This showed up while searching on YouTube. I couldn't finish listening.

[sprinkleeninow]

Never heard anything like this before.

[Phoenix61]

1. Yeah, I've heard bits and pieces of stuff like this over the years. nt

[Scrivener7]

2. Give us a hint so we don't have to listen to an hour YouTube.

What is this about?

[Croney]

3. Humans are computers...DNA exchanges during cloning expose soul/divinity

and more such.

I admit that I skipped to the end.

[Scrivener7]

4. .

I'm not a computer.

I could see if you told me I was something like a toaster or maybe one of those sweater lint shavers. But not a computer. Definitely not.

Preposterous.

[Kali]

5. don't believe everything on the internet

guy's promoting pseudo scientific bullshit

[wnylib]

12. Spot on. Everything that I heard in the video

was a crock of s**t. I did not listen to the entire thing - too much BS to tolerate after lunch without puking.

I took some notes in order to dispute some of his specific claims, but got tired of documenting them. It was like fact checking a Trump rally.

This guy uses a very common conspiracy theory technique. He gives a bachelor's degree in geology as his credential, to "prove" that he supposedly knows what he is talking about, but then later discredits science as a valid field, and all scientists that don't agree with his untested hypotheses as stodgy and unable to accept new "facts" - which are not actually facts. The video is full of gaslighting, and of some outright lies, not to mention very imaginative conclusions that are not supported by evidence.

These kinds of videos get followers from otherwise intelligent people who don't have any background in the topics discussed for evaluating what this charlatan is saying about anthropology, archeology, geology, and comparative history of civilizations.

One of this character's most egregious outright lies was his claim that inanimate objects like rocks cannot be dated. If he really was a geologist, he would know better. It's true that carbon 14 testing is the most commonly used method for dating organic items - things that once were alive, like plants, animals, and people. But C14 dating only works up to 50,000 years ago. Beyond that time period, other methods are used, based on other elements besides carbon. They can be used for dating rocks, which any geologist knows. One such rock dating method relies on the relationship of the uranium-thorium-lead elements. But there are many other techniques.

This guy creates an imaginative hypothesis and then builds on it with other imaginative hypotheses to create completely unfounded, unsubstantiated conclusions. Then he discounts all disagreements as "closed-minded." This is like Kellyann claiming "alternate facts" and Trump putting down factual journalism as "fake news."

The claims on this video are rubbish.

[hatrack]

6. This seems strangely . . . . familiar.

.webp

[Warpy]

7. Oh, shit, not "they" again

They don't want you to know, they don't want you to see... On and on it goes, punctuated by "I've seen" and "I have pictures."

Well, buddy, if you've got evidence, fucking show it.

I tolerated about a third of this stuff, skipped ahead, regretted it.

Thanks but no thanks. If these guys have any evidence, let them show it. Otherwise, it's more paranoid nonsense about what "they" will allow.

(Yes, I know about hidebound professorial types clinging to scientific orthodoxy overturned by new evidence. I remember the foofaraw over evidence of syphilis in Europe long before Columbus had his Caribbean vacation. Orthodoxy was overturned when they started to look at children and found cases of congenital syphilis in a suburb of Pompeii)

[sprinkleeninow]

8. So what I gathered in my limited comprehension is a posit that humans

developed/advanced in circular periods one after another for the last 26,000 years and not in a linear fashion?

[Warpy]

9. Or it was more or less in a linear fashion

but the only place we've found the evidence is within the ruins of the city states that rose and fell within the last 7,000 years or so.

The real problem is what was committed to oral tradition like trade secrets. We're just starting to catch up there, the formula for unreinforced Roman concrete that outlasted even stone has finally been cracked. https://news.mit.edu/2023/roman-concrete-durability-lime-casts-0106 Likely a lot of the "aliens done it, I seen 'em" stuff will also be cracked, the trade secrets of talented builders.

Maybe the vid got better, but what I saw was outrageous speculation buy someone who didn't know what he was looking at and who hadn't kept up with experimental archaeology and paranoia about "they" who won't let science progress.

He might have a point about the latter, but progress it does, usually when evidence builds up enough, as in the case of the long term presence of syphilis in Europe before 1492.

[sprinkleeninow]

10. Antarctica was mentioned as revealing elaborate structures due to glacier melt

more than ever. I don't know how true; it kinda piques one's interest.

Yah, that part re: the building 'blocks' used in pyramid construction was interesting. I'll read what's in the link you sent. Thanx.

[Warpy]

11. It's my understanding that the ice melting in Antarctica

is not generally melting over the land mass, which remains quite cold. The huge ice shelf glaciers are what are melting, cracking, and breaking off with increasing frequency.

And if that guy has pictures, why weren't they shown? POIDH, buddy, or you sound like a Qpublican.

The quarry for the blocks has been known for a long time. Experimental archaeology has duplicated the transport barges. There's an apocryphal story about an experimental archaeologist who moved one of the blocks "by himself" uphill using a base of silty mud. While I think he most likely had the 6 or so guys the Egyptians used, the silty mud makes sense, it's why potters call it "slip."

As for its construction, Pierre Houdin has probably got the closest to that, here is an update with a link to the original theory:

[wnylib]

13. Totally agree regarding the claim to have pictures.

If he has them, he should show them or shut up.

Besides the paranoid "they" who don't want you to know what the speaker claims to know, he told some plain old outright lies. As I said in my earlier post, documenting his false claims while listening to him was like trying to fact check a Trump rally.

[wnylib]

17. Regarding Antarctica, see my #14.

[wnylib]

14. Regarding the OP video's claim about

ancient structures found in Antarctica, it seems that some people got their information about that from an article in the journal, Science, without checking the date.

In the following link, the Science staff reminisces about a spoof article that they published for their April 1 edition in 1997 claiming the discovery of ancient ruins in Antarctica.

https://www.science.org/content/article/ancient-ruins-found-antarctica

[Warpy]

15. Thank you! I vaguely remembered that

but couldn't find it online.

Hence, my POIDH comment. Put up or shut up.

[Kali]

16. bwahahaha!!!

hadn't seen that.