Göbekli Tepe

[Eodnhoj7]

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.

My bad, Egypt as off branch of some Atlantis myth empire.

[Arising_uk]

...
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.

Not 'of course' at all.

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), ...

Again, not 'stuffed full', nor corncobs lying around and bugs can travel across continents.

...

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.

'Electromagnetic' whats?

[Arising_uk]

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?)

"I'd say that this was the "first age" of humanity."

"the Bronze Age civilizations were actually surprisingly advanced, and some of them probably ocean-faring"

Your monomania is boring, get a life or seek help.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

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?)

"I'd say that this was the "first age" of humanity."

"the Bronze Age civilizations were actually surprisingly advanced, and some of them probably ocean-faring"

Your monomania is boring, get a life or seek help.

Hunter-gatherer cultures are not what is defined as 'civilization'. There is a reason why the Middle East is called the 'Cradle of Civilization' while Australia is not. But no doubt the PCturd establishment has come up with some new, PC 'meaning' for 'civilization'. It's the hypocritical, up-themselves 'school teacher types' (the vain, worthless ones who are only in it for the social engineering aspect) and other morons who need to 'get a life' instead of telling everyone else how to live theirs'.

[Atla]

...
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.

Not 'of course' at all.

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), ...

Again, not 'stuffed full', nor corncobs lying around and bugs can travel across continents.

...

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.

'Electromagnetic' whats?

Or maybe God put all the evidence there to test your faith

[Age]

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?

What I mean is exactly what I said; What are they disagreeing about?

For example I completely disagree with your written words, but I also have literally no understanding of what you are saying and meaning with and by those words, because surely some one of your calibre KNOWS that 'humanity' began thousands, if not millions, of years before what you said and wrote.

You said that wanting and EXPECTING "others" to just guess and assume what it is that 'you' are saying and meaning is how normal human communication works. Then you went on to say that the reason 'you', human beings, do disagree is EXACTLY because most of you do understand what the other one is saying.

Now, either I disagree with you because I do understand what it is that you are saying and meaning or I disagree because I do not understand what it is that you are saying and meaning. Because you will NOT clarify then the ONLY thing that I can off is the words that you HAVE, already, written. So, I disagree with you because obviously the "first age of humanity was NOT roughly around 12,000 years ago". This can very easily been proven to be true by the very fact of human made objects prior to that miniscule 12,000 years ago.

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.

Are you sure of this?

How many people believe in God and how many people believe in Allah, and of all of them, how many of these people want to kill each other, just because they understand what the other one is thinking?

Also, what do you propose it is exactly that they thinking, which causes them to want to kill each other?

Do you think that they are aware that the "other" is thinking about the exact same thing?

Or for example you believe that we have access to absolute knowledge when being completely open.

But I do not believe any such thing. Why did you assume or believe such a thing as this?

Your wanting and expecting me to guess or assume what you are actually saying and meaning really does not work, well with me anyway. Considering the words that you use, and the actual definitions and meanings behind those words, then you ARE often so WRONG, like just now.

Other people can understand that and disagree with you because they think that you are making dangerous, delusional shit up.

What people 'think' is of no real concern to me. What people 'know' however is another matter.

Why would people think or assume some thing like this, especially when it is so obviously wrong?

What would be better and more productive is to KNOW the actual and real Truth is instead.

Also, what exactly do you propose is this so "dangerous and delusional 'shit' ", which you assume that I am making up?

Many people had this belief before you and it usually led to more destruction, and there never was any evidence for its correctness.

What 'belief' "before me" are you talking about, which usually led to more destruction, but there was never any evidence for anyway? I do NOT have belief so there is NO "belief before me".

If you want to be FULLY understood and accepted, then from the beginning you need to start with the truth, and then move on.

Starting off with your own beliefs and assumptions about what is true and right, but which obviously could be wrong and false, does not help you to be better understood, especially considering some of your beliefs and assumptions are clearly and obviously WRONG.

And then, when what is WRONG in what you write is pointed out you, you think and/or say that you want and expect "others" to just assume and guess what you are saying and meaning really is NEVER going to succeed.

I skipped the rest of your comment.

Fair enough. Ignoring things is what completely closed and arrogant people tend to do.

[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?

What I mean is exactly what I said; What are they disagreeing about?

For example I completely disagree with your written words, but I also have literally no understanding of what you are saying and meaning with and by those words, because surely some one of your calibre KNOWS that 'humanity' began thousands, if not millions, of years before what you said and wrote.

You said that wanting and EXPECTING "others" to just guess and assume what it is that 'you' are saying and meaning is how normal human communication works. Then you went on to say that the reason 'you', human beings, do disagree is EXACTLY because most of you do understand what the other one is saying.

Now, either I disagree with you because I do understand what it is that you are saying and meaning or I disagree because I do not understand what it is that you are saying and meaning. Because you will NOT clarify then the ONLY thing that I can off is the words that you HAVE, already, written. So, I disagree with you because obviously the "first age of humanity was NOT roughly around 12,000 years ago". This can very easily been proven to be true by the very fact of human made objects prior to that miniscule 12,000 years ago.

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.

Are you sure of this?

How many people believe in God and how many people believe in Allah, and of all of them, how many of these people want to kill each other, just because they understand what the other one is thinking?

Also, what do you propose it is exactly that they thinking, which causes them to want to kill each other?

Do you think that they are aware that the "other" is thinking about the exact same thing?

Or for example you believe that we have access to absolute knowledge when being completely open.

But I do not believe any such thing. Why did you assume or believe such a thing as this?

Your wanting and expecting me to guess or assume what you are actually saying and meaning really does not work, well with me anyway. Considering the words that you use, and the actual definitions and meanings behind those words, then you ARE often so WRONG, like just now.

Other people can understand that and disagree with you because they think that you are making dangerous, delusional shit up.

What people 'think' is of no real concern to me. What people 'know' however is another matter.

Why would people think or assume some thing like this, especially when it is so obviously wrong?

What would be better and more productive is to KNOW the actual and real Truth is instead.

Also, what exactly do you propose is this so "dangerous and delusional 'shit' ", which you assume that I am making up?

Many people had this belief before you and it usually led to more destruction, and there never was any evidence for its correctness.

What 'belief' "before me" are you talking about, which usually led to more destruction, but there was never any evidence for anyway? I do NOT have belief so there is NO "belief before me".

If you want to be FULLY understood and accepted, then from the beginning you need to start with the truth, and then move on.

Starting off with your own beliefs and assumptions about what is true and right, but which obviously could be wrong and false, does not help you to be better understood, especially considering some of your beliefs and assumptions are clearly and obviously WRONG.

And then, when what is WRONG in what you write is pointed out you, you think and/or say that you want and expect "others" to just assume and guess what you are saying and meaning really is NEVER going to succeed.

I skipped the rest of your comment.

Fair enough. Ignoring things is what completely closed and arrogant people tend to do.

Look, just accept that you will never be able to understand anything anyone with a fully working brain is saying.

[Age]

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?)

What do the words "first age of humanity about 12, 000 years ago" actually mean to you?

[Age]

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?

No. Did you assume it was?

[Sculptor]

What do you think was the purpose of this unbelievably old site?

Was it perhaps a gateway to the afterlife, or maybe something else entirely? (Perhaps they hadn't even come up with the idea of an afterlife yet?)

Like many of the Early Aceramic Neolithic sites, this is where early farmers were encouraged by shysters to store their grain because some priest told them god wanted them to.
The same shit goes on today every Sunday where priests pressure people to put coins in the collection plate.

[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?)

What do the words "first age of humanity about 12, 000 years ago" actually mean to you?

Nothing, really.

[Age]

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.


Basically yes.

What do you mean what are they disagreeing about?

What I mean is exactly what I said; What are they disagreeing about?

For example I completely disagree with your written words, but I also have literally no understanding of what you are saying and meaning with and by those words, because surely some one of your calibre KNOWS that 'humanity' began thousands, if not millions, of years before what you said and wrote.

You said that wanting and EXPECTING "others" to just guess and assume what it is that 'you' are saying and meaning is how normal human communication works. Then you went on to say that the reason 'you', human beings, do disagree is EXACTLY because most of you do understand what the other one is saying.

Now, either I disagree with you because I do understand what it is that you are saying and meaning or I disagree because I do not understand what it is that you are saying and meaning. Because you will NOT clarify then the ONLY thing that I can off is the words that you HAVE, already, written. So, I disagree with you because obviously the "first age of humanity was NOT roughly around 12,000 years ago". This can very easily been proven to be true by the very fact of human made objects prior to that miniscule 12,000 years ago.

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.

Are you sure of this?

How many people believe in God and how many people believe in Allah, and of all of them, how many of these people want to kill each other, just because they understand what the other one is thinking?

Also, what do you propose it is exactly that they thinking, which causes them to want to kill each other?

Do you think that they are aware that the "other" is thinking about the exact same thing?

Or for example you believe that we have access to absolute knowledge when being completely open.

But I do not believe any such thing. Why did you assume or believe such a thing as this?

Your wanting and expecting me to guess or assume what you are actually saying and meaning really does not work, well with me anyway. Considering the words that you use, and the actual definitions and meanings behind those words, then you ARE often so WRONG, like just now.

Other people can understand that and disagree with you because they think that you are making dangerous, delusional shit up.

What people 'think' is of no real concern to me. What people 'know' however is another matter.

Why would people think or assume some thing like this, especially when it is so obviously wrong?

What would be better and more productive is to KNOW the actual and real Truth is instead.

Also, what exactly do you propose is this so "dangerous and delusional 'shit' ", which you assume that I am making up?

Many people had this belief before you and it usually led to more destruction, and there never was any evidence for its correctness.

What 'belief' "before me" are you talking about, which usually led to more destruction, but there was never any evidence for anyway? I do NOT have belief so there is NO "belief before me".

If you want to be FULLY understood and accepted, then from the beginning you need to start with the truth, and then move on.

Starting off with your own beliefs and assumptions about what is true and right, but which obviously could be wrong and false, does not help you to be better understood, especially considering some of your beliefs and assumptions are clearly and obviously WRONG.

And then, when what is WRONG in what you write is pointed out you, you think and/or say that you want and expect "others" to just assume and guess what you are saying and meaning really is NEVER going to succeed.

I skipped the rest of your comment.

Fair enough. Ignoring things is what completely closed and arrogant people tend to do.

Look, just accept that you will never be able to understand anything anyone with a fully working brain is saying.

Ironically, I fully understand this, and that is the exact reason why I just asked you two very simple and straightforward clarifying questions, which for some unknown reason to that supposedly "fully working brain", it would not or could not clarify.

Also, if I fully understand what you are saying here, and agree with you here now and accept it, then that means that you are, once again, WRONG.

Or, maybe it is 'I' that really will never understand what the words" " 'you' will never be able to understand anything anyone with a fully working brain is saying", is saying?

So, 'I' will never KNOW if I understood correctly, unless of course I can prove it to 'you' ones with those so called "fully working brains" that I do, some times, understand what it is that 'you' are saying.

I wonder; Do those ones who say they have "fully working brains" actually KNOW 'who 'they' are'?

Do 'you' KNOW who 'you' ARE? (Not if you know you are one of those who think they have a fully workinging brain, but know who the 'one' IS, with a, supposedly, "fully working brain"?

For surely 'one' with a supposedly 'fully working brain' would KNOW WHO they ARE exactly, and therefore could also reveal WHO they Truly ARE?

Surely one with a, supposedly, fully working brain could learn a way to communicate so that they could be fully understood by, (just about?), EVERY one?

[Age]

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?)

What do the words "first age of humanity about 12, 000 years ago" actually mean to you?

Nothing, really.

Fair enough.

[Arising_uk]

Hunter-gatherer cultures are not what is defined as 'civilization'. There is a reason why the Middle East is called the 'Cradle of Civilization' while Australia is not. But no doubt the PCturd establishment has come up with some new, PC 'meaning' for 'civilization'. It's the hypocritical, up-themselves 'school teacher types' (the vain, worthless ones who are only in it for the social engineering aspect) and other morons who need to 'get a life' instead of telling everyone else how to live theirs'.

*Yawn*

[Arising_uk]

Or maybe God put all the evidence there to test your faith

All what evidence?