Civilization may have ended the day the Younger Dryas started.

[oldtrucker]

Graham Hancock presents his evidence that civilization was wiped by a cataclysmic event 12850 bp that started the Younger Dryas cooling period and paradoxically massive sea level rise. The evidence is now almost irrefutable... we got hit by multiple fragments of a comet at the end of the last ice age.
Netflix
https://www.netflix.com/ca/title/812110 ... ntent=true

[77TA]

I've just started watching this series. Super interesting stuff and in agreement with many of my own theories of ancient lost civilization.

[oldtrucker]

The sonar of the Bimini road almost looks like it could be a harbour. If a corresponding structure were to be found on Bimini Island or off to the west in the shallows...it could imply there could have been a bridge across the channel where the gulf stream passes, and those are the foundations or what's left of them.

[77TA]

The sonar of the Bimini road almost looks like it could be a harbour. If a corresponding structure were to be found on Bimini Island or off to the west in the shallows...it could imply there could have been a bridge across the channel where the gulf stream passes, and those are the foundations or what's left of them.

Exactly what I thought Bimini Rd looked like it was for offloading ship cargo from a sheltered bay.

[oldtrucker]

That formation is in water only 20ft deep so if it were a harbour it would be a long way from water as sea levels were 400ft lower 12,850bp. Maybe it's a much more recent construct, something within the last 6000 years( after sea level stabilized) or if it is older than 12850bp, it's the foundation of something other than a harbour.

[oldtrucker]

Apparently this has stirred up some controversy in the mainstream scientific community/ mainstream academia- pseudo science, and rightly so. Mainstream hates this guy because in the macro...no one dares touch it because it would be rewriting all of history. I mean, how so you divide and control people? You make up some bullbleep religion and milk it for as many thousands of years you can and hope it goes without question .That's the macro...but if you speak with individual professionals like I have the fortune of, some are frothing wanting to ditch thier current projects( and intentionally blind employers) to dive into this. They can't unless they get private funding and if the govts of the areas they want to explore are on board...which is essentially none.
Modern religion and govt are based on a lie that if exposed would undermine the entire system. This is not conspiracy...those cities that have been found off the west coast of India and other locations globally, the megalithic cities found by lidar in central and South America are real.
Atlantis...oh there goes the eye rolls.. Atlantis isn't a real city or a literal place...It's a macro label given to a Pliestocene global civilization . Plato repeated what his ancestor saw- hieroglyphics in Egypt that told of a cataclysmic event that wiped out all civilization prior to thier civilization rebuilding. Those hieroglyphs are still there at Abydos(?) and another temple that tell of that Pliestocene civilization.
Gobekli Tepe at 12,000bp is just the beginning of mountains of history book rewriting data that due to advances in lidar, ground penetrating radar, sonar, satellite remote sensing tech will be forcing mainstream academia to do a total rethink.

[Jlabute]

I watched the Ancient civilization series by Graham Hancock. Of course, he is not an archeologist and has put together his own theories with little to no scientific rigor.

I find his ideas interesting. The process of discovery is fun. Were there advanced civilizations during the last ice age and did a cataclysmic event wipe them out? How was their knowledge transported around the world after the fact.
His theories also have holes, and lack of evidence. Nonetheless, it starts one thinking about life during and ending at the last ice age. Having a grasp on what the world looked like at that time with 95% of Canada under 2Km of ice. What happened when it all melted? How pronounced and cataclysmic was the last big melt?

Wondering about places like Gunung Padang, if it was built on top of older and older civilizations or built ontop a volcanic neck, can give one a headache. It wouldn't have been the only inhabited place and pottery and other artifacts should be nearby, which was ignored in the docu-series. I am disappointed that Graham did not argue other theories or provide mainstream insights. Saying the site had inhabitants 9,000 to 20,000 years ago is quite a range and is disputed.

When it comes down to it, his theories are not thoroughly substantiated.

[rustled]

As he points out, though, we won't find out "what's there" if we're not actively looking. Plenty of hills were "just hills" until someone noticed something - and started digging to find out more.

The rigidity of current thought on several topics is perplexing, until we consider it was just as rigid in the past before major shifts in our common understanding.

[77TA]

I personally am dumbfounded that people in their respective fields can believe with utter certainty that they absolutely know what has transpired in the ancient past and/or the foreseeable future based on theories and have closed minds to alternate theories.

Anything that was not witnessed can not be certain.

[rustled]

I personally am dumbfounded that people in their respective fields can believe with utter certainty that they absolutely know what has transpired in the ancient past and/or the foreseeable future based on theories and have closed minds to alternate theories.

That seems the most perplexing aspect to Hancock, too. It seems to me he doesn't mind being proven wrong (and rather enjoys the notoriety he gets from rattling cages), he most minds the assumption there's nothing to learn by investigating.

Anything that was not witnessed can not be certain.

And even when we witness something, we only see it from a single perspective and with our current understanding. We can be certain of what we saw, not necessarily certain that's all there was to see.

[77TA]

And even when we witness something, we only see it from a single perspective and with our current understanding. We can be certain of what we saw, not necessarily certain that's all there was to see.

Very true and even more reason to be open to alternate interpretation of the mainsteam conceived journey of earth and humanity, past, present and future.

[oldtrucker]

In Hancock's other videos and books he looks at Ankor Wat and it's possible connection to 'prehistory' Egypt and how the astronomy and math matches up. He points out that the accepted date for Ankor is 1200ad ish and took 30 years to build( I'll touch on that later)but he mentions in Hindu beliefs that's ankor is vastly, vastly older.
Check out the area of Ankor on Google earth. The ankor Wat temple moat itself is out of perfect square by 17mm. Ya...wow is right. Check out the rectangular giant reservoir that's only the size of okanagan lake that was supposedly dug around the same time the rest of ankor was made. Ya...have a look.
Apparently ankor area which did consist of over 500 temples similar to ankor wat is the size of London. 30 years to build? Maybe 3000.
Another point Hancock makes is that the complexity and precision of the more recent civilizations built on the older foundations is backwards. The oldest and deepest structures are the most complex and precise. That applies to multiple locations globally.

[rustled]

Interesting.

There's also the recently rediscovered city near Phnom Kulen, which may have been a template for Angkor Wat:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ ... 180958508/

[Jlabute]

As he points out, though, we won't find out "what's there" if we're not actively looking. Plenty of hills were "just hills" until someone noticed something - and started digging to find out more.

The rigidity of current thought on several topics is perplexing, until we consider it was just as rigid in the past before major shifts in our common understanding.

Certainly, I agree. We have to be actively looking, which archeologists are doing, are they not? Is there rigidity? Will we believe there is, according to one person who doesn’t do the leg work and is not an archeologist? He could perhaps sponsor some digs around Gunung Padang and try and find something more than 2000 years old. Saying that, the scientific process should be rigid.

https://www.smh.com.au/world/digging-fo ... 2qphb.html

I am all for proper discovery. Far be it that politics ever get involved, nor am I ready to believe that many professional archeologists, vulcanologists, etc, are colluding world-wide to hide a truth.

[rustled]

As he points out, though, we won't find out "what's there" if we're not actively looking. Plenty of hills were "just hills" until someone noticed something - and started digging to find out more.

The rigidity of current thought on several topics is perplexing, until we consider it was just as rigid in the past before major shifts in our common understanding.

Certainly, I agree. We have to be actively looking, which archeologists are doing, are they not? Is there rigidity? Will we believe there is, according to one person who doesn’t do the leg work and is not an archeologist? He could perhaps sponsor some digs around Gunung Padang and try and find something more than 2000 years old. Saying that, the scientific process should be rigid.

https://www.smh.com.au/world/digging-fo ... 2qphb.html

I am all for proper discovery. Far be it that politics ever get involved, nor am I ready to believe that many professional archeologists, vulcanologists, etc, are colluding world-wide to hide a truth.

I'd say "the scientific process should be rigorous" before "rigid", but maybe not once I'd thought it through.

Thanks for the link! Interesting stuff.

Hancock was talking about a different site when he said they weren't actively looking. And while I haven't heard him accusing professionals of colluding world-wide to hide a truth, I have heard him say the academic community is resistant to his theories. Even that I think he is likely overstating. Part of his "thing" seems to be enjoying his own notoriety. Unfortunately, it sells well in this day and age.

It's fascinating how a farmer discovers a hill is not merely a hill, etc. The only sure thing seems to be: The more we learn, the more we realize we have yet to learn.