Jump to content

What the fuck. Shouldn't this be huge news?


non-hetero

Recommended Posts

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
Guest Canadiano

"The more I learn, the more I realize that I don't know anything," confesses Bashkiria State University Professor Alexander Chuvyrov.

 

can't even accept that article until ten people have tried disproving it. Russian media directed to me by a non-hetero will have no significant effect except the wasting of thirty seconds of my lifetime...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i read about this someplace, or saw it on tv.

as i remember it, the 120 million years thing was an estimation and not at all backed up by any sort of scientifical fact. i didnt read the articles linked, so maybe they have some new info, but im not all that swayed. if there was a whole other civilization, why is this map, which is so hi tech, yet still carved out of rock, the only remnants in existance?

 

why do i care about a civillization 120 million years old, when i have serious doubts ours will make it through the next two years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest imported_El Mamerro

Smells like bullsheezy to me.

 

It's 120 million years old because they found a shell that old on its surface? That's fucking stupid. You can find similar shells all over tons of shit, including cast concrete in buildings. That could've been an old-ass rock that was carved later on, and happened to have shell fossils in it. Plus, what seeking said. All that survived were a few slabs of rock?

 

It's an ill hoax, in my opinion, but it'd be doper if it was true. Beer,

 

El Mamerro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BROWNer

i'm with mamerroidsz.

also remember that just becuz

its 'science' or 'scientifical', that

doesn't make it truth.  

"The more I learn, the more I

realize that I don't know anything,"

confesses Bashkiria State University

Professor Alexander Chuvyrov...<

this statement, philosophically speaking,

couldn't be more on point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

saying who cares about a 120 year old civilization when who knows where ours will be in 2 is silly...maybe this culture could explain whats happening to our culture.its certainly obvious that everything seems to work full circle..i mean, this news is huge.this could shake the evolution theory to fucking kingdom come.and as to why were they carving on rock when they are supposed to be so advanced?they aren't stating that they are more advanced in technology yet they are saying that they had a society advanced enough to calculate such detailed maps.and perhaps someone in that society hadn't yet invented paper and ink...surely if they did 120 years ago it would still be around huh?:rolleyes: think about how well rock holds up...i mean our land is fucking made out of it.carving the maps in to rocks seems like a great idea to me.there are a lot of things to consider when it comes to ancient society.i mean..not every period of time is going to have people invent the same things...that is the beauty of the mind.and maybe they had invented many of the things we claim to be the first at.who would know because its 120 MILLION years old...you think if somehow every human died and the evolutionary process started over again..the n 120 million years later when society has reached the point we are at now..they're going to find all of our processors and hair dryers etc?i mean come on...its so customary for americans to be so spiteful to real news.because to us real news is who died and what break neck politician is stealing money and how much oil we are supposed to have.thank you for his article.you guys should try and be more open minded.i love you good bye

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest imported_El Mamerro

No, to me real news, in terms of science news, means something that is solidly backed by unwavering facts, and has been studied comprehensively enough to merit support. What we have here is an incredibly weak argument about something that has obviously not been studied enough to be making the kinds of assumptions these people are making.

 

It's simply ridiculous to believe that dinosaurs and bacteria, who didn't build shit, left a hell of a lot more remnants than a civilization with the power to build topographical maps.

 

Unless, of course, they meant it to be this way...

 

Anyways, my position still holds until further study reveals more. Beer,

 

El Mamerro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

people keep a stern grip of ignorance and refuse to let their mind wander.its just like people are so critical of anything that they kill any idea of something greater than them instantly.you should have fun with and indulge the idea that the world may not be as you "know" it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest imported_El Mamerro
Originally posted by Wilt

people keep a stern grip of ignorance and refuse to let their mind wander.its just like people are so critical of anything that they kill any idea of something greater than them instantly.you should have fun with and indulge the idea that the world may not be as you "know" it.

 

Dude, if there's something I love pondering on, it's scientific findings that challenge and knock down conventional notions of how the world works. Unfortunately, this finding isn't one of them, yet, because it's still too weak. I think it's awesome to indulge and think of it as true, it lets your mind soar. But in the end, I'm not convinced yet, until I learn more about it. Beer,

 

El Mamerro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so you're telling me that they had both the technology and the tools to carve military spec, typographic maps that accuratly depict their whole contenent, but they had no better base material than a big ass rock? i find that very suspect. also, if indeed rock was their standard writing tablet, why is this the only known remnant? if you have the technology to create such a thing, you arent going to make just one. you have to look at it in the larger perspective. if they were that advanced in their map making, they would have been advanced in all of their society, and im sure some part of it would have survived.

since when is being cautious and analytical about new findings, especially ones that undermine our whole notion of existence, 'close minded'? im more than willing to entertain the idea, which is why ive put actual thought into it, further than just to believe what i read in two small news stories.

perhaps it is infact you that is so caught up in your quest to be 'open minded' that you find your self closed off from the rational thought process.

just an idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Dyptheria
Originally posted by El Mamerro

Smells like bullsheezy to me.

 

It's 120 million years old because they found a shell that old on its surface? That's fucking stupid. You can find similar shells all over tons of shit, including cast concrete in buildings. That could've been an old-ass rock that was carved later on, and happened to have shell fossils in it. Plus, what seeking said. All that survived were a few slabs of rock?

 

It's an ill hoax, in my opinion, but it'd be doper if it was true. Beer,

 

El Mamerro

actually, geologists create a time scale by dating organisms, the organisms are known to be alive between certain dates. if the species lived 120 million years ago, and already went extinct, and it was in the coating at the time of putting the setting it, thats a good indication that the stone was set 120 million years ago. no, you can't find similar shells all over. trust me, i work in paleogeology. scientists know this stuff. scientists are bigger skeptics that any of you, they have to prove it to themselves and the whole scientific community before publishing the data...PLUS, if that is not convincing for you, the map shows the area had a lot of similar features, but some features are different due to tectonic activity. Plate tectonics changes topography on the scale of millions of years, trust me, the geologists had to have done the math using the velocity of the plate that the Urals lie on, and account for the magnitude of changes between the features on the map, and the present day topography. and if any of you think they should be finding other evidence of such a civilization, maybe they haven't even begun any excavations in the area. you never know...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with Mamerro, sounds intriguing but more evidence is needed to bring me around.

The most plausible explanation is forgery, possibly by the finder himself. (Did I read right that he found a rock on his own desk with a copy of the map? Anybody with me in thinking this was his rough draft for making the map himself?)

If you doubt the forgery theory, look up the story of Piltdown Man before you reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest imported_El Mamerro
Originally posted by Dyptheria

actually, geologists create a time scale by dating organisms, the organisms are known to be alive between certain dates. if the species lived 120 million years ago, and already went extinct, and it was in the coating at the time of putting the setting it, thats a good indication that the stone was set 120 million years ago. no, you can't find similar shells all over. trust me, i work in paleogeology. scientists know this stuff. scientists are bigger skeptics that any of you, they have to prove it to themselves and the whole scientific community before publishing the data...PLUS, if that is not convincing for you, the map shows the area had a lot of similar features, but some features are different due to tectonic activity. Plate tectonics changes topography on the scale of millions of years, trust me, the geologists had to have done the math using the velocity of the plate that the Urals lie on, and account for the magnitude of changes between the features on the map, and the present day topography. and if any of you think they should be finding other evidence of such a civilization, maybe they haven't even begun any excavations in the area. you never know...

 

If you say you work in paleogeology, and think this is plausible, then I'll take your word for it. I'm kind of unsure what "setting" is, and I don't think any of the articles specified if the shells were found in the calcium porcelain coating, they simply say "on the surface". I still do believe that shells can be easily found in a lot of things. A daily walk around your neighborhood street will find dozens of seashells embedded in the asphalt. Granted, they're probably not 120-million year-old fossils, but what's stopping one from emerging during a sand excavation and thrown in a concrete mixer? The article states: "Though, who could guarantee that the shell was alive while being ingrained in the map? The map’s creator probably used a petrified find." That, to me, suggests that the stone is indeed 120 million years old, but not the work on it.

 

Finally, other evidence shouldn't be just found around the area... if the civilization is as advanced as it's been suggested, evidence should have turned up everyhere around the world a long time ago. Beer,

 

El Mamerro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Dyptheria

well, the reason i'm not dismissing right away is because orginal records say that there were two hundred of those slabs, and they only found one. so, if all 200 stones were found together and there was still no other evidence after many excavations, then it would seem like a sham to me. the dating by a shell thing, like i said, scientists are skeptical, and try to find everything that would disprove it. they wouldn't come forward with the shell evidence if it could be dismissed. scientists are knowitalls, their ego is on the line, and they wouldn't want to put out flawed evidence. if you could think up the idea that the stone is old, but not the carvings, rest assured that experts would think of it first...

 

i'm not suggesting that this is not a sham or this is real, i'm just tossing out ideas about what is a logical approach to proving or diproving this finding. a lot of people are dismissing this using flawed logic.

 

for all you people using the guys phrase, "the more i learn, the more i realize that i don't know anything" to dismiss this guys methods, you really have know idea what's the meaning behind that phrase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...