Read a few white nationalist websites and you'll have your answer.What I find curious is the the tactic of declaring it racist to question the official narrative of human history, it's baseless nonsense of course, but its clever and grants license to color all sorts of things as wrong-think. Being an egoistic troll looking for petty kicks on a website is besides the point, he learned it somewhere, is this a tactic being employed elsewhere?.
Read a few white nationalist websites and you'll have your answer.
In general, claims that aliens helped, that Aryans did it, that Atlanteans (or other imaginary ancient advanced civilization) helped, etc. are all statements that these poor brown people couldn't possibly have achieved what we see. Similar to the philosophy of the Nazis, in fact.
Such statements are almost universally made by people ignorant of what we know and why we know it.
I already implied why it is that people (such as yourself) don't know.
Are you aware of Foerster's claims concerning the Paracas skulls? His bit about the cranial capacity being 30% larger than humans, the mysterious openings in the skulls and the lack of a sagittal suture? His DNA claims?Please, share with us your sources, what you found, I'm sincerely curious.
LOLI'm sorry, I dont reference white nationalist website content when doing my research into megalithic structures. Since you admit to doing that, I'll keep you mind as a reference for future crypto-nazi research however.
Are you aware of Foerster's claims concerning the Paracas skulls? His bit about the cranial capacity being 30% larger than humans, the mysterious openings in the skulls and the lack of a sagittal suture? His DNA claims?
His 30% claim comes from him calculating the percentage using the LOW end of the range for human cranial capacity. In fact, the cranial capacities of these skulls is barely above the average for the entire human race, and well below the maximum end of the normal range.
His mysterious openings in the back of the skull - tiny easily visible holes - are the parietal formens and you'd be very hard pressed to find a human skull without them.
Many of the skulls that he has displayed online actually have a visible sagittal suture, others probably do but no photos are taken with the correct angle to even see if they do. On top of that, it's not uncommon at all for skull sutures to fuse and eventually disappear over time if the individual lived long enough. They would still be detectable, but not in a photograph or video posted online, you'd have to examine them very closely to find them.
Foerster claims to have sent samples to a geneticist - but those were contaminated. He sent more then came back with his results of unknown mDNA lineage. However, he refuses to disclose who did the analysis. In the past he (and Pye) have used a lab that "verified" bigfoot DNA in different incidences. In no case has he (or did Pye) release the actual analytical report he (they) claimed to have.
Pye was a thief, but Foerster is worse considering what he's done here is glom on to the death of Lloyd Pye and steal a dead man's cash cow.
All of the above can be verified by yourself. I've spent 20 years providing these facts to people, and thousands of other facts about the ancient past. I'm handing them to you now not caring if you believe me. I've stopped providing evidence for people who themselves provide none.
If ancient history was the meaning of life for you, then you would already know this. If you are even a slight bit curious about the ancient past, you will verify for yourself what I stated here.
The mainstream creates hypotheses based on the evidence on hand. There are VERY few real questions that aren't answered by those hypotheses. Obviously, that doesn't mean the hypotheses are the actual answers, just that they are possible answers. There are exactly zero cases where the mainstream's hypothesis can't explain the evidence (but once again, that doesn't make the explanation the correct one.)Thats the problem I have with all of this writ large, I have studied it, there ARE REAL questions outstanding and very poor mainstream explanations with gaping holes in them
I agree. If any of these shysters happed to accidentally stumble across anything real that isn't explained, who do they expect to investigate it? What Archaeologist wants to be associated with Erik Von Daniken?however those that purport to fill those holes are represent a gaggle of con artists, delusional nutjobs and profit seeking sleaze - a shame really.
The only actual evidence of purposeful vitrication of stone is a handful of forts in Scotland, and not even that old.Things that make me question the mainstream narrative include the vitrification of stone,
A corpse will mummify on it's own if the environment is right. Ancient procedures for mummification are all wildly different.the consistent asymmetrical building style seen worldwide contemporaneous and in association with mummification, the voluminous size and weight of stones,
Hardness of stone isn't a good indicator of ease of quarrying or shaping. For example, you can actually carve granite with a piece of flint.the hardness of minerals paired with the precision of cutting and the lack of consistency in fit and finish over time
The only narrative Gobekli Tepe is in opposition to is the former narrative that assumed hunter-gatherers didn't do things like that. The stones themselves were very easily quarried, they practically fall out of the quarry by themselves even today because they are vertically cracked in the bed. "Carvings" on the stones were made by pecking - which leaves visible marks that are easy to identify and are apparent all over the stones since they were never polished out.the lack of consistency in building style, sites like gobekli tepe which exist in opposition to the conventional narrative.
Your opinion of the science is biased by the fact you don't know the science. Find out WHY the mainstream says what it says first before you brush it off with this sort of hand-wave statement. The mainstream - when it comes to things that aren't known, actually says "we don't know."I'm not a religious nutter who thinks the heavens parted and vengeful santa shat on the earth for lack of a sacrifice, but I do question things, especially as a person of science when I recognize the infancy and relative ignorance of science.