Göbekli Tepe

[Eodnhoj7]

I already explained it all several times, but you literally don't understand normal human language. You don't even understand simple everyday utterances.
That's probably because you have such a severe autism that you are completely, or almost completely incapable of processing context/meaning associated with words, concepts.

I sip coffee when he speaks...do you want a cup? (Sipping coffee)

Some might say that is because you do not like to look at and hear the Truth of things. Or, that you are incapable of refuting the Truth of things.

Some might also say that showing ignorance towards "others" just shows how ignorant 'you' truly ARE.

Sipping coffee...

Some may also say the opposite as well, you are assuming probabilities and group agreement as determining truth.

[Age]

Unless of course you want/expect EVERY one else to just guess and assume what it is that you are saying and meaning?

That's what I'm doing, because that's how normal human communication works.

And yet it is you, "normal" human beings, who are the ones who are continually disagreeing, disputing, dissenting, contradicting, countering, and in conflict with each other, causing disharmony and fighting among yourselves, and creating the tension, wars, and the killing of your OWN selves with your so called "normal human communication".

If that is how 'normal human communication' works and what 'it' creates, then give me some thing different.

Give me more clarity, and less assuming.

Have ANY of 'you' EVER considered that if you did NOT want/expect "others" to just understand 'you', by guessing and ASSUMING what you meant, then things might just be a little bit different then they are now, when this is written?

If this expecting "others" to just understand the 'me' REALLY is what 'normal human communication' IS, then maybe maybe more 'saying what you actually mean' and more 'meaning what you say' communication, then there might just be a little bit more understanding 'peace and harmony' in the "world"?

But am 'I' exactly, to be speaking, or suggesting any thing, out of the so called "normal"?

If you are not going to, or are still completely incapable to, clarify what the 'first age of humanity about 12,000 years ago' actually means, then also do expect me to guess nor assume what you actually mean because it is not going to happen.

Most people need about 10 times less clarification than you, and there is usually enough time for that.

Most people are NOT 'Me', OBVIOUSLY.

According to 'you', most people also guess and assume what is meant when "others" speak. 'I' certainly do NOT do what 'most people' do, luckily for 'me'. But unfortunate for you, maybe? We will have to wait and see.

[Age]

I sip coffee when he speaks...do you want a cup? (Sipping coffee)

Some might say that is because you do not like to look at and hear the Truth of things. Or, that you are incapable of refuting the Truth of things.

Some might also say that showing ignorance towards "others" just shows how ignorant 'you' truly ARE.

Sipping coffee...

Some may also say the opposite as well, you are assuming probabilities and group agreement as determining truth.

YOUR assumptions have let you down again.

I NEVER assumed any such things.

Saying, what some might say, did not come from and does not lead into assuming any such thing as probabilities and group agreement as determining truth at all.

Saying what I said just means EXACTLY what it says.

If you were not so closed off to, and by, your own BELIEFS, then you would not have assumed such an obviously and ridiculous assumption as you have just made here.

[Atla]

And yet it is you, "normal" human beings, who are the ones who are continually disagreeing, disputing, dissenting, contradicting, countering, and in conflict with each other, causing disharmony and fighting among yourselves, and creating the tension, wars, and the killing of your OWN selves with your so called "normal human communication".

If that is how 'normal human communication' works and what 'it' creates, then give me some thing different.

Give me more clarity, and less assuming.

Have ANY of 'you' EVER considered that if you did NOT want/expect "others" to just understand 'you', by guessing and ASSUMING what you meant, then things might just be a little bit different then they are now, when this is written?

If this expecting "others" to just understand the 'me' REALLY is what 'normal human communication' IS, then maybe maybe more 'saying what you actually mean' and more 'meaning what you say' communication, then there might just be a little bit more understanding 'peace and harmony' in the "world"?

But am 'I' exactly, to be speaking, or suggesting any thing, out of the so called "normal"?

No you clueless idiot, most of them do understand what the other one is saying, but disagree exactly because of that.

If you are not going to, or are still completely incapable to, clarify what the 'first age of humanity about 12,000 years ago' actually means, then also do expect me to guess nor assume what you actually mean because it is not going to happen.

I'm not, that's why I keep telling you to fuck off.
I might consider doing mental health work if you offer me enough money.

Most people are NOT 'Me', OBVIOUSLY.

According to 'you', most people also guess and assume what is meant when "others" speak. 'I' certainly do NOT do what 'most people' do, luckily for 'me'. But unfortunate for you, maybe? We will have to wait and see.

Being mentally crippled isn't really lucky. And once again you come back with your delusions with your "we have to wait and see". Deep down you are actually just as delusional as most people, and THAT causes most of the destruction on this planet (well, and low average IQ).

When will you finally take responsibility?

[Eodnhoj7]

Some might say that is because you do not like to look at and hear the Truth of things. Or, that you are incapable of refuting the Truth of things.

Some might also say that showing ignorance towards "others" just shows how ignorant 'you' truly ARE.

Sipping coffee...

Some may also say the opposite as well, you are assuming probabilities and group agreement as determining truth.

YOUR assumptions have let you down again.

I NEVER assumed any such things.

Saying, what some might say, did not come from and does not lead into assuming any such thing as probabilities and group agreement as determining truth at all.

Saying what I said just means EXACTLY what it says.

If you were not so closed off to, and by, your own BELIEFS, then you would not have assumed such an obviously and ridiculous assumption as you have just made here.

And what you say is grounded in a point of awareness which is assumed.

[Age]

And yet it is you, "normal" human beings, who are the ones who are continually disagreeing, disputing, dissenting, contradicting, countering, and in conflict with each other, causing disharmony and fighting among yourselves, and creating the tension, wars, and the killing of your OWN selves with your so called "normal human communication".

If that is how 'normal human communication' works and what 'it' creates, then give me some thing different.

Give me more clarity, and less assuming.

Have ANY of 'you' EVER considered that if you did NOT want/expect "others" to just understand 'you', by guessing and ASSUMING what you meant, then things might just be a little bit different then they are now, when this is written?

If this expecting "others" to just understand the 'me' REALLY is what 'normal human communication' IS, then maybe maybe more 'saying what you actually mean' and more 'meaning what you say' communication, then there might just be a little bit more understanding 'peace and harmony' in the "world"?

But am 'I' exactly, to be speaking, or suggesting any thing, out of the so called "normal"?

No you clueless idiot, most of them do understand what the other one is saying, but disagree exactly because of that.

Are you absolutely sure of this, or are you just guessing and assuming this?

Are you saying, that if a human being states that the "first age of humanity is about 12,000 years ago", for example, then most human beings will understand what that one is actually saying and meaning, and, if there is any disagreement, then it is exactly because they do understand?

If yes, then what are they actually disagreeing about?

If you are not going to, or are still completely incapable to, clarify what the 'first age of humanity about 12,000 years ago' actually means, then also do expect me to guess nor assume what you actually mean because it is not going to happen.

I'm not, that's why I keep telling you to fuck off.

So your logic is because you do NOT expect me to guess nor assume what you actually mean, then that is why you KEEP telling me to fuck off, correct?

I might consider doing mental health work if you offer me enough money.

Although that might be exciting news to some, it makes no sense, to me.

Most people are NOT 'Me', OBVIOUSLY.

According to 'you', most people also guess and assume what is meant when "others" speak. 'I' certainly do NOT do what 'most people' do, luckily for 'me'. But unfortunate for you, maybe? We will have to wait and see.

Being mentally crippled isn't really lucky. And once again you come back with your delusions with your "we have to wait and see".

Some might suggest that thinking or believing that one KNOWS the truth 'right now', instead of waiting and seeing what actually eventuates, is a sign of being "mentally crippled", itself, (whatever that may mean?)

Deep down you are actually just as delusional as most people, and THAT causes most of the destruction on this planet (well, and low average IQ).

So, to 'you', 'I' do not communicate "normally" like most people but 'I' am just as 'delusional' as MOST people ARE, correct?

And, according to 'you', it is 'us' "delusional people" that cause MOST of the destruction on this planet, correct?

If 'us' delusional people cause only most of the destruction on this planet, then what destruction do 'you', truly sane and non-delusional people, cause on this planet?

Or, what destruction do 'I' cause, and, what destruction do 'you' cause?

When will you finally take responsibility?

For 'what' exactly?

If you mean the destruction that 'I' cause on this planet, then 'I' am taking responsibility for this. 'I' do this by learning a way to communicate with ALL human beings so that I can be fully understood.

Once I can explain HOW and WHY it is I who creates ALL of this destruction going on, and not just some of it, and I am fully heard and understood, then the destruction I am continually causing can be and will be STOPPED.

Until 'you', human beings, stop and fully listen, instead of assuming and believing, then the destruction I am causing will continue. So , either 'you' can wait for 'me' to learn how to communicate better OR 'you' can stop now assuming and believing you ALREADY KNOW what is true and right. The choice is YOURS.

So, we will have to wait and see what happens.

It is not your fault that 'you' adult human beings do not listen now, and instead assume and guess. This is ALL my fault because I created things to be exactly this way, for a very specific reason and purpose I might add. I meant for things to be exactly how they are HERE-NOW.

[Age]

Sipping coffee...

Some may also say the opposite as well, you are assuming probabilities and group agreement as determining truth.

YOUR assumptions have let you down again.

I NEVER assumed any such things.

Saying, what some might say, did not come from and does not lead into assuming any such thing as probabilities and group agreement as determining truth at all.

Saying what I said just means EXACTLY what it says.

If you were not so closed off to, and by, your own BELIEFS, then you would not have assumed such an obviously and ridiculous assumption as you have just made here.

And what you say is grounded in a point of awareness which is assumed.

By who or what?

Once 'you' KNOW who AND what the 'I' am IS, then 'you' will be able to SEE WHY that statement is illogical and does not make sense.

Although there is truth in the first part, the second part refutes it.

[Atla]

Are you absolutely sure of this, or are you just guessing and assuming this?

Of course that's how it is. But you seem to know less about how other people think, than most little children do.
With severe autism, it's called a lack of "theory of mind"; you can't read other people, can't understand how they think.

Are you saying, that if a human being states that the "first age of humanity is about 12,000 years ago", for example, then most human beings will understand what that one is actually saying and meaning, and, if there is any disagreement, then it is exactly because they do understand?

If yes, then what are they actually disagreeing about?

Basically yes.

What do you mean what are they disagreeing about? For example person A believes in the Christian God and person B believes in Allah. They understand very well what the other one is thinking, and want to kill the other one for it.

Or for example you believe that we have access to absolute knowledge when being completely open. Other people can understand that and disagree with you because they think that you are making dangerous, delusional shit up. Many people had this belief before you and it usually led to more destruction, and there never was any evidence for its correctness.

I skipped the rest of your comment.

[Arising_uk]

Given we think the Australian aboriginals have been there for over 40, 000 years and that they got there by boat which hints at an even earlier sea-faring group what is all this 12k first humans stuff? Bit eurocentric don't you think?

[Atla]

Given we think the Australian aboriginals have been there for over 40, 000 years and that they got there by boat which hints at an even earlier sea-faring group what is all this 12k first humans stuff? Bit eurocentric don't you think?

As a high-functioning-retard you're of course an exception to the above

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Given we think the Australian aboriginals have been there for over 40, 000 years and that they got there by boat which hints at an even earlier sea-faring group what is all this 12k first humans stuff? Bit eurocentric don't you think?

Are you retarded? No one is suggesting that humans suddenly appeared out of nowhere 12 thousand years ago. You PCturds are always looking for SOMETHING to be offended 'on behalf of'. Why don't you try medication or something? (Perhaps a large dose of barbiturates?)

[Atla]

Radiocarbon dating at ancient Middle Eastern cities also seems to suggest that a fairly advanced period existed back then, they seem to have had continuous occupation during the 9th millennium BC (or most of it).

We also come across the depiction of vultures and headless bodies in cities like Jericho and Çatalhöyük often, so it could be argued that this period was influenced by the culture of the founders of Göbekli Tepe, from the 10th millennium BC, and they used and maintained the site throughout this period. Maybe it's the continuation of the same culture actually. To me, what they did at Göbekli Tepe seems more and more like sky burial using vultures

Oh yeah I forgot to mention that at the end, Göbekli Tepe was intentionally buried. Unknown why.


calibrated-radiocarbon-plots-for-ppna-and-mppnb-samples-from-ain-ghazal-jericho-tell

[Atla]

Oh yeah I forgot to mention that at the end, Göbekli Tepe was intentionally buried. Unknown why.

Just a random idea, maybe further, smaller cataclysms (or the constant sea level rise, a sort of great flood that lasted thousands of years) made them think that sky burial angers the gods or whatever beings they believed in, and so they sticked to earth burial from then on. They even "buried" the site itself under the earth.

(Yes something happened around 8300 BC too, maybe a Bond event leading to droughts.)

[Eodnhoj7]

YOUR assumptions have let you down again.

I NEVER assumed any such things.

Saying, what some might say, did not come from and does not lead into assuming any such thing as probabilities and group agreement as determining truth at all.

Saying what I said just means EXACTLY what it says.

If you were not so closed off to, and by, your own BELIEFS, then you would not have assumed such an obviously and ridiculous assumption as you have just made here.

And what you say is grounded in a point of awareness which is assumed.

By who or what?

Once 'you' KNOW who AND what the 'I' am IS, then 'you' will be able to SEE WHY that statement is illogical and does not make sense.

Although there is truth in the first part, the second part refutes it.

Is this a joke?

[Atla]

If a very very loose memory serves, Atlantis had vessels according to pseudo scientific "myths" (or whatever you want to call them). Egypt was an off branch...the pyramids are universal so relegating to Egypt alone is iffy.

It would not be surprised they where hubpoints of some prior global super government. Considering "nothing is new under the sun" because of realities cyclical nature we have to assume at one point a one world government existed...a technocracy so to speak, with a different view of technology than today because of a different philosophical perspective.

Technology is a projection of how one reasons about how reality works...the pyramids all over the world give evidence to some philosophical/religious movement of some form...

Egypt as an off branch hmm.. I don't know..

Well if I recall correctly, they do originate themselves from the "First Age" culture, but that's more like a made-up, wishful origin story than being an actual off-branch..

Now of course the Phoenician-Minoan trading empire had very advanced ocean faring vessels, and had colonies/trading hubs on the great island continent beyond the Pillars of Hercules, nowadays known as the Americas. Mostly for storing and transporting the orichalcum that gave them a monopoly for a thousand years.
I think they were mostly friendly trading partners with Egypt (btw that's how you get pharaohs stuffed full of American drugs, with corncobs and dead American bugs lying around), although an Indian myth also seems to describe them to be fighting each other. All in all, I don't think that Egypt was part of their trading empire.. but perhaps at some point between 2500 and 2000 BC, Ugarit, the original main city of the Phoenicians, might have been under Egyptian control or influence, I don't know.

Which brings me to the third idea which is more like pure speculation on my part, but after making contact with the Indus Valley civ (they called it Punt), the Egyptians might have gotten involved in some sort of Indus Valley civ plan to build electromagnetic monuments across the globe. I'll look into this possibility sometime.