Groundbreaking Findings on the Giza Pyramid Complex Could Re-Write Human History

The Med cultures were trading as far away as Britain but that doesn't mean they themselves had gone that far. If they only traded as far as Spain while the people there traded up to what was France and the British isles then the Sea people could have just been any of them heading south and east. They have to be another European group but it's strange to not find evidence of who or where they were based if they had the technology and man power to wipe out existing civilisations.

I doubt that the sea people were northern Europeans. They were probably southern Europeans.
And the reason for their impact was probably that these civilizations were already weakened by famine, internal conflict and trade routes breaking down.
So they might have been the final drop in the bucket.
 
I doubt that the sea people were northern Europeans. They were probably southern Europeans.
And the reason for their impact was probably that these civilizations were already weakened by famine, internal conflict and trade routes breaking down.
So they might have been the final drop in the bucket.
Who were the powers west of Italy back then? I don't know anything about Iberian archaeology to know what ancient people existed or their cities or languages. There must be evidence of 3,000+ year old people's like here in the UK there but I've not heard of them.
 
Who were the powers west of Italy back then? I don't know anything about Iberian archaeology to know what ancient people existed or their cities or languages. There must be evidence of 3,000+ year old people's like here in the UK there but I've not heard of them.

It's not likely these sea people were from the Iberian peninsula. It's more likely they were from places closer, probably around the east Mediterranean.
And they seem to have been a coalition of several people. Records from the time of Ramses III called them the Peleset, Tjekker, Sherden, and Lukka.
But we have no evidence to know for sure who these people were. There are suspicions that the Peleset might have been Philistines. But it's just an hypothesis.
 
What I fail to grasp on a global scale is: what would be dangerous about discovering new things about the past? Apart from rubbing a few egos around the academic world the wrong way, I mean.
I doubt some ancient tech was ever found and kept secret that ultimately influenced our modern technology. And even if it was, well, it's part of current tech now. Who cares when it was originally made, and by whom? What would knowing this change on the practical side? Why would it cause civil unrest, or chaos? And even if we could explore those ancient sites in China, what could we possibly discover that would ignite WW III? Those people died millennia ago.

As for nutjob theories, I mean, we've been making up stories and understanding stuff wrong for all of our history. Some of those stories turned out to be pointing to the truth, to some degree. And if they didn't, well, they made for a good story. What danger poses a guy who connects a few dots, fills in some missing pieces with some alien mumbo jumbo, and makes a few million bucks writing interesting books? I've read some Graham Hancock, and his books are fascinating. But so is The Lord of the Rings. Neither is going to make me a scholar on history by reading their works. And if some rich dude wants to squander his money in crazy archeological research, be my guest. Btw, this is kinda how the ruins of actual Troy were discovered, no?

I don't see how a guy writing fanta-archeology books is a grifter and the people making, ie, the MCU aren't.
I'm more scared of people in charge of actual science and doctoring it for fame, glory and money.
 
Who were the powers west of Italy back then? I don't know anything about Iberian archaeology to know what ancient people existed or their cities or languages. There must be evidence of 3,000+ year old people's like here in the UK there but I've not heard of them.
Prehistoric regional tribals basically, in the Iberian peninsula and France etc. at the time. Not much to talk about in terms of cultural development. A world apart from the Egyptians, the Hittites, or the Mycenaeans et al.
 
What I fail to grasp on a global scale is: what would be dangerous about discovering new things about the past? Apart from rubbing a few egos around the academic world the wrong way, I mean.
I doubt some ancient tech was ever found and kept secret that ultimately influenced our modern technology. And even if it was, well, it's part of current tech now. Who cares when it was originally made, and by whom? What would knowing this change on the practical side? Why would it cause civil unrest, or chaos?
I thinks it's more to do with "If they lied about that, what else are the lying about?" And then you get civil unrest because our governments and academics can't be trusted, because they've lied to us and we have to start all over again with history, which nobody has time for.

Say the Smithsonian is really covering up the evidence of Giants in the Americas, how could they be trusted with all the valuable things they have now? Would people riot and raid their buildings? Maybe not but if they did it all has the potential to be lost to humanity as it's now in private hands, lost or destroyed.
 
Apparently SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar) was the technology used to "map" under the pyramids. I asked Grok how far down SAR can detect/map, and it said that it can reach deeper in dry, loose soil (best case scenario) and that with that, its typically limited to tens of meters. In dense/wetter material, it's more like 5-10 meters.

So to say that they were able to detect and map out structures going 2km down (the actual paper says 648 meters) seems doubtful.
 
Prehistoric regional tribals basically, in the Iberian peninsula and France etc. at the time. Not much to talk about in terms of cultural development. A world apart from the Egyptians, the Hittites, or the Mycenaeans et al.

There were already advanced cultures in the Iberian peninsula, during the Bronze Age.
One fascinating example is that of the Argaric culture, which lasted nearly a century, from the around the half of the 3rd millennium to the half of the 2nd millennium BC.
And there were others in the region. Such as the Montelevar, Cogotas, Atalaia, etc.
 
Apparently SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar) was the technology used to "map" under the pyramids. I asked Grok how far down SAR can detect/map, and it said that it can reach deeper in dry, loose soil (best case scenario) and that with that, its typically limited to tens of meters. In dense/wetter material, it's more like 5-10 meters.

So to say that they were able to detect and map out structures going 2km down (the actual paper says 648 meters) seems doubtful.
We have nowhere near the technology to map that far down through the earth especially through bedrock and get anything with a decent enough resolution past a few meters FFS let alone km's, nothing more than a grifter making videos for the tinfoil brigades
 
I thinks it's more to do with "If they lied about that, what else are the lying about?" And then you get civil unrest because our governments and academics can't be trusted, because they've lied to us and we have to start all over again with history, which nobody has time for.

Say the Smithsonian is really covering up the evidence of Giants in the Americas, how could they be trusted with all the valuable things they have now? Would people riot and raid their buildings? Maybe not but if they did it all has the potential to be lost to humanity as it's now in private hands, lost or destroyed.
Governments and academics have lied for all of recorded history, and the public trust in them is possibly at an all-time low already. There's conspiracy theories going around about pretty much anything above the average Joe's everyday routine. Yet people aren't really rioting. If evidence of giants in the Americas is found and revealed, people won't make a fuss; they'll rather subscribe to the streaming service that will make a TV show about the giants.

History gets basically rewritten every decade or so, in the sense that facts get reinterpreted in a new light continuously. We have idiots in academia revising ancient history according to current-era sensibilities right now. Hollywood has been making movies with color-inaccurate historical characters since its beginnings. People in power keep walking free after the most disgusting shit has been unearthed about them. Why on Earth would people riot about giant bones from 12,000 years ago or something? Nothing can be more groundbreaking than the idea that we descended from apes and that all of humanity ultimately comes from Africa, and if that didn't destroy civilization, no archeological finding ever will.
 
Governments and academics have lied for all of recorded history, and the public trust in them is possibly at an all-time low already. There's conspiracy theories going around about pretty much anything above the average Joe's everyday routine. Yet people aren't really rioting. If evidence of giants in the Americas is found and revealed, people won't make a fuss; they'll rather subscribe to the streaming service that will make a TV show about the giants.

History gets basically rewritten every decade or so, in the sense that facts get reinterpreted in a new light continuously. We have idiots in academia revising ancient history according to current-era sensibilities right now. Hollywood has been making movies with color-inaccurate historical characters since its beginnings. People in power keep walking free after the most disgusting shit has been unearthed about them. Why on Earth would people riot about giant bones from 12,000 years ago or something? Nothing can be more groundbreaking than the idea that we descended from apes and that all of humanity ultimately comes from Africa, and if that didn't destroy civilization, no archeological finding ever will.

Brother, I don't know but for myself I'm tired. I've tried as have you, I know that

It's seemingly no use as we both witnessed.

Sad to witness the hard wired programming.
 
Last edited:
I keep expecting this to be debunked any day but it seems to be ongoing.

The next q is how and dates
 
Meaning what, exactly? JRPC is something that means something?

Just curious.
Most popular podcast (a lot of attention) + guests can talk more freely for hours (less technical talk). I have seen a couple of ones where opposite parties are involved, which creates a debate that is not usually seen in the media (that would be nice).

How big or not this thing really is? 🤷🏼‍♂️ I'm not gonna read papers or books about. The podcast is a very accesible and approachable way to get that information.
 
Say the Smithsonian is really covering up the evidence of Giants in the Americas, how could they be trusted with all the valuable things they have now? Would people riot and raid their buildings? Maybe not but if they did it all has the potential to be lost to humanity as it's now in private hands, lost or destroyed.
There were giants in the americas relatively recently: the ground sloth

RM3DCld.jpeg
 
Yes, a fascinating mystery for sure. I'm currently reading 1177 BC by Eric Cline to get a deeper understanding of the current research. Wild that the Mycenaean Greek written language, Linear B, was completely lost and they had to develop a new one from scratch hundreds of years later based on Phoenician script. How extreme must the circumstances be for things to be that far gone…


Im really hoping with Ai we can start to get a handle on Linear A . So many great mysteries and cultural understanding remain llocked away on things right in front of us.

The minoans were basically the legendary period of greece preceding the archaic age ...its basically the time all of the greek legends were talking about. So its interesting to know areas and legends which may have given rise to those stories.
 
Im really hoping with Ai we can start to get a handle on Linear A . So many great mysteries and cultural understanding remain llocked away on things right in front of us.

The minoans were basically the legendary period of greece preceding the archaic age ...it's basically the time all of the greek legends were talking about. So it's interesting to know areas and legends which may have given rise to those stories.
May be possible via AI eventually, though the lack of context is an issue. We probably need more major excavations as well. So much left undiscovered.

On a shorter time horizon, we're making major progress on scanning the Herculaneum scrolls and should have new books from antiquity within a couple years. That's the main thing I'm keeping an eye on.
 
This guy is deep into conspiracy theories, UFOs, spirituality non-sense and the like.
He is not a scientist and is very far from being a reliable source.
Seems like he is the kind of guy that makes stuff up to sell his youtube channel and twitter.
I figured that was the case when immediately after his video, it popped up his Patreon.
 
I'm hardly "fighting tooth and nail for it" by pointing out how insanely defensive some people get about this stuff! Something that is clearly evident throughout this topic.

Its kinda reminiscent to me of the sort of rhetoric you get from hardcore atheists, types who are so enthralled by their self-professed "rationility" that they seem utterly oblivious to how dogmatic they themselves have become.

Mate, how many replies you got of butt-hurt after I characterised these people as they what they are, grifters.

Why are you so attached to them that you're here getting all personal on me? Why does it trigger you so much that conmen are pointed at? Are you part of the con?
 
Mate, how many replies you got of butt-hurt after I characterised these people as they what they are, grifters.

Why are you so attached to them that you're here getting all personal on me? Why does it trigger you so much that conmen are pointed at? Are you part of the con?

I'm not being "personal". Ironically its YOU who's seems personally offended , which is pretty funny when I've been telling you from the start of our interaction that I'm not especially invested in the topic. Why would I be "butt hurt" ?

To recap my position (which has not changed from the outset), it baffles me why anyone would get so defensive about fringe theorists making fringe claims! Well... Unless they have some sort of vested interest in which case that would have to be factored in when judging their credibility.

One small piece of advice though: Don't quote me if you're averse to the prospect of me responding. Because odds are, I'll take it as a signal that you want to continue.
 
To recap my position (which has not changed from the outset), it baffles me why anyone would get so defensive about fringe theorists making fringe claims! Well... Unless they have some sort of vested interest in which case that would have to be factored in when judging their credibility.
Surprising that you don't understand why someone with an interest in reality would push back against fantasy.
 
Yes, a fascinating mystery for sure. I'm currently reading 1177 BC by Eric Cline to get a deeper understanding of the current research. Wild that the Mycenaean Greek written language, Linear B, was completely lost and they had to develop a new one from scratch hundreds of years later based on Phoenician script. How extreme must the circumstances be for things to be that far gone…
Thats a good one. The collapse of mediterranean civilization in that period should warn us that previous civilizations could easily have done the same.
 
Surprising that you don't understand why someone with an interest in reality would push back against fantasy.

Its the dogmatism I find fault with.

I'm not of the opinion that every fringe claim has merit, just that I find dismissing all non-orthodox theory as "grifts" or the ravings of madmen is not only stifling, but hopelessly naive given the intertwined nature of the academy and (small p) politics. Institutional beliefs will seek to protect their supremacy.

I'd also say that I find it deeply irrational to take such a hardline position on topics where (1) there is a great deal of uncertainty, and (2) confidence in being right isn't really required.

My willingness to at least entertain the possibility of there being "lost" ancient civilizations, the existence/visitation of UFO's/extra-terrestrials, Ghots/Afterlife etc. Does not mean I'm lying awake at night worrying about these things! They are just interesting points to discuss and debate.

At the end of the day, I'm not married to any specific interpretation and if/when better data comes along I'll happily incorporate that into my view. However if someone argues with me using a very narrow or rigid interpretation, aggressively stating that every dissident opinion is a "grift", my instinct is to question why their response is so disproportionately visceral? It suggests dogma to me, acquired knowledge not the product of critical thought.
 
Its the dogmatism I find fault with.

I'm not of the opinion that every fringe claim has merit, just that I find dismissing all non-orthodox theory as "grifts" or the ravings of madmen is not only stifling, but hopelessly naive given the intertwined nature of the academy and (small p) politics. Institutional beliefs will seek to protect their supremacy.

I'd also say that I find it deeply irrational to take such a hardline position on topics where (1) there is a great deal of uncertainty, and (2) confidence in being right isn't really required.

My willingness to at least entertain the possibility of there being "lost" ancient civilizations, the existence/visitation of UFO's/extra-terrestrials, Ghots/Afterlife etc. Does not mean I'm lying awake at night worrying about these things! They are just interesting points to discuss and debate.

At the end of the day, I'm not married to any specific interpretation and if/when better data comes along I'll happily incorporate that into my view. However if someone argues with me using a very narrow or rigid interpretation, aggressively stating that every dissident opinion is a "grift", my instinct is to question why their response is so disproportionately visceral? It suggests dogma to me, acquired knowledge not the product of critical thought.
For this position to make logical sense, information needs to be qualitatively similar in the mainstream of science and in the fringe quackery of YouTube. But that is not true. Scientific conclusions are based on empirical findings. Positions without an empirical basis are dismissed as irrelevant, e.g., ghosts. You can believe in them but there is no scientific basis for doing so. Scientific conclusions can be wrong and very often are, but they're based on the evidence at any given time and you can trace exactly how those conclusions formed. Fringe quackery is based on storytelling alone. Telling an appealing, but baseless, story to people in order to make money from them, taking advantage of their naiveté, is the definition of grifting.
 
A giant triple phallus stone golem is lying face-up deep underground, yes, I know

9V619RY.jpeg
To me these findings imply that the hollow earth does exist and is inhabitated by an ancient alien race who control the protagonists of our societies through psychokinesis.

Look closely at this interview with former German chancellor Merkel on the occasion of the completion of the Gotthard tunnel in Switzerland:

It is assumed that she is actually a reptilian and has accidentally dropped her camouflage here, maybe in the tunnel there is a secret entrance to the Hollow.

This is from the original broadcast, and we can see it happen there, too:


And as a bonus, here are some clips of the opening ceremony:

It wouldn't surprise me if some of the performers were controlled by the aliens.
 
Last edited:
To me these findings imply that the hollow earth does exist and is inhabitated by an ancient alien race who control the protagonists of our societies through psychokinesis.

Look closely at this interview with former German chancellor Merkel on the occasion of the completion of the Gotthard tunnel in Switzerland:

It is assumed that she is actually a reptilian and has accidentally dropped her camouflage here, maybe in the tunnel there is a secret entrance to the Hollow.

This is from the original broadcast, and we can see it happen there, too:

Donald Trump Animation GIF by Richie Brown
 
For this position to make logical sense, information needs to be qualitatively similar in the mainstream of science and in the fringe quackery of YouTube. But that is not true. Scientific conclusions are based on empirical findings. Positions without an empirical basis are dismissed as irrelevant, e.g., ghosts. You can believe in them but there is no scientific basis for doing so. Scientific conclusions can be wrong and very often are, but they're based on the evidence at any given time and you can trace exactly how those conclusions formed. Fringe quackery is based on storytelling alone. Telling an appealing, but baseless, story to people in order to make money from them, taking advantage of their naiveté, is the definition of grifting.

I broadly agree. However I'd make the case that without actual expertise in the field under discussion, or the science used to "prove" empirical fact and its reliability / accuracy in application. I feel like we're still dealing with "received" wisdom transmitted -very often- through a media lens, which makes me doubt the "completeness" or certainty of the information.

Hard, axiomatic science, where every step has been rigorously proved I'm much more inclined to take at face value than soft science where often the proof comes in the form of interpretation of evidence or statistical modelling. So, for instance if an unearthed artifact is carbon-dated to a certain period, I'm almost always going to take that piece of evidence as conclusive, whereas when it comes to the interpretation of purpose, e.g. the "Baghdad Battery" or the Antikithythera mechanism - artifacts that are historically anomalous I take that as an indication of gaps existing in our historical understanding even if the academy protests that the picture is complete.

I stress I'm not suggesting there's any sort of nefarious conspiracy lying at the root of the academy overstating their certainty, just prosaic stuff like ego and the maintaining funding.
 
Those Merkel videos are just decoding errors. If you freeze frame in youtube on the 2 frames where she un-lizardifies and step back and forth between them (< and > on keyboard) you can see other glitches on passengers and the interviewers jacket.
 
Why? A pre-flood civ hasnt been disproven by anyone right?

But I understand something like that can never be proven
Probably because of this for me.

To be honest I have very little knowledge about that so I'll be happy to be wrong. But from what I see about the subject, it looks to much esoteric for me to take it seriously.
I'll do a bit more research about the subject to see a bit more.

EDIT : also to be clear, it's more the idea of an ADVANCED civilisation pre flood, that is not credible for me. The existence or not of humans preflood is an open question for me with the little knowledge I have.
 
Last edited:
Why? A pre-flood civ hasnt been disproven by anyone right?
You gotta define "pre-flood". We certainly know there can be catastrophic region flooding, so "pre-flood" meaning some massive Nile river flooding that largely wipes out some early egyptian civilization and then gets perpetuated on in myth, certainly plausible.

A "global" flood across the globe though, seems quite unlikely even at the most extreme end of Hancocks younger dryas impact theory with massive floods across glacial melting. Even that wouldn't be a singular global event but if it did happen 10-12k years ago and stuff like gobeckli tepe are 14-15k years old, then there was definitely a "sophisticated", if perhaps not advanced tool using, culture in that area at least that could cooperate to build those big structures. A culture that had connections with surrounding groups, probably some shared language, and could perpetuate stories through generations, orally at least even if they didn't have writing.

We know for a fact that in tropical regions even large stone structures can be completely consumed and covered in just a few decades. They are all over central america. Who knows whats in Africa, buried under sand in the Saraha or under jungle in the congo. There are a LOT of people living there though, I find it had to believe they stumble across some central african pyramid and just bulldoze it for apartment buildings, though that does happen all over the middle east where preservation of history is less of a priority.
 
You are all a bunch of idiots if you believe this. This is false, not real, fake. The image is being used our AI generated. The study did not find what they were talking about.
 
You got proof of that or just saying stuff
There's no proof of these structures existing, but here's this. You can't just believe everything even if it was neat or cool. I believed it at first also, but then I did the research. If you can't find the actual study where it talks about the structures, then the rest of it is made up.
 
Last edited:
Modern archaeologists have been proven wrong in several instances. Like for example in regard to Gobekli Tepi. According to them this structure could not have existed on the time it has been dated to (12000 years ago plus).

Still early days but multiple YouTubers have picked up on this. Let's see wjere this leads before dismissing it outright.
 
I'm not being "personal". Ironically its YOU who's seems personally offended , which is pretty funny when I've been telling you from the start of our interaction that I'm not especially invested in the topic. Why would I be "butt hurt" ?

To recap my position (which has not changed from the outset), it baffles me why anyone would get so defensive about fringe theorists making fringe claims! Well... Unless they have some sort of vested interest in which case that would have to be factored in when judging their credibility.

One small piece of advice though: Don't quote me if you're averse to the prospect of me responding. Because odds are, I'll take it as a signal that you want to continue.

You're at least equally defensive in opposite direction, otherwise explain your insistence on replying to every one of my posts, ignoring any discussion points whatsoever.

I will happily say that these people are nothing but conmen, grifters or fools themselves. There is no proof there was an ancient advanced civilization.
 
Top Bottom