Peru discovery 2025

[Arby]

Can’t get at the info as it is paywalled.

that raises red flags to me. But the pics are cool: Twitter link to bigger pics
[Image: https://denyignorance.com/uploader/images/Home X.png]

Yes, the pics are very cool.
I love interesting geological formations.
They don't have to be man-made to be very interesting.
Sometimes the science of the geology is even more interesting than the mythology of human-made claims.

There are numerous examples where some people can't tell the difference between geological formations, and manmade structures.

I think the "bimini road" formation off the coast of the Bahamas is an interesting geological structure, since a number of the "blocks" have a rectangular shape which could be suggestive of human construction, even though it's likely a natural formation.


https://www.iflscience.com/what-is-the-m...lead-67082

So I can sort of understand the bimini road claim of being man-made even if it's not man-made, but I can't understand the claim this structure in Peru is man-made, because nothing about it looks man-made to me. It doesn't have rectangular blocks as can be seen in the bimini road formation. It doesn't have anything that looks man-made.

[Harte]

PSSST, you are the trolls.

PSSST

Your low competence causes you to overestimate whatever knowledge you might have (haven't seen any yet, so I can't say.)

Thereby you claimed I had a liberal arts degree.

Thereby you claimed there is some "gatekeeper" to archaeological findings (when the only gate is the one in your head that you slam shut when someone tries to hand you some knowledge.)

Thereby you claimed that a "cabal" exists that has to first approve reports before they can be published.

If only there was a name for the effect your low competence has on your bias.
Someone should look into that.

Harte

[pianopraze]

Yes, the pics are very cool.
I love interesting geological formations.
They don't have to be man-made to be very interesting.
Sometimes the science of the geology is even more interesting than the mythology of human-made claims.

There are numerous examples where some people can't tell the difference between geological formations, and manmade structures.

I think the "bimini road" formation off the coast of the Bahamas is an interesting geological structure, since a number of the "blocks" have a rectangular shape which could be suggestive of human construction, even though it's likely a natural formation.

[Image: https://denyignorance.com/uploader/image...road-m.png]
https://www.iflscience.com/what-is-the-m...lead-67082

So I can sort of understand the bimini road claim of being man-made even if it's not man-made, but I can't understand the claim this structure in Peru is man-made, because nothing about it looks man-made to me. It doesn't have rectangular blocks as can be seen in the bimini road formation. It doesn't have anything that looks man-made.

Bimini road is on my todo list to dive when I get anew sailboat.

very fascinating.

[Inspector44]

I believe he's referring to the "comet extinction theory" that involves the Younger Dryas and a comet that seems to be composed of ICBMs that target single species for extinction (while leaving others in the same habitat and similar econiches and similar size alive) and have variable delay fuses of 1 to 1,200 years or so (the extinction took place over a period of roughly a thousand years.)

That is a BS strawman and you know it. At no time has he ever suggested only one species was ever targeted. It is well known that the northern hemisphere lost the majority of its mega fauna during that time North America lost 70%. Smaller animals can weather environmental disasters better than 12 ton beasts. You know that, though. It is also a well known fact that space based objects don't always impact the ground and can explode in the air causing more damage than if they were to hit the ground. Its also a well known fact that our orbit occasionally takes us through a debris field of a comet. Tunguska is an example of that.

Remember, kids, Archaeology is not a real science, its a liberal arts degree taken by neckbeards so they can sound smart in social gatherings or start arguments on conspiracy boards.

[Byrd]

That is a BS strawman and you know it. At no time has he ever suggested only one species was ever targeted. It is well known that the northern hemisphere lost the majority of its mega fauna during that time North America lost 70%. Smaller animals can weather environmental disasters better than 12 ton beasts. You know that, though. It is also a well known fact that space based objects don't always impact the ground and can explode in the air causing more damage than if they were to hit the ground. Its also a well known fact that our orbit occasionally takes us through a debris field of a comet. Tunguska is an example of that.

Remember, kids, Archaeology is not a real science, its a liberal arts degree taken by neckbeards so they can sound smart in social gatherings or start arguments on conspiracy boards.

Oh yes, I know all that.

I also know that archaeology is the study of human-made objects and humans (and only those) and paleontology is the study of ancient life forms, including animals and plants.  

And I know about paleoclimatology and astronomy and geology as well, so I'm familiar with the impact locations of some of the larger craters on Earth and their effects, both locally and wide-ranging.  So, for example, I know that the cave lion goes extinct during the Greenland Interstadial 1 period and not the Younger Dryas.  Mammoths do not go extinct until long after the end of the Ice Ages, but cave bears go extinct long before the Younger Dryas.

And that the Plesitocene extinction (which includes the Younger Dryas) takes place over a 36,000 year period : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Pleis...xtinctions

The comet hypothesis is more full of holes than Swiss cheese.

[Inspector44]

Yeah, sorry, Flint but "The comet hypothesis is more full of holes than Swiss cheese" is what Zahi, the gate keeper of your little hobby would say. It is only full of holes to you, a liberal arts degree holder, because you were told its full of holes. You have made no major discoveries of your own, you have published nothing groundbreaking that actually disputes the ancient advanced civilization theory and you never will. You can ignore the fact the earth passes through the debris field of a comet twice a year and a major impact has been observed to have changed the climate before, or you can just keep thinking a species 300k+ years old only figured out how to move and then stack bricks weighing over 50 tons basically overnight. The Egyptians found the pyramids, they didn't build them.

[Oldcarpy2]

What is a "liberal arts degree"?

Is my BA (Hons) Law one of those?

[Byrd]

What is a "liberal arts degree"?

Is my BA (Hons) Law one of those?

Who knows?  And apparently he's talking to Flint Dibble, who isn't here.

(BA Law -- I'm actually impressed.)