2
Zyxl 2 points ago +2 / -0

There absolutely was direct evidence of those claims but you're muddying the waters by saying there also needs to be an admission of malicious intent. There's a clear difference between "this primary source says X" and "this primary/secondary source is best explained by X".

With the pyramids the primary source is how the stones are laid which doesn't tell you what technology was used and you have to use inference to the best explanation, which is often wrong and the two of us can't even agree on the best explanation yet.

2
Zyxl 2 points ago +2 / -0

Hard to choose only 3. COVID had a bunch, like the virus being from the Wuhan lab with US funding but covered up as revealed in Fauci's emails, collusion with vaccine manufacturers as indicated by the furin cleavage site's exact sequence in 2016 Moderna patent and Ralph Baric receiving vaccine candidates in December 2019, fatality of the virus obviously exaggerated, positive cases deliberately inflated, vaccines safe and effective and so on. Earlier ones include the assassination of Julius Caesar, the Phoebus cartel, the creation of the Federal Reserve and the secret societies around Cecil Rhodes.

2
Zyxl 2 points ago +2 / -0

True conspiracies usually have some direct evidence. Like leaked documents, whistleblower testimony, censored research and so on. Ones that don't are usually false, like chemtrails from commercial airliners.

2
Zyxl 2 points ago +2 / -0

I skimmed through it, but didn't see any direct evidence like ancient illustrations or descriptions of such technology, just indirect evidence

2
Zyxl 2 points ago +2 / -0

I'm not saying the mainstream history is correct. I don't think they are good at dating things.

And no, you can’t just use “a lever” (made out of what?) on Saharan sand (yes, it’s all they have) to lift hundreds of tons without constructing a massive, modern foundation and mooring system (i.e. concrete).

I said the lever could be made out of stone columns bound together. The pivot can be made of stone too and if it sinks into the sand too much then put it on a wide base. Not exactly easy but that's the simplest way I can think of. Maybe they found a better way but I don't see any direct of evidence of sophisticated technology.

2
Zyxl 2 points ago +2 / -0

For sand the weight just has to be distributed over a larger area, no? And I don't think Egypt is loose sand everywhere, although I've never been. I think to accomplish what they did they probably had the wheel or something like it like logs for rolling things on.

3
Zyxl 3 points ago +3 / -0

I reckon they may only have needed a very strong lever, strong ropes and a strong wheeled platform in order for a bunch of slaves to lift and move large rocks. I don't know what the official story is but I'm guessing it was something along those lines. A lever capable of lifting such large weights would be very heavy itself, but it could have been deconstructed for transport and assembled where it was needed, e.g. multiple stone columns that could be bound together. Strong ropes could also be made from many ropes wound together and many wheels under a platform would allow it to bear greater weights. What else would they need?

2
Zyxl 2 points ago +2 / -0

I don't know much about masonry, so can you explain why this level of precision is remarkable? We have ancient statues with much more precise shapes going back allegedly 6000 years, including hard materials like marble. This article includes an ancient illustration of how Egyptian sculptors did their work, appearing to use stones to chisel away: https://www.thecollector.com/classical-art-marble-sculpting/. That article says for hard materials they used the same material to sculpt it. Couldn't that be how it was done in architecture as well if not with metal tools?

4
Zyxl 4 points ago +4 / -0

The narrator's voice perhaps but a lot of it is real video

2
Zyxl 2 points ago +2 / -0

The public may be retarded but we can't just ignore them or replace them. These are the tools we've been given and we have to make do. At least they're not as retarded as they could be and most do have some common sense.

3
Zyxl 3 points ago +3 / -0

Sure, although I don't know when I'll get around to this given all the other books I want to read.

There have been a lot of other people/systems claiming to have/confer special abilities but almost all of them have proved to be frauds, likely frauds or simply impossible to verify or falsify. This one has more evidence going for it since there has allegedly been some independent scientific investigation and independent video recordings, plus the abilities may not have been specific to one guy with unusual biology. But I guess with Chang dead and only a handful of students who didn't appear to reach his level or submit themselves to similar tests it will be very difficult to verify.

2
Zyxl 2 points ago +2 / -0

That sounds almost like becoming as bad as your enemies. And how can you expect to win without the public on your side? The powers that be win by getting the public on their side through manipulation, not simply pushing them aside. I don't think ends normally justify the means however so I rule out manipulation or abuse of the public unless it's something minor with a much bigger payoff for the public.

3
Zyxl 3 points ago +3 / -0

OK thanks. Do you know why students thought it was OK to write books about it when Chang didn't think it should be made public? Have the students ever been open to scientific testing? It seems from the OP that Dervenis wants to understand how it works and would be open to running tests? Did anything like that happen?

Of course I left out the reasons Chang changed his mind, but that's because if we're investigating whether this stuff is for real we have to wonder whether Chang just made excuses for his change of mind. They would be convenient excuses as they are unverifiable. They do however mess with Chang's image as someone who has meditated long and hard before making a decision, especially as he knew he was going against his master before he got the dream.

3
Zyxl 3 points ago +3 / -0

Interesting, but odd how he said his stuff was to be kept secret yet at the same time he would show it off with no cameras. And for someone who meditates and works on self-discipline so much he changes his mind a lot about whether he should be allowing his abilities to be published on video. And it was a little suspicious he decided he wouldn't be able to do scientific tests once they finally started figuring out how to measure his energy. A lot of the time he appears to be showing off like a magician rather than someone safeguarding a secret tradition or reserving his abilities only for useful activities. He is apparently modern in most ways and not super traditional, so he could be aware of modern technologies that would help with magic tricks.

Did any of his students ever get any powers? This is the first I have heard of John Chang or Mo Pai so I don't know but I didn't yet find if any students claim to have developed any observable special abilities.

2
Zyxl 2 points ago +2 / -0

I wasn't aware of that movement in the 70's-80's but they were right to oppose digitization and manufacturing pollution (real pollution as you say, not CO2). But I don't think terrorism tends to win supporters so I suggest winning hearts and minds instead until there is large opposition to the technology. Sabotage can still be done discreetly by those who work in certain fields and strikes are fine too.

2
Zyxl 2 points ago +2 / -0

Exactly, I don't post every random meme I find here like you do I wait until I have something relevant that may be of interest to others

3
Zyxl 3 points ago +3 / -0

The only thing I'm noticing is a flood of low quality posts

6
Zyxl 6 points ago +6 / -0

That's not what you posted. Funny how you started spamming this place at the same time as JG5 as well

3
Zyxl 3 points ago +3 / -0

Nice article. My answer to whether it can be stopped is "Yes, but it won't be easy". That is the goal of c/StopTech

2
Zyxl 2 points ago +2 / -0

This doesn't seem like a genuine question, you just want to assert your opinion without being bothered to present any evidence

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›