Discovery channel movies are the worst popular science stuff I ever seen. And that multiple repetition of questionable and completely unimportnat statements diring a movie - I don't understand it at all. IDK, if it is kind of specific Discovery/BBC style devoted to somehow make that pop-science acceptable for the dumbest of viewers, but it is weird as fuck. No explanations using laws of nature, no formulas, no proof of sentence based on what said previously, no any decent structure of movie, even. Amount of knowledge transferred is below zero. This kind of art is more like a chewing gum for bored housewives, not something that could be named even "popular science".
A smart person, goes and checks it out.
A smart person knows chemistry, physics, and have logic. He knows properties of limestone and sandstone used in pyramids and properties of modern construction materials. He don't even need to watch stupid movies made to make dumbest audience feel like they know something cool.
It is pretty simple to find out that modern giant structures of comparable size and volume will outlast pyramides for millions of years.
It's a documentary you haven't watched. Instead you're mouthing off against it, without watching it. No. Discovery or other documentary channels are source of knowledge. A series of documentaries with a heap of read the wiki commenting on it. They stress tested and ran scenarios. It covers impact, nova, ice age, oceans, nature etc.
Smart people don't spew ignorance about something they haven't watched.
The pyramids are already 5k years old according to the concentric narrative. We're in a topic arguing they're older. Skyscrapers, dumbass, are already being replaced.
The pyramids are already 5k years old according to the concentric narrative.
And they are degrading, as any limestone building or natural structure. They just big enough to degrade for hundreds of thousands years, but they eventually will wear out from temperature gradients and wind, if humans will not cover and soak them with modern, much more rigid materials.
Egyptian pyramids are heavily overhyped. They are undoubtfully interesting phenomena and significant historical artifact, but there is nothing unusual in them. Many civilisations build pyramids for whatever reasons at some time, but they are all pretty simple things, without any sign of really advanced, obviously out-of-time knowledge. They are definitely not a launch sites of goa'uld hattak ships.
Nasca drawings are much more interesting from the point of technology, f.e., because their existence assume ability to see them from above, and that means that humans had some technology to fly at the time. It doesn't have to be super-cool alien flying disks or whatever, kind of kite, glider or hot air baloon large enough to get a human in air is more than enough. But we still don't have any artifacts that could be a proof of ancient aviation.
I have nothing against a theory of advanced ancient civilisations at all, but just theory existence is not enough at all. After any good theory, there should be undeniable, solid proofs and mandatory usefulness for humanity. But there are none. Same with ancient aliens who helped humans, theory, with all that underground civilisations and so on. They are all nice and valid theories for a long time, but even if a nice theory can't be proved for a long time, along with giving absolutely nothing practically useful for humanity, it become a fairy tale, nothing more.
Yeah, OK, there was ancients, they could cut and move large limestones an build pyramids. So what? What it gives us? How is it useful for us today? Could we use that theory for anything useful, except entertainment?
Fascinating. Netflix as a source of your knowledge accompanied with pedowikia link. I think further discussion is completely senseless.
It wasn't made by Netflix. It's on Netflix. It was on the discovery channel. It's now possibly on Netflix. Or you can stream it.
Don't fuck with me. Asshole.
A smart person, goes and checks it out. They don't spew ignorance. What harm is there in looking. It is actually a fascinating watch.
Discovery channel movies are the worst popular science stuff I ever seen. And that multiple repetition of questionable and completely unimportnat statements diring a movie - I don't understand it at all. IDK, if it is kind of specific Discovery/BBC style devoted to somehow make that pop-science acceptable for the dumbest of viewers, but it is weird as fuck. No explanations using laws of nature, no formulas, no proof of sentence based on what said previously, no any decent structure of movie, even. Amount of knowledge transferred is below zero. This kind of art is more like a chewing gum for bored housewives, not something that could be named even "popular science".
A smart person knows chemistry, physics, and have logic. He knows properties of limestone and sandstone used in pyramids and properties of modern construction materials. He don't even need to watch stupid movies made to make dumbest audience feel like they know something cool.
It is pretty simple to find out that modern giant structures of comparable size and volume will outlast pyramides for millions of years.
It's a documentary you haven't watched. Instead you're mouthing off against it, without watching it. No. Discovery or other documentary channels are source of knowledge. A series of documentaries with a heap of read the wiki commenting on it. They stress tested and ran scenarios. It covers impact, nova, ice age, oceans, nature etc.
Smart people don't spew ignorance about something they haven't watched.
The pyramids are already 5k years old according to the concentric narrative. We're in a topic arguing they're older. Skyscrapers, dumbass, are already being replaced.
Here's a pyramid that's much older https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunung_Padang.
When I link a wiki, it's a reference. Not a protest.
And they are degrading, as any limestone building or natural structure. They just big enough to degrade for hundreds of thousands years, but they eventually will wear out from temperature gradients and wind, if humans will not cover and soak them with modern, much more rigid materials.
Egyptian pyramids are heavily overhyped. They are undoubtfully interesting phenomena and significant historical artifact, but there is nothing unusual in them. Many civilisations build pyramids for whatever reasons at some time, but they are all pretty simple things, without any sign of really advanced, obviously out-of-time knowledge. They are definitely not a launch sites of goa'uld hattak ships.
Nasca drawings are much more interesting from the point of technology, f.e., because their existence assume ability to see them from above, and that means that humans had some technology to fly at the time. It doesn't have to be super-cool alien flying disks or whatever, kind of kite, glider or hot air baloon large enough to get a human in air is more than enough. But we still don't have any artifacts that could be a proof of ancient aviation.
I have nothing against a theory of advanced ancient civilisations at all, but just theory existence is not enough at all. After any good theory, there should be undeniable, solid proofs and mandatory usefulness for humanity. But there are none. Same with ancient aliens who helped humans, theory, with all that underground civilisations and so on. They are all nice and valid theories for a long time, but even if a nice theory can't be proved for a long time, along with giving absolutely nothing practically useful for humanity, it become a fairy tale, nothing more.
Yeah, OK, there was ancients, they could cut and move large limestones an build pyramids. So what? What it gives us? How is it useful for us today? Could we use that theory for anything useful, except entertainment?