Ancient Civilizations

Rajaah

Rajaah

Honorable Member
<Gold Donor>
11,446
15,132
Kiroy said:
Click to expand...


Most interesting Youtube video I've seen in a while.

Also, WTF:

1689974444340.png
 
  • 3Like
Reactions: 2 users
Rajaah

Rajaah

Honorable Member
<Gold Donor>
11,446
15,132


It's already been posted, but this is a good companion to the other video.
 
  • 4Like
Reactions: 3 users
Chris

Chris

Potato del Grande
18,362
-253
Is there a reason why ancient maps are assumed to be accurate even though there's crazy shit all over them?

We have satalite and submarine imaging, we know the exact make up of the Earth's surface.

The places we have to investigate are sunken former coastal regions with likely wooden structures buried in the silt.
 
Rajaah

Rajaah

Honorable Member
<Gold Donor>
11,446
15,132
Chris said:
Is there a reason why ancient maps are assumed to be accurate even though there's crazy shit all over them?

We have satalite and submarine imaging, we know the exact make up of the Earth's surface.

The places we have to investigate are sunken former coastal regions with likely wooden structures buried in the silt.
Click to expand...

When a lot of these maps (from different people and even different centuries) sync up, we can assume they're based on something.

For example a ton of old maps have three big lakes in the Sahara. One is the giant Mega-Chad lake, one is the now-Richat area Atlantae, and the other is...well we don't know. It looks like part of the Nile curved west and crossed all the way to the Atlantic.

Most of the "crazy shit" comes down to maps having distorted senses of perspective, like getting the shapes of things way off. The Atlantis lake wasn't very big (especially compared to Mega-Chad) but it's often shown to be big on maps, probably because it had some elevated importance. Same way a lot of modern artistic maps will show a giant NYC sticking out of the northeast USA to represent that area.

And yeah we need to investigate sunken former coastal regions. The Mediterranean probably has a lot at the bottom of it.Most of all, the Sahara. Always thought Antarctica probably has ancient ruins buried under all the ice, but now I'm most interested in the Sahara and what's under all that sand. The ruins of about a dozen major cities along a waterway, according to these maps.
 
Chris

Chris

Potato del Grande
18,362
-253
Rajaah said:
Most of the "crazy shit" comes down to maps having distorted senses of perspective, like getting the shapes of things way off. The Atlantis lake wasn't very big (especially compared to Mega-Chad) but it's often shown to be big on maps, probably because it had some elevated importance. Same way a lot of modern artistic maps will show a giant NYC sticking out of the northeast USA to represent that area.
Click to expand...
You can't simultaneously admit to distorted maps and look for clues on them at the same time.

Like the map shows Africa below the Sahara was underwater! Clearly the west coast was wrapped around the bottom for space reasons and all those lakes and rivers are coastal features or not far in land in Morocco.

England is a triangle, like literally a straight coast with a point at Cornwall. I could find distorted England on maps all the way up to the reformation where they intentionally didn't bother drawing "remote unimportant protestant island" properly. That doesn't mean that I can say that England underwent extreme weathering at some point in the 1600s to get it's current shape.

Also has nobody ever gone to the fucking richart structure to fucking look if it's rock or city walls?
 
Rajaah

Rajaah

Honorable Member
<Gold Donor>
11,446
15,132
Chris said:
You can't simultaneously admit to distorted maps and look for clues on them at the same time.
Click to expand...

The current most widely-used world map is completely wrong and distorted. It shows the northern hemisphere as twice the size of the south and it shows Greenland as being nearly the size of Africa, Sweden as being the length of India, and so on.

I can still use this distorted, wrong-as-fuck world map to look at where things are and get a pretty solid idea of what's what on the Earth's surface at the moment.

Chris said:
Also has nobody ever gone to the fucking richart structure to fucking look if it's rock or city walls?
Click to expand...

Yes. It's a bit of an undertaking because the local government doesn't want people digging and you've also got random AK-wielding gangs driving around in trucks looking for victims to rape/kill/eat and not necessarily in that order, as Firefly would say.

On a ground level it's hard to tell that the Richat Structure is even anything out of the ordinary geographically because it just looks like the rest of the wasteland. There are depressions where the water used to be and higher elevations, which, if they had buildings on them, they were long-since ground-down*. But yeah, you can't see much from a surface perspective. Doing a major archaeological dig there is probably the way to go for determining what the hell it actually is, man-made or something else, but one doesn't seem to be forthcoming. Looking around on foot, it doesn't seem like it's any kind of man-made structure visually.

* - Also possible The Flood completely flattened the place, since it's right up against the Atlantic seaboard. Looking at it with satellite images, you can clearly see all of the flood evidence in that entire area. It looks like an Atlantic flood completely obliterated it.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Chukzombi

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member
71,832
213,177
Chris said:
You can't simultaneously admit to distorted maps and look for clues on them at the same time.

Like the map shows Africa below the Sahara was underwater! Clearly the west coast was wrapped around the bottom for space reasons and all those lakes and rivers are coastal features or not far in land in Morocco.

England is a triangle, like literally a straight coast with a point at Cornwall. I could find distorted England on maps all the way up to the reformation where they intentionally didn't bother drawing "remote unimportant protestant island" properly. That doesn't mean that I can say that England underwent extreme weathering at some point in the 1600s to get it's current shape.

Also has nobody ever gone to the fucking richart structure to fucking look if it's rock or city walls?
Click to expand...
how about you start with actual satellite maps out now and look at the direct line of water from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic? it goes right through the Richat Structure. it clearly shows whatever caused that continental flood scoured everything in its path.
iu
 
  • 3Like
Reactions: 2 users
Chris

Chris

Potato del Grande
18,362
-253
Rajaah said:
The current most widely-used world map is completely wrong and distorted. It shows the northern hemisphere as twice the size of the south and it shows Greenland as being nearly the size of Africa, Sweden as being the length of India, and so on.

I can still use this distorted, wrong-as-fuck world map to look at where things are and get a pretty solid idea of what's what on the Earth's surface at the moment.
Click to expand...
No. Just no.

The mercator projection is an accurate map for longitude and latitude designed for navigation. It is not designed for maintaining the area of various landmasses, there are other projections for that.

The mercator projection is based on our 100% accurate map which is the globe.

The difficulty of transferring a sphere shaped map onto a rectangle is in no way equivalent to what we are talking about.
 
Chris

Chris

Potato del Grande
18,362
-253
Kiroy said:
guys old maps aren't perfect so we can't use them for anything
Click to expand...
You can use them with a historian of the time period who knows the context of how it was made and what it is showing.

You can't look at it and go "wow the Congo was underwater because all these maps show a coastline below the Sahara" or "wow Britian must have undergone some dramatic plate techtonics to look totally different on every pre modern map".

Like I've seen a historian go through the Piri Reis Map and show how a bunch of islands are duplicates because it's a composite map and how "Antarctica" has the same rivers as South America.

You guys have already decided on your theory and are cherry picking anything vaguley close from random maps, instead of looking at all of the maps objectively including the ones that contradict you.
 
Last edited:
  • 2Picard
Reactions: 1 users
Kiroy

Kiroy

Marine Biologist
<Bronze Donator>
34,678
100,157
Chris said:
You can use them with a historian of the time period who knows the context of how it was made and what it is showing.

You can't look at it and go "wow the Congo was underwater because all these maps show a coastline below the Sahara" or "wow Britian must have undergone some dramatic plat techtonics to look totally different on every pre modern map".

Like I've seen a historian go through the Piri Reis Map and show how a bunch of islands are duplicates because it's a composite map and how "Antarctica" has the same rivers as South America.

You guys have alreaey decided on your theory and are cherry picking anything vaguley close from random maps, instead of looking at all of the maps objectively including the ones that contradict you.
Click to expand...

oh shut the fuck up cunt
 
  • 2Like
  • 1Salty
  • 1Worf
Reactions: 3 users
Chukzombi

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member
71,832
213,177
Chris said:
You can use them with a historian of the time period who knows the context of how it was made and what it is showing.

You can't look at it and go "wow the Congo was underwater because all these maps show a coastline below the Sahara" or "wow Britian must have undergone some dramatic plat techtonics to look totally different on every pre modern map".

Like I've seen a historian go through the Piri Reis Map and show how a bunch of islands are duplicates because it's a composite map and how "Antarctica" has the same rivers as South America.

You guys have alreaey decided on your theory and are cherry picking anything vaguley close from random maps, instead of looking at all of the maps objectively including the ones that contradict you.
Click to expand...
who is cherry picking? besides you.
 
  • 1WTF
Reactions: 1 user
Chukzombi

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member
71,832
213,177
12000 years ago. funny how that date keeps showing up
www.popsci.com

The Sahara used to be full of fish

Thousands of fish once swam in central Libya—what happened to them?
www.popsci.com www.popsci.com
The fossil record also shows swimmers seeing a decline over the years as the area’s climate changed. Remains from the earliest dates are made up of around 90 percent fish species, but by around 5,000 years ago aquatic animals made up less than half of the population. By then, only small, hardy fish built to outlast shallow waters and high temperatures remained.

Savino di Lernia, an author of the study and the Director of the Archaeological Mission of the Sapienza University of Rome, has been working in Libya since 1990. He says that around 12,000 years ago, shifts in monsoon patterns brought rain to the region. With increased rain grew waterways that connected to Lake Chad in the south and the Nile River in the north, possibly opening up a passage for these fish to reach the central Sahara in such quantities.

Marks found on the fish remains show evidence of other residents: The humans who munched on them.

“I was personally surprised by the fact that fish were a type of staple food, even during neolithic, pastoral times,” di Lernia says. Eventually, many of those people would become sheep and goat herders.

Around 5,000 years ago, the climate changed dramatically. Due to changes in the atmosphere caused by Earth’s position while orbiting the sun, monsoon seasons changed rapidly, and the rain that kept the Sahara green virtually vanished, says study author Andrea Zerboni, a geoarchaeologist at the University of Milan.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users
Rajaah

Rajaah

Honorable Member
<Gold Donor>
11,446
15,132
What I'm most interested in finding out about at this point:

Who built the 3 Great Pyramids, WHEN, and how? Modern tech couldn't have built them. As I understand it, the ancient Egyptians (circa 200 BC) didn't know who built them either, they were already ancient artifacts at that point. Do we really believe they're from 2700 BC?

When were Atlantis and Indus Valley, and how advanced were they? Because from here it looks like they were 12,000+ years ago and much more advanced than humans were supposed to be at that point. Then there's the glass factory they found underground in Israel that was dated to a time well before humans were supposed to be using glass, or even metals for that matter.

More and more it seems like our comprehension of history is mostly just "educated guesses".
 
  • 6Like
Reactions: 5 users
Rajaah

Rajaah

Honorable Member
<Gold Donor>
11,446
15,132
Chris said:
No. Just no.

The mercator projection is an accurate map for longitude and latitude designed for navigation. It is not designed for maintaining the area of various landmasses, there are other projections for that.

The mercator projection is based on our 100% accurate map which is the globe.

The difficulty of transferring a sphere shaped map onto a rectangle is in no way equivalent to what we are talking about.
Click to expand...

Chris said:
You can use them with a historian of the time period who knows the context of how it was made and what it is showing.

You can't look at it and go "wow the Congo was underwater because all these maps show a coastline below the Sahara" or "wow Britian must have undergone some dramatic plate techtonics to look totally different on every pre modern map".

Like I've seen a historian go through the Piri Reis Map and show how a bunch of islands are duplicates because it's a composite map and how "Antarctica" has the same rivers as South America.

You guys have already decided on your theory and are cherry picking anything vaguley close from random maps, instead of looking at all of the maps objectively including the ones that contradict you.
Click to expand...

The Rock Eye Roll GIF by WWE
 
Chukzombi

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member
71,832
213,177
Rajaah said:
What I'm most interested in finding out about at this point:

Who built the 3 Great Pyramids, WHEN, and how? Modern tech couldn't have built them. As I understand it, the ancient Egyptians (circa 200 BC) didn't know who built them either, they were already ancient artifacts at that point. Do we really believe they're from 2700 BC?

When were Atlantis and Indus Valley, and how advanced were they? Because from here it looks like they were 12,000+ years ago and much more advanced than humans were supposed to be at that point. Then there's the glass factory they found underground in Israel that was dated to a time well before humans were supposed to be using glass, or even metals for that matter.

More and more it seems like our comprehension of history is mostly just "educated guesses".
Click to expand...
there used to be a show on History Channel before it become nonstop redneck reality shows and ancient aliens BULLSHIT. it was called, Life After People, they used scientists and scientific data with CG examples of how many years in the future before any traces of mankind was wiped off the map. with the exception of stoneworks like Hoover Dam and Mount Rushmore. it would take 10,000 years for the planet to erase almost every trace we have ever been here. here we are 12,000 years after the last great cataclysm. nothing exists now except for trace elements of bones and stoneworks we are left with to piece together what life was like back then. check out Life After People. episodes are free on Youtube now.
 
  • 5Like
Reactions: 4 users
You must log in or register to reply here.