently has been proven to be untrue.
lol
A combination of fear, conceit and hubris amongst those who consider themselves the only ones qualified to hold opinions on these subjects, is what hinders our collective progress to discover the truth about our history as a species.
Who shows more fear: the guy who takes the time to methodically study a subject to get the right answer, or the guy who doesn't trust the establishment on anything? Who shows more conceit and hubris: the historian who doesn't care if someone disagrees with him, or the guy who gets upset when historians won't accept his view?
I could give you countless examples of inconvenient discoveries that cannot be manipulated into conforming with existing establishment beliefs, but there is little point as you have already decided that the "lost high technology people" are unworthy of consideration.
The reason why there is little point is because dozens of people before you have already shown me these "discoveries," and I researched them deeply and found they didn't hold water.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Here is the description of the Myths of Ancient History series:
"A great amount of misinformation about ancient history is being presented on Youtube these days. Historians, archaeologists, and other experts in related fields, knowing how fallacious some of this material is, often do not bother even addressing it, as they think it is not worth their time. The problem is: general audiences are not well-read in the scholarly literature, so they may not be aware of the pseudoscientific nature of the programs being put in front of them and may be misled into believing they are learning the facts. The Myths of Ancient History series attempts to rectify this problem by addressing and debunking some of the more popular misconceptions about the ancient past in a way that a general audience might find appealing and informative."
If that is not your thing, feel free to check out my other series: The Antiquities Travel Guide, Trowelocity, Writing for History, Book Reviews, or Q&A.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
First, carbon-dating of pottery found buried at the site only establishes when the pottery was made, not when the site was built. Everyone knows that -- so I find your presentation of the table at 12:32 showing pottery dates back to 250 BC very misleading, if you're purporting to debunk popular conclusions about the age of the site.
The sequence dating of the pottery is based on the dates of the neighboring Huari sites, which have the same pottery. Carbon dating of the pottery has been down in both places. You are right that this dates the pottery only. But where the pottery is found on site (i.e., in what stratigraphic layers) is also extremely important. You ignore this at your own peril. This is why I said, "Since the material evidence is an inextricable part of the Tiwanaku site, including the buildings, it is not possible to separate the buildings out. Everything is part of a network of evidence." People who try to separate clearly-linked artifacts do so because they have an agenda.
Then, at 14:02, you argue the building of the Kalasaya platform was in 500 BC, but you do not address the very obvious signs that the platform was built to align with standing stones (between which layered small stones were installed in recent times). No one has dug under the standing stones, have they? Without that data, saying the standing stones were laid up in 500 BC is the same as using pottery shards to arrive at a construction date for stone architecture.
If you don't understand what "construction fill" mean, just ask. What you shouldn't do is conclude I am wrong simply because you wish it to be true. Construction fill is inside the walls of the building, meaning that it was put there when the building was constructed. The carbon dates taken from it must necessarily be from the time of construction. Presumed alignments, on the other hand, are just speculations. As for your proposal that the standing stones come from an earlier time, how can that be if there is a building underneath the Kalasasaya that dates to the Formative period?
Turning to Pumapunku, you repeat the same error by asserting the carbon-dating of fill in that platform dates to 500 BC, when again, that site shows clear evidence of being built over much older architecture.
I show you the phases of construction at 14:38 (see image on the right). Dating the construction fill tells you when each phase of construction took place.
If you haven't addressed the question whether it was culturally appropriate for people in 500 BC to be cutting and moving such gigantic stones, it's high time you did that.
This has no bearing on the date.
Such gigantic platform stones are found in many places around the world, including the area surrounding the great pyramid.
Yeah, there are many stone platforms around the world, coming from many different time periods. What of it?
All of the stonework installed in 500 BC surrounding Pumapunku and Kalasaya consist of very small stones -- which is indeed consistent with architecture of that culture.
No, it consists of both large and small stones, which is normal for any culture. If you can find a culture in the world that only uses one size stone, I would like to see it.
Are you saying that culture also cut and moved the gigantic stones underneath?
You're asking if the Tiwanaku culture cut and moved the stones of the Tiwanaku culture? Yes, it did.
If you are, let's see the science behind that argument.
The science that it comes from Tiwanaku, or the science of how it was done? If you mean that it comes from Tiwanaku, well, it's in Tiwanaku. If you mean how they did it, that is a separate question from the dating of the site. Maybe I will do a future video on it.
And what of the published results of geologists finding the H-blocks were made of a composite cement?
This has no bearing on the date of the Pumapunku.
If people in 500 BC could make cement blocks, why don't we see their use of that material in other constructions you say they made in 500 BC?
You seem to be suggesting that if a culture can make cement blocks, then only cement blocks are permitted to be used. If people in 2023 can make cement blocks, why don't we see cement blocks in everything made in 2023? Anyway, the geopolymer argument has been thoroughly debunked. But that is a subject for an entirely different video.
Where else in Bolivia/Peru do you say this this culture created composite stonework akin to the H-blocks?
I don't remember bringing up another site.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Do you even know, that without use of telescopes, it was possible to trace and relate Nakshatras, in ancient Bharat?
We are not discussing whether it was possible.
You don't even know what are Nakshatras.
Yes, I do.
Dr. Nilesh Oak gives evidences that are not just astronomical, which is subject of choice and expertise, he also uses Nyayshaastra ( the science of research, putting forward a point of view with references, and the method of discussion of any subject, in a conference, established in ancient Bharat ), very very meticulously, he knows not only Sanskrt, but associated other sciences like Nyay, Mimamsa, etc.
I'm sorry, but putting meticulous research on top of unfounded assumptions is not going to make the assumptions suddenly founded.
There is not a single thing that he states without evidence.
I listed the things.
How much unscientific is your own talk! All about not knowing and not understanding much!
If you have evidence to show that Mr. Oak proved the things I listed, then please provide it. It certainly isn't in his book.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
So, the Main OBJECTIVE of this Presenter here, is to somehow PROVE & ESTABLISH that - Sanskrit is HIS 'Mother' Language; That the VEDAS & All the Ancient Vedic Sciences etc., CAME from HIS People; That Hinduism belongs to HIS RACE!!
Absolutely none of these things are said, or even implied, in the video. None of them. In fact, the video contradicts every single one of these points.
this person is harping and harping on his 'hackneyed' UNPROVEN CLAIMS that - HIS RACE - the so called 'Aryans', MIGRATED to INDIA and basically, GAVE the original inhabitants of India - us - the GRACE of - SANSKRIT, the VEDAS, HINDUSIM and ALL the Extraordinary, Magnificent Essences & Greatness of the Ancient Vedic Sciences, Medicine, Mathematics & Magic!!!!
Aryans are not a race. The term is Indo-Aryan, and it is a language family. I am not an Indo-Aryan. No European is an Indo-Aryan. Neither I, nor do historians, archaeologists, linguists, or geneticists, say that Sanskrit, the Vedas, and Hinduism were brought into India. So you are getting upset over something that doesn't even exist.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
you are basing this genetical solutions on a circular model to fit the model.
Where is the circularity? Show me.
All I can see is that you guys are doing is what we call verification and ignoring other solutions and interpretation.
Scientists are always offering other solutions and interpretations. In fact, this video recounts a bunch of them. Did you not see it?
Also doc even Scientists and Researchers never agree on where R1a1 started
You just said that scientists ignore other solutions and interpretations, and now you are saying they never agree. Either they have more than one interpretation or they don't. Which is it?
unlike the claim you made you can go and take a blind random survey without telling them the model which you want to forcibily fit the equation into there are reserchers who will some will say in Europe others in South Asia like no uniform answer unless you take a biased samlple lets say only MIT or Harvard and not IIT so here your peers have said in past since this person is from from a lesser known university they are less correct there are countless examples for that in past.
This sentence is unreadable. All I can understand is the part at the end, where you falsely claim that scientists from lesser universities are said to be less correct. You say there are countless examples. Show me one time a geneticist from a large university has said, "You are incorrect, because you are from a lesser university." I read all the genetic studies on this subject, and that statement appeared nowhere.
The entire next section is difficult to comprehend, with statements like "will we non linear," "assume this small though experiment," "and Log like likelyhood." The cases you present are interesting, but I have no idea how they relate to this video. You never explain it clearly.
But the conclusion will be that most research papers you showed had this circular reasoning
Since you have not presented an example of circular reasoning clearly, no one who reads English will be able to see this. Maybe you have a good example in your mind, but it is not expressed in a way that people can understand.
Postulated Ancestral population -> Generation Statistical model (HMM) -> Test unrelated individuals with a particular allele with a particular allele j numbers of SNPs ->( result) same as postulated no. Of ancestral population
These are just word snippets with no clear meaning.
So the 3 parameters can be changed according your narration and show it is a solution I mean so bascially if we change the a parameter this whole fooling people around will get busted
What 3 parameters?
I mean my concerns are with the procedure itslef and false assumption your friend academicians make
You have not clearly explained what is wrong with the procedure or what the false assumptions are. I realize this is probably because English is not your first language. But if you are not clear, no one can understand.
*ignore others and start labelling others as Hindu Nationalist while they return call you Marxist Colonial slaves *
They identify themselves as Hindutva. But no one identifies themselves as "Marxist Colonial slaves." Do you see the difference? One chooses the name. The other does not.
Like in this model if you change no.of generation parameters you will not reach that converge of 2000 -1000 BCE so I mean what are are the methods used to decide this parameter??
You will have to ask the geneticists. But I expect it is the same parameter they use everywhere. It's not just for this study.
Also dear that Rakhigiri lady is neither proof nor a disprove of Aryan Migration as it was already established in 2007 research paper that Maternal Ancestry of India was unchanged for almost 20000 years so there is no point in discussing that for historical purposes its importance was only for genetics
Tell that to Raj Vedam.
See i will give you why Aryan Migration doesn't make sense as a study by heridity gentics says that we need atleast 4x times Aryans than IVC settlers for what you are telling.
How did you calculate that?
you can interpret a lot of IVC sites as Sanatan architecture as an Example that Dancer Lady at IVC might have been a representation of Dev Dasi also wearing Bangle Tradition of Indian females is traced from there . The priest statue's almost closed eyes (looking at nose) is actually described in Bhagvat Gita Chapter 6 as Dhayan Mudra. The Pashupatinath Seal there why there is only certain animals given there was it a random coindience ? Answer is no its described in Mahabharat and Purans as an Avatar of Shiva and each of these animal descriptions have been associated with shiva can be tested there. Also there is a seal of 2 men fighting over a women is also basically a representation of 2 asur fighting over an Apsara of Mahabharta I mean a similar depiction is also found in Cambodia which is recognised by the same tale as I told you. More importantly even Shiva lingas are found there , Fire alters can be recognised as yagya Havan .Also saying a seal depicting 1 man and 7 people in front of him may have been a Represntation of Lord RAM meeting the sapt Rishis (7 great Rishis of Hinduism based on constellation its called either Big dipper or small dipper in English I am not familiar with the terminology used in your Country as here we call it Sapt Rishi )
Most of these identifications have been debunked. But even if they are what you say, this does not negate the theory of Indo-Aryan migration, because the theory says that there was a synthesis in India between Indo-Aryan customs and the customs of the people who already lived there.
Also I told understand this logicwhich your fellow commrade use that is they were depicting Unicorn like figure in seals and yet horses not there i mean the people must have taken inspiration from a horse or donkey don't ypu think?
There are many animals besides horses or donkeys that look like this.
Your peers say that Sanskrit was language of imigrants and thats why it was propogated.
No, they do not. They say it was propagated by the spread of Brahmanism.
Like your peers say that since Sanskrit was new paternal language it got carried forward . But this very assumption by your peers is baseless as in India during Radical Islamic Invasions they made Persian the official language neglecting Hindwi language of the time yet hardly no one knows Persian in India anymore.
No one says that Sanskrit was spread because it was made the official language.
I personally wanna have this theory of Aryan Migration be Banned for promoting terrorism and separatist movements in India especially from Tamil Nadu and by Ambetakrites.
So in order to keep peace, you think that history should be adjusted? Interesting. Let me ask you: do you think that we should ban any theories for acts of terrorism like this? https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/2/26/mosque-set-on-fire-during-delhis-worst-violence-in-decades
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Thank you for your long and thoughtful comment. Here are my thoughts:
1) This point does not apply to the theory of Indo-Aryan migration, because it does not suppose a race came from Europe and brought Vedic culture. So this can be set aside.
2) The Saraswati river did not cease to exist 5,000 years ago. Parts of it still exist today.
3) As was mentioned in the video, the term is "Indo-Aryan," and it refers to a language group. It does not refer to a race, and it does not mean the same as Arya.
4) Neither I, nor any Sanskritologist, nor any historian, has ever been shown any evidence establishing the Ramayana and Mahabharata as 7,000-5,000 years old. The astronomical "evidence" that one find on the internet and in books written by amateurs is extremely weak, because it relies on poor interpretation of the texts and a lot of manipulation of the data.
5) Ancient Dwarka has been found next to the present city of Dwarka, and it is not 9,000 years old. If you are referring to radar scans, that is not proof. See my video on Dwarka: https://youtu.be/5cX_IF5YFo4
6) There is no Central Asian architecture from this period. And the theory of Indo-Aryan migration does not say that anyone brought civilization to India. So this point can be set aside.
7) Is this study discussed in this video? Is it cited below the video? I ask, because I have read all of them. If you think I have missed an important study bearing on the issue, please provide the title.
8) This is pseudoscience. Skin color that someone is BORN with is genetic. It's not from being out in the sun or heat. It therefore can be traced genetically. We can know where people have been through genetics.
D] Where did the "D" come from? Are you copying and pasting from someone else's website? In regard to these linguistic studies, please give me their names, and do not cite anything that has been written by a non-linguist please. That leaves out the amateur Shrikant Talageri.
1) (I guess we are back to 1 now.) Similarities between cultures are interesting, but what is your method for determining the direction of influence? A reasonable explanation is that all of these cultures, including India, have common ancestors.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The only problem I have with your findings is that you're not a bit familiar with Indian or Egyptian or Mesopotamian history or mythology. In fact, you haven't even been to this archeological sites yourself and you have not directly communicated with any genuine scholars of the above mentioned doctrines.
If you knew anything about me or this channel, you would know that is not true.
In the same way that you falsified countless others, I can falsify your claim to 'know it all'.
I made no such claim in this video or anywhere else.
Firstly, you assume that all the scientific materials that you have read/studied are true with no margine of errors.
No, I do not.
Secondly, you assume that the so called scholars that you quote for backing are not biased in any way (it's worth pointing out that even you're biased towards material and factual evidence than literal evidence).
No, I do not.
Thirdly, based on your experience with Greek epics, you assume that every literature of antiquity is well exaggerated.
I never mentioned Greek epics once. My experience comes from all ancient literature.
It's just that according to me the works of historians are not even 50% credible.
You need a reason for that, other than just your personal feelings.
Just like how you quote and use the works of other scholars, those historians have long been using the erroneous and outdated versions of history written by 19th and early 20th century historians.
That is incorrect. History is based on evidence, not on authority, and it is revised every year as new evidence comes to light.
With the evidence that we can gather now and with the tools we have at our disposal, scientists can come up with a more accurate history.
They do.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@wesbaumguardner8829 From Wikipedia (feel free to fact-check, if you like): "Some of the earliest recorded attempts with gliders were those by the 9th-century Andalusian and Arabic-language poet Abbas ibn Firnas and the 11th-century English monk Eilmer of Malmesbury; both experiments injured their pilots. Leonardo da Vinci researched the wing design of birds and designed a man-powered aircraft in his Codex on the Flight of Birds (1502), noting for the first time the distinction between the center of mass and the center of pressure of flying birds. In 1799, George Cayley set forth the concept of the modern airplane as a fixed-wing flying machine with separate systems for lift, propulsion, and control. Cayley was building and flying models of fixed-wing aircraft as early as 1803, and he built a successful passenger-carrying glider in 1853. In 1856, Frenchman Jean-Marie Le Bris made the first powered flight, by having his glider "L'Albatros artificiel" pulled by a horse on a beach. Then the Russian Alexander F. Mozhaisky also made some innovative designs. In 1883, the American John J. Montgomery made a controlled flight in a glider. Other aviators who made similar flights at that time were Otto Lilienthal, Percy Pilcher, and Octave Chanute. Sir Hiram Maxim built a craft that weighed 3.5 tons, with a 110-foot (34 m) wingspan that was powered by two 360-horsepower (270 kW) steam engines driving two propellers. In 1894, his machine was tested with overhead rails to prevent it from rising. The test showed that it had enough lift to take off. The craft was uncontrollable, which Maxim, it is presumed, realized, because he subsequently abandoned work on it. In the 1890s, Lawrence Hargrave conducted research on wing structures and developed a box kite that lifted the weight of a man. His box kite designs were widely adopted. Although he also developed a type of rotary aircraft engine, he did not create and fly a powered fixed-wing aircraft. Between 1867 and 1896, the German pioneer of human aviation Otto Lilienthal developed heavier-than-air flight. He was the first person to make well-documented, repeated, successful gliding flights. The Frenchman Clement Ader constructed his first of three flying machines in 1886, the Éole. It was a bat-like design run by a lightweight steam engine of his own invention, with four cylinders developing 20 horsepower (15 kW), driving a four-blade propeller. The engine weighed no more than 4 kilograms per kilowatt (6.6 lb/hp). The wings had a span of 14 m (46 ft). All-up weight was 300 kilograms (660 lb). On 9 October 1890, Ader attempted to fly the Éole. Aviation historians give credit to this effort as a powered take-off and uncontrolled hop of approximately 50 m (160 ft) at a height of approximately 200 mm (7.9 in). Ader's two subsequent machines were not documented to have achieved flight."
How do we know all this? We have documentation. And before you say, "What if there was no documentation?", keep in mind that technology of this sort could never have been created without documentation.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
First, you said ""The Why Files has a reputation for mixing fact with fiction." That's a strong assertion.
Which is true.
I've never heard this before. So who are all these people that have given them an undeserved reputation?
Friends, colleagues, people in my comments. I also have this opinion.
I can tell you that this is in no way a factual statement, so I hope you see the irony in that.
It's factual.
and every episode the skeptical view is absolutely brought to the discussion and quite often there's a lot of evidence that causes them to all but debunk the topic completely.
Not this time.
During the live, post show "The After Files", AJ speaks very openly about being a skeptic.
I know he's a skeptic of the "mainstream." Other stuff, less so.
I have never heard them present a topic as if it is 100% factual information - that would defeat the purpose of the show.
I am not sure what you mean by "100% factual." If he says something happened, and it didn't, what does that count as?
Secondly... did you even watch the show?
Did you?
AJ made many of the same points you touched on and in the end didn't buy into the idea that the Greeks were all color blind.
Good. He made a couple of the same points. But "many" is a stretch.
In fact, he ends the show with thiis, "...colors are hard to describe. So our ancestors saw colors exactly the same way we do but they never noticed differences until words were created to describe them."
Yes, this is in harmony with his earlier statement: "As Egyptian blue dye made its way around the ancient world, languages evolved to accommodate this new color, but before that nothing." This is factually incorrect, as I pointed out.
Anything else?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Based on his own account. He says he heard the story from Greeks that had visited Egypt. So it was presented as hearsay history from the start.
I think you better look at the account again. It isn't Plato speaking.
an illegitimate use of an argument does not negate a legitimate use of an argument.
Give me a legitimate use of argument, and I will be happy to respond.
Troy found after reference in Iliad, Ur (and other Sumerian cities) found after reference in Bible, Vinland found after reference in Viking Sagas, Heraclieon found after reference in Greek myths
Ah, I see. So you are arguing that, since Atlantis is referred to in Plato's Timaeus, then it could be real? Well, if Atlantis were merely a city, I would be open to the idea (though not the time period), but a continent? Not possible. We've already explored the entire world for continents. We found them all.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Thank you for your thoughts. The stone cutting video will be up again soon, no worse for the wear. In response to your observations:
1) I assume you are referring to the marks found underneath the Unfinished Obelisk in Aswan, though I don't think there are hundreds of channels around it, so I don't know. Maybe you also mean the indentations on top? One thing I can assure you is that, while they are close in size, they are not identical in width, nor is there a complete absence of gaps between them. Their variance is evidence that they were definitely done by hand. But ask yourself: Sitting out there for thousands of years, do you think their surface is exactly as it was left when the work was stopped? Most certainly not. All the dust and debris has been blown or washed away, and the surface itself has been weathered. So when you speak of smooth surfaces, please leave open the possibility that the surface you see is not exactly the surface as it would have looked immediately after the carvers left it.
2) You are mixing up a stone that was used as a stela with stones that were made AS stelas. This is an important distinction. A stone that was designed to be a stela is easily distinguished from a stone that was not designed to be a stela but was later used as one.
3) I could argue, and I will, that the terms "primitive" and "advanced" are ones that bias the argument. It is not hard to distinguish between something that is cheap and something that is primitive. Something that is cheap and something that is expensive come from the same cultural environment. This is why you can distinguish a cheap car from an expensive car. They still exhibit many of the same cultural similarities, but one is made with inferior materials and has fewer bells and whistles. Same with a cheap hotel and an expensive hotel. To call them "primitive" and "advanced" is definitely biasing the conversation. There is no doubt that the artifacts that I call cheap and expensive from ancient Egypt were all made by the Egyptians, because they exhibit features of the same cultural environment, and indeed, the same technology. So that is why the terms I use are more appropriate.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ Me: "Feel free to prove me wrong"
You: "You told me to shut upppp!"
You’ve taken everything he says far too seriously, picking apart literally every word, which is fundamentally the complete opposite of him.
Listening to him and taking him at his word is not picking anything apart. It is respect for what he says. On the other hand, a person who projects his own point of view onto what Hancock says is disrespecting what Hancock says.
not because he believes them outright, but because that’s what he finds joy in doing.
Perfect example of what I mean. Hancock constantly says, "I believe..." And you say, "Well, he doesn't actually believe it."
not sure why you would take so much time out of your life to make a video
I said why right in the video.
"I will be using [Rogan] to illustrate how his responses to what he hears could be the responses that any one of us might have. They are understandable reactions. And maybe by examining them, we can learn more about ourselves and arm ourselves, so that we can build better critical thinking skills, and it will be more difficult to be taken in by the smooth talk of proselytizers. Ah, so this video is an attack against Graham Hancock then? No. This is an analysis of Graham Hancock’s rhetorical strategies, not about his character. Graham seems like a very nice guy. I have no problem with him personally. I’m sure he would be a pleasure to hang with. I generally give him the benefit of the doubt that he believes what he says. But whether he does or not, this isn’t really relevant to whether other people can be swayed by what he says. The purpose of this educational video is to examine how ideas with honestly very little to recommend them can be so widely spread and can convince so many people."
But I expect that, just as you don't take Hancock at his word, you won't take me at my word either.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@pekam2007 You are correct I do project my beliefs which again are based on the factual evidence of western texts who deny the Indian sources of its knowledge -i.e., counting systems, Calculus, Pythagoras theorem, knowledge of vaccination as concept, the Indic model of astrology calculations and many more.
But I haven't done any of that. So it is wrong for you to make presumptions about me based on what you saw other people do.
I don't deny existence of my prejudices unlike many westerners who wear a garb of neutrality while openly siding on the western worldview which try to paint the eastern cultures and/or civilization as that of barbarians and therefore justified colonization as the mission of civilizing the world i.e., Christianizing the world.
This all happened in past generations, and you are assuming it is still there. Prejudice does nothing except pit people against each other. It serves no helpful purpose. If people hold onto their grievances of the past, the world will never get better.
I agree this isn't about the intelligence of eastern people but this sure is about your denial of its existence for me.
If it's not about it, then it shouldn't be about it for you.
Remember the Oak’s book presumes that the reader is aware of the Indic world view and at least has a basic knowledge of the Sanskrit and therefore does not endeavor to go on explaining the literal interpretation of the MBH texts. Further, I don't consider this book is for average novel reader of west but an eastern who considers that the MBH is an factual event not a mythological event.
Your statement agrees with what I said in the video.
It irks me and makes me wonder why and how you raise your eyebrows because the oak's theory dates MBH (Mahabharat) to 5561 BCE which is dated before the inventions of writing and before the first of cities were discovered based on your worldview which again is presumed on something I don’t know right now.
It is not based on any "worldview." It is based on archaeology (material evidence) and global scholarship. It's not a Western or European view. It is the consensus of the experts around the entire world - every continent, including Asia.
Your reference to writing era and antiquity of civilization/cities disregards the fact that Indian knowledge system was passed on to generations through oral traditions (which still exists) and that there is now ample evidence that dates antiquity of Indian cities to as back as 3500BCE (Dholvira, Runn of Kutch, Gujrat, India).
That is still 2,000 years after Mr. Oak dates the book. Besides, you are incorrect. Dholavira was a village in 3500. It became a city later.
Your premise that knowledge can only be transferred orally, is like believing that the brain did not have any record function earlier and whatever brain remembered is presumed incorrect and whatever written on paper is only the gospel truth.
You will be pleased to know that I treat India no differently than any other place when it comes to the historical value of oral tradition. I will be having a video on the subject coming out soon. Oral transmission has value, but it is more susceptible to change. Every time a person relays a story orally, it can be altered. And there is no way to figure out what parts of a story are original and what parts have been changed. I say this about all oral traditions, European ones included.
It suffices to state that your underlying assumption about knowledge could only start after invention of writing is wrong footed and therefore surprises your ilk;
I don't believe that knowledge could only start after the invention of writing.
while any Indic rooted person would not be surprised at all as there are many students even today who spend their life memorizing and reciting the Vedic hymns- i.e., Oral traditions are still alive.
Hymns are definitely less susceptible to change than prose. But everyone today seems to have memorized only the final forms of these works and not their earlier forms. Why is that? It suggests that the oral tradition you are speaking about began after the texts were written down. The oral tradition that you presume existed thousands of years ago is gone.
There are many such underlying presumption which makes any Indic person having knowledge of Indic world view uncomfortable and therefore I do not consider your review as an objective review from Indian perspective.
As I said in the review, the book is for a narrow audience, and you happen to be part of that audience.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ztruth7819 Love your reply and love the conversation. Thank you for taking the time. Truly. I watch your videos to learn all sides on a subject.
Thanks. I try to engage when I can.
I assume you do as well, so maybe the better way to say this is that you are making false equivalents...and you do this in all your videos.
I think it is more likely that you don't understand the analogies.
And you also leave out facts other say.
I make a point to try to include all relevant facts. If you think I missed something, you are welcome to share it. The pyramids, however, are not relevant.
We can build trains almost the same way. We can't do that with caves and pyramids.
That's quite a claim. What makes you think we can't do that? And please don't say, "Because we haven't done it." Building things is a choice.
and no one can really say how it was done.
There have been many reasonable explanations for how it was done.
The videos that try to show this end up showing men drilling holes and cutting stones (in recent history) in a way that could never have built anything in the timeframe you claim (and with the results).
I disagree. But don't worry. I am working on a video for how long it would have taken to make the Great Pyramid. Stay tuned.
When you trashed the caves video others made, you ignored all the scientific readouts on their machines and such.
No, I didn't. In most cases, they did not provide the readouts. And in other cases, the readouts did not measure precision.
You say, see the pickaxe marks...proof. They addressed those marks. They addressed everything you said is wrong.
I know, and I explained how their explanation made no sense.
They address all your points
Poorly.
you address a portion of theirs and say they are wrong.
I addressed every relevant point they made. I left out nothing.
YOu took small sound bites and clips
Go back and watch their original. It was all there.
Yet, you left out any response to their actual hardened facts. That is what I am saying.
Name a hard fact I did not respond to, and I will tell you where the response is in the video.
You are saying you can definitively say this is who built this or that. Your facts or no more impressive or realistic than the others.
You are welcome to your opinion. I lay out the facts, and you can decide.
2
-
@ztruth7819 you all seem to be cool with ignoring blatant holes and issues with your theories.
I keep asking for people to show me these blatant holes, but they never do.
I can assure you that I understand the analogies. I was politely saying your analogies are not good.
Unless you give an example, these words remain hollow.
You never once showed that she had an expert mason and statue worker (he has now passed) absolutely giving readouts.
I showed everything they showed.
They showed the walls were smooth.
Now I KNOW you didn't pay attention to the video. I acknowledged that many of the walls are smooth.
He also said it would take thousands of hours to get that "sheen" on the walls.
And he is full of baloney. He just said that off the top of his head, and he has no idea. But I didn't ignore his statement. I responded to it.
You told the other commenter it was made in "months".
Now we are off of the video, eh? The commenter asked me to estimate. So I reluctantly did. It was not part of the presentation.
on the topic of these caves, they have taken sonar readouts, etc. that show the exact dimensions and flatness and all that of the caves. Exact.
Okay, you are just making stuff up now. They did not show all the dimensions. They only showed the ones that supported their theory and hid the rest. And they never showed ANY measurements of flatness, because they did not have a tool that measured flatness, as was explained in the video.
Several expert masons say that what you are saying is hogwash with actual data points.
Please show these actual data points, because they are not in BAM.
you can't ignore them because they were in a different video.
How can I ignore something I have never seen?
Well, don't say there are no hardened measurements and readouts of the caves because you haven't seen them or they are inconvenient. They exist.
So you say. But why should I believe you?
I also say we can't build the pyramids as easily as you say because that's what a host of engineers, architects, and such say.
I never talked about how easy it was. And the fact is, a host of engineers and architects agree that it could be done today. They have told me so. But again, this is irrelevant to the caves.
They've also tested building the caves. It would have taken them forever. It has been tried.
This is news to me. Please tell me where I can see this test.
your historical way of thinking simply ignores way too much science.
In all of your comments, no science was presented. Nor was any science cited.
Since you did not pay attention to the video, having a conversation with you about it is fruitless. The reason I make videos is so that I don't have to explain everything dozens of times, as you are making me do here.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@sKraat528 A 'direct address' of his points would be an actual example of the methods archeologists suggest (you say archeologists, not engineers) making the cuts in the same type of stone, with the same results.
This was demonstrated in the video by engineer Denys Stocks, whose experiments are also cited below the video for you to read.
You give an example of cuts in marble making similar marks. Even cutting into different types of wood with the same saw, gives different striations and results- try it yourself
The striations in the marble are exactly the same as in the granite, and this is to be expected, because they both are hard stone, whereas wood is not stone at all.
You give 'estimates' but no actual examples.
I gave actual examples. See? You didn't pay attention. This whole idea of challenging 200 years of research on a topic by saying, "Yeah, well, make one then," is simply a tactic, so that you do not have to address the evidence set before you or do any work yourself. Every single step in the manufacturing process has been demonstrated.
Particularly the great pyramid, 'Time' is absolutely a huge factor especially when we consider that archeologists estimate that the workforce was 'up to 100,000' AND that it was completed in, by their estimations at most 27 years.
If you have anything else to say about what was discussed in the video, let me know.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I have barely begun and already found several peer review papers that dispute the findings that you present. All of what you mentioned is common knowledge.
These two statements contradict each other. Is it common knowledge or disputed findings? Anyway, I don't know how you can dispute something you see with your own eyes.
Your selective acceptance of data and research does not bode well as time passes.
I showed people doing things. What data would show that they didn't do it?
While proving that a granite block can be carved with less hard materials it demonstrates the time needed to do such.
And?
What you tout as empirical evidence has a multitude of flaws.
I am waiting for you to list some.
While these works to confirm a great deal of what people have known for over a century of how ancient people created different objects structures there are a great many of gaps and puzzles in the story. It’s these gaps that intrigue people.
If you think that the video did not answer the question posed in the title, or that it didn't demonstrate the claims listed at 4:98, then please specify how so. But if you are complaining that this video didn't answer every additional question you have, well, sorry. It wasn't made to satisfy you personally. But there are hundreds of videos on this channel. I expect most of the "gaps" you are talking about have already been addressed.
As time goes on, you will find that Egypt was not the beginning at all.
Did I say Egypt was the beginning?
What is obvious for All to see is that around the world structures like Balbec, Cusco and predynastic Egypt structures use the largest stones and more complicated difficult objects.
I am not aware of any predynastic structures in Egypt that use the largest stones, and I have traveled the country looking at ancient ruins and artifacts. And I hate to break this to you, but there will always be largest stones. Stones come in different sizes, and some will always be the largest.
I just see a lot of narcissism here and it does not help your cause.
I haven't taken credit for any of this information.
For somebody who has all day every day to w work in these areas, I would think that you Would be intellectually honest enough to admit that you don’t know everything and that there are huge gaps in understanding of history between 5000 and 13,000 years ago
I admit this often.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It's important to note that the Sumerians allege they were taught their civilized ways from foreigners.
I'm not sure where you heard that, but it certainly isn't true.
There is also mythological evidence to support this in the synchronistic elements of Sumerian and PIE speaking/descendant peoples. There are distinct parallels between Gaia and Tiamat, Prometheus and Enki, and Inanna's (Semitic Ishtar) and Orpheus.
Since gods are based on the forces of nature, it is not surprising that there would be similarities. And yes, I am sure there was influence, as people shared their stories. But you cannot assume the influence went from the PIE to Mesopotamia. It is more likely the the PIE people were influenced by the Mesopotamians than the other way around. The Mesopotamians were further along in civilizational development.
This, plus the fact that Sumerian is a language isolate, had different words for different classes/sub-cultures of people, and attributed everything from cosmology to mathematics to writing to their Annunaki gods
The Sumerians did NOT attribute those things to the Anunnaki. They attributed them to their gods, but the Anunnaki, who were only a subset of their gods, were never explicitly credited.
the picture behind the allegations that a people from or via the Caucuses region (Who Robert never asserts were modern European "white" people).
I don't know what picture you are referring to or what allegations. But if Robert doesn't think Caucasians are white, or that Caucasians are people strictly from the Caucasus, then who does he think Caucasians are?
it is not unreasonable for Robert to point to this lineage and the lineage of Persians, Indians, Ainu, and Uighers who all seem either culturally, genetically, or in both ways related to PIE speaking peoples, as evidence that modern Europeans, who are now overwhelmingly ethnically and racially (in the classical sense) related to these peoples, are akin to that ancient culture which spread out from Asia to influence not only Europe, but India, Persia, and Mesopotamia and beyond.
I don't know what you mean by "akin." But I do know that I have very little in common with my great great grandparents, and much less with my ancestors before that. Other defenders of Sepehr vehemently deny that he is talking about race, saying that he is talking only about culture. But you seem to disagree. Do you think he is talking about race (in the "classical sense")?
On your point that Robert discusses only three instances of ethnically distinct priest kings, Its fair to say he discusses only three, in this specific video.
Yes, of course. Do you think he has better examples?
Your argument about Robert applying a term to a "presumed white race" is off target.
I don't know about you, but most people would call a group of people, who are related genetically, and who carry the characteristics of blue eyes, red/blond hair, blue eyes, and light skin, "white."
The modern European could rationally refer to themselves as PIE descendants, because they are the direct offspring of the admixture of Yamnaya (PIE "Aryan" people) and indigenous Europeans.
This was not a point under dispute.
This being the case and it ALSO being the case that Persians refer to themselves as the Arya, it's not so far fetched that their cousin peoples, Europeans could logically be designated by the same label. It is only due to the abuse of that term by a Democratic Socialist madman and his mass murdering, anti-semitic madmen cronies, that such an idea seems blasphemous with white-supremacist and ethno-nationalist undertones.
The reason why the word "Aryan" is not applied to all Indo-Europeans is because it appears as a term used only in the Indo-Iranian subfamily.
I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to suspect that, where the sunwheel/flying cross/swastika shows up, there might be PIE people influence in the region.
It is reasonable to suppose that when we know there was contact. It is unreasonable to suppose that when there is unlikely to have been contact.
and that it was used a a symbol of belonging
Are you assuming that a symbol's meaning can never change?
Blue eyes, as a heritable genetic, non-pathological trait are virtually exclusive the Europeans.
That is not a counter to my argument, which is that Sepehr cannot assume that every instance of blue eyes in art must be a heritable genetic non-pathological trait.
Persons can be of mixed ancestry and have blue eyes... But this is oly possible if the genetic contribution form darker skinned peoples,, is sufficiently low, so as to permit a higher probability that the genetic coding for blue eyes will be transferred from the mixed parent(s).
If one parent carries the blue-eye gene and the other does not, what is the chance their child will get the blue-eye gene?
This requires more than one instance of admixture and also requires that the majority of ancestors are of European descent, so their genetic contributions represent the majority of the data for the individual descendants DNA.
I think you are wrong on that. I would need to see the scientific evidence.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The general theme of the video seems to be to twist and simplify specific aspects of Carlsons statements into something much easier to invalidate.
The theme of the video is to fact check Carlson's statement that materials used to build things would not last 10,000 years.
Carlson clams theres basically no record of what people were doing culturally which leads scientists to believe that people were essentially living a subsistence hunter gatherer existence.
...which is incorrect. There is a strong record, and it indicates a hunter gatherer existence. But scientists do NOT say that all the hunter gatherers were living at subsistence level.
The context of this statement is that the historical record is very small compared to skeletal records of modern humans which are dated up to 180,000 years old. The point being, we shouldn't make those assumptions.
The historical record is not small.
Neither of these points invalidate the concept that Randall is trying to communicate and definitely dont address the idea that what we do have doesnt match up to the 180k old modern human. Again, theres basically no record (of the past 180,000 years).
There is a record, and it matches up just fine.
The next point claims that hunter gatherers could produce monuments, citing gobekli tepe (as if everyone but Randall knows about this place). Not only was Randall well aware of this, but the monument was basically "adopted" into hunter gather camp because the mainstream community isn't willing to consider something outside of the "established narrative".
It is considered hunter gatherer for the simple reason that there has been no evidence of agriculture found there. Evidence comes before conclusions, not the other way around.
Theres a lot more to it than that, including continental floods carrying massive glaciers deeply gouging the earth across said continents, though to be honest, I don't recall if how how much he goes into that topic.
Carlson clearly makes the claim that, even without a catastrophe, materials would not last. He is shown to be wrong.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@maidende8280 once found those in power seize it.
Can you give me an example of when this was done?
my theory is that basically nothing ever gets out, until much more recently
Well, we're talking about present circumstances anyway, aren't we?
No one has complete freedom, especially not academics. In my country, civilians go to prison for daring to question the mainstream history of WWII.
But certainly you acknowledge that this is a single topic and not policy across the board. It's unique.
This is true in many other countries too.
I expect that under authoritarian regimes it is true, but even then, it is only in cases where it might reflect on the government. How often is that the case for ancient history? I can think of only a couple of examples: the Israeli-Palestinian situation, and the Indo-Aryan migration into India.
if you don’t behave & kowtow to mainstream agendas you won’t remain in academia for very long.
Really? Where are you getting that from?
Even if it didn’t ‘work’ anymore (advanced written records or metallurgy would count, if from long enough go), it would radically upset the mainstream narrative.
So what? Why would a government care?
Most invested in history (& politics) would have a lot to lose from an uncontrolled change to the status quo that made them look bad/incompetent & made their prior positions obsolete.
Anyone familiar with academia knows that challenging the status quo is encouraged. You can't be a respected scholar unless you come up with something new. Narratives get revised constantly. And people get proven incorrect all the time. No one loses their position as a result. Yeah, some people end up looking foolish. It comes with the territory. No one loses their job over it.
Why do they want to perpetuate a certain narrative about anything? Refer to above. Money, power.
You're not thinking this through. Power over what?
Everything would be called into question by such a monumental change.
Everything? I don't think so. But since things are called into question all the time, I don't see how this is significant.
Though imo the biggest reason they’d want to keep such knowledge suppressed is to ensure their goals for the future aren’t disrupted.
What goals would be disrupted by a revision of ancient history?
Much history is, arguably, based on mainstream media from the past - especially for more recent history.
Historians don't just believe everything their sources tell them. How could they, since sources contradict each other? If you want to get a better idea of what history is based on, see here: https://youtu.be/GZYNL0-KHC4
Do you disagree that history is written by the victors more than the losers?
Again, historians don't simply believe every testimony uncritically.
do you see any trend(s) over time with regards to the victor POV dominating?
This seems to be the same question in different words.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This debunking video 'demonstrates how easy it is to take scientific reports sand twist them to make them fit ones own preconceptions', stated here at the end at 25 minutes in,
Sepehr is an excellent example of that. All a person has to do is read the reports and see that.
not to mention the bias of the researchers that do the investigative work in the first instance, they too have their own agendas as they try and support and/or prove their own beliefs.
Hard data is hard data. You might find people trying to doctor the data to fit their beliefs, but peer review roots those things out.
We all need to open our minds and stop taking the narrative pushed by academia and supported by government and media as gospel.
Gospel doesn't change. History is always being revised as new evidence and information comes to light.
History has been, continues to be, and will no doubt always be distorted to fit a rhetoric that ultimately serves an agenda.
Pseudohistory does that. Not history done properly.
To simply dismiss much evidence based on our ideologies (well, maybe yours but not mine) that don't take into account the philosophies of the actual time in which is being talked about, is ridiculous.
Pseudohistorians like Sepehr do that.
You can't try and make the past fit into the common political views of our time, which to be frank, are also ridiculous.
Sorry, but I don't know what you are referring to.
We can't deny that race was a factor in the past because it makes us uncomfortable now, grow up.
No historian says that race was not a factor in the past. In fact, quite the opposite.
There is far more going on than Robert or Dr Miano talk about, whether they are aware of such things or not I do not know, Robert perhaps but this closed minded Dr Miano would struggle with many uncomfortable truths I am sure.
Sounds mysterious. Please fill us in.
Be open to all information, learn to analyse and process and form opinions based on what feels right, not what someone else says you should think.
That's what this channel is all about. Welcome!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
In the real world, attempting to do so is generally a very fraught path, involving ridicule, and shunning for years, if not decades... often a lifetime.
No one goes into the field if they can't take criticism. The entire profession is built on criticism. I think it is funny how pseudohistory folks think that shunning happens for "often a lifetime." This is because they are most familiar with the ideas of amateurs, kooks, grifters, and drug users, whose ideas are so bad they deservedly get ridiculed. They think this must be the norm.
academics build careers on their interpretations and become fiercely protective of them. We're talking about flawed human beings, not saints or idealized scholars. It is just human nature to fall prey to such conceits.
Sure, but I wasn't talking about people who have ALREADY built a career. I am talking about people coming into the profession with new ideas.
When a challenging view presents itself,the collective careers built on the orthodoxy respond with powerful collective scorn precisely because nobody can empirically prove either view as correct.
The entire profession is empirical. It is based on evidence. And no hypothesis can be accepted without strong evidence in favor of it. That's how it works. And to received strong opposition to a new idea is as it should be. I applaud this approach, because it requires historians to gather a large amount of convincing evidence to sway people's minds. This makes their case stronger. And this is what happened with every commonly-accepted conclusion in history. It has passed the test of fire.
Instead of imagining how academia works, why not talk to people who know how it works?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@lokihve6591 Of 10000 years + old civilization.
When archaeologists have used the word "civilization," which they do only rarely these days, they mean cities. Gobekli Tepe was not a city. But they absolutely acknowledge the existence of Gobekli Tepe, so what is the problem?
Or are you claiming that we are talking about random neolithic structures?
No manmade structures are random.
There is absolutely no reason to dismiss it as a bunch of hunter-gatherers deciding they want to build temples and being able to do it. It is not how things work.
You seem to have a very low opinion of hunter-gatherers. Archaeologists have a much higher opinion.
Let us say hypothetically again that we get hit by a massive disaster right now like an asteroid impact which simply "erases most of the man-made structures today, what exactly can we do to rebuild it....better yet, what remains of this civilization after thousands of years? We all know that the answer is not much and if anything some big stone structures.
I disagree. See my Randall Carlson video.
What about the sphinx and the water erosion. Is it not more logical to make the hypothesis that in this case, we can perhaps start looking at the evidence of maybe Sphinx predating the Egyptians instead of trying to dismiss the fact that new evidence is acting against the currently established belief and so on.
I go by what makes the most sense. See my video on the Sphinx.
No what we expect experts to do, is say ok, hold on, things are obviously not adding up here, this is strange and goes against the majority of things we believed to be true. Let us investigate further and let us say that yes there seems to be we were wrong, but now with SCIENCE, we will see just how wrong and why....
That's what they do. You have been listening to people who are mad their pet theories haven't been accepted, so they tell you the experts don't do this.
So what about Gobekli Tepe and surrounding hot belly hills? They are proof that something is not right with our idea of when civilization started.
How so?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It seems like your intent with this video was to expose fans of Carlson to contradictory evidence, which in all honesty, his recent "lectures" very much lack.
My intent was to address the question of whether any artifacts other then stone can last more than 10,000 years.
The problem is, instead of confronting Carlson's main talking points, (Younger Dryas, Religious interpretations, Meltwater Pulse 1A), you distort and straw-man his ideas and for some odd reason, you decide to focus on a few sentences where he talked about what human materials might last a few thousand years?
Because that is the subject of the video. Why do you think it is inappropriate for me to fact-check him on the corrosion of materials? Is that not a valid subject?
For those of us who watch/listen to Carlson regularly, a video like this quickly demonstrates that you didn't spend enough time researching.
What important information on the corrosion of materials do you think I left out?
So if your intent truly was to convince someone like me to be more skeptical of Carlson, you may need to do some reflecting because the only person/channel I'm more skeptical of now is yours.
My intent, as clearly indicated in the video, is to convince people that artifacts other than stone can survive more than 10,000 years, and that anyone who says otherwise is contradicted by the facts.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@uniqguy111 Citing a newspaper reference shows that the Steppe migration with language replacement is a crumbling hypothesis unfortunately Dr.Miano.
Why are you straw-manning me? I cited one of the geneticists who explained the paper that he helped to write. Are you telling me that I should believe your interpretation of the paper over his?
it is like saying "English was introduced to a minority group of aliens, and then the aliens picked up English so well that they have written a new English grammar with a vast literature than English has".
What a strange and inappropriate analogy. Why not just say "people" instead of "aliens"? And for some reason you left time out of the whole equation, and the fact that the language was not the same, and that it was spoken over many generations.
The Vedic speakers were directly and closely related to the PIE speakers.
Says who?
The voluminous literature(>>> Greek/Latin) they produced of all IE languages, the meticulous sophisticated grammar and poetic prosody they produced of the time (1500 BC) , the amount of root words that it has in common with PIE, the emphasis on words ( ex: brother and Brathr -> b and B are not same, know and gnan -> English loses k,but gn is a very special alphabet that vedic knows) is not explainable by other IE languages.
These are the ramblings of someone with limited and narrow knowledge of IE languages. Point us to linguistic studies to make your point. If you are just going to make up your own stuff or repeat things you heard from other amateurs, you are not going to convince anyone of anything.
As per the wave model, there must have been pre-vedic IE in India (which developed into Pali) which split around 2500 BC from Vedic line.
This is not in the Heggarty paper you cited, so where are you getting this from?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@LyubomirIko So you don't find the similarities of the development of complex myths, believes, architecture, culture, writings, civilization, agriculture and so on between the so called "old world" and the "new world" (America) kind of eerie
No, because I know the human propensity to find patterns where there are none. It is safer to rely on reason than on my imagination.
the opposite academic stand feels in now way less of a simplification of the matter and the phenomenon.
The academic approach is evidence-based. There are good reasons for this.
Even if we for sure know that they were divided for at least 15 000 years and come to somewhat similar in complexity and sometimes in the details - myths, believes, architecture, culture, writings, civilization, agriculture and so on - it is a statement for an incredibly synchronized and perhaps not truly understood internal psychological mechanism.
Sure, but also keep in mind that were were not all completely divided, and historians do recognize an interchange of ideas, culture, tech, etc. when it makes sense (such as when two societies are within reasonable distance of each other and have more than just superficial similarity).
2
-
@josephdavis2198 You made it sound that the “floods” weren’t as bad as they may have been.
I made it sound as if they weren't global.
I’m arguing that the catastrophic aspects had nothing to do with the event itself, but how unprepared people were for it and how much they suffered, or how many died as a consequence because a small flood a thousand years ago would be far worse than a big flood today, and today we’re just as inadequate to coping with it as we were then.
Sounds reasonable to me.
You’re focusing on the embellishment, and not the facts.
I focused on embellishment in one teeny tiny part of the video. In the rest of the video I focus on other matters.
Let’s look at Plato. A million people in the city of Atlantis. (Embellishment) Water rushing in and then when it subsides, it leaves a mud barrier. (Exactly what happened in Indonesia) The embellishment is what I’d already described before in that it serves as a moral to a story, not to be used as a means to discredit it.
The reason why I think Plato's story is fictional is not because of the embellishment. It's because of the genre of the literature. It isn't intended to be historical. Author intention cannot be ignored.
When discussing “myth,” history becomes secondary. The story exists to give you cultural value and context, not historical.
Exactly my point.
Outside of origin stories in myths, there is usually very little to go on in what can be utilized to give you any analytical statements that can be used to determine facts. The stories exist as cultural only, portraying the lives of different individuals, not any historical context.
Agreed. Myths aren't historical. I misspoke when I said that flood myths are memories of actual events. I should have said legends. Legends may be based on history. Myths, no.
Dr. Robert Schock and the German woman who made the discovery about cocoa in mummies both received a lot of scorn from the scientific community.
Correction: their claims received scorn.
The woman received death threats
From whom? I would like to see the evidence for that. Sounds like a legend in the making.
and Dr. Schock might as well have.
What does that even mean?
In the last thirty years, these things like Gobekli Tepe that has been challenging the narrative that had been espoused by the scientific community was only because that community has been backed against the wall.
Every archaeological discovery changes history. Every single one. And every single time new information comes to light, the "narrative" is revised. Gobekli Tepe was never ignored or dismissed. It was readily incorporated into history. So what you are saying is just not in keeping with reality.
The German woman was all over the nightly news when she came out with her findings. Robert Schock did a huge documentary on Discovery in ’91. Saying that they are “incorporated” is like saying that the science led them where it was supposed to, and it didn’t.
Stop for a moment and think this through. In science, does a single study establish a fact? Or does a scientific finding need to be replicated? Does it need to be tested and verified? It is unrealistic and unreasonable to think that one scientific finding or one person's theory is going to change everything? It needs to go through peer review. How do you think poor science is weeded out? Do you honestly believe that every time someone publishes a new idea, it should immediately be embraced? Check and balances, Joseph.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@MARK-gp9hb No one who watched the video would unironically make the point that consensus changes all the time, because that was readily acknowledged in the video, and it is irrelevant to whether consensus is "a thing." You might as well say a generation is not a thing, because they keep changing. It was also shown that change is absolutely necessary for progress. Otherwise knowledge would never move forward. Nor would someone who watched the video make the point that it is not scientific to follow an authority, when the video made clear that a person who accepts the consensus is not a scientist. Nor would they say that people who go by the consensus are clinging to an ideology, because these people do it without regard for what the consensus actually is.
just some broke researchers as you said who are afraid of losing their job or their funding, it happened to some, and some even ended up taking their own lives.
Losing their funding? What are you even talking about?? University professors are on a salary. Academic freedom is guaranteed in this country. No one would even want to be a scholar if that wasn't the case. It pays very little.
Like when you said "professors teach the consensus in school" which isn't true, they follow programs with ideological or outdated information. I had professors who said 1 thing while the book said another.
I am sure there are times when a professor disagrees with a textbook. You can always find exceptions. But the very fact that they have a textbook and assign readings in it is in direct contradiction to what you are saying.
Or when you said that "science doesn't claim to be always right", maybe scientists don't but institutions do, they like to propagate that idea.
What do institutions have to do with it? This is irrelevant to what the video is about. So is what people they put on TV or who gets government positions. All irrelevant.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Thank you for your questions.
1. What are the specific cultural elements that Aryans brought into India?
Indo-Aryans, not Aryans. Language is the main element. But there are other elements too. These would be the cultural features that are common to all members of the Indo European language family. This is something you will need to research, as it is a complex subject.
2. Is there any mention of a homeland outside of south asia in Vedas or any Indian texts? Is there any mention of their so-called migration into India?
I don't understand why you would think there would be. The composers of the Vedas and other Indian texts are not the ones who migrated into India. It was their ancestors who did that.
3. Did you find the word ‘Aryan’ anywhere in Indian texts?
I think you mean Indo-Aryan, which is a modern linguistic term, so of course it would not be in any ancient texts. I don't understand why you think it would or should be. It's not even the same language.
4. What are the specific archaeological evidences substantiating the migrations of Aryans?
Archaeological evidence neither proves nor disproves the migrations.
5. You have rightly mentioned that Y-Chromosomal Haplogroup R1A1 is associated with Aryan migrations. But in the paper published in Journal of Human genetics, that you have shown in this video, you conveniently forgot to mention that R1A1 is present in high frequency in Indian tribals like Chenchus of Andhra Pradesh. I come from Andhra Pradesh and let me tell you, Chenchus are particularly vulnerable tribal groups and they don’t mix with general population even today. They are highly endogamous. How do you explain this? Don’t tell me that Chenchus are probably some of the Aryan immigrants.
You mean descendants of Indo-Aryan immigrants from thousands of years ago? Yes, they are. I assume you are referring to the 2013 study? If you read the study, you would know that the genetic mixing occurred before the practice of endogamy began. All you have to do is read these studies. You don't have to ask me.
6. R1A diversity is more in India implying that India is the original homeland. You are not ready to accept this. Yes, there are exceptions to this rule like you have mentioned, but very few and rare.
I go by what the world's geneticists say. You also should defer to the experts on subjects you don't know much about.
7. People like Shrikant Talageri did great research on linguistics. Did you read any of his works?
Yes. Talageri is not a linguist. He is just an amateur with an interest in the subject, and his conclusions are at odds with the consensus of the planet's linguists.
8. And last, there are many astronomical references in Indian texts, Archeoastronomy pushing dates of various Indian texts way back into antiquity. Although there is more research needed, what is your take on this?
You seem to be talking about Nilesh Oak, another amateur with a cult following. Point me to some peer-reviewed academic papers, and I will give them due consideration.
Bus as someone who studied Indian texts under Guru-Sishya Parampara, I can only tell you this. More data and research will only validate OIT.
Unfortunately, texts are only one small piece of the puzzle, so you might want to show a little more intellectual humility. And set aside your ideological biases.
2
-
@anviksiki108 You are casting aspersions on me personally and all ad hominem.
An ad hominem is when someone attacks the person INSTEAD of the argument. I have addressed all of your arguments. Learn logical fallacies. They are important! When I tell you to study something, this is advice, and you should not be insulted by it.
Genetics might throw some light on human movements, but it can't prove import or export of language.
Correct. But please remember that nothing can be proven in history. All conclusions are tentative pending further evidence. That is how it works. We go with the explanation that best fits all the evidence until something better comes along.
Give me one irrefutable evidence that proves the language was brought into India.
See my comment above.
1. You have not specified anything other than language. What are those features that are common to all the Indo-European people other than language?
I said you will need to do your own research on this. I''m not your personal tutor. You don't get to demand explanations from me. You can ask nicely, and if I have time, I will help you out. If I am too busy, I will tell you to do your own research. You haven't even given a reason why you are asking the question. You don't sound like you are really interested in the answer, except to score some kind of debate points.
2. So, you meant that the composers of vedas had no historical knowledge of their ancestors.
No, I did not mean that. I meant what I wrote. They may or may not have had knowledge of it. Why do you think that is important? They don't seem to have thought it was important. My grandparents came from Europe. You don't see me writing songs about it.
3. What is the reason behind naming Indo Aryan
I assume they use "Indo" because it is Indian, and they use Aryan because it refers to the language spoken in Aryavarta.
6. Your answer is that I don't know much about genetics. And you know everything.
I said I defer to what the experts say, and you conclude that means I said I know everything?? Funny.
7. Just calling Talageri an amateur won't make him one. You or the planets linguists should prove what ever he has said or written is wrong.
Why should he get special treatment? He need to get published in a peer-reviewed linguistic journal, and then his work will get reviewed. Scholars are not required to prove wrong every amateur on the internet.
8. And you don't know anyone other than Nilesh oak researching on Archeoastronomy. And you have not bothered to do any...
If you have convincing evidence, show it. But only peer-reviewed articles please.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ssekhar8660 "When you say I am repeating minority fundamentalist view, what is that?"
The Out of India hypothesis.
"Is it not an ad hominem attack."
Dismissing someone's opinion based on their being atheists or communists is ad hominem. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
"My view on communism is, it is pseudo atheist religion & they have caused more damage to humanity than Hitler."
What's a pseudo-atheist? Someone who pretends to be atheist? Communism is an economic system. Is capitalism a religion too? Whatever, none of it has to do with AMT.
"What is your basis of saying witzel & pollock as expert of sanskrit? Is it because, they are gatekeepers of self proclaimed acdemic intelligentsia?"
I don't think you know what a gatekeeper is. They are experts in Sanskrit because they know the language better than most people, including you.
"See, being in USA & being part of & under such acdemic junta, I don't think you are in a better situation to see thing in perspective."
There is no academic junta in the US. No one tells me what to believe or what to teach.
"My faith is no issue, gladly I was believing your AIT/AMT dogma as true, when I was in school, but subsequently when I personally dig into deep on the facts, I found It is manufactured lie."
Just in this comments thread, you have said many untrue statements, so you do not appear to know the facts very well.
"For obvious reson, I wanted to know your awareness on works of Srikanta Talagiri, which is language based & not faith based & it is well acknowledged that he has decimated AIT/AMT dogma, but interalia other points, you avoided to answer."
No, he hasn't.
"Point to be noted, I don't agree with his dating of veda, yet I am asking your indulgence on his work. If possible, write a critical analysis on his work, that would be more credit worthy."
As I said in the video, I may revisit this topic again in future.
"Hope, if I ask your take on works of Rajiv malhotra qua pollocks work, you would not reject him as a minority no-academic fundamentalist view."
I judge arguments by what they say, not by who says them.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"When we don't know something, I will tell you"..Well, it doesn't really work that way...One person doesn't have all the available knowledge on any subject.
My job is to do the research for you.
And who among us isn't affected by the dogma of our time, our prejudices, and ego's
Yes, this is why we have worldwide peer review.
But, there is much we don't know, and we can keep different theories or possibilities in our minds, even if they are contradictory, without committing to any of them, as new evidence accumulates, being ready to change our minds, if the evidence leads in different directions
Historians do not "commit" to anything. They simply go with the best explanation available at the time and are ready to revise it when new information comes to light. The last thing anyone wants to hear a historian say is: "Even though I have studied this subject intensively, I have learned nothing and will not venture an opinion."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@barbojohnsung7113 Your question about how long it would take is a worthy one, but I wouldn't call the claim that the 4th dynasty Egyptians built the Great Pyramid a "hasty generalization," because every detail and every question, including yours, has been gone over many times. I myself have answered it at least twice in the comments section of my videos. Here is what I wrote to another commenter:
"The average weight of the stones was 2.5 tons. And let's say it took 10 men with ropes and pulleys to put one stone into place, and it took them 15 minutes to place a single stone. That means 10 men could do 4 stones per hour. If there were 1,000 men working on stone placement, it would have taken a total of 6,250 hours or 260 days. If they worked only 12 hours a day, it would have taken 520 days total."
I think there would be plenty of time to get the job done with the workforce that they had. Remember, different people were working on different parts of the project at the same time.
Keep in mind that the blocks of the Great Pyramid were much lighter than the ones moved at Abu Simbel, and the placement did not have to be (and wasn't) perfect. Plus there were far fewer people working at Abu Simbel.
As for the spiral ramp theory, I don't know enough about it to answer your question. I don't subscribe to it myself.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@barbojohnsung7113 I fixed the link. A parenthesis got stuck at the end of it. As for my opinion on how the construction went, I don't have one at present. I haven't researched all the theories, so I couldn't say at this point. To be honest, I have only a casual interest in exactly how it was done. To me, WHY something was built is far more interesting than HOW it was built. But I expect, as proprietor of this channel, I can't let that situation stand for long. People will be asking me constantly, I am sure! It is very deep topic, because there is not only numerous theories as to how the blocks were moved and placed, but also how many blocks are in the pyramid. Recent estimates have been much lower than 2.5 million, and there is even a theory that the pyramid was built on top of an existing mound. In answer to your question about the Herodotus machines, I don't know if that theory will be generally accepted. It might gain some traction. But it certainly is not necessary in order to explain how the pyramids were built.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Just a short series of questions. How does one engineer, cut, shape and move a 80 ton slab of (granite, basalt with brass or bronze tools (not to mention Baalbeks 1100 tons)?
One engineer doesn't. And the chisels were made of stone, not brass or bronze. (Iron would have been used at Baalbek.)
The hardness of marble is 3-4, limestone 3-4, granite 6-7 Mohs, while bronze and copper is 3, steel & iron 4, Tungsten Carbide 9 and diamond 10.
It is toughness you want to measure, not hardness. Iron is tougher than granite and can easily fracture it. And flint also can fracture it.
No one to my knowledge has ever duplicated this with these tools even on a smaller scale.
You just need to increase your knowledge. https://youtu.be/2SujxAA_7iA (tune in at 39 minutes)
Europeans had great difficulty building their castles stone work with hardened iron chisels and was still very crude.
Have you ever seen medieval cathedrals?
How would you suggest to prove all these very ancient stone work was accomplished with a stone hammer and brass chisels?
Nothing in history can be proven. It can only be shown to be more or less probable. In this case, it is more probable.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@malaj.1480 So, do I take it there's no historical or material evidence to be brought forward?
Yes, there is. That will be the subject of a future video.
Will the endless juvenile quarrel be offered instead as a method of defending the theory?
I'm confused by this statement. You asked me questions, and I answered them.
I'm afraid some of us are interested in the truth, and serious thinking.
That's not to be afraid of. That is something to be proud of and what this channel is all about.
Providing objective evidence, and/or substantiate a claim or testimony through pursuit of evidence, is the principle method of inquiry.
Yes. And as you can see, that is exactly what I have done in this video.
Anyone departing from that method should worry as to why are they happy to do so.
Agreed.
Why humans narrativise, produce myths, or tell self-serving stories, is a separate topic.
I touched a little on that topic in this video, but it wasn't a main part of it.
In addition one should note, blurring these two points of inquiry, is and has often historically been, an error with significant consequences.
I wholeheartedly agree.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Thank you for your long and thoughtful comment.
1. Yes, I take your point that in Hindu belief the gods (I did not say God) were not the ones who passed on the Vedas to the Brahmins, but it was rather the rishis who did so. I have added a correction underneath the video.
2. Nowhere in this video, or any of my other ones, do I say that another race compiled the Vedas or brought it in from somewhere. This has nothing to do with races, and this is what all professional historians will tell you. Indo-Europeans are not a race. I said very clearly that the Vedas were composed in India. However, please take note that Sanskrit is a member of the Indo-European language family.
3. This is a history channel, so we care about when things happened. As for the discussion about Saraswati, I did not make an argument for what should be believed about the Saraswati in the poems. I made an argument that the poems cannot be used as evidence that the Saraswati was the mightiest river in India or even a perennial river. All that requires is the POSSIBILITY that it could be an annual river.
4. I have seen no convincing astronomical evidence for the date of the Mahabharata, and there isn't a single expert in India astronomy who has either. I am not sure what the Surya Siddhanta has to do with this, as it was composed after the Mahabharata, not before.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Pseudo-x" has nothing to do with authority. It is a description. It tells you exactly what something is. Pseudo science is not science, and it will never be science. This may hurt some people's feelings, but it is a statement of fact. There will never come a time in the future when the practices of pseudo archaeology suddenly become real archaeology, because it is based on methods that do not work and reasoning that doesn't make sense.
That being said, it is possible that someone could misidentify something as pseudo science. But that is not an argument for never identifying anything as pseudo science. It is also possible that someone could prematurely call something pseudo science before or without examining it. But then that is what you should complain about. But to say that someone is not allowed to draw a conclusion about something, or to make an assessment of something, or to say, "This is poorly done," or "This is pseudo science," after doing an actual assessment, is unreasonable.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
So you're telling me they actually carved the Sphinx with the weather in pattern attack when they carved it. Are you out of your flipping mind? The weathering had occurred before they carve the Sphinx you've got to be nuts. This is clearly a rosian. It is not wind erosion because it doesn't show the ripples that always occur with wind erosion.
Nobody said it was wind erosion. Yes, it is water erosion, and it is all through the rock, not just on the surface.
If this had been built when they claimed it was how come the courts of Seti State the Sphinx's so old that they don't know who built it, as well as the pyramids. Who had built it, they would have remembered that because it would have been written down.
Seti lived a THOUSAND years after Khufu.
Khufu never claim to a built the pyramids does anybody that recent in history, the history of Egypt claimed to have built the Sphinx either. These things existed when this land was still called Khem.
It was never called Khem. Do you mean Kemet? The land was called Kemet all through Egypt's history.
We now have incontrovertible evidence that the white Limestone blocks of the Great Pyramid, which were knocked off by earthquake in fairly recent times. Was poured into place as a product of cementation.
No, we don't.
And if salt exfoliation explains anything. There hasn't been enough water on that plane for 9,000 years to have explained that action.
Yes, the erosion took place before the Sphinx was carved.
What they called astronomy. Indicates that the present pyramids at that location and the Sphinx existence at least twelve thousand years ago. Before we have evidence of a worldwide flood conflagration. The reason being is that these pyramids only match the belt of Orion from at least 12,000 years ago, or thereabouts
That idea has been debunked.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I would say it is odd how we have numerous cultures across the world that have creation stories that share similar narratives.
Only in the most generic of ways.
Creation, cataclysmic event, population dispersal, some sort of regaining of knowledge, and a deity or sages introduced in response to these cataclysmic events.
Very few stories follow that plot. People cobble them together from various sources in order to make that work.
What many people fail to ask is why these stories have been forcibly passed down.
Forcibly? What are you talking about?
Bottom line, you cannot say Atlantis was not real due to insufficient evidence, you also cannot confirm it was a real place. Remember beliefs cannot be warranted, neither against nor for, until there is sufficient evidence to do so.
Yes, but the default position is that something doesn't exist until the evidence is found for it. Otherwise, people who believe in unicorns and leprechauns can say the same thing you just said.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The difference between what I said and what Universe Inside You said is that I don't assume that the pyramids were tombs because of a modern bias. I assume it because of knowledge of what the ancient Egyptians believed and thought was important (as a result of studying their writings and their art). That's how to avoid the historian's fallacy.
I have not encountered any evidence that would give weight to Universe Inside You's claims that the pyramids were power plants, and it is so contradictory to what we know, not only about the Egyptians, but about the ancient world in general, that it falls into the category of the fantastical. Are there gaps in our knowledge about the pyramids? Yes. But not huge ones. Could they have more than one purpose? Yes, well, they do. They not only house the bodies of the dead, but also served as places of worship. As for the copper pins, I think that they were probably used as handles. The mundane answer is almost always the most realistic.
It is interesting that you say that about European historians. In this case, since the Egyptians were not European or white, it seems to me more of a European bias to take their accomplishments away from them.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
the very study done on the rakhigarhi women also had other conclusions besides the iranian ancestry bit...it proved that the agriculture was not imported by aryans
The importation of agriculture is not part of the Indo-Aryan migration theory.
it debunked the existence of any race called aryans.
Scholars do not consider Aryans to be a race.
and just to clarify, no so called hindu nationalist with a brain wud ever say that migrations never happened
Great!
the opposition is to the assertion that the entre hindu edifice is an imported colonial imposition
The Indo-Aryan migration theory does not say that the entire Hindu edifice is an imported colonial imposition. Not even close to that.
which makes it easier for the british imperialists, islamo-fascists(with seperatism fetish which caused partition), christian evangelists and communists to suggest the rootlessness of indian civilisation and to cement the idea that india has no racial identity, but is just a legal federation of different and distinct nationalities, instead of just linguistic variations of one single race.
Race is not part of the Indo-Aryan migration theory.
if there were any such clash, either ethnically, linguistcally, or religiously among the aryans vs non aryans...how come they only start during the british rule?
How do you know that? That is the whole question under consideration.
if IVc script is indeed proto-tamizh...isnt it supposed to be easy to decipher?
No one knows the language of the script.
the rigveda speaks of drying up of river saraswati, the most sacred ancient river by the banks of which most IVC sites are found today
If it speaks of it drying up, then it must come after the time when the river was flowing full. Right?
one even with a horse chariots in sinauli graveyard at haryana, india
If they are chariots (and many do not believe they are), they are not Indo-Aryan style chariots.
you made the mistake of focusing entirely on abhijit chavda, he is not a geneticist.
But the many papers I summarized are by geneticists.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Thank you for your thoughtful comment.
No one is required to offer evidence of another culture in order to argue that your timeline doesn’t make sense to them.
If that is all that was being argued, then yes. But they are required to offer evidence of another culture if they propose another culture. And that is exactly what UnchartedX has done. I should add that the argument for another culture preceded all the arguments about the timeline not being convincing. It started in the 1800s and early 1900s with theories about Atlantis being real. Then, later, people who embraced these ideas started marshalling "evidence" to call into question the accepted timeline of history. Today they use this "evidence" to lure unsuspecting people away from mainstream history, telling them, "we're just asking questions," so that they may subsequently sell them the idea of a lost advanced civilization.
It’s not that they don’t believe the Egyptians could do it but they don’t believe the Egyptians could have done it in the timeframe stated.
I am not sure what object or timeframe you are referring to. Were any specific time frames mentioned in the video?
the basic argument they are making is that the artifacts should be attributed to a different time independent of whether or not you can find a culture that matches the time.
Then how do they determine the time?
archeologists (especially Egyptologists) will often try to fit objects into established historical time lines even if it makes more sense to suggest expanding the known time line.
I still have not been shown a convincing example of an object that makes more sense in another time period.
archeologists are a bit too hesitant to just say they don’t know. They don’t seem to like saying they don’t have an answer for how.
They say it all the time, so your statement confuses me.
A now disgraced Egyptologist once proposed a very well fleshed out method for how the Egyptians built the early pyramids so precise and within 10 years (he even proved his method would have worked). He made the claim that they poured the blocks in place. Egyptologists flat out denied his claim and insisted that they only used chisels and rocks. That to me doesn’t sound like a population that is open to evidence of other methods.
It has been shown quite convincingly where the rocks originated, chisel marks and all. If you have any examples of a good argument being rejected, then you may have something. But this hypothesis is just not well supported and flatly contradicted by the evidence. (Joseph Davidovits, the originator of this idea, was not an Egyptologist, by the way.)
Let’s say there is a very prevalent theory or model. If you go against that you need to have solid irrefutable proof of your claim and even then you may struggle to find someone who will publish you.
This only ensures that scholars make their case as strong as it can be. Prosecutors don't go into court without sufficient evidence to convict. This is as it should be. My statement that scholars dream of upsetting the status quo still stands. They dream of upsetting it with convincing evidence. I am trying to think of a down side to this. A true fact won't be embraced if the evidence and arguments are flimsy? How is that bad? History is based on evidence.
The idea that myths do not inform history is not completely true.
See my video on the subject here: https://youtu.be/Lyn4mpiRLTk
I feel like one major critique of archeologists is the tendency to dismiss ancient artifacts and culture as being based in religious or spiritual beliefs. There may be a very good reason for thinking such but it comes off to the rest of us as a biased view
There is very good reason for it. We have seen it before. Context is key.
Historians are not engineers. Perhaps you should explain more the methods that historians use and whether or not they consult actual engineers for their assessments (I would assume they do).
They do, and I discuss it at numerous points in this very video.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@maliksabir7039 Ivri is in Genesis 14:13.
Yes, and there it refers to a person, not a language, just as I said.
Iru is in 1 Chron 4:15.
No colors are spoken of in that verse, only names.
Ivri is the script of the Torah and the language spoken by the people of scripture.
Before you can start formulating theories, you need to learn the difference between a script and a language.
Defining Ivri as "across and beyond" is incorrect and such definition was started by, and promulgated by, scholars such as Rudolf Bultmann and those in his camp.
The consonantal root ʕ-b-r appears in the Bible many times, and that is how we know what it means. You can't just make up meanings as they suit you. The usage of the root is clear.
The Hebrew word for "across and beyond" is "br"
That is what I have been saying. Those are the same three letters as in ʿĪvrīt and in ʿIvri.
in Genesis 14:13 "br is not used, but "Ivri" is the word that is used.
Yes, which uses the SAME THREE CONSONANTS. You see to be unaware that the Hebrew letter bet (b) is often pronounced as a v. This is basic knowledge for anyone who knows the language. It is usually taught on the first day of class.
The People of Ghana and the Kikuyu People speak the Ivri language, the same language the Torah is written in.
The language of the Kikuyu people is Kikuyu, which is a Bantu language. The people of Ghana speak about 80 languages. But if you want to know what Hebrew words from Bible times mean, you go to the Bible, not to modern-day Ghana.
Keep in mind Modern Hebrew is not the same as Paleo-Hebrew. Speakers of Hebrew today speak Modern Hebrew, Paleo-Hebrew is very different.
I am not using modern Hebrew to define any words.
Please provide your evidence for this claim. I have provided you with the Region Font Code 3 of geography from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.
The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency only gives modern names for places. Remember how you just said not to use modern Hebrew to figure out what ancient Hebrew meant? Well, don't use modern geography to figure out ancient geography. You need to look at maps of the ancient world, which are easy to find.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
sumerian bags, bags in mexico, peru, south america, china, turkey, india,,, all the same, why?
They're not the same. See Part 2.
and what are the cone shaped objects in the hands of the "creatures" you speak of?
It's in the video.
if you`ve ever carried water in a bucket for any distance you quickly see its not an efficient way to carry water.
It isn't about efficiency. It's not efficient to smash a wine bottle on a ship either, but people do it.
so tell us what do you think is in the buckets.
It's in the video.
basically all the cultures around the world spoke of and depicted fire from flying objects coming from and thru the skies bringing wisdom and knowledge.
I wish I knew you were getting this from. How many ancient writings of this have you read? Don't believe everything you see on the internet.
there is even a painting in the vatican with one.
That's a medieval depiction of a scene from Ezekiel, which is the only ancient writing that I can think of that has such a scenario, and it is described as a prophetic vision, not an actual event.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You are stubbornly dating the Rig Veda around 1500 years contrary to the firm faith, belief and the ingrained conscience of the one and only ancient people on this earth , that is the Indians.
What year were you born? I don't think you are very ancient. Or do you mean that somehow knowledge is passed down genetically through your ancestors. Is there a knowledge gene I haven't heard about it? The fact is, simply living in land does not give you knowledge of what happened thousands of years ago. In order to have this knowledge, you need actual evidence, just like everyone else in the world does.
You cannot simply read a verse and date it.
You're right, and that is why no historian does that.
Nobody in the civilizations across were keeping a COMMON count of years before the modern days. The modern dating is linked to Pre- and Post-common era which is linked to the birth and death of a person. Certain old cultures and civilizations had their own respective systems of counting of years. For example, the Sanskrit tradition has got a few systems of counting of years - Vikram Samvat and Shaka Samvat and Salivahana Samvat.
Everybody knows that ancient systems of dating were different than modern ones. What is your point?
Most notably as per the mention in various Indian scriptures , the age of Earth consists of repeated cycles of Four Yugas - Satya Yuga (Golden Period): 1,728,000 years; Dwapara Yuga (Silver Age): 1,296,000; Treta Yuga (Bronze Age): 8,64,000 and Kalyug (Iron Age); 432,000 years. The cycle keeps repeating. The Present age known as Kalyuga (the fourth and last one) began 5,125 years ago.
You are failing to distinguish between primary sources and secondary sources. What is the oldest document that lays out this chronology? It doesn't come from any of the ages before the present one. You also are making the major mistake of thinking that opinions remain the same throughout all of history and that dating systems remain the same.
*Aryan invasion theory imagined, designed, postulated and foisted with ulterior motive in the middle
of 19th and early 20th century by the self-proclaimed conscience keepers of India who happen to occupy India during those years, was debunked long ago.*
Why are you telling me about a theory that I do not accept, nor does any other historian or archaeologist accept?
Once post-colonial rule, Indian archeologists undertook painstaking research, they came out with evidence after evidence that around the Harappan and other 980 Harappan like river-bank townships which were established purely for trade and commerce, came to a gradual extinction due to climatic reasons, over.a long period of time, say 700 years and did not come to an abruptly caused by any invasion or attack.
Wonderful. Archaeologists are great.
Soi, Prof Miano, there may be no merits in endeavoring to educate you because you are already a very highly qualified personality in America studying history through books and articles. It is futile requesting you to see the truth and stop coming out with these imaginative stories, the same stories that the 19th and early 20th century historians thrust as a parting gift, while leaving.
You are extremely confused. I follow the most current science and archaeology. I do not follow 19th and early 20th century historians. I follow the up-to-date consensus of the world's experts on the subject.
Please now the most knowledgeable and educated Indians have been writing, publishing and producing copious materials on their history,, archeology and culture. It will only be in order to follow those writings and findings.
But I do follow them. And I am surprised you would think I didn't after watching a video in which I show the most recent research done on the geology of the Saraswati.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Hi Manu,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Here are mine:
1. Considering how many flood legends in some parts of the world, the number in Africa pale in comparison. Moreover, considering the number of flood legends that could have been propagated in Africa, and the number of tribes that are there, the number of flood stories that there actually are seem extremely small. More importantly, this is a minor point in the video, and I feel like you are grasping at straws to find something you can fault.
2. Diogenes Laertius lived 6 centuries after Plato, and Proclus lived 7 centuries after Plato. So my statement was correct. Now, I ask you, was Hancock's claim that Plato said he got the story from his ancestor Solon true or false? A one-word answer will suffice.
3. You know as well as I do why Hancock said that about the amount of submerged land. So let's not play coy.
4. In regard to sea level rise, possibility is not probability. Note that I did not say he was factually incorrect on this point. I said his claim was unsupported, which it is.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yes we do have problem of so called Europian theory of Aryan Migration as this is also used and imposed by eurpoians to divide Indians.
The theory of Indo-Aryan migration was mostly the idea of Indian scholars, and today it is the GLOBALLY accepted theory. And history is not the cause of division. Modern political ideology is the cause of division. Just as Dravidian nationalists use history to divide in their way, so Hindutva uses history to divide in their way. But what happened in the past does not change.
I strongly agree with you that there wasn't any Aryan invasion in Indian subcontinent. But at same time there was no Migration from Europe to Indian subcontinent as well.
You mean Central Asia.
You can rather say that the migration was from Indian subcontinent to Europe. Almost 90-95% of people conclude their on their theories based on Internet findings which is not bad as in morden day Internent has become vital source of sharing information. Which I strongly believe you too have done the same.
Reliable information comes from experts on the subject being discussed, not from amateurs.
My researches I conclude that Aryans migrations did happned but not from Europe to inside Indian subcontinent instead from Indian Subcontinent to Eurpoe. There are few examples I am quoting of are below.
Okay, let us see how well your researches hold up to scrutiny...
1. Forensic evidences. One of Forensic evidences supports large places/countries Like India(If you look at anciant Indian map) you will find people with different skin colors. If you don't agree then How do you justify Moses and Jeasus being of white/light colored??
Since skin color is caused by genes, difference in skin colors in India is evidence FOR immigration, not against. And no historian says that Moses and Jesus were white. So you can scratch #1 off your list.
2. If you look at ancient Greeks, Romans, Aryan Gods 1st Similarity is polytheism. 2ndly the Gods and their roles Defined in all above three races. 3rdly languages. (If you see there are lots of similarity between sanskrit and other europian languages).
Polytheism is practiced by many peoples who never met each other. The similarities between the gods and the similarity of language does not show which direction the influence went. So #2 is not evidence for OIT.
3. If you grow and consume any staple food for long period it leaves traces including of movement of that staple food from one place (place, country, continent). Over the period (depending on mass re-migration) those traces fades but traces remains for very much longer in places of origins. Good examples are Piramids, temples destroyed by Inveders (so called migrents).
I thought your point about food was good, but then you gave no examples of food. Pyramids (technically step pyramids) are not a good example, because they are the easiest buildings to make, and we KNOW that people who never met each other came up with the idea of step pyramids. So unless you can give a good example, #3 does not hold up.
4. There are lots of discoveries made in Indian subcontinent which was later said that those were discovered in Eurpoe. A few examples are as below (a) Earth moves around the sun. (b) Earth is round (c) Sun and nine planets (d) Air travel and many more if you read and reserch on Vedas.
We already know how Europe discovered these things, and this was LONG after the time we are discussing. It is not connected to migration. So #4 can be scratched off the list.
A good example is if you know the meaning of the word Aryan. Meaning of Aryan is 'humble and noble person' which humbleness and nobleness you will still find in Indian Subcontinent more than anywhere else in eurpoe or outside Indian subcontinent.
This has nothing to do with anything. Indo-Aryan is a linguistic term, and it is not the same as the word Arya. You are committing the etymological fallacy.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@marieclaire3670 Nobody said that pi is a message. But it can be use as a form of message.
Okay, if it is only the form of a message (whatever that means), then what is the message?
For example, if you text somebody 3.1416 and that somebody do not know Pi, then he will have no idea what you're getting at.
Even if he does know, he STILL will have no idea what you're getting at.
Can you cite here examples where when Pi is applied, the results are mundane?
Pi is in every circle, even circles that are not manmade.
I believe the stupid ones are those who parrot the idea that the Great Pyramid is a tomb built by a Bronze Age culture using dolorite stones, wooden mallets and bronze chisels to quarry stones and large granite, bronze saws and sand abrasives to cut granite and basalt rocks
You left out flint. It has been demonstrated that bronze chisels can chisel limestone, that flint can chisel granite, that bronze saws with abrasive can grind granite. So what is your belief based on?
hoist 70-ton granite more than 150 feet high using only ropes and manpower
Nobody says that.
Of course, you will disagree, with so much confidence to the superiority of your ideas.
My beliefs are based on the evidence that is left behind.
You, I and anybody else, Ancient Aliens and Lost Civs advocates included, can choose any number of possible or even rational explanations
I have not heard any rational explanations come from Lost Civs advocates or Ancient Aliens.
unfortunately, the only glaring fact remains that NONE of our different ideas or theories could be rigorously tested.
Yes, they have.
2
-
@marieclaire3670 This conversation is getting boring, sorry. You're just repeating yourself. This will be my last reply.
The message is showing they knew Pi, for future intelligence that will be able to interpret it.
If a circle has pi (and there are circles in nature), does this demonstrate that the makers knew Pi? Obviously not. So no, it does not show that they knew Pi. But Egyptian writings DO show that they knew Pi, which I have mentioned in other videos.
Nevetheless, revealing to someone that you know Pi is not a message other than: "Hey, I know Pi." That is the only message that comes of it. There is no way to "interpret Pi" unless it is part of a longer message. By itself it expresses no message except: "Here is Pi." Now what?
The Great Pyramid is a structural building showing the builders have knowledge of advance mathematics.
Advanced in comparison to what? Advanced enough to make the pyramid? Yes. On this everyone in the world agrees. Nothing controversial about that.
no one was able to find a simple method to calculate it until Archimedes.
This is demonstrably false. We have Egyptian documents showing how they did geometry.
What possibly is the best mathematical message you can incorporate in a structural building? --- Pi.
Not a message.
Even we, today, have sent messages to possible alien intelligence.
If these messages consisted only of Pi they would not be messages.
The Great Pyramid was built to withstand the test of time, it certainly serve a different purpose other than to commemorate a dead pharaoh.
It sounds like you didn't watch the video. I explicitly said it was not merely to commemorate a dead pharaoh and told you what it was for.
The tomb of Khufu concept was the idea of historians and egyptologists, we both know there's actually no record or verifiable proof exist for that.
I provided proof in the video. Either you did not watch it or were not paying attention.
Pi endlessly occuring in nature is certainly not mundane.
The fact that is occurs so often is what makes it mundane. It is ordinary. Mundane literally means characteristic of the earth.
"It has been demonstrated that bronze chisels can chisel limestone, that flint can chisel granite, that bronze saws with abrasive can grind granite." Agreed too. However, NOBODY has actually demonstrated to cut and shape a 70-ton granite slab using said method.
So? This is like saying, "Agreed, it has been shown that we have the tech to make Mount Rushmore. But nobody has actually demonstrated this by making another Mount Rushmore." Why should anyone need that?
I actually saw a video where Mark Lehner shows how the granite slabs at the King's Chamber was hoisted. Using ropes, wooden contraptions and manpower
Did they say they were lifted 150 feet high in the air? If not, then this is irrelevant.
Show links of proof then.
Coming soon in a video.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Playitalready Why ignore all the above, along with stuff I wrote/offered, including EVIDENCE from scriptures & SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS?
You did not point me to scientific findings. You pointed me to media outlets, including a channel that airs programs like Ancient Aliens. Show me the archaeological reports, or tell me what the names of the reports are, so I can find them. Can you imagine if we took everything the media says as truth?
When the Vedas specify objects, cities, etc. with dates, locations, etc.
The Vedas do not mention dates.
Krishna's Dwarka from over 5,000 years ago
I have investigated this thoroughly. You can find the information here: https://youtu.be/5cX_IF5YFo4
it all got eventually found, documented by scientists, like archeologists etc.
That is what I am asking for: the documentation by scientists and archaeologists.
why ignore all the above
Because they are from media sources.
even IF I lacked evidence...absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
The issue was why I did not include the cities in the video. Why would I include something for which there is no evidence?
How are you & scientists born after Columbus more valid than the ancients who WERE THERE & DOCUMENTED things like that, in the Vedas
The Vedas come from after 3000 BCE, so any cities mentioned by them would not make this list.
Truth doesn't fear investigation, so why do you?
Anyone who knows this channel knows I investigate deeply and thoroughly. But the only evidence you have provided me comes from the media.
2
-
@Playitalready The Vedas DO mention dates
Where?
Plus Vedas mention that before being written around 3,000 years ago, they were taught orally, which makes sense because based on the number of texts they cite
Texts are not oral.
because based on the number of texts they cite vs. how many we have after most were burned via Muslim invasions etc. we currently only have 6% of them
How did you arrive at that number? Considering that most texts in every culture have not survived until today (because they were written on perishable materials), I would say you have less than 1%. The only way texts can survive is if they continued to be copied. Otherwise they crumble to dust.
yet, there's tons of proven science in them, which I can quote easily if you don't believe me, which proves they were around way before being written over 5,000 years ago.
Yes, please show me the science that shows they were written over 5,000 years ago.
Regarding the city previously mentioned: The National Geophysical Research Institute (NGRI) returned a date of 7190 BC and the Birbal Sahni Institute of Paleobotany (BSIP) returned a date of 7545-7490BC.
What objects were dated?
1 test yielded dates of 32,000 years.
What object was dated?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@pravinupadhyay2046 I think you are still not understanding what I am trying to convey. When I refered "Varahmihira" and "Aryabhatta", it simply means that, I am not going to get into the same trap of your eurocentric so called scholars concensus, where you smartly include few Indians, who has learnt the same eurocentric books to become such scholars.
I still don't understand what you are trying to convey. The consensus comes from the WORLD's community of scholars.
I have to say that it is easy for you to believe whatever you want, because all you have to do is say "Eurocentric," and then when someone shows you something from non-Europeans, you just say, "Oh, they are just learning it from Europeans." You have an excuse every time.
The problem is In the entire ecosystem, people who does peer reviews are full of same scholars, who already have the similar believes, because they are already in this trap.
The similar belief they have is that all conclusions should come from objective empirical evidence and not from faith.
you don't give any scientific evidance for many of the believes
Then you clearly didn't watch the video or read the references below it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Thank you for lengthy comment. I can see most of it is copied and pasted. Considering that I discussed Reymond in depth in the video, and you posted something that completely ignores that, I can only guess that you did not even try to make it applicable to the video. I will comment on the part that I think you did write.
'Texts' from the Greco Roman period...which were written how many years AFTER Egypt as a civilization was no more?
Egyptian civilization was still going during the Greco Roman period. The Egyptians didn't leave the country when the Greeks took over, you know.
You make many 'assumptions' including that the 'story', written on the walls is simply about the EDFU temple....curious.
The writings themselves say that. So it is not an assumption.
Yet! The walls of EDFU were carved long before Plato related this story.
No, centuries after Plato related this story.
You imply that Plato made the story up. Where's the proof? You offer none.
That is covered in other videos. Check out the ones on Atlantis (which directly address the link you gave me) and on Ignatius Donnelly.
You also totally fail to mention that there has emerged, especially since 1995, when the late German Prof Klaus Schmidt, totally destroyed 'orthodox' historical dating claims by 'orthodox' historians by his excavation of Gobekli Tepi
What historical dating claims? You know that Klaus Schmidt was an archaeologist, right? And you know that his findings (and the findings that continue to come in there) are incorporated into history, right? And you know that Gobekli Tepe has no connection to Edfu, or even Egypt, right?
and you fail to mention (or have been unaware of) numerous expeditions that over several decades, have dredged the mid Atlantic ridge and found that it was above water as late as 10,800 B.C. Exactly the location that Plato said was where Atlantis existed 'beyond the pillars of Hercules'
"Beyond the pillars of Hercules" is not an exact location. It is a very, very, very general location. Also, 10,800 BC is not the time period given in the story. It's a thousand years off.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I basically agree, but I have a hard time to accept the use of the word "consensus" if it is "only" an overwhelming majority. IMHO this is just not the same. I always feel betrayed if someone talks of "consensus" and then I find out that there are legitimate alternative opinions. That's just not a consensus, but an overwhelming majority.
I'm not sure I follow you. Do you mean that a consensus is more than an overwhelming majority, or less?
Secondly, always look at minorities. They are mostly not convincing, but sometimes they are, and they mostly give a good entry point into the problems of the majority opinion.
Great point. When doing research, that is a must.
Sometimes, majorities are pretended only. For example, if most scientists agree on a certain hypothesis, but each of them has a different reason for upholding the hypothesis, then there is not really much agreement among them
Yes, if the reasons are mutually exclusive.
The case of politicized science should not be forgotten. It exists. In different forms and shapes. For example the archaeologist Korfmann who construed an "Anatolian" identity for Troy and Homer, in order to de-Greekify Homer and to give Turkey a cultural basis to enter into Europe as the root civilization of Europe (what a nonsense ...)
This was never a consensus. It is difficult for there be a consensus that is politicized, because scholars come from all kinds of political backgrounds.
Yes, the opinions of scientists change over time, but it is a big difference whether they announced their previous opinion with caution, or whether they bragged around that everybody who does not want to be a fool has to accept their view, which later turns out to be wrong.
I have never seen this happen in history. Perhaps by an individual. But not by the historical community.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Why would ancient people collect on the banks of an annual rain fed river, in a region where there are five perennial rivers? Does not make any sense.
And yet I showed you the studies that clearly showed that IVC cities were built on the annual, monsoon-fed section of the Saraswati. You can believe that, but can't believe that Vedic villages were formed on the upper perennial part?
The fall of the IVC and composition of the Vedic texts does have everything to do with the drying up of the Saraswati. The texts are clear in their description, (a) there was a mighty Saraswati River, (b) it dried up, (c) now it flows underground.
The underground Saraswati described in later texts is a different river from the one described in the Rigveda. Everybody knows this. So (c) is irrelevant. Also, the people of the Rigveda are praying for the river to sustain them, which they wouldn't need to do if it was already doing so.
Even accounting for certain hyperbole in language- the text makes a clear distinction between a river that was, and a river that dried up.
What verse of the Rigveda is that?
Certain western historians are being very stubborn about this and is refusing to accept archaeological and other physical evidence in favour of a purely linguistic analysis. This video is no different!!
You just rejected the geological evidence presented in this video. Who is being stubborn? Besides, this is the opinion, not merely of western historians, but historians around the entire globe, including in India.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I have made three comments in the past on this video two of which were ~9 days ago and another one of which was ~7 days ago. Since Mr Miano has probably displayed cowardice in replying to my very long comment made ~9 days ago, I am reposting the comment again. Mr Miano, treat it as a challenge.
I get thousands of comments every day, and many of them are challenges. I don't have time to answer everyone. You are not the most important commenter here. Demanding that you get a reply is rude and implies you are entitled or privileged.
Mr Miano, I have demolished your lies on earlier videos of yours. You sure remember me, don't you?
No, I don't.
1. being Wheat-based and Rigvedic society being Barley-based is devoid of any evidence presented by you. Please provide the evidence that the SSC is Wheat-based and that it is primarily Wheat-based in all of its regions.
I stand corrected. The staple crops of the IVC were BOTH wheat and barley. https://anthro.vancouver.wsu.edu/documents/348/Archaeobotany_at_Harappa_2003_apPr75L.pdf
https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10963-006-9006-8
But barley (yava) is clearly the staple crop in the Rigveda itself.
2. PIE may be proper Sanskrit too (look up the rate of change of languages like Lithuanian).
You don't know what you're talking about.
Your claims about Copper do not take into consideration loaning the same word independently into multiple languages or identical changes of meaning of older native cognate words into the same meaning, for example, through influence from a surrounding IE culture (to illustrate, check the presence of the word "Internet" in IE languages and the date of invention of the Internet. In 2300 CE, some linguist may look into the cognates of the word "Internet" and may say the invention of the Internet is older or much older than 1000 CE.).
The world's linguists have taken everything into account. Why is it that amateurs always think they find things that all the experts, who have been studying these things for more than a century, have missed?
Linguistics in its entirety like maybe Psychology may not even be a proper science.
I bet you say that about everything you disagree with.
You also did not say whether we actually know the oldest use of Copper or it is currently unknown.
And you know?
3. The Rigveda seems to indicate that the Saraswati river flows from the mountain to the sea, is perennial and is physically mighty.
There is no mention of the Saraswati flowing from the mountain to the sea all year round. You are reading what you want into the text. And why did you change "mightiest" to "mighty"? You do realize that the hymn says Saraswati is the mightiest of rivers, right? And you know that there was no time in all of human history when the Saraswati was the mightiest of rivers, right? So explain this.
Your readings are probably biased. I (and readers can check by reading the same verses) do not think making all or most of the parts of the verses about the Saraswati's physical might non-literal (as you seem to do) may be correct.
My reading is not making literal things non-literal. Your reading is making non-literal things literal.
Rigvedic scholars from the West may not be bothered about these verses about Saraswati since they are probably either incompetent or malicious or both.
Whatever you say, pal. But one correction: we are talking about the WORLD's Rigvedic scholars, not merely the West's.
Praises of a river goddess may not always be exaggerations especially about the physical nature. It may not be likely that a intermittent river would be made a very prominent river goddess with huge praises which are probably accurate about its physical nature.
You think you can decide for yourself what is physical in the hymns based on your desire for a specific outcome. Anyway, you didn't pay attention. The river was perennial where the Rigvedic peoples lived. I showed you.
Additionally, the Rigvedic people may have known about vast regions. So, why are you seemingly limiting the knowledge of the Rigvedic people to the upper parts of the Saraswati river in your discussion about the Saraswati river using only the fact majority of them settled there?
They may have known about other parts of the river, and other rivers. But why would they prefer to sing about other people's rivers over their own? It makes no sense.
4. Your claims that various time periods or times related to the Kurus provide a time for the RigVeda are again unfounded. How old are the Greeks (who are still there)? How old is the Greek language? Why can't the Kurus be much older than ~1200 BCE? Mr Miano, your arguments are laughable.
Your arguments are incomprehensible. Greeks? What are you talking about? If you have evidence relating to the date of the Kuru Kingdom, please provide it.
5. Your claims about horses are probably wrong too. Read the blogpost "Are Bactrian (BMAC) not horses?" in the "The Archaeogenetics blog" by "amateur genetics blogger" Ashish Kulkarni. Horse domestication at Gonur may be as old as the oldest in the world.
Sorry, but I don't get my information from amateur blogposts. And neither should you.
6. The Sinauli chariot, dated at ~1900 BCE, is a fine chariot with conical solid wheels. The conical solid wheels (pay attention to the word "conical") may be a better design than the spoked wheels.
Great. I am happy for the people of Sinauli.
Show evidence that ratha refers to only chariots with spoked wheels and that it cannot refer to chariots with conical solid wheels."
I don't need to. We already know Indo-European chariots had spoked wheels, and Sinauli's chariots do not.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
no real discussion of how the "big stones" were moved into place and fitted together with such precision
There was a LONG discussion about it accompanied by drawings to explain it.
Nor do they explain why polygonal stone architecture exists all over the world
See the title of the video. Besides, the polygonal stone architecture in Peru is unique.
Nowhere does he suggest how that method would work with stones weighing tens of tons.
Why wouldn't it?
The result would be a fit so accurate that the gaps are less than paper width, and are often in direct contact over a distance of several feet.
What a strange comment. Setting aside the fact that there are visible gaps between many of the stones, if you put two stones together, paper won't pass between the parts that touch. You are acting as if this fortress was built by cavemen, rather than experienced engineers of the powerful and wealthy Inca empire.
Somehow, the claim is made, the Inca managed to quarry granite stones (or find them lying around) weighing tens of tons from a quarry, lower those stones tens of meters down a steep slope, move them across a valley, and then haul them up tens of meters to their eventual resting place. These stones also were fit together with great precision.
You might want to watch this: https://youtu.be/Dz-ZRdk7KUY
And remember, structures exhibiting polygonal stonework with stones weighing many tons exist all over the world. Coincidence, right?
Structures exhibiting standard brickwork are found all over the world too. Coincidence?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It's great to have a Indian archaeologist come by. Thank you for commenting! I have not met any archaeologists yet who think that Harappan culture is Vedic. Maybe we can have a discussion some time. I'm not sure why you think I believe the Saraswati is mythical - I certainly do not, and I don't think I said that in the video. As for the word "Aryan," it has most certainly been misused in the past (and still is by some), but today, it is usually just a shortened form of Indo-Aryan, which refers to a language family, or the speakers of it, as I am sure you know. You say I misquoted the scientific article but you don't say what I stated that was incorrect. The study did NOT conclude that the genome at Rakhigarhi was the same as the present day Indian genome. In answer to your question about non-Sanskrit words in the Rig Veda, check out the book Aryans in the Rig Veda by F.B.J. Kuiper, but you can find more recent studies at the bottom of this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substratum_in_Vedic_Sanskrit . And yes, the Battle of the Ten Kings interests me very much. Surely you realize that it takes places some time after any Indo-Aryan migration would have occurred. So where people moved after the war has no bearing on the question of how they got there in the first place.
Let me make it clear that my position is not my own. I am merely following the findings of secular global scholarship.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Tabookoomi All I can say is WOW. You take the phrase "was his equal," which can mean so many things, and you interpret it as the balance of gravity of orbits?? The text doesn't even say they are planets. So how can it be describing orbits? The most natural reading is that the two are equal in power.
You take the phrase "mightier," which clearly means stronger, because it says so in the previous line, and you interpret that as "mightier in size of orbit." Another stretch.
You take the phrase "banded together," which naturally means to form a group, and you take this to mean the balance of orbit?? Again, it strains credulity.
There is no description in here that clearly refers to a planet. Nothing. Nothing at all. You're just making it refer to planets, because you want it to.
Not only that, the god Anshar is associated with the sun, and yet you make him Saturn arbitrarily. Anu is the entire sky, and yet you make him Uranus arbitrarily. There is no basis for any of these equations. It's just the product of imagination.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Thank you for your comment. I am very busy, so I do not know if I will have time to respond to everything you have written. But I assure you I have read your comments.
If your intention is to discredit David Frawley’s idea of civilization beginning in India, then you should do exactly that - link to a presentation or some source of him actually doing this. Oddly, you have linked to a talk given by him where he presents arguments against the Indo-Aryan Migration theory.
His talk contains arguments supporting the Out-of-India theory. This is a 2-part video and requires watching both parts for the topic to be covered.
Unfortunately, it seems that you are doing exactly what you accuse Frawley of doing - poisoning the well. Specifically, you are preparing the audience for the idea that arguments questioning the Indo-Aryan Migration theory are absurd because the individual presenting such arguments holds absurd ideas
The information I provide relates directly to the subject discussed in the video. They are not absurd ideas on the side. They are absurd ideas as the main course. Therefore it is not poisoning the well.
A Hindu fundamentalist (assuming he is one) is perfectly capable of highlighting, and misusing, reasonable arguments, but that doesn’t, and shouldn’t, in and of itself invalidate the arguments.
Yes, of course. I said he was a Hindu only because it is customary to introduce the person I am engaging with. This is not a video against Hindus, or a video that suggests Hindus don't know history.
your comment at about the 29 minute mark that there is less diversity of R1a in India is incorrect. It’s the exact opposite.
Yes, I know. I corrected that point in my new video on the genetic evidence.
Also, the Indus Valley Civilization population was formed by the Iranian related lineage as the primary source admixed with the Andamanese related lineage (2%-50%), not the other way round as you said.
I did not say it was the other way around. I said it as you say it. See my genetics video for more info: https://youtu.be/NQX5LlJ7YXg
2
-
The most reasonable, and responsible, statement that can be made is that at present is that we don’t know how these linguistic similarities have come to be. But, this prevailing reconstructed Proto-Indo-European is quite a flight of fantasy. Its accuracy is completely unknown because no valid measurement of error or uncertainty has been presented.
I strongly disagree. The methods employed are sound, and the same rules are applied to all languages.
Even languages as close as Avestan and Vedic Sanskrit have not been reconstructed into Proto-Indo-Iranian with any statistical measurement of uncertainty that would be satisfactory to modern science.
You seem to have a prejudice against the sciences in which the human element makes things more uncertain. Just because certain things cannot be measured, this does not make the science inferior. It only makes it more difficult.
Why must this only mean a mid-2nd millennium BC migration? The IVC cline (Narasiman et al. paper) itself was the result of 2 main lineages with the Iran-related lineage being the primary source.
The Iranians in the IVC lineage are pre-Indo-European people.
But, “civilizational continuity” is… well, civilizational continuity. May be your point is that this is not a concept that is easily defined or measured. That would be a somewhat reasonable point. But, no reasonable individual would take this to mean a claim of “no outside influence” as you seem to strawman.
If you allow for outside influence, then there is no place in the world without "civilizational continuity."
Around the 14.50 minute mark, you say that Frawley is contradicting himself by both claiming European scholars’ view of Aryan being primitive in one instance and being civilized in another instance. There’s no contradiction here. He’s saying that European scholars thought that the Aryans were primitive nomads and that once in India, they gave birth to Indian civilization.
That still does not make sense. In order to civilize India, they would first need to be civilized themselves. If he is talking about what happened centuries later, fine, but he makes it sound like they did it immediately.
they had the stuff of superiority (and dolichocephalic beauty)
That is not what makes a people civilized.
You also constantly interject what we believe now against a backdrop where it’s clear that he’s talking about European scholars’ beliefs at the time and not their current belief.
Yes, one of my complaints is that he conflates the two.
He also doesn’t appear to claim that Indian history and archeology must be interpreted in some special way or religious way that’s different from the rest of the world as you claim he does.
Indeed he does. He is asking for special consideration.
He is saying that Indian history and traditions need to be understood when looking at pre-historic remains.
I'm not sure I understand the meaning of your sentence. But I can assure you that Indian traditions are taken into account in the reconstruction of Indian history, despite his claims otherwise. He doesn't like it that their texts are not taken as 100% truth.
Around the 15:20 minute mark you say that he’s contradicting himself about Aryans being used to bolster Christianity vs Aryans being used to dissociate from Christianity. Again, he is not. He’s clear that different European groups used the invading Aryans for their own purposes.
That may very well be, but he is certainly not clear about it. It sounds like he is changing his claims to suit whatever argument he is making.
refutation of the Out of India theory should not be viewed as a validation of the Indo-Aryan Migration theory.
Either Indo-Aryan language originated in India, or it didn't.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jl12781 I got my degree in engineering physics, specializing in electronics.
Well, that is going to color your views, don't you think? If you had learned engineering physics in ancient Egypt, you would see things differently in many ways.
I just think that when it comes to the ancient past We can not say anything is certain.
Then you are in agreement with historians.
But that being said, our intellect reaches back much further than the history that has been told to us.
You don't think 2 million years is far back enough?
I believe that one of the difficulties that all life on this planet has to face is the numerous forms of cataclysm that have been bestowed upon us throughout time. And every time it happens, we have to reset. And eventually all knowledge is lost, or very little of it survives.
In order to wipe out knowledge or most of it, this cataclysm would have to be total. And even if there was such a cataclysm, how do you know what knowledge it destroyed?
in between the times of repopulating the Earth or until we have developed writing. All knowledge must be passed on by folklore or storytelling.
That is not the only way to pass on knowledge. Stories aren't even the best way to pass on knowledge. A father teaching a son how to do something is probably the best way.
And those are the stories where a lot of religions come from.
You are ignoring other reasons why stories are composed.
And it's not surprising that upon developing writing some of the first stories we would write down would be the ones we had been hearing for generations.
Ah, but people like UnchartedX don't appeal to the first stories. They appeal to much, much later stories, after there has been opportunity for those stories to be embellished.
But I just get so frustrated when people from the historical society will not even comprehend that it's possible.
History is the story of what probably happened, not the story of what possibly happened. Of course anything is possible, but what historians do is try to determine what is the most probable.
And it doesn't take long for all of the evidence to disappear.
The evidence does not really ever disappear. There are always traces. That is why we find things millions of years old. And more than just stone too.
It's definitely worth leaving the ideology of advanced ancient technologies in the discussion rather than simply write it off as conspiracy.
If they can come with the evidence, the fine. But if the evidence is weak or non-existent, what is a reasonable person supposed to do?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@everythingisalllies2141 No one would has first hand experience about how science works would EVER say, "the 'scientific method', and the application of that method, is not all its cracked up to be, because it often leads one astray from the reality." Nor would they say, "It fosters authoritarian control of ideas by an intellectual self appointed elite." Nor would they say, "Peer review only reinforces the opinion of the mainstream." Nor would they say, "There is a lot in science today that is more like religious belief than actual science." (Science, by the way, is actual science. Not-science is called pseudoscience.)
I've found out that one of the core beliefs, and its really a belief, a dogma of mainstream science, that is Einsteins theories, a cornerstones of Physics, is just nonsense
Oh, you figured out that Einstein was wrong, eh? Did you do that with science or with Google?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Nonetheless, the Egyptians did have a myth or version of the "Great Flood", which was portrayed as a goddess, Mehet-Weret. The latter deity was closely associated with Hathor, who was specifically linked to a legend of world destruction, as told in the Book of the Divine Cow. In the latter, the destruction is not clearly put down to a flood, yet Hathor's association with Mehet-Weret should give us cause to ponder.
This is a stretch. The story doesn't merely leave out the mention of a flood, it describes the destruction as direct slaying. And the people slayed are those living in the land of Egypt. The reason why Mehet-Weret is sometimes associated with Hathor is because they are both associated with the sky. There is no known Egyptian flood story, and no amount of 'reading between the lines' can conjure one up.
This is all the moreso when we consider that Hathor/Mehet-Weret is clearly identifiable with the Mesopotamian Ishtar/Inanna, who was indubitably credited with world destruction and a Great Flood.
Clearly identifiable? What does that mean?
there most definitely was a cataclysmic end to the Pleistocene, an end which caused the extinction of the megafauna of the period.
In Egypt? Or have you changed the subject?
This creature - and millions like it - was grazing on a summer's day. It was then lifted by some immense force, thrown into the Polar regions, and frozen so quickly that its flesh was perfectly preserved. This cannot be explained other than by some form of cataclysmic upheaval.
Not only can it be, it has.
Are you aware of the bodies of whales, dolphins and fish found on the Antarctic continent often hundreds of miles from the ocean and hundreds of feet about sea level? These creatures are of recent species. Again, this cannot be explained except by massive inundations of the ocean.
Please cite the scientific paper that reaches this conclusion.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bierdlll The Clovis First Theory is another example of archeologists believing in their conclusions based on very incomplete evidence.
Evidence is never complete. EVER. You're basically arguing that no conclusions should ever be drawn. Archaeologists should just dig things up, catalog them, and never offer any opinion about it. Never put two and two together. I guess we can just leave that to the amateurs on the internet.
Researchers outside of the orthodoxy were ridiculed and could not get funding.
What are you even talking about?
Contradicting evidence of stone tools were discounted as created by rock falls and monkeys.
Apparently, free thought should be a crime.
I posted a question to my community. I will reproduce it here, because I would like to see your opinion:
Three people make a claim about ancient history. The first person says that they think explanation X is true, because that is where the existing evidence points. The second person says they think Y is true. Their evidence for this is weak, but they just have a feeling in their gut that they are right. The third person says they think Z is true. Their evidence for this also is lacking, but their gut tells them that they are right. A few years later, evidence is found that proves that Z IS RIGHT. The first person says, "It now looks like Z was right." The second person says, "I still think Y is right." The third person says, "Aha! I was right all along!" Who approached history in the best way?
2
-
@bierdlll Red herring fallacy. Following proper archaeological procedures on the site does not improve the scientific validity of Schmidt’s particular claim.
Following proper archaeological procedures is what differentiates archaeology from pseudoarchaeology. So it is right on point. Particular claims do NOT differentiate archaeology from pseudoarchaeology. Hence the whole reason for this video.
“Making claims based on incomplete evidence” is completely about practice and methodology, not beliefs or conclusion. Please try to ensure conceptual rigor in your reading of my arguments, as well as your counterarguments.
I repeat: ALL claims are based on incomplete evidence. It is not a failing of practice or methodology to make them.
You can quantify area but how do you quantify information numerically?
Exactly. And yet that is what you did.
Also, how can it impact the validity of his conclusion in any way?
How can what impact the validity of his conclusion?
Building speculative theories and hypotheses is not a problem, as long as they are recognized and declared as such, and not mistaken or employed as established fact.
In archaeology and history, all conclusions are considered tentative pending further evidence. This is a fundamental principle. I believe I have already stated this. Archaeologists and historians understand this. Now, you can tell me that you think someone spoke too definitely in a talk, or in a classroom, or anywhere else all you want. But then go read my first sentence again: all conclusions are considered tentative pending further evidence. I am sure in my videos, I have said things like "this happened" or "that happened." It is much easier to say than, "According to our current understanding..." before every sentence. But again, all conclusions are considered tentative pending further evidence.
When the latter occurs, it becomes a pseudoscientific claim.
The root of the problem in this conversation is that you still don't know what pseudoscience is. The discussion cannot progress until you do. Claims are not pseudoscientific. Methods are. You are making the false assertion that a claim, just by virtue of the fact that it was stated definitely is pseudoscientific. No. The definiteness of a claim has no bearing on whether it is pseudoscientific.
If you are ignorant of this
I am not ignorant of it. You have your facts mixed up.
Posting this suggests that you are understanding this problem at a level that is too rudimentary. It’s not about right/wrong conclusions.
That is exactly the point of the question I posed. You didn't make a choice.
Theories like Clovis First that span an entire continent can never be scientifically proven by inference from absence of evidence. The correct position is often “We don’t know for sure”, but academics are disincentivised to take such positions.
Saying "We don't know for sure" is accurate," but it is incomplete because it does not comment on the existing evidence. The correct position is: "Here is our best explanation based on the current evidence as far as we can tell."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@redwoodcoast There are etching tools with very sharp points that are used to scratch one's name on the metal surface of expensive electronics so that if stolen, ownership can be proven. The same principle applied to those who scratched their name on a vessel that they owned and valued. The ownership could have come about centuries after production.
Do people etch their names on expensive electronics that are centuries old?
Ramesses was notorious for having his cartouche carved on all sorts of old kingdom treasures that could no longer be created due to lack of skill or tools.
And do you know how we know that? Because he has left us with evidence of it. We don't just say Ramesses did it because we imagine it.
40,000 vessels were not found here and there across all of Egypt as is the scenario being falsely implied, but instead were found almost entirely in one single location. In storage for an unknown purpose. NOT sold, not distributed, but retained in the vast number of rooms beneath the Step pyramid complex.
But the very fact that they are etched with different names demonstrates that they did in fact have distribution, and he was not the original owner.
Olga Vdovina and her assistant worked 5 days a week for 2 years and 2 months to bash out a 7 inch tall diorite vertical-wall vessel, and finally had to quit because she found it impossible to smooth the rough surface, inside and out, via the only known primitive method of a slurry of hard grit. So, diorite cannot be shaped to perfection with any primitive method or technology.
Did you see the vessels she worked on? I have, and they look great. Imagine what centuries of perfecting the craft would achieve. It is interesting that you think one or two attempts can prove that something can't be done.
Nor can delicate vessels of alabaster or similarly fragile stone be made with walls not much thicker than ostrich eggs.
Show me a single stone vessel from ancient Egypt with walls no thicker than an ostrich egg.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dirk7816 Yeah you made the assertion that they used digging sticks to quarry the stone and a Puleston Axe for the finer cuts. I pointed out based on my research I found zero supporting evidence of that claim.
I am not sure why you are blaming me for what you can't find. I put the references below the video. I did my part. The rest is up to you.
A digging stick is just what it sounds like, a stick of wood used as a burrowing tool and a Puleston axe which they only ever found one example of in Belize is the most basic wood axe and lacked the structural integrity for the task you claim it was used for.
If you are asking me to believe you over the ones who did the experiments, I will go with the latter. Sorry.
I already pointed out you cut his video at the arch to but right after that he shows several more examples of what he meant.
I didn't leave out any of his examples.
Also if your familiar with Brien's work you would know he is not the fool you try and make him.
I am very familiar with his "work," and my assessment stands. I didn't say he was a fool. I said he was lazy and duping people.
He even mentioned the infill rubble in that very video which you conveniently don't include.
Give me the timestamps of the part of his video you say I didn't include.
He said the stone fill area with the limited finished casing was a volcanic ash concrete if true you said yourself that would be a Mayan repair and not modern. So if Brien was correct it could indicate they lacked the ability to cut the finer casing stones and just used what they found.
That is not correct, but if I recall, Brien didn't say the concrete was in the interior. The mortar was used on the outside, not the inside.
And you keep missing the point guys like you attacking people pointing out their observations and sharing it with others is nauseating especially when you come up with such weak theories yourself.
None of these theories are mine, as I made very clear in the video. They are common knowledge among anyone who knows anything about Maya building.
You proved nothing, you just put forth a few theories which are not widely accepted enough to come up on a google search and actually don't make and sense at face value, period the end.
If you need me to show you how to use Google for archaeology, let me know. But in the meantime, read the references I provided for anyone who has any interest in learning.
Your only goal is to prove ancient societies never existed and anyone who thinks that is a fool.
My whole career is the study of ancient societies.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@StelleenBlack One of the important aspects of scholarship, and the only way that progress can be made, is engagement with the work of others. If scholars only presented their own information and never addressed any of the arguments made by others, knowledge wouldn't go anywhere. Every possible angle must be considered, including all counterarguments to a person's own position. So, for example, if I just ignored someone's theory and presented my own contradictory theory, without regard for any of that other person's observations, this would be poor scholarship.
Now, that being said, in this video series, my aim is to debunk popular misinformation and pseudoscience, which is exactly what this is. Thousands of people are being misled by his book and his channel and his blog. Dr. Sweatman might be an excellent chemical engineer and statistical mechanic. But he is so far off base here, it's not even funny. For too long, academics have been letting things like this slide, but all it has resulted in is the propagation of falsehoods. As an educator, my job is to let people know not only what is correct, but also what is incorrect.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
He GUESSES 2nd dynasty based on quarrying techniques that are completely unknown (there are no credible/accepted theories on how or when this was done...and evidence for sophisticated granite working is predynastic). There is no credible or accepted dating of the Abydos complex, yet he uses that to base other speculations on, presenting it as fact, when it is only unverified speculation.
This is simply not true. There are several converging lines of evidence for the dating, but that was not the subject of the video.
He theorizes a date after the New Kingdom based on techniques that are still completely unknown at this time, and solely on a quarry marking which said only that two obelisks were ordered...but not that the unfinished obelisks was one of them. Possibly both were quarried and delivered...this one is still unexplained.
Only one made it to Karnak. So they both were not delivered. But he acknowledges this as a theory. I don't know what's wrong with that.
No engineers were allowed in the theorizations (only orthodox archaeologists).
Experiments, not theorizations.
No experiment has ever SHOWN that dolorite pounders make the same kind of scoop marks found in granite. But you accepted that lie without question?
You sound very sure of yourself. Why makes you so certain it is a lie?
NOT all the applications we have seen of precise and complicated granite cutting and shaping lend themselves to this idea, and the SCALE on which this would rely,
Please see the title of the video.
for all the quarried granite in Egypt before steel, would deforest a nation and leave a great deal of evidence.
I'm sorry, but that statement is ridiculous. Anyway, we have evidence for varying techniques used on granite: saws, stone chisels, etc. But for large objects like this, fire would have saved a lot of time.
Engineers deny these possibilities, so they are not allowed a say...but your mind can accept them?
Engineers affirm these possibilities too. You are picking and choosing who you want to believe.
Yet he has no idea how a 16 hundred ton rock is raised straight up from its trench to load on a raft?
Did you not watch the whole video?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
One of the reasons that academics are mistrusted is because of the same kind of arrogance you display in this video.
What arrogance is that?
1. New academics still need to follow in pre-established paradigms, even when presenting new theses or the thesis will not be accepted by their professors / institutes.
I'm not clear what you mean by "pre-established paradigms." Do you mean that new ideas are built upon previous research? Well, of course, that is the case and must be the case. What would be the point of anyone doing any research, if you could just ignore everything that's been done previously? Or do you mean that new theses are required to be placed in a predetermined timeline? Well, since every year history is revised, and the timeline is changed, that shows that there is no predetermined timeline. And I have never been told that I must adhere to any predetermined anything. All I have been taught is that I must engage with past research, especially the strongest. I can disagree with it, but I can't ignore it. You really should talk to more academics to find out what is going on in academia. Otherwise your imagination will run wild.
2. Many of these paradigms are not based on exhaustive data, but rather on interpretations of incomplete data sets.
Again, I am confused by your use of the word "paradigms," but with ancient history, of course, data will be incomplete. We go with the theory that best fits the existing evidence until such time as a theory that better fits the evidence comes along.
3. You state the current interpretation of data as fact.
Never once have I done that. As I tell my students on a regular basis, history is based on probability, and nothing can ever be stated as a proven fact. When I say that something happened in the past, I am only meaning that there is a fair probability that it happened. No one can say for sure.
2
-
@nothing_in_the_woods Pre-established paradigms means that there are certain pre-determined rules, concepts and thought patterns applied to the research.
I have never heard the word paradigm applied to rules, concepts, and thought patterns, but I agree that there are standards, and they are there because good reasoning and tried-and-true scientific practice leads to more trustworthy results.
You mention them in your videos, for example the idea that early civilizations “tend to exaggerate their time scales” of existence. You take something that has merit within some context and extrapolate onto everything else.
Not sure what you are trying to say here. There wasn't any extrapolating going on. When I spoke of tendency, that means nothing more than that the probability of it happening is increased. It doesn't mean it definitely happened or always happens.
From what I can see, looking inward, archeologists build assumptions on top of assumptions, instead of building assumptions on data, and by doing this end up cherry picking through historic texts to find parts they like (which fit into the established concepts) and ignore other parts of the same texts which they don’t like (because they do not fit into established concepts).
Your vision is blurred, and it's probably because you just don't know how the historical method is done. You can find info on this on my website: http://davidmiano.net/blog/2018/06/10/how-historians-determine-the-historicity-of-people-and-events/
When you consistently find evidence of older civilizations in writing, it stands to reason that such a prediction can be made, and then due effort would be required to go out and find it. As far as I can tell, such due effort is not made by academics, as the concept does not fit into the established patterns, and as such is dismissed without due effort.
Historians and archaeologists have the freedom to choose to study whatever subjects they wish to study, and that is how it should be. There are thousands of things that could be studied. For you to say that they should be required to seek out, not only everything mentioned in histories, but also legends and myths, suggests that what YOU think is important is what everyone should think is important. And then on top of that, you accuse people who don't feel like researching what you want them to research of ulterior motives.
When you say “We go with the theory that best fits the existing evidence” I believe this is where your fault as an academic field lies, as to base a theory on incomplete data sets is just bad science.
If that is what you think, then why do you support those who base a theory on even MORE incomplete data?
To base a hypothesis on it, sure thing, but to establish rules and world-views based on incomplete data is a mistake.
I don't know of any rules or world-views based on incomplete data. Can you give me an example or two?
Add to these political aspects, such as seen with national / ethnic pride on history as found in many places such as, for example Egypt, and you also add potentially manipulated data into the equation.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Please explain.
How can you with good conscience use this data to create a set of principles as held to be true by an entire academic field and then present these ideas and interpretations as fact to a laymen audience?
The historical profession doesn't hold anything to be true. All ideas are considered provisional.
I think one of the reasons alternative researchers are so popular, is because when archaeologists approach an audience with these ingrained concepts, which the layman has no basis for, it comes across as elitist and has a feeling of "wrongness" to it.
Yeah, that's human nature, and it can be found everywhere - in medicine, science, etc. And anti-intellectualism and anti-expertise is running rampant today, not for any good reason, but simply because of a dislike for elitism.
2
-
@nothing_in_the_woods You mention that you are free to study what you want. I grant you that, but you are definitely not free to go dig wherever you want. To add data, you have to go into the field. For that you need money and what is even more difficult to get, permission from local governments. Both of those things are incredibly difficult to come by.
I was responding to your statement that "due effort is not made by academics." Now you seem to be agreeing and passing the blame onto local governments. Are you retracting your original statement?
there are too many similarities across the world in regards to myth, stories, symbology, religion, etc. to be coincidence
People keep saying that, but every time they give me an example, it is something so generic and common to human experience that it couldn't possibly be used to show it isn't a coincidence.
You asked for an example of how national pride or ethnic pride can effect archaeology, I think one of the best examples is the Documentary on Netflix "Secrets of the Saqqara Tomb." I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on the "facts" mentioned in that documentary.
You're asking me to go fishing? Why don't you just tell me?
Another example would be more locally, and how the catholic church deliberately destroyed pre-Christian sites to support their world view. This is a major problem in central Europe for example, as most pre-historical sites (or even pre-Charlemagne sites) are victim of purposeful vandalism. I won't even get into what happened in the Americas on this topic.
Hey, no argument there. You were speaking as if it was still going on, and not by the church or by vandals, but by academia or government.
watching professors give lectures on youtube (yes I mean PhDs at legitimate academic institutes), there is a lot of "This is fact" where, I, as a layman, see just assumptions being made.
Better to remind people every now and then, rather than bog down a video with caveats every time I make a statement. People will be yelling at the screen, "We know! We know!"
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@adithyaavadhani the general claim by linguists is that there existed some Proto-Dravidian language (that mind you, nobody has any proof of) from which Tamil, Telugu and Kannada, among other "Dravidian" languages, originated from. I am now considering the languages grouped together with Tamil as Dravidian, but not Tamil - which quite clearly has different roots. The linguists substantiate their claim by looking at the "pure" words in each of those languages, i.e., the words common to those languages that are not derived from Sanskrit and asserting that those are the remnants of this "proto-Dravidian" language.
I have never heard a linguist use the word "pure," and I think your summary of their position is deliberately simplistic. The focus on only words and not on structure is a major failing of your representation.
(1) very few "pure" words exist in each of those languages, i.e., almost all the words in these languages are derived from Sanskrit. This is not true of just the modern version of these languages, it is true even of the very oldest known iterations too (see for example: Kavirajamarga in Old Kannada; Old Kannada (or Halegannada) inscriptions and literature by Pampa and his contemporaries; Nannayya Bhattarukudu in Telugu, Kallamalla inscription (actually installed by a Tamil King).
It is funny that you keep putting the word "pure" in quotes, as if you are quoting somebody. Also you don't seem to understand that Old Kannada and the inscriptions you refer to are not nearly as old as the time period under discussion and came into being long after Sanskrit speakers were already influencing the region.
(2) Further, all of these "pure words" are found in Tamil, which archeologists prove pre-dates Kannada and Telugu (and every other "Dravidian" language).
It is not clear what point you are trying to make here.
(3) In response to any challenge to my point regarding the non-existence of a proto-Dravidian language with reference to the same case arising for "proto-Indo-European", I direct you to the Vedas, particularly the Rig Veda. A common misconception is that the Vedas are written in Sanskrit. This is false. While the two languages are very similar, they are undoubtedly different.
Um, yeah, it's called Vedic Sanskrit. Why are you referring to a common misconception among the general population instead of a misconception among linguists?
Since the oldest known Sanskrit inscription references Vedic beings and phenomena, it is certainly tenable that the Vedic language predated Sanskrit and did not succeed it.
Yes, Vedic Sanskrit preceded Classical Sanskrit.
Even if the Vedic language isn't this "Proto-Indo-European", it is at the very least clear that there exists a "mother-language' as it were, from which the Sanskrit, Kannada and Telugu vocabulary and grammar structure derive.
Kannada and Telegu do not have the same mother language as Sanskrit, and you have given no evidence otherwise. Your evidence so far has been: "But there is no proof!"
There is absolutely no proof of any kind for a similar "Proto-Dravidian" or that there existed anything similar to Tamil, before Tamil itself.
See what I mean? You don't seem to understand how ancestor languages can be reconstructed from existing languages. The existing languages provide the clues to allow such reconstructions. But if you do not know the principles involved or how languages evolve, you will never be able to determine the history of languages on your own.
Considering this evidence....
What evidence?
it is more plausible than not that Kannada and Telugu (at the very least) were derived from Sanskrit (or the Vedic language, if you are unconvinced that Sanskrit predates Tamil) and that certain words were loaned from Tamil thereto, upon its introduction to Kannada and Telugu speakers.
I have not seen the evidence for this conclusion other than your personal general observations.
I encourage you to undertake an examination of the linguists' theories rather than blindly accepting their claims.
Okay. I encourage you to do the same. But I will say this: a dude off the street who thinks he is smarter than all the experts on the planet may need to eat some humble pie. For some reason, my videos seem to attract such people. They come here and write long essays in the comments section about how they somehow know better, even though they have far less information.
Your second point assumes that this "dharma" was either created or first discovered and then introduced by the Brahmins to the non-Brahmins. It is unclear what this "dharma" might be.
Okay, so are you saying that Brahmins teach nothing? Or are you saying that you do not know what Brahmins teach?
Unlike religions which can be introduced by populations to others, there is no way to convert into Hinduism.
Since when were we talking about conversion? I certainly wasn't.
It is also incorrect to assume that there is any proof for the proposition that "Brahmins" existed any earlier than Kshatriyas, Vaishyas or Shudras.
Did I say that? I don't think I said such a thing.
Even of those claims of ancestry are unprovable, it remains that there is no proof whatsoever to suggest that Brahmins were alien to the Indian population at the time of Hinduism's birth.
There you go with your evidence again. "No proof." History is not about proof. It is about probability based on the evidence available.
Further, your suggestion would mean that the Aryans were exclusively Brahmin and somehow managed to persuade everyone else to accept a phony lineage and that this "dharma" they brought from elsewhere just happened to speak of geographical features specific to this new region and not any mention at all of their ancestral homeland.
No, my suggestion (actually the consensus of the experts) does not mean that. The Brahmins were simply the teachers within the group. See my video on varna, if you want more information. And their teachings were based not only on what their ancestors believed before coming to South Asia, but also on what they picked up in South Asia. I am not sure why you think their teachings should have been focused on geography, but you seem to be under the mistaken impression that the experts think the Vedas were composed outside of South Asia. Not so.
This is extremely unlikely. Look for example at the general tendencies of peoples who travel with their religion/ideologies: like for example the Zoroastrians who documented their origin from the "heptahindu", wherever that might actually be, or Jews who documented their origins to "Israel" and "Judah".
Just because you can find some religions with migration origin stories, that does not mean that all must have them.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@fuzzyballs44 However, because his colleagues KNEW how Jupiter formed and KNEW that a Jupiter sized planet could not be that close to a parent star they absolutely refused to give him telescope time to look.
Where did you hear this story? Were you able to verify its accuracy?
There were plenty of mainstream arguments that ridiculed him for even wanting to try.
That comes with the territory. People are free to express their opinions.
The point to this is, what are archeological academics missing because they refuse to even look? The "clovis first" is such a good example of this. When someone decided to dig deeper on a site in ?North Carolina?, I think...I know it was the east coast....WOW they found evidence of human activity BEFORE clovis. There is another known site in the Yukon that is thousands of years older than 13k years. Plenty of old school guys are still clinging so hard to clovis first though even as more and more information contradicts it.
There are a couple of things you are missing. First, who was it that found this evidence? Answer: academics. This only demonstrates that academics are looking. But each individual academic should be allowed to seek what they want, and each should be allowed to have their own opinion. Second, the reason why it has taken so long for "Clovis first" to be overturned is because there was insufficient evidence to overturn it. Mind you, some academics' minds were persuaded earlier than others, but what else should we expect? To get a consensus takes time. Please see my video on Consensus to get my full views on this.
Imagine if Gobekli wasnt intentionally buried...
Speaking of changing opinions, new evidence suggests it wasn't.
Imagine if Gobekli wasnt intentionally buried and a civilization through time...say 5k years ago....reinhabited that site and used it...hell even turned it to ruins....do you, and be honest, think that Gobekil Tepe would have been dated to 12k years ago?
Yes.
I personally dont...Gobekli offers so many problems for the known timeline and they were almost forced to date it to 12k years ago because it was buried at that time and there was absolutely no reinhabited peoples around it.
I don't know what you mean when you say "offers so many problems for the known timeline." Every new archaeological discovery revises the timeline. There is no problem.
Debunking, which has turned so popular on social media, is unhealthy and does nothing to move the theories forward.
Social media is no place to move theories forward. That is done in academic journals. Social media is for providing the public with information.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
There’s a huge difference between “underestimating ancient peoples ability to move a large stone” and claiming, as fact, that “ancient peoples placed 2.6 million stones in a pyramid shape in only 25 years”.
Such a calculation is dependent on the assumption that the ground was completely flat when they started and that there are only stones all the way inside. Recent scanning has shown that the Great Pyramid was built over an existing mound.
Engage with the specifics of the actual arguments, that cause people to question the current narrative.
Did you catch the two parts of the video where I said that this is only a general overview of the arguments and that specifics are addressed in other videos of the series?
I don’t HAVE to know what the great pyramid was used for, to question if it was really a tomb, considering it is missing nearly all tomb-like features.
https://youtu.be/asJneqxPnjU
Writing everyone off as a “crack pot” is counterproductive
That's why I don't do that.
in my lifetime, proposing the idea that humans were carving stone monuments 11,000 years ago, was considered a “crackpot” theory.
When the evidence is found, views change. That's how it ought to be.
wasn’t the Younger Dryas around 12,900 to 11,700 years ago & currently, the oldest part of Göbekli Tepe is from 11,522 years ago?
The Young Dryas comet impact is proposed to have occurred 12,850 years ago. The oldest layer of GT is carbon dated to 10,000 years ago. https://www.dainst.blog/the-tepe-telegrams/2016/06/22/how-old-ist-it-dating-gobekli-tepe/ Even your date of 11,522 is a thousand years too late.
The age of the Sphinx, is a guess based on an inscription.
No, it isn't.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@cluelessgod97 "unseen" I'm meaning we don't think such event could take place because the tsunamis, melting,floods we see today are small, local and relatively slow happening. And the event of multiple (impact, earthquake,volcano errupting) in a small period of time could cause the flooding talked about.
Okay, but where is the evidence for the flooding?
Why I wondered about North America and some of the Geological work as it appears like massive, fast moving waters and large ice boulders have shaped the land around (would this not class as a geological record). It's not mainstream or accepted yet, but is recent finding towards and dating being carried out.
Even if it does become accepted, that still is not evidence for a global flood.
I've seen loads of Graham is wrong videos, but when I have raised the question to them to contact, many want nothing to do talking with him and don't try.
Graham is welcome to invite me to a conversation on the topic.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Here’s the rub: Mainstream archaeology has written a bible about the development of civilization.
That's a strange thing to say, when textbooks are constantly revised.
Like all Bibles, or Korans, it does not brook questioning, demonizes its critics and holds a lapse in belief as the greatest of sins.
There are continuous debates in archaeology, and ideas are questioned almost non-stop. What you mean is that the radical theories you believe in are not accepted by archaeology, and you can't understand why.
The “Alternate” timeline is just an idea, not apostasy. It is a hypothesis that is being questioned and gradually researched...tested, despite the demonization that comes from testing a bible.
If a silly idea gets ridiculed, or is not taken seriously, that isn't demonization. It just means it's dumb. Some ideas are well-argued and supported by evidence, while others are not.
The orthodox timeline is still only a hypothesis.
Yes, all conclusions are tentative until better ones come around. That is how history works.
But some of what has NOT been tested (credibly) conflicts with that hypothesis.
I don't know what you are referring to. Explain. How can a lack of evidence conflict with anything?
Orthodoxy does not DISPROVE those conflicts, but simply denies they exist and ignores them.
It is not the responsibility of archaeologists to disprove every proposal. It is the responsibility of anyone with a new proposal to substantiate it.
But so far, NOTHING conflicts with the possibility of the alternate timeline.
Only all the evidence supporting the current timeline.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@karlvalentin9581 I may be reading your comment wrong, but it sounds like you are saying, "Yeah, that might be wrong, but what about this other thing?"
My answer is that whatever I point out to be wrong is wrong. That in itself is educational. The other thing is a topic for another day, or a topic for never. It doesn't matter, because this video is about the Great Pyramid mathematical evidence he presents and nothing else. It's not a video assessing everything Carlson has ever said. Why should it be?
What is a matter of fact, is that: - in the Pyramide resp. the math involved it is about relations between sides, angles, and so on. - the unit in which one meassures therefore is basically irrelevant
Agreed.
- the formentioned is undeniably embedded in the buildings dimensions (radii of planet earth etc.)
Where is the evidence for that? Carlson failed to show it. Can you?
- one funny property of math is that you can come to one and the same result by a number of different ways - in some cases . (Maybe that Carlson just took the wrong one.)
Then give me something that works.
- given the required efford of buildung the pyramide it´s undoutedly obvious that the architects knew exactly what they were doing. The dimensions and everything related to construction is 100% intention and 0% coincidence.
How the pyramid came out is intentional, yes. But that doesn't mean that patterns that you find in it were intentional.
What about the (geological) work of Robert Schoch on the weathering/erosion on especially the great spinx with regards to dating?
See here: https://youtu.be/DaJWEjimeDM
What about e.g. the work of Ben van Kyrkwik in regards to the precision as well as machining marks on stones, artifacts, ... throughout the complex of the Gizeh plateau?
See here: https://youtu.be/n_NguZUDku4
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You are judging his hypothetical assertion of if our age will leave an archeological footprint or not doesn't disprove Carlson's hypothesis.
I am judging only one claim: that artifacts from more than 10,000 years ago other than stone wouldn't last until today.
You use semantic arguments to dispel the main point he's making of exposed a structures of our age.
What is semantic about it?
The papers you cited only address methods of measurement to aid in archeological observations.
That's false.
Of the ancient civilizations we know of, we only of a diminished perception of what they were. I think you'd agree, and Carlson too, is that what ever does remain of our existence will be a small fragment of what our age truly was.
You are the one playing with words. We might both say "small fragment," but we would mean different things.
I'm not choosing sides, but it seems you chose a "popular" figure to pick on to gain a following.
Well, since this series is aimed at correcting popular misconceptions about the past, it is unlikely that I would call out someone who nobody listens to. Besides, Carlson fans are more likely to vote down this video than become a fan of mine.
You use factoids to give a facade of "taking him down" while leaving an inconclusive argument from an imprecise hypothesis.
Facts, not factoids. Conclusive, not inconclusive.
Perhaps do some real research and don't try to focus on gaining popularity on YT.
If you have facts that can show I am mistaken, please provide them. Otherwise, your words are hollow.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You have chosen to ignore/explain away enough information to allow you deny the actual evidence based story.
I always look very hard at the evidence and do deep research. As I said in the video, this covers the main arguments. I go into detail about the evidence in other videos. Check 'em out.
Your theory of parallel evolution of technology does not match the archaeological record, where we have no examples of a partially developed civilization.
I am surprised to hear you say that, because we most certainly do. And why wouldn't we? Even if you believe a past civilization was destroyed, it would need to rebuild again, wouldn't it? And therefore civilization would grow gradually from that point.
And we have extant stories from every continent that the full package of modern skills-- metallurgy, music, astronomy, agriculture, etc, were all taught to them at once, by an outsider. A person who visibly was distinct from the local population.
Don't you find it curious that such stories were written only after those skills had been developed already? And why are you using the word "outsider"? They don't use that word. They say "god."
We have mummies of people who fit this description and have dna tested them.
How do you match the DNA of a god?
You use minor stylistic differences to deny that consistent principles were employed.
Like what?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You're going to tell me you're not being paid by a museum and the powers-that-be to lie to us?!?
Ha, how much money do you think museums have? And for what purpose would anyone pay money for me to lie to you?
In Egypt the local egyptologists know that the Egyptians inherited the site. They literally love Billy Carson because he can say it and he won't get in trouble. And they are not allowed to say it because Egypt has such a monopoly on egyptology obviously.
When you speak of "local egyptologists," you mean people like the Awyans, who tickle the ears of people like you for money. The guides are allowed to say whatever they like, and they often do. Anyway, what does this video have to do with Egypt?
You're saying nothing is special in those bags they are of no significance even though it takes a lot of time and effort and skill to carve that into a wall.
I said they are full of significance. Significance to the ancient Assyrians, and for an ancient historian like me, that's important.
The ancient Sumerians literally had the technology to clone, dig for gold create new civilization's, create new beings, and have electricity.
When you find evidence for any of these things, please provide it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tamashbeen6610 You missed the important part.
In reference to the origin of R1a, where R1a diversification occurred is the MOST important part.
He says R1a subclade M780 which peaks in Indian subcontinent split from its European variant about 6000 years ago (range 4800 to 6800) which overlaps development of Indus Valley civilization (IVC) , thus suggesting IVC people had this male lineage.
I don't see that anywhere in the paper. Can you give me a quotation? Also, please show me where he says this split occurred.
R1a diversification , based on Underhill's limited sample, may have happened in Iran but that does not prove that it originated there.
Do you know what diversification means?
R1a's brother lineage of R2 peaks in India as well and it descends from R which has descended from haplogroup P in South East Asia.*
R2 is more like an uncle, not a brother. You are referring to movement much longer ago than the period we are examining.
Sharma et al (2009) explore the Indian origin of R1a*. You don't have to believe anything just on the basis of one paper but all data currently available suggests that R1a has been in India much longer than what your pet Aryan Invasion or Aryan Migration theory would suggest, whether or not R1a originated in India.
You're right that one paper doesn't prove anything, and in the case of Sharma it seems to be an outlier. It doesn't seem to take into account the fact that higher population density will lead to greater genetic diversity. You say "all data currently available" suggests R1a has been in India longer, but you still only have cited one paper.
You are probably angry that the oldest city of the world has been displaced from Ur in Babylonia to somewhere in India and poor Abraham's city is no longer the origin of civilization.
I don't know what you're talking about. Uruk is the earliest known city, not Ur. And I am not angry. I just go where the evidence leads. Do you often impute motives to people you do not know?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ShubhamSoni1 Thank you for your thoughtful comment.
1> 7k years back writing was not developed:- Are we sure about it?
No. That is not the point. Oak is assuming it was there, without any evidence that it was there.
Secondly, related to old Hindu texts when people say 'written' they actually mean 'composed' and many of those composed texts were transferred orally from generations with strict discipline.
How many generations? What is the evidence for that?
2> Mahabharat was an actual event:- For me, this doesn't matter. Let's assume it is a story written yesterday but, the question is based on the contexts mentioned in the story can we find the year the story is based on.
As I said in the video, I am willing to let this one assumption slide. One assumption is not a lot. But the more the assumptions are multiplied, the less believable the hypothesis is.
3> Was nakshatra system established back then:- This again is based on the question that "Had Mahabharat actually happened?" because if I assume it has happened then only I'll look for the answer to the question weather they knew about astrology or not. Here also we can assume that it never happened and composed by someone who was aware of astrology and continue to date when the story was based.
No, no. Oak's proposal requires more than just that there was astrology. It requires a fully-developed nakshatra system, which is not evident in the Mahabharata itself, independently of his thesis.
4> Mahabharat was composed 18 years after the war:- How does this matter?
It matters, because the longer after the war it was composed, the more chance that there is that the observations are not accurate memories.
5> The astronomical details were actual observations:- No. Not all. Some like eclipses, days with reference to another event, seasons, day/ night were observation but, position of planets were traditionally calculated. It is done now too. People who do that usually keep a table for calculations(like log tables) rather than doing calculations themself. Still, kundlis are being made without observing the sky.
I don't understand what point you are trying to make. Oak's thesis is based on the assumption they are actual, visual observations.
6> The astronomers were meticulous in observing the Nakshatras:- You don't need to be very precise to tell which 1/12th section of sky has those major constellations, Sun and Moon are.
And yet Oak claims that they were meticulous.
7> Weather they had means to observe the sky:- Many civilization has been looking up to the sky and observing things. Observations of things that changes in the sky and things that remain same is done a number of times. You don't need a telescope to observe them.
And yet, Oak says they knew of objects not seen with the naked eye. It is beginning to look like you are agreeing more with me than with him.
8> Purpose if including astronomical events is to date:- Yes and No. Planetary positions, moon phase has been used in almost all ancient texts as calendar so whenever any constellation or phase of moon or planets are mentioned, it is for dating where as things like season or eclipse were part of story.
In cases where the astronomical phenomena are presented as unusual or ominous, it is unlikely that they are used for dating.
9> They are written in Similes hence hard to decode:- No, unlike English, Sanskrit is more disciplined and hence less ambiguous. Moreover the way it talks about astronomy is like name of constellation/planet and its relative position with something.
Are you saying that if a name is mentioned, it is to be understood as BOTH a person AND as as a heavenly body?
10> It's circular reasoning:- No, saying his calculations are correct as they are consistent is not an example of circular reasoning as the author has not written Mahabharat. I have not read the book and it is possible that some other event of Mahabharat will not fit his theory and hence his calculations were wrong but, this certainly is not circular reasoning. What he is saying is the year he calculated explains the events of Mahabharat(which he has not written) hence its calculations are correct.
Simply pointing out that a thesis is consistent with itself is not proof that it is true. Call it what you like, but it is fallacious reasoning.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I didn't like that I chuckled at that spot, and I considered editing it out, but there was no way of doing it without removing me asking the question, so I had to leave it in. I was hoping it wouldn't bother people too much. But you are right that it isn't in keeping with the way I want to present this channel.
In answer to your questions:
Why are the stones rounded at the edges of the outer face?
I can only assume that is the way they wanted them to appear. It's also possible that they were less rounded but that weathering over the centuries has rounded them more.
Why do they appear to have been softened, not just in that regard, but also around the notches where Lee's theory has it that wooden props were used to hold them up, as in 39:57?
In his book, Lee seems sympathetic to the stone softening theory.
If the Incas were so enthralled with the beauty of the stone itself and the aesthetic of large, smooth raw stone walls of perfect fit, why did they leave the notches for the wooden poles in the stone after construction(again, as in 39:57), rather than pounding them smooth? Why leave such a mar on their aesthetic masterpiece that took such effort to create?
Mr. Lee thinks that this was intended, but the job was never finished.
Lee says that the Inca chronicles themselves claim that they got the stones from some quite far away places, but that this seems unlikely to be true.
It is definitely true for the walls at Cusco, just not at Sacsayhuaman. Mr. Lee says that they were talking about Cusco in general.
I think I've heard it claimed that the Incas, themselves claimed not to have build the larger base structures. I get these native stories mixed up, but don't they claim that they were originally built by some other people or gods who were there before them?
People keep telling me that, but not a single person has been able to show me the evidence for it. So I remain skeptical that the Inca ever told this story.
The level of craftsmanship of the large-stone, lower level, polygonal masonry is so much higher than that of the mid-tier sharp edged semi-polygonal masonry on top, that it doesn't really make sense to attribute them both to the same people at the same time.
I am not clear as to what lower-level masonry you are referring to. And I have to ask: do you think that each culture of the world produces only one level of quality in construction, or do you think a single culture is capable of producing artifacts of varying quality?
All over the world - not just Sacsayhuaman - the same pattern occurs of the much higher level of mastery of stone-work, and with much, much larger stones, in the oldest layers, and a clear diminution of quality and stone size moving forward in time.
That is not true. This is just a claim that people like to repeat without ever investigating the matter. They just say it because they heard someone else say it.
Then you have problems like the scattering of those huge blocks, post-construction, haphazardly around the area, as if hit by some massive chaotic force like an explosion or wave, which does not lend it self well to deconstruction for repurposing.
If you can't show this through science, you're letting your imagination run wild.
Finally, what is the positive reason to presume that the Inca did build all of it? That doesn't seem like a parsimonious default presumption.
It is the most parsimonious presumption. The reason is because all the of the Inca sites exhibit similar construction techniques, so if one or more of them can be established as Inca, then they all must be. The least parsimonious presumption is to have to invent a hitherto unknown civilization at a time where the technology and knowledge needed to build it is not known to have existed anywhere in the world.
It may at first seem parsimonious, as it requires positing fewer different peoples. But only until one considers that the typical pattern of humanity as far back as we can detect, seems to be to build upon the ruins of the previous builders, at the same locations, and reusing what's left from before.
Who told you that? Every single archaeological site has a beginning. And this beginning can be dated stratigraphically, through carbon dating, and by other scientific methods.
So, why, other than cultural habituation of presumption, is the burden of evidence demanded only of the view that is in keeping with the standard pattern, and none is required of the view that would be the exception?
The burden of proof is one the one with the more extraordinary claim. Positing the existence of an anachronistic civilization is extraordinary.
And then you've got symbols in common between these megalithic builders on the different continents of the world. Not just swastikas and zig-zags, but things like the capstone over archways being carved with two lions or panthers facing each other with a ball between them.
Are any of these at Sacsayhuaman or any of the Inca sites? I don't know what you think is proprietary about a zig-zag, but it sounds like hyperdiffusionist parallelomania to me.
In the Mayan Popul Vu(creation myths sage), you've got both the 'world flood' motif and the 'tree of forbidden magical fruit' motif, the 'crafting of mankind' by members of a race of hominid deities from whom we do not descend by birth.
The Popul Vuh was written after the Spanish conquest and is believed to have been influenced by Christianity.
2
-
@brindlebriar I was responding specifically to this: "The burden of proof is on the one with the more extraordinary claim." I see that view as the fundamental error holding back all of modern sciences, first because it's not true, and second, because one can't objectively establish extraordinariness even if it were true.
I already explained my meaning. And your claim that "one can't objectively establish extraordinariness" is a cop-out. It supposes not only that there is no use for the word, but also that there is no use for the word 'ordinary.'
As to Lee or others having established the consensus view, there's no point getting into a "yes/no" on that, but he has not done so to the satisfaction of all experts.
But Jean-Pierre Protzen, who Lee cites many times, has done so to the satisfaction of the experts. When Lee speculates, he explicitly say so.
The modern norm is to dismiss the outliers, preferring to presume that the consensus is more likely correct. Here, again, we have a questionable metric for parsimony: consensus. Contrary to what almost all modern people appear to believe, consensus can never be used to resolve scientific disagreements about what can be inferred from a body of evidence.
You are right that consensus can never be used to resolve scientific disagreements, and it never is. But it is a mistake for you to assume non-experts are part of the dialogue. As I have stated many, many times in many forums, including in my book, How to Know Stuff, since non-experts do not have the knowledge or the tools to weigh in on a subject or judge it properly, their wisest move is to defer to the consensus of the experts. It is foolishness for a non-expert to choose a minority opinion. This is not to say that the minority opinion is wrong. It may very well be right. But a non-expert couldn't possibly know that. In time, the peer review process will reveal that minority opinion to be right, if it is right.
I would venture to speculate that Mr. Lee, has not delved deeply into the arguments or the evidences cited by those whose view he dismisses.
He is very well read, so I don't know. But it's possible. If such ones have solid evidences and argumentation, they can get it published in peer-reviewed literature for the experts to evaluate.
But the only honest solution to that problem is to persist in agnosticism until one has debunked the alternatives. Not to just assume they're all nonsense.
I disagree. With that reasoning, we would never believe anything about anything, because there will always be someone with an alternative. Always. No, the honest solution is to go with the idea that has the best evidence and if ever an alternative provides better evidence, switch to that one.
"Positing the existence of an anachronistic civilization is extraordinary," contain the implicit assumption that a civilization in that region prior to the Incas would be anachronistic.
Setting aside the fact that presuming the existence of something BEFORE it is discovered is putting the cart before the horse, the fact is that we have an archaeological history for South America leading up to the Inca period. It isn't a blank slate that you can just fill up with whatever you want. When you have archaeological evidence indicating what life was like and what technology people had, it would indeed be anachronistic to presume a different life and a different tech in that same period.
In fact, I Googled 'who built Sacsayhuaman' and get the impression that the mainstream consensus has now shifted to the view that the earlier parts were built by a prior people in the area called the Killke, who occupied the region about 200 years before the Inca arrived.
This is not referring to the walls under discussion.
1) People who got PH.Ds in a science once were in the top few percent of human IQ. But education has been democratized, including higher education. The cultural view shifted to the presumption that, since education is good, therefore, everyone should get educated. The average IQ of PH.Ds is now much lower than it used to be. The same is likely true of the professors, though I haven't heard anyone claim that. And that increases the susceptibility to error and decreases the vigilance against error.
I reject your speculation that the intelligence of Ph.D's is lower. I do this on the grounds that the requirements haven't changed. Also, IQ is no longer considered a valid way of measuring intelligence. With more experts in a subject area, the better and more thorough the work will be.
2) Some scientific fields have become extremely politicized. Others somewhat politicized This diminishes the human capacity for objectivity.
That doesn't really apply here.
3) Work in almost all fields is now almost wholly determined, now, by the ability to obtain funding, which depends upon a number of non-scientific factors, such as commercial viability, political interest again, the degree to which work might embarrass the old guard in positions to peer review.
I don't follow your logic. Funding isn't contingent on what conclusions are drawn from a study. Funding is done on the merits of the study itself, without knowing what will be discovered. With archaeology, there isn't much of any commercial viability for any of it, except maybe for tourism. And scholars and archaeologists are embarrassed all the time. It comes with the job and is expected. Younger scholars are always questioning the older ones.
4) The ability to publish in journals is now dependent upon those same factors.
Have you ever seen an academic journal? Do you know how much money an academic journal brings in?
Your knowledge about how the academic field works appears very limited.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mojorisin08 If Greek and Sanskrit indeed were part of a super family of linguistic and cultural systems, why did the ARYAN Greeks who infiltrated into India in around 180 BC always look at Hindu culture and Sanskrit as strange and exotic even after a long 2000 years of the presumed invasion?
The Greeks were not Aryan. I think you mean to say Indo-European. They looked at it as strange and exotic, because after thousands of years of being apart, their cultures had developed considerably in different directions. You do know that culture and language are different, right? The relation of Indo-European languages and the relationship between cultures are separate issues.
Why did the ARYAN Scythians, the Huns, the Khushans among others who made India their home not find any cultural similarities between theirs and the Hindus?
The Huns were not Indo-European. As for the other two, this is an even longer separation. Their cultures had developed considerably in different directions. And how do you know they did not find ANY cultural similarities? Again this is a separate issue from language. They certainly would have found similarities in language.
Why did the ARYAN Zoroastrians and Jews who settled in India not see any cultural (linguistic et al.) similarity between their culture and Hindu culture? As late as 16th - 18th century, why did the ARYAN Portuguese, Danish, French, Dutch folks who had outposts in India not document any cultural similarity?
All your questions are basically the same question. So all my answers will be the same.
Archeological: the study of the artefacts, potsherds, etc. from the excavation of the Harappa and Mohenjo Daro sites as well as those in Tamil Nadu do not show ANY evidence of an invasion or a migration. They also do not show any signs of existence of a Hindu composite culture linked to Central Asians or Europeans.
Correct. What is your point?
They rather clearly show that India has had an unbroken culture for the past 8000 years till date.
I don't know what you mean by "unbroken culture." You know that Harappan civilization ended, right?
How do you account for the total silence on invasion or migration of Aryans in ALL the Puranas or Itihaasaas?
Because they are concerned with events long after that.
Let us not forget that Indians have had a culture of good documentation skills going back to the times of the Sindhu Sarasvathi.
Every literate culture has "good documentation skills." Documentation is irrelevant to the question of whether documents will still exist today. Preservation practices are more applicable here.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
go find a YT clip by a TX guy who proved that a historical drought ended the Mayans. During his research, although he found physical evidence of a long drought in vegetation, rocks, soil layers, an ice core in Antarctica, including how oceanic wave patterns in 1 area of the world can affect another across the ocean..."scholars" refused to accept
Not being convinced by someone's arguments is not the same as suppression.
Although he already had produced 300% MORE evidence of his theory than anyone else had ever proven to establish what they accepted and considered as "fact".
Um...evidence can't be quantified like that. The quality of the evidence needs to be taken into consideration.
It wasn't until a separate team doing another project on a riverbed (same region) discovered similar results that anyone listened.
That's how it should be. When the evidence becomes strong enough, then people's opinions will change.
it was proven that the Smithsonian & the academic world at large purposefully lied, denied, hid & covered up the existence of "Giants skeletons" for DECADES, just so their own established & agreed upon narrative could stand.
Proven how?
Quite a lot of "new discoveries" were once scoffed at by historians & dismissed as myths, or old-wives tales, only now being considered as possible proof.
Science is progressive. Knowledge increases over time. That's how it is supposed to work.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2nd assumption - please provide all evidences of date of INVENTION of Nakshatra system as mentioned in the video.
That's his job.
Without your proof, i say, the 2nd assumption of Auther is correct.
Are you suggesting that all claims are correct until proven incorrect?
3rd assumption - it's also written in the original Mahabharata that this is the Itihasa (history), which translates to 'this is how it happened'. If you agree to 18 years part of the text, then you should agree to this point also.
You seem to be assuming there was only ever one edition of the Mahabharata. You also seem to be assuming that all histories are true. So you just added more assumptions onto his assumption.
4th assumption - you claim it unfounded. Why? Please provide proofs.
Read his book. And if you can find somewhere that he established this claim, then show me. I read the whole thing and could not find anywhere that he does this.
5th assumption - You are skeptical about the precision of Maharshi Vyas - Auther of Mahabharata. In order to clear your skepticism, you need to study more of his works and test them on scientific basis.
No, I don't. The most common practice of humans is to be imprecise. Precision is rare. Therefore Oak must demonstrate the precision, because it is unusual. I do not need to demonstrate what is most common.
Then you can decide whether Maharshi Vyas were a great scientist with accuracy or just a common poet.
He is the one who decided the statements in the Mahabharata are precisely accurate. So he must be the ones to show that. And why are you assuming that the author of the Mahabharata is the same person who made the astronomical observations?
Now, i am skeptical about your rela intentions regarding the ancient Indian history.
I am skeptical about yours.
6th assumption - absence of materialistic evidence 7500 years later doesn't mean the absence of technology itself. So telescopes or similar instruments could have been available at that time. In these 7500 years, they may have got lost or destroyed or stolen or anything.
So then you agree that Oak is assuming the existence of something that has never been found. Good. I did not say that such instruments didn't exist. I said that Oak affirms they did exist. So he is the one that needs to support such a claim.
7th assumption - how else would you perfectly note the date of a perticular event for the reference of future generations?
This is not about whether it was written for future generations. It is about what it was written for.
8th assumption - This is generally called Simile and Metaphor. As the Mahabharata is written as a poem, the Auther/poet is authorised to use them.
Correct. And Oak is not authorized to change a simile or metaphor into something literal.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This isn’t science. Real science is debating 1 on 1
Science is debated in the pages of academic journals. Live debates are popular entertainment, like presidential debates are. They are won through rhetoric, not facts. That being said, I am happy to debate someone live, as I have said several times before.
you can’t take snippets of the podcasts of a multi faceted issue and claim that’s the full claim. That’s quite literally a strawman.
It's only a strawman if I misrepresented what he said.
When you said Randall claims that a complex civilisation with high communication and n whatnot was destroyed and we have no evidence of it and that explains the lack of evidence for it. That’s actually wrong. He doesn’t so confidently propose that this civilisation was high population, super advanced and high complex civil Liberty. That’s a strawman.
I described a civilization. Any civilization. I gave the generic definition of a civilization. The only way it was a strawman is if he didn't think it was a civilization of any kind.
He’s not claiming that one 100% existed, he’s proving that let’s take a pragmatic approach with all the new evidence he’s gathering.
I wish I knew what this sentence was saying, but it's incomprehensible.
Just because you dismiss one persons claim doesn’t mean you’ve dismissed the conclusion being displayed.
Not sure what you mean. If a claim is a conclusion, then if I debunked the claim, I debunked the conclusion. Or do you mean he has claims, but no conclusions? Okay, then I debunked the claim. That's enough. Or do you mean that if I debunk one claim, I haven't debunked a different claim. Well, of course! If that were the case, I wouldn't be making all these videos.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ironcladranchandforge7292 No, I'm upset that race was injected into the conversation unnecessarily in my opinion.
I wonder about that. If I referred to any other skin color, would you have taken as much offense?
Let's imagine you and I were walking down the street, and you had a bag of groceries, and we passed a playground with a bunch of kids with their moms, and you said, "Hey, I have some candy. I am going to go offer some candy to that little girl over there, just to be nice." And I said, "Wait. I don't think you should do that. It's bad optics for a middle-aged man to go offer candy to kids on the playground. The moms might not take kindly to that." Would you tell me it's offensive to bring up your age and gender like that? I don't think you would.
My comment about Mr. Foerster should be taken in the same spirit.
I look up to you as a professional, a professor of history. I believe the "white man" comment is below your standards.
What standards are those? The standard of giving you my honest opinion?
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I find the "out of Africa" theory ridiculous. Just because some of the most ancient skeletal remains are found there, doesn't prove it.
What about the genetic evidence?
Especially since we know how they've hid so very much of the archeological discoveries away from the public.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Archaeological discoveries are published. There are reports on every site and all that was found there.
Also it would take not just thousands, or hundreds of thousands of years for the environment and other things to change the features, races, genetics, etc, of people from the black African to all these other peoples, but it would have to take millions of billions of years for such changes to take place.
What scientific evidence is this opinion based on? Are you aware that the genetic differences between Homo sapiens is miniscule?
Setting the previous theories aside, and looking at the information from all over the world in antiquity, with either the so called gods, or even extreme ancient humans, doing genetic changes, mixtures, and creations has to be seriously considered.
There would be DNA evidence for such genetic engineering. And there isn't.
When we look all over the world at these ancient beings, we see a large variety of colors, races, features, etc.
What ancient beings are you talking about?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@M-man-ui8cv Believing is just another word for not knowing.
Well, it is not knowing plus faith. If it were only not knowing, that would be fine.
And it does not make me feel better that thousands of years ago maybe some guys were very advanced and a global civilisation. As we are not doing not such an excellent job being a global civilisation.
So it makes you jealous?
I just have seen to many examples of stupid explanations of technical feats of ancient instead of saying we have no idea how it could be done
Personal incredulity is not a valid argument, because it relies on individual experience, which is limited. As an example, I think most of the explanations sound convincing.
Not digging deeper than 12.000/13.000 years deep in americas because of the Clovis idea > dogma. Which is breaking up now but should have done it decades ago. Instead of demolishing the careers of scientist who tried to disprove it mostly without intend to do so.
Oh no, did you not watch the whole video? We can continue this discussion, if you like, after you do. Otherwise, I will just have to repeat myself, and I made the video, so I wouldn't have to.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shreea3131 What is the percentage of migratory genes in Indian DNA?!!
I am pretty sure that is answered in the video, and it certainly is answered in the studies listed below the video.
According to you "while the latter is weak."(indicating archaeological evidence) Then why did you premise your description, "linguistic argument is probably the strongest for the theory of an Indo-Aryan migration into South Asia, genetic evidence gathered so far supports it."
Yes, that is all correct. Linguistic argument is the strongest, genetic evidence supports it, and archaeological evidence doesn't say one way or the other. What is the problem?
Where in Reich paper does genetic evidence supports IAM theory?
That is explained in the video.
How did you conclude things on "Sanskrit" or IAM - Indo "Aryan"!!!? Don't bring up "aryan" in genetics study.
Tell that to the geneticists.
this is typical left tactics to confuse public, that is to bring aryan in genetics study, this is happening since 1900s.
The scientific reason for this is explained in the video.
Every body agree on migrations in parts(three different times), migratory genes into Indian DNA. Nobody is denying that(include abhijith and others).
I have had many people tell me they have a problem with the idea of an Indo-Aryan migration into India. So no, everybody does not agree on migrations.
Problem is when, people like you bring in sanskrit/Indo Aryan into genetics. See your title and description.
I didn't do it. The geneticists did.
You have not answered similar community that precedes vedic culture outside of India?
You did not ask me this question before. Are you referring to the quotation of Reich? I agree with it. I told you that already.
1
-
@shreea3131 See you are using easy way out, "tell geneticists". Instead of being critical of usage of word "Aryan", you endorse the usage, which create confusion and flare up unnecessary political and societal divide. Why not use South Asian migration (SAM).
I do not have the power to decide on the terms. I am a teacher. I teach the scientific and historical consensus.
The use of the word "Aryan" in the context of historical and linguistic research has been a source of controversy, as it has been used in the past to support racist ideologies and has been rejected by many scholars.
That is why we use the term Indo-Aryan instead, and it doesn't refer to a race. Stop beating a dead horse. It sounds like you wish to argue with people who died a hundred years ago.
Which suggests that the population of South Asia has a long history of genetic continuity and that there was not that significant migration of people from outside the subcontinent for impact culturally. However, the term "Aryan" is still used in some theories and studies of the history and languages of South Asia, and it is important to be aware of the potential implications and associations of this term.
When a Nazi uses the word Aryan, I am not so ignorant as to believe he means the same thing as when a linguist uses Indo-Aryan.
Regarding the usage of "Aryan" in South Asia, while in the West, it is referred as "Indo-European" or "Indo-Iranian", it is still used in the context of South Asian history and culture, but it is important to note that the usage of this term is not the same as racial categorisation.
No one uses it as a racial categorization except Nazis.
It is also important to note that the usage of the term "Aryan" in historical and linguistic research is a complex and nuanced issue, and it is important to be aware of the historical context and the potential implications of its usage.
You're repeating yourself. That is why we prefer the term Indo-Aryan instead.
Just because comparisons of the grammar, vocabulary, and sound patterns of Sanskrit with other Indo-European languages have revealed similarities that support the hypothesis of a common ancestor language, known as Proto-Indo-European, But that does not prove the cultural migration.
When you study linguistics and know what you are talking about, I will be more inclined to listen to you. Otherwise you are just some guy with opinions.
The Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) has been largely discredited by Historians and archaeological evidences, while Indo Aryan migration lack any archaeological material evidence(both in India and Steppe prior to Vedic period)
We've already established this. You are repeating yourself again. If you have nothing new to say, we can end the conversation.
Plenty of evidences of exchange of materials during Indus Valley civilisation era. But what impact during indus valley culturally "Zero," as historians say
Show me one historian who says this.
vedic text never discuss any migrations, not even an hint of any civilisation outside or outside ancestors etc...lol
That is because the Vedas came later.
1
-
@shreea3131 In India its celebrated by left and liberals.
They celebrate the proper study of history? I am happy to hear it!
Right in India don't talk of AIT or IAM, unless some left/liberal write articles in news.
Really? I find it all over YouTube. In fact, there are more videos on YouTube arguing for OIT than there is arguing for Indo-Aryan migration.
Please type in google "Dravidian Politics/Dalit Politics/Left's Subaltern politics and Aryan theories", check out various left/liberal groups, scientific authors, historians, and main stream political parties use "Aryan" "Indo Aryan" theories with divisive articles.
Guess what? If the Hindu right accepted Indo-Aryan migration, there would be no division on this issue. India would be united on this point. And you know what else? Saying that Muslims and Christians are outsiders is divisive. If the Hindu right embraced Muslims and Christians in their country, India would be united even more.
their memory just vanished, when they migrated into India in 2000 BCE and forgot about their own homeland in steppe in their Indian literature.
You seem to be under the mistaken notion that memories always get written down, and that such writings will always last until today.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jfangm The story told by my father is anything but anecdotal.
It is BY DEFINITION anecdotal.
Originality in the post-graduate world is as common as rain in Antarctica - it's practically non-existent.
You're just continuing to make claims on a subject you know very little about.
Journals don't care about originality, and some don't even care about credibility; Andrew Wakefield got his "research" published in "The Lancet," a prestigious peer-reviewed medical journal.
Bad science gets through sometimes, yes. Are you saying Wakefield's "research" was unoriginal?
Peer-review is just a process to ensure the methodology of a paper is good, it isn't an indicator of the paper's merit or originality.
If someone submits a paper with no original argument, it will get flagged in peer review.
And if you need MORE proof, look at any number of sociological journals and count how many of them parrot the exact same ideological talking points about race, gender, sex, and oppression.
Even if so, each paper has a separate, original argument or new research findings.
Yes, early in an academic's graduate career, they will publish numerous original works. But as time goes on, the pressure mounts to publish something, anything, to maintain tenure, grants, funding, even employment, and with it grows the temptation to take the easy way out. And many are all too willing to take the easy way out just to publish SOMETHING.
That may be true sometimes, sure. But usually after someone gets tenure and a full professorship, there is no longer any pressure to publish.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@matveyshishov I am doing my best to answer every question you put to me. Is there something I missed?
It's you who proposes this to be the same culture.
No, I don't. I assume them to be different cultures. I never said otherwise.
I only see similar technology, just like you may have pyramids all over the world being built simply because it's an obvious pattern.
It can't be called a pattern unless the parts are considered to be part of a single design. Otherwise, it is random or coincidental. And I think the similarities are coincidental.
If bumps, regular grooves and large stone size were, indeed, so generic and common, then please, explain their purpose?
We can't assume that the purpose is the same for all of them. They are different enough that they could very well each be for a different purpose. It would take a long time to discuss each one, so maybe I will put that in a video at some point.
Why do they always come together and never exist in subsequent cultures?
I don't know what you mean by "come together," but I can tell you that they often do exist in subsequent cultures.
any contemporary attempts at reproducing megalithic-style stonework have failed to include these (and many other) features
I sincerely am trying to understand why you think producing a bump on a stone or regular grooves would be difficult. Moving a large stone might be hard, but cutting it would be a basic undertaking.
yet with the Ancient Egypt cores we see constant depth of the grooves, as if the aggregates had the same hardness
Who told you that? It's not true.
I don't care if it were the same culture or not. I want to know how these structures were built, when they were built and what their purpose was.
That's great. More power to you. But if you don't care if they are the same culture, then why, in your original comment, did you make a point to say that Foerster's claims about Baalbek should be taken in the context of a global phenomenon? I would argue that my points about Baalbek stand no matter whether there was a global phenomenon or not.
Pretending archaeologists have an answer to this when they don't
I presented the arguments in this video for why archaeologists think the granite columns were made in the Roman period. They seem to have a convincing answer to me. You have not presented anything that calls this evidence into question. Did I miss it? Or are you referring to some other question that I supposedly pretended archaeologists have an answer to?
1
-
@matveyshishov Having bumps, grooves and large stone blocks in all these places around the world means there was a technology which would have them as a side-effect_. See? It's not about how "difficult" it is to make grooves, because nobody _wanted the grooves. It's that the technology resulted in grooves, bumps and large stone blocks.
You're right. I have misunderstood you. When you said bumps, I thought you were talking about nubs, which are deliberate. And I assumed you meant deliberate grooves. And of course I assumed that the size of the blocks was deliberate, because, well, wouldn't the size be chosen? If you are not talking about deliberate features, but rather accidental features, then that is a whole other matter. I would need to have these accidental features pointed out to me in photos before I could give a proper answer. Did any of them appear in this video?
it seems like Baalbek was built on top of another site and we have layers, just like in today London you have buildings from the 18th century and the Shard. And the oldest Baalbek layer has a cluster of features which are very much the same as those in Peru or China.
That's not the case. The oldest layer has Stone Age technology. Please see my other Baalbek video: https://youtu.be/QUiNoAgijpc
1
-
@matveyshishov All the features you have shown me in those video links are deliberate features, except for the grooves. The grooves are also the only marks you show me that are at Baalbek, and now that I know which ones you mean, these have been identified as marks made by pick axes. They are irregular, not regular, and they are found in many places around the Mediterranean. So I am still confused why you are bringing these up. You said in your original comment, "Without explaining Ancient Egypt, any rebuttal about BAALBEK would be incomplete at best, I'm looking forward to elaboration on Ancient Egypt and Peru, thanks!" I got the impression that you were saying Baalbek is connected to Egypt and Peru, and when you started clarifying, you brought up the marks. But so far, the marks that you have brought up are not in both Baalbek and Egypt or in both Baalbek and Peru. Can you please clarify? Are you still saying my rebuttal about Baalbek is incomplete?
I just checked the links on my other Baalbek video, and they seem to be working for me. There are no papers from academy.net. Do you mean academia.edu? The links for those are working, as far as I can see.
1
-
@matveyshishov This conversation is getting frustrating. You keep pivoting, and you don't answer my questions. Out of all the features you brought up, are the grooves the only ones found at Baalbek? If so, why did you bring up the other ones? I feel like you are throwing red herrings at me.
The grooves are common to Baalbek, Egypt, China and Peru. Did you actually watch the video?
Yes, I did, and I don't recall her showing anything from Egypt or Peru. Pick axes are common to many cultures. So it is exactly what I would expect.
"all the features ... are deliberate features".. right.. you should check the flat Earth crowd, they also love throwing out evidence that doesn't match their dogmas.
I have no idea what this even means.
If you don't want to look at the "deliberate features", others are doing it right now and they're getting the Silicon Valley money, the rigorous STEM cross-examination and the younger generation eyeballs.
Arrghh. I DID look at the deliberate features, but then you scolded me for doing so, saying they were side effects.
1
-
There are writing in IVC and Rig vedas were never written down because if vedas are written down it has probablity to get corrupt.
But the Vedas ARE written down. They may have been oral at first, but they were written down a long time ago.
why would rig vedas mentions river like Sarawati which were dried up at 4000 years ago?
The upper Saraswati still flows, does it not?
If Aryans are from out why there is no mentions of there motherland which points in central Europe?
As I said in the video, the Rig Veda was composed in India.
1) Bhirrana an IVC site village in Fatehabad district and has been dated to 7570-6200 BC. 2) RAKHIGARHI the Largest IVC site located in Utter pradesh. 3) IVC sites are spreaded across Whole of North and Central India. IVC is the Biggest and oldest civilization on planet earth of its time. Cities like Mohenjadaro had a population of 60000, even some moderday cities will fail to hold that much population.
What does any of that have to do with the video?
My question is How can such large number of people get infulenced by Aryan Invaders ? and how can they even imposed there language and culture on whole people living in subcontinent before them?
The influence went both ways. But Hinduism became popular, and therefore the language of Hinduism spread with it.
Why there is no trace of any immigration or large scale war in northwest region at harrapan sites?
Because there was no large-scale war, and the cities were not taken over.
At that time IVC was superpower like Unites states, and if historians says tribes called Aryans from Steppes imposed there language and culture on poor Indian people is like saying mexcio erased the history, language, culture and of USA.
No historian or archaeologist believes that Aryans conquered the IVC.
How can steppes produced rig vedas in such perfect grammarly language called sanskrit?
As I said in the video, the Rig Veda was composed in India.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
i can find that in a David attenborough documentary about the great barriers reef of Australia accounted an oral legend of an aboriginal tribe in the area about their ancestors killing a holy fish and the sea was angry hence start taking over their once ancesrorial land. This clearly tells the formation of the reef which was the widly accepted concept of how the wonder was formed around 13000 to 15000 or so years ago. So is that not a myth in the Oceania region about ice age sea raises which only sort of documented by a mainstream source only recently?
I never argued that there are no flood myths that go back that far. This point doesn't negate anything that I said.
The over all hypothesis of the likes of handcock is not the arguments of myth of flood what not, but presenting a possible explanation to evidences gathered that hinting a possible first wave of civilization before the sumerians.
The myth you refer to above doesn't speak of a first wave of civilization. In the story, the way of life of the tribe was no different before the flood than after.
The fact is those (both side) who look at history are mainly guessing, speculate by the knowledge gathered on hand and try to make some logical sense out of it.
Some guesses make more sense than others.
Pretty much similar to how fossil scientist research on dinosaurs. Knowledge evolve in these fields, any one grab a book written about dinosaurs in 1970 would present a totally different picture on how dinosaurs look like compare to dinosaurs today. because new and better methods in looking at fossil appeared.
Hancock's methods are not new and better. They are old and worse. And I speak quite literally, because all he has done is resurrect silly ideas from the 1800s and earlier.
So for those historian who refuse to look at all these strange and out of place (vs their own believe) evidence unearthed or discovered by others...
They have not only looked at such evidence, they are the ones that found it and studied it before Hancock and his like ever knew about it.
they need gather funding to use resources to proof that these new discovery and view points are indeed within the historically accepted timeline or proof that "oh no those amateur" are indeed right or one third of what they suggested are right.
No. Anyone who has a new idea needs to do the work of establishing it. That's how it works. Historians are not obligated to debunk every idea that anyone comes up with.
There are enough evidence to suggest there are civilizations of some sort advance enough for world sea navigation around the time of the last ice age.
If by "world sea navigation," you mean people in canoes, rafts, or primitive boats could cross from one continent to another, I won't argue with you. But if you mean continuous transoceanic trade and worldwide communication, not only is there insufficient evidence, there is no evidence whatsoever. It is non-existent. In fact, the evidence is in direct contradiction to that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@carterghill So first off, you did say that. 15:30. If that's not what you meant, that's fine. I won't dispute it further.
I stand corrected. I probably ought to point out that the statement is still not tautological, because an object can both be moved by human hands and be moved by modern technology.
You're implying that he doesn't believe in physics, which is incorrect and disrespectful.
I am implying that his conclusion that it was impossible or improbable unknowingly contradicts physics, and all he has to do are the calculations, and he would know that he is incorrect. I don't see anything wrong with pointing that out.
Egyptian's are the only people who seem to have used bronze to carve granite at such a high level, yet it's assumed they use bronze tools.
Neither I nor any Egyptologist has said that Egyptians used bronze to carve granite. Granite was carved with stone tools.
their granite work is on another level from other civilizations at that time. So what explains the difference?
They were better at it. I don't know what you expect me to say.
You're absolutely right, if it was proven convincingly without a doubt through other sources when certain things were produced. But you haven't shown that reason.
I can't put everything in one video. It is already 3 1/2 hours long.
It might be an excellent one, but how would anyone who watches your video know? How would his fans know?
They would need to watch more of my videos. Some things I simply have to save for another time.
This is exactly the circular argument the top upvoted comment here is talking about.
How is it circular?
He's also talked about how a lot of structures are dated by Ramses the Great, but has shown reason to believe much of his structures were not done in his time, including showing times where early writings were clearly erased with his writing over it. The dating of many structures are already called into question
Do you know how he knows that those objects don't come from the time of Ramses? Because archaeologists discovered it. When there is evidence that an object has been reused, archaeologists point it out. When there is no evidence that an object has been reused, we can't simply claim that it has. Conclusions are drawn from evidence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jayess7682 Thank you for providing instances you think are examples of strawmanning.
You begin you trek of logical fallacies from the start, with an attack against an assumed sizable chunk of your viewer base - specifically you accuse them of being indoctrinated into thinking nothing much beyond stone would remain after ten thousand years.
Change "nothing much" to "nothing," and you would be correct. It is not a strawman. They are indeed indoctrinated.
You then accuse Carlson of ignoring the evidence that does exist
You didn't provide a timestamp. But he does ignore evidence. Not a strawman.
4:38 Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I agree. And I never said otherwise. But absence of evidence IS absence of evidence. If you don't have the evidence, you don't have a case. This is because history is based on evidence, not on personal wishes and desires.
4:51 You cite the Natufians; who exhibit some of the oldest yet known signs of agriculture and permanent settlements - as evidence for a lack of agriculture, and permanent settlements.
Incorrect. I cite the Natufians as evidence for food storage (yes, at permanent settlements) but without agriculture. The Natufians were hunter gatherers in the entire period leading up to Gobekli Tepe.
5:15 It's circular logic to state that because we assume there were only hunter / gatherers that when faced with evidence to the contrary state that Gobekli Tepe - what was an enormous undertaking of no small skill - must have been the work of hunter gatherers because there is no evidence to the contrary.
You lost me. How can I be face with evidence to the contrary and at the same time there be no evidence to the contrary? If you think it is illogical to believe that the people of GT were hunter gatherers because no evidence of agriculture has been found there or anywhere else at the time, what do you think of the argument that they had agriculture for the simple reason that it isn't impossible?
5:48 You state no material record from that time of monumental building, (almost all of the other things you mention here are required to accomplish monumental architecture) as if Gobekli Tepe, (and Karahan Tepe for that matter) aren't examples of just that.
Gobekli Tepe is not 12,000 years old. That's why.
As to what metal would still exist 10,000 years hence, Carlson argues that anything above ground would be "pretty much gone", to which you move the goal posts to artifacts we have found underground, or under water in the case of the antikithera mechanism.
Carlson says "all the infrastructure" would be "pretty much gone." He does not say that only about things that are "above ground." Now you are just making things up. Who is the one doing the strawmanning?
10:00 You state that iron has a max deterioration rate of .4" per thousand years. Structural steel has a minimum thickness of .03".
I don't see what your point is. You know what minimum means, right?
You posit that a cannon, "a large iron artifact" would not have completely eroded after 10,000 years. If it were buried, perhaps. Otherwise, at + - 2" thickness; you might get 3,000 to 5,000 years out of it.
Cannons are more than 2" thick. How thick are cannonballs?
At around 13 minutes you begin attributing other people's speculations to Carlson.
I was clearly not talking about Carlson there. So I was not attributing those statements to him.
I think it's safe to say that you have misrepresented Carlson and his work.
I am still waiting for a single valid example.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JasonP6339 I'm sorry but you do a lot of the very same things that you claim he does while trying to refute his claims. there are literally dozens of other people out there that make incredibly extravagant claims about all of this stuff and yet you go after the one guy who is extremely careful to only ever make note of things and ask questions about.
As I mentioned in the video, I was asked to respond to him, because it was said that he made good arguments.
Ben never once claims to know exactly how any of this is done, he simply takes the evidence that's right in front of you and applies it to what we know today and only a fool, who doesn't actually understand precision machining and stone work, would not see the extreme disparity between what archaeologists claim and what is actually possible in the real world
It is my opinion that he is doing the same thing in the opposite direction. He doesn't see the extreme disparity between what he is claiming and what was possible in the ancient world.
at the end of the day most of you really aren't builders and you really aren't machinists in most cases
That is why we consult with professionals in those fields. In fact, I have cited work by such professionals in the video more than UnchartedX does.
Something simply doesn't add up and it's not the fault of the builders and machinists simply for noticing that fact
SOME builders and machinists. Usually the ones with little to no knowledge of ancient building techniques and experimental archaeology.
when you add in that some of them seem to literally start with their best work and end up with their worst work, or at the very least there isn't even a remotely close enough correlation from the earliest work to the best work and then to the nearly worst work
That is a rarity. At the vast majority of archaeological sites, the worst work is below.
You all set up on your high horse and to mean anyone who dares the question the academic narrative
That is how it looks to you only because you don't have all the info. If you did, you would see things more like me.
Watching an egyptologist sit there and argue with the master stone mason, which has happened on more than one occasion, is as entertaining as it is frustrating.
Egyptologists work with stone masons, engineers, architects, etc. You are referring only to the occasional maverick or rogue, whom you wish to be right.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shreea3131 Your comments are getting way too long. I don't have all day to write answers to you.
Your statment"Why ask questions about the genetic evidence, when there is a video right here that explains it?" Answer: I have heard that explanation of yours, you answered it vaguely, on continuity of culture. You said some cultural things have survived some did not(indicating migratory IAM theory cultural values might have lost). But you premise "linguistic evidence as strongest evidence just based on few loan words here and there" and conclude IAM but fail to acknowledge IVC continuity of culture.
I do acknowledge IVC continuity of culture. SOME of their culture. I don't see what your point is. Surely you do not believe that culture can come from only one source. Do you? Culture can be a synthesis of many sources. And why are you making a false quotation of me? I never said "linguistic evidence as strongest evidence just based on few loan words here and there."
Only left believes AIT/IAM and uses it, liberal historian are on fence.
First of all, do not write "AIT/IAM." They are not the same. And if you watched the video, you would know this. And you are simply labeling anyone that believes in Indo-Aryan migration as left. You do not know all these historians' political affiliations. Do you know how many historians of ancient India that I know that believe in OIT? None. This is because it is a pseudohistorical idea that has as much evidence as Atlantis or ancient aliens, and nobody who has actual knowledge of the subject believes in it.
Are you talking of "Linguistic evidences", where is the material evidence of any similar culture outside of ancient India?
You mean, like, horse-drawn chariots with spoked wheels?
With few linguistic loan words, you describe it as strongest evidence!!!
There is a lot more linguistic evidence than that.
How do justify migration of culture that is vedic/sanskrit from outside based on migration of genes(genetic study)!!!
Nobody says that Vedas and Sanskrit came from the outside. They say that the ancestors of Vedic people and Sanskrit came from the outside. And how is this connected to genetics? Watch the video to find out.
When you could not point one cultural data point that is similar to vedic or Sanskrit outside of India except for few loan words.
What is a "cultural data point," and when was I asked this? Do you realize that OIT proponents point to cultural similarities between India and the outside all the time? What do you think these evidences are?
Our results also have linguistic implications. One theory for the origins of the now-widespread Indo-European languages in South Asia is the ‘‘Anatolian hypothesis,’’ which posits that the spread of these languages was propelled by movements of people from Anatolia across the Iranian plateau and into South Asia associated with the spread of farming. However, we have shown that the ancient South Asian farmers represented in the IVC Cline had negligible ancestry related to ancient Anatolian farmers as well as an Iranian-related ancestry component distinct from sampled ancient farmers and herders in Iran. Since language proxy spreads in pre-state societies are often accompanied by large-scale movements of people (Bellwood, 2013), these results argue against the model (Heggarty, 2019) of a trans-Iranian plateau route for Indo-European language spread into South Asia. source An Ancient Harappan Genome Lacks Ancestry from Steppe Pastoralists or Iranian Farmers Authors Vasant Shinde, Vagheesh M. Narasimhan, Nadin Rohland, ..., Nick Patterson, Niraj Rai, David Reich
Why are you quoting me a paper I discussed in the video? Yes, this is correct, and I accept it completely. Indo-Europeans did not spread into South Asia from across the Iranian plateau. They also did not come from Anatolia.
Same paper says this too, which is questionable. """However, a natural route for Indo-European languages to have spread into South Asia is from Eastern Europe via Central Asia in the first half of the 2nd millennium BCE, a chain of transmission that did occur as has been documented in detail with ancient DNA. The fact that the Steppe pastoralist ancestry in South Asia matches that in Bronze Age Eastern Europe (but not Western Europe [de Barros Damgaard et al., 2018; Narasimhan et al., 2019]) provides additional evidence for this theory, as it elegantly explains the shared distinctive features of Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian languages (Ringe et al., 2002)."""
Yes, I accept this as well. You clearly do not accept it, but you do not give any genetic evidence in support of your view.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
While I really enjoy your videos as a subscriber because I often learn something very interesting, so thank you for that
I appreciate that. Thank you for watching.
I will admit I watch and listen, and often expecting disappointedly, that you will sarcastically, if not openly, ridicule someone else's theories because they upset the current scientific view.
I never ridicule someone else's theories because they upset the current scientific view or any other view. I do so because their theories are so poorly argued and so at odds with the evidence, that they are indeed ridiculous.
Archeology is about digging for evidence of ancient artifacts and past cultures. It is not going to end today or tomorrow is if saying "that's it, we have discovered all there is to see here folks, go on home" will end any debate.
I am in full agreement. And debates and controversies among scholars are plentiful. In my Myths series I only choose the views that are the worst of the worst, the views that are so outlandish that no one in the field even debates them.
Taking cheap jabs at someone who is not there to debate you do not make your position any stronger.
If you are referring to my "Randall is Wrongall" remark, that was a joke. Don't take it too seriously.
Taking someone's video statement on a podcast where they are not always asked to clarify a statement (this happens to all of us. He could have been asked "what about plastic or glass siding from buildings? But no question was forthcoming. Maybe that would change his statement somewhat) does not mean they haven't considered the science.
His comments about metal are most certainly incorrect. What clarifying statement could he make? He would have to retract the statement altogether.
It''s just pointing out other possibilities that may be lying out there still waiting to be found and that's really all the skeptical community is watching for.
It's not just pointing out other possibilities. It's making positive and direct assertions and claiming that the "establishment" is wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@saumensingh9482 I've watched your other videos. Your analogy is way below average.
What analogy?
Development of cosmology, astronomy, astrology, mathmatics, science, building codes which are in Vedas & pouraanik literature can't be made in centuries, such mammoth developments take millenniums before they reach to practicality.
You are going to have to demonstrate the truth of this claim. You can't just say it and expect people to believe it.
no race on earth including Mesopotamian Ezyptian couldn't give birth likes of Buddha Mahavira Ashoka TG Kurus TG.
This is a personal value judgment. It isn't an objective statement.
Literature of all civiliations combined can't reach half of Vedic.
Are you talking about literature that has survived until modern times? How is this significant?
45% Earth's population speak Arya languages.
No, they do not.
How a race who surpasses all races can originate from civilizationless hunters g@therer infested Steppe?
There is no such thing as a superior race. And Arya is not a race anyway.
R1a1aY/R1a1Y (Arya/Vedic) don't exist in Yamnya, Sintashta or anywhere in northern hemisphere before 1k BCs.
Come back when you understand the genetics. I have a video on it.
Celt R1bY Yamnya, Vened R1aY Sintashta & other races of northern hemisphere can't name the book they could read for the first time in history. They can't recall their indigenous deities, mythology. No evidence of their native language.
So? And haplogroups are not races.
Your comments are nothing more than your personal opinion over who is superior. You are no different than Sepehr. There is no room for racism in historical study.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mikec4196 The preponderance of evidence for disassociated methods is clearly defined between what, dynastic Egyptians credit themselves for, and that which is unexplained. For example Jupiter's pillars, "sarcophagi" in Osiris tomb, king and queens chamber, Origins of the rebuilt basalt plaza.
I read this over several times, and I don't understand what you are saying. What are "disassociated methods"?
As for the pillars in question, 54 perfectly milled 6 foot wide 70 ft tall one piece pillars do not remotely sound like Roman Quarrying.
Actually, they are sized according to Roman cubits, which is further evidence they were made during the Roman period. But what makes it not sound like Roman quarrying to you?
You argue rocks versus chisels right? Both are found in both sites and don't describe how blocks were quarried.
I'm confused. Why would finding the tools used not tell us anything about how they were quarried?
Regardless of chisels or rocks there exist an intention, or overall approach to removing material that usually evolved, but is consistent in these two examples.
The two pieces we're debating, evidently intended to come out the same way. Burrowed around. This is not a typical quarrying method.
If we find it all over the place at ancient quarries, then it is typical. And we do.
Lastly, yes, the largest, most unique, incredibly complicated, distant, and seemingly unused temple. Why?
It's not the largest or the most unique or the most complicated or the most distant. It was unused because it was never finished.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Murrangurk2 You edited it, so previously it was jam packed with Ad Hominem etc?
No, just interesting but unrelated stuff.
yet, despite the edit, you couldn't lose the tone that your opponent was an idiot, and his character and arguments were dubious.
I said nothing about his character or intelligence. But if you think by presenting the facts, he came off looking like an idiot, I can't help that.
Your whole countenance throughout this video just smacks of arrogance, "I'm better than you."
You couldn't see my countenance except for at the beginning. You're reading something into it that isn't there. If I speak as if I know what I am talking about, it's only because I do. Ben, on the other hand, openly says he knows more than the entire body of archaeologists around the world. Is that arrogant? Be honest.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AbeAlJ the gobekli tepi structure itself is evidence of agriculture because the workforce and complexity of art cannot be achieved without a continous food surplus.
There is a lot about hunting and gathering you don't seem to know. In this area, hunters and gatherers had settlements and stored food. This was well known before Gobekli Tepe was ever found. Here's a book you may be interested in: https://www.archaeopress.com/archaeopressshop/public/displayProductDetail.asp?id={56B20C92-57BA-49FA-A570-6A1B1E3C956B}
Just a few years ago clovis first was disproven, and yet you're defending orthodoxy as if its unassailable.
When did I do that? History is a progressive field, and our understanding of it changes constantly. No one believes it is unassailable.
It's the same arrogant attitude European historians have been carrying since the enlightenment, when they thought Troy was a total myth because ancient people are morons who can't tell the difference between harry potter and the history of their civilization. And then they were proven wrong, but their attitudes havent changed for the most part.
History is based on evidence, not faith. When the evidence is there, opinions change. That's all there is to it. If the evidence is weak, of course there will be skeptics. That's to be expected.
If every culture on the planet has a world-destroying flood and fire myth guess what? It's extemely likely such an event happened.
I hate to break this to you, but there has been more than just one flood and one fire.
Plato himself is telling you several times that Atlantis is not a myth, but real history. He says it like 5 or 6 times.
No, he does not. One of his characters says that.
Your confidence that all of this is nonsense is essentially an insult to Plato, saying he is either a liar or guillable to believe Critias.
When did Plato ever say he believed Critias?
The Egyptian priests make reference to written records available to them.
The Egyptian priests in the story? That's about as reliable as what Egyptian priests say in The Mummy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I especially noted the details he failed to include. For example, the tube drilling with the spiral drill marks, of which the actual evidence proves, irrefutably, that the tools and techniques cited by historians were NOT used.
That's a weird thing to say, since there was a full analysis of it in the video, and guess what? They are not spiral.
Another example: he shows in images of mega-dumps and pictures of cars, planes, and laptops. Acting like anyone was speculating mass production was wide-spread in ancient times, for anything like that. Those statements and conclusions prove his ignorance. We are talking about tools and items that would be 4,000+ years old.
https://youtu.be/WCpPg4FHP1Q
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. You don't seem to be interested in the topic of this video, which is the granite columns at Baalbek. If you want to know about the large building blocks at Baalbek, see my video on that subject here: https://youtu.be/QUiNoAgijpc
its not even hyperbole THE WAY THEY DO IT IS basicly that if you go to China and Drop a Made in USA Candy Wrapper There then that Means that Everything there was made by the USA when They Find the Candy Wrapper 500 years later
I don't know where you learned about how archaeology is done, but that is so far off the mark, it's in another universe. If you'd like to learn more about archaeology, I can recommend a book for you. Let me know.
The Stones Where there Before the Romans Ever Showed up why else would the Romans bother even going there?
The Romans went there, because the political instability in the region was a threat to their newly-acquired provinces in Asia Minor. Read up on Pompey's Syrian campaigns.
to Pillage and Consume a Proto-culture which they through Romanization incorporate new Innovations and Generations to Further expand their Empire and influence they made it a career to show up and say your roman now and everything here was made by rome
The Romans never claimed they built the things that they stole. They didn't need to. It was more impressive to say they subjugated the people who built those things. You can prove me wrong by finding one time they ever took credit for a building they didn't build. But I don't think you will be able. And none of that even applies in this case, because it isn't the Romans who said they built the temple at Baalbek. It's archaeologists who have discovered that.
All roads lead to Rome, it was a Roman world and Even a Foreigner from a Far Flund Unknown Land Could Earn his Citizenship and become Roman or Make his Homeland a Exstension Of Rome
Exactly. Keep that in mind when you are talking about Romans.
why would the Romans a CENTRIST POWERBASED IMPERIUM <"most of the time" Travel to the Edge of the Known World as they know it and Build a Temple UPON A OLD CULTURE TEMPLE with Blocks Bigger then Anything EVER USED in Rome Itself the Capital and Showpiece of Roman Power and Industry?
No one said people who lived in Rome traveled to Baalbek to build the temple. The people who lived in the region built it, and since they lived in the Roman Empire, they were Romans. FYI, the edge of the known world for the Romans was China, which they traded with. Baalbek was within Rome's own empire.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@realitytheorist4205 Sure, please add various early developing societies to hunter gathereres of Mesopotamia.
Okay, so you didn't mean merely hunter gatherers. You've opened it up to include, I assume, pre-urban societies.
Why do you think there are 'visually similar' style of megalithic structures in unconnected parts of the world sharing common characteristics (eg protruding knobs)
I explained it in my video. Did you watch it?
also why do you think these various and unconnected early societies in different locations (and it seems time periofds), presumably living in relatively small settlements/villages decided to use megaliths (stones more than 1 T) which had to be transported across large distances (rather than utilising locally available smaller stones)?
The intention was to build impressive monuments. Why would they do that with small, unimpressive stones? Seem to miss the whole point of making a monument. I assume you are talking about henges and menhirs?
I am thinking about wellknown structures in locations such as modern Peru, Japan, Mesopotamia, also megalithic structures in France, UK, etc.
I know of early developing societies in France and the UK that fit this description. Of course, they were probably familiar with each other. There's the Tas Tepeler culture in north Mesopotamia, but of course theirs are markedly different from the ones in the UK and France. No indications of a connection there. And I am not aware of any early developing societies in Peru or Japan that built using megaliths.
1
-
@realitytheorist4205 I believe megalithic structures are found in many locations in Europe, from Malta and Sardinia in the south to Germany, France, an UK in the north. All built by pre-urban societies clustered around early small settlements, and utilising simple tools.
Yes.
Why would these unconnected groups of people all start building structures using giant stones, many of which are still standing after 1000s of years.
Who says they are unconnected? The ones in Europe are very close to each other.
And in many cases transporting stones over large distances rather than using local stones. How likely that they did this merely to make the structures impressive (to impress other villages, or whom exactly), across the whole continent?
Very likely. But it is not to impress people far away, but people close by, and to be worthy of the gods. You need to get out of your modern mindset and study the cultures to understand their mindset.
The structures could be no less visually impressive if local stones were used.
I disagree.
And then there are megalithic constructions in Japan (eg Ishi-no-hoden) and many sites in Peru attributed to Inca (eg Sacsaywaman, Ollaytantambo, etc) , what is your opinion on these, considering the difficulty replicating these using modern methods and equipment?
These are very different from the ones you were just talking about, and they come from a much later time. I see no connection whatsoever. I also don't think there would be any difficulty replicating them using modern methods and equipment, though I think using the authentic primitive methods would get a closer result.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Mithodd So then, if he makes factually incorrect statements, and never corrects these statements himself, no one else is allowed to correct them, because...why? You seem to be under the impression that my video is about whether ancient people could see blue, and not at all about linguistics, when I said very clearly: "What I am going to center my attention on is whether blue had a name in ancient times. Evidence is clear that blue was seen, that it was used in art, but did people refer to the color blue?" I also said, "This is where I have to give credit to the Why Files, because his main point for saying any of this is to show that color names are a cultural construct." So when he is right, I say so, and when he is wrong, say so. It's nice that you want to defend a channel that you love, but to then say it is childish and spiteful to point out any of his errors, well, this is not only an emotional reaction, but it's anti-education.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@beowulf555 Obviously, u are unaware that Indian academia still teaches AIT. No. Not just migration. Quite literally AIT n a whole bunch of schools all over the country.
No, I am not aware. I have not seen it in any textbooks, and every time I ask someone to show me proof of it, they do not. I have read books written by Indian historians, and they all reject it.
Sanskritologists doesn’t even mean anything. A 100 years ago, some random dudes claimed to have understood Sanskrit (not really learnt) and they called themselves the experts and came up with these Aryan theories.
You're funny.
Some people claimed perfection within a very short time in Sanskrit. It’s these initial so called research pieces that most “Sanskritologists” are basing their modern research on.
It astounds me that someone could be so sure that they know what they are talking about, and they don't know anything about the subject at all. Not only does this comment misrepresent the study of Sanskrit, it misunderstands how the academic study of language even works. No one can get a degree in Sanskrit or ANY subject without doing the work. And you clearly do not even know what the requirements are. Plus you do not know that research isn't based on what other people have said. It is based on the evidence itself.
A Brahmin Pandit spends 18 yrs of his life to get a certain understanding of Vedas and Sanskrit and spends his entire life time to understand the nuances of what’s written. But these western scholars claim to have learnt Sanskrit in a few years and now have an understanding of not just modern but Vedic Sanskrit as well.
Many of the years of study that a Brahmin Pandit does is not merely learning the language but learning the spiritual meaning of the text. This is added meaning not in the text itself.
Completely disregarding the accounts of the actual Sanskrit scholars of India who’ve devoted not a life but few generations of their families to learn and understand the Vedas.
All pertinent information is taken into account. But it sounds like you are saying Sanskrit scholars should accept your religious beliefs.
And as per astronomical calculations, the Mahabharata is said to have been 5000 years old. But yet, the Rig Veda has been written not more than 3500 yrs ago.
The astronomical calculations are incorrect. And since the calculations were done by amateurs, that is not a surprise.
It is quite comical to ignore what is in the Vedas as simplistic evidence and horrendously ignore what local Indian literature tells us about the Vedic time period but come up with lamé theories about their time period just out of nowhere.
It is even more comical to think that any scholar does any of that.
The approach is not at all scientific if you are going to ignore what’s in the Vedas calling it simplistic but postulate theories about it with barely any logical evidences.
You clearly do not know what the approach is.
I was only taking about people getting threats for debunking Aryan invasion or migration theories and you keep bringing up OIT and Hindutva.
I am still waiting for you to tell me the names of these people who received threats, and who they received threats from.
Rajesh Rao, a knows linguist received threats when he postulated the Harappa seals might be a language.
Received threats from who? I receive threats sometimes too. Unless these death threats are coming from academia, it doesn't mean anything for this discussion. (Also, Rajesh Rao is not a linguist.)
Let me tell you, OIT was not a Hindu academic theory.
Right, and that is because it is a terrible theory.
This was the theory by western Indologists before AIT was concocted by colonial propagandists.
When we knew a lot less, it didn't seem so terrible.
your insistence to call OIT guys Hindu Fundamentalists is again showing the quality of your research.
I am sure there might be a person here or there that believes in OIT that is not Hindutva, but all the ones I have ever encountered are Hindutva. All the biggest proponents of OIT are Hindutva.
Shri Kanth Talageri is not a Hindu fundamentalist
Really? I will let him tell you himself: https://voiceofindia.me/2016/09/30/hindutva-or-hindu-nationalism-shrikant-g-talageri/
but a linguist
He has no degree or training in linguistics at all.
Just looking up false evidences of the colonial world and calling it research is unscientific.
And no historian does that.
I think we have exhausted this discussion. It was nice talking to you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dustyWayneJr you're basically saying, Galileo should have shut up. His observations of Facts was in the minority & his life was threatened if he continued sharing Facts of Nature. Alfred Wegener should have shut up & geologists (authorities of knowledge) of his day told him so. He died trying to prove his theories. So, G. Hancock should shut up too? Or am i missing your point?
Yes, you are missing my point completely. Where in anything I said in the video or my comment to you did I suggest anything about anybody shutting up? You are reading into my words something that you want to be there. The point is that you are claiming that academics are silencing people or ignoring the facts on the basis of how your own hypothesis is being received. In other words, you are personally invested in this representation of academia. It benefits you to portray them in this way. You have a horse in the race, so to speak. If you acknowledged that they were not ignoring facts, it would mean admitting there are flaws in your hypothesis.
Just because team Academics has the lock on what's is "truth" about the past doesn't mean the actually have facts.
How can anyone think that academics have a "lock" on anything, when any idea that anyone wants to propagate can be done easily? Look at YouTube and tell me that academics have a lock on information.
all you have to do is look at the physics & peer-reviewed papers that are being overlooked/blocked/muted/ignored by the Academics that are the authorities on the subject
Hey, things get overlooked or ignored all the time. So what? I am sure you have ignored many papers. As I said in the video, no one is obligated to review every theory ever presented. We have the intellectual freedom to research whatever topic we like. But saying peer-reviewed papers have been blocked or muted is quite a charge, and I invite you to prove it.
As for the issue about humans first coming to the Americas, keep this simple principle in mind: when there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate the truth of a matter, then it will be acknowledged. And it was. People who expect a theory to be accepted BEFORE sufficient evidence has been provided have unrealistic and unreasonable expectations.
I am not a geologist, so you can go find one to ask about those other matters. If you have an ancient history issue to discuss, feel free.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rexsceleratorum1632 The depopulation and abandonment of IVC cities happened over maybe six centuries starting 1900BC, with the IVC's center of gravity shifting east and south away from the incoming Arya.
No one is able to tell if the abandonment preceded or succeeded the immigration of the Indo-Aryans into the area. Since there is almost no evidence of destruction of the cities, warfare is unlikely. It therefore makes more sense to conclude that the abandonment preceded the arrival of the Indo-Aryans into each territory.
The math doesn't work out. IVC had a population of 6 million.
At its height, maybe. But not in the time period we are looking at.
Let's generously say that 100,000 Arya managed to migrate over centuries without causing a conflict with the locals, despite them taking women, not accepting local language or religion, and sticking to themselves in some sort of Aryatown.
I didn't say there was no conflict. I said there was no mass invasion.
Let's suppose they were all men too, so they had to marry 100,000 local women and drag them back to their Aryatown.
I am noting you are using violent language wherever possible. Is it unusual for a woman to go live in her husband's village? Please don't forget about your phrase above: "100,000 Arya managed to migrate OVER CENTURIES."
So we get 5.9 million locals versus 0.2 million Aryaputra, all proudly speaking Sanskrit and not IVCese.
You seem intent on not allowing for the fact of IVC migration south. And nobody is saying that everyone spoke Sanskrit. There is no evidence that Sanskrit was ever the common language of India. People knew of it because that is the language of the Vedas, but they didn't speak it on the streets. Their local languages were influenced by Sanskrit, but they did not wholly switch over to it.
1
-
1
-
@rexsceleratorum1632 Aryavarta had its streets and people were speaking Vedic Sanskrit in those streets.
What is your evidence for this?
The Arya with their war chariots and horses and steppe tactics, are sure to have preferred fighting in the open to engaging in siege.
The IVC are sure to have preferred not fighting in the open.
Historical steppe nomads preferred to harass and draw foot armies into ambushes in the open. If they were able to force a surrender without a siege because the IVC city's army was already routed, there is no reason to find destruction.
And the IVC would have fallen for this trick time and time and time again, without ever learning their error? Very far-fetched idea.
Likewise if the inhabitants decided to flee before the Arya even got there, again no destruction.
The reasons for the abandonment of the cities has already been shown to be climate related.
Why would the inhabitants abandon the territories if the Arya were able to settle there just fine, there being no drought or flood or other climate change to make the area uninhabitable as some theorists claim?
It didn't happen at the same time. Droughts end. Also the Indo-Aryans did not settle in the cities. And they lived a completely different lifestyle that would have been supported differently.
If you also stipulate that regardless of their number, the Arya won these conflicts decisively and managed to establish themselves as the unquestioned elite with divinely sanctioned authority, we could finish this discussion.
Ultimately, after much back and forth over many generations with successive migrations, yes.
The number of people who had to migrate from the IVC to make the genetic impact they did should not be very high.
When the Mycenaean Greeks abandoned their cities, the population dwindled to 50% of what it was. Half of the people stayed in Greece but reverted to a rural lifestyle. Something like this may also have happened to the IVC. There is evidence for Dravidians staying there, after all. As for the other half, not all of them would have survived the trek, and not all of them would have made it all the way to the south.
The Arya did arrive while the IVC was at its zenith (2000 BC).
Why do you keep making me repeat myself? No they did not.
There is no reason to think that half the people (3 million!) fled to the forests of the south.
There is no reason to believe the IVC was at its peak population while it was going through droughts and a famine.
Yet even that would leave the Arya outnumbered by a huge margin.
Hence there could not have been a military invasion.
So how did this minority get everyone in north India to speak Sanskrit?
They didn't.
1
-
@rexsceleratorum1632 This was never really in question.
I asked the question. So it's in question.
The Indo-Aryan languages of North India are descended from Vedic Sanskrit.
They are descended from Sanskrit, but not necessarily directly from Vedic Sanskrit. Just as Koine was the common version of Greek (as opposed to Classical Greek) and vulgar Latin was the common version of Latin, so what people spoke on the streets was probably a more common version of Sanskrit.
The prakrits were a collection of regional languages rather than a single language, meaning a wide geographical dispersion of Vedic Sanskrit in India to cause that regional differentiation.
Not Vedic. If you have evidence to demonstrate otherwise, please present it.
I feel we have ventured off the path of our original discussion. Sanskrit/Vedic Sanskrit doesn't really matter. The question is: how long did it take for northern India to be primarily Indo-Aryan speaking? Right? So what is your answer to that question, and how do you come to that conclusion?
If IVC people were unable to reach their farms outside the city in peace and minor settlements were routinely looted and burnt, eventually they have to either come out and fight or abandon the city and flee.
Where is the evidence for the burning of villages? Warfare leaves telltale signs.
There was no climate crisis that necessitated abandoning the whole urban civilization.
We have seen it happen numerous times elsewhere.
Remember how big IVC was. The Indus river, fed by both glaciers and rain, did not suddenly dry up in 1900 BC. That area is still the breadbasket of nations. The real crisis had another name, the 'Arya' with their disdain for urban culture.
That's just your personal musing. Climatic change led to greater desiccation and deforestation, which would have led to trade declining and then political collapse. But I am sure there were multiple causes to their decline. I am not pinning it ALL on climate change.
Very strange how historically no culture has abandoned their cities because of a draught
The Mycenaean Greeks did that very thing.
The IVC was at its zenith from 2600 BC to 1900 BC, then the decline began. The Arya arrived ~2000 BC in the broader region (Narasimhan). That's when the IVC was at its zenith.
You are presenting these dates somewhat dishonestly. The decline of the IVC occurred 1900-1300. The Indo-Aryan migration occurred 2000-1500, and maybe even longer. Now, tell me, did they migrate primarily during the height of the IVC, or during the decline?
1
-
@rexsceleratorum1632 How does it matter?
For the purposes of this discussion, I would rate it a 10 in importance on a scale of 1 to 10.
Do you believe that a peaceful little Arya immigrant minority without political power...
Neither I, nor anyone else, says that the Indo-Aryans were peaceful or without political power. So stop with the strawmen.
reproduced differentially so much versus the IVC people that they eventually became a big enough demographic to effect a language shift?
This gradual change over a thousand years was effected by several factors in addition to higher reproductive rates: the migration of large numbers of IVC people southward, the spread of Brahminism, and the growth and spread of political power. What's so hard to believe about that? You are so fixed on your position, you can only think of talking, not listening.
Still doesn't explain how they became the upper castes.
They were already the upper caste over their own people, and when other people accepted Brahminism, the brahmins became their defacto leaders.
Or do you accept that the Arya took over violently after a while?
In some places I am sure they did.
Why do you insist on this incubation period? Is there any evidence of it?
Yes. The slow spread of Sanskrit.
What is your estimation of when the Arya took over the IVC?
I don't see any evidence that they ever did.
The climate in the subcontinent destroys everything including evidence of warfare.
You seem to be suggesting that we should assume destructions as a default position before we find any evidence for them. The fact is, we already have other evidences that explain the decline of the IVC. So there no reason to posit warfare until we have material evidence for it.
A draught of a few years never destroys a civilization
I gave you the example of the Mycenaean civilization, and you countered this by suggesting that the Sea Peoples brought it down. I can see you have little knowledge of this subject. The Sea Peoples did not invade Greece. Some of them originated there.
Historical examples of advanced cultures being destroyed by invasion are on the other hand very common.
If the material evidence suggests otherwise, then this option has to be discarded.
Narasimhan did not provide the exact duration in which the Arya arrived in the IVC.
That's okay. I provided it for you. As I have already said, archaeologists have concluded it took place over several centuries. And it is dishonest for you to take the earliest possible date and conclude it all happened then.
1
-
@rexsceleratorum1632 There is no strawman. The proponents of AMT including Romila Thapar have been arguing that the Arya were peaceful traders and pastoralists who gained cultural dominance through peaceful means.
That's just wrong. Many times Thapar refers to conflicts in the Rigvedic period. She says explicitly, "The Rig-Veda refers to skirmishes between groups, some among those who identify themselves as arya, and some between the arya and dasas." She does not essentialize them as peaceful. "Since pastoral migrants often have close relationships with local sedentary communities, the situation would at times have led to confrontations and at other times negotiating relationships."
You yourself suggest religious conversion as the mechanism of Arya takeover (everyone else was presumably okay with being inferior varna/jati in the new religion).
The brahmins were already established within their own society as the sole purveyors of wisdom. What do you think is going to happen when someone wants to be part of this faith- they call for a vote as to who gets to be in charge?
If you agree that the Arya were an aggressive, violent tribe and gained dominance over the locals at the first opportunity
I don't. Nor does the worldwide community of scholars of early India. Nor does the evidence.
No one really converts to tribal religions that consider themselves as the noblest racial group in the whole wide world other than those enslaved by them.
Racial group? Enslaved? What are you even talking about?
However, since you are at this point saying that people accepted Brahminism because the Arya maybe had political power and dominance, hard to disagree. Which is why you should call it the Aryan Invasion.
Do you have a definition of "invasion" different from everyone else? This is the first time I have ever heard anyone use it to refer to people accepting brahmins as their religious leaders. Very weird.
Where can I find this evidence for the slow spread of Sanskrit? In the thousand years since the Aryan arrival, Sanskrit had developed regional dialects in various parts of northern India which had then proceeded to become distinct regional languages (prakrits). This does not happen if Sanskrit had been concentrated in a limited area most of that initial thousand years.
I consider several centuries to be slow.
Migration and invasion involve distinctly different processes in terms of what would have been the preconditions (organization and activities involved) for each one. They also would have had different results (the patterns of social and cultural change). There is little evidence of substantial cultural replacement in the material record. This indicates the movement of small groups over a longer period, rather than the movement of a large group over a shorter period. If you want to go by the evidence, you must opt for migration over invasion.
Yes, you do provide a lot of claims, none of which have any evidence. Narasimhan is the closest anyone has offered a date for the arrival of the Arya.
These are not my claims. And what is his evidence?
Based on their ideologies no doubt.
Somebody doesn't know how archaeology works, and his name is Rex.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mr.greengold8236 but in the absence of proof of the contrary it is always rational to assume the status quo as more probable. If not we can doubt just about anything baselessly.
This is not true, especially in cases when we are talking about knowledge, ideas, or inventions. We don't just assume, for example, that boats always existed. We assume they didn't at first and then later were invented. We don't just assume that knowledge of the precise movements of the sun, moon, and stars always existed. We assume the knowledge was acquired. We don't just assume that Artemis was the goddess of wild animals, the hunt, and vegetation and of chastity and childbirth right from the beginning, but that she became associated with those things over time.
Since an entity has emerged, it's property should be assumed as status quo unless a contrary proof is there.
But we are talking about the emergence of an entity itself, the emergence of the association of Indra with the monsoons. He could easily have been a storm god to begin with, and then when the people encountered monsoons, it would be natural to associate them with Indra.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@crewrangergaming9582 people can learn language without going to school for it, especially when his native language is a language that has roots close to Sanskrit.
What is your evidence that he is an expert in the language?
He is at least a lot better than historians who try to decipher and interpret Indian scriptures because they end up making a mess out of it with their half baked knowledge.
It is interesting that you prefer to listen to the maverick who speaks in disagreement with the community of Sanskritologists. Why is that?
One biggest example is the word "Koti", so some historian who picked up a Sanskrit book found a verse saying there are "33 Koti" of Deities. Now the word "Koti" has two meanings in Sanskrit, even someone who don't know Sanskrit but is a native Indian language speaker like Hindi would know Koti doesn't just have one meaning, Koti can mean Type/Kind/Category and it can mean Crore, a numerical unit meaning 10 million. Now, what they did was they in their translation wrote it means Indian scriptures says there are 330 Million deities according to Indian scriptures - do you see the problem?
Who are you talking about? What Sanskrit expert said this? And please show me where Oak, with his great knowledge, corrects the record about this.
That one example is a reminder that interpretations and translations of Vedic Sanskrit text are corrupted by such translations, which is what I was talking to you about the other day regarding the meaning of "sacrifice" in Indian scripture.
Sanskrit experts don't read translations. They read Sanskrit. So this is not relevant to what we are talking about.
Someone took a word and called it "sacrifice", we have "Bali Daan" in Sanskrit, do you know what it means? People even in India who believe those historians think it means "Sacrifice", but well, those who have gone deep into the many text, size of which is impossible for any historian or linguistic expert to go through in a lifetime, will find "BaliDaan" is made up of two words, Bali, is the name of a King, and "daan", any Hindi speaker will tell you it means "donation, offerings", Bali gave the greatest of donation, and thus his name forever since became synonymous with donation, and now don't know since when but it became a word that means Sacrifice, and that too sacrificing animals.
You are making two grave mistakes. First, like many people, you assume that languages do not change, and that the meanings of words today are the same as what they were a thousand years ago or more. A Sanskrit expert would know this is not true. Second, you are giving example of misunderstandings that people have who are NOT Sanskrit experts. So again, it is irrelevant to your discussion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What's interesting is that these vases share similar styles, which could be attributed to their inheritance from advanced civilizations like the Atlanteans. However, their attempts to replicate these vases clearly didn't succeed. This is the heart of the matter.
Yes, we know this is UnchartedX's claim. But where is the evidence for it?
When it comes to Occam's Razor, it appears you might not be using it correctly.
I am using it correctly. That the Egyptians made all the vases is the most parsimonious conclusion.
It's similar to encountering an airplane next to a straw replica crafted by jungle inhabitants and then concluding, based on their stylistic similarities, that the jungle people must have created the real airplane according to Occam's Razor (???).
This illustration is not fitting, because the straw plane and a real plane are extremely dissimilar, whereas the vases are all very similar. In fact, they are so similar, that special metrological equipment is needed to differentiate them.
1
-
1
-
@Devilboy689yoblived Surprisingly, this graffiti has not yet undergone rigorous testing. I urge that we subject it to such scrutiny before conclusively affirming the mainstream perspective.
The graffiti is part of a bunch of graffiti that goes underneath stones that were placed during the construction of the pyramid. That means the graffiti is from the time of construction. Another indication is that Khufu's name is correct, which would not have been known by the people who supposedly forged it. Rigorous testing, in my opinion, would be a waste of money. If I were in charge of distributing funds, I would give that money to a more important project. The date of the Great Pyramid is firm: https://youtu.be/N_gmLH_uVic
My conviction remains steadfast that the Great Pyramid predates conventional estimates by over 12,000 years. To me, this belief is grounded in the concept of Sacred Geometry emanating from the Great Pyramid, which I interpret as indicative of its creators: the Atlanteans. It is the only explanation that makes sense to me, as Sacred Geometry suggests an inheritance from a highly advanced civilization.
Since the concept of sacred geometry is in many artifacts from the historical period, your logic does not hold.
The prevailing notion that the Great Pyramid was built by enslaved laborers has persisted for centuries.
Incorrectly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Amber Davidson I read peer reviewed journals, I do not write in them.
And yet you haven't cited a single one for any of your arguments.
My point is that the genius who owns this page seems to be more than happy to declare that he is the authority on historical facts, racial identity, language, horse domestication, etc.
Nothing I present here is my personal opinion. I am simply stating the facts as determined by the experts on the subject. References are provided. What more do you want?
his counter arguments are backed by almost ZERO references besides Wikipedia.
Now you're just lying. Everyone can see the references below the video. Do you really expect people to believe you when the evidence is right in front of them?
I understand your concern about my calling Sepehr a supremacist. (That is the only thing I called him, by the way.) If you can find somewhere that he says that he does NOT believe the ancient Aryans were superior to other peoples, then I will be happy to retract my statement and apologize directly to Robert. How does that sound?
He has no authority to try to tear down, and slander people whom have taken the time to do the research.
But you do? You're doing it to me.
This research, just like progress goes, will most likely be in Peer Reviewed journals soon as DNA contradicts almost every theory historians, anthropologists, evolutionists have had
I look forward to seeing this scientific study that will overturn all the other ones.
He clearly says "this is the most viewed video I've made" in the beginning.
It's not anywhere near the most viewed video I've made. And I never said it was. How could I say that in the video, which I made before it was posted? Haha
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@arashadjudani2478 If these caves were intended for people who wanted to remove themselves from the indulgences of life, they are unnecessarily symmetrical and precise
I only use my house to live in. Why is it so precise and symmetrical?
This level of work effort is not consistent for a space that is meant to serve as a simple dwelling.
You seem to have a very simplistic view of human values.
There are thousands of examples of human-inhabited caves, tunnels and catacombs all over the world none of which come close to the accuracy and symmetry of the Barabar caves.
Why are you assuming that everyone has the same values?
As a rule, there is no requirement for caves to be "geometrically accurate".
If they wanted to achieve certain sound qualities inside, I would say it was very much required. If they wanted something worthy of their religious values, I would say it was very much required. If the king ordered it to be top notch work to show his greatness, I would say it was very much required.
But the Barabar caves are extremely symmetrical, precise and accurate (far more than necessary), a fact that you downplay or dismiss without reason.
Wait. You think we should assume it is extremely accurate without demonstrating it? Someone who claims extreme accuracy must show it first, and only then can we conclude it is extremely accurate. But in this case, no such demonstration was made. And yet somehow you believe it anyway.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@themaskedman5954 Are we playing word games now, or are we trying to have a substantive conversation? You wrote, "The conclusions of that study does contradict what you have been saying in your videos." No, it does not.
Let's say, Person A said, "Fred bought some apples at the grocery store." Then Person B said, "According to Person A, Fred bought apples at the grocery store." Then Person C said, "According to Person A, Fred bought apples at the grocery store, but he actually bought grapes." In this situation, Person C contradicts Person A, because A said it was apples, but C says it was grapes. But Person C does NOT contradict Person B, because Person B did not say it was apples. He only said what Person A said.
Switching it over now to what we are talking about, the academic consensus is Person A, I am Person B, and the study you cited is Person C. The study contradicts the academic consensus, but it does not contradict me, because I only said what the academic consensus is. Both I and the study agree on what the academic consensus is. I expressed no disagreement with the study's conclusions, and the study's conclusions have expressed no disagreement with me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ObjectiveFairminded Of the people you named, only three (Shinde, Manjul, Rai) are qualified. All the rest are amateurs. And Niraj Rai, a geneticist, disagrees with everyone else in his field, so he doesn't represent the expert consensus. He hasn't published a science paper that shows his views to be true. Shinde, an archaeologist, also disagrees (publicly) with the expert consensus, but what papers has he published on the subject? What has Manjul, an archaeologist, published on the subject?
I find it surprising that you would accuse people of attacking Hindus, when 1) they are criticizing Hindutva, not Hindus, and 2) they were attacked by Hindutva first and are being prevented by Hindutva from doing their work. You think they should keep their mouths shut? You may not like what historians discover about the past, but they should be free to do their work.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paganchristianmathematician I have looked into the letter from the Society for American Archaeologists and other articles published by others.
Me too.
Here is a short excerpt-"However, the narratives on which claims of “white saviors” are based have been demonstrated to be ones modified by Spanish conquistadors and colonial authorities for their own benefit. These were subsequently used to promote violent white supremacy.
So far this is historically accurate.
Hancock’s narrative emboldens extreme voices that misrepresent archaeological knowledge in order to spread false historical narratives that are overtly misogynistic, chauvinistic, racist, and anti-Semitic"
This also is factual. Even Hancock knows this. https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1963394/netflix-ancient-apocalypse-graham-hancock
Yes I have no evidence they outright, explicitly called Graham Hancock a Nazi.
I thought that is what we were talking about. You said that academics were "labelling all alternative' proponents of the topic as 'White far Right Extremist Supremacists, Nazi ideologues, Misogynists, Anti Semitic, Chauvinists." That sounds outright and explicit to me.
It is illegal to question some WW2 History in Europe and elsewhere. Ursula Haverbeck has recently passed away most likely dying in Prison after being arrested again at the age 92 for not believing the Official narrative.
You are speaking euphemistically. You are talking about holocaust denial, right? This is a rather ironic example to bring up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
fact check me and let me know if i am innacurate
Okay.
It was newer teaching then, but it still wasn't accurate and less accurate now. No Tepe hunter gatheres were mantioned then, Caral wasn't a discussion
Think about what you are saying. As time goes on, new things are discovered. So knowledge increases over time. This means we get more accurate, not less accurate.
the thought was we had discovered all cities then was common
Common among who? No archaeologist in the history of the world has ever thought that. Why do you think they keep digging?
archeology is a philosophy, not natural science
Philosophy is the study of metaphysics and ethics. It has nothing to do with archaeology. See my video here: https://youtu.be/ncT1TbwbsN0
I suggest you cut, melt or geopolymer some hard stones before you think you know who built what, and then measure with accuracy before even mentioning the term "precision".
None of these tell you who built something. If you don't believe me, ask people who do such measuring who built it. You have fallen into the trap of the pseudoscience called precisionism. See here: https://youtu.be/BTcQdO0anCc
Flinders Petrie is someone to respect
Sure, but he didn't know about anything discovered since he died. Anyway, he would laugh at people like Chris Dunn and UnchartedX.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
the proponents of the theory that the common origin of Indo European culture is in the Steppes NEED TO PROVE that it cannot be in ANY OTHER GEOGRAPHY, including South Asia.
Shouldn't we choose a theory that best fits the existing evidence?
Especially South Asia where agriculture developed independently, there is archiological evidence of a continuous evolution from 6000BC of rudimentary urbanisation to well established Sindhu-Saraswari cities upto 1900 BC.
They are not the only place in the world in which that happened. And what does that have to do with migration?
Evidence of the world's oldest philosophical poetry in the form of the Rig Veda.
The world's oldest philosophical poetry is in Sumerian.
Comparative dating of the Rig Veda and the Avesta,
What about it? How does it relate to OIT?
the evolution of a much more systematic language and grammer in the form of Sanskrit the likes of which do not exit any where else,
Systems get more complex over time.
development of the number system used world over today,
A great contribution to world culture. But it's not related to OIT.
highly advanced astronomy (their earth was round and it moved around the sun)
At what date was this discovered, and what is your evidence for it? How does it relate to OIT?
metallurgy, trade, uniform weights and measures, building materials, etc etc.
All great things. How does it relate to OIT?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TimBee100 I have been saying that modern humans have existed for around 200,000 years and have been suggesting that maybe an earlier society did some of the construction.
Nothing wrong with that. Now all you have to do is show convincing evidence for the existence of this society.
I certainly don't think an earlier society left and people with smaller brains moved in. Stop being absurd. But keep in mind, they never invented the wheel.
You don't need the wheel. And if the wheel already existed in the area before, where did it go?
Please explain how they raised these very heavy blocks and shaped them perfectly and inserted them using levers. What levers do you use to raise something that heavy 15 ft high and place it perfectly into place?
I assume you are still talking about South America, but I do not know what blocks you are talking about that had to be lifted up 15 feet. As for shaping them perfectly, I am confounded by the question. If they had tools that could shape them, and they didn't have "smaller brains," then they could shape them perfectly.
It's easier to talk generally about them doing it but they have never shown anyone else that they were able to do it.
They showed the Spanish at Cusco.
They never patched up damage to the wall to the same level of precision since the Spanish showed up which I find suspicious.
They built walls in Cusco for the Spanish.
And unless it is modern repair work, some of the stonework at Machu Pichu is very primitive compared to that.
A lot of it IS modern. But I am sure that in the waning years of the empire, repair was done as well.
There are some ruins which the people living there say are much older than archeologists believe? But you don't believe them because they aren't telling you what you want to hear.
At least I am being consistent in saying that people today wouldn't know. But you believe them when they say it is much older, and you don't believe them when they say they did it themselves.
Don't be gullible. Tour guides today will say anything to make people go "ooh" and "ahh."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@checkreality6209 I am not here to defend him. I skipped those parts as unimportant.
Oh, well, when you want to talk about this video, which is a book review, let me know.
yes, I take astronomy=nakshatra system. What do you mean ‘the difference’
It's really very simple. They had astronomy in China, in Egypt, in Mesopotamia, and other places. Did those places use the nakshatra system? If not, then astronomy and the nakshatra system are clearly not the same. Even in a single country's history, different systems could be in use, and system can develop gradually over time, as is the case here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thank you for your comments. Here are my thoughts:
1. first of all, i dont think there is much difference between AIT (aryan invasion theory) and AMT (aryan migration theory).
I explained very specific differences in the video.
The actual effect of supposed IE migration into India was almost similar to an invasion:
Think about what you are saying here. Everyone agrees on what the effect is. The effects are the conditions that existed in India later. The results are not at issue. The CAUSES of the results are at issue. And AIT and IAMT are different causal explanations.
a. Imposition of IE languages, Vedas and related socio political culture/structure on almost entire indian society and geography, overturning MASSIVE influence of Indus Valley Civilization almost entirely. b. This "Aryanization" was so complete that even in Rgvedic time (circa 1500 BCE), all the names of geographical places, rivers, tribes in north India were completely IE names.
I have seen evidence provided for many pre-Indo-Aryan names and customs that survived.
Coming to alternative theories regarding the issue of original IE homeland, Joanna Nicohols, an erudite linguist, in her paper (now retracted , ofc under immense pressure) supports IE homeland far to the east of now accepted location of pontic steppe, closer to Bactria Sogdiana Region.
Here is what she said about it: "PARTIAL RETRACTION. The theory of an east Caspian center of the IE spread argued for here is untenable and with much regret I retract it. It's a beautiful theory that accounts elegantly for a great deal of the dynamic and linguistic geography of the IE spread, but it conflicts with essential archaeological and etymological facts. The paper that convinced me to abandon it is: Darden, Bill J. 2001. On the question of the Anatolian origin of Indo-Hittite. Robert Drews, ed., Greater Anatolia and The Indo-Hittite Language Family, 184-228.Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man. The rest of both chapters still stands, but the east Caspian locus is post-PIE. The PIE homeland was on the western steppe."
It doesn't sound like any conspiracy to me. It sounds like she changed her mind in the face of new evidence, which I greatly respect.
1. There is Archeological consensus (Indian as well as western) that there was no IE migration into India in 2nd millenium BCE
I don't know where you heard this, but there is no such consensus.
Hard archeological evidence is simply not to be found for IE migration for india AT ALL.
This is true. But saying that there is no evidence for migration is not the same as saying that there is evidence that there was no migration. Do you agree?
A quick note on this last comment is that chariot as well has Horse's remains have been found in IVC.
This is disputed. None of the examples of horse remains are conclusive, as they represent only a few bones, and there is the possibility that these come from a different type of animal. Moreover, finding a couple of horses would not show that the IVC was a horse-breeding culture. The evidence would be overwhelming.
Genetic evidence at this stage is inconclusive for the simple reason that we simply do not have enough high quality IVC skeletal samples to get any definitive idea regarding the general genetic makeup of IVCians.
This is true. My video gives us the latest data. But hopefully more will be forthcoming.
Linguistic case (which proceeds from arguments of plausibility and not hard evidence like Archeology) though has reached a consensus (for IE migration into india) in academia, works of Shrikant Talageri has challanged it on a pretty sound basis and presents a very strong linguistic case for IE homeland in India. Please go through his works with an open mind and decide for yourself.
I am very familiar with Talageri's work. Forgive me, but I hope you will understand if I go with the consensus of the world's linguists instead of a man who is self-taught and studies language for no other reason than to prove OIT.
1
-
@SubstratumMaxima effects of even IAMT are such that its impossible to not see the obvious supposed power differential between migrant IEians and IVCians such that latter adopted almost everything spiritual,material, social of the former lock, stock and barrel.
I don't know what you are talking about. There was no IVC. It was gone within a century or two.
Not to mention that descendants of IEians, in the IAMT model, were elites of the society and at the top of ""caste"" hierarchy. This relationship is certainly not of "mutual respect" and "syncretism" but of dominant vs subservient culture ergo there is really no difference between AIT and IAMT
Again, you are talking about effects rather than causes. The reason for the domination of the Brahmins was a slow, gradual process propagated by religion, rather than a quick, violent one propagated by a mass military invasion.
no one would be able to argue otherwise that initial christian expansion in Europe was violent and almost wiped out all pagan religions.
Yes, they would. A large number of the Germanic tribes embraced Christianity BEFORE entering the Roman Empire.
There are no 'many' non IE names for Rgvedic geography ie North India(also the area of IVC), in fact they are almost and practically non existent(compare that with Europe).
You're just repeating yourself. If you want some examples, see the aforementioned Michael Witzel, "Aryan and non-Aryan Names in Vedic India": https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=6a59d8f188ef52d4d9f150360777c6dc220e4374
This [the fact that the identification of supposed horse bones is disputed] is not really a good argument since India, say, from 1500 BCE to 500 BCE was clearly an Indo Aryan stronghold and hence a horse-breeding culture. But we don't find the "overwhelming" evidence of horse related archeological findings from this snapshot of time either.
Your argument seems to be that lack of horse bones should be considered evidence that horses were bred. Anyway, the Rig Veda testifies to the breeding of horses, whereas we have no such documentation in the IVC. If you want to be objective, you must have solid evidence first.
it is of course natural that one changes one's views when presented with new evidence; but in this particular case I think you cannot completely discount the immense pressure of academia (and this is not the conspiracy theory, its merely statement of facts that there is indeed an inertia for the old theories and every researcher is well aware of it, particularly when dealing with an extremely established theory like that of IE migrations which as Erdosy says has "accumulated weight of 2 centuries of scholarship" behind it)
But you are not pointing to an example of a scholar unwilling to change her mind. You are claiming she was pressured to retract her claim. This is a conspiracy theory.
Regarding Talageri, I think his arguments matter more than his 'intentions', but of course we can agree to disagree here.
Yes, the arguments are the important thing, but you and I are not linguists, so we do not have the contextual knowledge to judge such a matter. Our best bet is to defer to the consensus of the experts, instead of choosing to believe a rogue amateur simply because we wish to.
I really do think that archeological evidence against IAMT/AIT is overwhelming
So far you haven't mentioned any.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ I dont think you have enough respect for how difficult it is to reach the dimensions theyre calling out in the scans. These are tolerances higher than you see on several aircraft components. The highest i have had to reach was +/- .0002, and that was on smaller bushings and staying within those tolerances boring is basically free cuts.
A logical problem: if you comparing the tolerances on one object and find a similarity with tolerances on another object, does that mean that both objects were made with the same process? No. If the same tolerances can be found on other objects, then there are other possibilities.
There are machines that can cut and hold tolerances like that with more ease that machines i have used, but those are so far out of the realm of possibility for anyone that long ago its not even worth mentioning.
I disagree. Did you know that the human touch is superior to machines?
https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/amazing-sensitivity-human-touch
But non the less, if these measurements were so easy to achieve, then why didnt the Russians who did the experiment themselves not reach those levels of accuracy?
Because they are amateurs.
From a machining stand point, since its what i know ill talk about it, when you go from softer to harder materials, everything gets far more stressed. If were talking about lathes, your boring tool flexes more, your machine must slow way down, your cutter can become more dull, and sometimes if the material is more brittle you will struggle to achieve good surfaces finishes.
Fortunately, granite and diorite are very conducive, not only to abrasion, but also to the finishing process.
But lets say it is the same, then why are the quality of the vases degrading through the years instead of improving?
See here: https://youtu.be/7b_l_H2X3E8
But the alabaster (or travertine, still far softer) vases are far far worse in quality than those 10k+ year old hard stone vases.
According to who? How many travertine vases were measured?
This inaccuracy of those side holes is consistent with pretty much every single predynastic hard stone vase. Theyre all off to the point you can notice it with the human eye. I believe those were done in a more traditional method like was demonstrated in the Scientist Against Myths video (which i did watch btw and it was super interesting) with some form of hand tool.
So then you agree that absolute precision was not their aim?
You can clearly see in the interior of the hard stone vases (I mentioned previously) there are consistent ring marks. These are what you would see on the interior of a modern machined part without polishing.
They may be similar, but they are also similar to what you would expect from using a tool on a rotating vase.
These appear to be very common in these predynastic hard stone vases.
FYI most of the vases are Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom.
If there was a sand or rock abrasive used like you see in many "debunking" examples, these tolling marks would not be there.
I expect a different tool would need to be used on the interior.
Again, im not claiming they had crazy tech or computers (Must have been aliens that helped then! lol jk) , but i do think there is a form of lathe (or maybe a tool like it) that has been lost over time.
Well, I agree with that.
1
-
1
-
Is the aim of your video really to discredit a person?
No. It's purpose is to correct misinformation.
Not that i believe everything Brien states, but at least his videos comes from his heart. You do not have a heart, i have the impression and only work to ruin another.
Have we ever met?
Why not make videos where you show piece by piece how it was done, show modern craftsman obtaining the same work by the methods you state were used.
Why should I do that? There is already more than enough evidence to show that the columns were made in the Roman period.
You mention a lot of things but show no proof, ancient writings of the Romans or Egyptians on how exactly they processed ... just stating it.
Wait, did you watch the whole video? Yes, I do show the evidence.
If you want to debunk him, set up a real debate with him and his peers instead of this.
I'm open to a debate, but no one wants to debate me. Anyway, this format is superior, because it doesn't allow a person to trick people with fake data.
And btw, Brien is not the only one in the field, there are many more sophisticated bloggers that have better ideas and check further than he does. Why do you single out Brien?
I don't. See my other videos.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ayushsharma6755 According to several historians who came after her. Dr. Meenakshi Jain has said this on record I think. She and the lobby that supports her are well known for preventing newer studies and rectifications in older theories to come into academia because the earlier ones suited the political agenda of Congress.
You mean the Meenakshi Jain was who hired by the BJP government to rewrite the medieval history of India, so that it glorified Hindus and denigrated Muslims?
Just hear what they have to say to grasp just the fact it's not possible understand the whole mess with the western lens.
I look at Indian history through a WORLD lens. That is how I look at the histories of all countries. You should too.
Well, yes the international community, the national ones both have accepted improvements by ASI as well.
Maybe they have. But what does this have to do with Romila Thapar?
It's kind of close minded I think to discard everything from Indian government as well if you ask me.
I am not recommending discarding something because of where it comes from. I am recommending not pretending that the government can provide the best source for history.
I personally am more satisfied with the methods and proofs of researchers who know Sanskrit than the ones who don't as the latter don't even realise what they're talking about.
Why are you placing all the emphasis on Sanskrit, and not on archaeology, science, and the historical method? Why do you believe that one scholar should know every subject, rather than that the community of scholars work together?
Topics which are being changed now were already under scrutiny. If you ask the natives, it's being corrected now.
Only some natives.
History was messed with before. There's a whole body of people deciding this with inputs from left and right biased parties and the left arguments have been defeated as they fail to defend it.
You're going to have to provide examples of this.
India processes are democratic in this way now.
History is not democratic. Even experts don't vote on what is true. Can you imagine if everyone in the US voted on what science was true? That would be the absolute worst way to decide.
Earlier it wasn't the case when Congress unilaterally decided that Romila's work (when she didn't even have the required knowledge of Sanskrit to understand the ancient records) was unbiased truth.
I am not in favor of any government deciding what is true, liberal or conservative.
Her versions glorify Mughals, represents Hindus in bad light and this is what you've come to believe as well of course.
How it makes people look is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether it is factual. So provide some examples of falsehoods that she wrote.
Without knowledge of Sanskrit it's impossible to understand ancient India, that's my whole point.
With ONLY knowledge of Sanskrit, it's impossible to understand ancient India. That is why Sanskrit experts, archaeologists, historians, and scientists need to work together. Thapar's work uses the contributions of all of these.
The recorded texts of ancient India — most of them are just records of history from angles of different people.
This is why simply knowing Sanskrit is not enough.
Concept of religion itself is a western concept so they can't be seen as religious at all.
That is like saying that the concept of mammals is a western concept, so there are no mammals in India, or the concept of vegetables is a western concept, so there are no vegetables in India. Hey, the concept of "western" is a western concept. So why are you using it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ashoke111 Sanskrit in Rigveda Vedas mentions that Saraswati River, which is 8000 years old
This sentence makes no sense, but if you are just repeating the common pseudo geological refrain that the Saraswati didn't exist in the time of the Rigveda, you are mistaken. See here: https://youtu.be/ZvTlJDWG0lM You need to educate yourself on these topics.
Rakhigardi doesn't have R1a is irrelevant.
Well, with all the time you spent writing your comments, you could have watched the Rakhigarhi section of this video. Then you wouldn't have to embarrass yourself by accusing me of not addressing it.
Chariots, credited to Aryan, are irrelevant
Just because you credit them to Aryans, that doesn't make it true.
You think you are the first to tell me about these things, but hundreds of people in the comments have spouted these old and tired arguments, and they fall prey to the same errors as you have.
Tamil (so-called Dravidian language), which is over 70% Sanskrit, has a history of over 7000 years as well as irrelevant.
Tamil did not come from Sanskrit, nor is it 7,000 years old. Why not do some research on linguistics (from real linguists) before saying such nonsense?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Dismythed Whenever someone talks about the Bible, "Hittites" mean the sons of Heth who occupied Harran, even if they don't realize it.
In an archeological context, that has no meaning. The remains of a man named Heth have never been found. And as I emphasized in the video, the biblical Hittites are not necessarily the same as the Hittites from archaeology. I don't know why you are having such a hard time accepting that. The word "Hatti" in inscriptions has no etymological connection to a person named Heth. In fact, some scholars even suggest that the English word Hittites is inappropriate, and we should be translating the word as Hethites.
Whenever someone talks about the occupiers of Harran in the time of Nebuchadnezzar, they say "Hatti" and the mountainous region of the Levant as "Hatti-land".
That's fine. But this is in a time period for which the Bible does not mention Hittites as even existing. There are no Hittites mentioned in the Bible after the time of King David. And it is an established fact that there were many peoples living in that area, not just one ethnic group. So you cannot conclude that anyone whose name begins with an H and who lived in that region must be a Hittite.
To refer to the Neshites as Hittites BEFORE 1650 B.C.E., is not appropriate.
Again, that's fine, but it has nothing to do with what we're talking about.
to suggest that their greater empire in the peninsula was devoid of the Hatti is outright wrong since they obviously made up the greater number of the populous regardless of later racial mixing with other national groups.
Obviously? What makes it obvious? The Hattians have never been demonstrated to be a gigantic group that covered all of Anatolia or Syria. It is a name for the people who founded Hattusa, and that's it.
So to refer to any populous occupying the peninsula after 3,000 B.C.E. as Hittites is correct.
No, it is not. Anatolia was inhabited by diverse populations.
To refer to the empire of the Neshites down to the border of Egypt as "Hittites" after 1650 B.C.E. is also correct, since Egypt was in constant conflict with the Hatti (Hittite empire) over control of the Levant.
The Hittites never had control of the southern Levant. That was Egyptian territory. So your statement is most certainly incorrect. You say you want to learn, but it does not seem so to me.
Archaeologically, all these interactions and territories are identified as either "Hutta" (the land) or "Hatti" (the people) interchangeably and always with reference to the same northern kingdom, namely the Hittites.
That is incorrect.
And still you provide no evidence that the northern kingdom was never in control of the southern territories or that the name "Hatti" did not apply to the southern lands.
It's not my job to provide you with evidence. A quick internet search will show you how large the Hittite empire got. And to ask for someone to provide negative evidence (to prove something did NOT exist) is unreasonable. If you want to take issue with what the archaeologists say, then it is you who needs to provide evidence.
1
-
@Dismythed B.M. 21946, lines 17-19: "All the kings of the Hatti-land came before him and he received their heavy tribute. He marched to the city of Askelon and captured it in the month of Kislev. He captured its king and plundered it and carried off [spoil from it]. He turned the city into a mound and heaps of ruins and then in the month of Sebat he marched back to Babylon." Why would he attack Ashkelon 900 km south of the Anatolian peninsula if his goal was the conquest of Hatti-land?
Please note that all the kings of Hatti-land are already subject to him. It has already been conquered, and that is why they are presenting him tribute. Ashkelon is an enemy. That means it was not yet subject to him and therefore its king clearly was not considered one of the kings of Hatti-land.
B.M. 21946, Rev., lines 13-15: "In the eighth year, the month of Tebet, the king of Akkad [marched] to the Hatti-land as far as Carchemish ..... . . . . . . . . .. . in the month of Sebat the king re[turned] to his own land." This says "as far as Carchemish". Carchemish is in Assyria, just short of the Peninsula. How can he march in Hatti-land "as far as Carchemish" if he is not in the Peninsula?
Carchemish is in the region I have already acknowledged (both in the video and here) was in the region controlled by the Hittites. So why are you sharing this? It is only the southern Levant that we are disputing.
You also seemed to have missed my point of Heth and archaeology. The reason I made the point that Heth has not been found is because you are trying to link him to archaeology, and there is no link to archaeology whatsoever. Heth is in the Bible and not in archaeology. Therefore, you cannot make archaeological claims about him (such as that he is the founder of Hattusa). All you are doing is choosing what archaeological culture you want him to be associated with, and instead of providing evidence to support this claim (which is impossible), you assume you are right until someone else proves you wrong.
And you still have not shown any realization of the fact that you cannot tie Heth to BOTH the Hattians and the Neshites, because the Bible clearly says the Hittites are the genealogical descendants of Heth. Hattians and Neshites were two different peoples. The fact that you have not acknowledged any weaknesses in your position whatsoever and simply want to win an argument tells me you are not approaching this conversation in good faith.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BKVP Let's consider two examples. Egypt's Pyramids. Peru's Machu Picchu.
Thousands of years apart. So yes, you are redating them to make them contemporary with each other.
How is it that, according to accepted timelines, the most impressive structures made by man, using stone quarried from long distances away, that weigh many tons, which are interlocked to withstand earthquakes of a level superseding today's current standards were built?
Machu Picchu and Egypt's pyramids are nothing alike. Not even close.
And then everything that came after, according to accepted timelines, is less advanced, woefully so.
That's only because you redated them. And you'd be wrong anyway. There are plenty of structures more advanced than them.
Did these civilizations have the ability to create such architectural masterpieces decline to the point where they could barely move stones that weighed one ton...let alone hundreds?
When did that happen? Egypt continued to move heavy stones all through its history.
Why did they go from making stone plates and vases and other items of near perfection and decline to making clay pots, plates, and vases?
They made those things all through their history. BOTH the stone stuff (for the rich people) and the clay stuff (for the poor people).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@variablex6928 I don't know if you are talking about genetics or something else, but in this video, I went over ALL of the genetic evidence. I covered every pertinent study I could find. There are a couple of geneticists, like Niraj Rai, who don't believe in Indo-Aryan migration, but as far as I can tell, they are in the minority. Indo-Aryan migration IS the consensus among the world's linguists, the world's historians, and the world's archaeologists. And OIT is a fringe theory not taken seriously by almost any historian, archaeologist, or linguist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
African cultures preserving an oral tradition of a flood include the Kwaya, Mbuti, Maasai, Mandin, and Yoruba peoples.
Yes, I am sure that wherever there have been flood, there will be flood stories.
the questions he raises seem entirely investigable.
I have never seen a method for determining the age of a myth or its original source.
I don’t hear him say much of anything except to ask why we are so closed minded as to think we are the supreme expression of civilisation
Has anyone ever called our civilization supreme? No one that I have ever heard.
yet we can’t duplicate the architecture
Why couldn't we?
or adequately explain its origins
Who decides what is adequate? Sure, there are many unanswered questions in history. That is why we have historians. There is always something to work on.
insofar as we’ve been willing and able to examine our history through eyes trained to see the dominant paradigm.
History is not determined by paradigms.
there is a great deal of merit in raising questions
Do you think Hancock is only raising questions, or do you think he is also trying to provide answers? If the latter, then he needs to do it with scientific rigor.
and challenging the substance of prevailing theories that can’t explain anything more than what is researched.
I don't know what this means.
Much of what Hancock discusses is not well researched by archaeologists.
Yes, it is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The only comment I have is about your argument about the Younger Dryas, the scientific evidence shows a massive reduction in temperature to the maximum lowest temperature of the current ice-age, or more most recent and it lasted about 1000 years, yes people say comet impact but as a hypothesis but the temperature reduction is not in dispute.
I'm not sure I am following your train of thought. What effect would a temperature drop have on a lost advanced civilization?
And bizarrely you say, they say most were destroyed because they were close or on the coast lines but then you give examples of all the structures that aren’t close to the coast, which might be strengthening their argument that those structures are the evidence because they weren’t on a coast line.
Yes, I realize that, but it's still all the evidence they have. If this lost civ was so thoroughly destroyed, why is every presumed site for it inhabited?
You did mention selective records, but isn’t the kings list an example of selective usage of evidence, accurate from the 1st dynasty but myth prior.
I am not clear what part of the video this relates to.
2nd to last thing, if hypothetically, there was, let’s say, a timeline of history prior to the younger dryas than what we know today, let’s say closer to renaissance period, if there was a cataclysm, 12000 years ago and most if not all civilisation and the entire infrastructure was destroyed wouldn’t historical accounts be in the form of myth
No. They might be in the form of legends, but not myths, because myths are not created from history.
and as you’ve said most catastrophes were blamed on the gods so possibly religion banned and destroyed anything that could be believed to have angered the gods so greatly to be never repeated.
Destruction that disintegrated everything that existed? Why would they think EVERYTHING offended the gods?
for me that’s the biggest question why did it take so long or did it
Urban society never had to come into existence. It wasn't inevitable. Life in small groups is perfectly fine. Hunting and gathering, as long as it provides, is perfectly fine. It could have gone on like that indefinitely.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bridgermauchley6179 My comments regarding historians was not a reflection towards you, but based on interactions with people who are still stuck in the worldview from 50 years ago. Admittedly, historians with such dogmatic worldviews are probably the exception and not the rule.
I would say such people couldn't even be considered historians. Historians by definition must update.
First off, just as guys like Unchartedx or Graham Hancock like to label 100% of impressive megalithic sites around the world to some prehistoric global civilization, some historians have the same sort of bias toward labeling everything to the time period of written history.
But historians do not merely label things. They date things. See my two videos on the topic here:
How archaeologists date things: https://youtu.be/cSu0mdwumXw
How historians date things: https://youtu.be/3lhn0Wf_jJs
Secondly, yes, there isn't conclusive evidence of civilization existing before written history. But what are the survival chances of objects from this time period anyways? Basically, the only things that survive for hundreds of thousands of years are stones and organic material which fossilizes into stone.
Not so. I did a whole video on that topic here: https://youtu.be/WCpPg4FHP1Q
how do you account for the activities of humans which would disrupt the natural strata?
The strata leave clearly visible signs of this. Archaeologists are well aware of the phenomenon.
if the Dynastic Egyptians were the recipient of some sort of inherentance from a predynastic time period, the evidence would show up all over in thier culture.
That would depend on how much was left. Whatever the case, I have never seen one clear example of an inherited object.
I believe that is exactly what we see in Egyptian mythos. Take for example, Zep Tepi or the God-Kings featured on some dynastic kinglists. Sure this could be just the Egyptians claiming great Antiquity for egotistical purposes, but it could just as well be the truth.
Ah, but you are forgetting the fact that the lists get longer over time. The oldest king list, the Palermo Stone, begins in the late Predynastic period, just before the 1st dynasty. Primary sources are more reliable than secondary sources, because over time stories get distorted. If you read Egyptian myths in order, you will find that they get more embellished as time passes. Does this seem to you like they are getting more truthful?
Another example, the primordial mound or Ben-Ben. Sure, the mound could just be an allegory or metaphor, but it could just as well be a real place.
If you read the myths about the ben-ben, you would not draw this conclusion.
A man-made(made by the god Ptah) mountain of stones, which once was a pyramid but by the time dynastic history began it was more resembling a weathered mound(kinda like how the mudbrick pyramids scattered around Egypt look in the modern-day).
What you are proposing is that the myths are true, but not in the way the Egyptians wrote them. We might as well just make up our own story.
I've been busy working on writing a paper and making schematics/diagrams. When I eventually get it done, I hope you will get to see it.
I hope I do too!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@phillymontana Really? When did the countries of Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Finland, Liechtenstein, Andorra, Moldova, Albania, Kosovo, Bosnia, Croatia, Belarus, Ukraine, Malta, Ireland, Iceland, Slovakia, Slovenia or Poland do that?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@therash09 You wrote a lot, and I don't have a lot of time, so I will try to address your most important points.
I only mentioned the widespread perception against the Aryan Theory among Hindus because in your video, you asked your viewers to mention the reason behind the opposition to this theory in India.
I understand that. I just wanted to remind you that their perception of it is inaccurate.
My first para of this reply is the response. I just wanted to clarify that it is not just Hindutv proponents, as you claimed in your video, who oppose the Aryan Theory but also a significant section of Hindus who don't subscribe to the Hindu nationalist opinions.
I haven't watched this video in a while, but I am pretty sure I said that Hindutva are the ones primarily promoting OIT, not that they are the only ones who disagree with AIT.
Sanskrit is a very big deal for the Hindus. The foundation of Hinduism and the Indian civilization is rooted in Sanskrit texts. Sanskrit is called "Devvaani" or the divine language by the Hindus. It is not isolated from Hinduism but an integral and foundational part of it.
This does not contradict what I said. I am well aware. Keep in mind that Sanskrit is not identical to Hinduism. It is, as you said, a foundational part of it. This means Hinduism cannot exist without Sanskrit. But it does NOT mean that Sanskrit cannot exist without Hinduism. Anyway, I never said that Sanskrit came from the outside. I said that Indo-Aryan language came from the outside. This means the ancestor language of Sanskrit came from the outside, not Sanskrit itself. Sanskrit, in my view, developed in the Indian subcontinent.
Also, it is not just about the language. Many critical aspects of Hinduism like Yajna, Ashvamedh, Kriyakarm etc. which involve fire, horses, elixir, etc. are all claimed to be foreign imports.
Indeed, but while these are important parts of Hinduism, they also can exist outside of Hinduism. Hinduism needs these to exist, but they do not need Hinduism to exist.
There are many such ritualistic aspects of Hinduism which are considered not native, and these rituals are integral, foundational aspects of Hinduism.
Do you believe that it is reasonable for anyone to suppose that EVERY single aspect of their religion must have been invented in their own country?
Because if you read my original answer, I said two things. One that the core foundation of Hinduism is indigenous and "millennia old". I did not say it existed since eternity.
Well, I have heard some people say millions of years. But you did mean more than 4,000 years ago, right? And I have to ask: what is the difference if it is 3,000 years old or 5,000 years old? Why would that matter to most Hindus?
Therefore, there was a beginning, but it was here, in India.
Yes, everyone agrees that Hinduism is native to India. But you seem to be arguing that it reached its ultimate form at the moment it began. Please correct me if I am mistaken.
The other thing that I mentioned is that migrations to India kept happening... However, the Hindu belief is that all these diversifications did not change the core tenets which remained the same.
Who decides what the core tenets are? Anyway, we are talking about what happened pre-Hinduism. So there wouldn't be any core tenets yet. As you can see, the real crux of the problem here is the date people assign for the beginning of Hinduism.
Moreover, the Indian society has never been rigid and has always evolved.
Except for the "core tenets," apparently, which someone in later times decided upon.
Some Hindus may discard scientific research shown by you or others as propaganda, but most are not enthusiastic about it because this study is continuously evolving.
I hope you are not one of those who think of scientific research as propaganda.
One breakthrough in the future may absolutely reverse the conclusions.
Scientific breakthroughs rarely reverse conclusions. They usually modify them.
you also need to understand the divisive politics that left-leaning political parties indulge in by using the Aryan Theory in India.
I have seen divisive politics on the right as well. Even more so, actually.
There has been a very successful attempt by leftist parties to pit the so-called lower caste people against the so-called upper caste people through the Aryan Theory.
Do you think it is more divisive to rebel against divisions in society, or to create them in the first place?
I am well aware of the existence of Dravidian nationalism, as they call it, and these other movements. But you seem to turn a blind eye to the tactics of the opposing movements, such as the ones who consider Indian Muslims and Indian Christians as not truly "one of us." That seems like a division to me.
History of the Indian textbooks has primarily been written by the leftists.
They are written by historians. As soon as the government gets involved, history suffers.
The Indian political landscape is extremely toxic, and you need to keep in mind the role played by the Aryan Theory in leading it to this point. Anyone without this context will not be able to understand the opposition to this theory.
I know it very well. I have a section on it in this video:
https://youtu.be/t9rDL50m4Cs
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Baargu they are easily called sacred texts without trying to understand the different parts of Vedas.
What I present here are the findings of experts in ancient Sanskrit, who have studied the different parts of the Vedas.
i am a hindu who does not believe in god.
Then I can understand why you do not want it to be called a religion. Do you believe in samsara?
There are people who think Vedas are sacred not because they are divine message, but because of the them being historically important.
Historians like me think the Vedas are historically important too. But that doesn't mean everything in them is true. Important and true mean different things.
But they are just considered inaccurate because of timeline does not match with the judio Christian beliefs of the judio Christian scientists.
That is completely false. History is based on empirical evidence, not on religious beliefs. History is secular.
Example you started with one theory and kept moving to other, using the excuse that it scientific because it's being updated, ignoring the biases that caused the inaccuracy in first place.
Surely you must know that science and history are progressive fields. They are supposed to update. It happens all the time. Every explanation is tentative, but it is always based on evidence. We take the best explanation until something better comes along to replace it.
Example if the Indus valley civilization sites were not discovered would the history be different?!
Yes, because history is based on evidence, not on faith or belief. That is like asking, "If the planet Neptune was never discovered, would the accepted number of planets in the solar system be different?" Yes.
1
-
@Baargu no i don't believe in samsara
Okay, then it sounds like you are not religious. I am very interested in this subject. Hinduism is taught in Introduction to World Religions courses here in the US. Are you against this? Also, do you think that there were many Hindus 2,000 years ago that didn't believe in gods?
History is secular?! This shows your judio Christian interpretation. What does seperation of church and state have to do with your justification of history?!
Secular means non-religious. Yes, the study of history is non-religious. In other words, it does not use religion as a basis for belief.
History is based on emperical evidence?! The why did the theories have to change so much. You do understand what the world empirical means right?
It changes because new evidence is always being gathered. It is just like science. As new evidence comes out, updates are required.
Show me any history textbook taught in school which only has information that is supported by empirical evidence and not hearsay.
Every textbook.
When you blame the him for using hearsay you are doing the same when you present facts from source you belive to be true.
The sources I get my information from show the evidence.
When did history become related to science and using similar methods to progress?! Archeology is science..but isn't history arts?!
I have a video on this coming out today. Make sure to check it out.
What progress has history made in recent 100 years which has not been corrected?!
What progress has science made in recent 100 years which has not been corrected?
How are you so sure that the current history is true?!
I'm not. All history is tentative pending new evidence. We go with the best explanation we have at any given time.
If indus valley sites have not discovered, it means they would still exist in history.
Yes, but we wouldn't know about it, so we couldn't put it in our history books. First we find it, then we can say it happened.
You argument about taking best explanation looks so much like the religions or culture which base their faith in book and their interpretations.
Religions don't generally update their views when new evidence is found.
Your arguments just show that your information is faith based too..if it was not some sacred text it is a history text or research you have read that you belive in.
I don't put faith in any history text. If I did, I would not update my views when new evidence is found.
The reason I use judio Christian mindset is because you just replaced your faith in holy book with faith in someone's research.
But I don't put faith in someone's research. Faith is not a part of the study of history. Do you put faith in the historical truth of the Vedas?
Else you would not have tired to argue with the narrator, you would have tired to take in the information; and note what has empirical evidence without using help from propaganda news sources to come to a biased conclusion.
I studied the subject before making the video. I investigated each of his claims by looking at the evidence.
Emperical would be when you actually learned Sanskrit which is still commonly available to learn from the source, instead of using interpretation of western scholars many of whom had not learned Sanskrit but deducted it based on their understanding or knowledge of structure of European languages
My research included studying what experts in Sanskrit have concluded.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michaelvial125 once again your choosing to pick and chose wording to discredit what is said, purely semantics with no real bases for explanation's.
No. What an electron microscope does is crucial to your point.
Electron microscope's magnify the surface of and object with illumination from a beam of electrons. They show that the surface of the stone has altered an its appearance is that of stone that has melted and re-solidified.
So what you are relying on is your INTERPRETATION of what you see in the microscope. It is you, the person, that decides it has melted.
ie why would you chose to stop the cut just there why not simple continue all the way. You have clearly never worked with either wood, stone or cement.
Yes, I have.
You mark your desired cutting area and cut to where is required, you don't cut all the way thru.
But UnchartedX says the cut is unfinished. That means he thinks it stopped before it was done.
But you are right in your comment about as time goes by we learn and discover new things,like it would be impossible to use a copper or even bronze saw to cut stone or drill the bore holes found throughout the stone work, it would require a minimum of 380 psi of pressure to cut thru a 8 Mohs rated granite or basalt stone with those tools by hand.
The Mohs scale is not used to determine what can cut what. It's a scratch test used by jewelers. It determines hardness, not toughness. Toughness tells you what can be cut.
but lets be realistic here, you are a historian, not metallurgists, geologist, engineer, archeologist or even a scientist trying to argue the merits of stone masonry and its working abilities with little to no understanding of any of the above fields.
That is why you will find numerous references in the video and citations underneath it to the work of people in those professions to back up what I say.
But fail to show the mountains of evidence modern and current from specialist in their fields showing and providing updated evidence instead of citing data from decades ago.
The evidence I provide is up-to-date.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hempsellastro With the Mul Apin we have mid first millennium BCE copies of a work composed hundreds of years earlier and pre the Bronze Age collapse.
No, the consensus is that it dates to around 1000 BCE, which is after the Bronze Age collapse.
The fact we have several copies shows it was a mainstream document at the time the copies were made. Yet much of it is out of date and no longer useful as an aid to practical astronomy.
So you are saying that they went through the trouble of continuing to copy it, even though it had no practical value?
However, the continued use of the Mul Apin in the Assyrian period suggests no progress had been made after the late Bronze age.
But they just so happened to spend time copying it for no apparent reason. Whatever the case, we can see astronomy advance all through this time by what written records we have.
The logic works backwards as well. The Mul Apin is a single data point. Yes, there may have been a slow progression from a primitive start and the Mul Apin represents a pinnacle OR the Mul Apin could just be a continuation of a long and essentially static capability.
It's neither. It's a step on a long staircase.
“Astronomy before the Telescope” (ed. Christopher Walker, British Museum Press, 1996) shows that around the world, civilisations who have full time astronomers get to a roughly equivalent capability quite early. So, I think it is plausible the late forth Millenium Sumerian and late Babylonian capability was roughly equivalent and a represents a continuing but essentially static tradition (hence the use of the same terminology).
Why you are citing someone who is not a specialist in Mesopotamian astronomy, I don't know. Such a conclusion is not in keeping with the written evidence.
So, treated as evidence, the Mul Apin, and the very scant other material we have (excluding K8538), fits in with almost any pattern of progress you care to hypothesise.
Surely before writing the book, you studied the scholarship on Mesopotamian astronomy, no?
We need more data points to definitively nail down what happened.
By saying this, you seem to be admitting that you have no corroboration for your interpretation of where the map came from.
I am trying to get across (apparently unsuccessfully) is that K8538 is an additional data point. The extremely accurate depiction of a unique night sky, on a given date, including verifiable numerical measurements, shows someone was there at that time with the expertise to make it.
I encounter this so often with people who are amateurs in history, who engage in archaeoastronomy. They base their claim on numerous foundational assumptions, and then think their single argument, if internally consistent, is enough to establish that the assumptions are true.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@subzerohero111 My comment wasn't intended to be confrontational either. Just pushback on those two points.
I've seen the approach toward ancient accounts is hyper-skeptical, always finding a reason to doubt if it even happened.
That is entirely dependent on what is in the account, and how far removed from the event it is. It is all part of the historical method.
There are plenty of historians and archeologists who, when speaking about history, make absolute claims like this, regardless of the disciplines principles.
You pivoted to a different point. First you said that when historians say there is no evidence for something, they mean it didn't happen. No. When historians say there is no evidence for something, they NEVER mean it didn't happen. Sorry, but you are mistaken. If they wanted to say it didn't happen, they would say it didn't happen. But now your point seem to be that, on social media, they sometimes say that something didn't happen. Fine. I was not responding to that.
This gets into Hancock's claim, that archeologists use their credibility to remove him from the conversation. Him being banned from Egypt and Serpent Mound are good examples of this happening. They don't like his claims, call him wrong and ridiculous, (not without antagonism, I am admitting) and have him removed from the sites he wants to examine.
This is a conspiracy theory, plain and simple. If you actually research these occurrences, you would see that there is absolutely no coordination among the world's archaeologists to ban him from sites. His being banned from each of those places had specific, individual reasons, and these were decisions made locally.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
the western scientific method, which rejects all evidence coming from oral traditions
Tell that to the oral historians.
By that line of logic, we would need to assume that the ancient Indians came up with the Vedas - formulated the ideas written in them - AFTER the invention of writing.
What line of logic?
This makes much less sense than the idea that oral traditions retained this information until we had the means to write it down.
That is the standard view. You are simply relating the standard view. However, it is illogical and irrational to believe that oral tradition preserves all information perfectly intact without any alterations, additions, or subtractions.
Second of all, why would the theory make sense, with the astronomical data, with such precision, if it were not accurate? What I'm saying, is why would the data triangulate so well if it were not true?
Because he has to adjust the meaning of the text to make it work. He fudges the data.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@giacomoneri1782 At least in my country, careers can end really quick if you don't agree with your boss. And usually the boss is not an academic, but a "politician", CEOs put there cause they can manage people and resources or cause they had important ties.
Ah, well, interference by non-academics is a whole different story.
Another thing, as an academic, what do you think can be the real purpose of the Schist Disk? I've seen people saying it's a "vase", others saying it's a propeller.
I am planning on doing a video on it, but yes, I think it is for cooking purposes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lbj4993 from what we know they had available to them as far as tools and ways of transporting these massive blocks to the building sites, they simply couldn't have done this imho.
Experiments have shown that it was possible.
As an example, dragging/pushing a 5 to 70 ton block of stone up even a slight incline, or to the top of a pyramid, would require an enormous force of manpower and ropes, and there wouldn't be enough actual room/space for that many people anywhere.
I don't think it would require as many men as you think it would.
Which brings me to an observation made by Mr Vincent Lee in a video you did about polygonal masonry, where he clearly states that using wooden rollers for large stones are impossible, unless you have a perfectly flat surface, and one that is nearly as hard and solid as the object your attempting to drag across it
The Egyptians used sleds on the sand.
You also claim, in yet another video, that the good folks at Baalbek had no problems quarrying an 800-900 ton block of stone, resting it on wooden rollers, and then rolling these massive block to it's intended location, then lifting it into place bla bla bla.
They wouldn't have had to lift it.
That route is anything but flat
It can be made flat.
anytime I hear it mentioned that the pyramids are tombs, or that they were built by such and such a Pharaoh, I completely lose respect for the content provider, because he/she can't possibly know that, nor can they know how these structures were built, and again, much less when or by whom.
I think that is because you simply haven't been walked through the evidence. More videos coming. Also keep in mind that the question of how something was made is entirely different from the question of who made it. The evidence for the latter is very strong.
Anywho, keep up the good work.
Thank you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@steveh7866 No, replacing BC/AD with "secular" alternatives does.
I chose one Christian name of the era over another Christian name for it. I would be interested to know which of my arguments you think were "specious and devoid of sound reasoning."
sanitising them limits debate to academia, increasing levels of misinformation in the public mind.
So you are arguing that, if we don't call the era Anno Domini, we are increasing misinformation? Could you explain how? According to your "sound reasoning," nothing should ever change, because it would somehow erase knowledge. It would seem that, in your mind, when the old Roman forms of dating were abandoned, this was altering history. It's also a bit humorous that you say that we are removing points of access to history that the public can question, and yet at the same time say that I should not question it. You really need to think through your arguments before saying them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hrishikeshlele5365 apart from the fact that the theory says Aryans migrated and didn't invade, there's nothing different in both the theories and the kind of effect it has on India, it's population and it's perception elsewhere is the same.
I explained very clearly the differences in the video. So why you would dishonestly claim that there is only one difference I don't know.
Yes humans have always migrated but no strong proof of a mass Aryan migration and them finding vedic culture and the people of the indus valley moving south and adopting it is presented.
The theory of Indo-Aryan migration does not say that it was a mass migration. It does not say that the IVC adopted Vedic culture. How about you learn the theory before you try to debunk it?
There's a gap of information from around 2700 BC to 2100 BC. the racist masters filled in the gap, then changed it slightly because no proof of invasion was found and rather than scrapping it they said 'migration' because it doesn't look good to scrap something widely believed and it is very convenient and you know what I'm talking about, it's not that difficult to archeologically prove and falsify migration in history.
You have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about. You're just inventing your own history. Read some books and learn the history of research on this subject, because you clearly know nothing about it. Your conspiratorial mindset is messing you up. Archaeological and historical theories change because of the WORK that people do on the subject, and the EVIDENCE that is found. But you would rather believe in agendas than in facts, because it goes against your deeply held ideological beliefs.
Migrations have always happed to and from India.
Exactly. So there is no reason to be offended by the existence of one.
we should not be compared to the white colonizer and his genocidal tendencies in the past when you talk about Hindus hating on others.
We were only talking about division. You said a theory is bad if it causes division.
the continuing attempt by certain powers affiliated with them to break our culture needs to be taken into consideration
It seems to me that hating on Muslims and Christians IS breaking your culture. So do not be a hypocrite.
The migration theory is also offensive because it says white skinned Aryans invaded Black Skinned Dravidians wait scrap migrated to India and founded Vedic Culture and the Dravidians adopted that culture and that is the culture we still follow.
There you go again, showing that you do not know what the theory of Indo-Aryan migration is. It has to do with language, not skin color. The Yamnaya were not white. They had brown hair, brown eyes, and an olive skin tone. I don't know what your problem is with people having lighter skin anyway. Do you hate lighter skinned people in India? Vedic culture was a synthesis, not an import. It was created in India and included elements from both older and newer people in India. Get your fact straight before you start arguing.
So essentially, majority of Indians 80% are alien to India and came in the form of Invaders too, wait migraters, sorry migrants.
Tell me something: how long does a person have to live in India before they are no longer considered alien? You are suggesting that 3,500 years are not enough.
So these white skinned Aryans are genetically similar to Euro-Asians which are the ancestors of modern day Europeans.
Again, they were not white. The fact that Europeans and Indians have common ancestors suggests equality. Why does equality offend you?
Tamilians hate the rest of India because they believe in AIT not AMT.
What does that have to do with me?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There is enough evidence out there in myriad forms that is not "crazy" to consider that ancient cultures may have been in contact with each other.
I have looked into this evidence, and it does not look strong or convincing to me in the least. But if you think you have something I overlooked, please share it.
DNA evidence proves out that humanity has always wandered far and wide.
DNA evidence (human, flora, and fauna) indicates practically zero contact between the Americas and the Old World during the entire ancient period.
If a 16 yo girl can circumnavigate the globe unassisted in a sailboat, surely the ancient peoples that constructed Machu Picchu, Angkor Wat, and the Pyramids of Giza possessed the brilliance and will to solve the much simpler challenges of global travel.
The question is not whether they could have. The question is whether they did.
However when you actually dig into it, this iconography is found in dozens of countries across the globe - from Sumeria to Indonesia, India to Mexico - many more examples than shown here.
The iconography is not the same. It is distinctly different, except in the most basic of ways.
You can dismiss it as not distinct enough to mean anything, but then I'd ask you to consider the cross as an icon of resurrection: from the Egyptian ankh, to the early Coptic Cross, the Gothic Christian Cross, the Latin Cross to today’s’ modern cross.
The last three you mention are all Christian. Of course they came from the same source. And it may very well be that the Christian cross is based partly on the Egyptian ankh. But you are still only in the Mediterranean region.
It is a clear, simple symbol with essentially the same meaning across 5,000 years, and nowhere near as consistent as the bag symbol.
They are not all bags. Did you see Part 1?
I could possibly get on board with the bags being a coincidence if they were the only similarity found in antiquity. Yet when you consider Pyramids found in Egypt, South America and Asia... and polygonal construction styles found across the globe, and more... the "coincidence" "coincidence" "coincidence" stamp starts to run out of ink.
The "pyramids" you refer to are built with distinctly different styles in unique ways. Same for polygonal construction.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@razraza3183 Sanskrit is the most sophisticated language ever invented by man.
As I said in the video, I don't know what that even means. Linguists do not classify languages by sophistication. And what does this even have to do with its age?
Sanskrit is called the language of the God's.
So is Hebrew. So is Arabic. It all depends on who you talk to.
Also, please read Angus Maddison book on millennial economic trends.
This book has nothing to do with your claims. I asked for evidence of your first two claims. Do you have any?
Rome, the so called great western civilization, used to send about 120 ships to import spices, textiles, diamonds etc from India, annually. Rome could not pay for all the imports from India and was in debt of India.
So? This is not relevant to your claims. Please provide evidence of your claims.
I believe Rigveda might have been written around 3000 BC, because it is centered around Great Saraswati river. Saraswati river is supposed to have dried around 1500 BC.
Okay, this is evidence, but why do you separate them by 1,500 years? And did you know that the Rigveda was composed orally long before it was written down? How then can it be the oldest book?
Also, why are you so upset that India was the cradle of civilization and not some European or central Asian country, where people have white skin?
I am not upset. And I do not think a European or Central Asian country was the cradle of civilization.
Also, I would advise you to read G.D.Bakshi book on Saraswati Civilization and NOT only follow some European authors, which have deep biases against India.
I follow GLOBAL scholarship. I do not follow the imaginations of amateurs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Thedeepesttruth you seem to be holding it the same standards as a thesis or research paper.
Why wouldn't I? All historical hypotheses should be judged by the same standards. Hancock doesn't need to be a proper scholar. That's his choice. But he can't then at the same time expect to be taken seriously. It's one or the other.
I was trying to point out the difference in perspective between the general publics outlook and knowledge of these subjects and the narrative surrounding them, as very different to those who are professional academics and researchers. The general public and there narrative of things is way more general and dependent of mainstream media and high school education. Where the professionals are actively in the trenches so to speak and have all the detailed nuances of the latest a finds and their implications and how that changes the story of history.
I completely agree.
Finally all I was pointing out is the inherent flaw in rigid practices on adapting new info. And that we have to combine scientific method with creative freedom and imagination to get a fuller more adaptive picture.
I agree that creativity and imagination can play a role at the beginning of the process, when we are coming up with ideas. But then when we test those ideas, we need to be rigid.
As to the Acedemics who have been railroaded by there peers I can not name many as it’s been years since I heard about them.
You would be hard pressed to find any.
I know there was female either paleontologist or an archeologists who was excavating a site, I wanna say near or in Mexico. That site was a Clovis site originally but they ended up going deeper and found evidence of humans further back. The dating showed 130k to 150k. She tried to have a paper published but it was torn apart by her peers and the concept of Clovis Frist was so intrenched in their narrative of history that anything showing other then was unfairly scrutinized. Rudely so.
You are confusing the archaeologist with her grad student. The latter is the one who went around promoting these ideas. The archaeologist never published on this, but she said that was her choice. She has had a long and distinguished career.
Doubted so much that her and her work and her methods were questioned and she lost her tenure and her job and had to go back to teaching high school.
That never happened. The grad student never had tenure. I don't even know if she finished her degree. She was a kook, as I recall.
Then there is Dr. Melba Ketchum who was a geneticist. She was on retainer for this Bigfoot project that had a lot of legit people and researchers. Even David Paulides(sp?) the author of missing 411 books series. Well they got some sample from a giant bone and hair roots. She and they tried to write a paper on their findings and publish it for peer review. Everyone turned them away without even looking.
If I write a paper and it doesn't pass peer review in any academic journal, do you know whose fault that is? Mine. It means my paper is bad. I can't get over people who are so full of themselves that, when they can't pass peer review, they blame their peers. Talk about arrogance.
Anyway she lost her job or was forced to resign and any credibility and reputation she had was destroyed. When all she did was do the testing and present the data.
What career are you talking about? She was a veterinarian, not a geneticist! Did she get fired from the veterinary clinic?
The Fringe science of today, is the future science of Tom.
Guess what percentage of fringe ideas have been proven right? Take a wild guess. My guess is .0001%. But it is the .0001% that makes the news, and that is what you remember.
But I have never once hear Hancock say he Knew for a Fact anything. He never said he had evidence of this or that. He simply says he Thinks, he imagines, he had an idea, he believes, and so on.
I have heard him many times say that archaeologists are wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@abhishekbhawsar4438 Elite class of Indian historians have created a cocoon/close circled eco-chamber, where only 1 type of ideas, views are recognized/allowed & anything else or any radical findings about Indian History is discarded as pseudo-science.
Yes, only ideas supported by evidence have value. And if you do not do science well or at all, it is pseudo science. But it is not an echo chamber, because anyone from anywehre in the world can participate, and anyone can become a scholar. All you have to do is
If you don't share/follow their ideology, you are not invited to their "Literature festivals", press conferences. Book publications simply deny publishing your books due to their influence.
I have been to many academic conferences, and everyone can go. And anyone can publish a book.
One member will write a sht*t journal, other member give recognition to it... Then it's published as peer reviewed journal and now it's part of history text books for children.
Just because you, an amateur, think it is wrong, that doesn't make it wrong.
But when someone write anything which contradicts/challenges their worldview, they just simply reject it.
Many challenges get accepted. I have seen many of them accepted. The good ones get accepted, and the bad ones get rejected.
It's not just out of ignorance but to maintain monopoly of narrative. to push only one side of so called "Secular-Narrative".
If you have ever been on the internet, you know that there is no monopoly of narrative. If you are complaining that only experts get to write textbooks, I do not sympathize with you. That is a good thing. You will need to complain to someone else.
Below article is just one example of it
Example of what? It looks like an example of a guy who didn't like what he read in a textbook, and who was unable to find an answer to his question. He needs to keep researching.
Unfortunately, Neeraj Atri Ji's videos are in Hindi language else you could have seen more such gems of these historians on his YT channel.
Anybody can be a YouTuber and say whatever they want.
If you were in Galileo's time and he had said that earth is not the center of universe, would you have believed him or "Peer-reviewed-orthodox church"?
In those days, there was no such thing as modern science or peer review in the modern sense.
Or Just 100 years back in US, if a black person published something was that accepted same as white person?
Probably not. But what does that have to do with what we are talking about? Indian historians are in agreement with the rest of historians around the world.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Some of these questions are not relevant to the video, and some are incomprehensible, but for people reading the comments, I will do my best to answer the ones that are relevant.
+ Genetics
1. Which gene is the language Gene?
None.
2. How a steppe ancestry of average 14.3% in North India can replace the language of 6-7 million north Indians. when mixing of people occurs over period of average 1,826 years.
This question needs to be clarified. I don't know what you mean by "mixing of people." If one person moves to a new community, that person is mixed in. If you mean genetic mixing, that occurs when one person has children with one other person. The very first child is mixed. So you will have to clarify. I also am not convinced of the accuracy of your statement that 6-7 million people lived in north India c. 1500 BCE. I will need evidence for this claim before I can accept it.
3. Give me the name of the community whose admixed dates starts after 2000BC and finish before 1500BC.
(I found zero)
I don't know what an "admixed date" is. I have never heard of such an expression. Please clarify.
4. The population of Indus Valley was estimated to be 5 million and millions more on Ganga Valley.
What is the number of steppe migrants who migrated between 2000-1500BC.?
As I mentioned above, I am not convinced of the accuracy of your population estimate. The answer to the question, however, is easy: nobody knows the number.
5. Of course to replace the local language, the migrants must have bigger population than the host. What is the number of migrants?
This is the same question as #4. See my answer above. But your statement that migrants cannot replace a local language unless they have greater numbers is proven wrong by history. I only need name the conquests of Alexander the Great, when a small number of Greeks made Greek the common language, or the British Empire, when in many countries English became the main language, to show you are mistaken.
6. Archaeologically, why there is NO evidence of any cultural change in Indus Valley region?
There is.
7. How R2 is rarely found outside India and R1a* and R1a1* is the oldest in India than europe. why R1a has 60% more diversity in India than Europe (as claimed by Niraj Rai)
The genetic diversity of R1a in Europe is irrelevant to the Aryan migration theory. What would be relevant is the genetic diversity of R1a in Central Asia.
+ Linguistics
1. Where is the evidence that which tribe of RV are speaking a non-sanskrit language?
I refer you to the book, Aryans in the Rigveda by FBJ Kuiper (1991). It has all the information you need.
2. Where is the evidence in RV that Arya is a race? (Aryan means Noble person - it is an adjective not a Race)
I never said, nor do I believe, that Arya is a race. Arya does not refer to a particular ''people'' or a particular race, but to all those who had joined the tribes speaking Vedic Sanskrit and adhering to their cultural norms.
3. If Arya word is so important why it only comes 38 times in a book which has ~150,000+ words (10,552 mantras)?
It's not important.
4. Where is the evidence in RigVeda that Arya* came from outside?
In the Rig Veda, the Arya are on the inside. If you would like to hear more about their memories of an earlier immigration into India, see this article: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/EJVS-7-3.pdf pp. 15-20.
5. Why Uralic languages have one way borrowing from Indo-Iranian into Uralic?
Since Uralic is a different language family than Indo-European, it is not relevant to the Aryan migration theory. I assume Uralic has Indo-Iranian elements, because at some point in history, Indo-Iranian speakers lived near Uralic speakers.
6. Why all 'common' IE deities only exist in RV but not in other IE mythologies?
I do not know by what criterion you are classifying a deity as "common." If a god is common, then by definition it must be in all IE mythologies. Otherwise it wouldn't be common.
7. Which Indus valley region rivers have non-sanskrit or non-IE names?
If you believe that the Vedic people lived across northern India, then your scope should not be limited to the Indus valley region. The question should be: "Which rivers in the area occupied by the Vedic peoples have non-Sanskrit or non-IE names?" And the answer to that question is I don't know. I am more familiar with non-IE agricultural terms, plants, and animals.
8. Why you conveniently ignore that fact of the existence of other Language families in India (Dravidian in south, Munda in central / far east, Tibeto in himalayan far north regions)?
I don't ignore them. They were not relevant for this video.
9. When Indo-Iranina route is disapproved by Shinde et al, where is the other linguistic model? sure David Reich doesn't provide any linguistic model where alleged "Indo-Aryans" do not come from Iranians but from South Russia directly.
Genetic studies don't indicate routes. They only indicate origins. If I travel from the Steppe, through Iran, to India, does my DNA change? If the genetic evidence indicates origin in the Steppe, then that means that somehow people from the Steppe got to India. The route is a side point.
+ Others
1. Why there is no textual record of language change in any Indian text of any language ?
I don't understand the question.
2. You claim Rigveda were written after 1500BC, but Rigveda describes Saraswati river as mighty than all Indus region rivers when Saraswati had already dried out by ~2000 BC. ?
The upper Saraswati was still a mighty river. Only the lower Saraswati had dried up.
3. Majority dates of Mahabharata occurs between 5,500 to 3,100 BC. How?
I don't know what "majority dates of" means. Anyway, the scholarly consensus is that the Mahabharata was compiled between the 3rd century BCE and the 3rd century CE. So it is irrelevant to the Aryan migration theory.
4. How Archeo-astronomy of Indian texts takes the Indian antiquity to 15,000+ years.
Poor reasoning. You can find more information about that here: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/EJVS-7-3.pdf See pp. 85-90.
5. When all the multidisciplinary evidence points to India being the proto Indo European homeland. Why are you so prejudice about this?
I still have not seen any convincing evidence that points to India being the proto Indo European homeland.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's still referring to the same event, the calendar was still made by christians who gave it anno domini and ante cristum natum.
Just a reminder that it is not a calendar. But yes, both BC/AD and BCE/CE were invented by Christians. BC/AD is historically inaccurate.
I get that you don't use bce and ce for political reasons, but i think i would prefer that you'd just say BCE and CE is what you've grown more used to because it's what you've been exposed to the most.
I am getting the feeling that you didn't watch the video, or didn't listen to it with much attention. I don't use it for political reasons, nor do I use it because I have been exposed to it the most.
Again, it's still referring to a believed birth year of Jesus, so the only difference between the terms is taking christianity out of it.
No, the difference is that one is historically inaccurate and the other is not, because one says Jesus was born in AD 1, and the other doesn't.
Making the case that you don't use it because it might be off by 1 or 2 years to the actual birth of Jesus (even though we don't know his birth) just doesn't seem reasonable to me.
If I consistently got your birth year wrong by 1 or 2 years, would you be okay with that?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You are right that I don't know much about Indian politics. But some things are obvious. Setting aside nationalism for a moment, the ONLY reason why people believe that civilization began in India is because of religion. It was not discovered archaeologically. Yes, archaeology has been used to justify the religious belief, but the belief came from the religion FIRST. So it is reasonable to say that it is linked to Hindu fundamentalism. As for nationalism, the idea of India as a single united place comes from that. In ancient times, India was composed of numerous petty kingdoms and states, not united in thought, culture or politics. So the idea of a culture that stretched across the subcontinent in ancient times is anachronistic and is a product of nationalistic thought. I don't have to know anything but that to know the idea is linked to nationalism. All that being said, I made only one comment about it in the video, and then I never brought it again. Frawley, on the other hand, kept bringing it up over and over again. Why are you not mad at him for doing so?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chadkline4268 2. GH is not merely poisoning the well. He has a lot of examples of archaeologists that were ruined by establishment archaeologists for making discoveries that were later found to be valid.
I discussed his examples in the video. They don't hold much water. It's cherry picking and lots of exaggeration.
He has a theory, and he looks for evidence to support it. That's all.
And that is the wrong way to go about it. When people tell him this, he says he is being attacked. This is one of the strongest reasons not to believe him.
4. GH would like to discuss things with archaeologists that could actually offer rebuttals, but they don't give him the time of day.
He has gotten far more attention than his ideas actually deserve.
But he is attacked as someone trying to push a fraud upon people, but that isn't true.
What would you call it when a person makes a living selling an idea that has no evidential support and continues to do so when his errors are pointed out?
He's just trying to make a living by studying fascinating things and speculating about them and writing about these things.
I debunked this idea in the video.
There is no war such as GH vs all archaeologists.
I presented the evidence for this in his own words, and you still refuse to accept it?
Most of the scientific establishment has put forth their theories as inarguable indisputable fact. If you look up things in various references, they say: this is the history, we know this.
Can you give an example of something that was stated as indisputable fact and was not? I want to hear it right from archaeologists' mouths.
7. GH is trying to encourage people to dig for truth themselves, and not to just accept what they are told by authorities.
What authorities? There are no authorities. Do you mean subject experts?
8. Knowledge+experience does not necessarily mean expertise.
That is what expertise is.
It may mean expertise in a very narrow area, or it may mean that narrow focus is rooted in a path that went off course from truth and is rooted in faulty assumptions, etc.
I don't follow your line of thought. It is true that expertise in one area is not expertise in other areas. This is why Hancock has expertise in journalism, but not in archaeology.
There are many cases of experts that think they know when they don't. I can offer many such examples in law+medicine+physics.
If you mean they claim to be experts outside of their area of expertise, I can agree with that. We can ignore such people.
And furthermore, if I cite them, YouTube will hide or delete my comments. So, don't tell me there are no powers that control information.
Links often don't go through, but that is an error of the programming. Citations are accepted just fine.
9. It is not worth attacking GH for saying a lot of discovery is made accidentally from non archaeological excavations.
He didn't say "a lot." He said "most." Pointing out that this is a falsehood is not an "attack." It is a correction.
1
-
@chadkline4268 The gist of my arguments, which you don't seem to understand, is that he is an author of fiction + non fiction mixed together, and on the whole, that makes his work non fiction
If you asked GH if his books are fiction or non-fiction, he would say non-fiction.
GH does not personally attack anyone to my knowledge.
Even though I gave a clear example in this video?
Not all archaeologists are on the same page with all things.
Good. That's the way it should be.
And in a recent interview with a top archaeologist, he agreed with GH that there have been archaeologists whose lives and careers and reputations were utterly destroyed by the community for being heretical, and later discovered such archaeologists to have been correct in their view.
Who? Name this top archaeologist.
The evidence I heard was in a Joe Rogan interview with a lifelong archaeologist who grew up with a father that was an archaeologist, sitting with GH.
You must mean Flint Dibble, as he is the only archaeologists that has ever been on Rogan. I know Flint personally, and he does not agree with GH that archaeologists' "careers and reputations were utterly destroyed by the community for being heretical."
Any authority/expert, whatever you want to call them, should not be accepted blindly.
I fully agree. That is why you should go with the consensus of the experts instead of just one person.
The process of scientific thinking, logic, reason, requires independent verification. Personally.
The average person has no time to independently verify everything.
All too often, money buys truth.
Tell me how that works with archaeology.
Archaeologist draw conclusions, views. They are not just staters of fact.
Of course.
Scientist lie for funding. Lie for politicians. Lie about the causes of global warming, chemtrails, and a zillion things that I could spend lifetimes documenting.
Oh no. You are a full-blown conspiracy theorist. I don't think there is anything I can say to sway you from your current positions. You're already down the rabbit hole. Look up Brent Lee. He has been where you are.
You didn't offer the statistics or define the unit of measurement by which to judge how many archaeological discoveries are currently being made by accident vs archaeological intents.
I don't think any statistics have been taken. But when you take go through all the archaeological discoveries that are made each month, as I do, the intentional ones far outnumber the accidental ones.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@angely.2440 You seem to be under the impression that I think that NO gods were deified humans. My years of extensive training in ancient history and mythology, and teaching it on the university level, has shown to me that, while minor gods are often deified ancestors, such as in places where ancestor worship is common, the major gods, generally are not deified humans. Or, to put it more precisely, there is NO EVIDENCE that they were deified humans. You can find occasional examples, but they are in the minority. And this makes sense, since polytheistic religion developed out of animism, which is the belief that all the forces of nature are animated by spirits.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidt1621 The problem with your question is that you are asking about a time 11,000 years ago, but civilization did not arise until about 6,000 years ago. You are asking about prehistoric times, which is not my area of expertise. You would be better off asking a prehistorian. If you have a question about the rise of civilization, which was about 6,000 years ago, I am happy to answer. Around 6,000 years ago, civilization arose among the Sumerians, who were a recent group that arrived in Mesopotamia. They are not related to any other known group in Mesopotamia. But their advancements were adopted by others. Civilization spread to other groups in the region. These people were not the same "ethnocultural" group as the Sumerians. Civilization was not spread through conquest.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wolf360090 When he said, "metal does not last long when exposed to the elements," did he mean that or not? When he was talking about the TV show and said, "What would happen to all of the infrastructure left behind just under normal kind of gradualistic change that we're used to within you know the last few centuries? The upshot of it was is the ten thousand years from now it's pretty much gone," why do you think he brought that up? Why did he mention "normal kind of gradualistic change"? Was he talking about a catastrophe? When he said, "If humans left
the planet, and 10,000 from now some interstellar anthropologists arrived, what would they see that would indicate that we had been here?" He answered the Great Pyramid and Mount Rushmore. Does he believe this, or doesn't he? Yes, I understand he believes that catastrophes would destroy a lot. But in these instances he is clearly talking about natural and gradual corrosion. It is undeniable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bipinhemam Oh, well, movies, plays, and novels have nothing to do with real history. As for Indologists, what you are saying is exactly what people of many religions say about science. With science, however, gods cannot be part of it. The supernatural does not belong in research based on the natural world. If we want to know what existed in the past, we dig it up and look. And all books, all written sources, must be judged using the historical method. This is the only objective way to do it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So, in the first minute of the introduction you lie about the position of the people you arguing against... It would not be the stone age, if a lost technology shaped some of these ancient rocks, ehhh??
That's the name of the time period. It would be a lie if I made up my own name.
The fact is, Eastern Turkey exists. Huge complexes built at minimum 6000 years prior to your 'ancient' times of Babylon and Egypt... And yet you are going to straw man by saying, "a global high tech civilization existed"
There is nothing high tech about Gobekli Tepe. Besides, it's not from before this presumed cataclysm anyway.
Nope, the speculation about what technology or what culture actually worked Eastern Turkey, the Sphinx, the Great Pyramid, the massive megaliths in South America is not what is up for debate or investigation.
The fact that I do lengthy videos on these things means it is up for debate and investigation. Why do you assume a single culture and technology are connected with all of those places, which have been firmly dated to different time periods, thousands of years apart from each other?
PRIOR to Eastern Turkey, YOUR defense of the human timeline was "there is no evidence of a civilization older than Egypt or Babylon, so we do not have to explain how they worked the massive megaliths with precision and this scale"
I never said any such thing.
Clearly humans formed large civilizations at minimum 12000 years ago.
If you want "civilization" to simply mean a settlement, then no archaeologist would disagree with you.
Now, you have to provide evidence why Egypt or Babylon or Incas built these massive megaliths. If not, we know of at least one huge culture that did build large complex structures 12000 years at least and were lost to all knowledge until 15 years ago
What culture is that? Your logic fails. As I made clear in the video, the question of how something was built is separate from the questions of who built it and when it was built.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
not sure comparing our modern technology to his core assertions is really the best counter argument.
He is the one who made the comparison, saying that almost nothing from our modern civ would survive 10,000 years. I just commented on it.
To claim there wasn't the equivalent of a global catastrophe manifesting itself over a few thousand year period would be a shocking claim, considering the record of background sea level rise, infilling of various seas, glacial retreat, meltwater erosion, glacial rebound, crustal subsidence, ecological shifts, volcanism and associated earthquakes, ice slides and associated tsunamis.
Please provide even one scientific study that establishes this catastrophe as global.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LVSJT "I.E.s came to town searching for new land, and took it via violence or threat of violence because that's how business was done back then, and how I.E.s seemed to have operated everywhere else. They were arguably the most violent people in history. Moreover, the steppes, from the black sea to Mongolia, have bred remarkably violent people for several thousand years. The pastoral cultures of the steppes have created novel and powerful diseases that assisted steppe warriors in their conquests...... repeatedly."
Yikes. It seems that you are basing your belief, at least partly, if not mostly, on racial stereotypes. Or at least linguistic stereotypes, which is, of course, unscientific. It's on the same level as "Have you ever noticed that black people are really good at sports?"
You can't argue that Indo-Aryans entered India en masse and subjugated it through violence unless you first demonstrate it. As the article you linked points out, many archaeologists discount an invasion "because the material culture of India during this period did not indicate an invasion or population change (Indus Valley-type tools and pottery are found throughout this period)." Archaeologists and historians do not draw conclusions from silence. First they find the evidence, and then they say what the evidence indicates. If there is a lack of evidence, then they say so. In this case, they have found no evidence of a violent mass invasion and therefore say as much.
"Most Euro descended people who displaced native americans weren't born in Europe, but can that reasonably be described as a within process?"
The Indo-Aryans didn't displace the indigenous populations of India. The Indus Valley Civilization remained exactly where it was, and there is no evidence of change in their material culture.
"Most of the Angles, Jutes and Saxons who established kingdoms and reigned supreme over everyone else were descendants of migrants and born in Britain."
Then it doesn't fit the definition of an invasion.
"The descendants of the first Aryans pretty clearly saw themselves as distinct from the dravidians as the caste system tells us. There was an obvious and very severe sense of "us vs. them." They were opposing forces, or to put it another way....they were never, not opposing forces."
People who see themselves as distinct from other people, even people who are prejudiced against other people, don't automatically make war on them all the time. There is racism in many countries, but warfare is not constant. The Aryans established control through a process of elite dominance, as the article you linked mentions, and this may have been done through force, but that is not the same thing as an invasion.
"Why do you doubt that Aryans invaded and took control via force?"
You already know that scholars believe that the Aryans took control via force. It is even possible that some of them invaded certain areas, but because there is insufficient proof of a large-scale invasion, and it is also entirely possible that dominance was established in stages (and thus would be separate events), they call their entrance into India only what they are justified in calling it: a migration.
I don't see anything in that article to object to.
I pretty much have said all I can say on the subject. I think we are just going around in circles and our argument appears to be more semantic than substantial. So I will leave it at that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AronAroniteOnlineTV learn to Think clearly first.
Yes, very important. I encourage my audience to do this, directly or indirectly, in every video.
A fact can be presented or denied outside of your " consensus" of scholars.
Very true. Every proposal gets scrutinized, and if in can pass the test of fire, it will survive and gain more adherents.
In this case its between AIT which had consensus. Now its proposed by a "minority" against AIT. Then AIT is no longer "consensus" but its modified to "migration". Its also proposed by a few now the migration could be Outside of India.
You seem to be making the argument that because some ideas, which were once on the fringe, eventually became consensus, this also could happen to OIT. But OIT is based on actual pseudo science. It is on the same level as Atlantis and is an idea promoted almost exclusively by amateurs and those without any experience or knowledge in the subjects under consideration. It is not merely an alternative scholarly proposal.
How do You handle it when Out of India gets mooted outside or within the Scholars as a counter idea? By attacking a right leaning youtuber?
First of all, this is a YouTube channel that teaches history. Of course it will engage with other YouTubers. Why wouldn't it?
Second, I don't present my own ideas here. I am a teacher. When I want to present my own ideas, I will do that in an academic journal or at an academic conference.
Third, OIT is not addressed in academic literature much because it is not presented in academic literature. It is only presented on social media and the internet or in popular books. This is because its proponents are not serious scholars, and they have zero interest in being peer reviewed. They only want to gain followers among the general population.
Again when you counter it why you pick this youtuber to debunk it instead of on Elst or Srikant Talageri who have raised very pertinent and strong counter points?
The more ridiculous the idea (and the more popular it is), the more likely it will be covered in my series about pseudo history. But don't worry, those guys are in the queue.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ if you knew anything about the subject, you would know it was previously common knowledge to many Australians that the Aboriginals were indeed seafarers [1], who used outriggers and catamarans [2]. And you would also know that some Australians felt Aboriginals were even better operators of canoes than Hawaiians [3], and American Indians [4].
When did I say that they didn't have boats? Please try to pay attention to what I actually wrote. It seems like you are only interested in showing off your knowledge.
If Aboriginals can accomplish these feats in simple canoes, imagine what they could accomplish with their catamaran and outrigger canoes.
Imagination is not evidence.
Further to that, the Gwion-Gwion rock art of Western Australia, not to be mistaken for the Wandjina paintings, shows a boat with a high bow and stern and a rudder, and the art is anywhere between 12,000 and 50,000 years old
This image is not some kind of proof they were able to travel from Australia to the Mediterranean. It might be a good idea to think about what constitutes good evidence. Consider, for example, how we know that other people make long sea voyages.
it is accepted widely by many that the Aboriginals made the first great sea journey to Australia in canoes
From where?
And unique sacred Aboriginal symbols and Churinga stones were found at the site
Did you read the Jens Notroff article you cited??
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Many of the proponents of lost civilisation theories are NOT referencing Atlantis (or Mu), or if they are they are doing so by looking at it as a story, with all the potential embellishments that come with that, of an unknown city, or local culture, and not a continent sized piece of land that just vanished from the face of the earth.
Atlantis is often used a shorthand for lost advanced civilization, no matter what the details are.
Myth as historical recollection is absolutely a common feature of societies that don't have writing yet. Oral traditions are how history is told in those societies.
Myth, by definition, are stories involving the supernatural. They feature supernatural protagonists. Almost no myths have ever been shown to be historical. I think you may be confusing myth with legend, which may have historical kernels of truth. On the reliability of oral traditions, please see my video on Khemitology.
References to other advanced groups, or to being shown or taught aspects of civilisation by outsiders would ONLY exist in the form of myth, and would be written in that form when writing became available.
If by "outsiders" you mean people, then these would be found in legends. But if you mean gods, then this is simply religion.
As for talk of lost cultures being coastal, you say it it's all bunk because there wasn't a worldwide calamity that wiped out all coastal cities in a day, but that completely ignores the fact that sea levels rose rapidly (in geological terms) by a great deal, which would absolutely erase coastal civilisations, just over many years and not in a day.
If it took years, civilization would not be lost. People would simply move inland.
Yes civilisations usually ran along rivers, but they were often also near the coast, and usually close to both. The idea that any advanced group would be coastal is not fanciful at all.
I don't see any problem with the idea that cities on the coast could be sunk. It happens. I do see a problem with the idea that all cities around the world would be sunk.
I agree that any lost civilisation (should it exist, which I think is plausible but not certain) would not be worldwide, it would be just as parochial as every other civilisation. We don't even have a globally ubiquitous civilisation today, so of course neither would ancient groups.
We seem to be agreed. Now we just have to find them.
While I put no stock in the idea of an "advanced in the same way we are now" proto-civilisation, one group (or more) equivalent to bronze or iron age cultures is absolutely plausible.
This is not the hypothesis that I am talking about in the video.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@singh-dsr well you can just see the ancestry of Dr Romila Thapar , her father was Lt general Daya Ram Thapar , a top servant for British army.
That's what we call an ad hominem, one of the most basic logical fallacies there are.
Rosser contacted Romila about it and asked if she can present any proof to which Romila replied that she has further quoted Richard Eton and that she doesn’t have any direct evidence of Hindu kings destroying temples. I hope now you can understand how great historian she is.
Yes, she is a historian that specializes in ancient India, not in the destruction of Hindu temples in later times. You think you proved something here? All you proved is that she is not an expert in an area where she says she is not an expert.
She even co authored a book called Exotic Aliens: The cheetah’s and Lion’s in India where She paddled her propaganda without any biological evidence that present day asiatic lions were introduced to India only by Alexander.
And? You have scientific evidence to refute it? What arguments in the book do you disagree with and why? I bet you haven't even read a single book or article Thapar has written. Where are you getting your information from? Hindutva media? Come on, you can admit it. We all can tell just by the way you're talking.
Another fun fact, she has long been affiliated to JNU , a top tier Marxist and left leaning university.
Another ad hominem. When you have an actual argument to make, with real evidence, let us know. Otherwise, stop wasting our time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
When Ben references Articles from past decades its because they are relevant.
Yes, and I am saying he should bring in all the relevant articles, not just one.
You even skirted the fact yourself that Maths, Geometry, Physics and therefore Engineering are "hard" sciences.
I, in fact, use them in this video.
Yes the knowledge grows over time but can also be changed or totally negated by a newer discovery.
So you must agree with me, then, that all the newer discoveries since the time of Petrie should be taken into consideration.
I was more than surprised at your ignorance throughout this video.
Ignorance about what?
"There isn't a single stone made and moved by human hands, that needed modern technology" is probably the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard.
You said you believed in the hard sciences, like math and physics, and they will back me up on this.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@terrywilder9 You used the word "cross-contamination," rather than just "contamination," so that suggests mummy-to-mummy contamination. But it seems you misspoke.
You're avoiding the question of why some mummies would have been contaminated, while others where not.
I addressed that head-on, when I said that the Munich mummies so far are the only ones that show evidence of cocaine.
Those that have not been suggest that cross contamination between various objects and various samples is nowhere near as likely as you are trying to portray.
According to whom?
Such is the case, where you assume that a test that couldn't be used in a court of law, didn't actually indicate the presence of those substances.
It is within the margin of error, meaning that it is not a definite result.
An unbiased viewpoint, not kowtowing to anybody, would note radiocarbon dating could put a quick end to the discussion, with the samples already given.
As far as I am aware, the chemicals can't be carbon dated. Besides, no one else is allowed to conduct any tests on the mummies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@andrewhopkins3397 Go to the Wikipedia page for “Meltwater pulse 1A” and look at the first figure which includes error bars.
Okay, but Meltwater pulse 1a is not at the right time. It is a thousand years before the presumed comet impact. We should be looking at Meltwater pulse 1B. Also Meltwater pulse 1A is only known to have occurred in the Caribbean.
That data say that it is equally as likely that there was a 20+ meter rise in sea level over night as there was a 4 cm rise per year during that period.
"Over night" is not a measurement of time, and it certainly is not in the times put on the bottom of the chart. The error margin looks to me more around 7 or 8m. Even if you are right that it rose 4cm per year, that is not enough to wipe out civilization. And there is nothing in the data that calculates probability. When you say, "equally as likely," that appears to be your own calculation. How did you arrive at it? It seems to me you are just eyeballing it. I would be willing to bet you didn't even go to the original study to see what the figures actually are.
Quotes from you in your video are “in neither of the other pulses was there a 30 ft rise in sea level overnight,” “the rate of sea level rise was 40-60 mm per year,” “Hancock’s claim is unsupported by evidence.” These are just wrong.
In the very Wikipedia article you pointed me to, it states clearly, "During meltwater pulse 1A, sea level is estimated to have risen at a rate of 40–60 mm (0.13–0.20 ft)/yr." And it provides a citation for you.
If Athens and Egyptian cities didn’t lie in the coastal areas that were submerged, then yes, they would still exist.
And therefore civilization could not have been wiped out, as Hancock supposes. It would have survived.
Hancock is not claiming “global” to mean the entire surface of the Earth was covered.
He is claiming that an advanced civilization, which spanned continents, was wiped out, sending humans into a primitive age. That is his main thesis.
show your probability analysis. Detail all of the assumption you are making, all of the data you use, your methods, and what the results are.
This is like asking me to show my calculations for a claim for making a basket from across the court every time for a zillion tries. Anyone can see how unlikely it is. No one even knows how many catastrophic floods there have been since humans have been here. But they know there are thousands. No one needs to be convinced of this.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The proposed solution made by the presenter, Dan, has long been a call for state-of-the-art technological investigations into the artefacts. Neither the claim nor the proposition of method is unreasonable. Can we agree that very simple position?
I agreed with that in this very video. Can we agree on that?
established academia is loathe to admit questions to their 'established order'. This is not an outlandish statement to make to anyone who knows the history of academia or even to many who work within different schools.
No, your statement is very outlandish. Anyone who has been in academia knows that every issue of every academic journal is full of proposals that question established beliefs. In fact, you can't get published if you have nothing original to say. Clearly you know very little about academia.
There are good reasons for such a position but it also has its weaknesses and they often manifest in blind deference and result in the need for heresies rather than proper investigations.
You seem to be confusing the fact that individual academics are often biased towards their own proposals with the idea that academia as a whole is like this. But what I think you are actually describing is the phenomena where various kooks can't get over the fact that their kooky ideas don't get accepted, and the only explanation they can come up with is that academia is unwilling to question their established order.
you are using this one vase to underpin your claims about provenance and practice, they have long moved on and the current 'research' they are performing is on a group of vases with provenance they claim to be unimpeachable.
I never used this one vase to underpin anything. I never would use one vase. That is what UnchartedX did.
However, in my own experience of trying to call for such investigation, I have been ridiculed by archaeologists and other academics in such a pathetic way that such comments only reveal bias
Ah, I see. So this is personal. Are you one of those people whose ideas have been dismissed, and you are too arrogant to believe that this could be because of a failing on your part?
I understand what the metrologer commenting above is saying and am not against his critique but until we get a proper investigation going rather than just stand on the sidelines and shoot at people at least trying, even if misguidedly, then this issue will not go away.
As I said in the video, it is not the job of others to do someone else's work for them. It is the person with the hypothesis that should do the work of testing the hypothesis and then to submit it for peer review. That's how it works.
it is not possible to look at the tolerances in these artefacts and explain their construction with hammer and copper chisel.
As I said in the video, that is an unsubstantiated claim.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@meljevsingh7759 Point 1: So, can you contradict this then? Isn't it common knowledge that Hittite, Avestan and Sanskrit are roughly of the same age? Do i need to write a paper to explain it?
You are confusing the when question with the where question. And when I said to write a paper, I meant your assertion that "there has been no evidence of an older parent language so far and even if there is, it is hard to pinpoint its origins or to say which way the cultural flow took place."
Point 2: There is no mountain of evidence that you have provided. You have shown that various studies exist on this topic but you are selecting studies that suit your argument.
No, I have accounted for all the studies, and I have presented the academic consensus. If you have a peer reviewed academic paper you think I missed, let me know what it is. But if you only have blog articles or self-published books by amateurs, don't bother.
Point 3: The word Arya is derived from Aryan. Arya does not denote a race or a linguistic group. It is just a group of people who believe in the teachings of the Vedas. Just like Muslim or Christian do not show ethnicity.
I never used the word Arya. And if you ask any Iranian, they will tell you your definition is wrong. Anyway, Indo-Aryan does not mean the same thing.
Point 4: If you do not mean it to be a race then why do we need to discuss genetics here?
That's explained in the video.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hi Adam. I certainly get your point that there is always going to be some speculation as to how ideas were formulated in a time period before we have writing. Keep in mind, though, that when we are talking about items as simple as buckets or bags, these are things that can be devised by anybody, really. They might require a passing down of skills or knowledge to make them really well or beautifully, but not just to come up with the idea of them. And when an animal, such as a snake, is found in a land, then it isn't a stretch to conclude that people in that land would put those animals in their art, or even to worship them, as they do the sun, moon, and stars. It would only be remarkable if such animals did not exist in their land and they were still found in their art.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rd108able it appears you are straw-manning my argument by saying "there are no Mitanni documents written in Sanskrit. None." Of course, but that's not what I said
You said, "the Out of India theory will be (largely) proven when the (Vedic) Mitanni civilization's records are found in the Middle East." And you said that the terms in the Mitannian documents are "in early forms of Vedic Sanskrit." They are in a language related to Vedic Sanskrit, but they are not in Vedic Sanskrit. If you would have said "related to Vedic Sanskrit" or "in an Indo-Aryan language," I would have agreed.
The reason this is significant is that it puts Indo-Aryan rulers, horses and chariots in the middle of Mesopotamia at least as far back as 1600 BC.
Yes, it does. But what does that have to do with this video?
The genetic study you cite is interesting, and I did not see it before, but I don't see what it has to do with the issues discussed in this video.
Now we have DNA evidence that there were Indian men AND women both living in this area from 2500 BC - 500 AD. In the same geographic location where scholars generally agree we have an invading Indo-Aryan political substrate that has specialized knowledge in horse training, and who's prince's have names in Vedic Sanskrit like Citraratra "who's chariot is shining".
You don't know that the genetic samples taken from the 2 men at Terqa are from people who spoke an Indo-Aryan language. They are not even from the same time as the Mitanni documents.
1. Why does Kikkuli the Mitanni's horse-training text, translated into Hurrian for the local population, use the Sanskrit "aeka" for 1, instead of the Iranian "aeva", since Indo-Aryan language would have first come to Mesopotamia through Iran according to the AMT?
It uses the term because the language they spoke is more closely related to Sanskrit than to Iranian languages.
2. Do you admit there were both genetic Indians and an Indo-Aryan ruling political substrate in the Mitanni kingdom of 1600 BC Mesopotamia?
None of the DNA samples were from the period of the Mitanni kingdom, so no. But there may have been Indo-Aryan men among the rulers of Mitanni.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rd108able The AMT as espoused by David Anthony hypothesizes Indo-Iranian and Indo-Aryan languages separated ~1800 BC. That gives 200 years for early Rig Vedic Sanskrit to evolve, the Rig Veda itself to be composed
If the language underlying both the Avesta and the RV was in between the two, and the two are already so close, 200 years doesn't seem long. But you are unnecessarily narrowing the time, since the RV could have been completed as late as 1500 or 1400, and the separation could have occurred as early as 2000.
then for the language to evolve from early Rig Vedic Sanskrit to quite different late Rig Vedic Sanskrit... then for migrants to leave India, arrive in Mesopotamia, establish a viable kingdom, and finally grow the kingdom to such a degree the Hittites found it worthwhile to sign a peace treaty with them.
You are assuming it is Rig Vedic people who traveled to Mitanni. Since the language seen in the Mitannian writings is not Rig Vedic, that is an unfounded assumption. And migration could have occurred in the space of a single year, if they so chose. They didn't establish the kingdom of Mitanni. It existed already as a Hurrian kingdom. They were migrants into Mitanni who were valued for their horsemanship and became a military elite. There is no evidence that they were the ruling dynasty.
If you take the OIT assumptions about the date of the Rig Veda, then it becomes the oldest attested IE language.
This contradicts the linguistic evidence.
Multiple waves emanating from India, in a region where we now have genetic evidence Indians did travel from at least 2500 BC through 500 AD.
No one is denying movement out of India. Movement out of India is not all there is to the OIT.
1
-
@rd108able Here are some transliterations from the cuneiform of the Mitanni Indo-Aryan loan-words radiocarbon dated to 1600 BC
Where are you getting the radiocarbon date 1600 BC from? The Kikkuli text has been dated to 1400.
If you examine the Mitanni names for their princes and kings, numbers, horse-training etc you will see they are closer to Sanskrit than Avestan or Hittite -- and specifically late Rig Vedic Sanskrit, not early Rig Vedic Sanskrit.
Please cite the linguistic paper from which you are getting this information, specifically the last part.
The names of the Mitanni kings were Indo-Aryan,
According to one interpretation. Another interpretation is that they are Hurrian. King Tushratta himself wrote letters in Hurrian. The names you listed have to be adjusted in order for them to become Sanskrit.
and they invoked the canonical Rig Vedic pantheon of Indra, Mitra, Varuna, and the Nasatyas in their treaty with the Hittites.
I have no disagreement there. The date of this treaty is 1380 BCE.
For those who might be reading this, the assumptions underlying the (incorrect) AMT are broken conclusively with the linguistic evidence of the Mitanni culture in Mesopotamia.
For those who may be reading this, rd108able overstates his case and has chosen to follow the ideas of an amateur researcher (Shrikant Talageri) instead of the consensus of the linguistic historians with expertise on the subject. The only reason why any non-expert would side with a minority opinion is because the minority opinion coincides with their personal wishes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
None, but you are taking his arguments and either not understanding the essence of what he is saying, or you are taking the most uncharitable interpretation and going with that, that is a straw man.
If he is not being clear, that is his fault, not mine. When he is not clear, I ask him to be clear, which is what I am supposed to do.
I don't think he does need to in order to have a valid argument so why would I ask him?
He supposes the existence of a lost advanced civilization. You say he doesn't have to believe in one, but the fact is: he does.
you are thinking about this as some form of competition? It's not a zero sum game. We are all here to learn more and refine our knowledge. This line of rational is very destructive imo.
Tell that to UnchartedX or Graham Hancock, who are constantly railing against archaeologists. They are the ones who are seeking to move people away from the majority view.
That's what worries me.
First you say you are concerned that I purposely misrepresent him, but now you say you have been worried that I did not purposely misrepresent him. Make up your mind.
my response was to your straw man of a fake artifact theory.
How can it be a straw man when it wasn't a representation of anything that he said? It was an illustration of my own point.
There's many ways in which a date can be obtained as you well know. Most of these items are undisputed to be from the earliest dynasties so we are talking 1000's of years ago. Most have been dated by historians or archaeologists and he's not disputing their findings.
But don't you get it? He IS disputing "mainstream" dating. So what does he have left?
It's tangential to the core issue and ultimately irrelevant unless these items were created in modern times when precision is available. We know that's not the case as they were found before we had this precision capability in the modern era.
It is not tangential. It is right on point. The whole reason he is concentrating on "precision" is because he wants to re-date the artifacts. Surely you know this.
I did watch the whole of his video, just not all of your take, as there is only so much one can take when you are so far off the mark here, it becomes a real brain drain.
Yeah, that is the video you are currently commenting on, and which you did not watch. So why am I wasting time having to repeat things I already said in the video? It's amazing how many people come here and make a comment, thinking they have a few "gotchas," but they don't realize these have already been addressed in the video. You're just another one of these people.
He does provide the proof, I just outlined an example in the last answer. He gives many examples which shows me you are either not listening, or incapable of understanding the requirements for the level of precision and thus incapable of understanding the evidence he is clearly providing.
He gives examples, but none of them pan out. Not one. And you know why? Because none of them have been measured properly with instruments that could even indicate such a level of precision. And yet gullible people like yourself just take their word for it.
One more example that you claimed he never provided is the perfect mirror imaging of giant granite statues. The human eye can't do this. So where are the tools or even the measurement devices that could accomplish what we would use CAD to do?
Watch the frakkin video. Or, if you are not interested in knowing, then don't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sedwillful You haven't even used a source.
I don't need a source to tell you that your sources are no good. You're the one trying to prove something, not me.
I've used various sources; excluding art, so don't make me flood your page with the artistic evidence. I've presented a preponderance of evidence; you haven't.
Your sources do not show that Atlantis was in Mauritania. That is what you set out to prove above. Your sources are secondary. They come from THOUSANDS OF YEARS after the time you are talking about.
You come off as racist and extremely biased towards Greek and western perceptions of European history.
I just told you that I don't believe the Greek stories. How then can I be biased in favor of them? You are the one putting faith in what the Greeks say, not me.
My argument wasn't to prove the existence of Atlantis.
These are your exact words: "my argument is that the dogon simply represent a portion of the west African diaspora; supporting Jimmy's argument of Atlantis being in west Africa."
I wanted to show that if i did, ALLLLL roads lead to Africa; not Greece.
I never said that Atlantis was in Greece.
The evidence clearly shows West AFrican culture extending 30,000 yrs into the past; back when your ancestors will still cavemen
We all have the same ancestors. Who is the one being racist?
a youtube video presented by you isn't a citation or reference. But you sit here an critique mine?
The video has references with citations.
I sent accounts from scholars; a range of over 2000 yrs to present.
That did not show that Atlantis was in West Africa.
Jr College doesn't make you apart of the academic community.
You don't seem to know what an academic is.
those Greeks I referenced weren't used to substantiate Atlantis; you knew this. They were used to substantiate the origins of Greek culture being stolen from Ethiopia
Anyone can see that Greek and African cultures are not identical. That means that even if Greek culture took a lot from Africa, there are some aspects of Greek culture that are not African. So you can't then argue that, just because the Greeks took SOME things from Africa, therefore they must have borrowed Atlantis from them.
Africans had been here 195,000 plus years already. Plenty of time to establish sciences, math, and history. But you're saying within 6500 yrs, other groups simply jump started humanity and became the history we read about right.
When did I say that? Never. Technology is progressive. The material evidence shows this progression and records it for us. Just remember that, and everything will fall into place.
SO, we have physical evidence of African math; 37,000; advanced math; physics right.
I don't know how advanced you mean, but no, the physical evidence shows it is not very advanced compared to what came later.
This math is the same age of Emerald Tablets.
If you watched this video, you would know that there is only one Emerald Tablet and that the academic community dates it to late antiquity (between the year 200 and 800 CE).
1
-
@sedwillful My sources aren't secondary, most are peer reviewed.
You don't seem to know what a secondary source is. A secondary source is a source that wasn't written at the time and place being examined. A primary source is a source that was written at the time and place being examined. Primary sources are more reliable, because the farther away in time and space a source is, the more chance there was for the information to have been corrupted, embellished, or imagined. You have provided zero primary sources, and your secondary sources are from thousands of years after Atlantis would have existed.
Where did the Africans learn there "progressive" tech from; 37k yrs ago?
What progressive tech are you referring to? Be specific. Don't just say "advanced." And how does it relate to whether Atlantis was in West Africa?
I did state that they appropriated African culture; didn't say how much.
I am not disagreeing with that. I am disagreeing that the Atlantis story was appropriated. You have no proof that the Atlantis story was one of the things that was appropriated.
I'm the one with the power here
Is that what this is about?
West Africans KNEW about THOTH 37,000 yrs ago. EXPLAIN THAT.
No they didn't. The earliest reference to Thoth in any writing is in the dynastic period of Egypt. References below this video.
Napta Playa predates Stonehenge, its in Nubia and has depictions of Horus and Thoth
Show me a photo of Thoth from Nabta Playa.
ZEUS went to Ethiopia to feast, why not Athens? Its because Zeus is the African/Amun.
First of all, Zeus never went anywhere, because he isn't real. Second, this has nothing to do with whether Atlantis is in West Africa, which you said is your argument.
I won't bother responding to your comments about how some races are superior to other races. I don't believe that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@themessiah2083 You have written a lot, and I do not have time to respond to it all, but you are correct I have not been to Egypt or India yet. But you also claimed that I am not familiar with Indian or Egyptian or Mesopotamian history, which is false, and you claimed I have not communicated with any genuine scholars, which is false. I often receive comments from people who say that, if someone goes to an archaeological site as a tourist, or if they live near an archaeological site, suddenly they know more about the history of the place than the archaeologists who worked there. It doesn't make any sense.
I do not agree that people like Nilesh Oak have done their research. He has done some research, but not nearly enough to be well-versed on the subject. There are lots of people like him, who put effort into writing their theories, yes, but such work is only a small part of what needs to be done on a subject. They only do the work that will make them money or make them famous.
Also be careful not to commit the fallacy of believing that, because certain things have been done a certain way in recent times, that is how they were done in ancient times.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thank you for your thoughts. Here are a few things you may not have considered.
its more about the change of the whole paradigm, where it "touches" their worldview, (as individuals, not the archeologists as a whole field) as for example that our technological evolution is only progressing upwards.
I don't think you are trying to argue that technology starts high and works its way down, because clearly that is impossible. You probably mean that technology can have setbacks periodically. But this is already known and accepted and is part of history. There is no paradigm that says that it only must go up.
About the tools - of course it is logic to attribute the tools found on the site and throughout that region being used to do the work. He is speaking about the cases, where the "final product" as for example the large granite boxes or the stone vases could simply not been made by the tools found.
That is also what archaeologists do in cases where the tools are not found. This is, in fact, what was done in the case of the drag saw marks on the basalt that were discovered.
for example stone vase, that has been recently 3D scanned very precisely and found out, that inside by tens of thousands referring points, its precise down to 0.001th of an inch - same for the precision of the granite boxes in means of how precisely level the block is - that couldn't be achieved with bashing by hands.
There are no such granite boxes that are precise down to 0.001th of an inch. They do not exist. I make this clear later in the video, so stay tuned for that. As for the vase, this is covered in a follow-up video: https://youtu.be/Wcl82hQr8xc
Wouldnt it be better, after doing the research and measurements of precision of the skyscraper to tell, that in fact, yes, the houses were built by the saw and hammer, but the skyscraper, say the words, that in my opinion are quite avoided - WE DONT KNOW YET. Because there could be the possibility, that the tools, in case of skyscraper for example the big cranes, were simply taken out from the site completely. In present time, we also dont have the tools used to build the buildings, next to the buildings, at all
In cases where archaeologists do not know yet, they say they do not know yet. Anyone who reads archaeological reports knows that such words are not avoided at all. In cases where there are clues left, they say what the clues might indicate. In archaeology and history, all conclusions are tentative.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@buttegowda Please watch your own video at 5:38, where you are so skeptical about the how ancients collected astronomical data (I suggest, you should go to a desert and see how the sky looks in the night and compare with how it looks it a night in city and you will know the difference,)
That is where I express doubt that they could have observed objects beyond the reach of the human eye. This is because the telescope had not yet been invented. But they could still have collected astronomical data from what could be observed by the human eye.
Major discoveries in science have thrown away thousands of years of so called evidence and new theories have been formed (look at STR, GTR etc).
History, just like science, is based on evidence. The key word in your statement is "discoveries." Something can only be confirmed to exist AFTER it is discovered, and not before.
First, you should cultivate the habit of looking things with open mind and read the fundamental work (which in this case is astronomical observations and their consistency) and go from there.
I did read it with an open mind. I found his theory unpersuasive, because it made too many unsubstantiated assumptions. I said this in the video.
A scientific approach is to look at one anomaly and rewrite theories.
What anomaly?
Please go through the astronomical data he has given, and let the audience know where and why he is wrong and how you got 1500 bc or other date.
I already did let them know where and why he is wrong. The astronomical data is irrelevant, because it springs from Mr. Oak's imagination.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AnimeCritical 1. I did not think it was such an unusual idea that people could have a communist ideology even if they had not officially joined a politicial party which aligns with their views.
We are not talking about "could have." We are talking about DO HAVE.
2. I agree it is true around the world, but I do not necessary agree that left is more liberal. On the contrary the right is actually more liberal these days.
If you show examples of people on the left acting like they are on the right, or people on the right acting like they are on the left, this does not suddenly make right mean left, or left mean right.
3. There is a difference between looking down on something, looking at it objectively and looking at it in a way that makes them feel superior. The second way is the correct way and that is what I advocate for, but what is happening in academia is the 1st way and what some people are doing as a response to that is the 3rd way.
Oh, so then you are perfectly fine if students "end up hating their own culture" if they are being taught the truth?
4. I have nothing to say on this other than that Romila was found to be dishonest on certain things which she has written.
No, she hasn't. Everything she said she believed. And so did almost every other historian.
When an RTI was filed for her to provide her sources, she just provided a few articles, no primary sources. But the claim was too massive to make without providing any sources.
There were no primary sources for either position. The burden of proof is on those who want to destroy, not on those who want to save.
She has been found to present speculation as fact in the text books she has written.
Yeah? Like what? I want a quote.
5. How can they amplify stories when they present primary sources?
You didn't answer my question.
Jawaharlal Nehru writes that Mahmud Ghazni was just there to loot the gold, he did not destroy the temple on religious grounds. Meanwhile Ghazni's own record keeper has written that Ghazni said he came there to destroy the idol. Now what is amplified in this? What is exaggerated in this? Jawaharlal Nehru just hid some facts to change the narrative. Do you think it was for his political benefit? Defenitely, his family ruled India for half a century. Romila Thapar was close to Nehru family and helped push their narrative.
Wait, you are making a "guilt by association" argument? Nehru hid some facts (I don't even know if this is true), and therefore Thapar, because she knew the Nehru family, is dishonest?
It is also very likely that she got the opportunity to write so many textbooks which spread across India, because of her connections to the ruling family.
Her books have received worldwide acclaim. It sounds like she was an excellent choice to write these books.
Someone was actively hiding the truth for half a century, for their political benefit. So if the truth comes to light, of course it will be to their detriment now. And someone else will benefit from that. That is a fact.
What truth? Name on truth that Thapar has deliberately hid?
What has Hindutva done to anybody? It is an ideology forged under british Rule by Savarkar to inspire Hindus to resist oppression. What is your objection to it?
I see you are still avoiding my question. So I will ask again: Do you think Hindutva has any political interest in exaggerating and amplifying stories of Islamic atrocities? And if so, why does this not bother you as much?
I saw in the news that around 1.5 years ago there was a conference in USA to Eradicate Hindutva. Recently there was a conference in Tamil Nadu to Eradicate Sanatan dharma (Hinduism). What is the reason? And do you think these conferences are politically motivated? And do you have a problem with that if they are?
I don't know much about this, because it has nothing to do with history. I have no idea how anyone in the USA could "eradicate Hindutva." But I do know that Hindutva has altered textbooks to forward their political agenda, and that India's historians have complained about this. My opinion is that government and political parties need to stay out of history. Leave history to the historians. Do you agree?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Durakken If you look at how humans group up you will see throughout history that a village is always made up of 3 to 5 families which each consist of about 30-50 members, or 120 to 250 people. A town is created when at least 4 (because there is no reason beneath this number) and usually 6 or 7 of these villages or settlements are in about a 2 to 3 day walking area.
Assuming you have your numbers right, wouldn't that mean a village would become a town without about 1000 people? Surely that is too small to be considered a city. So that means there is still a middle category by size.
What makes a city a city, population growth, City population numbers, etc. Most lists start at around 2000 population.
I don't know what lists you are talking about, but that seems small to me.
And then you can also look at the fact that even by medieval numbers 10,000 is a lot, so to think that 10,000 is reasonable for the ancient era is a bit silly considering the population difference is about 10 fold if I remember right.
I was always taught that cities largely did not exist in the early medieval period, and it wasn't until places like Venice or Paris reached about 10,000 that Europe had them. Anyway, there were places that exceeded 10,000 in the ancient period, and after 3000 BCE, there were many of them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Because in science there is no room for consensus and majority rules.
Same in history.
Consensus is a term used to frame a discussion and thus is almost always used as a debating tactic.
By non-scientists, yes, it is used as a debating tactic. As I said in the video, it is invoked when there is disagreement.
The scientific method is very specific. You make a hypothesis. You show your work attempting to prove the hypothesis. If your hypothesis is not always true, then it is false. If you do not use all the data available your hypothesis is false by omission. If your hypothesis is not provably true in all circumstances your hypothesis is inaccurate. This is called science.
Yes, and I agree that strictly speaking, history cannot be established as true in the same sense as a scientific hypothesis. But there is a similarity in the process nonetheless.
A real historian uses science to backup the work. If you do not use all the data available and make excuses for that data, you are not being scientific.
Agreed.
IF you use consensus and majority, this is called propaganda and pseudo science and weakens your argument.
Yes, and as I brought out in the video, historians do not use consensus in this way.
Now the word History is HIS STORY.
Um...that is not where the word comes from. It goes back to a Greek word histōr, meaning "learned, wise man." And historia means a narrative by a learned person.
Why is that? Because history is merely the story we heard about something that happened. In reality it is almost always the story told to the specifics of the person who paid to have it recorded and almost always done with a political spin to make a country or ruler or religion , etc, look better in the eyes of the reader.
Yes, all history has bias. That is why in the modern historical profession, we have peer review, which, although imperfect, helps to cut down on this bias.
This is why history by consensus or majority is pseudo science.
As I emphasized in the video, history is not determined by consensus.
History continually gets rewritten to fit the current socio political norm.
That is not true. History continually gets written to fit the evidence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RajSingh-xn8qd I never said it is your theory
You said "your arguments." They are not my arguments.
In fact I said you are just repeating what the Western orthodoxy has been saying saying for the last 2 centuries on: Aryans: Aryans arrived in later 2000BCE. But I have never proven it.
I summarized genetic research since 2006. This research didn't exist before.
Nothing in history is ever proven. We simply go with the theory that best explains all the evidence.
It was an arbitrary date, which even Mueller who originally dated it admitted.
Why are you talking about Mueller? History is based on evidence, not on what somebody once said. Show me in any of these genetic papers where Mueller is cited.
This is why you have a selection bias -- any kind of evidence that suggests the presence of Aryans in India before 2000BCE you ignore -- like the Saraswati evidence.
I considered ALL genetic papers since 2006, including ones that contradict an Indo-Aryan migration. And why I would talk about the river in a video about genetics, I don't know. But if you want to know more about the Saraswati, and about the dating, see here: https://youtu.be/ZvTlJDWG0lM
On the other hand, anything that suggests the entry of any kind of people into India from Central Asia you take as THE Aryans . Confirmation bias.
When did I do this? You mean the geneticists did this? I don't think you were paying attention. The geneticists didn't say that it definitely was the Indo-Aryans. They said it could be.
I don't have to be a geneticist to read an academic paper I have read the paper and you clearly haven't.
I read ALL the papers. Which paper are you talking about?
The paper says they found people with r1a of Scythian DNA from sintasha. Not yamanaya.
This doesn't sound like a paper about India, but I don't know which one you mean, so please give the title.
In case you didn't know the IVC and sintasha culture were in contact and there were people moving to and from. The Sanskrit texts even describe their land as Saka land and had contact with them.
There are no Sanskrit texts from the IVC. And what you are doing is INTERPRETING the text. Saka land = Sintashta? Show us real evidence.
We also know in early 1000BCE they invaded India, as it shows up a break in continuity in 800BCE.
Please tell us the name of the academic paper that establishes this.
So far you have given an interpretation of a book and a claim about archaeology to prove that geneticists are wrong about genetic data.
You saying it is the yamanaya who have come to India. Then we should find the same r1b in Indian people as we do in Western European people. We don't.
Why should we?
1
-
@RajSingh-xn8qd You're using my channel as your own personal blog. I get hundreds, sometimes thousands, of comments every day. How can I possibly reply to all of this? Get yourself a website.
If you have a problem with how I interpreted some of the genetic studies, then you are welcome to point out what you think are errors. But if you have a problem with the genetic studies themselves, take it up with the geneticists. It has nothing to do with me. And forgive me, but if I have a choice of believing them or believing you, I am going to go with the consensus of the experts, not a random guy on the internet who thinks he knows better than the majority of the scientists.
Same thing goes for the world's linguists, whom you also think you are smarter than.
Your "evidence" that southern European people "look like us" made me laugh out loud. That isn't science. You look like each other.
You claim that IVC script "morphed into Brahmi," but you didn't provide any citation.
You claim that iron smelting started in India in 1800 BCE, but you didn't provide any citation.
You claim that Sanskrit loan words are in Sumerian, but you didn't provide any citation.
You claim that "all" the features of the IVC correspond to classical Sanskrit text: this would take up an entire book. What is the name of this book?
Sorry, but you have give me no evidence that I should believe anything you say.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@commanderdante3185 there exists zero evidence of any translated work pre 1448 that references Herodotus.
Whatever example I give, you are just going to claim it is a forgery. Your thesis is unfalsifiable and therefore untestable.
If you think Herodotus knew something that wasn’t accessible to scribes in the 15th C.CE. Share it.
Every Persian name that he mentions matches a real name in cuneiform texts, which were found long after the 15th century. For example, he names the Persian kings Cyrus, Cambyses, Hystaspes, Darius I the Great, Xerxes and Artaxerxes I Makrocheir, which are the Greek equivalents of the Persian forms Kurush, Kambujiya, Vishtaspa, Darayavaush, Khshayarsha and Artakhshaça. In Book 3 of his History, he is able to tell the story of Darius' coup d'état in detail, and it matches the official story about the revolt of the Magians and Darius' accession to the throne from the Behistun inscription that was found after the 15th century. Book 3 also has a list of provinces and revenues of the Achaemenid empire, which is similar to Persian documents found after the 15th century.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kbr1983 Remember that I wrote, "Not every Indian holds the same view." So quite obviously I mean that INDIAN scholars - historians, archaeologists, geneticists, linguists, etc. -, in fact the majority of them, have informed my view. I am simply stating what the consensus is. Not merely the consensus of European scholars, but the consensus of WORLD scholars, including the consensus of South Asian scholars. There is nothing in their opinion, or my opinion, which tries to undermine Indian civilization.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@owenkeller2748 My statement is that the story of Atlantis was never presented as a myth. It’s not a poem. It’s prose. It’s an account of oral history which is simply hearsay.
What if I told you that Gandalf does not present the story of the ring as a myth, but as actual history? Does that mean it is history?
Symbols on pottery, pottery design, city layout, mythological animals, veneration of certain animals, deity traits, tool design, flood myth motivations/survival tactics/warnings/post flood actions, metal working technology, religious practices, astronomical categories etc.
These are just broad categories. I asked for one specific example.
They didn’t know what a continent was.
It is explicitly said that Atlantis was larger than Africa and Asia combined. They knew all of north Africa plus the region of Ethiopia. How large of an area do you think that was? They knew Asia from Asia Minor to India. How large of an area do you think that was?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There are ample amount of evidences out there including various Indologist Historiographers apart from Abhijit Chavda which make it crystal clear that :- The Aryan Invasion, Migration, Refugee Crisis,Aryan Picnic, Dravidian black skinned nativity,Dravidian Atlantis/Kumari Kandam theory,Aryan-Dravidian split Supremacy theory etc.....are entirely Fake.
What part of the genetic evidence in the scientific papers do you disagree with?
There are 25 prominent Medical Journals out there who had specifically researched upon Indian Subcontinent Anthropology,Genetics,History and Archeological Excavation's Carbon Dating
Medical journals that talk about anthropology, genetics, history, and carbon dating? Weird. I thought they would talk about medicine.
There dates are (Non Abrahamic dating i.e a history and dating system which is not of Middle East Dessert Country Originated Monotheistic Abrahamic Cult system of either Judaism, Christianity or Islam) a proof in itself that the Westphalial Researchers never understood South Asian Civilizations and assumed their Anglican/Anglophile Academic/Abrahamic Lens studies upon each and every element and formed their Cognitive Bias
What do you call the current year?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here you label the Rig veda as "Hindu religious texts". This labeling of the Rig veda has several implicit assumptions. First of all, that Hinduism is a religion.
I am aware of the difficulties involved in classifying Hinduism. I have to go with the closest English word I can find. And when Mr. Frawley treats the Rigveda as a book that is sacred and intrinsically true, I think my description fits.
it is a hardsell of an idea to see anything as "religion" as is known in the Judeo/Christian/Islamic traditions.
The word "religion" is much broader in meaning than Judeo/Christian/Islamic traditions.
If you were to remove the labeling of the Rig veda as a "religious" text, would you still be able to hold the sarcastic/patronizing tone that you took as you made the point?
I am not aware of any sarcasm in the video. As for the part that you imagine is patronizing, I am a teacher, so I will sound like a teacher.
If you were to disregard that the Rig veda was a "religious text" and just an ancient text, would you still disregard any arguments synthesized from it's study?
I accept many arguments synthesized from its study. When argument are convincing, I accept them. When they are not convincing, I don't. You seem to be under the impression that I treat the Rigveda lower than other texts. On the contrary, I treat it the same as every other text. Frawley treats it higher than other texts. This is a problem when it comes to history.
I also want to ask you how much of an expertise you have on the rig veda. Have you studied it? Or are you passing insights gleaned from secondary sources?
As a teacher, I convey knowledge obtained from the world's experts on various subjects.
Here you use the same sarcastic/patronizing tone used at 21:32 to characterize the claim of Hindu priests holding occult powers that helped them control nature.
I stated, honestly and without sarcasm, what Frawley says in his book that he believes. Have you read his book?
You should know that occult sciences were widespread during those times which allowed for practices that may seem magical or ridiculous now but had a scientific basis for how they happened.
Occult =/= science. It's one or the other.
You don't have to take my word on anything but all I'm saying is that you should practice skepticism both ways, both when a claim is made by someone else and also when you have a charged response to a claim made by someone else.
I do my best to use the historical method equally on everything. Frawley does not.
You keep bringing up "scholars of India". You should know that there is no such thing.
Now you are insulting India. Do not presume to tell me that people whose books and articles I have read don't exist.
Most "scholars of India" are practicing outdated knowledge passed on from the west.
That is an interesting opinion. Such scholars would tell you that they are practicing methods accepted and used by the entire world. What new methods do you believe are superior?
anyone with credentials essentially has to gain those credentials by continuing a western narrative on the matter
This is a view that does not coincide with reality. You are labeling a narrative "western," when it is, in fact, global. Talk to a historian from any country, and you will get the same narrative.
There is no independent systematic academic enterprise on Indian history within India.
In a free country, every individual scholar is independent and has the liberty to investigate whatever they want without interference.
Most of academia is like this, I've seen this firsthand.
I have seen academia firsthand. I am in academia. I know exactly what it is like. What you seem to be saying is that you do not like the historical method and you want to see it changed. But you are in the minority.
So whatever you see as outputs of "Indian scholars" is echoes of established western ideas relayed to gather western acknowledgement, which is the only way you can advance in these academic circles.
Change "western" to "global," and I will agree with you.
If you really want to be objective, rational and scientific, as it appears you aspire to be, you should be acutely aware of the fact that your personal worldview is shaped predominantly by outputs of other western scholars such as yourself with similar exposure as you,
All historians are made aware of their biases when they go through training, and this is why we have developed the methods that we have, so that bias is reduced. It is why we have peer review, and it is why history is a global collaboration.
who often rely on very narrow domains of epistemology which are familiar and convenient, while ignoring other factors that may not be as convenient to include.
If you know of any important factors that are ignored, please let us know what they are.
Studies of Indian history is so overladen with this phenomenon, where facts are selectively acknowledged depending on whether or not it corroborates what is already established in the observers' worldview.
History is not based on anyone's worldview. Historians come from all different backgrounds, cultures, religions, languages, etc.
And also understand that omission of facts can lead to as serious a distortion in our understanding as distortion of facts.
What facts do you believe are omitted?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
But consider that we have a much greater understanding of our own 'Western' cultural roots because the dominance our culture experiences today is an effect of having survived without widespread subjugation and cultural destruction. As such, the technological chain of custody, so to speak, is much better known within our own culture.
Hard disagree. It sounds like you just invented this in your head. There is more material evidence of the ancient past in Egypt than there is in America or Britain, and most other countries, for that matter. There also is considerably more documentation of it too. We know the chain of custody very well as a result. To say that we don't know anything about a culture because we know more about another culture is a silly argument. Instead of making comparisons, why not simply judge according to what evidence we have?
You also have to take into account that our culture is relatively young compared to the timeframes being discussed in relation to 'ancient advanced technologies'. We tend to trace our roots back through ancient Rome and Greece, and only so far back as the times when those cultures were picking up momentum and leaving us written trace of their philosophies and forays into science and medicine. That's really only about 2500 years. It would only be required that the ancient advanced techniques in question be older than that, for them to, by definition, be found in 'other' cultures since we have chosen to define otherness as that which is not part of our Greco-Roman cultural inheritance. be found in 'other' cultures since we have chosen to define otherness as that which is not part of our Greco-Roman cultural inheritance. be found in 'other' cultures since we have chosen to define otherness as that which is not part of our Greco-Roman cultural inheritance.
I have read this several times over and cannot understand what point you are trying to make.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@acheronlv-4268 when you have a prime shape object, equal sides rectangle, triangle, build constant density, you don't even have to make calculations to find were the center of gravity is
You're saying that it is not possible to find the center of gravity on objects that are not prime shape? 🤔
or how is going to balance when is raised up (when disasters strike), how much pressure on the surface below per square inch is creating, etc etc.
Wow. You have a really low opinion of builders throughout world history.
Chemical treated wood plank give us some assurance in the resistance that plank claims to have under pressure.
Are you saying it cannot be done without this "assurance"?
Mr. wally not to work with flint shaped branches like we did in the neolithic
What's a "flint shaped branch"?
show me they know how to use precious dense woods like teak, cedar, mahogany to roll those pillars, and i might think a little different.
You have a hard time believing they could cut down trees?
and remember, after 6 degrees of incline, a 10tons block is almost impossible to pull up without hydraulics or serious ropes
And you think that it is unlikely that they had ropes?
Sorry, but I just can't take what you're saying seriously.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why could Hans Jelitto find a strong connection between Earth, Venus, Mercury and Cheops, Chefren and Mykerinos?
Strong connection? Unless you tell me what the connection is, I have no idea what you're talking about.
Why are the pyramids perfectly aligned to north and south?
They aren't. See my video on the topic here: https://youtu.be/24NjjRFL9Zc
Why does it possibly stand on the ancient prime meridian, as Rand Flem-Ath discovered? Why does this prime meridian divide the land masses of the earth into almost two equal parts?
Prime meridians are arbitrarily chosen. It sounds like Rand Flem-Ath, whoever he is, did just that.
Why are Cheops' colour blobs inside the pyramid not dated?
Is this relevant to its precision? If you are interested in the scientific dating of the Great Pyramid, the mortar has been carbon dated.
Why does the King's Chamber consist of perfectly cut blocks?
They're not perfect, but they are a lot better than other parts. This is because it was the most important part of the pyramid. Of course, they are going to make it better.
Why are the pyramids of Giza a mathematical symphony?
Huh?
How were the 50-tonne blocks raised to this height?
They were brought up a ramp probably. How is this relevant to the subject of this video?
Why is it earthquake-proof?
All heavy buildings that are larger on the bottom are going to be earthquake proof. Even the ancients knew that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@VeggyZ you don’t just learn to build some of the most difficult and most massive structures out of stone overnight
True. But no one says that happened, so I don't know why you are making this statement.
I’d even suggest any civilization that could learn to build some of these were indisputably more advanced than modern academia give credit for.
Honestly, it doesn't sound like you know much about what academia says.
These megaliths show the opposite of that natural development, where the older, lower layers are more massive with better workmanship, and what later cultures built atop them is always more crude.
I am not aware of any ancient megaliths that fit that description.
Machu Pichu is a great example of this - there are very clearly two entirely different groups building onsite
Machu Picchu is not ancient. We seem to be getting way off the topic of this video.
and the Inca weren’t the ones who built the megalithic parts.
Yes they did.
In fact, when they tried, hundreds fell to their deaths and more were injured. All in trying to unsuccessfully move one megalithic block with thousands of people.
When was this?
You don’t wake up one day and randomly decide “hey I’m going to make insane structures, totally out of the ordinary for hunter gatherers, out of the most difficult materials I can find.“
The Inca were not hunter gatherers. And the structures are not insane.
As far as what examples you’re asking? He suggests Gobleki Tepe’s existence and knowing it’s advanced age somehow clashes with what Randall says - in what way?
Who is "he"? Me? Gobekli Tepe is not from before the time of Randall's proposed catastrophe date.
How does some materials like wood or metals deteriorating at lesser rates under ideal conditions (which is often not the case even with buried material) somehow disproving what he said?
None of them are in ideal conditions. Their very survival contradicts what he said.
In general Randall is correct, stone is usually going to be the only thing that survives that span of time, and the more time that passes the more true that statement is.
It's not going to be the only thing that survives. I don't think I should have to restate what I already presented in the video.
The existence of exceptions doesn’t somehow change the standard. If that were the standard, we’d likely be digging up artifacts that aren’t stone more often than stone, given the difficulty in using the material.
We dig up non-stone artifacts all the time. In fact, stone is not the most abundant ancient artifact. Ceramics are.
how much manpower? Great question, one we still don’t know
Okay, so then do you take back your suggestion that they didn't have enough manpower?
There’s a reason we don’t use stone blocks and it’s not because they’re wanting for structural integrity and durability.
This page has a lot of great reasons why we don't build with stone anymore: https://www.quora.com/Why-don%E2%80%99t-we-use-stones-in-buildings-today-just-as-British-did-100-years-back
“by their nature” means how they lived their life. They didn’t settle in one place
Ah, but many hunter-gatherers did. We have lots of evidence for it in the Levant and northern Mesopotamia. Now you know.
Hunter gatherers didn’t have the population to throw thousands of bodies at a project like that.
Oh, so now you do know how much manpower is needed. How did you arrive at the figure of thousands? Is that how many men you think it would take to erect one of those stone pillars at Gobekli Tepe?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@danielbest9733 What I'm driving at is that the videos are asking why the specific artifacts being pointed to, buried in the same strata of earth at the same time, do not bear the same hallmarks of the culture around them.
But I am saying that they do. They very much do.
And given the rather large difficulty in identifying the age of the artifacts without referencing the strata of earth surrounding them and the items they were found with, merely pointing to the strata as a default can in fact still be wrong.
There are other ways to date artifacts too.
Most people I've known who default to the 'it came from the same time and country' position are perfectly willing to leave it there simply because it's hard and costly to do further research, and they've been told by academics or high school history books that 'that's just the way it is'.
Artifacts generally are studied very intensively. But the type of research advocated by alternative history types, namely to measure the artifacts, not just in the normal way, but with highly sensitive instruments to determine accuracy to within .0001 inches, or some such thing, seems silly to me and a waste of time.
Would you consider that to be an unreasonable stance?
I would consider it reasonable, if the artifacts were odd, but they aren't. They fit right in.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Arkantos117 To make criticisms like "what ancient civilisation X actually comes from" seems petty since his point is it's a lost civilisation on which he claims myths are based.
Well, my point is that no one is going to believe in any lost civilization until it is found. It's as simple as that. Second, myths are not a historical source. They never will be because they are 1) religious texts, not historical, 2) contradictory, 3) far removed from the times they are talking about. No myth has ever been found to be historical. Before you talk about Troy, please note that it is a legend, and legends are different. Legends are not religious (i.e., gods are not the main characters). And perhaps more importantly for this video, Egypt has no myths OR legends about a lost civilization.
I understand why you said it but it should really be closer to the conclusion imo as it's more of a wrap up comment rather than something you come out swinging with.
I am responding to things as he says them. I follow the order of his video. Anyway, I see it more as a setup comment.
Your early point about technological progession is a bit silly too since you yourself know that tech can 'regress' at times (as shown by your barchart) and anyone with an imagination can understand what he's saying about a cataclsymic reset.
Tech goes into decline, but it doesn't reset. I can't think of a time in history when it completely resets.
When you talk about the age of the artefacts found on ancient sites its odd since it sounds like you're questioning their provenance. If the egyptian authorities claim the object is from a certain period but you say, "It's from a later period it's just at the site," well... If you want to claim that the experts don't claim that X object is from X period and that's just Ben making a mistake then come out with the evidence yourself right there, don't leave it hanging.
You seem to have missed my point, which was that Ben says Egyptologists' dating is wrong in some instances and at the same time accepts their dating in other instances. It's inconsistent. Either they know how to date artifacts or they don't. If he has a better way of dating artifacts, he needs to reveal it.
The whole question about "what is worse for academics to assume" is just pointless in my eyes which is then followed on by "ancient powertools" with pictures of modern tech so it's a double whammy.
They are valid points.
You say modern day was not on the chart but how in the world is anyone supposed to know that? Labels my friend. Without the far end being the modern day what are we supposed to know about the scale?
It doesn't matter what the scale is. The purpose is to show that it is out of place and does not match the material evidence. Anyway, UnchartedX DOES believe that this lost civ had more advanced tech than our modern times, so it's a moot point. But the chart could equally apply to someone who believes it is not more advanced than our modern times.
Why are some bars so much higher than others, what does that represent?
These are the technological ups and downs of history. Notice how they never go down to the bottom.
I don't know why you're criticising me about Flinders Petrie I just gave you Ben's potential view.
Okay, then if that is so, HIS view is contradictory.
As for digging to the earliest level of occupation, that relies on somewhat continuous occupation of a site. If a place wasn't lived in between 10,000 BC and 5,000BC who is going to say, "We must dig another 10m in case someone lived here in the younger dryas!"? C'mon.
They generally dig down to the bedrock. Anyway, many sites and artifacts have been found from that far back.
Academics absolutely can lose prestige when history significantly changes. Like I said, you're no longer the world leading expert.
Again, you are talking about individuals. Individuals don't matter. They are a drop in the pool.
Some people do actually enjoy being called experts more than they enjoy being one.
I am sure that is occasionally the case. How does that have any bearing on the profession as a whole?
I don't know why you think that archeology is immune to this when other sciences aren't. Ralegh Radford refused to accept that Tintagel wasn't a monastery for his entire life despite the field moving on and there's no reason that such thinking cannot scale beyond one man on more mainstream topics.
This is exactly my point. The field moves on.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make to me by saying that archeologists, paleontologists and geologists are always digging. I never said anything to the contrary.
You implied that work was not getting done.
No scientist, archaeologist or historian tries to prove a side? That's how they found Troy and many ruins in South America and South East Asia. "I read about this ancient city so I'm going to go and see if I can prove it was real."
This is extremely rare. It is usually done by amateurs.
Are you saying that you don't come up with a hypothesis and then test for it in those fields.
Of course. Surely you are not suggesting that testing a hypothesis is the same as trying to prove a side. Testing a hypothesis involves trying to falsify one's own position.
I remember reading about a dig a few miles from Stonehenge where the lead archeologist was adamant that if they found a causeway leading towards the river it would prove his theory that the whole thing was used for end of life rituals involving Stonehenge. He was certainly trying to prove his idea despite criticisms from other archeologists around him that even if they did find it it wouldn't prove anything. Are you just going to say he was just a fluke bad archeologist?
If they found a causeway, it would validate his theory, and if they didn't, it would not. How is that trying to prove it? Trying to prove it would be to adjust the evidence so that it fit the theory, such as what Graham Hancock does.
I know how history works but the point is that there are financial incentives involved so of course some people are reluctant to look at new theories that could lose them income.
I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about. Archaeologists don't profit from digging. They are on a salary from their university.
I've met many historians who were just phoning it in
Me too. Some people add a little. Some people add a lot.
Many just want to learn history by rote and they are useful experts but they will resist change.
Resist change? I don't understand. When a new textbook comes out, these teachers want to keep using the old one?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
He literally says the people were called Caucasians because they come from the Caucus Mountains....He never mentions Caucasian being a "race".
Amber, why was most of his discussion about genes, if he is referring only to geography? His concentration was on DNA and physical features.
If you have a historically alternate theory of World History than share it.
I did.
White people were invaders and rulers, black people, asian, abirigional people etc.were as well. And these races of people can also be Aryans!
Aryans are not and have never been a race.
He LITERALLY has many videos about the origin of the word Aryan, and the linguistic origins of it. He literally says Aryans ruled and fought against each other in dozens of videos!
None of that makes what he says in this video suddenly correct.
Sepehr has MANY videos about the Swastika being found in Meso-America, Native Indians in the Americas pottery and clothes, in Japan, Slavic peoples, abirigional cultures, in Ethiopia, In India, in China, the list goes on.... He never says these people were white!
That was never my claim. Can you tell me Sepehr's explanation for why the swastika appears in those places? If you can, then you know what I am talking about.
1
-
@amberdavidson6827 Yes he does discuss Race and DNA quite a lot as he is not a proponent of the Out of Africa Evolution Theory as the only source of Modern Man.
This video was on ancient history, not prehistoric Out-of-Africa stuff, and he discussed DNA a lot.
Harvard Medical School has an entire Department dedicated to mapping the genomes of "races" origins across the world. With the discovery of new hominins, chromosome mapping, and hybrid hominin species it is leaning more and more that the Out of Africa theory is not only false, it is not based on science at all.
That's just wrong. Of course it is based on science.
This idea of "race" is a fairytale.
I agree.
You will NEVER hear Sepehr say "White Race" or "Aryan Race" in ANY of his videos available online unless he is referring to the false narrative that the Nazi put forward.
Yes, he is careful about his wording, but he says the same thing as race but in different words.
Aryans were tribes scattered across the World. Their language and "religious" or spiritual practices are what links them together.
And according to Sepehr, genetics.
Aryans were pre-disposed to being Red or Blond haired. Not all of them were but that was a strong genetic trait in those tribes.
These are not religious and spiritual traits.
It is simple genetic mapping to determine their most likely ancestors based on the largest origin of blue eyes being inherit to the Aryan tribes in Northern and North Eastern Europe, Iran and the surrounding areas all the way to India.
Right, so you can dispense with the argument that it is all about culture. Sepehr is talking about a group of people identifiable by genetically-inherited characteristics.
Thank you for going through the trouble of providing links to various sources. The only ones related to the topic of this video are from other pseudohistory channels.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mynde-fuchefoundation2254 says someone compulsively espousing the consensus viewpoint and attacking anyone calmly reasonably and, most important, effectively pointing out the obvious.
Says someone who has examined every single claim with an open mind and found each and every one of them weak and unsupported by evidence.
Acknowledging that some things found and Placed into the record could not have been done by the known societies present is the conclusion any reasonable critical thinking person would come to.
Oh, and instead any reasonable critical thinking person would conclude they were created by a lost advanced civilization thousands of years ago? Haha, yeah, okay.
To say the Ancient Egyptians as you call them, meaning the dynasties as described in Egyptology, MUST have produced them despite glaring lack of high precision technology means it must been done by them how? Magic?
What high precision technology? The one you imagine to be there? First you have to show it exists, and then maybe you can convince someone.
I'm an independent critical thinker willing and unafraid to let the truth take me where it may.
If that were true, you wouldn't accept claims that high precision technology exists without being shown any data.
invite Ben to a legitimate, structured, online debate where you explain the phenomena he is pointing out and he has to respond to your arguments.
I did, and he refused.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wow, you took the time to write quite a bit here, so I will do my best to give it a thoughtful response. You repeated yourself a lot. I will try not to do the same.
“Why did only ONE person end up receiving the story. The farther back a story goes, the more opportunity it has to spread, and the more people would have heard it.” “What are the chances of any story surviving 9000 years, being spread by word of mouth, and transferred from one language to another. Close to ZERO.” Wait, what? A number very close to 0 is 1 – the SINGLE account from Plato. Your two statements were not-so-slyly employed in isolation, to prove separate points, while both contradict each other massively and obviously. Choose your logic first. Find out what you believe first. Then make your case. Then your presentations would not come across as suspiciously duplicitous. Is it darn easy – should we have a plethora of accounts? Or, is it darn hard – chances being “close to zero”?
The first argument is basing its premise on the claim that a story would survive 9,000 years intact, or at least partly intact. It is not a claim I believe, but it is a claim that people make. It assumes the claim is true for argument’s sake and shows it still would not make sense. The second argument shows why I do not believe a story would survive 9,000 years. Both arguments, assuming the premise is true, are valid.
Instead of systematically addressing the notions put forward by a congressman from the Victorian era, why not systematically address the body of work that MODERN scientists have labored over?
I do, though I have to admit there aren’t many modern scientists who make such outlandish claims.
If I were to attack modern evolution theory by poking holes in books on biology from the Victorian era, more than one and a half centuries ago, I would only be making a fool of myself, and no one else. Very few today take Donnelly seriously, so neither should you.
This video is a history about where ideas originated. Not a lot of people know. But it would be dishonest of you to say that most of Donnelly’s arguments are not still bandied about.
Attacking the subject (Younger Dryas) by seeking out Ad Hominem assaults from people writing when electricity was just being harnessed and galaxies had yet to be discovered, will fail to solve a single thing.
When did I make an ad hominem attack?
You’ve ignored a litany of basic observations I made in your initial Atlantis post, and you’ve even carried some of these basic contradictions/errors/omissions of yours over into this episode.
Why people think I need to answer every objection they raise in the comments section of my YouTube videos, I don’t know. But if you want to link me to a comment you made that I did not reply to, please do, and I will take a look. I get tons of comments, you know.
If you were to endeavor to roll up your sleeves and pick on people your own size, like Richard Firestone, Allen West, or Simon Wawick-Smith (for starters), you might learn something new in the process, while truly debunking some notable important figures that people actually read today (if you think you can actually debunk actual modern-day research on Younger-Dryas, actually).
I have never made a video on anyone smaller than me. And to be honest, I have never heard any of those guys, but thank you for the recommendation. What ancient history claims have they made?
If you’re trying to disprove Plato’s fairy-tale vision after Plato says that this fairy-tale vision is based on veritable true history
Hmm. It sounds like you didn’t read the text. It is not Plato who says that. It is one of his characters – a guy named Critias. It is important that we understand the difference between author and character.
Are you not intrigued, in the least, of how well the 9000 date matches with the ice core record?
You’re saying I should be intrigued because an event mentioned in Plato matches a completely different event from the same approximate time period?
Instead of trying to play the role of savior to free people from the clutches of the tyranny of alternative thinking, why don’t you actually try to help others solve the damn case, in the first place.
That’s what I am doing.
You are not convincing any advanced alternative researchers of anything other than your ignorance and unsystematic approach to the subject.
A number of people have already expressed to me that I have changed their minds about subjects I have covered. So it is working. I feel good about that.
Modern Younger-Dryas Science does not = Ignatius Donnely’s Stupid Views
This video wasn’t about modern Younger-Dryas science.
Allan at Sacred Geometry Decoded (an excellent channel with a series debunking stone-cutting myths, which you would surely enjoy – seriously, check it out) – Allan – he seriously lambastes UnchartedBen and Brien Foerster, for Cherry Picking.
Yes, I enjoy the channel too.
I think he would agree that you too, sir, Cherry Pick, for sure.
Why don’t you ask him?
Like, who believes in this ancient coin? Who believes this?
That was the point.
Is that “the best archaeological example you can provide” concerning Younger Dryas Science?!?
It wasn’t about Younger Dryas science.
You are casting derision on a field of study that might actually save your very own ass one day!
What field of study is that? The one I didn’t talk about?
At the same time, you have the skill set to actually help in the debate!
Thank you. That is what I am trying to do.
Did you say that ancient peoples had “absolutely no concept of comets”? How they heck would you determine this? Have you inferred this somehow? Even if not a single tale or report is found, how the heck can you say this? What do you know of peoples 12000 years ago? People have eyes to see space rocks fall and ears to hear the clamour they produce, and skin to feel the burning flames.
I agree with you there. When I said they had no concept of comets, I meant they didn’t know what a comet really was.
How did the Chinese prepare, in the BCs, a thorough catalog of comet-forms, then, without the telescope?
I have never heard of this. Could you provide more information?
More forms that have been observed by modern man! The Princess and the Falling Star.
I never said people didn’t refer to falling stars.
Any time you want to enter the real-world debate of Younger-Dryas, and feel like you can contribute to the details of how Plato’s vague account might relate to it, there are plenty of professionals to contact.
I am happy to discuss the Younger Dryas, but it has nothing to do with Plato, because Plato doesn’t mention even a single thing connected to the Younger Dryas.
But, again, I doubt you’d do this, because I don’t think you give a hoot about space rocks
That’s because I am an ancient historian. I do ancient history.
Note this: Mark these words: Consider this carefully: If nothing else, register this: Your perspective and general approach is precisely why alternative research has to exist! Your thinking is why an alternative – why a fringe has to exist! Circling your wagons around those who agree with you, then firing shots in all other directions, does not advance Science!
It’s funny. Alternative history folks complain when academics ignore them. And then when they address their claims, they complain about that too. Such a persecution complex. Listen, I entertain every claim made with due consideration, even steel-manning each proposition to give it the best chance it has. Don’t be offended if an argument is too weak to convince me.
Protecting existing paradigms, for its own sake, does not, in of itself, necessarily constitute the practice of Science (or academic professional work in general).
I don’t do that. I am very open to new ideas and change my mind all the time – when the idea is a good one.
You are defending your job and your own kind.
You don’t know my job very well. It is part of my job to come up with new ideas.
1
-
The only value in your entire presentation – the only thing worth reporting or taking to heart – the only item worth promoting – is the fact that Graham Hancock and his followers believe in a “global civilization” which was the progenitor of all others, from the survivors of Plato’s Atlantis. And, yes, I think the point you were trying to make is that, this nonsense can be traced back to Donnelly. Right?
Right.
We don’t even have a “global” standard civilization today. People in Bhutan enjoy very different culture than people in San Francisco. True. And, this is important to clear up, so, Good.
Thanks.
Thing is, you didn’t connect the dots! Like, if this was what you were trying to point out – if this was your thesis – if you were to submit this paper to Modern Mainstream Archaeology Magazine, they would suggest you connect the dots by including examples from Hancock et. al. of this erroneous assumption/declaration of some global progenitor civilization.
Academics generally don’t write papers to negate a hypothesis. They write papers to propose one. Any that are good will stick. Hancock has never established the truth of his claims in an academic journal. He hasn’t even tried. He just wants to sell popular books. So no one takes his ideas seriously.
Even from Plato’s account itself, there are ceaseless wipings away of civilization – many MULTIPLE lost civilizations – coming and going, all the time, by various ecological pressures. Not just one lost civilization. Therefore, this notion of a single central standard civilization as being the mother of all others, is contradicted even with Plato’s words. But, this is not where you went – this is not obvious from watching your post – this is not the take-home that your viewers will glean from your video.
I suggest you watch more of my videos before you pass judgment on what I have or have not covered. I can’t do everything in one video, you know.
There is no mention, among the tens of accredited Younger-Dryas scientists, with more peer-reviewed papers than you will ever manage to produce in your lifetime, of a global standard progenitor civilization.
I have to ask: What would a scientist know about a progenitor civilization? You do realize that, even if there was a comet impact, that proves nothing about a progenitor civilization, right?
If I write a book, today, and it becomes popular, let’s call it Magicians of the Dinosaurs; and, in this book, I detail how, at the time of the Dinosaurs there was a long-lost progenitor civilization to which we owe all our arts and culture. Then, in this lengthy hardback that costs an arm and a leg, I cite all of the best Dinosaur extinction science – I cite all the papers, I detail the nature of the soil strata and the finds therein, and I make use of all of the research of a whole series of scientists – all to prove my silly point. Should we then discount and ignore all of Dinosaur comet-science, because a popular book, Magicians of the Dinosaurs, is trying to fool everybody with nonsense?
Of course not. But what does this have to do with me?
Why Ancient History Matters??? ???? Howbout preventing calamities that we are not familiar with today, or predicting these to help preserve life through these natural recurring and random threats – calamities that have decimated mankind, often, not just 11600 years ago.
Walk me through this: how do you believe that learning ancient history will protect us from natural disasters?
These events – which we have zero experience with today – this is Why Ancient History Matters, or, at least, this should be the main reason why it should matter to you or anyone else.
How much of ancient history is about natural disasters? Not much.
I also enjoy, very much, interpreting glyphs, as you expressed in your interesting interview with Dr. Bubnova.
Thank you.
Teotihuacan is a perfect example – its downfall coincided with the Justinian Plague. Constantinople and Teotihuacan seem to have fallen at the very same time, from the very same cause – 18 months of a much dimmed sun and moon – failed crops, poor harvest, famine, disease (for starters).
How did the plague cross the ocean? Also disease caused by famine is not the same as the plague of Justinian’s time.
Would you not then feel angry with yourself for not only ignoring this subject, but also attacking a whole host of scientists working on the most important reason Why Ancient History Matters!!!!
I never did any such thing.
So often is the ancient opinion that comets brought disaster and famine – so often is this opinion ridiculed.
I find fault with specific claims, not the general claim that a comet could bring disaster.
1
-
@InfiniteAlephbet In Comet by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan, page 20, there is an image of “a portion of the world’s first cometary atlas, the Mawangdu silk, ca. 300 B.C.” In the wicki Historical Comet Observations in China, there seems to be a different date (the Sagans were writing in 85) but still in the BCs – the 100s BC, and the picture shows another portion of the same silk.
Ah, the Mawangdui silks come from about 168 BCE, but they are a collection of different texts, some of which come from earlier times. The books that Sagan and Druyan must have been referring to are those by the astronomers Gan De and Shi Shen. But as far as I know, their books were star catalogs. I don't know of any references to comets in there, though I could be wrong. One of them could have made reference to a comet, without knowing what it was, of course.
So, you DO think that “the farther back a story goes, the more opportunity it has to spread, and the more people would have heard it.” you DO think this STILL helps to disqualify the age-claim.
Yes. Logic would dictate that the longer something spreads, the more widespread it becomes. Unfortunately, logic also dictates that the longer an oral story spreads, the more it changes. Both are true and uncontradictory.
So, you DO think that this logic is true (it helped to prove your case, and you admit as much). You have not cleared up duplicity, you have instead confirmed it.
How so?
“You’re saying I should be intrigued because an event mentioned in Plato matches a completely different event from the same approximate time period?” YES! WHAT?? YES!!! HUH??? OF COURRRRRSE!!!!
You must have missed the part where I wrote "completely different event." If I told you that you should be intrigued because in 1066 the Battle of Hastings occurred, and also that Halley's Comet reached perihelion, would you be? I wouldn't. They are unrelated. That they both occurred in 1066 is coincidental.
“Plato doesn’t mention even a single thing connected to the Younger Dryas.” Only the precise date! 11,600 years ago!
As I said, if he mentions a completely different event than anything connected to the YD, then it isn't significant. Besides, the YD didn't occur during a single year, and Plato gave only an approximate date, so quit calling it a "precise date."
But, the reason you wrote this last bit, is because you think he made an error of 8100 years, and then this, in turn, allows you to write the statement about not being intrigued. That is dishonest self-referencing logic. I don't think Plato made an error. I think he wanted to say 9,000 years and did. It fit his story better. He wasn't concerned about accuracy.
Saying that a video about Ignatius Donnelly and Atlantis is not about Younger-Dryas shows how much you’ve missed the mark in the first place. If this is your position – that the two can so easily be separated, you should at least share your opinion on YD, and do at least a basic examination of the matter, before commenting on the substance on the work of the man you are destroying, because that is what is being discussed – that IS the calamity in question – the subject of Donnelly’s work.
I am not convinced one way or the other that there was a comet impact. Maybe there was. Maybe there wasn't. It's not relevant to whether Plato's story is true or whether there was a progenitor civilization. So why should I address it? It's about a time period outside of my field.
That’s why I cite this fact – that the tens of Scientists working on YD don’t share or promote Hancock’s progenitor civilization views (and neither do I). That was my point. This maybe explains why you didn’t get my Magicians of the Dinosaurs diatribe. Younger-Dryas is worth addressing systematically – it is not witchcraft – that’s my point.
Why should I address something that isn't in my wheelhouse?
The whole video was, in my view, in terms of the perspective of Younger-Dryas Science, an ad hominem attack. That’s what I meant and tried to spell out(Donnelly is the hominem and Younger-Dryas Science suffers such character-based ridicule), but, if you wish to separate the two (Younger-Dryas from Atlantis/Donnelly) completely, I can’t stop your foolishness.
I made no personal attacks on Donnelly or anyone else. So why do you keep saying I did? Give me an example of one ad hominem I made.
You seem to have divorced ancient history (your field) from natural catastrophes, as if, “ancient history” PERMITS you to do this!
Ancient history technically begins with the advent of writing. Everything before that is prehistoric and is not covered in History departments.
“In 536 AD, there was a moment of sudden environmental change in the basin of Mexico. Exciting new research suggests that this could have been a key factor in pushing the Teotihuacano to the brink of disaster. It was the biggest volcanic eruption ever recorded in Central America."
Thank you for sharing all this info. A volcanic eruption may indeed have had global impact. But the Justinian plague has been confirmed by science to have been caused by the Yersinia pestis bacterium. Yersinia pestis is not created by volcanic eruptions.
1
-
@InfiniteAlephbet You like to write, don't you?
So then, you are unaware that the silk book of the Han tomb at Mawangdui contains a Cometary Atlas. As are you.
The source was clear. Oh, did you read it?
Carl Sagan is not a fool, and, even if he’s writing in 1985, I would take his word over yours any day. You can Google it. It's there for anyone to see.
The book you mention is something else. No, it isn't. Now you are just grasping at straws.
You corrected yourself in that when I pointed out your statement “peoples have no concept of comets”, you altered your statement to “they would have had no concept of what a comet really is”. Same thing.
No concept of a what a comet really is? Why does this matter to the issue at hand? I made that clear in the video.
How does this have any bearing on whether or not people in ancient times would have pieced the two together! How can a person piece two together if there is only one piece?
What again was your point in what you said (even in corrected form)? That people would not have… what… understood the connection between what was happening in the sky, and what was happening on the ground, because they don’t understand that the comet was from the Oort cloud and that it has x percent of nickel? What was the POINT of your statement? As I said in the video (which you seem to have forgotten): "The myths do not explicitly mention a comet, but their descriptions, when viewed in a certain way, could be construed as a description of a comet. Of course, they could be construed as referring to any number of things. But one thing is for sure: in every single case, the author does not have a comet in mind when telling the tale. He would have no knowledge of comets, and in most cases is describing events in terms of the supernatural." So as I made very clear, the point is that the author does not have a comet in mind when telling the tale. That being the case, how would we know if it was a comet? The only way we would know is if the description fit the description of a comet better than anything else. Otherwise, the possibilities could be many.
When you formulated the first paragraph, you saw the story as being passed down, in WRITING, in one SINGLE language, and so you don’t apply the same limits as the second paragraph. The second paragraph assumes ORAL transmission, the first paragraph doesn’t. The second paragraph assumes CHANGING LANGUAGES, the first paragraph doesn’t. Why do you apply two different standards for transmission, in the two scenarios? It seems like you’ve Cherry-Picked the manner of transmission when you want to prove your argument? My two arguments are not dependent on each other. I already told you that. You're not paying attention.
Are you really demanding a particular year to have been noted by Plato? No, you're the one who said he gave the precise year. And I am saying no, he didn't.
The Younger-Dryas was long, yes, but there were punctuated points, and one of those was within 100 years of Plato’s date! Is that supposed to impress me?
You have even claimed that you are no expert in this field – that this time period is out of your range of expertise. Well then, step aside, Son. You are the one who brought it up. Not me.
You don’t have to be intrigued, personally, but you do insist that others NOT to be intrigued. When was this?
WHAT? “not relevant to whether Plato's story is true”??? Right, because neither a comet impact nor anything related to it is mentioned in the Atlantis story.
“Your own story of Phaethon, child of Helios [which personifies the sun], who harnessed his father’s chariot, but was unable to guide it along his father’s course and so burnt up things on Earth and was himself destroyed by a thunderbolt, is a mythical version of the truth that there is at long intervals a variation in the course of the heavenly bodies and a consequent widespread destruction by fire of things on the Earth. When this happens, those who live in the mountains or in high and dry places suffer more than those living by rivers or by the sea. As for us, the Nile, our own regular saviour, is freed to preserve us in this emergency.” Why are you quoting a story not about Atlantis?
“Ancient history technically begins with the advent of writing.” Says YOU. Says the History profession. Go Google "ancient history," and see where it starts. This is elementary stuff.
Archaeology is history. Ice cores is history. Tree-rings is history. Skeletons is history. You can’t separate the two. Says YOU. Tell me something, how do you define "Prehistory"? When, in your mind, is the dividing line between Prehistory and History?
Your view of history has its roots in an attempt by Victorian Christians, like Leopold Van Ranke, at formulating the first textbooks for the new public education systems, wishing to ignore Darwin. Don't be silly.
Firstly, you made multiple assertions that natural catastrophes have essentially no bearing on history. I did no such thing.
What you wrote here is not (even close to) a full response to this main business. You made the proposition that a volcanic eruption caused a global plague and included Justinian's plague. I responded by explaining to you why Justinian's plague could not be related to a volcano.
If you insist, I included a quote about how modern plague SCIENCE understands that sudden environmental changes (severe rain or severe drought) can draw critters in hiding that have the plague bacteria. There was nothing you quoted that said anything about drawing critters that have plague bacteria.
1
-
@InfiniteAlephbet Indeed I enjoy to write. More than this, I enjoy being right. Please don’t take flight, Or turn contrite, From my constant sleight, And imposing intellectual height, It will be alright, I tend to affright, But consider my plight: Championing environmental foresight! So let’s make this conversation bright, As a comet’s radiant light, On this balmy July night, Despite the Mosquitoes’ constant bite. Right. Not quite.
Whatever you have googled, ungoogle it. Carl Sagan has spoken. He is our world leader, don’t you know. That you would cite an astrophysicist to establish what an ancient Chinese text says is astounding to me. You don’t seem to have any idea of what expertise is. You were asked to provide evidence. Instead you appealed to an improper authority. This argument of yours can therefore be laid aside unless and until you can provide a translated quotation of an ancient Chinese text that shows they knew what a comet was. If you do, then I will be happy to concede the point.
Your above statement “for sure” they did not “have a comet in mind” is just your opinion. Who backs this up, in your circle of Doctorers of Philosophy? Science backs it up. “Before 1600, comets were essentially considered to be heavenly omens and were not yet clearly established as celestial (astronomical), rather than meteorological phenomena in the terrestrial atmosphere.” (https://www.eso.org/public/usa/events/astro-evt/hale-bopp/comet-history-1/) It has dawned on me that you think I am saying that no one ever saw a comet before. I certainly never said that, nor do I believe it. I hope you understand that.
Combining reports of encounters with space-rocks from ancient times would give us a better sense of the full range of what comets (well, their debris at least), (and other space-rocks or terrestrial threats) can do to our environment in FUTURE times, seeing as visitations are rare – Combining reports? Well, first you have to establish that the report is about an actual comet or space rock. Only then could the report be added to the data. And especially important would be not to mistake a fictional story for a report. Know the genre of the literature first.
You have made two separate contradictory statements (egregious) in two separate areas. And their irreconcilability reveals an important and core hypocrisy. What’s this business of one being “dependent” on the other – I never stated or implied this. ??? If nothing in the one argument is dependent on anything in the other, then it is impossible for there to be a contradiction. They would be two separate and distinct arguments unrelated to one another.
Solon’s visit to the priest – the substance of this – you now claim this has no bearing – that it is not contributing to the context of the events concerning Atlantis reported? The story of Phaethon is NOT THE STORY OF ATLANTIS. Know your stories. The priest even refers to the story of Phaethon as not his own story. Sometimes I think you are being deliberately obtuse.
“The Younger-Dryas was long, yes, but there were punctuated points, and one of those was within 100 years of Plato’s date!” “Is that supposed to impress me?” Yes. Yes it is! Man Alive! Only the most important date, geologically speaking in the last few tens of thousands of years! Only the beginning of our current geological epoch – the Holocene! etc etc. You can’t seem to make up your mind whether it is the coincidental date that is impressive or what happened on that date. I asked if I should be impressed that one of the “punctuated points” of the YD came within 100 years of Plato’s date. And you ignored that and switched to some other kind of impressiveness.
I learned a lot of stuff in Elementary which turned out to be pure horseshit, so, I don’t see it your way my friend. Not, at, all. Ah, the old “they’ve been wrong before, so I can believe whatever I want” point of view. If we can’t agree on where knowledge comes from, we won’t get anywhere.
History is all of what occurred in the past. That is its definition. You can’t have “Pre”-History. That’s not how I and the vast majority of historians use the word. That’s something you’re going to have to deal with. You’re not going to change the world with a few YouTube comments. We’ve been going round and round pointlessly. You write a lot, but you could have just written “nuh-uh!” and it would have amounted to pretty much the same thing.
Natural disasters ARE a HUGE part of ancient history. Disagree. You seem to be talking about hugeness in a consequential way. I am referring to how much of history they take up.
What do you mean, “when was this”? I said I wasn’t intrigued. I didn’t tell anyone else what to do.
Anyway, it was nice chatting with you. I have other work to do. Have a great rest of the week!
1
-
@InfiniteAlephbet This is not a contest. The only winners are people who learn something. If you're just here to score points, I am not going to humor you.
Also, I never said, "The silks don't show comets." Please don't deliberately misquote me.
Let me get this straight. A professor of Astronomy is no credible source for the history of Astronomy? Astronomy and the history of astronomy are two different fields. Just like being a chef and knowing the history of food are two different subjects, or being a brick layer and knowing the history of masonry are two different subjects. Sagan gave away his ignorance of the subject by not providing a proper citation and getting the name of the documents wrong.
As for Ronald Stoyan, that is a big improvement. And Xi Ze-zong is even better. Thank you for providing me with a better source. That was what I was asking for, and you finally came through. The Chinese, even as far back as 168 BCE, were observing and recording the movement of comets.
Did the Chinese know what a comet was? No, of course not. I will repeat what I said before: "It has dawned on me that you think I am saying that no one ever saw a comet before. I certainly never said that, nor do I believe it. I hope you understand that." Somehow you keep arguing I am wrong by saying that ancient people saw and noted comets. I know they did. But they didn't know what they were. They thought they were omens, and so did the Chinese.
Keep in mind what the purpose of my argument was in the first place. You seem to have lost sight of that. So let's review:
Donnelly picked out statements made in ancient myths and claimed they were descriptions of comets. What was his basis for making that claim? Nothing, except for the fact that the description sounded sort of like it could be a comet. That's it. That was his entire justification. I pointed out that the writers were not thinking of comets when they wrote those descriptions. You have never countered this argument. You are only focusing on a side point that affects my argument 0%.
Also, Donnelly gave no Chinese examples in his book, as I recall, so all this talk about China is irrelevant.
It was nice chatting with you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It may be true that those specific names "criterion of embarrassment," "criterion of dissimilarity," and "criterion of multiple attestation" are not used widely by other historians, but the arguments themselves are.
You personally may disagree with the conclusions drawn from such arguments, which you have every right to do (some other scholars also do), but that is not because the criteria themselves are invalid.
As for the conclusions you yourself have reached, such as that Tacitus is probably a forgery (or dependent on the gospels), that all references to Jesus in Josephus are forgeries, that the Gospel of John is not independent of the other 3 gospels, etc., what criteria have you used to arrive there?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yeah, there simply is no way to present this as "both sides are equally wrong" when one side justifies tens of thousands of deaths in the Mediterranean with a shrug and the other one wants marginalised groups to not be marginalised
If you thought that this video was about how both sides are equally wrong, you didn't understand it at all.
We don't inherit the glory or the shame of our ancestors' actions and achievements, but we inherit the responsibility.
From thousands of years ago? That's a hard disagree from me.
What those people did still resonates, there are consequences we need to face.
That is not inheriting responsibility.
We act as stewards. It is our task to make sure the material remains are discovered, preserved, studied etc.
That is a responsibility whether we are related to them or not.
We also inherit the joy. The physical closeness to historical sites, the easier access to a wealth of art unknown outside our cultural sphere.
We can find joy whether we are related to them or not, and they may not have had the same joy as us. So no inheritance.
We inherit the human connection to people who are so much like us and yet not like us at all, and that's exciting and fun.
Those things are not inherited from specific cultures. They are simply human characteristics.
Those are nice sentiments, but they tie us to other humans, not merely to our direct ancestors.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vaibhavyadav9912 You just questioned the judiciary of the world's largest democracy
Archaeology and history are not determined by democracy. Never ever get your history from a judiciary.
Where did I say I wanted a certain building destroyed kind sir?
Well, we can straighten it out right now. Did you or didn't you?
Saying that a certain political interference is wrong in history and then recommending historians, more like distorians, who literally were supported and pushed by the then ruling govt?
What determines whether something in history is right or wrong is the evidence, not who says it. And a government should support historians doing their job.
It is when they try to stop historians doing their job that problems arise.
I am sorry if you think history is a secular subject, it is not.
It has to be. There is no other way that historians around the world, who come from many different religious backgrounds, can cooperate. The standards must be the same for everyone. No religion or culture is to be favored over any other. Evidence determines facts, not beliefs.
You should know better. History is very well a religious subject. Because religion has played a huge driving factor historically to place the mankind where it is today.
Yes. But there is a difference between studying the history of religion, and using religion to determine history. The first is important. The second should be avoided.
That's what the likes of Romila thapar do. They divorce religion from history and claim outlandish things like the Islamic barbarians invaded not because their religion teaches them to do so but because it is human nature of expansionism. That they fought secular wars. Which is blatant lie. They themselves said that they are fighting religious wars.
Show me where Romila Thapar says that Muslims fought secular wars. You will not be able to find it. What she probably said (and I agree with this) is that religion was used as an excuse for expansionism.
Before the Turks, India was invaded many a times. Like for example the great king Kanishka who came from central Asia and defeated the local rulers. But he did not try to destroy the culture of India. He happily accepted and assimilated in it. And even helped in expanding it.
Did Thapar say differently?
And Romilla Thapar even played with this information and claimed that Ashoka was Hindu when he fought the battle of Kalinga and after seeing the aftermath of the battle he had a change of heart and became a Buddhist. When actually Ashoka became a Buddhist three years before the Kalinga war, refer to the works of Sanjeev Sanyal.
This is what Thapar says in her book, which I am looking at right now: "It has been stated in the past that that he was dramatically converted to Buddhism immediately after the battle, with its attendant horrors. But his was not an overnight conversion; he states in one of his inscriptions that only after a period of two and a half years did he become a zealous devotee of Buddhism" (p. 180).
Anyways no one listens to her now. She doesn't matter anymore.
Smart people listen to her.
On a separate note would you be willing to debate on the topic of Aryan Invasion/migration/tourism theory with Abhijit?
Yes, on his platform.
1
-
1
-
did they hold valid in the court of law? They didn't.
I am glad we do not live in a world where courts of law decide history.
And court rejected it on the basis of hard evidences (not opinions and responses) presented by archaeologists and Historians from the other side.
They upheld a minority opinion because it was politically advantageous.
But are you aware of the people that regularly participated in these fests had deep ties with the government. So much so that journalists (who participated in these events) of a particular media house, the NDTV, used to book the Rashtrapati bhawan (president house) to organise parties. That the ministers were being decided from the newsrooms of NDTV. Search the scandal of Radia tapes.
It's funny that, because you cannot accept a certain version of history, you have to assume there is a conspiracy to suppress the history that you want to believe.
I think her loss of viewership since past few years speak volumes whether she's credible or not.
I think it probably has more to do with the fact that she is 91 years old. But even so, credibility is not determined by popularity. It's determined by expertise.
No one has banned her from participating in events, it's just that people have become more aware and skeptic.
Considering that anti-Thapar rhetoric I see all over right-wing media, this is not surprising. Again, you seem to be under the impression that history is determined by popular vote.
They left you with documents saying they used religion just as an EXCUSE for expansionism?
You seem to be under the impression that unless they admit explicitly to it, it didn't happen. But source documents all throughout history have shown that religion, time and time again, has been used as an excuse for expansion. It's very common. Why do empires form? They form because people hunger for power and wealth. They are basically selfish. And how can they get the people on board with their wars? Religion is one of the most effective tools for doing so.
The sheer amount of hate and racism they showed towards the common people (not the ruling class) of other faith is pretty clear that religion as a factor was primal amongst any other factor. And when one dives deep into theology, it confirms it. They weren't just excusing themselves in the garb of religion. They were heavily motivated by it.
This shows how effective government propaganda was.
People are certainly multi dimensional. But more often than not, some individuals (historically and even today) get so convinced of their divine duty that they can go to unfathomable extent for their cause. And that is precisely when that particular dimension of that individual tends to overshadow their other dimensions.
I agree with that. It happens with Hinduism too.
So can you answer what's the age of Rigveda according to you? Because according to Romilla Thapar ( and our history textbooks which is written mostly by nehruvian Historians, majority of whom don't even know Sanskrit) it's around 2000bce.
Video on it coming soon. But she and India's and the rest of the world's scholars have strong evidence in support of this view.
"I am not going to read a book by an amateur" If everyone were to go by this principle, then no new invention and discovery will ever come to limelight. Because they often come from the fringes and not from a group of peer reviewed individuals who think alike.
Nine times out of ten, it is a subject expert that makes the new discoveries. And in the small number of cases when an amateur had a good idea, they need an expert to demonstrate it for them.
But when an "amateur" claims to debunk an ongoing belief or narrative with undeniable evidences, it certainly deserves a glance.
That is what my whole Myths of Ancient History series is about. But you shouldn't take this to mean that I am obligated to read every idea from every amateur. I do have to read material from the experts too, you know. I have a life.
1
-
@vaibhavyadav9912 they give judgements based on historical evidences that can be proved rationally.
They lack the expertise to give such judgments.
In India we have unique collegium system where Judges are appointed by the Judges. Though I am not a fan of this system myself, but it surely limits ‘political advantage’ under which judiciary operates.
I'm not talking about PERSONAL political advantage. If they had ruled against Hindus, there would have been a major uproar. Ruling against Muslims caused less trouble, because they are a minority.
why is Dr. Meenakshi Jain, who replaced Mrs. Thapar in NCERT and is somewhat same age as hers, gaining more popularity than ever?
He's gaining popularity in the circles you inhabit. Same with Raju and Elst. That's what happens when you only consume material from one side. You get a skewed view. They certainly not popular in the scholarly world.
if an already established person starts to lose his credibility when his views are challenged, then one can deduce that his expertise has been somewhat shallow all this time in the light of new information.
Did you accidentally say "credibility" when you mean "popularity"? Thapar hasn't lost credibility. And neither she nor I give a flying flip about popularity. It is irrelevant to whether a person is correct.
I keep asking you like a stuck gramophone, on what basis have you decided that they chose religion just as an EXCUSE and did not keep it in the centre?
I don't know what "keep it in the centre" means. But I have answered your question each and every time you asked it.
Just to cite an example of Mahmud of Ghazni from Persian contemporary historians like Al-beruni, Minhaj al siraj, Farishta who recorded the incidents of attack on Somnath temple. When Ghazni invaded Gujarat, the local king, Bhimdev fled away. Then Ghazni marched down and was faced by 50,000 common people, not the army, who were protecting the temple. It took 1 whole week for him to kill all of them to reach the Somnath Temple. And when he finally reached the Garbagriha (center) of temple he met the local priests who offered him all the wealth in return for sparing the “moorti”(The Idol). But Ghazni refused with a laugh saying that if he accepted their offer he would be called ‘Trader of Idols’. Instead he wanted to be called ‘Breaker of Idols’ i.e. Butt-Shikan. Now tell me was he using religion just as an excuse? No he clearly wasn’t.
You seem to be under the mistaken notion that I said that religion is ONLY EVER used as an excuse. But if you go back and look, you will see that I said it was OFTEN ("time and time again") used as an excuse. Showing me one or two cases like this does not negate my statement. How did we get off onto this sidetrack anyway?
And no this wasn’t very common.
You have not shown otherwise.
It’s your European guilt that you are trying to impose on others.
I have never lived in Europe, and I do not feel guilty about what my ancestors, who were peasants, did. I only care about what I do.
Did Hindu kings wage religious wars? Did they destroy the Holy places of their enemies? Did they insult the deities of their enemies? Did they take people as slaves after winning? When the Cholas expanded their kingdom to South East Asia, did they loot and plunder the natives? Did they kill the commoners?
When you have anything relevant to say, let me know. Since when was this a discussion about who is better? If you want to debate someone about who has the superior culture, go somewhere else where people care about that.
Romila Thapar says about Mughals that “They became us”. Which clearly isn’t true.
She knows more about those times than you do. So forgive me if I take the word of the expert over the amateur with an axe to grin.
Really? How many Hindus have become so convinced of their religious duties that they went on a killing spree of people of other faith? How many Hindus have desecrated the religious places of other faiths? How many Hindu terrorist organisations are there in the world?
Are you seriously going to argue that Hindus have never done anyone harm to anyone over a sense of divine duty? Go read the Bhagavad Gita again, and learn about how Arjuna killed his friends and relatives on the battlefield because it was his dharma.
An unintended consequence is that when a new knowledge or insight emerges it can never be peer reviewed. And therefore it is discarded.
Each year hundreds of academic articles are published, and all of them promote new ideas. It is the chief responsibility of academics to come up with new ideas.
I didn’t know Member of Royal Historical Society i.e. Dr. Vikram Sampath could be termed as an amateur.
In ancient history? Yes, absolutely an amateur. His training is in engineering, math, and finance.
1
-
@vaibhavyadav9912 was there a major uproar when Sabrimala temple verdict came out? Did Hindus resort to protests and riots?
That case was not nearly on the same level as this one. Not even close.
Was there an uproar when a secular government chose to control Hindu temples alone and not the institutions of any other religion?
We already know how hot people were over the Ayodhya case. Are you forgetting that the mosque was destroyed in a protest in 1992? Giving me lesser examples isn't proving anything.
We all saw what minor case of not allowing Hijab in a secular education institution turned into. And this was when people of Iran, an Islamic country, were fighting against the Hijab. We all saw protests for illegal Rohingya muslims by Indian muslims.
We don't have to guess what the Muslim response to the Ayodhya ruling would be. It already happened. And here you are pointing to other cases, when you can see for yourself what happened.
Jews too are monotheistic people. We don't see any friction between them and Hindus. Parsis too live in the country, never heard any disturbance from their side.
Start destroying their places of worship and see if they stay quiet.
This basic premise of "majority being oppressive and minority being victims" doesn't apply always especially in India.
When did I state such a premise? All I said was that fewer people make less noise than more people.
Dr. Meenakshi Jain is a woman.
I was responding directly to your comment about Vikram Sampath. Pay attention.
another person equating Dharma with religion
I never used the word religion. We were talking about "divine duty." Now, is Krishna divine or not?
Was Mahabharata a religious war? Did Arjuna kill because they refused to worship his Gods?
What does this have to do with your question about whether Hindus have ever harmed people over a sense of divine duty?
Have you bothered to read it?
Not only have a read it, I have taught it in college.
Mahabharat, truly, was a secular war based on territorial dispute.
And Bhagavad Gita is purely a secular text, eh? Interesting. I wonder how many Hindus would tell me there are no divine elements to this story.
he did not ask him to kill because the other side did blasphemy or insulted Krishna
Irrelevant. His dharma was his divine duty to Krishna.
Dharma has got nothing to do with religion. Even an atheist can be a Dharmik person.
I know that an atheist CAN be. But to deny the spiritual part of dharma is to deny long-standing Hindu tradition. Krishna explicitly says that dharma is duty to him, that Arjuna must do it out of love for him. Have YOU read the text?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So truth concluded in video by You is "A group of only men migrated in India(as india has its own maternal DNA marker M as per DNA analysis),
No. Many groups of men at different times. These groups were probably not large in size.
mascular men of central asia with flag of non violence pushed for migration somehow
I don't know what "mascular" is. But I never said there was a flag of non violence.
[when waring parties use to be of men only and one of their group did "A" massacre("A" as only 1 event evidence found yet) had changed complete Europe's ancestry],
Migrating parties are often just men also. For example, Greek colonization parties were all men. The travel is often considered too dangerous for women and children.
but yet able to manage to replace indo-iranian farmers"IVS"
They didn't replace anyone. They simply were added to the mix.
and spread their culture futher in India and creating a caste called Brahmin which teach sanskrit(to preserve their ancestry)."
Have you never seen religion spread in history? It is a common occurrence.
But, isn't that you did too here for Abhijit, through cherry picking phrases( which you showed on 1 side but not highlighted in research article, but showing the article's headline as your proof) from the research article.
I didn't cherry pick anything. I read every word of every article and shared the conclusions of the geneticists, not my own conclusions.
And secondly you approved righteousness of work of researchers of today, and claims falsely-narrative of older researchers, but approves the research of today will only be build on or as improvement of older researchers idea.
Yes, science is progressive. We learn over time. What this means is that our knowledge in the past is less than our knowledge now. So why are you complaining that newer studies have shown older studies to be mistaken about some things?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
the means and tools of achieving complete stone mobility, surveying around the massif, to achieve and maintain structural symmetry, and course leveling and re-leveling, are unresolved.
As are thousands of other questions. But we have enough evidence to give us a decent idea. The more we get into the details, the more open questions there are.
Until proposals are tested and can meet an acceptable level of sufficiency and thoroughness, we do not know how the structure was erected.
You make it sound like there are only two choices: 100% and 0%. Are there no degrees in your universe?
Egyptology has completely failed on this topic of the means and tools which are demonstrably capable of producing the known ends.
Even if you left out the word "completely," which in itself falsifies your statement, the claim would still be untrue. I can only attribute your words to a lack of knowledge about what work has been done.
Orthodoxy does not demonstrate, or even attempt to demonstrate moving a 70T stone up an 8 degree sloped ramp manually.
I don't know what you mean by "Orthodoxy." If you are claiming that no one has done the physics, I expect you make this statement from a lack of knowledge as well. The great thing about physics is that you can demonstrate mathematically what can and can't be done. This is how we knew we could put men on the moon before we actually did it. Now, you might say, "But we didn't know FOR SURE until we did it." Yeah. So then all you can say in this case is the same thing.
No suggested means of surveying around the massif, absence quarried sight lines through the rock on each axis, appear sufficient or thorough.
I read this sentence over and over and still don't know what it means.
Construction ramp proposals, not supported by significant evidence and not demonstrated, are mere guesswork.
Again, all you are saying is: "But we don't know FOR SURE."
Old Kingdom means and tools have not been shown capable to produce the results.
That's because not all tools have survived. So the best we can do is calculate how it could have been done with what we know they had and with what they could have had.
The suggested means and tools are simply wrong.
Thank you for sharing your personal opinion.
Responsibility for these things rests with those making the claims, and cannot be placed with skeptics or doubters. Orthodoxy fails to demonstrate their claims, entirely.
You don't seem to have a clear picture of how history (or even science) works. Do you think when scientists say they have discovered a planet outside our solar system that they have actually seen the planet with their own eyes? Conclusions are based on existing evidence. All knowledge is tentative pending further evidence. That's how it works. We go with what fits the evidence best at any given time until further evidence suggests a revision.
Let's not exclude any possible means and tools, while the precise construction processes and methods are entirely unknown.
We never do. But not all ideas are equal.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@narcopolo4464 initially 90% of it was arguments aimed towards his use of words, definitions, technical errors/flaws related to his logic/reasoning and so on, rather than the videos "main selling points" - the issues at hand that sparked the viewers interest, presumably the mysteries and questions regarding these ancient civilizations.
If he is not clear, and I ask him to clarify, this is not an argument aimed at his words and definitions. It means I do not understand what he is saying. It means I need more information.
I find your tone and the way you adress the arguments very condescending, just because someone is wrong about something and you are the "better person" with the right answers, should not be a reason to ridicule someone but quite the contrary.
You are reading something into my tone that isn't there. And where is this "ridicule" you speak of?
When you steelman the words in an argument, while at the same time ridiculing/attacking the person behind the argument - I feel as if the sum of this is actually the opposite of steelmanning.
I do not ridicule or attack the person behind the argument.
I am paraphrasing now, but it was a lot of "Person X claims this and this, but somehow seems to believe/is unaware of this and this" ;
That is the polite way to do it. I am not assuming foolishness or stupidity. I am assuming he just hasn't seen something yet.
instead of "The claim that this and this, does not hold up when you take in account this and this" followed by an objective explanation from you aimed directly towards the viewer without any judging or reference to the person X".
I do this too, but since I never attack his character, I don't see how doing this exclusively is a big improvement.
In my opinion, once you have presented the argument you are about to debunk/explain, the person who made it is no longer relevant - only your explanation/argument is.
It sounds like you prefer that I don't do reaction videos at all. But the fact is, even in academic scholarship, direct engagement is considered necessary.
It should not matter who made that initial argument, it could just as well have been the person you love most in the world, your answer/explanations and tone should be the same. I doubt they would, and if you feel I am wrong about this then that might very well be the case and all is good. If not however, maybe you can find a way to make something better?
My tone and approach is the same as if I were engaging with a loved one. As I said, you are reading something into my voice that is not there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@variablex6928 you know very well India had a robust system of oral transmission of ALL texts and scriptures before they started to be set to writing.
Who is disputing that? Nobody. If you look at what I wrote again, you will see that the point is that we do not know when an oral tradition BEGAN. Surely you are not arguing that it had no beginning, are you?
The Surya siddhantha rides on the shoulders of scholars who went before for centuries, who studied mathematics, astronomy, etc. How do we know this?
You do not know how many centuries, and you are not accounting for the addition of new material over time.
Well, the oldest known cities in the Indian subcontinent - those of the IVC ,- Are sophisticated. They have specific orientations like north-south, east- west ( astronomy, mathematics). The drainage and water systems show knowledge of geology, and all the sciences.
What kind of logic is this? Are you suggesting that sophistication in the IVC means that there were no new sophisticated ideas after the IVC? Surely not. Unless you show that the nakshatra system originated in the IVC, then you do not know if it originated in the IVC.
The yagna kundas designs demonstrate high knowledge of mathematics esp algebra and geometry. The fact that they used bronze demonstrates knowledge of chemistry and physics. They made boats and shops and traded across the seas. They had sophisticated techniques to mine and prepare various metals, crystals, stones etc.
Again, my point is that same. Sophistication alone does not mean that the nakshatra system was in use.
So this sophisticated civilization did all this without a knowledge of the sciences?
We are not talking about knowledge of the sciences. We are talking about the nakshatra system.
The ATHARVA VEDA also deals with astronomical observations such as the list of nakshatras that are used to this day ( with minor variations as it came.doen in time..but a manjority match even today)
If there are differences, then it is not the same, thus proving my point. Moreover, all you are talking about are the names of the nakshatras, not the full system. If you note, in the video, I said that Oak assumes the whole nakshatra system, fully developed, existed in Mahabharata times. So telling me that parts of the system existed does not contradict my point.
If you want the full picture of astronomical knowledge in India, I recommend the book, Science in India, by B.V. Subbarayappa.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This video is pure shit don't bother watching it.
If people are here in the comments, they probably already watched it.
I know for a fact that Carlson says at various points in different interviews that he wants to go and dig up certain places where he thinks remains from 10,000+ years ago may still exist, so ur original point is just plain old distortion of his words and fucking wrong.
If Carlson misspoke or worded his thoughts unclearly, they have had great impact, because I have people repeating the idea that metal and most other substances would not survive. This video is about whether that idea is correct or incorrect. It is not about Randall Carlson himself or any of his other ideas.
Carlson's point is that MOST of the stuff would be gone after 10,000 years, not that ALL artefacts would be gone. To say that most of the artefacts would be gone after 10,0000+ years is correct.
Yeah, that goes for all time periods. So, why say it?
You've twisted his words for likes and attention.
I think I took him at his plain meaning.
Pick on someone your own size man. Don't punch up, you wont reach.
Don't punch up? I've heard people say not to punch down, but not up? That's a new one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@josephdavis2198 The facts of the story are still the same. He accomplished something. He won the fish after it giving him a fight to be caught.
So then you agree with my point. Hancock criticized academics for saying that flood myths are embellished flood stories. By saying that, academics are acknowledging that floods happened, just not at the exaggerated levels the stories say.
Hancock takes myth just as seriously as you, and he’s just as wrong because you keep trying to view it through your contemporary lens, not with the cultural values that are expressed in those stories, and they’re everywhere.
How am I viewing it through a contemporary lens? The embellishment of stories is a human thing. It's timeless.
You are looking at them analytically, and as a historian, you can’t.
Of course I can. And I should. But I also can look at them in other ways.
What about the water erosion on the enclosure brought up by Robert Schock in 1991? He is a geologist. He knows rocks and erosion patterns.
See my video on that.
And every time that you go for the same exact story that has been preached by your experts for the last century, you give him more followers, not less.
What story? That flood myths are memories of various floods throughout history? How is that idea out of date?
There is too much evidence supporting that the narrative is wrong, such as Gobekli Tepe.
Gobekli Tepe is part of the narrative.
But there are two locations in Jordan. One is Shubaykah (I’m pretty sure I’m misspelling it) where baked bread was found that was 14,600 years old. Another site near the same region reported finding baked bread that was as old as 23,000 years old.
Those findings have also been incorporated into history. What is your point?
1
-
@josephdavis2198 You're writing way too much for me to have the time to respond.
As I pointed out earlier with the tsunami and Plato’s accurate description of the devastation that one would cause, what’s the likelihood that he would have known? I personally think that it’s pretty small that he would have known unless it was a part of a story that was passed down that were based on actual events that at least a small number of people survived and witnessed, and then made it to civilization to tell the story
Why couldn't Plato just have been familiar with other flood stories? In fact, we know he was.
We can’t just go and say that myths or legends are false based on our own presumptions, that’s why I said that you’re looking at it through a contemporary lens, and you are.
But I'm not. As I explained, my view is based on how things were viewed in ancient times, not contemporary times.
You can actually find a good deal of all of the old news footage on Youtube. It was covered by all sorts of news outlets and her account was highly publicized.
That is not helping me. All this means is that you heard it around somewhere and can't remember exactly where.
When I was in school the narrative that no civilization could have existed before 5500 years ago was enforced. It was enforced by school teachers, professors and academics.
Enforced? I think you mean taught. A teacher tells you what we know so far, and then you have to remember it for a test.
Every time, including the Tribes here, that someone has found evidence of something, such as the archeologist in Canada that found evidence of human habitation 24,000 years ago, which I believe came out in the 80s, their careers were ended overnight.
There is no truth to that whatsoever. The archaeologist you are referring to had a full and illustrious career.
Anyone who is at least 40 years old knows that yes, the tests needed to be replicated, but no one still wants to touch it because they don’t want their careers to be over.
No, they would not. And my understanding was that there were 3 additional tests done by others, and they failed to reproduce the same results.
When was the last time that you heard anything on the subject?
I don't know about you, but I prefer scholars to be able to choose what they want to study.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bkn169 Saraswati is mentioned more than 50times and 13 hymns, not just 3 hymns.
I didn't say that Saraswati was mentioned only 3 times. I said she had three hymns about her. The other ones are not hymns dedicated to her. She is merely mentioned in poems about other gods.
The most important one in 6 book (older). So it is import River not a minor for vedic people.
Important river, yes. Important god, no.
#3 - you said Saraswati is was their home, first, no where they said it is their home. Vedic people were there through out sapthasindu area not just saraswati.
We are talking about the Bharatas only. They did not live throughout all the Sapta Sindhu.
Even if you think, thier home, why would anyone pick died river as thier home when some many good rivers in the region - right?
As I showed VERY CLEARLY in the video, the river was NOT dead. I don't know how you could have missed that.
hymn clearly says it was flowing from mountain to ocean, that cannot be immagination.
In the rainy season, it did flow from mountain to ocean.
what do you mean that belief comes later? so did someone just slip in a new belief there?
Nothing in the world stays the same. Everything changes over time. Everything. Even the earth itself.
Remember, Hinduism doesn't have a Pope - nobody can just command changes or additions to beliefs. It's all very organic, right?
I didn't say anything about commands.
Plus, this is the world's oldest ongoing civilization - folks remember things like the disappearance of the Saraswati and seeing it in the Triveni Sangam.
Really? Tell me what the population of your city was 500 years ago from your memory. Do not look it up.
Anyway, why would the Rigvedic people remember the Saraswati drying up if it wasn't dried up?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SamKingLion 2:11 you say here that the Vedas are the most sacred texts of Hinduism. Vedas predate Hinduism and don’t mention Hinduism or any religion.
You seem to be of the opinion that when I said Vedas ARE the most sacred texts of Hinduism, that I meant they WERE the most sacred texts of Hinduism. Of course Hinduism didn't exist yet when the Vedas were composed. I was talking about now.
I suppose you could argue that the Bhagavad Gita is the most sacred text of Hinduism. If so, then okay, maybe I exaggerated. But the Vedas certainly are sacred. It's not really the most important point of the video.
It doesn’t matter whether the information you are sharing is from Sanskrit Scholars or Archaeologists.
It doesn't? This is like saying that, if my toilet is clogged, it doesn't matter if I call a plumber or an electrician.
It’s more about “main stream” beliefs that scholars insist are “fact”, that were established in the late 19th century VS applying our current, modern knowledge and science to re-evaluate the Vedas and other ancient texts.
You seem to be under the mistaken notion that academics insist things are facts. That is extremely rare. Where did I say it in this video? Nowhere. And you also seem to be under the mistaken impression that scholars get their beliefs from past scholars. This is false. They get their beliefs from evidence.
I genuinely want to ask, have you read the Vedas, or at least browsed through them, ie inspected the actual content in them?
Of course. But I am not a Vedic specialist. So I defer to the consensus of the specialists.
These are very complex and sophisticated texts. More complex and sophisticated than most modern works, if not all modern works in their category. They’re written in verse form but they’re not poems, and cover a vast range of topics including science, astronomy, way of life, and more.
I am well aware of their contents.
We are told to believe that the Vedas were written in 6 CE but were composed orally in 1500-1200 BCE.
"Told to believe"? I don't think anyone said to you, "You must believe this."
It’s not possible to compose such large, sophisticated texts in the mind and transmit them orally.
I see. So you not only reject what academic scholars say, but also what the Brahmins say. Interesting. You must really think that the people of the past were stupid.
No one born in known human history has that capability, Einstein could not compose so much in his mind, Tesla couldn’t, and no one else can.
You're right that no ONE can. But we are talking about a bunch of people.
It is clear that the established hypothesis are wrong.
You speak with more conviction than scholars do. I think you are the one telling people what to believe.
We need to revaluate and re-establish our hypothesis using modern technology and a multi disciplinary approach.
This is already being done.
1
-
Thank you for your lengthy comment. You put so much work into it, I probably should take my time to respond. I don't know if English is your second language, but you didn't seem to understand what the video was about or what I was trying to say. I never once attempted to prove any hypothesis or make any argument. All I did was assess the quality of the book. The only assertion that I made was that the book was poorly written and poorly argued. That's it. I made no other argument. By the way, my name is Miano, not Milano.
“His expertise as chemical engineer does …” Mr. Milano seems to firmly belive that nobody can excel in a field different than the field of his graduation.
You take this as if it is an argument, when it is simply an introduction of the author. I mentioned that he is writing outside of his field of expertise because it shows. Simple as that. The book comes across as someone writing about a subject that he knows very little about. That is an assessment of the book's quality.
He starts his commentary on the premise that what is known today about what was there in 5000 BC was "the only" truth that exists in the world and that's the core premise of his (misplaced?) opinion.
No. I never said it is the only truth. I never even said that this is the truth. I said that if he wants to persuade anybody, then he cannot base his theory on foundations that hardly anyone in the world agrees with. If he wants to date the Mahabharata before the archaeological evidence for the invention of writing and before the archaeological evidence for urbanization of the world’s first cities, then this is not going to be easily accepted by people who care about material evidence. It has nothing to do with what I think is true. It has to do with how persuasive his position is to the world at large.
"Nakshatra system did not exist that far back and system was developed much later" > This is his assumption about the current understanding of the Indian astronomical systems and how, when they were developed.
Hmm now I am wondering if you are misquoting me on purpose. Here is what I actually said: "This one is difficult to swallow, because the fact of the matter is that we have no independent evidence for the existence of the Nakshatra time reckoning system this far back." But you cut off the beginning to make it seems like I was making a different statement than I was actually making. Again, I am not making an assertion about what really happened. I am saying that people who are familiar with the evidence will have difficulty accepting this foundation for Oak's theory.
"Mahabharata astronomers were meticulous and if this were true or that were true ..." : Refuting by means of slut shaming instead of logical argument.
I have no idea what this even means.
"There were no means to observe universe at that time ..." : Sure, as we know today. But if you do not question this how do you do progress Mr. Milano?
As I said in the video, I am open to a theory based on one or two unsubstantiated assumptions, but not so many.
Discrediting the "The purpose of recording phenomena was to date historic events": Just like every single scientific or news publication is dated today based on Gregorian calendar, which relates with Astronomy, why is it difficult for you to assume perhaps in antiquity people could have developed and could have been using observational systems to record events?
There are many reasons that people record astronomical phenomena. But Oak insists it can only be for recording the date of an event. This is an assumption he never independently substantiates.
About: "Mr. Oak tries to prove his assumptions by arguing why, and that's not independent verification, and theory based on loose assumption cannot be trusted." Okay, but how does this diminish the value of the theory itself?
The value of a theory is determined by how well supported it is.
The topic opened by Mr. Oak is so huge that trying to poke random holes into it seems to tell me you are more eager to do "youtube opinion video", rather than studying and writing a paper on exactly how many points you disagree and why.
Why would Mr. Oak write a book on a topic so huge if he is not ready? Why would he give talks about this huge topic if he hasn't done all the work yet? And the holes I poked are not random. They are essential to his case.
You are exhibiting the same mindset, which likes of Galileo and Socrates faced during their times.
Galileo and Socrates had good arguments. Oak is more like an L. Ron Hubbard.
There are some good analyses of Oak's astronomical assertions linked below the video. If you are truly interested in knowing the facts, check them out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@themaskedman5954 Why are you linking the movement of the Dasyu to the movement of the Aryans? You know they are not the same people, right? Also, as I explicitly said in the video, just because the Aryans moved eastward into India, that doesn't mean that they could only move east and never west after that. As for the skin of the Dasas, I addressed that in the video.
In regard to the gene study I cited, you are being dishonest about its contents. The authors write, "The light skin alleles in South Asian could possibly be inherited from their European ancestors, who initially arrived at this region around 3500–4000 years ago along with Indo-European language expansion, followed by recent colonization in the last few centuries." It does not say that the light-skin gene entered India 22,000-28,000 years ago, but that it began in Eurasia at that time. So it is irrelevant to the question of Aryan migration. You claim that another study shows that the light-skin gene was present in South Asians more than 12,500 years ago, but you don't provide the study. Anyway, even if light skin genes entered the population earlier than 12,500 years ago, that doesn't means that no more light-skinned people ever entered again. That wouldn't be a logical conclusion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@themaskedman5954 term tvác not only mean skin but also means covering Which makes more sense:
"Indra made the black skin subject" or "Indra made the black covering subject"? I don't know about you, but the second rendering makes no sense to me.
So this shows dasas and dashyus are not black skinned but covered with darkness or surrounded with darkness You are using the possible proof fallacy. Just because you show that the word CAN mean covering, that doesn't mean it DOES mean covering in all instances.
S to H transformation is visible. Look at word for seven in all Indo-European languages. Vedic language retained S that is 'Saptha' along with other IE languages while in Avestan it is H that is 'Haptha.' Ah, yes, okay. That is a good example. It does appear that in Proto-Indo-Iranian, the original sound was an S, which stayed an S in Sanskrit, but became an H in Avestan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Iranian_language But I specifically asked you for proof that Indo-Aryan S turned into Iranian H. No linguist thinks that Indo-Aryan turned into Iranian.
skin colour is used for justifying racial interpretation it is a fact Your reasoning here seems to be that, if someone uses skin color to identify a race, then skin color and race are the same. That is not logical. First of all, there are many races with similar skin color, and second, there is more than one identifying feature of race.
Saying a person is dishonest is not different from saying like his actions are dishonest They are VERY different. If you said I lied about something, that would be one thing, but if you called me a liar, that would be a lot worse. Anyway, I apologize for saying you were dishonest about the contents of the article, because you were not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ok, I get it, you are proposing 'western' view of what actually happened there.
It is not a western view. It is the view of scholars worldwide.
Migration into India or out of India? There are just too many legends to support the latter and not a single one supporting the former!
Why are you ranking legends above physical and scientific evidence?
If genetic markers exist outside India that actually are found in India, this also means, migrations out of India might have happened, which are supported by innumerable legends - to be proven by more studies as we progress.
The studies are indicating movement into India, as is the linguistic evidence.
I guess it is about time we move past this 'let's blame it on the Brahmin' model of thinking.
This has nothing to do with blaming it on the Brahmins. It is about the evidence.
You claim that Sanskrit did not 'arrive' in India till 2000 BCE??
I did not use the word "arrive." I used the word "appear." Sanskrit is native to South Asia. And this is not my claim. It is the claim of global historical scholarship.
Vedas used Sanskrit as a language, literally means Sanskrit was spoken up to that point evolving over millennia to be perfected.
Spoken language does not get perfected. It simply changes. The Vedas show Sanskrit at a certain point in time, like a snapshot. It was different before that, and it was different after that. The Sanskrit of the Rigveda, for example, is different from the Sanskrit of the other Vedas.
Vedas used Sanskrit simply because it is highly structured and is the spoken language at this point.
Vedas used Sanskrit because that was the language spoken by the composers, yes. They would have used it even if it had a different structure.
If Yamnaya people from the Steppe brought it, why would an already established society in the Indus valley accepted it?
I am sure they did not accept it right away. People gradually accepted it over hundreds of years, as they began to embrace the religion of the Brahmins.
some Yamnaya people might have migrated to India, but Vedas and Sanskrit are of Indian origin.
I know.
the Indo Aryan migration 'into' India is a major issue, because that is what mughals (Indian word for mongols) and later the british used to justify their occupation of India!
How a theory is used has no bearing on whether the theory is true.
Yet, you see not a single legend, or story talking about people walking into India from outside, in the antiquity!!!
Legends leave out a lot of information.
The real problem with western historians, geneticists, scientists etc. etc. is that they find great obligation to fit everything around the bible stories!
No, they do not. If you read history books, you will find that they do not fit around Bible stories. This is because history is secular and is based on physical evidence, not on a specific book. And this is why Christians in the west complain about history. They get upset that it does not fit the Bible. It is much the same way as in India, when some Hindus complain that secular history does not fit with their beliefs.
You have to ask a simple question about why the papers coming out of India look quite different from those coming from the West?
They do not look different. They are the same. When you see a difference, you are not comparing western scholarship with Indian scholarship. You are comparing scholars with amateurs.
These Indian folks who are working in a western countries and universities, have no choice but to appease their employers!
You are inventing a conspiracy theory. Find me some Indian scholars who have confirmed that they had to lie to appease their employers. Scholars aren't even employed. They only participate.
And you mention the communist historian 'Romila Thaper'!!!!!🤣
Romila Thapar is globally recognized for her excellence in historical scholarship. Have you read her historical work? Probably not. You are just making an ad hominem attack. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
Aryan invasion theory was used by the Western historians for over 100 years! Now you say it is not true at all!
Parts of it are true, but as in all science, knowledge progresses.
This also means, many of these papers, especially by Mr. Reich, could be proven total fabrication and falsehoods soon.
Total fabrications and falsehoods? No. But revisions are possible.
The issue is, to do large studies you need a lot of funding. Up to now, only western universities are able to do it. Hence western oriented history.
History is a global collaborative. The same methods and standards are used on the histories of all countries.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thecommondesi2210 No this is a key point. If you cannot provide evidence that that the exception to the rule applies in this particular case then it is nothing but speculation. When you contradict common accepted knowledge.. the burden of proof is on you to prove your point.
I'm not a geneticist. I am sharing what they have said. What confuses me is that you have never questioned the idea that where there is greatest genetic diversity there is possible geography of origin. You never demanded proof for this. Geneticists are the ones who said it, and you believe it. But when they say something you don't like, then you demand proof. Is that consistent?
So people from one region invade Europe cause havoc and bloodshed become conquerors, and then out of the blue another set of people from the same region, down the years, decide to completely abandon their old ways...
Wait, wait, wait. You seem to be suggesting that the decision to murder people is related to ethnicity. If you take this position, then to be consistent, you would have to conclude that any ethnic group that committed a genocide is inclined toward genocide. A leopard can't change its spots?
And as I pointed out no weapons has ever been discovered in the IVC. So even if only minor conflicts took place there is no way the IVC could have ever defended itself.
No evidence of wide scale destruction has been found in the IVC either.
As for the artistic representation of the Yamnaya, do you have any evidence that the artist never consulted with any geneticists regarding the skin or eye colours and simply made them all up?
Yes, the fact that he used prior works of art as his basis. Considering the fact that artists don't commonly consult with geneticists, I am surprised your default position is that he did. Sounds like a bias to me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ryanvalicek7291 You can't say that everyone can see that controlling the narrative is more important than anything else, because I certainly don't. And I think most people don't. I mean, sure, SOME narratives might be worth controlling, if they hit closer to home (such as narratives about the founding of one's country, for example). But what benefit would there be to control a narrative about what happened thousands of years ago and which has little or no bearing on our lives today? How does whether Clovis was first help with some larger cause?
As for those people who only have a superficial understanding of the disagreements about Clovis or the Younger Dryas impact, I can see how they might get the wrong impression. But if you study the actual arguments closely, you will see that there is sufficient reason to disagree. It is certainly true that ideas die hard, but that goes with everything. A theory will be discarded when, and only when, a new theory comes along that is better supported by the evidence. People get impatient, and they want new ideas to be accepted before they are even done cooking.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@malaj.1480 In the video, it seems, you actively pursue to CONFUSE your interpretation of genetic data available, for EVIDENCE.
It's not my interpretation. I simply relate what the conclusions of the studies are.
You interpret and/or appropriate some of the available genetic data SELECTIVELY, in order to justify preferred and/or bias proposition or narrative about the past.
How so? Please give an example.
Expert opinions, interpretations, even consensus, are NOT, and should never be confused for FACTS.
Should amateur opinions and interpretations be confused for facts?
APPEAL TO AUTHORITY is one if the most common tricks used when "the ARTS of misrepresenting evidence" are practised. However, I am sure you know, it is nothing but a LOGICAL FALLACY.
Appeal to authority is only a fallacy when someone uses it instead of evidence. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority But I presented the evidence.
Please see my video on consensus here: https://youtu.be/ytltvDRPErY
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ charcoal or other organic material settled into seams, then bonded to that mortar by salt, would appear original to the mortar creation, but would not be.
But the samples were not taken from the exterior. If you want us to believe that the charcoal penetrated deep into the mortar where they took the samples, show us the science. I don't think that is asking too much.
Visual assessment, absent materials testing, for the precise bonding agent, would not be scientific. The tools of assessment, materials research, could determine the bonding agent. No such materials testing was not on the collected samples.
I still don't know what you are saying here. Are you talking about what holds the mortar together? Every ingredient in the mortar was discovered scientifically.
Also, you skipped the most significant part. What, if anything, could be done to differentiate between ash and spent charcoal from documented campfires atop the pyramid, and any other charcoal remnant material?
First demonstrate that foreign substances got inside the mortar. Then we can talk about this.
While we're on the topic of materials sampling and testing, why is it novel sampling and a battery of testing has not occurred from "all" sections of the interior and exterior, to determine the precise and complete nature of the materials? This is avoidance of normal science of the study.
I can imagine someone testing exactly where you tell them to, and you pointing to another spot saying, "Yeah, but why didn't you test there?" The fact is: mortar samples were taken all around the pyramid. You would know this if you read the reports.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anshumanpanda1227 Talageri is not a linguist. He is an amateur who plays with words in order to promote his ideological agenda. He has been debunked many times by others.
I wished you would have put the page numbers in your references to Witzel. It would have made it easier.
Vedic Sanskrit developed in a maximum duration of 700 years (1900-1200 BC) as per him. In 700 years, the whole of Vedic culture had been transplanted by nomadic tribes onto the highly sophisticated Harappans, with no single trace of indigenous culture remaining.
You are confused. Saying that the language developed in this period is not the same as saying that this is how long it took for everyone in the region to adopt it. That took much longer.
You have to read to believe the number of assumptions, conjectures and question marks he has added in the paper. Anybody will see that he is inventing theories to support his agenda, and then hiding behind the cover that not much research has been done.
This is not an argument. Any and all subjects of research have a number of assumptions and conjectures and need further work. That's normal.
Regularly he says that the origin of these non IA words are unknown, but suggests even outlandish origins like Burashakhi for those.
You think it is outlandish. He doesn't. Do you have any actual evidence or arguments?
How does a migrating tribe include indigenous names in their later books, when the initial books are completely absent of them?
The logical answer would be that the earlier books come from a time before the mixing took place.
The clinching evidence is actually the names of rivers. All the rivers in Northern India have IA names, without exception (Witzel attempts 3 weak exceptions, but you can see for yourself they are not valid). This is in stark contrast to the evidence present everywhere else in the world, where indigenous names of rivers have been preserved by colonizers, as Witzel himself accepts. Still he says no, this must mean it's complete opposite.
You seem to think that if there are no indigenous names for rivers, then this cancels out all the other indigenous words found in the texts. I don't follow your logic.
1
-
@anshumanpanda1227 Nicholas Kazanas is a linguist, have you read his work? So is Igor Belyayev.
Let me ask you a question. When studying the subject of linguistics, of which neither you nor I are experts, do you defer to the consensus of the experts, or do you choose to follow a small minority because they align with your ideological or political views? I will tell you what I do: I defer to the consensus, because I know my biases are untrustworthy.
Look friend, I enjoy the work that you do, roaming around and discovering. But if you don't know something, then its better to approach that subject with an open mind. (and humility)
Yes, this is why I defer to the consensus of the experts. If I didn't, then you could accuse me of being closed-minded and arrogant.
What happened to the so called indigenous culture when this development was taking place? Did they become mutes, having no language to record things on their own, despite having built cities?
Read about how civilizations fall, and in particular how the IVC did. These are questions that you ALSO need to answer satisfactorily. Why did the IVC cities disappear? Why did writing disappear? Where did they go? If this is so important to you, you must have an answer that beats all the rest.
There is no evidence of this adoption in Northern India, where the Aryans are supposed to have displaced Harappans.
The evidence is the subsumption of the indigenous languages by Sanskrit, which you can see in the Prakrits. But since we do not know what language the Harappans spoke, we do not know where its remnants are.
Also, by 1900 BC, the river Saraswati has dried up. It borders absurdity to think migrant Aryans remembered an extinct river in their hymns, and also gave it a name in their own language.
Parts of the Saraswati still exist, my man. It did not dry up by 1900 BC.
Witzel posits that some words in the Vedas are non Vedic in origin, despite clear evidence to the contrary
When do I get to see this clear evidence? You have written many paragraphs but have never provided it. I look forward to seeing it someday.
Science doesn't work on fabricating data and then building theories for that data.
If you would like to present evidence that data was fabricated, please do.
If you read the paper, you will find it. Also read the article that I posted.
I read the article. It was amateurish nonsense. And I have read many articles already by Talageri and seen several of his talks. Even I, who am not a linguist, can see he is full of baloney. Why can't you?
Here are some articles for you to read:
https://benjaminindology.wordpress.com/2020/09/13/critiquing-talageri-why-he-gets-almost-everything-wrong/
https://lingetc.wordpress.com/2022/07/30/shattering-s-talageris/
http://sonawanisanjay.blogspot.com/2014/06/shrikant-talageri-and-his-dubious-theory.html
https://www.sabhlokcity.com/2015/06/the-only-unassailable-truth-in-shrikant-talageris-book-is-that-the-book-is-ill-written-ill-worded-ill-founded-unprofessional-gibberish/
Tell me: why doesn't Shrikant Talageri publish his work in peer-reviewed academic journals?
The Rig Vedic geography is entirely situated inside the borders of present day India and Pakistan, with their internal chronology showing a westward migration. So what mixing are you talking about?
When have I ever said the Rig Veda was composed outside of India and Pakistan? Never. And why are you talking about a migration occurring in the Rigveda as a contradiction to the Indo-Aryan migration, when the Rigveda comes from after the proposed time of the Indo-Aryan migration? Think, man. Do you honestly believe that scholars assert that the only migration that ever happened was the Indo-Aryan migration?
You don't because you haven't read the paper.
I have read it many times over.
There are 3 classification of indigenous words that Witzel proposed: Names of tribes, names of places and names of rivers. In all 3, he himself demonstrates that there are no "indigenous" names in any of the 3 categories
He demonstrates many non-Indo-Aryan names. What are you talking about?
and where they are present, they are present in later books, which defies any population mixing logic (unless you agree to Westward migration from India).
You clearly are confused. If the presence of non-Indo-Aryan names even today would demonstrate his point, why wouldn't ancient books also demonstrate this, even if they are later than the Rigveda? I think you are having trouble understanding how this all works. Any remnant of non-IA vocabulary suggests it was there all along.
Why don't you admit that your ideology is controlling the way you see history?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So many Scholars don't know or they haven't idea about "Arya" or "Aryan".... "Arya" is Sanskrit word and the term "Aryan" is used by Foreigners
That's not the word we are talking about. We are talking about a language family called Indo-Aryan.
Actually the Truth is -- the "Mahabharata" happened around 5000-5500 years ago,, and the term "Arya" would used in that time,, the "Ramayana" happened around in 7000-10,000 years
I need to see convincing evidence for this.
So called Intellectual people thinks the Sanskrit language started or originated in India after Aryan Invasion around 3000-3500 years (which I debunked)
By doing what? (And it was 4000-3500)
If the there the description of Saraswati River is given in Rik Veda,, then Rik Veda had written around 9000-10000 years ago
That's impossible. Writing didn't exist yet. And there is more than one Saraswati river.
Aryans are not any kind of Race,, who believed and Graduated in all Vedas, Upanishads, Vedanta they are recognised as "Arya"
This is the same as your point #1.
We indians have same Patrilineal lineage or "Gotra" ,, we all (North Indian-South Indian- East Indian- West Indian) share the same Blood line of Brahma,, some people belong to Kashyap Gotra, some belong to Atri Gotra, Bhrigu Gotra, Bharadwaj Gotra, Gautam Gotra, Vishwamitra Gotra or Vashishtha Gotra but they all connected to Blood line of Brahma
Show me the genetic studies that demonstrate this.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NeelBasu An authority is anyone with control over others. So it was entirely natural for me, or any reader, to think that when you say that these leaders have control, you were speaking of an authority. But apparently you mean indirect control, rather than direct control.
Go back to your original post. You found fault with my statement: ""If textbooks do not accurately summarize the state of the field that's the fault of the textbook writers not the state of the field." Nothing you have said has contradicted this, because you are talking about how the state of the field is formed, but my statement is about how accurately a textbook writers summarizes the state of the field. No leader has any control, direct or indirect, over how accurately a writer makes a summary. They do not read the manuscript when it is in preparation. They see the book when it comes out, just like everybody else. If the state of the field is X, and the writer says it is Y, then it is the writer who is at fault. My statement is true, and I stand by it.
And FYI, I got no financial aid from the government for my Ph.D., and I know of no one else who did.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fgcbrooklyn Sorry but you cited at random a laundry list of names and titles without giving any evidence that they are relevant to the discussion, nor that they support your position.
I most certainly do.
when the video points to specimens that suggest the use of "advanced' technology (more about it later), such as granite blocks with unusual cutting/shaking marks, you dismiss them by saying that they may have been placed there by chance (the example of the small figurine is pathetic.)
You're confusing two different arguments. The figurine was an illustration to explain why finding an object at an ancient site doesn't prove it's ancient. I address the tool marks directly later in the video.
Confronted with the dumbfounding riddle of megalithic structures, you deride the use of the term, as if it were just a matter of semantics, and as lifting 15 or 20,000-pound blocks were like lifting strawbales.
I have no idea what you're talking about with the word megalithic, but as for the moving (not lifting) of blocks, I didn't say it was easy. I said it was doable.
"Advanced": the term is used correctly to refer to a benchmark, namely the "known" technology in use at that time, and the limit imposed on the outcome of that technology.
And yet, I just had someone comment that anyone who knows anything about UnchartedX would know that he means more advanced than technology today. Who is correct?
the "theory" that the pyramids were "tombs" to me is an "extraordinary" claim, in that to this day nobody has provided yet any "extraordinary" evidence -- or even ordinary -- of what has become an axiomatic and dogmatic proposition
https://youtu.be/asJneqxPnjU
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In INDn context, irrespective of the difference in those theories, it's used to drive in an inferiority complex in the INDns and establish superiority of the white-skinned Westerners.
How? I have heard people say this, but no one has every explained how the theory of Indo-Aryan migration establishes superiority of white-skinned Westerners. Can you explain it?
AIT/AMT is supposed to have brought in Sanskrit and along with it the Vedas which is the source of all our culture, language, tradition etc.
That's not true. The migration is thought to have brought a small number of songs from the Rig Veda, but the vast majority of the Vedas are believed to have been composed in India. According to the migration theory, Indian culture was developed in India.
but to an INDn, when she or he looks at the excavations, she or he can find widespread structures, artifacts, seals and what not which are Vedic in nature.
A bit, yeah. That doesn't make it fully Vedic. It makes it an influence on Vedic culture.
1
-
1
-
@ahamasmiarinm In simplistic terms, AMT is considered as an answer to the questions raised against AIT about the lack of evidence supporting invasions, the conclusions of both the theories being the same, that the INDn identity is a gift from the West.
The conclusions are not the same. Indo-Aryan migration does not hold that Indian identity is a gift from the West.
even now Oxford debaters think that IND was civilised by the West and prior to that INDns were uncivilised.
That statement is false. It's not even close to being true.
INDn indigenous concepts and theories aren't bereft of science, they are mostly aimed at making the daily life and livelihood of the people scientific but of course they are packaged within a wrapper of religion for implementational purposes.
If it is scientific, then the conclusions reached by everyone will be approximately the same. But they are not, which means that one side is not scientific. For example, it is not scientific to take the word of a book as truth uncritically.
Can you guide me to studies and researches which traces the evolution of an Indo-Aryan language into Sanskrit?
I will be making a video on it soon.
Till not long ago, this river was thought of as a mythical river but now it's channel has been discovered.
Maybe it has. But there is disagreement about this, as well as about why there is more than one river with the same name.
The book is on astronomy and has detailed calculations on everything concerned with astronomy, like calculations on dimensions of the Earth, it's movements, it's tilts, it's distances from Sun, Moon, dimensions of the Moon, various Planetary positions, their angular incidences, all kinds of stuff. That was done by 5 CE even if we accept the extreme.
That's great. I am not sure what it has to do with this video.
1
-
@ahamasmiarinm When I'm saying about AIT/AMT, I'm not saying about what they actually are, I'm saying about how they have been presented to the INDn people, most of whom were uneducated just a generation ago.
I understand that, but I am curious how AMT is used for that (without AIT).
As an individual belonging to the tradition and culture, all I can say is that there's enough science involved in almost all of our customs and traditions.
I need a clarification from you. What, in your opinion, is the difference between Hinduism and Hindutva?
However, the river Saraswati that I talked about, it's channel has not only been found but also has been mapped and multiple ancient settlements has been found throughout it's channel.
Maybe. Maybe not. Just because people claim it, that doesn't mean it is a fact.
In fact, a lot of INDn historians now call the Indus Valley Civilisation as Sindhu-Saraswati civilisation.
I don't know of any actual historians of the IVC or archaeologists of the IVC who call it that.
Such people doesn't drop from the sky, it needs a special kind of nurturing. A superstitious and unscientific society can't make that happen
I still don't know what any of this has to do with the subject of the video.
You are an outsider and you can never understand the fineprints, the minute details, the nuances of my culture like me.
I agree. And I am not presenting my own theories. I am presenting the conclusions of experts on the subject, which include people from India, like you.
1
-
@ahamasmiarinm How AMT is used for inflicting inferiority? Well, it's very simple, INDn historians, the entire cabal being from Left, simply lied about it. Those few who weren't, they were outcasted, their voices were muted and only lying historians singing in chorus, they were advanced. They lied that everything were brought in by the Aryans, nit just bits and pieces like you said. It's only now that people have access to information from their fingertips and are learning about the reality.
I wish I could take this comment seriously, but I cannot. It's a baseless conspiracy theory and a misrepresentation of the facts. But if you want to prove me wrong by listing all the lies, please do. But I am fairly certain they won't be lies at all.
Hinduism and Hindutva. They are both same, but if I'm to draw an analogy with English, they are almost like different parts of speech I guess. Hinduism is the theology, the noun while Hindutva is more like the adjective. Hindutva is combination word made from two different words. Hindu + Tatva. Again, Hindu is the "religion" so to speak and "Tva" means attributes, essence. So, Hindutva means the essence which makes one a Hindu. Say for example, the word "Manushatva", "Manush" means humans and "Tva" is what I already explained. The English synonym of "Manushatva" would be "humanity".
Ah, now that explains why you have the view of Hinduism that you do. I don't understand why you are using words like "theology" though. But I do know that Hindus have come on here and expressed the view that Hindutva and Hinduism are completely different, not just in the sense that you are saying. Hindutva, they say, is broader than Hinduism, and it includes more people, including Buddhists and Jains. Is that not so? There are many Hindus who do not embrace Hindutva.
Speaking of "expert" conclusions, the interesting part with History is that it always narrates the story of the victor, the survivor
In one country, in which academia is controlled by the state, maybe. But this cannot happen in a world of scholarship that links continents.
1
-
@ahamasmiarinm I'm stating facts, facts from what I have known, heard, seen and researched.
Everybody tells me that.
If you wan't proof of conspiracy theories and misrepresentations, I would ask you to do your own research.
I already have done the research and have found many of your views to be in error.
I can say that there have been court cases where "eminent" historians have been invited by courts to share their "expert" opinion and they have been found outrightly lying about history, their lies were discovered only at a later stage.
If you are talking about Romila Thapar, this is not true. A lie is an intentional falsehood. Your opinion is that she is wrong. Her opinion is that she is right.
Hindutva means the essence of Hinduism, and that's about it.
Even I, who have done just the basic research on the subject, know that there is a lot more to it than that. Hindutva is a political ideology designed to unite all Hindus. Everybody knows that. Hindutva is barely a century old. Hinduism is thousands of years old. Even Savarkar, the one who first articulated Hindutva said, "Hinduism is only a derivative, a fraction, a part of Hindutva."
Hinduism is the philosophy which originated from this land. Anybody who subscribes to that is a Hindu.
That is a Hindutva point of view, and it is not held by many people who originated from your land. Sadly, after reading what you have written, I no longer trust your definition of Hinduism.
I don't see why you are doubtful about me using the word "theology". It's about God, it's just that our Gods represents the Eternal Power and not any particular religion.
But don't you see? Any philosophy that includes a belief in an eternal power is by definition a religion. Anything that has a theology is by definition a religion.
I am not judging you. I am judging your words.
1
-
@ahamasmiarinm You tell me that my views are faulty, yet you haven't given any references, did you?
I think you forget that you commented on my video, a video which provides many references. It is not my job to disprove what you say. It is your job to prove it.
their "expert opinions" were proved to be lies based on facts.
According to whom? You're just citing an opinion. It is not a lie unless it is intentional. And if they have found fault with your "facts," then it's just one opinion vs. another opinion. You haven't established that any lies were told.
history is about "opinion" only when facts aren't available.
Then provide the facts. Otherwise I am taking what you say as an opinion.
The efforts you are making to differentiate between Hinduism and Hindutva, it's really amusing,
It doesn't take any effort at all. It is the common view.
and you are doing that with a person who belongs to that theology.
You are not the only one with that theology. And if it is a theology, it is a religion. It cannot be otherwise. Only religions have theology.
If you would read Savarkar yourself, you would know that Savarkar wasn't a religious Hindu. He supported things like cow eating which are absolutely unacceptable in Hinduism.
You claim not to be a religious Hindu. And I didn't go to Savarkar to establish what Hinduism is. I went to him to establish what Hindutva is. He, after all, laid out its foundations.
you are denying the simple etymology of the word Hindutva.
I am not denying its etymology. I am saying the etymology of something's name does not determine what that something is. We have a party over here called Democrats. Now, I could say, "The etymology means a person who believes in democracy." But I could NOT say that the etymology determines all that the party is. It's just the name. Hindutva is the name for a political ideology. Yes, the people who have that ideology chose the word Hindutva, which means the essence of Hinduism. But no one can say that this is all that Hindutva is. According to your thinking, I could create a political movement and call it "The Best," and then I could say this this proves that my political movement is the best.
All I can say is about how INDns/Hindus view this, and they have no doubt about the sameness of the terms
Only those who hold the Hindutva mentality think this.
I should make it clear that when a Hindu uses the word "Eternal", it doesn't mean mystical, it means Supernatural, like the power of the Sun or the power of the entire Cosmos.
That makes it religious. Sorry, but it just does. I can't change the accepted definitions of words for you.
1
-
@ahamasmiarinm If the courts in your country adjudicate on facts and evidences, and not opinion, then it would be poor of you to think that INDn courts don't.
Courts are not capable of judging. Historical questions are the field of historians, experts on the subject, not of lawyers.
you deny the definition of Hindutva and carve out a definition that suits you.
I did not make my own definition. You know that. I gave the common definition that you can find just about everywhere.
It's funny that you say that it's common perception. I mean, really, how do you get this idea? and from where?
Everywhere. You can start with Wikipedia. But if you want something more scholarly, here you go: https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1163/15685270252772759
Our ancestors suffered a lot to remain Hindus.
That has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
Yet our ancestors weren't swayed, they stuck to Hinduism, maintained it's essence i.e. Hindutva.
That is your modern interpretation of events. Hindutva did not exist back then. You are projecting modern ideas back on the past.
Lastly, I checked up the meaning of the word theology, and it says "the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God's attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity"
That is correct. And if God or gods are in it, then it is a religion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There are people in the comments, who are upset that, in the original thumbnail to this video, I referred to Robert Sepehr as a "white supremacist." Most people who watch the video find this readily apparent, but others not so much. I changed the wording to "Aryan supremacist," but not because I believe I was mistaken. It's just that not everyone agrees what it means to be "white."
The reason why the meaning of the word "white" has been altered over time is because of the changing opinion about who is in the "in-group" and who is in the "out-group." There was a time when the Irish were not considered white, or when southern Italians were not considered white. Even now there is a varying opinion on what white is depending on what country you might live in. In the US, according to the US Census Bureau, Iranians are considered white.
Robert Sepehr prefers to avoid the term "white" and instead uses the term "Caucasian," which in the US is used as a synonym for white. As is apparent in the video, he does not use the word Caucasian merely to mean people who live in the Caucasus. He means the genetic descendants of the original Indo-Europeans, and he calls this group "Aryans." I suggested in the video that when he said this group remained "ethnically distinct," he meant it in racial terms, but I acknowledge that the word "ethnic" usually means something cultural and it was not accurate to interpret this expression to mean "racially pure." However, the fact that he uses genetics and physical characteristics to identify them indicates that he is speaking not just about culture but about inherited features as well.
I believe my use of the word "supremacist" is justified, because he speaks of these Caucasians as a ruling class across all civilizations in ancient history, and he does so in positive terms, saying they enhanced and civilized the people in the places they went.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thank you for your thoughtful comment, though it surprised me somewhat, because you brought up subjects I discussed in the video and seem to assume I did not. Is this because you didn't watch the whole thing? I had a lengthy discussion about Clovis First and whether careers ended, for example, and yet you say, "Have you ever stopped and asked yourself how many careers have been ended because of questioning Clovis First?" If you had watched the video, you would know that I did, and that the answer is none. I also brought up Kuhn and his book more than once, and yet you seem to be unaware of that fact. So I feel bad you put all this effort into writing this long comment when it was largely unnecessary. The history of science is actually a huge field of study. It's not something that no one has thought of researching before.
If you read Kuhn's book, then you know that he believed the presentation of an idea is even more important than the idea itself. You know that paradigm shifts are gradual processes. Your takeaway seems to be that this is not how it should be. But it can be no other way in science. Wegener received credit for many other accomplishments in his life. There were a small number of geologists during his life who even supported his idea of continental drift. And now after death, he is recognized for it. Your implication is that this is a bad thing. I am not sure how. Are accolades during one's life the most important thing in your mind? Confucius never received acclaim during his life, and now he is considered the greatest philosopher China ever had.
If you watched my video, you would know that I said this: "There is clear criticism here made by archaeologists about the behavior of other archaeologists, and I do hope this will prove to be a learning experience that will spur archaeologists to make some changes in their personal behavior towards those they disagree with." And yet you act as if this never happened. Graham's criticisms about how archaeologists have reacted to other archaeologists is not an original contribution to the discussion. He only repeats what other people have said. As for Dr. Adovasio, I do not know what articles he wrote that got rejected, but there were many who wrote articles arguing against Clovis First that got published, and he himself has published hundreds of papers and books. His career was not ruined.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1st us your RIDICULOUS opinion that one must be able to attribute an artifact TO some known civilization before one can claim it doesn't belong to the one it's currently attributed to.
No, that was not even close to what I said. Here are my exact words: "When he refers to a class of out of place artifacts that are far beyond the known capabilities and tools of the ancient civilizations we attribute them to, he does not, nor does he ever in this video, tell us what ancient civilization they actually come from. This gives him an advantage, because it will allow him to critique the attributions made by others, but will not allow others to critique any attribution of his own. He doesn’t attribute these artifacts to any known society, culture, or group of people. So he gives us no positive argument to assess. All we can really do is assess his negative argument, that is, the argument that certain artifacts were NOT made by the civilizations in whose country these artifacts are found." So before you start making bold claims about your ability to destroy arguments, you had better pay attention to what the arguments actually are.
(Your childish assertion that someone may have come along later and dropped something tells EVERYTHING about you . . . A narcissistic, self-congratulatory snob that thinks himself better than and far smarter than anyone who dare challenge you)
Do you not know what a hypothetical example is? The point of it was to show that a method is needed for dating artifacts.
to blow up your childish and ridiculous statement... let's look at just one EASY example... many of the walls and structures from ancient Peru, where the simple, least sophisticated stonework sits on TOP of the far more sophisticated and advanced stonework. That's pretty much the standard throughout the world. The MOST advanced work is deepest
This has nothing to do with what I said. I was asking how UnchartedX determines the dates of things. Do you know? If you do, please let us all know.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jay-by1se I am in advanced manufacturing material scientist. My entire career is developing next generation manufacturing technology to create new materials.. I specifically specialize in space travel and experimental defense projects. what you just said clearly came from somebody who doesn’t understand anything they are talking about.
What experience do you have in ancient artisanal methods? My guess is none.
No scientist uses measure of hardness scale
I am glad you agree with the video.
but it doesn’t matter the only type of interaction you can get from a tough object on a hard object is to shatter it. That works in flaking like you would obsidian arrowhead. You cannot create a precision, polished surface by flaking.
Surely you must know that there are several steps in the process, and polishing comes last. Smoothing out the surfaces is done by abrasion. The Mohs scale still does not apply.
to create a polished surface, we use a specialized tool that is a metal matrix, composite of diamond and usually nickel. The nickel surrounds the diamond, and very slowly wears away as the diamond is ground on the surface of the stone.. then we rotate that object with no less than 15 hp on a direct drive spindle.
Interesting. But since this is not the way it was done back then, it is irrelevant. I wash dishes with a dishwasher. This doesn't make me an authority on how to wash dishes by hand.
The only other way I have ever seen granite cut, was using sonic vibrations with a properly modulating frequency. I have seen somebody take a piece of bronze and slide it through a piece of granite using harmonic vibration. I would accept the possibility that Egyptians were using harmonics, but I do not understand how they would produce sufficient harmonic energy as it takes quite a bit of advanced electronics to do it for us today.
By admitting your limited experience, you have canceled out your claim to superior knowledge. I have already seen this kind of work done, so I suggest you do your research to bring yourself up to speed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I can't find where he says: "There wouldn't be much left." However, I can find him saying this: "What do you think would still be left after 10,000 years? There's actually two things that they named in this particular program. I bet you can guess one of them. Mount Rushmore. Yes, that's one of them, and of course, the Great Pyramid, the other one, and that's it. You know, everything else is gone." Is that what you mean?
The fact is, we have THOUSANDS of artifacts that have survived that long, and none of them point to an advanced civilization. Now yeah, you can say, "Well, they could still be out there." Sure. But the more things we dig up, the less likely that becomes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You say that the happening of Mahabharata war is an assumption. Unfortunately for you, the original composition called 'Jaya' is categorised by the author himself as 'itihaas' ('iti' - thus, 'haas' - it happened) and not any religious text. Same is the case with 'Valmiki Ranayana'. These are ancient historical accounts passed down from generation to generation.
Are you suggesting that if the author says it is history, then it is all true? That's interesting, because it assumes that people never lie or get anything wrong. It looks like you are the one making an assumption here. In fact, there are many books that claim to be true that are not true. Think about witnesses in court. They have to swear to tell the truth. But guess what? They might not be telling the truth. This is why historians use the historical method to analyze texts and do not credulously believe whatever the author says. This goes for texts written in any country in the world.
Similarly, its not an assumption that ancient Indian civilization had deep knowledge of astronomy and had a highly sophisticated scientific system of observing the skies.
I never said they didn't have a deep knowledge of astronomy. You had better go back and see what I actually said.
Ancient Indian authors had no reason to make such meticulous references of astronomy, which by the way can now be validated through sophisticated softwares, if not to keep track of time. Again not an assumption, but a logical inference.
I haven't seen any meticulous references of astronomy. So please show me one. If you are like Oak, who shows only references that COULD be or MIGHT be understood as a meticulous reference, then it is clear that you and he are making an assumption.
Another assumption made by you, that these observations could have been added later on, is as ridiculous as the other assumptions. It is impossible make note of such precise astronomical observations unless you have observed it concurrently when the skies looked that way. It would not be possible for anyone to make that observation subsequently, especially when the position of sky has changed and the exact same position of stars and planets is not repeating itself.
You argue that they were not added later because they are real precise observations. But is is an assumption that they are real precise observations. You will need first to prove that isn't made up. Then you can prove it wasn't added later.
Simply rejecting a testable theory merely because it doesn't fit into the normally accepted timeline of human history, reeks of a dogmatic, orthodox and unscientific approach, with little room for innovation and discovery.
It's a good thing I never did that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Do you honestly want people to believe moving stones this big is just about money?
How do you think craftsmen were hired? Yes, Rome had slaves, but even getting them there would require money. Everything that was needed to move the stones would have required funds. If you know of a way it could be done without any money in ancient Rome, please let us know.
Or that the quarry wasn’t close by? Gee didn’t stop the ancient builders from moving huge stones from sometimes miles away. If they could do this it’s painfully obvious Rome would have some. In fact they have nothing even close.
I don't follow your argument here. It sounds like you are saying that moving a stone a thousand miles would have required no more effort than moving it half a mile. But correct me if I am wrong.
If you say exactly how they moved these stones please send me the time in the video you discuss this. Some rope pulleys and stone wheels? 120 tons i doubt it. I assume you mean 1200 tons. 120 tons was child's play. I discuss this in the video at 25:32. Also see the references below the video.
Ok you’re saying the same culture cancelled this project due to lack of funds but then decided they found the money and started back up again.
Years later by a different set of builders.
However this time they decided not to use 100 plus ton stones because it was cheaper? In fact they will NEVER use 100 plus stones ever again in any construction but only because of money. Pure nonsense. If you had the tech you would always be using stones that big.
Again, I assume you mean 1000 ton stones. Moving 100 ton stones was run-of-the-mill. But it is not true that tech would always allow the using of stones that big. The quarry determines the size of blocks that are able to be cut. This quarry allowed for some large stones to be cut, but this was unusual. Most quarries, because of the way the rocks were formed naturally, would not have allowed the cutting of such stones that size without them breaking.
They didn’t because they couldn’t. Plain and simple.
And yet there they are, in the Roman signature style, so they could.
Is it cheaper to have 4000 guys dragging a 120 ton stone then having 4000 guys cutting and moving thousands of 1 ton stones?
According to the calculations I mentioned in the video, dragging one of the large stones would have only required 512 men.
why like the Egyptians did they not record their greatest technological triumphs? The Romans rulers like all rulers were massive ego manics yet they didn’t claim any of this super ahead of its time technology, why?
How do you know they didn't? Do you not realize that the vast majority of ancient records are gone forever?
No pharaoh ever wrote his name on the great pyramid ? Why? They would erase and reuse their own family members statues but none claimed the world’s greatest monument, why not?
There were many objects in the burial chamber. Statues too, most likely. How do you know that none of them had the king's name on them?
The solid stone bowls in Egypt? Do you know them? They are a single super hard stone buy flawlessly created. Make one with nothing but copper chisels stone pounders and water and sand.
Already demonstrated. https://youtu.be/dC3Z_DBnCp8
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sasquatch1554 My point was, the erosion on the enclosure of the Sphinx allows him to date it earlier if need be.
But other factors will not allow it to be.
Without ruffling too many feathers, he has kept it within the Egyptologists timeline, but at the same time proving their timeline might be unreliable if he is correct.
How can it prove it unreliable, if it can fit into the timeline? Just because geology might allow it to be older, that doesn't necessitate it. ALL evidence needs to be taken into consideration, not just geology.
We now know humans were already carving and shaping stone 7000-7500 years before the Sphinx was supposedly carved.
But not on the same level as the Sphinx. Is Nabta Playa evidence of the same technological level?
Of course, but the way he writes it sounds like he is suggesting the Egyptians absorbed another culture into their own.
I think he would tell you that you are reading something into his writing that isn't there.
That may have not been his intent, but it's not hard to imagine based on what he says.
Imagination is not the basis for drawing conclusions.
Speaking of solar cults, are the Egyptologists still arguing if Abu Simbel has a solar alignment, or do some still believe it is merely by chance?
All agree it has solar alignment, but intent is sometimes hard to determine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@malaj.8517 There are confusing inconsistencies there..? Perhaps you should clarify your positions..?
I do not see any inconsistent statements. You will need to point to what you are referring to, because I don't know what it is.
One can easily understand the narrative you are pushing to others. As well as inherent needs, interest and politics that may be at play. That is intelligible.
Only in your own mind. Sometimes when people hear an opinion that conflicts with their worldview, they assume that the person offering the opinion has something against their worldview. But it may very well be a coincidence, and that certainly is so in this case.
However, do you seriously suggest respectable academics assume or imagine agreements as readily as you do?
Agreements about what?
And/or speak, without embarrassment, on others behalf, as easily as you do?
Yes. They do the requisite study on a subject, and then they share it to their students without embarrassment.
it often seems impossible to reason with personas who, for one reason or another, needs to be "right", or is dependent on a self serving narratives to be "true".
You are assuming that someone who disagrees with you "needs to be right." Consider the possibility that you have not given me any convincing reasons to change my mind.
Of course, it's difficult for self centred individuals to easily absorb or integrate information that are disagreeable to them.
Have you ever considered the possibility that you are doing the very thing you are complaining about?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If indeed AI/MT were to be true, we would see large scale imprint as archaeological proof
Really? If the migrants were not city builders, what large scale imprint would we see?
Instead there is cultural continuity from Harappan times to the vedic times (and even to this day) in house structures, pottery, jewelry, food etc.
The house structures and pottery change, so I am surprised to hear you say that.
Not just that, the proof of pashupati seals in Mohenjodaro, the ubiquity of mother goddess seals, the fire worship altars of Kalibangan point to religious continuity as well.
How does that demonstrate that no one came into India?
And finally the question of Rig Veda. Its geography is exclusively in India without absolutely any reference to any external place the vedic people would have come from. Why is that?
Because it is from India. Are you under the impression that people believe the Rigveda was written outside India?
If all the Indo-European migrations were to be true in the way suggested, the migrants should have shown similar behavior in every new territory they went to. In Europe they had violent invasions and you suggest they came peacably to India and literally took it over.
You are stereotyping. You are suggesting that all speakers of the same language have the same personality. This is not only unscientific, it is prejudiced.
1
-
@cgm9302 So you are saying these "Aryans" were uncivilized, pastoral nomads who came in without war replaced the advanced civilization of the existing folks with their own, without leaving any imprint. You do not need to be city builders to leave archaeological imprints. How did archaeologists find out, for example, proto harappan culture as it emerged progressively?
I didn't say they didn't leave ANY imprint. We have pottery, for example. And of course they had dwellings, but they have not survived, so they must have been made from perishable materials, unlike the buildings of the IVC.
Rakhigarhi remained the same from Indus Valley to post Indus Valley with respect to house structures and pottery. Its chief archaeologist says as much. Google Dr. Shinde's interviews.
I don't remember ever telling you that the IVC cities were conquered, or that the IVC ceased to exist as soon as an Indo-Aryan set foot in the area. Please note that Rakhigarhi was never an Indo-Aryan city.
No one doubts people came to India. Not just between 2000 and 1500 BC but before and after that as well.
Oh, ha, so the borders were closed during that period, eh?
It is civilizational replacement that people question - language, gods, culture, pottery etc.
The Indo-Aryan migration theory does not suppose "civilizational replacement."
If the vedic gods and goddesses existed in India prior to these invasions / migrations, your entire model is in jeopardy.
Some of the Vedic gods may have existed prior. New gods were added. There is no problem with the model.
If the Rig Veda is from India entirely, then the references to its gods and goddesses in cultures outside India would be a problem.
I don't see how that is a problem.
So would be the references to a flowing Saraswati river.
The river still flows in some areas.
Given the colonial and racist history and even the framework of AI/MT theory, this accusation is a bit rich.
The Indo-Aryan migration theory is neither colonial nor racist. You have never given any evidence that it is.
There is absolutely nothing prejudicial about assuming the same people would behave similarly across different geographies if they all came from the same place.
Yes, there is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
But, my friend, dunno if you have heard of Edward de Bono, Lateral Thinking, & Six Hat Thinking. As an inference to his school of thought and published findings, no deductive reasoning / chain of thought starting from a "Red Hat" or "emotional bias" can ever result in a valid consequence or result.
I have not heard of de Bono, but it sounds like what he says fits very well with what Oak is doing. Oak started out with the feeling that the civilization of India must be older than all the rest, and this idea makes him feel good, so he tried to find evidence to make it so, but his deductive reasoning cannot result in a valid conclusion. Thank you for pointing it out.
Where ever you have used the word "assumption(s)", these citings are actually circumstantial evidences. And BTW circumstantial evidences are considered valid and admissible in the court of law.
These elements do not fit the definition of circumstantial evidence. They are not evidence at all.
You have completely overlooked the fact that he has studied the 4 Vedas and the 18 Puranas and Upanishads as he has learned Sanskrit.
Baloney. His knowledge is rudimentary at best. Don't believe me? See the studies listed below this video. He seems completely unaware of even the immediate context of the quotes he is using.
Have you considered understanding "The Surya Siddhanta" or the "Hanuman Chalisa" ? One of these actually states plainly the distance b/w the Sun and the Earth and while the other speaks about the speed of light.
Neither of these texts come from the time being considered. And the Hanuman Chalisa is only 500 years old.
Nothing else you say is relevant, because the position of Arundhati and Vasishtha in the Mahabharata is not natural. I prefer to take the Mahabharata at its word.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@suvrajyotigupta2368 There are many theories on the development and decay of the Indus valley civilization, growth Vedic civilization and the role of Saraswati in it. There are also multiple theories about the role of the geology of Saraswati in it.
We are talking about EVIDENCE, not theories. I presented numerous scientific studies containing evidence that IVC cities were built in the middle section of the Saraswati after it was no longer perennial. What evidence have you provided?
The water usage of Vedic village of around 50 to 100 people would be very different from that of a Harappan city with far larger population.
Great. So we are in agreement that, if IVC cities could survive on an annual river, Vedic villages absolutely could survive on a perennial river.
Having said so, it is highly unlikely for the locus of the Vedic civilization to be on the banks of an annual river, in a place where there are multiple perennial rivers.
Did you miss the main point of the video? Vedic culture was on a perennial river.
People worship the aspects of nature that are vibrant , that know , feel and see, not the ones that are ebbing away.
You may be right about who they BEGIN to worship, but not about who they've already been worshipping. And blessings galore come when the river becomes mighty during the monsoons. Praise the river!
So, let me get this, historian union of the world has decided the issue of Saraswati already?
I think you forgot what statement of yours I was responding to. You said, "Certain western historians are being very stubborn about this and is refusing to accept archaeological and other physical evidence in favour of a purely linguistic analysis." Were you talking about only Saraswati here?
The entire point of discussion seem to be finding out if the Harappans and Vedics met each other, the jury is still out on that.
As I indicated in the video.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If there was a civilization prior to Egypt, Iraq, and China, that existed during the Younger Dryas and before, using agriculture and Egyptian or even Roman level technology, very little evidence would be found of it today.
Not true.
The reason we found Gobekli Tepe is because they deliberately buried it!
We knew it was there because it wasn't completely buried.
Before we found Gobekli Tepe, we didn't know anything like that existed 10,000 years ago.
No argument there.
Randall is simply saying that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
And all we are saying is that belief should not precede evidence. Evidence first, then belief.
If we discovered the remains of a city built 20,000 years ago, would be believe it to be that old?
Yes, if our dating methods (as in the case of Gobekli Tepe) indicated so.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stepheng905 That is his conclusion but not the conclusion of many other accredited scientists in this field.
You seemed to have missed the point that the YDIH scientists are a small minority, and their hypothesis is not accepted by the vast majority of their peers. Their views have gotten no traction in the scientific community. It's still the same people, and it has been 18 years!
No he does not make it clear at all
Yes, he did.
Did he adress the points made in actual peer reviewed papers.
Yep. Did you read the Refutation paper? It is linked below the video.
Does he point out that we have real modern experience and images of a comet breaking apart in space and then the pieces colliding with a single planet one after the other.
This all happened within the gravitational pull of a gas giant, right? Yes, he knows full well about it.
he clearly knew was out there and replacing it with the statement "scientifically impossible" When the whole time he knew full well that a comet breaking apart in space and the pieces slamming into a single planetary body one after the other was not only possible but had in fact already been witnessed.
I think he knows what he is talking about, and you do not. And we talked for a long time, so why are you taking issue with one statement he made near the beginning and not all of the other facts he brought forth? That is not a rhetorical question. I would really love to hear your answer.
He implies that because they are members, they are allowed to just present their paper to OTHER ACCREDITED Scientists thereby skipping a real peer review. He implies that just because the other scientists agree with the theory that makes the whole peer reviewed process less reputable....I am saying that he is implying that by using the peer review method they did that the peer review process they took is somehow less reputable.
No, he said that they used underhanded means to get past peer review. They didn't go outside their own group, which means that it is not proper peer review. Other eyes need to be on it, not just theirs. That's incestuous.
The truth is many peer reviews are done this way.
They shouldn't be. I certainly hope that is not the case.
You want to use this in your argument to disprove the whole lost civilization speculation I wont even call it a theory because there is literally no evidence to support it.
That doesn't even make sense. I said twice in the video that whether there was a comet impact or not has NO BEARING on the existence of a lost civilization. I don't care whether the impact happened or not. I just want the facts about it.
If it was a real investigation, you would have talked to other scientists who support the theory and got the opposing views.
I did get their opposing views. IN THEIR PUBLISHED PAPERS. But as the YDIH proponents have gotten way more press and way more interviews, I thought it was important for people to hear the other side for a change.
What I will say is this, those in the field supporting this belief (ie; that this was the trigger of the climate change at the start of the Younger Dryas) is growing as more and more evidence is found.
That is false. The list of scientists on the CRG site hasn't been added to in years. It has been stuck at the same number for ages.
You can add to the list Wallace Broecker the originator of the widely accepted theory that ice melt into the artic ocean caused the interruption in the North Atlantic current. Broecker has stated he believes this was the trigger.
Well, he certainly can't be a new addition, because he died 6 years ago.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Indianlogic Thank you for your comment. I will try to respond to your points:
1. I would disgaree on the point you made for cancelling the Saraswati river’s argument calling out the too much emphasis on literal meaning of the text. My point is thats the same mistake you are doing when you pointing out the nature of the text as praise for godess.
Surely you agree that Saraswati was believed to be not merely a river, but also a goddess. This means that, in the songs, she can hold either meaning.
Let look at the bigger picture that why would vedic people choose a seasonal river for worshipping when in their region there exists much more larger rivers which were perennial?
This is because the river is needed most at a certain time of year. Think of the Nile. Although it was perennial, the agriculture of the Egyptians, depended on it flooding during a certain time of year. When it did not flood, there were droughts. This actually is a common thing. Agriculture is often dependent on the annual flooding of rivers.
The vedic text talks about the region spanning to satsindhu, therefore, they could have said same about Indus or some other mighty river why Saraswati?
I tried to make this clear in the video, but maybe I didn't. The Saraswati was the river near which the composers of those songs lived. They didn't live near the Indus. They knew about the other rivers, but they lived on the Saraswati.
2. The words found in Hittite inspcription and horse mannual are not just stray words but denote a BELIEF which is so scared to the people of those times that they are making treaty between two kings based on Vedic god names. It clearly points to the existence of BELIEF system which recognise Vedic gods in 1600 BC timeframe.
They are the same gods as found in the Vedas, yes.
Beliefs that too which are recognised by two opposite rivals cannot be created overnight.
I am not sure what you mean by "overnight," but if you mean a few years, then I agree. If you mean a few hundred years, then I disagree.
This points to the larger and common religion based on Vedic gods predating 1600 BC.
When you say "based on Vedic gods," you are implying that you mean "based on the Vedas." I hope not.
Although, this doesnt directly establish date for Rigveda but certainly points towards the existence of Vedic belief much older than 1600 BC
I think it is a mistake to call those gods "Vedic" in the sense that they derive from the Vedas. It is better to say that the Vedas and the people who lived in Mitanni shared the same gods and therefore come from common ancestors.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@seandalton6673 What I don't like is pretending that "Common" means only what you say it means, which it does on the surface, but it's not the full story.
Sure it is. Kepler used it because it was common in Europe in his time.
Why is it "commonly accepted throughout the world"? The rest of the world didn't have much choice. It's not like every non-Christian culture in the globe agreed that they could also find something in their history that occurred in the year 1 CE which is significant enough to count from.
Exactly my point. It has gone beyond that starting date now.
Non-Christians using this calendar are always going to be using Jesus' birth, the original faulty calculation notwithstanding, as a historical dividing line. I'm saying that using "BCE/CE" doesn't solve that problem, it just hides it.
This is the same kind of reasoning that people use to say that if a custom has racist origins, it will always be racist, or if a custom has some other evil origin, it will always be evil, or the original meaning of a word will always be its true meaning.
I couldn't care less, just like I don't care that the names of the days of the week are based on pagan gods.
Ah yes, another example. If the days of the week are named after pagan gods, they will always be pagan. But here you take the opposite point of view. So you will accept that the days are no longer pagan, but you cannot accept that people who use the era aren't referring to Jesus' birth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This video is again cherry picking parts from research papers to build a narrative. Why can’t we just focus on the conclusion of the papers instead?
That's exactly what I did. I let the papers speak for themselves, while taking into account new data as it is gathered.
Why can’t we just focus on the conclusion in the Sanghamitra Sengupta et al paper?
Because that would be cherry-picking. We must account for ALL the evidence. Do you not agree?
It concluded that the influence of Central Asia on the pre-existing gene pool was minor - the distinctive South Asian Y-chromosome landscape was shaped by the pre-Holocene and Holocene-er, not Indo-European expansions.
That's one piece of the puzzle.
Same with the other paper that concluded no significant patrilineal gene flow from Europe to Asia to India in the last 5-7000 years.
One thing I made a point to do is not pick out only the papers that suited one side. But that seems to be what you are doing.
When they proved that there is more genetic diversity of R1A in India, you dismissed that with the excuse of population density.
Me? No. I was sharing what the geneticists have said.
In short, we are back to square one with the same people who tried to sell us the Aryan Invasion theory since the early 19th century! The new version is beautifully packaged in the form of AMT.
I don't know what you're talking about. Very different theories, with the only similarity being the entrance of a new language into the Indian subcontinent.
The old AIT theory was imposed on us for more than 150 years!
AIT wasn't even alive for 150 years. I'm not sure what you mean by "imposed." Is the theory of gravity imposed on you too? How about germ theory? The Big Bang theory?
The previous generations of western historians passionately argued about it and the Indian voices were suppressed.
Old news.
The term Indology got replaced with South Asian studies and along with that most of our indigenous native civilizational history got dropped from historical studies.
Huh? Are you saying that you can't study the history of India at any university?
Now that AIT theory of the western historians has been debunked, they are back with the new Aryan migration theory - which again is not 100% proven with evidence!
It sounds like you have very little knowledge of how the historical method works. History is based on evidence. But it is never proven, because no one was there. We simply go with the theory that best fits the evidence. And it is always tentative, as it could change when new evidence comes in. It's very simple.
When Indians publish papers against AMT, you pick and choose what you want from it to suit your narrative.
99.9% of Indian historians, archaeologists, linguists, and geneticists reject OIT, and this is because the evidence for it is weak. Only ideologues believe in it. History is not something ideologues are good at. See my video on that here: https://youtu.be/t9rDL50m4Cs
I don’t understand this obsession of western historians to impose their version of history on the native Indian people.
It is the consensus of the whole world. Not just the West.
There is zero evidence for any kind of massive migration from Eurasia that was huge enough to change the course of the Indic civilization
Who said there was a "massive" migration?
No one is objecting to minor migrations.
Fantastic. Then all is well. Just remember that those minor migrations likely brought new language to the Indian subcontinent.
There is no evidence that Sanskrit replaced the native language
Yes, there is.
and/or a bunch of foreigner immigrants replaced/ influenced an already advanced native culture heavily.
Language is pretty heavy.
We have evidence from Harappa, Sinauli etc. to prove civilizational continuity.
Yes, and also new additions later on.
On one hand you ask the question ‘when did Sanskrit arrive in India’ (implying its foreign origin) and on the other hand you also say Sanskrit is indigenous to India.
Look at my words again. I did not say "arrive."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thank you for your comment.
That's Ben's whole point, the older stuff is more advanced than the newer items
But it isn't more advanced. The variation is in quality, not technology.
How come all the pyramids after the 3 great ones are far worse quality
In many ways they are of higher quality. You are confusing strength or height with quality. This would be akin to saying that cars from the 1940s and 50s were higher quality because their bodies are stronger. See here: https://youtu.be/iw4aXNMEXeU
and there are many other areas in the world that prove an advance civilisation built there first and then came along others that built on top which were by far inferior in quality, workmanship and detail
I have not seen any proof. Will you be the first to show me?
Historians used to believe there wasn't an advanced civilisation before 6000 BC
No, they didn't.
Göbekli Tepe ????
Not an advanced civilization.
And it's BS to say there most be a city to call it a civilisation (maybe we haven't found it, or it was wiped off the map)
Civilization usually means an urban society. But if you don't mean an urban society, then what DO you mean?
What would survive 10,000 years that modern man has made today
Lots of things.
and if there were worldwide catastrophes what then
It depends on the kind of catastrophe.
Humans have been here for up to 300,000 years and in that time we know there have been many catastrophes
Nothing that would destroy all civilizations on earth.
Ben age span probably doesn't go far enough in the past. Who knows it could be from 38,000 or 64,000 years ago etc a million years?
Humans were not developed enough a million years ago to create an advanced society.
Archaeologist can not prove how those statues, boxes etc.....were made using the tools they claim they had at the time
But they can show strong and convincing evidence who made them and when.
We can not make them by hand now using those tools.
Says who?
It clearly shows that you have NO idea how a circler saw works or anything to do with engineering What was your drag saw made of? Do you even know how soft copper is? Cutting granite with a copper saw at 42mm a minute, you are dreaming.
This is not an argument. It is just personal incredulity. You can't believe it, so you think no one else should believe it.
PROVE it, show a video of anyone doing it by hand How about you make a stone vase as good by hand (I'll wait)
It's not up to me to prove they could be made. Ben is the one with the new claims. The ball is in his court.
All we know for certain is that even today we would struggle with our advance power tools, equipment, lasers and materials to make some items, that's if we can make them at all.
How do you know that? Because Ben told you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bozo5632 We've gotten off track somewhat. We were talking about the origin of the Jesus story and how much of it is original. The subsequent development and expansion of that story is another matter. When I said the Gnostics were post-Christianity, I clearly could not have meant after Christianity, because Christianity still exists. I meant after Christianity started, that is, after the stories about Jesus were already being told. So these original stories could not have been influenced by Gnosticism. The later stories could have, but that's another matter.
On your other points, you appear to be pivoting, making it impossible for me to engage with you. For example, first you say the story of John the Baptist cannot be historical, and now you say John was almost certainly historical. I don't know what to do with that. Also you said that MacDonald argues that parts of Mark copy the structure of Homer, and then when I say that's not the same as content, you say "it's directly adapted," suggesting it is content. Is it structure or content or both? Why is it that most people, when they read the Gospels, have never thought of Homer, even people who have read Homer? Why did MacDonald need to point it out?
As for your last comment, if common motifs are enough to establish the unoriginality of stories, then there hasn't been an original story written by anyone in thousands of years. Maybe you believe that, and that's fine - you would have a point. You could say there are no original songs either. But that is not usually how people determine originality. Their standard is a bit less strict.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TangieTown81 Look, you appear to be under some common misconceptions when it comes to polishing granite and the commercial tools promoted by retailers to sell a product that claims the capability to "re-polish."
How so? The demonstrations are not from retailers.
I encourage you to examine the disconnect between a literal definition of re-polish and the commercialized definition of the term re-polish.
I encourage you to try it yourself.
Using sand and blocks, you can absolutely polish granite to a honed finish...These typically will present a reading of 6 microns or higher.
Sorry, but I, and most people here, are not simply going to take your word for it. You'll need to prove it. But since the more one polishes, the smoother a surface gets, you seem to be referring to when a person decides to stop polishing more than what the tool is capable of.
To polish granite to the point of between 2 and 3 microns is simply not possible by hand.
If you are talking about consistently across the entire surface, you may be right. But since BAM's measurements are not comprehensive and largely cherry-picked, they have no demonstrated a smoothness of 2-3 microns across the entire surface of an object. You seem to be arguing that it is impossible for hand polishing to achieve 2-3 microns smoothness anywhere on the object, and even accidentally in some spots cannot be achieved by hand, meaning that it is completely out of range . I think that is baloney.
I feel your sarcastic tone to be unduly arrogant.
Sarcasm is not a tone. It is the use of irony.
In fact, the only evidence provided is the scientifically measured precision tool, which demonstrates the smoothness of the Serapeum boxes to be consistently between 2 and 3 microns.
Maybe you have access to figures not provided in the BAM video. Would you like to share them?
So, with all sincerity, provide the process or explanation of the process which will result in smoothness to between 2 and 3 microns so that I may conduct my own reproducible experiment to verify the methodology and results or point me to a reference that has said information.
I already did. It is the same process SGD used.
Lastly, let me just say that I find it hilarious that your big "gotcha" in the argument over whether the dynastic Egyptians made the Serapeum sarcophagi is that one of them is too smooth in some spots. Never mind the documentation or the clear imperfections on all of the sarcophagi. This one spot is just too smooth!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@musemotif Rajaram is not a historian. Venketachelum died over 60 years ago and disagreed with the historians of his time. Majumdar and Chakrabarti agree with Romila Thapar about most things, and where they do not, they disagree not only with Thapar but pretty much everyone else.
And if by "traditional point of view," you mean following religious texts instead of the historical method, then I am glad Thapar does not follow it. No historian should. Thapar does not, and never has, discounted the Indian way of keeping records. I have read Thapar's work. You clearly have not.
The rest of the stuff you write is just what you read in a right-wing internet article. When you say things like "she has no knowledge of Indian texts," you are spouting nonsense. Let me explain something to you: every historian is a specialist. But this is not a problem, because historians collaborate with other specialists. This is why Thapar, who knows basic Sanskrit, nevertheless consults with Sanskritologists and does not need to be a Sanskritologist herself. She can be a historian. It's called "division of labor." Everyone works together.
You speak of following historians as if it is some kind of fan club. Non-historians should not choose someone based on their ideology and then follow them. If you want to get history right, you need to follow the consensus of historical scholarship. See my video on the subject here: https://youtu.be/ytltvDRPErY Thapar reliably teaches the consensus in her book, and that is why I happily recommend it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@algernoncalydon3430 There were no ad hominems in my comment. I am telling you what your comment that "some are more intelligent than others" in a genetic context sounded like. You are welcome to clarify.
Similarities, Like being a god of resurrection, a virgin birth, purification after sin via baptism, wine and bread in the stories of Jesus, the Eucharist, confirmation, initiation into the mysteries of Dionysus, taking the sacrament, for a few.
You are bringing up elements I debunked in the video. As for the other stuff, they are part of practice, not a part of the Jesus story.
If the Hysos were Indo-europeans then we do know enough about the Indo-europeans to know the similarities.
Different Indo-Europeans have different stories. And stories are not inherited genetically. They have to be passed on orally or in writing.
if history is reduced to facts that are certain, then it's a very constrained pursuit
History is a study of probabilities. Some things are more likely than others, depending on the evidence. History is not simply an exercise in imagination.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nomdeguerre4249 I do expect some good faith. "Some" is indeed an unspecified amount, BUT it is an amount that indicates a minority.
You're being pedantic. That isn't good faith. The image of exactly how much is SHOWN ON SCREEN.
Those linguists who engage in this Indo-European philological field may have a consensus of this reconstructed PIE, BUT linguists DO NOT have a consensus view that the very idea of reconstructed proto-languages or "paleo linguistics" (sounds scientific, doesn't it) is even meritorious.
That is not the same as saying proto-languages didn't exist. We are not discussing the exact form of PIE. We are discussing the existence of PIE.
You seem to be fine with me rejecting the Out of India idea, but become quite defensive when I point out flaws with Indo-Aryan Migration.
Telling you why your arguments are weak is not defensiveness. You are the one who can't seem to admit a mistake.
If you want to teach, present all the ideas, and all the data, and point out the pros and cons of those ideas.
I do that only if there is a significant controversy in the field. Every fringe theory does not merit equal treatment, or even any treatment.
If you start with a conclusion you can always rationalize anything.
I am not the one who has drawn conclusions. The worldwide community of linguistic historians has.
it's very odd that when it comes to major substantive issues all you can say is, "So far none of these evidences have held up to scrutiny."
They aren't major, and they aren't substantive.
1
-
@nomdeguerre4249 I'm asking you for at least the third time to please explain who these people are you claim came from South East Asia and mixed with the "primary ancestral group" of the IVC.
It is not my claim. It's in the study. Go read it. Sheesh.
This will underscore your miscomprehension of this paper and give some context to how pedantic you claim I'm being. Putting up an image from a paper and not explaining it correctly is exactly what it means to miscomprehend.
Did you, or did you not, watch my full presentation on the genetics? If you did not, you are wasting my time telling me to write everything out for you.
With respect to the Iranian portion of this mistake, you initially responded that you "said it as I say it" and now claim that it was "not a statement about level of contribution". Perhaps you can reconcile these conflicting defenses with the idea of good faith.
You're going to have to be clearer what you are referring to when you say I said "said it as I say it." Our conversation has been long, and I don't remember the context. I don't understand how it is supposed to be a contradiction of the other statement.
What weak arguments have I actually presented? What mistakes have I made?
Go back and read the conversation. I pointed out each and every one. Don't make me write it all out again. I'm a busy guy, you know.
If the reconstruction can't be trusted, how can one even trust one form over another?? Doesn't basic logic tell you that the form of PIE obviously matters because it impacts the nature of the hypothesized dispersion??
It is possible to trace languages back to a presumed ancestor without being able to fully reconstruct the ancestor language. PIE can be partially reconstructed (individual words, etc.), but there are gaps in our knowledge. Anyway, you are the one who made the claim that "linguists DO NOT have a consensus view that the very idea of reconstructed proto-languages or "paleo linguistics" is even meritorious." You never backed it up. But I took you at your word, including your use of the word "meritorious," which is not a scientific term, but a value judgment.
I can tolerate a middle school or even a high school teacher simply teaching the curriculum set from above and not being able to critically evaluate the information they are teaching. But, it's downright shameful when someone with a doctorate can't do so, and can only dismiss evidence and logic that is counter to the conclusion he teaches as "fringe theory" or worse, to just say something is consensus but be unable to defend it.
I don't have a doctorate in linguistics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WuWuWuTangTangTang you would have to be blind to not see that "science" has been massively corrupted by politics. Has been for a long time. Just look at the virus ie HCQ, Ivermectin, cloth masks, etc. Then you have cigarettes, sugar, and fats. I'm not bashing science at all, just the long history of corruption within it.
You aren't thinking this all the way through. First of all, if you found out that members of any group of people did not something wrong, would you conclude that the entire group is bad? Second, the reason why you even know that any of the former conclusions were wrong is because of science itself.
If one "race" did rule the world, not saying that is the case at all, it does not mean they are "superior", that is projection.
You are right. That alone would not be enough. But what if the person saying that also suggested that their rulership civilized the people they ruled over?
Then you have cognitive dissonance. I have to imagine that sets in pretty hard for someone who paid six figures for an education only to learn it was politicized lies
Education doesn't tell you what to think. It tells you how to figure it out.
Basically, what I'm saying is please keep an open mind about EVERYTHING.
I do. I update my thinking constantly.
1
-
@WuWuWuTangTangTang Just pointing out that just because something is "accepted science" doesn't mean it's true; and is often motivated by ego, money, and/or politics.
I understand, but science is not established by one or two studies. If it has become "accepted," that means it has passed peer-review, which means scientists from other institutions and countries have scrutinized it and have come to the same conclusion.
Considering the topic of race has become hyper-politicized, I wouldn't be surprised one iota to learn politics have "flavored" the "science"
I wouldn't be surprised if Sepehr's position is politicized. It can go both ways. Anyway, a change in terminology is usually made because the old word just doesn't fit anymore, as new information comes in. So, for example, the word Aryan cannot be applied to all Indo-Europeans anymore, because it has become clear the word was only used among one subsection of Indo-Europeans.
Define civilized. If this "race" had taken over unadvanced peoples, it would only make sense that their culture, techniques, and traditions that weren't guarded would spread as well.
Isn't the word "advanced" just as loaded as the term "civilized"?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vyramdrago8217 We did not redefine the meter because of a realization it doesn't accurately correspond to the Earth's size.
Then explain to us all why the meter went from being defined as "one ten-millionth of the length of a great circle quadrant along the Earth's meridian through Paris, that is the distance from the equator to the north pole along that quadrant" to "the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second."
You wouldn't have the faintest clue as a historian about the details of this process had I not just laid it out for you, so no, you are not qualified to retell the history of it.
lol Yeah, what would a historian know about history?
Also, your response to "go see my video" on the stones of Baalbeck indicate you don't have an answer...
lol Yeah, because I would prefer to write out in a comment everything I already said in the video.
Having watched a number of your videos, I find you to be il-informed of the fine details, presumpively dismissive of those that don't agree with your own world view, and a lack of willingness to keep an open mind.
What fine details are you referring to?
1
-
@vyramdrago8217 I already explained why the meter was redefined, but let me be more clear. Science needed a universally accepted and very precise measurement that everyone uses and agrees on.
Yes, and since the measurement of the earth was incorrect, this was not suitable.
Your original statement was that the meter has not changed since its inception in the 1600s, and my simple response was that it has indeed changed. That change to which I was referring happened in relatively modern times, once we had the technological ability to measure the vibrational characteristics of atoms (hence the atomic clock).
This makes zero sense. You are making the assumption that measuring the vibrational characteristics of atoms was always the intention. Nobody in the 1700s said, "Hey, we can't measure the vibrational characteristics of atoms yet, so let's just measure the earth instead." And you have not addressed the elephant in the room: the current standard for the meter matches the length of the original meter. It is more precise, yes. But it matches.
I say a historian is not qualified to tell the history of this particular aspect of the meter because, as a history major in college, you would not have been exposed to the physics involved or the specific need for accuracy in measurement that was the impetus for the redefining of the meter that took place.
I am not disputing the need for more accuracy. You are throwing a red herring at me. The fact is we are discussing the history of the meter, not the science of the meter. And just because I did not study the history of the meter in school, that doesn't mean my education stopped. So stop with the fallacious argument from authority.
If you look at the scoop marks in the bedrock at some of these quaries - they tell of a method of stone removal being much different than the proposed methods of Egyptologists. They are curved (concave) and rather uniform surfaces which would indicate a tool that sliced through this rock as if it were soft clay and someone "spooned" it out.
They are not uniform. They are all different sizes. And I see no evidence of slicing. Yes, the average person might think they look like they were scooped out with an ice cream scooper. But I am surprised that someone with your knowledge would conclude that there is only one possible way such marks could be made.
They are not the product of someone chiseling away at the rock, grinding out with copper tools and sand as an abrasive. This was done with something that could slice through the rock in one single motion!
Your mind is clearly made up. You do apparently see only one possible way, and it is a way that no one has ever seen done in all of human history. Yet you think this somehow is the most reasonable conclusion. You also seem to be completely unaware of the fact that no one says they were done with chisels or copper tools. And you don't seem to know about the experiments that have been done. I suggest you take a look at my Unfinished Obelisk video.
It is difficult to imagine what technology could have been employed to create these grooves, but none of the methods currently proposed by mainstream archeologist are able to recreate them.
Someone who has no idea what mainstream archaeologists say cannot make such a judgment.
Recently it has been discovered that intricate patterns of stones, all fit together like a jigsaw puzzle, are not exclusive to one site in one part of the world.
And yet the methods, materials, and age are all very different.
I hope you will take a more careful look at the evidence because it is screaming to us that the ancient past is much different than what we have been led to believe.
All I do is look at the evidence, and none of the arguments you are using I haven't heard many times before. But they are weak arguments.
Our governments have known for decades, suppressed it, and it is finally coming to light.
When you have evidence that this happened, please share it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ let me answer these questions one by one
I only asked one question.
firstly there is no evidence of indra in central Asia because indra the chief diety of Aryans were formed in sapt sindhu area and it not that it developed around the time of rigveda the time when indus people were into agriculture and the rain and important factor for crops that how indra myth occurs and we know in central Asia crop production at that time was next to impossible due to its wether
Since no one says that Indra was invented in Central Asia, this point is irrelevant. I don't even know why you are talking about it.
...and in the 7th mandala it clearly states that rigvedic clans were parsua and alina as these clans are mentioned and tell me that parsua are not persia and alina become hellenic peoples of Greece
This is just an interpretation. Parsu and Parsa sound similar, but this could be a coincidence. And no linguist makes a connection between Alina and the Greeks. The earliest evidence of the Greek language is between 1450 and 1350 BCE. So when you say that the Rigveda says these things, this is not true. Only your interpretation of the Rigveda says these things. More importantly, I asked you about "many European countries," and Syria, and Armenia, not the Persians and the Greeks. So will you answer the question or not?
there must have been words found in prakrit that are not Sanskrit but all we found is just distorted Sanskrit words not any other language.
Take that up with the linguists. I will defer to the consensus of the experts, rather than believe some random person on the internet.
and you are telling me that some nomadic hunter gatherers wrote vedas wrote upanishad which till this date have grate amount of philosophy
I never said any such thing. Nor did any other historian. Did you watch the video, or didn't you?
and you know language doesn't changed in a period of 100 or 200 years
You're joking, right?
but we saw the transition of Sanskrit in rigveda to sam to atharv to yajur all these Vedic represent a lot of variation in Sanskrit from each other and scientists says all these works are done in around 500 to 700 years its impossible because language cannot evolve that fast
You are mistaken. Look at English from 500-700 years ago.
you know linguistic is never a hard evidence
We go with what makes the most sense.
dna study shows that r2 haplogroup which is brother of r1 haplogroup which is said to be Aryans dna have origin in Orissa and its scientific fact and r1 and r2 haplogroup splitting period is around 8000 to 10000 bc old which is 6000 years before so called Aryans migration does this not make logic to you
Who said r1 and r2 were always Indo-Aryan? Nobody.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Egyptologist777 we are discussing the above video for which you didn’t present any evidence and still haven’t which in effect means you have no case.
Not only did I provide evidence, I listed the references below the video. Check anything you want. If you think something is missing, let me know what it is, and I will provide it for you.
Caucasians ie Caucasoids do, in fact exist, are a valid biological division of mankind which can be demonstrated genetically and anthropologically despite you recognizing it or not.
Oh, you want to focus on a side point of the video? Fine. The categorizations that anthropologists use are not decided by me. It has nothing to do with me. Take it up with them. My custom is to use up-to-date terminology. If you prefer the old ways, so be it. But don't try to tell me that I should also use the old ways too. Try as hard as you might, you can't change the whole field of anthropology all by yourself.
Do you deny the observable distinction between Mon/goloi/ds and Ne/groi/ds too, or is it only Caucasoids you deny?
Of course not. We are talking about what the classifications anthropologists choose. This is the same thing as complaining that Pluto is no longer considered a planet. Yes, I believe there is an observable distinction between bodies in space. That has nothing to do with whether Pluto is classified as a planet. Scientists can categorize things however they want. They can classify Pluto as a jiggerythingamabob if they want to. You don't like it? Too bad. You have no say.
You appear to argue for a so-called black Egypt in your website power point presentation based off an antiquated misquote.
No, I don't.
It curious as to why you’re so accepting of that but in denial of Caucasians.
You still don't get it. It's not about who exists. It's about how they are categorized.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@D369_ You keep trying to stuff these concepts into the known timelines and accepted theories of history. And if they don’t fit, they can’t be true. Perhaps, the Stone Age wasn’t as un-technological as the “known” version of history says it is.
You're criticizing me for using the accepted name for the time period. We're at the beginning of the video, and no one has shown the Stone Age was not the Stone Age yet. Considering the fact that only stone technology has so far been found for that time period, my use of the term is justified and completely normal.
they’re saying it’s clearly not accurate when it comes to the evidence presented on unchartedx among a number of other channels and by other professionals of varying fields.
And I am saying it clearly IS accurate. You can disagree with me if you want to, but you can't say you wanted to hear me out when you turn off the video simply because I express my opinion.
Also, leaving an open question doesn’t ideas aren’t formulated. It means they’re formulated to a point and instead of claiming to know the end result, it’s left open until the riddle is solved.
When the open question is the main question, then yes, it is unformulated. He claims to have an alternative hypothesis to the mainstream interpretation that is superior. He has a time period for it, he has descriptions of their technology, but he doesn't know what it was. That is an incomplete hypothesis that no one can get on board with, because it is half-baked.
They simply don’t connect dots that have no business being connected, such as crude inscriptions on pristinely shaped and polished stonework leading to attributions being made to those mentioned in the inscriptions.
What about all the pristine inscriptions on pristinely shaped and polished stonework? This is an example of not looking at all the evidence. Also, this is addressed later in the video that you don't want to watch.
1
-
@D369_ u can’t use mainstream timelines for refuting something that exists outside said timeline.
I'm not. It was a description, not a refutation.
What matters here is NOT trying to force every piece of ancient tech and knowledge into the last 5k - 10k years, which is what you’re attempting to do,
No. The tech is dated by scientific methods, and that is how we know how old it is.
and NOT slandering folks try8ng to uncover the truth when all u do is follow the accepted narrative when it makes no logical sense when it comes to the megalithic monuments across the globe.
I never have slandered anyone, and it is your narrative that doesn't make logical sense, which is why I don't believe it.
There’s a clear, basically identical, method of construction used globally.
No, there is not.
Furthermore, those constructions are all specifically built atop lay lines of the planet’s energy,
Not true.
are made of similar or same stone,
They used the stone that was available near them. Nothing was imported.
are aligned with constellations,
So? Do you think ancient people couldn't see stars?
and have surfaces that have had LiDAR-scans and measurements done on them that reveal all kinds of maths and geometries,
The math and geometries known to the ancients, yes.
can point to each other by calculating latitude/longitude using measurements from the structures, etc.
Not true. That's just people playing number games. Watch this video: https://youtu.be/qdpKTe-m7Jw
there’s literally just wayyy too much that the timelines can’t explain about these structures and technologies using the accepted historical record.
Way too much? I haven't seen one thing yet.
We don’t know who built them.
Yes, we do.
In your accepted timelines, where’s the disasters to account for the erosion of the sphinx enclosure?
There is no evidence for a disaster on the Sphinx enclosure.
Why did everyone around the world just stop building magnificent, stone machines that tap into the electromagnetic energy of the planet?
There were no such machines.
The accepted timeline doesn’t even consider the ppl who have elongated skulls and their impact in the world during their time.
Yes, it does.
You have much to learn, but if you stick around, there is plenty of good information here that will set you in the right direction.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@abhishekbhawsar4438 So first of all, you were reviewing AC's video on AIT which he made for Indian audience or people interested in Indology.
I am interested in Indology.
Your review of his video is critique of his view on AIT, but first understand his target audience.
I understand it well enough.
In US, with 2 party system only 2 views are allowed. But in India where you can't even count numbers of parties using both hands, multiple views/ideologies are allowed. So one needs to highlight (sometimes invent) local issues to consolidated voters.
More than 2 views are allowed in the US. And the subject of Abhijit's video is history, not voting. Are you defending the idea of inventing an issue to consolidate voters? In this case, he is inventing history. Am I, a historian, not allowed to comment on this?
Aryan Invasion [yes, not migration] theory, is still pushed in India by Political Parties (mostly in southern part) to gain votes and by MAINSTREAM historians in political center (northern states, NCR) to maintain the status that "Indigenous peoples (today's VanVasi, lower cast) are good but Aryans (today's upper cast) were outsiders & invaded your land, hence bad people. Mughals and Britishers were your savior that liberated you from Aryans".
That's unfortunate. But it doesn't change the main point of this video. (I also hear that people like to say inaccuracies about history in order to sow hatred of Muslims and Christians. Do you know of any such people?)
Due to which, peoples live Abhijit has to push back such lies.
With more lies?
So how can you say that this theory is already debunked and no one uses this anymore?
I said that scholars do not accept it anymore, and that it is not taught in universities.
I have a video on the Saraswati River coming.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrHunterseeker If it isn't the same man, (it obviously is) then why is he depicted with a beard, with muscular legs and arms, with wristwatches (or bracelets), with handbags (or buckets), and almost always with a pine cone.
That depiction occurs only in Assyria.
The megalithic polygonal engineering is found in every one of these ruins all over the world.
Every one? No. Polygonal masonry is seen less around the world than standard masonry. And everywhere it occurs it is different.
The same megalithic architecture with the huge blocks bigger than mcmansions being set into walls, with multiple edges to lock them in place, without any mortar, can be found in walls in Peru- Machu Piccu, Egypt
All in very different styles. Standard masonry is more similar around the world than polygonal masonry is.
It most definitely is the same. Saying it isn't, when you can pull up pictures of it and video, to see for yourself, just shows you don't know what you are talking about. It's like you are just disagreeing to be disagreeing.
I was going to say that about you. Since the differences are obvious even to a child, I can't understand how anyone could possibly think they were the same. Seriously. It's surprising.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
after "the first cities don't appear...until after 6,000 years ago." I hope that was just ignorance and not deception, because Gobekli Tepe.
Gobekli Tepe is not a city.
5:00 He doesn't need to. The fact that they exist is the beginning of the conversation.
The conversation started long before you were born. Until Ben or someone else provides a better explanation, we go with the best one we have.
All he's saying is "there's no record from the Egyptians indicating they even possessed the ability to make these artefacts."
And all I am saying is yes, there is.
You're not providing any explanation of which civilization created them either.
Egypt.
critique his pragmatics rather than his semantics.
I do. But since you watched only 10 minutes of a 3 1/2 hour video, you wouldn't know that.
6:07 Sure. A figurine would be questionable. But I doubt someone milled a 30 ton piece of granite and drug it into a known ancient query in the middle of the night, then just left it there, allowing Egyptologists to just ignore it as they do with the rest of the "query junk."
You missed the point. The point is that I am wondering how he dates objects. He never says.
You're using misdirection and reduction to appear to address his claims without actually doing so. You want to play games with language? Make sure you actually understand the techniques. Seem like you're not educated enough in linguistics to realize that you're using some very basic propaganda techniques. Or you're just lazy. I have not stake in UnchartedX's claims, but your arguments are flawed AND cleverly concealed. That hints at deception.
Unless you provide some actual examples, these are hollow accusations.
8:03 sigh Case in point. Different uses of "advanced" because different artifacts have different levels of difficulty.
And you think that I should just have assumed that is what he meant? He never says any such thing. And he speaks of an "advanced" civilization, so which difficulty level was that? Come on now.
Bordering on ironic; the artifact in the frame on which you've paused to make your argument, is one of a few that can't even be replicated today.
Says who? What a load of baloney.
Most of the discussion around it is "why was it made?" because that's (although difficult) an easier question to answer then the one being begged: HOW was it made.
You know what is also an easier question? WHO made it.
but there's no discussion of it from Egyptian documents AT ALL.
You do realize that 99.9% of Egyptian writings have not survived, right?
True. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But it also doesn't proof they did make them.
The default position is that objects found in a people's land were made by that people, unless there is evidence to indicate otherwise.
1
-
@occamsrazor1285 There you go; playing word games again. You get to say what you said is technically correct (and it was), but it's also misleading.
No, you are the one playing games. Language is how we communicate. If I say something, or you say something, and the other person doesn't understand, there can be no information passed from one person to another. I need to know what you mean, and you need to know what I mean. The original statement was made by archaeologists. They are the ones who get to decide what they mean when they say something. Not Ben. Not you. You don't get to change the meaning of their words. I am simply informing you what they mean. Now you know.
You DID say city (and conveniently that allows you to slice Gobekli Tepe right out of the conversation).
A conversation about cities? Yes. So what?
And you worded it to allow a listener to infer that there was nothing earlier (ie semantics. The meaning of the sentence).
Yes, no cities earlier. But everyone knows that cities are preceded by smaller settlements. They don't just appear out of nowhere.
Ben is hypothesizing there is another explanation because the current one doesn't explain everything.
And I am analyzing his hypothesis.
The point of his video isn't "therefore 12,000 high-tech civilization."
Oh, he definitely advocates for a 12,000 or more year-old civilization. No doubt about it.
Unfortunately, your video is hard to watch because of the word games you like to play.
So far you have only mentioned one about cities, about which I am correct and for which there are no games.
You're using circular reasoning, too, I might add. You postulated that these items don't date back to the same period as the rest, citing the possibility of some unscrupulous individual planting them, and then challenge Ben to prove they are from a different time period.
That was an illustration to show that someone can't just date a surface-level object by where it is found. It's an important point. There is nothing circular about the point.
So no, I don't think you're being intentionally deception, but I did suggested that because I wanted to give you an "out." A way to recognize the mistake and correct while saving face. But looks like I have to just point out your ignorance now.
What mistake?
There's only one way "advanced" can be interpreted and be applicable in all cases: more advanced than for what we give them credit. Could have been the Ancient Egyptians.
You may think it was the Egyptians, but he does not. I am perfectly open to the idea that the Egyptians could have had better tech than is generally thought. But I do not think they had giant circular power saws, as Ben does.
Point is the current narrative doesn't explain it.
You can say this all you want, but until you provide evidence to back up this statement, how can anyone believe it?
The narrative is "the Egyptians used rock hammers and bronze chisels to make all the stone works you see."
That is a strawman.
Well, there's obvious machining marks on a number of the monoliths that couldn't have been made by a chisel.
Did you watch the video? It doesn't seem like you did, because nowhere in it do I argue that the marks Ben presents were made by chisels.
Even a steel chisel would be absurd, let alone a bronze one.
Wait. This is a side point, but why would a steel chisel be absurd? Steel chisels have been used throughout history on hard stone.
That makes sense on the surface. But that's not the argument. We're well passed that now. The question now is "ok, how?"
If it's not the argument, then why is Ben using the HOW question to determine the answer to the WHO question? Archaeologists readily admit when they don't know how something was done. The problem with pseudoarchaeologists is that they claim that the entire timeline of history should be changed because archaeologists don't know exactly how it was done. That is not only an overcorrection, but a conceit.
so the Ancient Egyptians made it" except in the case of machining marks, where YOU (you specifically) then claimed that those artifacts were placed there by frauds.
I never said any such thing. If you watched the video, you would know that.
A lot of your last comment was just you repeating the claim that the evidence doesn't fit the narrative. Ben tried to show that the evidence doesn't fit the narrative, and he showed nothing of the kind. Neither have you. So either show some evidence or stop repeating claims you can't back up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MartinScharfe You don't want to know creation stories from around the world because they are secondary sources? That's ridicoulous.
I do want to know the stories. But the further removed a story is from the events described, the less reliable it is as a historical source. This is something that all historians recognize, not just me.
If engineers don't have a primary source, they are trying to verify secondary sources. Your colleagues do that, too.
I am not sure what you mean by "trying to verify," but creation stories are considered myth, not history, so historians would not try to verify them as history. They would study them, rather, to find out more about the people who wrote them.
For instance: Many creation stories talk about a big flood. If we compare the accounts, we'll find out where it happened. And when. Don't you want to know?
I don't think most flood stories are in creation stories. They are in flood stories. And how do you know these accounts are all talking about the same flood? They all are placed in different times. Many are not placed in a time at all.
Professor, in your logic the Ilias is a secondary account, because it's not written by Odysseus. But Schliemann found Troja.
The Iliad is not a creation story, nor is it a myth. It is a legend. Legends are more likely to contain some history. But surely you realize that the Iliad has much in it that is false too. Right?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NileshOak I need to make a point of clarification. I never said that I used the academic consensus as my basis of critiquing your claims. And my video makes that very clear, because my critique of your book does not make any appeals to the academic consensus. So imagine my surprise to hear you jump to this conclusion. I mentioned the academic consensus briefly in the beginning as a point of comparison, but nothing more. I also mention that I know that some assumptions would be controversial, which I would know only if I knew mainstream history. But my criticism was based on reason, not on what others have said. Everything you need to know to rebut it is in the video.
When I told Martin that I read the work of Indian historians and archaeologists, that was in response to his implication that I do not. He implied that I only know what Europeans think. And then you jumped in with your question. Martin is the one who made the distinction between Europeans and Indians on this subject.
There are 130+ different claims for the year of the Mahabharata war ranging from 400 CE to 7300 BCE. I have studied the majority of them. If you are referring to this as academic consensus, then I know it. Otherwise, I do not know what the academic/scholarly consensus is.
My apologies. I assumed you knew the difference between the mainstream academic view and the view of others. But it appears you are lumping everyone together. So I will be clearer: The people who represent the academic point of view would be trained experts in the field (historians, archaeologists, linguists, and geneticists) who date the Mahabharata in harmony with findings in all those fields. Those who represent the views outside of the mainstream academic consensus would be the opinions of non-experts, such as those who date the text in contradiction to the findings in those fields.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@philatkins5081 One actually said the precision was achieved using the right size of stone at the right place.
Precision where? On the length of the pyramid's sides?
Give me a list of structures you have helped built. I'll give you mine, which you can verify easily. Then we'll talk more about building actual structures.
How many pyramids have you built? Same as me. But of course, that isn't even relevant, because I am not giving you any of my personal theories. I am giving the assessment of archaeologists, scientists, engineers, and stone masons.
The concavity is most likely a result of hydrostatity.
Do you mean hydrostatics? My guess is you don't know what you're talking about. But if you want to supply a scientific paper written by an expert on hydrostatics explaining the process on the Great Pyramid, please do. As for me, I provided a paper below the video on how the concavity was likely formed. It was the result of errors in construction.
There were actually videos years ago. I can no longer find them. On one, it's simply hilarious in the end because they cannot put in place one piece of stone block, they simply used a crane.
Then clearly it wasn't a serious experiment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
the antiquity of Vedas in within the Vedas itself! Why ignore pole star astronomical observations, possible ONLY from south India tip or mountain in South India, dating to 28 Kya, or geogical desicriptions true variously 15 Kya, 20 Kya and even 48 Kya!
Why ignore it? Because this is not accepted by experts on the Vedas. And for good reason. These "observations" are based on interpretations of the texts that are completely subjective.
Hindu-ism as we recognise today is primarily based/defined by Upanishads, Puranas, and Itihasas (Ramayana & Mahabharata/Gita).
This contradicts your earlier statement that Hinduism is as old as the Vedas.
Here too, Ramayana has astronomical references to 9,000 BCE, Mahabharata to 3162 BCE (Death of Lord Krishna).
Again, this is based on subjective interpretations of the text.
Compare it with the western thrological belief that the world was created around 3,100 BCE!
What are you talking about??? Maybe you should study history before you make outlandish claims like this.
That's why we Indians disagree with the simplistic view of Sanskrit beign brought INTO India.
Nobody says that Sanskrit was brought into India.
now this migration theory upholding the origin of Sanskrit will also be debunked by genetic analysis that supports OUT of India migration!
Are you a prophet?
This Linguistic migration INTO India argument hinges on two premises: (a) TIme Scale - 2,000 BCE. Which is not supprted by Vedas, nor Itihasas.
If all you have are these astronomical claims, I am disappointed. I hope you can come up with something better.
Indian Civilization is a lot older than the Greek or Romans; (b) Western superiority narrative - NOT Hindu nationalism.
Greek and Roman civilizations both came after 2000 BCE. So I don't know what you are talking about. You also seem to be under the mistaken impression that "superiority" is determined by age.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hyperzchannel8972 Migration doesn't mean that the Sanatani (Hindu) culture is brought by the migartors.
Correct. Hindu culture was created gradually in India over time. But the migrators did bring their language into India, and that language would develop into Sanskrit.
Why don't we find Hard evidence of So called Aryans like Literature in their alleged native place, where are the proof of ppl following Aryan culture in their alleged native places.
Just a reminder that "Aryan" is short for Indo-Aryan, a language family. And yes, you are right that there is no evidence of Indo-Aryan language far to the north. There isn't supposed to be. The linguistic evidence is that Indo-Aryan languages came from earlier Indo-Iranian language, which came from a Proto-Indo-European language.
How is it possible that those who has nothing in Europe, suddenly bcm so advance as soon as they visited India and bcm Experts in Astronomy, Metallurgy, wrote down such a Rich Literature, build sophisticated architecture (which takes ages to learn) all of this within very short span of time , out of nowhere.
It wasn't a short span of time.
P.S. I have no investment in any narrative. I just follow the evidence, and when new evidence comes to light, I revise my views.
1
-
Unfortunately, your narrative is based on a mix of old colonial research, secondary literature based on colonial research mixed with new research.
History is based on evidence, not on authority. Historians regularly fact check every conclusion that has ever been drawn about history to make sure it holds up.
Let me now tell you how "Hindu nationalists" assert a counter narrative - written historical records that date back 12-15kYa. There are other records that date back 50-100 kYa, and corroborated by changes in the botany, the zoology, climate, and geology of India over time.
Provide me with the names of the studies written by experts on this subject that provide the evidence for these claims. Professional historians or Sanskritologists, please. No amateurs.
What's more, I speak a "Dravidian" language (Malayalam), and it's almost the same as Sanskrit.
I am sure it has Sanskrit loan words, because of long-term exposure, but almost the same? No. If that were true, Malayalam would be classified as an Indo-Aryan language. Malayalam is more closely related to Tamil. Grammar is just as important in the classification of language as words, you know.
Even the reason why "Dravidian" is so classified is to facilitate study of script, not the language.
Let me know a linguistic study that draws this conclusion.
And "caste" is not an Indian concept at all. I leave it to you to figure the origins of "caste"!
See my video on varna.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
we must have lost material history, if you just look at how long modern humans have lived 200 to 300 hundred thousand years but the Sumerian cities being the first, 6000 years ago. Big gap in between.
A lot of people seem to know about stone age culture and the first cities, but very little about the material record in between. There is, in fact, quite a bit there that shows a gradual development. Cities did not just pop up out of nowhere. The archaeological record shows a development over time.
Mainly he’s saying what we are taught in school about the level of technology at the time of when these structures were made don’t appear to be consistent with the tools we believe they had.
That's what I am saying. The level of technology as seen in the material record for the Stone Age does not match up with the level of technology he says existed at the time.
They other key point is what you mentioned right at the start, if you drop something in a site, you don’t automatically assume it was dropped at time of construction but his examples focus on the materials in the structures rather than individual items, although when Pharaohs add there symbol onto structure and statues, even though there are clear quality differences of these makings.
He does focus on individual items. And I covered the point about differences in quality in the video.
And we do know the reuse of materials and Pharaohs adding there name…but we do confirm, very confidentiality one association.
We know when something was reused, because there is evidence of it being reused. There are traces of an original name underneath the new one.
Anyway I do love your videos and there have been some videos you do that makes me think harder and even changes my mind on some topics my only complaint is that you don’t do enough videos
They take time!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@whycantiremainanonymous8091 these statements then back up claims in textbooks about their approach being the consensus, the only "serious scientific" approach to the subject, the only stuff published in serious/reputable journals, etc.
So you think that, if a peer reviewer judges that a paper's scientific method is flawed, and the paper also happens to go against the consensus, then we should be suspicious of the peer reviewer?
Of course, other approaches have their own publications, but those are not "scientific", "serious" or "reputable enough, and therefore are outside the consensus, you see...
No, I am talking about hundreds of journals that are considered reputable. And the reputability is based on the fact that they use peer review. These journals publish articles all the time that challenge consensus.
1
-
@whycantiremainanonymous8091 When you have competing schools, in a discipline (and especially if there's some sort of politics going on in the background), you'll find reviewers routinely rejecting papers because they use a different approach.
If there are competing schools in a discipline, then there is no consensus. You seem to be talking about some kind of pocket consensuses. We're way off topic now. I clearly defined consensus as a supermajority.
When in addition (and that's normally the case) one of the competing schools used to have more sway as an orthodoxy in the field a couple of decades back, the "old guard" effectively has veto power against competitors. The competitors eventually find ways around it, set up new peer-reviewed journals or use other scholarly communication tools, but these have to earn their prestiege from scratch, and it takes decades.
Takes decades for what? To get higher circulation? That is irrelevant. When scholars study a subject and gather all the articles and books written on it, they don't sort according to how popular the article or book is. They read everything they can find. You're framing this as some kind of capitalist enterprise, rather than an intellectual pursuit. The competition is in the ideas. When historians write dissertations, they have to engage with ALL of the arguments. If they leave out uncomfortable ones, they will get called out for it.
If you read Paul Krugman's columns and posts regularly, you'll find a few very poignant descriptions of how, to this day, Keynesian economic analysis can't get published in top economics journals.
I can't comment on subjects I don't know about, but I would gather that economics is a sticky wicket, because it has a direct impact on policy. Is this true in other countries?
I've seen a similar dynamics play out in some areas of philosophy and linguistics, and have heard some stories about fields in physics.
I would have to see the evidence for this before commenting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
in your own words portrayed a negative image by saying "He is poisoning the well". That shows your own prejudice.
But he IS poisoning the well.
Without any indepth knowledge on colonial effects on India and indic culture you accused him of trying to get people to be disgusted by European influences. Well, if you really knew what European colonization did to native culture and people of India, Africa or any other part for that matter, you would be disgusted too.
I do know, and I am disgusted. But that fact has nothing to do with whether the Indo-Aryan migration really happened. So what was his purpose in bringing it up then?
As a historian, I assume you have heard that the history is written by the victors.
On a national level, yes. Not on a global level.
In the recent couple of centuries, west has been that victor. It's completely illogical to expect a conquerer to accept the conquered as the one more advanced in past or present.
History today is based on the evidence, which is analyzed by scholars from all around the world, including from India. The British do not unilaterally determine what happened in history.
Best way to deal with this is to go only by the evidence.
Exactly. And that is why Frawley's recounting of the horrors of colonialism is poisoning the well. It isn't going only by the evidence. Why are you reminding me to stick to the evidence and not reminding Frawley that?
Don't color vedas as just Hindu holy scriptures.
I didn't. I consider the Vedas to be historical documents from the time they were composed.
Frawley has actually studied these vedas in details.
So have lots of other people.
Just to give you an example, advance astronomy, metallurgy, ayurvedic and yoga is described in vedas. Study of gravity, planetary movements and detailed calculations are mentioned in vedas.
How does this pertain to the subject of this video?
Biggest hurdle is that all of it is in old sanskrit and very few remain who actually understand it.
That is why I defer to the consensus of experts in Sanskrit, as well the experts in ancient Indian history, ancient Indian archaeology, linguistic history, and genetics.
West has been continuously trying to adjust their "hypothesis" of Aryan invasion and no civilization in indic region prior to 1500 bce whenever any contrary archeological or vedic evidence is discovered.
Not merely the West. Everybody. Today is the age of global scholarship, which is what I follow. And if you know anything about history and science, you will know that it is supposed to be continually updating.
Recent archeological discovery in sinauli and dwarka have rattled the west on dating their "Aryan invasion theory".
There has been no archaeological discovery at Dwarka having anything to do with Indo-Aryan migration. The finds at Sinauli do not contradict it.
Plenty of Indian scientists have done evidence based research on history of Indian civilization but sadly it doesn't get much popularity and gets dismissed as biased.
Not by me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jaymzonion 1- Yes, I did - and the perspicacious individual (which I believe you to be) recognises that the primary misrepresentation is obviously that which follows, "Perhaps you could start with..."
But no misrepresentation was given in that sentence or any other. If you are going to reveal a misrepresentation, you would say, "You represented the opposing viewpoint as X, but it really is Y."
I can see why you're trying to pretend that you don't know who Lucian was or to what is being referenced.
Stop being coy and just state your views.
Likewise, I can understand why you don't want to address such amateur upstarts like Khaemweset, Nabonidus, Herodotus, Ciriaco de' Pizzicolli, John Leland, or even William Flinders Petrie (such an upstart that he created his own methodology because he disagreed with the "experts" of his day).
Why would I address those people? I have no idea how they apply, because you don't speak explicitly, only implicitly.
3- Your "job" as an Historian is vastly different from your "position" that amateurs asking the questions that encourage discovery are somehow harmful to the process of discovery.
That is not my position.
Explain to your audience how and why Historians throughout the ages have had to change officially accepted views and theories.
I have already explained this to my audience, but I will do it again for you. Since all of our views about what happened in the past is based on evidence, whenever new evidence is found, views and theories change. At any given time, various explanations of the evidence may exist, but the one that best fits the evidence overall usually becomes the predominant view. But all conclusions are tentative pending further evidence.
1
-
@jaymzonion Oh my, an "Historian" who doesn't know how the history of how their profession began and was codified applies to modern amateur explorers. How novel.
Still playing your games. Maybe you are afraid to state your views explicitly out of fear they will be immediately shot down? I don't know and don't care. When you have something to actually say, I will respond to it.
just like how the "expert authorities" disdained and dismissed the efforts and theories of those I listed as historical examples of amateur historians.
Five of the six people you mentioned lived before the modern historical or archaeological professions even existed, and the other was an expert authority himself.
I wonder if you've ever seen the videos of some of these amateur historians who have watched your videos and subsequently modified their arguments.
I can think of one off hand. And he is to be commended for his intellectual honesty. Most continue to grift.
Likewise, I have seen videos of people to whom your misrepresentation of their efforts has engendered a fight -AND-flight response, i.e., they know what you say about them is a lie and they are so offended by your misrepresentation that they flee from listening to your arguments.
Back to the imaginary misrepresentations again, which you are unable to name.
I'm not referring to the "aliens" and "lizard" people, but to those amateurs who actually do have degrees in the sciences, e.g., geology.
Still waiting to hear about a misrepresentation...
1
-
@jaymzonion if you can't accept that your first and primary misrepresentation is your contention that the amateurs of to-day have nothing in common, in their passion and efforts, to the amateurs of yesterday, then you will continue to alienate them
Ah, finally you give me something! (I don't think asking someone to back up their claims is "getting into the weeds.") I went back over the video to find the place where I said that amateurs of today have nothing in common with amateurs of yesterday, and it is nowhere to be found. I did say that arguments haven't changed in a long time, but that suggests the opposite.
You provide great information with well grounded, verifiable, and properly presented references for all, both the "grifters" and their audiences as well as your admirers (of whom I am one, even though I am disgusted by your and treatment of the efforts of the un- and ill-educated).
Under normal circumstances, I would appreciate this comment. But I still am very much in the dark about how I have mistreated anyone.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@andy15z22 how can they come up with a figure without carbon dating it?
Who are you talking about? Not any scientists, as far as I can tell. But people on the internet can come up with a figure easily. They can make it up. Are you aware that people make things up and post it on the internet all the time? And then other people read it and believe it, because they do not check the facts.
I know the Europeans hate (typical white man ego) and refuse to accept that once their colony could have such rich history, literature, science, metaphysics, mathematics, weaponry etc.
I have never had a colony, nor have any of my ancestors. And everything I have read about India from historians is how it is rich in history, literature, science, etc. You seem to be living in a different universe.
Go around the world u will see hinduism getting unearthed everywhere. Even as far as south america.
Hindus can be found all over the world. I don't know what your point is.
Anyways, u believe or not we dont need anyones certificate.
If you don't want to base your historical beliefs on physical evidence, you don't have to. You don't have to believe in science either. But as a historian, I must do so.
We are the only standing civilization on the planet and we know how old we are.
Who is "we"? I have had many people of India comment on my channel giving all kinds of different ages for Indian civilization. No one seems to agree. But many of them agree with historians.
The great war of mahabharat occurred 5500 years ago in India with exact dates and solar eclipse.
Please provide your evidence.
U know the Ram setu ( Adam's bridge) between India and sri lanka.
Geologists say it is a natural formation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nothing_in_the_woods I am blaming both governments and academic institutions. Funding comes through both of these avenues, and permission to dig does as well. Yes I am specifically saying that archaeological institutes around the world are choosing to not gather data on specific subjects.
I don't understand. There is not enough money to fund every single project, so naturally choices have to be made. Are you saying it's wrong for them to choose one project over another?
Locally, for example, the University of Vienna has done this repeatedly, and rebuked anyone from digging here, as they are involved in the permissions process.
Digging where?
I am also blaming the catholic church today, and many other religious institutes. Archaeology is the enemy of organized religion, especially if you go digging for the truth.
You originally blamed academics. Archaeologists are academics. So are they the enemy of organized religion or the enemy of the people?
When referring to similarities in ancient symbols, I am referring to books such as Genevieve von Petzinger's "32 Symbols". There are ancient connections being found and academically legitimized.
I have never heard of something called "academic legitimization," but it sounds like you are saying that experts have found connections between symbols found in various places that have similarities. What sort of connections?
Are you implying that the flood myth, for example, is just "common human experience", and that Noah's and Gilgamesh's stories have nothing to do with one another?
No, most scholars agree that there was a sharing of stories in the ancient Near East about a great flood.
That the similarities between the ancient pantheons (e.g. Krisna, Horus, Christ) are just common experience and not common heritage?
I did two videos on that:
https://youtu.be/xjB6dANFeEk
https://youtu.be/KdNZtduV2AY
1
-
@nothing_in_the_woods 1. I am not saying its wrong to make choices. I am saying that it is easier to get money and permission in following the herd, then it is to upset the commonality. A far-out hypothesis is less likely to be approved.
That's something you would have to demonstrate with evidence. You can imagine whatever you like, but unless you can show it to be so, it's just a supposition. Show us these far-out proposals that get turned down. I'll give you a more realistic scenario: such proposals don't exist. And that means the problem does not lie with the funders, as you suggest. It lies with the archaeologists making the proposals. You might say, "Well, they don't bother proposing it, because they know it won't get funded." That's circular reasoning. The fact is, there is no herd. And your scenario doesn't explain how we keep finding new things every year and have to revise history every year as a result. The reason why no such proposals are made is because there are no grounds to make them.
I am sure it was more difficult to get the original dig in Gobleki Tepe approved and funded, then it was to get the same for digs on the other similar sites in the area, due to precedent.
No it wasn't. Interesting that you say you're sure. What is this certainty based on?
All humans are subject to mistakes, and very importantly to corruption. There are excellent archaeologists out there, Klaus Schmidt, Steven Mithen as ones I can lift above the crowd from things I have read. But there are also the kind that are beholden to the expectations of their sponsors, either on religious grounds (as seen quite a bit in South America, Europe and the Middle East) or just on grounds of viewing profitability over knowledge (turning archaeological digs into tourist attractions e.g. Turkey or Egypt).
You don't know what you're talking about. Your imagination is running wild. Schmidt and Mithen are archaeologists like everyone else, and they would tell you what I am telling you. You suggestion of profitability makes no sense. Gobekli Tepe, which you claim was somehow against the grain (it wasn't), is a tourist attraction in Turkey. If the Great Pyramid turned out to be from a lost civilization, it would bring in more tourists and be more profitable than it is now.
Things become legitimized in academia through publishing and peer review. Not sure what it is you don't understand about that. Maybe the wording is confusing. I mean ideas entering the common acceptance of history by academia.
And you think that has happened with the 32 symbols?
So if scholars agree there was sharing, what exactly do they agree about here? When where the stories shared? Why is it not acceptable that they have a common ancestry, and not just a "lets meet up for an ancient beer and talk about our stories" type situation? How can you prove that they shared the stories, rather than shared the common ancestry of the story?
They can have a common ancestry. But we can't assume that the existing stories represent all the versions, so the common ancestor version is unknown. There also no doubt was cross-cultural sharing. There was both.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The sarcophagus could contain a radioactive material (as the evidence indicates it ONCE did).
What evidence?
The chamber would be filled with water to a certain level to control the rate of reaction. The pyramid containing lots of quartz could act like an oscillator stimulated by the high pressure steam shooting out into the grand gallery. There was once some stone "doors" or "valves" between the kings chamber and the grand gallery. This could control the flow rate. We use quartz today for timing like in clocks and in the device you're using to write your message. I could see it as a massive crystal oscillator.
I am not a scientist, but all that sounds highly suspect from a scientific point of view. I would love to hear a physicist assess what you just wrote. There is not much quartz in the pyramid. And where did these stone doors and valves go?
2. The erosion means there was flow of water either for a prolonged time or high velocity.
I don't think there is anything in the erosion that indicates high velocity.
Why would there be a flow of water at all? This narrows it down to a utilitarian use: water purification, power plant, etc. It was also built over an aquifer.
How do you know that? Has this aquifer ever been discovered?
3. It indicates power. Not necessarily nuclear though.
Copper does not indicate power. We are in the copper age. People were making tons of things out of copper, and none of it indicates power.
4. No, it's not the weight causing pressure, it's their strength to withstand pressure.
Yes, they are strong to withstand the pressure of the weight above them.
They are hidden in the structure in a way that shows a functional purpose (not for show). The way they are stacked is also an indicator.
How so?
5. Not nuclear specifically, but power plant, likely.
But still, what does resonance have to do with it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@morzineskiandmtb3896 Gobekli isn't massive? How much of the site has been excavated?
You mentioned massiveness in the context of building scale, did you not? I assume you are making an argument based on what has been found, rather than on what has not been found.
No your video doesn't explain the logistics, how stones of 800 tons were raised and fitted so precisely at such a height. Nor does it explain how this could have been done in reasonable time with the tools at hand. I'm not saying it wasn't done because clearly it was, your video just doesn't explain how.
None of the granite pillars weigh anywhere near 800 tons. Are you talking about the foundation stones? For that, you need to watch my other video: https://youtu.be/QUiNoAgijpc
Look up hyperdiffusionism if you don't understand. It was taught to me in the classics department ar King's college more than 20 years ago, so I'm sure you are aware of the theory and it's history.
I wasn't asking what the theory was. I was asking you to clarify your statement.
2.3 million blocks, not all limestone from the surrounding area, fitted so precisely in 20 years? Really? Do the maths.
I have. Many times for people in the comments of my videos. But you may be happy to know I am working on a collaboration video with another channel about how the Great Pyramid was constructed. Stay tuned!
And yes I was aware that it came from herodutos who was told it by the priests when he visited.
...who lived 2,000 years after the fact.
When you say the megaliths appear in one area, do you mean Europe?
Yes.
What about the ruins of Japan for example? Many sites from around the world date from the period circa 2000-4000 bce.
Which megalithic ruins of Japan are you referring to? I am not aware of any from that time period.
Have you looked at the work of Dr Martin Sweatman on precession?
Yes, I have done a video on his work: https://youtu.be/vUdJCVwqJNM
you said that we can't draw conclusions on silence, we do all of the time. If there are no records of Baalbek being built, it means that there are no records, until there are.
But you used the fact that none have been found to make the positive conclusion that none were written. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
You are the one drawing conclusions on silence by arguing that there may be records that are lost.
Saying there MAY have been records is reasonable, just as saying there MAY not have been records. But you did not say there MAY not have been records. You said the ruins were "never mentioned" in contemporary records. That is why I responded as I did.
your tone is one of sarcasm and mockery
I may mock a terrible idea from time to time (never a person), but I would be surprised if you found a single example of sarcasm in this video.
Explain the accuracy achieved in the descending corridor of the great pyramid. Given that a significant portion was dug directly into the bedrock and then almost perfectly aligned with the cut blocks. Where did the excavated rubble go? How did the workers achieve that in such a tight space?
That will be in my forthcoming video, mentioned above.
Where are the developmental phases of gobekli?
Sorry, my bad. There are three layers of development at GT, but the monoliths are from the oldest. However, there are other tepes around the area that show monoliths too, and many of them have no art on them whatsoever. These seem to be more crude versions of the ones we see at GT.
Explain why builders would use 1 70 ton block when 70 1 ton blocks would be far easier to manage?
It would take far fewer workers to move 1 70-ton block, and therefore it would have been less expensive.
Explain the use of pi in the great pyramid?
Why? What does it have to do with our discussion?
Explain how the granite sarcophagi in the serapaeum were carved so accurately and moved and positioned in such confined spaces?
I don't get why you are asking the first part of the question. They are as accurate as we might expect from that time period. As for moving them, I have seen no evidence that there was no room to turn them. Have you? More on the Serapeum here: https://youtu.be/RX6Kmo0taVw
1
-
@morzineskiandmtb3896 I've watched your video, it is speculative. No more than that.
The entire video is speculative? Your comment that it is "no more than that" suggests I state no facts in it whatsoever. And yet I do. And all of my conclusions are reasonable inferences from those facts. Some of the conclusions are indisputable, such as that Iron Age and Stone Age remains are underneath the temple complex.
You mention the thunderstone, but again you are almost as guilty as the video that you are debunking. You state that "it was moved using wooden rollers and capstans, which were available to the romans", well, yes, that is loosely true! What you don't mention is that the Russian army asked a Greek engineer to oversee the project.
How is that significant?
They waited until the ground was frozen so that it could support the weight, they used 2 warships to steady it, and it was constantly being carved as it went on its journey. He then had to develop new techniques to move the stone. This included the use of bronze spheres a specially designed sledge and track. This was had to be constantly disassembled and reassembled as they went. Is this not very much like "the temporary road" that is mentioned?
The frozen ground is irrelevant, because it was soft ground. Baalbek's ground is not soft. The fact that it was carved along the way is also irrelevant, because even after it was carved, it was still heavier than the trilithon stones. The bronze spheres are interesting, but unless you can show that the Romans couldn't make bronze spheres, it doesn't nullify my point. The fact that the moving mechanisms had to be constantly disassembled and reassembled is interesting too, but since the Romans could also disassemble and reassemble, it also does not nullify my point.
And is it beyond the realms of possibility that we might evidence of such a road? Something that you mockingly say is ridiculous.
No, it is not beyond the realms of possibility, but it is most certainly ridiculous to expect that there would be a road there and use the absence of the evidence as an argument that the road was never there.
Finally, there was over 2000 years between the 2 projects, one would expect that technology would have moved on in that time? So while the thunderstone is a reasonable example to use, it is certainly not directly comparable.
We KNOW what the technology was back then, and we KNOW what it was at the time of the thunderstone, and we KNOW what it was in almost all time periods. There is no need to speculate on whether it did or didn't advance. The technology used to move the thunderstone was within the capabilities of the Romans. It doesn't mean that they used the same exact tech, but it does demonstrate (and this is the MAIN POINT), that modern technology is the only technology capable of moving such heavy items. Please do not take my thunderstone point out of context.
I never said that there weren't contemporary records ever, I said that there aren't any now, because there aren't! Yes, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, however, it does mean that you can only speculate that there were records, whereas I can categorically state that there aren't any now!
Then the reason for your bringing it up is not apparent.
My point on hyperdiffusionism is that it was originally argued, influenced by biblical ideas, that there was a single "elder" civilisation from which the spark of civilisation was diffused into the fertile crescent etc. This was then superceded by a more internal development where all of these cultures which appeared around 3000 bce came about fairly independent of each other. What the article proposes is a return to a more hyperdiffusionist theory. This is what is argued, for different linguistic reasons, in Hamlet's Mill and by Graham Hancock who has been ridiculed by academia for a quarter of a century. He can be wrong and a bit overly speculative, but I believe that he also makes some valuable contributions.
Name one valuable contribution that Hancock has made to the discussion. As for hyperdiffusionism, my understanding of present scholarship is that cultures that were in contact with one another were influenced by one another, and cultures that were not in contact, did not.
You say in one place, Europe. Well Europe is pretty big! We are talking about megalithic ruins from sicilly to Ireland, Scotland to spain, England to Malta! That suggests a very wide and connected cultural/technological exchange network existing 5000+ years ago!
Yep.
That is certainly something that Hancock has argued and that runs contrary to academic thinking in the last 40 or so years.
Hancock has argued for a much larger exchange than that. He has argued for a global culture. Not even close.
yes there are other "tepes" in the vicinity of Gobekli, but these are not dated with any degree of certainty and excavations are at a very early stage. They can't be used as evidence if a proto anything at this point! It is interesting to note that the monoliths, as you rightly point our, come from the earliest occupational levels at Gobekli, suggesting that the technological skill required to complete the construction was in place from the beginning. To suggest the lack of artistic elements at the other, undated, tepes as evidence of a developmental stage is again speculative.
It's possible that you are correct about this. But I should add that, when I look at the monoliths, it seems to me to be in line with what humans of that period could create.
The reason I mention pi incorporated into the pyramids is because it is possibly evidence of advanced mathematics, refuted by academia, and the fact that they were able to incorporate this abstract mathematical concept into one of the biggest and most complex structures ever constructed on earth, yet were unaware of the wheel supposedly, is itself suggestive of advanced construction techniques and technologies at an extraordarilly early date.
You missed my pyramid videos, in which I not only point out that we have written documentation of the Egyptians knowing about pi, but also that they had the wheel. You might also want to do a little more research on the Great Pyramid, because apart from its exterior and the King's Chamber and Queen's Chamber, it's quite a mess.
Oh, and you asked about whether I thought that gobekli was massive. I assumed because you wished to argue that it isnt? If not, why did you ask in the first place?
I was responding to your comment: "People have said that hunter-gatheters lacked the organisation and even the motivation to build on a massive scale."
1
-
@morzineskiandmtb3896 I can include the Grand Gallery, if you like, but it isn't perfect. I already mentioned the stones that covered the outside, so I am not sure why you are bringing them up again. My comment is not arrogant at all but simply a statement of fact. How much of the pyramid can you see? How much of the pyramid could you see after 100 trips to Egypt? Very little. The entire interior of the pyramid, which is the majority of it, is indeed a jumble, but since no one was going to be able to see it, that didn't bother the Egyptians. Many people have been taken in by their little ruse. More on that in this video: https://youtu.be/D4Ibta-3_F0
You told me my video was nothing more than speculation, and you say I am being childish for taking you at your word. If you say exactly what you mean, then we won't run into any problems.
Let me ask, what have you contributed beyond debunking the ideas of others on YouTube?
Contributed to what, exactly?
As for a debate, I would consider what we are doing right now as fitting that description, and I have already put considerable time into it. A verbal discussion would likely result in even shorter answers. If I am going to do a video debate, I would do it on a neutral channel, like Modern Day Debates or the like, and would probably debate someone like Hancock, Dunn, or Foerster, or a YouTuber with a big following. No offense intended.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
your not defending your position well at all, man. Just setting up some strawman arguments
I am not aware of any strawman arguments I made.
But your dilemma at 23:19 is a strawman.
I said that is what I think he would say. And I do think he would say that. Got any evidence to the contrary?
achaeologists infact DO believe in things that have never been found. Do you believe in the colossus of rhodes? ever found it? the hanging gardens of babylon? Do you believe Caesar crossed the Rubicon? did you see him do it?
I notice you omitted the word "evidence." Historians believe in things for which there is evidence. We have contemporary witnesses to the existence of these things.
You see believing caesar crossed the rubicon based on ancient writings, is like believing the egyptian priests "chanted" the pyramid blocks into place.
Not even close.
But your dilemma at 23:19 is a strawman.
I said I think this is how UnchartedX would answer. I stand by that statement.
I don't need to have or not have evidence of ancient ATs to say "it's impossible to make cenotaph xyz with a chisel"
To believe this, you need substantial ignorance of stoneworking in ancient and medieval times.
It's not at all unreasonable to infer that they had tools we haven't found, yet or ever will.
Agreed.
Then to reply "well I don't believe in thing's we haven't found yet" that's a terribly provincial mindset for an academic.
But we find EVIDENCE of the tools they used.
Egyptologist are routinely wrong. I mean if you really truly follow this topic, you will know of the great amount of revisions in the history of ancient egypt. The old information wasn't "correct at the time" it was always wrong.
Always wrong?? What planet are you living on? Yes, as in science, so with Egyptology, information is constantly updated as we discover new things. This is as it should be. But to say Egyptologists are "always" wrong is not even close to being true.
Its just like these cenotaphs, they clearly were not made with chisels but because archaeologists only find chisels it must have done with chisels.
Not only have chisels been found, the objects have chisel marks on them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I appreciate your dedication to academia,
My dedication is to reason, evidence, and the historical method.
In this way you are relying on pure coincidence and chance (or some strange Hegelian Weltgeist...) to explain technologies shared all over the world, some too precise to be attributable to "human nature".
As I said in the video, I have seen nothing that is "too precise to be attributable to human nature." If someone shows me some of this evidence, that would be different.
Science always defers to fantastic, unprovable stories, and flimsy evidence, in the end.
I strongly disagree. Science was created to avoid doing just that. If you are anti-science, you will definitely hate this channel.
Pyramids all over the world.
True pyramids are not found all over the world. If you are talking about stepped structures that are bigger on the bottom and smaller on the top, there is nothing unique about them. It's the most basic form of building.
Similar architecture,
You will have to be more specific. And keep in mind that similarity is not enough to establish a link. Show me identical architecture, and then you are beginning to have something.
and working with stone, unnecessarily.
Welcome to monumental architecture. None of it is necessary, and yet almost everyone does it. They don't need to get the idea from someone else.
Detailed similarities like those locking mechanisms on blocks,
You'll have to be more specific. What locking mechanisms? Please don't show me simple locks.
understanding of the heavens,
The heavens existed all over the world, and the movement of the heavenly bodies could be seen with the naked eye.
and mummification.
Mummification was done differently in different parts of the world.
I see you don't discuss much how unreliable our dating methods are
That is because they are rather reliable.
Funny, a historian should be aware how cities, like Troy and Sodom, were once considered in the same way you are considering Atlantis. In fact before the late 1800s all the ancient sites uncovered since were considered legend, as many still consider the accounts in Homer and the Mahabharata,
A basic principle of history is that historians conclude that something existed when sufficient evidence is found for it, and never before. Can you imagine if we started saying things happened BEFORE we found the evidence? THEN you wouldn't be able to trust us! Be happy that we wait to draw conclusions until hypotheses are tested and confirmed.
You also have to explain why mountains rose from the sea,
Not sure what you're talking about. What mountains? You mean islands? Many of them were created by volcanoes (like Hawaii, for instance). But that's a geology question, not a history question.
and most of the old world had been covered with dirt so completely.
Also a geology question. I am sure any geologist could explain it to you. I am pretty sure it's called deposition.
1
-
@reasonconfederation58 you should never assume someone who disagrees with your, or accepted science is anti-science
The statement, "Science always defers to fantastic, unprovable stories, and flimsy evidence, in the end" is an anti-science statement.
The issue is not science vs anti-science, it is WHICH science is the real science
There is only one science, not many. There is science, and there is pseudoscience. That's it.
what is reasonable? What do you consider evidence? Which historical method?
I explain it all right here: https://youtu.be/GZYNL0-KHC4
the point I was making there is similar architecture, stone statues, wall reliefs, stone carvings...icons and images, symbols, etc
They are not similar enough to be significant, especially when nothing else about the cultures are similar. You can't just look at one thing. You have to look at every feature of the culture.
Legends make more sense than the science, same with myths, because at least they give man dignity and cement his importance, in fact his being the center of the world.
Another anti-science statement.
Did you check what they injected you with for the scam plague...?
Another anti-science statement.
By locks I meant those large blocks that have indents that hold clamps. We have evidence, plenty of it, for both blocks with indents and the metal pieces themselves.
It sounds very basic. Can you link me a photo?
As for the dating methods, I don't just mean the equipment, the best of which is still radiocarbon, but which, you know, loses over 90% if it's accuracy after less than 5000 years into the past, where my own studies begin.
Where did you get that number from?
In fact their results are so off, you should know, archaeologists often use written documents to corroborate what they find.
Several interconnecting lines of evidence are used for dating, which calibrates for errors.
You also have to explain why, after I have eaten corn containing minerals allegedly hundreds of thousands of years old, why you will not therefore claim I contain carbon that old and am, therefore, that old.
Minerals? What do minerals have to do with it? You can read up on how carbon dating works here: http://davidmiano.net/blog/2018/02/14/16-myths-about-carbon-dating/
Go yourself, as I have, to the Andes, and see for yourself the fossilized fish and shells you can dig up on the ten thousand foot high mountaintops. I'm surprised you aren't aware...
Ah, you're talking about the effects of glaciers then. Again, any geologist will be happy to provide you with a full explanation for this.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidclark573 Hancock is only saying there were advanced cities before the flood and the survivors of those cities were the sages who helped in the creation of later civilizations.
A claim that is unsupported by evidence.
That cannot be denied because of the appearance of architecture, astronomy, math, music, language, agronomy, poetry, jewlery, pottery, ship building, theatre etc. appearing all over the world at the same time.
But the evidence clearly shows that they did not appear at the same time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A valiant attempt at answering the questions. It's more than I get from most people.
Response: The tunnels beneath the Sphinx--the entire plateau--could have been part of a system that helped protect the Sphinx from damage.
There is no evidence of such. But this just raises another question: If they were capable of protecting the Sphinx, why couldn't they save anything else from their civilization?
Response: I don’t have all the data on this one, so I can’t give a definitive answer, but my immediate thought is that this is yet another great lie (from World of Antiquity)
Why is it that people who don't want to believe something always say, "You're lying," when they have no evidence to demonstrate that it is a lie? Well, I hate to break this to you, but the documentation of this is under my Baalbek: Mystery of the Trilithon Stones video.
Response: Not all cultural diffusion requires mass migration—knowledge and ideas could have spread without major genetic mixing.
To think that people could be trading knowledge and ideas for centuries, but no visiting is allowed. We don't want anyone falling in love with someone from the other country, do we?
Response: The Great Pyramid Hoax: The Conspiracy to Conceal the True History of Ancient Egypt by Scott Creighton provides the answer.
This is not an answer. And Creighton has been debunked numerous times over. https://youtu.be/jYSg5K95vT0?si=po0DR6dxRPSO1tMz
Response: That’s exactly what secret societies do—they preserve knowledge. And some oral traditions are shockingly accurate, and ancient civilizations may have had written records of Atlantis that were later destroyed.
Give me one confirmed examples of an oral tradition that has the date correct. Just one. And you can't have written records in periods without writing.
Response: There are other, older dates, but these are rejected because they don’t fit the mainstream narrative.
Such as?
Response: Give Danny Hilman the funding he deserves, and then we’ll see the real dates. Mainstream archaeology doesn’t fund research that challenges its dogma.
Hilman is supported by his own government. But you didn't answer the question.
Response: Because the Great Pyramid was built before the flood.
I don't see the relevance.
Plus, ancient civilizations encoded sacred knowledge into their structures for those who could decipher it—just like modern secret societies encode knowledge in symbols.
For what purpose? You still didn't answer the question.
But the actual truth, if you understand real occult history, is this: They had the knowledge and science of immortality—the Philosopher’s Stone. But you can’t just give immortality to everyone—only to a select few who have proven themselves worthy.
Let me know when Randall Carlson gets his immortality.
Response: This is stupid. Yes, inferior pyramids built by a cargo cult civilization (dynastic Egyptians) were tombs. But the Great Pyramid was not—it may have been an alchemical machine. Later Egyptians repurposed the pyramids as tombs.
Oh, so then you agree they were tombs. My question wasn't about whether they were used also for something else. (It is interesting you think the Great Pyramid is superior, but the one right next to it was made by a cargo cult civilization.)
Response: The Younger Dryas cataclysm wiped out knowledge, forcing survivors to rebuild much later.
That doesn't answer the question.
Also, right after the Great Flood, people may have lived underground (e.g., Derinkuyu) to escape harsh conditions. You don’t emerge from a global disaster and immediately start building pyramids.
That doesn't change the length of a human lifespan. You still need to answer the question.
The simple answer is that these survivors were few in number, and building civilizations from scratch takes a lot of time.
The survivors represent only one generation. We are talking about centuries of time here.
But time was something they had—because, according to Manly Palmer Hall, they possessed the secret to immortality. So, they could afford to wait.
But if they waited as long as it takes a civilization to develop on its own, then what's the point?
Response: Some esoteric knowledge was kept secret, known only to priesthoods and ruling elites. I mean, come on—this isn’t hard to understand.
The seal belonged to someone who was neither a priest or a ruling elite.
Response: Modern archaeology is agenda-driven—earlier researchers weren’t influenced by government and academic politics. Many suppressed discoveries from the past are ignored today because they challenge mainstream narratives.
The number of discoveries made since 1900 are far greater than the ones made before 1900. Ignoring the discoveries since is a much greater suppression of evidence. And if you think there were no agenda prior to 1900, you don't know much about people back then.
Besides, Randall Carlson’s research is pretty new.
He hasn't made a single archaeological discovery.
Response: Later civilizations added crude repairs to older structures. And/or: Advanced techniques were lost over time, leading to inferior reproductions by later builders.
I was talking about artifacts made by the supposed advanced civilization. So your second explanation doesn't work. As for "crude repairs," we are not talking about repair work. We are talking about original work.
And if you truly understand the Atlantean hypothesis, then you know they were always few in number—ruling like gods over millions of primitive people. The primitive people could have created cruder structures, even though the master builders were responsible for the truly awe-inspiring works.
Since when do the rulers build anything themselves? And if there is so much imprecision in the products of this culture, then how is precision be one of their identifiable features?
Response: Many ancient depictions have multiple layers of meaning—it could be both symbolic and literal.
You're just making stuff up. I could say that about any language and then invent whatever meaning I want.
Are you unfamiliar with the distinction between exoteric and esoteric knowledge? Not everything is superficial and surface-level, you know. The ocean runs deep.
On what basis is the esoteric meaning ascertained? Certainly not on any primary sources.
Response: Many native myths speak of pre-Inca gods or “giants” who built these structures. Probably some Inca claimed they built them, while others said the gods did—this pattern is seen all over the world.
This is just plain false. Totally made up. Any time I ask someone to show the receipts for this, they always run away.
So, are you really claiming that all Inca people unanimously said they built it? Wasn’t there at least one skeptic among them who thought, "I don’t think we did this"?
Show me one.
The truth is out there, but mainstream academics won’t fund it, won’t test it, and won’t discuss it honestly.
That is all they ever do. Just because they don't find what you wish was there, that doesn't mean they aren't looking.
And you can test the Khufu graffiti with non-destructive methods and completely obliterate the mainstream narrative—or get a real look at what’s underneath the Giza Plateau. But none of this will ever be done, because if it were, mainstream archaeology would lose.
It's already obvious that the graffiti is original. It could only have been put there during construction.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Your recounting of the story of Paul Paris is somewhat misleading. You make it sound as if it was difficult in general for new ideas to get published. The fact is, there were many hypotheses being proposed at that time, and they were getting published in academic journals. Yes, his paper was rejected by some top journals, but there is a lot of competition, and your statement that "all" the major journals in the field rejected him is incorrect. It was three. People love to play up stories like that, but rejections are par for the course. I have had articles rejected by journals too. I could easily weave a story that the "establishment" doesn't want to hear new ideas, because they rejected MY ideas, but that would be disingenuous. And you make it sound as if he was hired by Boeing after he had failed to get his paper accepted. He was hired by Boeing first, right after college, and he was published in 1961, the year before he received his doctorate. As soon as his paper was published, his theory was embraced by the field. I often hear people using individual cases to make broad claims and create narratives about an entire field, ignoring the fact that new and innovating hypotheses get published all the time. And, no offense, but I would venture to say that your opinion on climate science is based on your own biases and not on expertise in that field.
1
-
@Hardistul I am well aware that ideas are hard to change. People get used to thinking a certain way and need a little pushing. It's how we are in all aspects of life. I don't see that as a problem. I see it as a challenge, and as a way for me to strengthen my arguments to make them as convincing as possible. It makes my work better. In History, there is no immediate urgency for change, as there may be in something like what Paris worked on. A few decades may have to pass, but change will come nonetheless. I see a much harder push coming from the younger generation these days, and lots of challenges to the consensus. So things may move along faster than you think. But people with silly, poorly-evidenced, "paradigm changing" ideas, who have no experience in the field they are wanting to change, are not going to get the results they are hoping for. They will, however, sell a lot of books to the gullible, and maybe that is all they want anyway.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@redwoodcoast Forgive me, Adrien, but when you wrote, "GRANITE WAS NOT CARVED except by the pre-dynastic rulers of Egypt," it was natural to take that to mean that granite was not carved. The fact is, the majority of carved granite was from dynastic times, Hellenistic times, and Roman times, and this is supported by so much evidence, that it is ridiculous to suggest otherwise.
I've been to Pompey's Pillar, and I can assure you that it looks like every other solid granite column made of Aswan granite, and they number in the thousands.
I have to ask: what is the reasoning behind the idea that solid granite could be carved, but not statues. Is there something about statues that is different from carving something else?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Xof_D-Dawg_Fox No, they shouldn't say something existed before they discover it. They shouldn't claim the full story of it, any of it.
Okay, then you should not be complaining about archaeologists. They never claim the full story.
There was many cases of surprise in carbon dating, like the clay quarry iron age swords.
At Gobekli Tepe?
archaeological evidence has to be corroborated with other forms of evidence like epigraphic, numismatic, textual etc to arrive at any definite conclusion.
Everyone knows that evidence needs to be corroborated.
They defined everything so far and haven't left a thing to restudy, without being called a lunatic or having restricted access.
Not true.
in archaeology and anthropology classes, there is more sons and daughters that are there because of connection, than because of true passion.
Most archaeologists have no relatives who are archaeologists. People are free to choose their careers.
Can you read what Plato wrote? No, you can't, because you can only read it in modern language with interpretation.
Yes, we can read it. We can read it in the original language.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thank you for your questions. Here are my responses (off the top of my head):
Rig Veda refers to Bharata, you mentioned this, who or what does this refer to? Was there an individual named Bharat? Where and when was he born?
How the Bharata clan got their name, I do not know.
Why do Puru refer to themselves as Puru-Bharatas?
They were called this after they merged with the Bharatas.
The RV refers to many groups of people named above, who are these groups? Did they migrate from Northwest India / Indus Valley to Pars province of Iran, Parthians of Northern Iran, Afghanistan, Ionia, etc. or did people from these areas migrate into India.
Every group's history must be studied individually. I am not an expert in these matters. But if they are Indo-Aryan groups, then their immediate ancestors came from Iran.
Mittanis had a script in 1450 BCE and they wrote Vedic god names on a clay tablet. But RV was not written in India until ~500 BCE. IVC had a script, if RV was composed AFTER IVC why was this script not used to write RV?
RV was transmitted orally for many generations before being written down. By the time it was written, a new script had already been developed.
Composers of RV worship Agni, Indra, Varun, etc. Mittanis refer to Indra, Maruts, etc., but not to Agni, there is no evidence of Fire worship in Anatolia. Persians / Iranians / Zoroastrians worship Agni, but don't worship Indra, etc. What is the reason for these differences.
Over distances customs can change.
Zoroastrians build Fire Temples and maintain an eternal Fire. Vedic people do not build Fire Temples or maintain an eternal Fire and Yagnas are performed by building a temporary Fire. What is the reason for this difference?
Over distance and time, customs change.
RV has many river names, name of Ganga and Yamuna have not changed, but names of other rivers have changed - Sutudri to Satlej, Parusni to Ravi, Sohona to Sindhu, etc. When did this change take place? What is the reason for change? Name change indicate change in civilization, culture, etc. If Vedic tradition is continuous from ~1500 BCE why would names in RV change?
This is a good question, and you are right that it often occurs when a different language group comes into an area, but even then sometimes the name does not change. Places are renamed for many different reasons, not just a change in civilization. Maybe several names for the river existed at the same time, depending on which clan we are talking about.
In RV Sindhu is a general word for River, as in Sapta Sindhu [ Seven Rivers ] and is not the name of any one River. Later one River came to be named Sindhu. When did this change take place and why?
I am pretty sure the Indus was called Sindhu even in the Rigveda.
What are all the impacts of collapse of the Bronze Age civilization in Northwest India? The collapse started ~1,900 BCE. All developments in India, Iran, Anatolia, etc., after this date have to be linked to this collapse.
Maybe the decline of the IVC was related to the Bronze Age collapse that began in the west. Maybe not. They certainly had contact with Mesopotamia.
1
-
@DiatomAlgae You wrote a lot, and I do not have much time. But I will reply as concisely as I can.
If you wish to be truly unbiased in dating origin of Sanskrit and composition of Rig Veda you must discuss the possibility of Sanskrit being the language of the so-called Indus Valley Civilization and having developed before the start of IVC.
I have discussed it here: https://youtu.be/teMP5m0Aubo
India is called Bharat. Hindu prayers start with the words “Jamboodwipe, BharataKhande, BharataVarshe, …” Article 1 of the Constitution of India says “India that is Bharat …” So ‘IVC’ should be called Bharatiya Sabhyata. [similar to Egyptian Civilization].
You can call the IVC whatever you want. It doesn't mean the IVC called it that. Nobody knows what the IVC people called themselves, though we know that the Mesopotamians called it "Meluhha."
Most of the habitations are on the River Saraswathi and NOT on River Sindhu. However, you have sarcastically stated that chauvinistic Indians are asking for a name change, ignoring the archaeological evidence.
Are you denying that people want the name to be changed? And why do you put words in my mouth? I never said "chauvinistic Indians." For your information, there were more habitations on the Saraswati river, but the largest of the cities were on the Indus river. That is why the Indus is considered the center.
What happened to the people of IVC, after 1900 BCE? The civilization declined slowly, not suddenly, so the people would have migrated out, where did they go?
Since modern Indians, both north and south, have IVC ancestry, it means they went everywhere.
They would have taken their language, culture, religion, etc., where is the evidence of this?
You provide the evidence in your own comment under "Similarity between IVC and Vedic cultures." But I'm sure people can think of better ones.
So the only reasonable conclusion is that the IVC is the Vedic civilization and they spoke Sanskrit and Sanskrit and Vedas have spread all over India and Avestan in Iran.
Huh? You haven't said anything that leads us to this conclusion.
Distance from Rakhigarhi to Indraprastha on Yamuna River is less than 200 kms. Yamuna and Ganga never dried up, so logically people from Saraswathi would have migrated there.
Sure.
People in the Sindhu basin would have migrated west.
The Sindhu did not dry up. Why would they need to migrate?
All evidence points to this – Parsu in RV became Persians, etc. Arya in RV became Airya in Avestan.
Now you are playing a linguist, and you don't know anything about how to do that.
Bharat is an integral to the debate about history of Ancient India. If we can confirm who Bharat was, where and when he was born and what exactly was his contribution was, we can settle most issues related to Ancient Indian History
I doubt that. But if you find an inscription written by Bharat, or by someone that knew Bharat, let me know.
When Sanskrit was developed and Vedas composed, what was the language of the ‘IVC’, etc.
This is far more important.
No other language in the world has such a systematic and logical alphabet. Why don’t the other so-called Indo-European Languages have a similar Alphabet?
They do. Study linguistics.
Value judgments do not constitute evidence.
Vedas are set in an agrarian environment, this is pre IVC, i.e., before 3,300 BCE.
Agrarian environments existed before, during, and after IVC.
Indo-European should be renamed Sanskrit. Proto-Indo-European should be renamed Proto-Sanskrit.
Submit a paper to a peer-reviewed linguistics journal (non-European, if you prefer). I will look forward to seeing how it is received.
I won't bother commenting on the numerous claims you make without evidence, or to the claims that you make that are irrelevant.
The references to mighty River Saraswathi indicates that the ancestors of the composers of RV have been living in the same area since about 50,000 years ago.
I don't follow your logic. By the way, the Bharatas called the Saraswati the "mightiest of rivers," which it never was in human history.
You have not mentioned Srikant Talageri’s work in your presentation, his analysis of the Rig Veda is the most rational, logical and comprehensive one.
He is not a linguist and is not taken seriously by any linguist in the world. Maybe I will discuss him in an upcoming video in the Myths series, in which I debunk pseudohistory.
1
-
@DiatomAlgae If the people of the IVC migrated all over India, the IVC language, culture, religion, etc., would have spread all over India. Only one language. religion and literary work are spread all over India - Sanskrit and Vedas and Vedic religion.
Yes, the religion spread very effectively. Nothing surprising about that.
So the language of IVC was Sanskrit and the Rig Veda was composed before or during the IVC, 3,300 to 1,900 BCE.
Your logic is that, because Vedic religion spread better than IVC culture, therefore IVC culture IS Vedic culture? I don't see how you get from Point A to Point Z.
Using word Arya from RV to create a group named AryaN is silly.
Take that up with the world's linguists.
1
-
1
-
@DiatomAlgae If 'IVC' people migrated out their language, culture, religion, etc., would be present wherever they migrated too.
It also could be present where they didn't migrate too, simply by reason of influence.
There is no evidence of a 'IVC' language, culture, religion, etc., different from Vedic language, culture, religion, etc., in North India.
Yes, there is a whole mountain of evidence. And I am surprised you cannot tell the difference between IVC culture and Vedic culture. Most people can.
Whole of North India speak ONLY languages of the Sanskrit language family, so what happened to the 'IVC' language?
No one can answer that until we know what the IVC language was. But you can also find non-Indo-Aryan language there, such as Brahui. So you are in error.
Rig Veda clearly lays down the core Bharatiya siddhantha of acceptance of different points of view - RV 1.164.46 Ekam sat vipra bahudha vadanti—"that which exists is One: sages call it by various names.” This why Vedic, Shaiva, Vaishnav, etc., systems all merged together to become so-called 'Hindu''ism'
You forgot IVC.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
GOBEKLI TEPE, 30 TIMES LARGER THAN STONEHENGE (3000 FEET IN DIAMETER), WAS **INTENTIONALLY BURRIED**. EVEN KLAUS KNOWS THIS. And?
THE MONUMENTS, ADORNED WITH CARVINGS, WERE 20 FEET TALL. IMAGINE HOW LONG IT WOULD TAKE TO BURY THIS SITE. With 100 people or more, probably a good month. Why is this significant?
WHY WOULD A PRIMITIVE CIVILIZATION DELIBERATELY COVER GOBEKLI TEPE??? Who says they were primitive?
BECAUSE THESE PEOPLE WERE ADVANCED AND WANTED TO PRESERVE GOBKLI TEPE FOR THE FUTURE. Advanced in comparison to what? And how long do you think they wanted to preserve it?
GRAHAM HANCOCK RECORDED HIS CONVERSATION WITH KLAUS WHO SAID AGRICULTURE WAS AT GOBEKLI TEPE. I have a paper by Schmidt that says otherwise, so please provide the link to this conversation.
LMAO, ANCIENT ARCHITECTS IS ABOUT AS CREDIBLE AS BRIEN FOERESTER. But you think Brien Foerster is credible.
YOU RELY ON A YOUTUBE STATION, ANCIENT ARCHITECTS FOR YOUR INFORMATION. WHAT HAPPENED TO YOUR PHD DEGREE?? Ancient Architects didn't make up the information. He is sharing what experts have found.
REBUILD THE INCA WALLS AND PROVE THEY WERE CREATED THIS WAY. That's not how to prove it.
WOW, GEO-POLYMER, SOUNDS PRETTY ADVANCED TO ME SINCE WE HAVEN'T FIGURED OUT HOW TO REPRODUCE IT YET. You clearly haven't watched the videos.
HOW COME GEOLOGISTS CAN'T FIGURE IT OUT? What makes you think they haven't?
GOBEKLI TEPE PUSHED BACK ADVANCED CIVILIZATION BY 6000 YEARS. AND YOU THINK NO MORE SITES WILL BE DISCOVERED THAT GO FURTHER BACK? Gobekli Tepe is not a civilization. And you can't assume something existed BEFORE you find it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nityanityaViveka Wow. You insist that those who disagree with AMT are Hindutva, and place the burden of proof on them to prove otherwise.
I didn't say ALL those who disagree with the migration are Hindutva. I said they were mostly Hindutva. And yes, that is what I have concluded. If you think I am wrong, feel free to show me that I am wrong.
I am not going to pedantically debate "majority" here, when all of your statements culminate to a crystal clear position that you believe that an overwhelming number of people who disagree are Hindutva, and this effectively means "all".
Majority does not mean all. Everyone knows that. That would be like saying that a person wins an election by getting all of the votes.
Moreover, "Hindutva" is lacking in any definitional clarity, neither in colloquial nor in an academic sense. What this boils down to is demanding an impossible proof. Quite convenient.
That goes both ways. How can you say I am wrong then?
Ironically enough, you along with WIs bewail unfair treatment from the unscientific cabal of Hindu nationalists when they criticize WI for systemic racism.
I haven't bewailed unfair treatment from Hindu nationalists. By WI, what do you mean?
Western Indologists get to characterize opposition as Hindutva (a proxy in American discourse for bigoted, unscientific, nationalist, racist, casteist, etc) with 0 evidence, and demand proofs of innocence.
Ah, by WI you mean Western Indologists. Hmm Indologists come from India too. And from other countries not in the West. Unfortunately, secular historians often receive considerable opposition from people with strong religious or political positions. It's not just in India. It happens everywhere. It's a shame, and it inhibits historians from doing their job, but it is common. I don't know why it upsets you when historians speak of their experiences with that. Surely they should be allowed to talk about it.
1
-
@nityanityaViveka Your language comes across as it not being a simple majority, but an overwhelming majority, without the minorities even mentioned in passing.
My language was "chiefly" and "majority." That's it. And yes, I did mention the minorities in passing when I said, "There may be other reasons why this theory does not appeal to certain persons."
Please provide your scientific methodology for reaching such an absurd conclusion.
It isn't absurd. And I did not use scientific methodology, nor did I say I did. I said, "Here is what I have been able to determine. And if I get any of this wrong, Abijhit or someone else with firsthand knowledge of this can correct me." This was one of the least important parts of the entire video, and the fact that you are focusing on it and not on any of the scientific parts is interesting. Are you concerned about the genetic evidence, or no?
This is because the claim is palpably false.
So you say. Why should I or anyone else believe you?
As I said, claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
If you simply dismissed it, you wouldn't be commenting on the video complaining about it. You're not merely considering it to be unproven. You are considering it to be false.
I absolutely agree historians should talk about it. Where they should start is how they got Indology dead wrong for 100 years, root cause the systemic racism and privilege that motivated their biased conclusions, and assess what they should not do in the future so as to not repeat past mistakes.
That's what they do.
If Hindutva has a definition outside of it being as a cudgel to silence dissent via false association, it is incumbent on YOU to present the definition and the evidence in support of said definition.
I am surprised that you, who identify yourself with Hindutva, are unable to define it. Very strange. Let me know if you agree with the description provided in this article: https://www.asianstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/on-the-difference-between-hinduism-and-hindutva.pdf
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@whycantiremainanonymous8091 your suggestion for "darlugal" doesn't exactly fit a common pattern of how that happens.
Yes, it does. But I was thinking of the Akkadian word tarlugallum. The word first applies to other similar birds. Then the chicken comes to Mesopotamia. So then the word starts being applied to them as well.
The problem in (b) is, again, that the paper you cite claims chickens weren't around in Mesopotamia until about 1000 years after any such meaning change could happen in Sumerian.
I am suggesting that the Sumerian word NEVER meant rooster. It is the Akkadian word that changed meaning.
You'd expect the new bird to have a name originating in one of the languages actually spoken in Mesopotamia around 1000 BCE, or one borrowed from a language spoken further east, where the bird is claimed to have come from.
It would be about 1500 BCE, if I am reading the map right. But no, it is perfectly feasible that a word already in the common language would be used for the new bird. That happens too, you know.
Both problems with your thesis could be solved if we assume another species of domesticated phaesant preceded our modern chicken in Mesopotamia by a millenium or two, but that would require evidence.
What do you think the "king's pheasant" referred to?
Another possibility (and this is actually plausible) is that chickens were around in Mesopotamia already in Sumerian times, but that the particular genetic strain of chickens that we have today, and that eventually replaced all other strains, only arrived in Mesopotamia later.
That's possible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Great thoughts. In regard to your question, the material evidence suggests that, generally speaking, later structures are better made than earlier structures. There are exceptions, of course, such as when we compare buildings of Rome to what came in the early Middle Ages in Europe. There are dips that appear from time to time. Another thing to consider is what we consider to be better. In some ways we can consider automobiles of the 1940s to be better than those of today because they are built more solidly and have greater strength. But they also are inferior in many ways. We might say Victorian architecture is better than modern architecture because it is more beautiful and elaborate. There is some subjectivity to it. In my opinion the pyramids of Giza are inferior to those that came later. Yes, they are built more solidly and they are taller, but they also are more primitive in design, and the pyramids that came later were more beautiful, artistically refined, and had more elaborate structures surrounding them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I would've thought that in a land of so many rivers, all which were well known (numerous rivers are described in the Vedas; the Saraswati is described as seven-sistered), the attention of the Rig Vedic people would have in all likelihood landed on the one that truly was the mightiest in a physical, literal sense, for making as THEIR river
That would be the Indus. The Indus was ALWAYS mightier than the Saraswati. So why didn't they choose it?
a people cannot choose a star for their sun, but they can choose the truly biggest river in a land with so many to choose from
Then please explain to us all why so many people live near rivers of varying size. If they can just choose the biggest, why aren't all people living near the largest rivers? I showed you a scientific study that demonstrated that late Harappan cities were BUILT on the dried central part of the Saraswati. Please explain this in a way that harmonizes with your assertion above.
you also need to be careful about not going too far the other way and dismissing what could actually be a true reference to a physical reality
I said in the video that the descriptions are a mixture of literal and metaphorical phrases.
the act of dismissing based on the argument of needing to evaluate meaning through differing literary genres/contexts is in itself somewhat problematic for belying an anachronistic approach
You seem to have misunderstood the point of what I was talking about. I was addressing the argument that the geological history of the Saraswati proves the view that Rigvedic society could not possibly have lived there in the 2nd millennium BCE and showing the POSSIBILITY that the text is metaphorical. This possibility cancels out the argument. As long as it is possible, the argument (which asserts it is impossible) cannot stand.
it strikes me as no 'linguistic issue' that the Vedic language can and will have existed preserved, unchanged - and crucially, unwritten to protect its preservation in the orality of a privileged few - for a very, very long time. So, lack of linguistic evolution in itself (and lack of written artefact) has probably little bearing on the age of language, in this context.
You are contradicting yourself. If the language of the Vedas remained unchanged during oral transmission, then it accurately reflects the time of its oral composition. You therefore cannot also argue that it has little bearing on the age of the language.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@apollodionysus3857 Later migration from where? Sweden? LOL!
Why would they need to come from Sweden?
Blue eyes are a RECESSIVE gene, it's more likely a later, darker population like Arabs would diminish the incidence of blue eyes and blonde hair than a lighter population would arrive later and "lighten up" the features of the people.
How do you think people got light skin, blue eyes, and blonde hair in the first place? Don't make claims like this without evidence to back it up.
Also, Israeli studies have found that blue eyed populations from Iran and Anatolia settled in the Levant era 6,500 years ago, that fits perfectly with the timeline for a settling in Mesopotamia as well.
The Levant and Mesopotamia are not the same place. You can't use a study about one area and use it to make claims about another area. Besides, if people came from Anatolia or Iran and settled in Mesopotamia, where people already lived, they wouldn't magically turn Mesopotamians into Caucasians.
And again, won't you debate Robert Sepehr? I could introduce you to, you can do a live and debate him.
If you can find a platform for the debate, with a neutral moderator, I am more than happy to debate him.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
OK, so it is clear that you are a Randall Carlson hater.
Why do people think that when someone's ideas get criticized, the critic must hate that person? It's really a weird conclusion to draw.
There are some less likely theories presented by Carlson
Oh no! You hate him.
however, he has quite a few hard facts in data that are hard to dispute.
Wait, are you saying that if someone gets some things right, that means their wrong ideas should not be criticized? Or that if the wrong ideas are criticized, the right ideas must at the same time be praised?
One thing that is clear is that mainstream archaeology is straight up wrong with quite a few theories that have been presented as fact for decades. The many sites in Turkey more recently discovered show just how wrong all the scientists which you use as supporting evidence have been and still not corrected.
You mean that the site that archaeologists found and are continuing to study prove that they are bad at their jobs? Or are you saying that real science is never wrong and should never need to update? I would like to know what still has not been corrected. Could you specify, please?
As a professional stone worker for 45 years, there has been zero viable explanations by mainstream archaeology on how the monolithic structures and Statues have been created. In particular carvings in granite and diorite.
Hmm, I know many professional stone workers who would disagree with you. I would be willing to bet you have never read a single academic paper on anything related to how statues or "monolithic structures" were created. I also would bet that in your 45 years as a stone worker you have never created a stone artifact with only hand tools.
I challenge you to offer an explanation of how thousand ton stones were moved hundreds of miles and then raised 3040 or 60 feet in elevation so I suppose what I would like to see is mainstream archaeologist offering up feasible theories.
First show me a thousand-ton stone that was ever lifted 30 or more feet in the air.
Fact is people like Randall Carlson exist because archaeologists are not doing their job.
People like him exist because they and their followers have never studied any archaeology.
Fact is excavations have been shut down in Turkey, as well as numerous other locations around the world that are key to answering the questions of our origin.
It seems you hear things on the internet and believe them simply because you want to. If you did any fact-checking, you would know that excavations have not been shut down in Turkey, and in fact, archaeologists are currently working there on Gobekli Tepe and many other sites.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
However as our host conducted the introduction and mention this technology he did so with an eye roll and air quotes. As well as putting on an expression I would decribe as somewhere between pretentious and pompous.
When I read your comment, I thought, "Did I roll my eyes? What did I put in air quotes?" So I watched the intro again, and neither of those things were there. I think your prejudices may be encouraging you to imagine things.
I feel the need to point out before even starting that we are constantly discovering new things about the past. Discovering lost cities. Finding mechanisms in bodies of water.
Yeah, it's great, isn't it? I love when we find new things (and we do all the time). You might like my video on the best archaeological discoveries of last year.
So to wave away suggestions of a form of technology is foolish.
Some ideas are good. Some are bad. Each has to be judged by its own merits. But surely a 3 1/2 hour video (plus so many other ones I've done) looking into the evidence isn't waving it away.
I don't think ancient people went to the moon or had flying cars or levitation technology. But electricity? Sure, why not?
Because there is no evidence for it, and if it was used, there would be evidence all over the place. Think about the infrastructure that would have to be built.
The Baghdad battery is absolutely a thing.
It can produce 1.1 volts of electricity, and it isn't from the times we are discussing in this video.
And we do keep finding older and older human settlement.
The oldest so far are the sites from the Natufian culture, found in the 1920s. Nothing older has been found since then.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The hypothesis is that these 'caucasians' (or whatever accurate term I should use) spread.
Sepehr claims a lot more than that. His contention is that "all early civilizations shared the same ruling nobility, which were ethnically distinct from the populations that they governed."
So saying 'a lot of people ADOPTED horses' or 'agriculture didn't start at the caucasus' isn't much of an argument.
It is if it directly contradicts what Sepehr says.
Denisovans might have domesticated horses, as suggested by a relatively recent study.
Sepehr didn't say "might." He concluded it was true.
It's a matter of googling it, which Robert expects people to do, he's not spelling everything out for us.
I searched high and low for the scientific study, but all I could find was a couple of media articles.
Keep in mind that one could've made a very convincing debunking video about civilization, asserting that it didn't exist until XXX BC... Then we discover Gobekli Tepe (and the cave near it that's much older, right?) and all that debunking gets thrown into the bin, cos the debunking was based on the theories made by people who lacked some information.
I get your point that information can change (by the way, Gobekli Tepe hasn't changed the date of civilization, because it isn't a civilization), but if someone makes claims that are unsupported by evidence, that is worthy of pointing out. An anthropologist worth his salt would never do that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MR-nl8xr Clearly you are not interested in having a real discussion. You are just looking for gotchas. I am telling you what my reasoning is, which I would know better than you, and you're saying, "No, that's not what you meant." And you watched about 1/10 of the video.
1. I never said math and laws of physics were different in the past. In fact, I appeal to both during the video as evidence. At the beginning of the video, which you watched, I say, "I definitely see value in getting their (modern engineers') assessments. Because many engineering principles are timeless, I am sure they have some insights to offer, which can be added to the expertise we gather from others."
2. In the same breath, I said, "We have people accustomed to modern methods of construction, and they are assessing how ancients did construction. When that is done without the accompaniment of knowledge about the times being examined and knowledge of how the ancients did things and thought about things, faulty conclusions can be reached." Notice here that I did not refer to the laws of physics. I referred explicitly to "methods of construction." Surely you can tell the difference between the two.
2. UnchartedX either ignores or misrepresents the laws of physics. He says that he bases his opinions on the views of modern engineers, but as we progress through the video, we find that he means only Christopher Dunn, and when we see the shoddy work that Dunn has done, it is evident that Dunn butchers math and the laws of physics. It would make actual physicists and mathematicians laugh.
I am happy to chat with you more after you have watched the whole video.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@markd3250 The following claims are not in the Bible:
- Ham was the stoneworker of the family (Japheth the oldest was the blacksmith/hunter/leather worker, and Shem the middle son was the shepherd and farmer).
- Ham himself had become involved with the rebellious angels.
- Through the advanced knowledge the angels were giving them, they were involved in created a structure at Babel, that if they had been able to complete, would have enabled them to breach the barrier that separates the material realm we live in, with the spiritual realm of heaven.
- It was probably located between Mt. Nimrod and the west end of Lake Van in Turkey.
- They may also have planned to use the thermal power of the volcano to power the structure, and having a water source nearby would have been necessary to manage the cooling.
- When God destroyed the project, a volcanic blast of superheated gas hit the structure, and since it was coated in flammable bitumen, it ignited and literally melted down to slag.
- Nevertheless, you still see around the world, very similar structures of stepped pyramid style stoneworks, because that's as far as they got at Babel before the project was destroyed.
- Many died in that event
- Gilgamesh is Nimrod, and Nimrod was a Nephilim.
- In addition to the consequences of the Babel event, the angels themselves were severely restricted and could no longer interact with humans the way they had been.
- The necessity to learn how to communicate with others outside of their own small groups is what prompted the first form of writing, which were pictures, or cuneiform as it's now known.
- Ham turned into a narcissistic tyrant. He set up the style of government that both Egypt and the Tigris river groups became known for, which was the pyramidal top-down form of rule that combined both religion and government.
- Japheth was killed in a hunting accident or died unexpectedly, his wife went far to the east, and founded what today is known as the Asian people.
- The great flood came to an end somewhere close to 12,700 years ago.
- The Babel incident set things back so badly, it wasn't until around 7,000 years or so ago
Like I said, Bible fan fiction.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ironcladranchandforge7292 I believe what you're trying to say is that considering everything that's happening in society today, it's bad optics for Brien, a white person, to have an opinion on when and who built these structures.
You had it right up until the end. Not merely to have an opinion, but to take credit of the structures away from the Maya.
You see, I don't care about skin color, I care about the content of their words.
You may not care about skin color, but you care about other people referring to it, even in a side comment. You seem to want everyone to pretend it doesn't exist, and that there is no history there.
Under the guise of optics, is it now taboo for any white person to have an opinion on indigenous cultures, whether it be right or wrong in an historical context?
I am white, and I express my opinion, so what do you think?
1