This earth is not the real world

BTW you don't need to answer any of these questions because you never think you simply repeat what you re being told like a parrot.

And again with the pathetic insults.
If I didn't think, I wouldn't be responding to the garbage you are saying.

Jack Black talking about science what do you think happened in the 20th century? Supposedly for centuries before that there was very little technological progress.

It isn't just the 20th century, it is also shortly before that.
A big factor was the industrial revolution which allowed for more automation.

But the same could be said for quite a lot of time. They appear to be so much more advanced than those who came before.
For example we would consider those living before the advent of computers to be much more primitive than us now, and computers being a massive technological leap. But go back to them, and they would consider those living without electricity to be primitive and electricity to be a massive technological leap.
And so on.
In time, we will almost certainly appear primitive.

One of the key factors was the industrial revolution, where we started to have power other than animals.

But there are plenty of other advancements.

For example, sailing ships which were invented long in the past, which meant people could traverse long distances with wind power instead of man power.
Or even simpler, the advent of farming, followed by the advent of irrigation systems.

But the important part with all of this is that it is incremental.
It clearly wasn't that some alien came along and gave us all this technology and then ran off.
Perhaps the most important part was paying less attention to praising your imaginary fiend and more on actually trying to figure out how the world works and trying to improve the lives of people.

How did we get this technology? Who invented it?

A variety of different people/groups. Is there any in particular you wanted to focus on?
A key one was

And is it really true that these technologies didn't exist in prior centuries or in ancient times?

There is no reason to think that all these technologies existed in ancient times. But as pointed out earlier, some of it did exist in the past.

And notice how none of that actually justifies any of your prior nonsense?

If you are trying to use scientific advancement to try to prove aliens/gods are real and created us/this universe; why didn't they give us this technology from the start? Why would they give it to us so slowly, and incrementally, as if we were inventing it all ourselves?
It simply makes no sense.

Were you there Calen to make such claims or are you just repeating what you were told? Were you there when they built Pyramids or when they built St Isaac's Cathedral in St. Petersburg. Do you honestly think that it was possible to build Versailles and other architectural marvels of the past with no advanced technology, no computers no complicated math, just by hand as they tell us it was built. They are selling you loads of crap and you buying it.

Have you ever heard of the great Tartaria? I think the theory of Tartaria explains a lot and answers many questions. According to conventional science humans have been on Earth for over 100 thousand years right? So how come its only within the past 100 years we jumped from stage coaches to Ferraris and from candle lighting to space travel? I don't buy it at all.

So it took 100 thousand years for industrial revolution to begin and 100 years later we have SIRI? This is stupid think about what you are saying! No such leap has ever been made in human history according to your scientists and historians that you paraphrase. This leap started when Tartaria ended. Tartaria was the Atlantis and no it didn't sink 12000 years ago, We actually had free energy in late 19th century and there is evidence of trolleys that were electric yet without any cables. We still can't make this work today. Tesla and electric cars is the closest we came to this.

Do you honestly think that it was possible to build Versailles and other architectural marvels of the past with no advanced technology

YES!
If you want to claim otherwise, PROVE IT!

just by hand as they tell us it was built.

Who tells us that?

They didn't have all the technology that WE have. That doesn't mean they didn't have ANY technology.

Have you ever heard of the great Tartaria? I think the theory of Tartaria explains a lot and answers many questions.

I think it is just delusional garbage, which doesn't really explain much and raises vastly more questions. Like what happened to this massive empire?

According to conventional science humans have been on Earth for over 100 thousand years right? So how come its only within the past 100 years we jumped

Now consider ANY technology possible, and realise that the same kind of question can be asked.

Again, if it was aliens, that made us, why has it only happened now? Why didn't they give us the technology right from the start?

So it took 100 thousand years for industrial revolution to begin

You say that as if people were working on it for all that time.

This is stupid think about what you are saying!

I have thought about what I am saying.
The one saying stupid things is you.

No such leap has ever been made in human history according to your scientists and historians that you paraphrase.

Sure, except those I already mentioned.
Such as the massive leap from hunter gatherers to farmer cultivators.
Or the massive leap from living by a river for water, to artificial canals and irrigation systems.
Or the massive leap from man powered boats to sail boats.
Or the massive leap from animal power to steam power (and subsequently other fossil fuels).
Or the massive leap from needing to burn things for power and light to having electricity.
Or the massive leap from simple mechanical systems, to logic circuitry.
Or the massive leap from vacuum tubes to solid state devices.

And so on.

We actually had free energy in late 19th century and there is evidence of trolleys that were electric yet without any cables.

Yet you don't provide any such evidence.

There is no reason to believe we had free energy EVER.

Stop just baselessly asserting garbage, and start trying to justify it.

Or are you going to claim that none of that BS was stated as a fact, yet also refuse to admit it is fantasy?

I don't believe that Aliens gave us any technology, I believe we always had this technology but perhaps a great war or a huge natural disaster erased the evidence of such past. Have you ever been to St Petersburg Russia. Conventional historians will tell you that it was built by serfs with no formal education. Peter the Great beat the Swedes and established a new Russian capital there, I was laughing very hard when I actually went there and saw the city. Tour guide said that even today we have no technology to replicate many palaces and cathedrals of St. Petersburg and when I asked her who built all this, she said the serfs which means Russian peasants. I literally went into my hotel room laughing at what I right away knew was an obvious conspiracy to hide the truth, then of course I found the theory of Tartaria and everything made sense. And right now Jack you are sounding exactly like that Russian tour guide you are funny LOL

Were you there Calen to make such claims or are you just repeating what you were told?

And that statement invalidates any further point you make, because the very same question could be asked of you.

I don't believe that Aliens gave us any technology, I believe we always had this technology but perhaps a great war or a huge natural disaster erased the evidence of such past.

So if we always had it, where did it come from?
If it was so great that we had the capability to go to space and live all over the planet, what natural disaster could have possibly wiped it all out?
How could a great war have wiped it all out while leaving mankind alive?

And if it did erase all the evidence, why do you then claim there is evidence?
That is a massive problem for this kind of conspiracy garabge.
You need to claim that so much of it is lost, yet so much of it remains.

If so much was left behind, there would be plenty for people to just directly continue.
Otherwise, it would have all been reduced to ruins and there would be no evidence left.

Have you ever been to St Petersburg Russia. Conventional historians will tell you that it was built by serfs with no formal education.

No, they wouldn't.
It is a city, which has developed over time.

Tour guide said

Who cares what they said?
They were likely just trying to make it sound better than it is.

And right now Jack you are sounding exactly like that Russian tour guide you are funny LOL

No, that would be you. Making all sorts of BS claims with no evidence at all.

Are you capable of justifying any of the nonsense you are spouting, or are you only capable of spouting more and more nonense?

I do not need to justify anything and the real non sense comes from fake historians who sold you on fake history of the world. You need to explain to me and justify your bogus claims that for thousands of years humans were stupid and only in the past 100 year became smart. Its like saying John was always a  garbageman but then all of a sudden became brain surgent. Makes no sense.

I mean yes there are minor technological differences between let's say 16th and 18th centuries but nothing on such grand scale as of the world we live in now. Radio, television, internet, airplanes, cars, ships, weapons, electricity, virtual reality, video games those are just few things we did in one century. how did we become so smart? Where were we before this? You honestly think that all these technology is new and never existed on earth before?

When I was researching Tartaria I discovered that Peter the Great did not build new city, he simply unearthed and excavated of what was already there. This is why lots of time first floor in St Petersburg is actually the basement because the city was excavated from the ground and simply rebuilt. The city was there way before Peter the Great. When we look at the old architecture of many cities including some American cities such as San Francisco we see the footprints of the once global empire that has left its footprints on every continent.

So my final point is this; do I believe aliens or super beings gave us this technology for the first time in 20th century? No I don't. I simply believe that we have regained the old knowledge and some of the old technologies. I do not know exactly when this happened.  Today we live in buildings that look like matchboxes and we go to Europe and other places for vacation to marvel at old architecture, historians tell us those people were primitive but I believe we are looking at the lost old world that was more advanced then us.

Food security allowed people time and energy to pursue other things.

What food and security? did you forget about the horrors of world war 1 and 2.  20th century was by far the bloodiest in human history (according to historians)

I do not need to justify anything and the real non sense comes from fake historians who sold you on fake history of the world. You need to explain to me and justify your bogus claims that for thousands of years humans were stupid and only in the past 100 year became smart. Its like saying John was always a  garbageman but then all of a sudden became brain surgent. Makes no sense.

I mean yes there are minor technological differences between let's say 16th and 18th centuries but nothing on such grand scale as of the world we live in now. Radio, television, internet, airplanes, cars, ships, weapons, electricity, virtual reality, video games those are just few things we did in one century. how did we become so smart? Where were we before this? You honestly think that all these technology is new and never existed on earth before?

When I was researching Tartaria I discovered that Peter the Great did not build new city, he simply unearthed and excavated of what was already there. This is why lots of time first floor in St Petersburg is actually the basement because the city was excavated from the ground and simply rebuilt. The city was there way before Peter the Great. When we look at the old architecture of many cities including some American cities such as San Francisco we see the footprints of the once global empire that has left its footprints on every continent.

So my final point is this; do I believe aliens or super beings gave us this technology for the first time in 20th century? No I don't. I simply believe that we have regained the old knowledge and some of the old technologies. I do not know exactly when this happened.  Today we live in buildings that look like matchboxes and we go to Europe and other places for vacation to marvel at old architecture, historians tell us those people were primitive but I believe we are looking at the lost old world that was more advanced then us.

On the contrary, we have no need to explain, as we have recorded history and evidence to justify our claims.

None of those technologies appeared suddenly; all were built upon incremental developments.  I don't need someone to tell me that as I've been alive long enough to have witnessed it myself. I've seen the incremental changes in radio, television, computers, transport, video games and other electronics.

You claim this technology existed long ago.  Where is your evidence for this, other than your incredulity?

Your analogy of John the garbageman becoming a brain surgeon is absurd. Firstly, there is no reason why John, if he had enough intelligence to learn and an appropriate education, couldn't become a brain surgeon. Secondly, science and technology are not the work of one person over one lifetime.  They are the cumulative knowledge and experiences of many people over many lifetimes and generations.

We have countless evidence from multiple independent sources, much of which comes from scientists who set out to disprove other scientists, and from inventors who created conflicting and competing technologies.  Tesla and Edison are an example of this.

So again, where is your evidence? Where are the archaeological discoveries proving that they had advanced technology before the modern era? Where are they ancient texts describing this technology?

Did you never talk to your grandparents NE about their childhoods, the changes they have seen?

I think there is still a bit of a problem with Sumerians, their language and "tech".

But yeah, in general we have a pretty good picture of how things have progressed.

I do not need to justify anything

And while you refuse to justify it, we can continue to call it out as BS.

You need to explain to me and justify your bogus claims that for thousands of years humans were stupid

No, I don't.
I never made that claim.
That is you trying to shift the burden of proof.
You are the one who should be justifying all the BS you have been spouting.

I mean yes there are minor technological differences between let's say 16th and 18th centuries but nothing on such grand scale as of the world we live in now. Radio, television, internet, airplanes, cars, ships, weapons, electricity, virtual reality, video games those are just few things we did in one century. how did we become so smart? Where were we before this? You honestly think that all these technology is new and never existed on earth before?

This just shows you aren't even bothering to read what has been said.
The differences between the 16th and 18th century are massive compared to what came before.

As has already been stated, the more technology there is, the faster the rate of advancement.

When I was researching Tartaria I discovered

You mean you read some BS, which you are now parroting with no justification nor evidence.

So my final point is this; do I believe aliens or super beings gave us this technology for the first time in 20th century? No I don't. I simply believe that we have regained the old knowledge and some of the old technologies. I do not know exactly when this happened.

You don't know IF it happened.
Before you even get to the "when" you need to establish if it happened in the first place.

What food and security? did you forget about the horrors of world war 1 and 2.  20th century was by far the bloodiest in human history (according to historians)

And do you know why it could have been so bloody?
Because of just how much food there was.
Yes, it was short relative to times around it, but compared to earlier times, there was still plenty.

What food and security? did you forget about the horrors of world war 1 and 2.  20th century was by far the bloodiest in human history (according to historians)

10-15yrs out of about a millenia.

No wonder you fail at vaccine and mask comprehension - Your ability to math is so poor.

I do not need to justify anything and the real non sense comes from fake historians who sold you on fake history of the world. You need to explain to me and justify your bogus claims that for thousands of years humans were stupid and only in the past 100 year became smart. Its like saying John was always a  garbageman but then all of a sudden became brain surgent. Makes no sense.

I mean yes there are minor technological differences between let's say 16th and 18th centuries but nothing on such grand scale as of the world we live in now. Radio, television, internet, airplanes, cars, ships, weapons, electricity, virtual reality, video games those are just few things we did in one century. how did we become so smart? Where were we before this? You honestly think that all these technology is new and never existed on earth before?

When I was researching Tartaria I discovered that Peter the Great did not build new city, he simply unearthed and excavated of what was already there. This is why lots of time first floor in St Petersburg is actually the basement because the city was excavated from the ground and simply rebuilt. The city was there way before Peter the Great. When we look at the old architecture of many cities including some American cities such as San Francisco we see the footprints of the once global empire that has left its footprints on every continent.

So my final point is this; do I believe aliens or super beings gave us this technology for the first time in 20th century? No I don't. I simply believe that we have regained the old knowledge and some of the old technologies. I do not know exactly when this happened.  Today we live in buildings that look like matchboxes and we go to Europe and other places for vacation to marvel at old architecture, historians tell us those people were primitive but I believe we are looking at the lost old world that was more advanced then us.

This is easy to answer, New Earth. It directly correlates with human population number on the planet and 0.25 percent of that population considered smart.

In the year 0001, Earths human population was 250,000,000.

In the year 1800, Earths human population was about 1 billion people.

In the year 1900, Earth's human population was 2 billion people.

Earth's human population today is 7.7 billion people.

So, as you can see, Earths population has more than tripled in the last century, and so have the number of smart people. That's why there have been so many profound technological advances in the last 100 years.........more smart people all at the same time.

Calen have you ever read Vedas? Do you even know what they are? Vedas describe the ancient flight in details and calls the flying machines of ancient India Vemanas. Vemana Shastra to be precise, it was an ancient flying craft. Did you also know that Hitler sent countless expeditions to Tibet and India to regain ancient technology and lost knowledge. No of course you didn't know cause this is not what the schools teach. This is why I always said that we need to defund schools. They teach false garbage. You need to read Vedas Calen. But of course you and your pals here just gonna brush this off and say its not enough evidence or ask me to do your homework for you.

Calen have you ever read Vedas? Do you even know what they are? Vedas describe the ancient flight in details and calls the flying machines of ancient India Vemanas. Vemana Shastra to be precise, it was an ancient flying craft. Did you also know that Hitler sent countless expeditions to Tibet and India to regain ancient technology and lost knowledge. No of course you didn't know cause this is not what the schools teach. This is why I always said that we need to defund schools. They teach false garbage. You need to read Vedas Calen. But of course you and your pals here just gonna brush this off and say its not enough evidence or ask me to do your homework for you.

I have read parts of the Vedas.  It is a large body of text, covering around 600 years, and comprises a major part of the Hindu religious texts.

I am aware of the Vedas' descriptions of flying palaces.  I am also aware that the bulk of information regarding Vimana comes from Vaimanika Šastra, which was first revealed in 1952, and the author claims it was given to him by an 'ancient Hindu sage".  It is a modern work, not an ancient Veda.

I am also aware if the expeditions the Nazi made to Tibet, and if I recall, the major aim if the expedition was to prove that Aryans had settled in the region.

Neither of these two things provide any evidence of ancient technology.

So, you seem to think I finished school last year.  I finished school in 1997.  I then went into higher education.  As part of higher education you need to learn skills in educating yourself.  Independent study and research are necessity.  I have carried these skills throughout my adult life, and still spend at least 2 or 3 hours a day studying.  And I'll study anything.  I consider myself a polymath.

A few days ago, you implied I am part of the cancel culture, and yet here you are essentially advocating cancelling school.  What's good for the goose, is good for the gander, I guess.

Do you even know what they are?

I do, works of fiction.

If you think they provide descriptions of flying machines, why not provide the evidence of that, instead of the baseless assertion that they do.
Do they actually describe it, or is it just a bunch of vague nonsense which can be manipulated into pretending they do?

They teach false garbage.

Care to provide some examples, along with evidence that it is false?

Because not agreeing with your delusions doesn't make it false garbage.
Schools not supporting your delusions is not a reason to defund them.
Schools not teaching everything, which would be impossible, is not a reason to defund them.

Calen have you ever seen a golden airplane model almost like a toy model found in Columbia I believe, they actually showed this on ancient aliens. You probably think its not an airplane its fish with wings or something else right? Have you also seen the images of helicopter, submarine, flaying hover craft and few more interesting drawings in ancient Egyptian pyramids? I guess this is also not evidence because school teachers didn't mention this to you? I know you guys hate doing research so do you want me to post this for you here?

Again with the baseless accusation that we do no research.

I have read about the Abydos helicopter, and various explanations of it.   It is difficult to find an image that hasn't been touched up to enhance the look of the helicopter, and even if I could my understanding of Ancient Egyptian is minimal.  I can only read small formulaic inscriptions.

So, it does indeed appear to look like a helicopter.  That can be explained by a combination of palimpsest and pareidolia.

The Egyptian Pharaohs regularly reused the works of former Pharaohs.  It was not uncommon for a Pharaoh to  take an existing inscription or statue and have it altered to their purpose.  With stone carvings, you can't just erase the text, and replace it with something else.  Instead they filled the carvin with plaster,, and once set, recarved that part of the inscription.

Over time that plaster has degraded, leaving a carving over a carving. In written texts this would be called a palimpsest - text written over text. Ancient recycling if you will.

We now have an explanation of its physical form, which is backed up by the thousands of other extant examples, both carved and written.

The final step, explaining why we see it as a helicopter, and why early (pre-20th century) archaeologists found it unremarkable, can be taken with pareidolia.

Pareidolia is a phenomena of perception where we see familiar shapes in unconnected or random marks or textures.  Often this takes the form of faces, as our brains are hardwired to recognise faces.

We are all familiar with the shape of a helicopter, and so when we see anything that vaguely resembles a helicopter we see a helicopter.  Early archaeologists had not yet seen a helicopter so would not have seen the carving as helicopter.  They saw it as it is, a carving over a carving.

As for the Quimbaya artifacts, they look pretty much identical to inscriptions of fish and birds that are prevalent in that whole area.  The do look plane-like, but that can hardly be considered unexpected. Due to aero/hydrodynamics, birds, fish and planes have similar forms; streamlined bodies, protrusions at the side for lift, and a tail for stability and steering.  The fact that we see them as planes, seems most simply explained by the fact that we are familiar with depictions of planes and unfamiliar with highly stylised depictions of birds and fish.  We "see" that which is familiar.

Please, stop insinuating I do no research.  You think I just accept everything I am told, without question, but you are wrong.  I don't do my research via YouTube, Facebook or Ancient Aliens.  I use published, peer reviewed papers, and a multitude of independent sources.  Real research.

Calen have you ever seen a golden airplane model almost like a toy model found in Columbia I believe, they actually showed this on ancient aliens. You probably think its not an airplane its fish with wings or something else right? Have you also seen the images of helicopter, submarine, flaying hover craft and few more interesting drawings in ancient Egyptian pyramids? I guess this is also not evidence because school teachers didn't mention this to you? I know you guys hate doing research so do you want me to post this for you here?

Makes sense that the entirety of your education comes from this guy on the Ancient Aliens show:

Imbed the text "research"

Again with the baseless accusation that we do no research.

I have read about the Abydos helicopter, and various explanations of it.   It is difficult to find an image that hasn't been touched up to enhance the look of the helicopter, and even if I could my understanding of Ancient Egyptian is minimal.  I can only read small formulaic inscriptions.

So, it does indeed appear to look like a helicopter.  That can be explained by a combination of palimpsest and pareidolia.

The Egyptian Pharaohs regularly reused the works of former Pharaohs.  It was not uncommon for a Pharaoh to  take an existing inscription or statue and have it altered to their purpose.  With stone carvings, you can't just erase the text, and replace it with something else.  Instead they filled the carvin with plaster,, and once set, recarved that part of the inscription.

Over time that plaster has degraded, leaving a carving over a carving. In written texts this would be called a palimpsest - text written over text. Ancient recycling if you will.

We now have an explanation of its physical form, which is backed up by the thousands of other extant examples, both carved and written.

The final step, explaining why we see it as a helicopter, and why early (pre-20th century) archaeologists found it unremarkable, can be taken with pareidolia.

Pareidolia is a phenomena of perception where we see familiar shapes in unconnected or random marks or textures.  Often this takes the form of faces, as our brains are hardwired to recognise faces.

We are all familiar with the shape of a helicopter, and so when we see anything that vaguely resembles a helicopter we see a helicopter.  Early archaeologists had not yet seen a helicopter so would not have seen the carving as helicopter.  They saw it as it is, a carving over a carving.

As for the Quimbaya artifacts, they look pretty much identical to inscriptions of fish and birds that are prevalent in that whole area.  The do look plane-like, but that can hardly be considered unexpected. Due to aero/hydrodynamics, birds, fish and planes have similar forms; streamlined bodies, protrusions at the side for lift, and a tail for stability and steering.  The fact that we see them as planes, seems most simply explained by the fact that we are familiar with depictions of planes and unfamiliar with highly stylised depictions of birds and fish.  We "see" that which is familiar.

Please, stop insinuating I do no research.  You think I just accept everything I am told, without question, but you are wrong.  I don't do my research via YouTube, Facebook or Ancient Aliens.  I use published, peer reviewed papers, and a multitude of independent sources.  Real research.

I dunno man.
It makes perfecf sense to me that aliens with intergalactic travel would use something so primative as whirly blades of a helicopter?
I saw it in a documentary where this duke went to the desert and flew a giant dragonfly looking thing.
And the aliens used knives instead of shooting each other.

Calen have you ever seen a golden airplane model almost like a toy model found in Columbia I believe

Yet can you provide evidence? No.
All you do is provide more and more stories.

Have you also seen the images of helicopter

You mean the overlapping hieroglyphs which bear superficial resemblance to a helicopter, which people then falsely claim is a helicopter, rather than 2 overlapping glyphs; even though if they had never seen a helicopter before they almost certainly wouldn't suggest it was a flying craft.

If you want to convince me, show me one which shows the intricacies of a swash plate fixed to an aerodynamic rotary wing.

I guess this is also not evidence because school teachers didn't mention this to you?

No, it isn't evidence because it is just a baseless claim.
I could easily say the ancient Egyptians built the pyramids with the help of magic pixie dust. They stopped doing it after they tried to kidnap the pixies to exploit them and the pixies fought back and abandoned them so there was no more pixie dust for the Egyptians to use.

That isn't evidence. It is just a wild story. It is a claim which needs evidence to be supported.

I know you guys hate doing research so do you want me to post this for you here?

I like doing research, but no so much on this garbage, especially as all it will do is prove you wrong.
If you aren't willing to put in the effort to substantiate your claims in any way; which should I place any value on them, rather than dismiss them as wild speculation?

I'm not reading you Jack anymore so don't even waste time posting. I'm just giving you heads up so that you don't waste your time. Kabool I don't believe the helicopter is alien, I honestly think it was Egyptian, I believe they had flying machines. And Calen I knew you were gonna say its a fish, all the non believers say the same thing. Some people won't believe in ancient advanced technology even if they go back in time and see it for themselves lol

What's wrong with Ancient Aliens show on History channel? Its not presented as entertainment or science fiction. You guys simply choose to dismiss certain evidence or argument, very bias.

I'm not reading you Jack anymore so don't even waste time posting. I'm just giving you heads up so that you don't waste your time. Kabool I don't believe the helicopter is alien, I honestly think it was Egyptian, I believe they had flying machines. And Calen I knew you were gonna say its a fish, all the non believers say the same thing. Some people won't believe in ancient advanced technology even if they go back in time and see it for themselves lol

What's wrong with Ancient Aliens show on History channel? Its not presented as entertainment or science fiction. You guys simply choose to dismiss certain evidence or argument, very bias.

As a program there is nothing wrong with Ancient Aliens.  I've watched it a few times, and I'll admit it can be compelling.

My issue with it, is that it doesn't provide evidence.  At least not evidence that isn't easily refuted by other well accepted evidence.

The general formula of the show is to present something that appears mysterious.  It then speculates. 

Speculation in and of itself, isn't a problem; many scientific theories began as speculation.  The problem is that until it's actually formed into a coherent hypothesis that doesn't contradict proven fact, it's essentially a guess, and guesses don't exactly rank high on the validity scale.

With regards Egyptian helicopter, my issue is that the evidence for it comes from one solitary inscription.

The ancient Egyptians carved solar ships and royal barges all over pretty much everything. They clearly prized them, and things they prized the flaunted in their inscriptions.  They even valued them enough to burry them alongside tombs, and a number of them have been excavated.

If a relatively simple ship would so highly valued, then surely something that allowed them to fly would be even more so.  They would have had images of them everywhere just as solar ships were.

My real issue though, is that absolutely no evidence of anything resembling a flying machine has been found, nor any associated technologies, such as power storage and transfer,  or engines if some kind.  Not even a simple wire or switch, which a flying machine must have of some kind.

Also, pretty much every metal tool that archaeologists have found have been bronze.  Other that the forging of meteorite iron, there is no evidence they had iron age technology.  They certainly were unable to extract iron from ore to any substantial level, as iron workings would have been found. Any flying machine they could have built would have had to have been made from bronze, a highly unsuitable metal.

So, in the Egyptian helicopter case, on the one hand we have an isolated hieroglyph that appears to be a helicopter (but can can be explained in other ways) and precisely zero other corroborating evidence; on the other hand, evidence that they lacked even the precursor technologies of flight.

That is how I form all my opinions - by weighing up evidence, both for and against,  and how that evidence fits with other proven fact.  At heart I am agnostic, and delay deciding until I feel I have sufficient corroborating evidence.  I don't believe that is possible for any one person to satisfactorily prove everything themself; we need to rely on other people's work to fill in gaps. Rejecting things outright without examining evidence runs entirely contrary to how I understand knowledge and learning.

I'm not reading you Jack anymore so don't even waste time posting.

I will continue to object to your BS while you continue to post it.
But don't worry, I get it. You can't rationally defend your claims or rationally respond to me, so instead you will just ignore what I say to pretend you aren't completely wrong.

I don't believe the helicopter is alien, I honestly think it was Egyptian

That's right, because it isn't a helicopter. Instead it is 2 glyphs superimposed.
There is no reason to conclude it is a helicopter.

You guys simply choose to dismiss certain evidence or argument, very bias.

We don't dismiss it. We just don't drawer the ridiculous conclusions you do.

You take 1 occurrence of overlapping glyphs which superficially resemble a helicopter to falsely claim that they had helicopters.

What is the more likely and more rational conclusion?/
The the shape which superficially resembles a helicopter is an overlap of 2 glyphs due to time wearing away the plaster used to fill it in; or
That the ancient Egyptians were secretly far more advanced than we previously thought and had helicopters used to fly around, even though there is literally no evidence of any of this except one obscure alleged hieroglyph?

Where are all the remains of the helicopters?
Where are all the other places with helicopters engraved?
What did they use to power it, and where is that?
Why are the pyramids basically just massive chunks of stone rather than a more complex structure?

An honest, rational analysis of the available evidence leads one to concludes that that is not a helicopter and instead is a superposition of 2 glyphs which superficially resemble a helicopter.

A dishonest, blatant misrepresentation of the evidence is to falsely claim it proves the Egyptians had advanced technology like helicopters.

Quote from: New Earth on November 12, 2021, 10:35:37 AM

I'm not reading you Jack anymore so don't even waste time posting. I'm just giving you heads up so that you don't waste your time. Kabool I don't believe the helicopter is alien, I honestly think it was Egyptian, I believe they had flying machines. And Calen I knew you were gonna say its a fish, all the non believers say the same thing. Some people won't believe in ancient advanced technology even if they go back in time and see it for themselves lol

What's wrong with Ancient Aliens show on History channel? Its not presented as entertainment or science fiction. You guys simply choose to dismiss certain evidence or argument, very bias.

As a program there is nothing wrong with Ancient Aliens.  I've watched it a few times, and I'll admit it can be compelling.

My issue with it, is that it doesn't provide evidence.  At least not evidence that isn't easily refuted by other well accepted evidence.

The general formula of the show is to present something that appears mysterious.  It then speculates. 

Speculation in and of itself, isn't a problem; many scientific theories began as speculation.  The problem is that until it's actually formed into a coherent hypothesis that doesn't contradict proven fact, it's essentially a guess, and guesses don't exactly rank high on the validity scale.

With regards Egyptian helicopter, my issue is that the evidence for it comes from one solitary inscription.

The ancient Egyptians carved solar ships and royal barges all over pretty much everything. They clearly prized them, and things they prized the flaunted in their inscriptions.  They even valued them enough to burry them alongside tombs, and a number of them have been excavated.

If a relatively simple ship would so highly valued, then surely something that allowed them to fly would be even more so.  They would have had images of them everywhere just as solar ships were.

My real issue though, is that absolutely no evidence of anything resembling a flying machine has been found, nor any associated technologies, such as power storage and transfer,  or engines if some kind.  Not even a simple wire or switch, which a flying machine must have of some kind.

Also, pretty much every metal tool that archaeologists have found have been bronze.  Other that the forging of meteorite iron, there is no evidence they had iron age technology.  They certainly were unable to extract iron from ore to any substantial level, as iron workings would have been found. Any flying machine they could have built would have had to have been made from bronze, a highly unsuitable metal.

So, in the Egyptian helicopter case, on the one hand we have an isolated hieroglyph that appears to be a helicopter (but can can be explained in other ways) and precisely zero other corroborating evidence; on the other hand, evidence that they lacked even the precursor technologies of flight.

That is how I form all my opinions - by weighing up evidence, both for and against,  and how that evidence fits with other proven fact.  At heart I am agnostic, and delay deciding until I feel I have sufficient corroborating evidence.  I don't believe that is possible for any one person to satisfactorily prove everything themself; we need to rely on other people's work to fill in gaps. Rejecting things outright without examining evidence runs entirely contrary to how I understand knowledge and learning.

Can you tell me what facts have been proven? Actually it is now completely disproven that slaves built pyamids with primitive tools. It has been proven without any doubt that it requires advanced technology to built pyramids, technology way beyond ours.

Beyond our cranes and cutters and loaders and CAD and all put tech....





Aliens?
Nah
Imagine what he couldve done with a 10,000 jewish slaves.
Probably make a cube or some other geometric shape.