Newly Found Megalithic Ruins In Russia Contain The Largest Blocks Of Stone Ever

Good to hear from you. Hope you and my partner in crime business are well and not too cold.

That's an amazing find, especially the part about anti-magnetism.

OK, moving 6,000,000# rocks is pretty unbelievable, too.

Thank you Lyn. No, not too cold - we have been 'playing around' with several different ways of keeping warm!

It is an amazing find and I am looking forward to learning more about this discovery.

Yeah, moving 6,000,000# of rocks is pretty amazing.

Take care and have an AWESOME Day!

DC

they used a 3d printer of course

Jointing planes.

It is much more likely that this interesting formation is the work of mother nature rather than some ancient civilization with some extraordinary technology...

http://englishrussia.com/2014/03/06/huge-mysterious-megaliths/

Looks blatant natural to me!

Sorry Chick! Seems we have to wait for the ultimate history rewrite!

Horizontal cracks might indicate different layers built up during different periods of time and cracked due to high temperature.Largest one might have fallen from mountaintop after cutting.

The mention of a global flood is a dead giveaway.

As long as I do not see a comment from a researcher from an other country I will NOT believe. Pictures can be "photoshopped" and so all is on real or virtual paper possible.

The magnetic effect can be the consequence of iron in the form of magnetite and is no surprising. Other minerals present as well a remanent magnetic field.

The thought about the "ancients" with a much more advanced technology is a signal to NOT believe that "what you get is really what you would see" at the spot.

I very much think it is a hoax.

Pictures all look original. No "photoshopping" evident in the least.

http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=961ae165d264c2725ce99c7243f5ccd24cb413c5.374314

I went a bit more along the line . The results of this expedition were promoted by a UFO and "ancient technology" professional who deals with the "eye of Horus" and makes pyramids in Russia. One of the presented pictures shows clearly that it was a combination since the shadows do not correlate on all sides.

If you want to get more tales about past look at "ancient.." you will learn a lot about how things can be presented.

Keep your eyes open for leprechauns (Paddy's Day on Monday) and unicorns.

If you believe this $hit you'll believe anything.

In veno veritas <hic>

How could you misspell "vino" when it already appeared correctly on the page? Too much of it <hic>?

It wasn't on the bottle

BTW - what page?

Were they made for buildings or some other purpose?. about 300yrs ago due climate change the terrain may not have been the same & sea level too was not the same as today,even rivers may have been there.Similar to Egyptian pyramids the ancestors had some technology not understood by us.

That is a strawman mischaracterization of evolution, which is not simply "random creation".

So far as is known, mutation is indeed random. But natural selection is not random.

There are many different hangups in understanding this; some of them are addressed individually in various works by Richard Dawkins, Sean Carroll, Jerry Coyne, Daniel Dennett, and many others.

At that time massive human beings(10 to 12ft high)might have lived,proved by skeletons found in India,Saudi Arabia etc.

That has nothing to do with what I said, and is probably false, anyway. What bona fide reports exist of such skeletons?

I saw that photo while it was doing the email rounds. It proved to be a hoax.

It is not strawman.

It still depends on a miracle. The only thing that's missing is God.

Go mix the water and chemicals together and create life.

We are all creationists. Sorry that you hate it.

Your theory doesn't trump my truth.

...and before you place me in your hate box, you may want to explore what my truth is.

We can take it to the breakroom, but I have no interest in making you more bitter and lonely than you already are. You know damned well I'm not a preacher, but I see Jesus as my only hope.

Yours too. Give it a try.

I've always felt this way, so please don't let my admission change our relationship.

I look forward to more OT's.

Your amateur psychology and amateur theology are both unacceptable, along with your amateur non-science.

"...It still depends on a miracle. The only thing that's missing is God...."

.

Your words ring profoundly true. How refreshing. Blind hogs, broken clocks, all that.

.

The inescapable problem with an 'explanation' that relies on a miracle is that it explains nothing....which might help you understand why God is missing.

All we have to do is think we have an explanation.

The official scientific one, is that a single cell instantaneously sprung to life from some chemicals and water....and over millions of years, it turned itself into every living species on earth.

Anyone that says otherwise is insane!

That's as good an explanation as God rearing back and passing a miracle and making it all happen in 7 days, 6,000 years ago.

Where'd he come from again?

I think there was more to it than that.

Just like bad people in government, bad people have used religion to attempt to control others. You won't find me defending organized religion.

I was just thinking about something funny.

We all know for a fact that dreams exist, but there's not a person alive that can prove it.

Bu.. Bu... But kramarat, we enter REM sleep!

Yeah...so what? You've proven that our eyes move fast. No proof exists, that dreams are real.

No proof exists that you are real either.

But dreams don't perform miracles.

The miracles that dreams perform are no less legitimate than those performed by the intervention of a god.

Got any examples? (Or are you being a devil's advocate?)

To meet the criteria of being 'no less', at least one reliable instance of a legitimate miracle performed by a dream needs to be noted for every reliable instance noted or of record of a miracle performed by the intervention of a god.

.

The list I provided, brief as it may be, fulfills the requirement above.

.

In case you missed it, here is the list again:

That clarifies it nicely.

Does stacking 3000 tonne blocks qualify ?

As a dream, yes.

http://news.discovery.com/space/astronomy/big-bangs-smoking-gun-discovered-140317.htm#mkcpgn=emnws1

How do you justify adamantly insisting on an explanation you can easily understand of a process by which something might have changed from 'not-life' to something you could classify as 'life', when the subject is the first life from a scientific perspective, yet you are devoid of the same curiosity about the first life when considering a religious perspective?

.

Wouldn't a god, if such a thing exists as a reality, not simply as a fiction, be a far more complicated thing than the most simple single cell organism? Isn't the origination of that complicated real god a slightly bigger stumbling block than the origination of that simple cell? We even know the chemical composition and a lot about the structures of cells. Care to wax factual about the composition or structure of an actual god?

The composition? I wouldn't try to guess.

Dark matter?

Believing in God isn't really a stretch...at least for me.

All it requires is a belief in good and evil, which are two more intangible things that can't be proven; along with the belief that intelligence can exist outside of the realm of human perception. Easy peasy.

The option is to believe that humans are the be all and end all, and are the most intelligent creatures that exist in the known universe. To me, that thought is too depressing to contemplate.

My neighbor turned me on to this Ted talk:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b6-0yW7Iaw&list=WLs0JFhNYq9N9Ds0hpt-OmqeCFuxhBwSBA

I have no idea how it's possible, that every person that uses this, comes into contact with the same female entity.

"The option is to believe that humans are ... the most intelligent creatures that exist in the known universe" - the existence of other (possibly more) intelligent beings cannot be shown to have anything to do with the existence of a god.

True enough, but throughout human history, the term God(s), has been applied to things we can't comprehend.

We can use another term if "God" makes you uncomfortable.

Ok I'm happy with "Natural Philosophy". It's a bit archaic, but my alma mater is 601 years old, and I feel like I was there when it was founded.

"....I have no idea how it's possible, that every person that uses this, comes into contact with the same female entity.

...."

.

That is one of the problems with a religious style of information gathering; a failure to use critical analysis as a value sieve often results in conflating insufficiently considered stories with evidence of what would seem to be an exceedingly improbable occurrence happening in a way that suggests additional meaning.

.

It is not a well founded or reasonable assumption that all people who take ayahuasca or DMT contact 'Mother Ayahuasca'. It is also not a safe assumption that 'contact' is being made at that point with something outside their own mind. Also the assumption that suggestions or neurotransmitters involved in infant-mother recognition, among numerous other alternate possibilities, couldn't possibly trigger a 'mother-contact' type experience, is also in this large group of things unsupported. It is certainly premature to assign a characteristic of a common hallucination status as an individual with a personal name.

.

The thing that still strikes me a goofy enough to point and laugh at, is your willingness to make all those unquestioning assumption about 'Mother Ayahuasca', while also remaining not the least bit concerned about things like what the god you claim is real might be composed of, and yet you make it a point to express bitter contempt for the science related to evolution because you cannot comprehend how the transition from inanimate to animate occurred.

.

.

Based on their drawings, people the world over, from different cultures who experience ocular migraines 'contact' very similar things:

...

...but that doesn't mean that 'Uncle Color Squiggles' is an entity external to those with ocular migraines.

The mocking works only because they understand it much better than you seem to think.

As Tornado was kind enough to illustrate...he claimed that modern evolutionary theory is both false and stupid, which flies in the face of what scientists believe, and he offers no alternative view.

His comment about evolutionary theory being false and stupid, was solely based in his need to attack, and cling to his pure hatred. I could have said that dogs have four legs and a tail, and his response would have been the same.

It would be mildly amusing, if his attitude weren't so prevalent.

"...he claimed that modern evolutionary theory is both false and stupid,..."

.

Mind linking to the comment in which the statement you are interpreting as the above was made?

Sure.

All we have to do is think we have an explanation.

The official scientific one, is that a single cell instantaneously sprung to life from some chemicals and water....and over millions of years, it turned itself into every living species on earth.

Anyone that says otherwise is insane!

Followed by Tornado's response.

Your second paragraph is just plain false, and stupidly so.

I followed up with links saying that science is pointing to life beginning with a single cell, and I guess it left Tornado dumbfounded.

Here's the NatGeo headline:

All Species Evolved From Single Cell, Study Finds

I did not claim that at all.

False and stupid are pretty clear words. You were also clear about exactly which paragraph you were responding to.

As far as the rocks go, I say natural formation.

Natural formation in Gabon:

Pyrite:

... and basalt:

"...I don't care if it's true or not.

&

I guess I'm just part of the 84% that are wrong, in regard to God....."

.

Sarcasm works well for you. It allows your comments to contain elements of truth, in spite of your passions to the contrary.

He is what He is!

Can one doubt that when an atheist dies, he hopes for God and a hereafter ?

Even if these are myths, our deepest fears are assuaged only by a solution that will bring comfort.

"One can go beyond doubting... both conscious and unconscious when they die."

Dr. Robert Lanza's book titled "Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness Are the Keys to Understanding the Nature of the Universe" contains a notion that life does not end when the body dies, and it can last forever. Dr. Lanza, who was voted the 3rd most important scientist alive by the NY Times, has no doubts that this is possible.

Click here for source article with video.

I don't oppose the possibility (though I think it it highly improbable). I am still confident that 'hoping' as is now enacted in the brain, and often accompanied by .a concurrent model for introspection as if it were actually a concrescence of the fractional intentionalities comprised of the the salient features we believe are inextricably tied to our available choices is almost certain to cease permanently when a person dies.

Dr. Lanza, who was voted the 3rd most important scientist alive by the NY Times..

I take it that it was the readers who actually voted ? For Obama as well ???

Did L. Ron Hubbard win?

I had a look at Dr. Lanza's theory. He wanted to prove that his specialty is the most important. The results can be considered from 2 points of view: primitive "life" adapted more and more over a HUGE laps of time to the 200 conditions, it had time to do it and we do not know how many attempts failed we know only the surviving.

Of course it can looked at from the opposite point of view i.e. the conditions were created in order to allow life development.

One of the arguments are that today no evolution is noticed. This argument if false since there are examples even to day that living species adapt to environment (in the UK a fly did change its taint to adapt to less coal presence in the air ...) what it is usually neglected is the factor time. Life is since million of years present it had time to change to adapt and to evoluate our time interval we are in is very short and evolution is not revolutionary since a complex organism requires time to accept changes since every change is interconnected to several other functions. Every step needs time.

This is not considered since it would compromise the whole discussion.

As for eternal life I shall believe when I will see a proof, I do not say it is impossible but I would like to understand and even only imagine how and in which form. Till to day all attempts to prove existence of ghosts failed. The unexplained phenomenon got at the end a "physical" explanation.

Your second paragraph is just plain false, and stupidly so.

Aw shucks. There you go shooting the messenger again.

Go tell the scientists how stupid they are.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100513-science-evolution-darwin-single-ancestor/#.UyXtK4VrGSo

I can only pray that your genius might rub off on me. Everybody stupid but you!!!!!

No, everybody smart but you.

Wow. You're funny too.

Go knock down some more of my GA's. It'll make you even smarter.

What GA's? More like just GAS.

I found some more stupid stuff about single cell evolution.

http://www.usefulcharts.com/science/human-evolution-timeline.html

Go get em big boy!!

Does it hurt to be so smart?

A single cell turning itself into every living species........How advanced is that ??

OMG Ancient Aliens!!!

It's a miracle!!!!

Poof!!! Life!!!

But only here, as far as we know. Then it turned into every tree, plant, fish, amphibian, person, animal.....

See post 51 for scientific details.

Oh...while we're at it.

Why are secular evolutionists so terrified of the "survival of the fittest' philosophy?

They cower in fear of their own idiotic religion, and celebrate weakness. Why?

Am I being a bully?

Maybe I should use the OT button!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where did you get the silly notion that "secular evolutionists" are "terrified" of the "survival of the fittest" idea, which is not a "philosophy", anyway?

I say get it in the break room! Please!

Sorry to go on the God thing.

I want to see Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Lois Lerner, Sevelious, and any other person that's associated with this criminal enterprise, go to prison.

It's called justice; and these people, (and more), belong behind bars.

PRISON? That's like sending them on vacation.

Promote them to astronauts and aim for the sun.....

Lets study Darwin together, with an emphasis on how animals in the natural kingdom have offspring that they can't possibly take care of, and once the people around them take care of their young, they are celebrated as heroes for aborting the rest.

I think it's time to look at Darwin, evolution, and accept the fact that we are animals. Animals that require minimal government. Some will live, some will die.

Waddya say?

...or would you prefer to hide behind OT votes?

No problem either way.

I always find it strange that creation and evolution seem to be mutually exclusive.

Who says God didn't create evolution ? (after all, a perfect design for survival of the species?)

Now this is an interesting concept!

Yes why?

When evolution exists it has had to be created at some point!

Food for brains and how close are we to discover (a) God!

It is also highly amusing to read that some people are so impressed by their own perceived intelligence, that they believe absolutely that the science they (think) they have created is significant in the face of cosmic design....oh yeah, look at this, we call it an electric motor...see it goes round and round...

What really sets us apart is imagination and rationale, not intelligence (as compared to swine, marsupials and herbivores). Even then, when last did we have an original idea ? Mickey Mouse ??

But I start to ramble..over and out.

Self description at it's best:

"It is also highly amusing to read that some people are so impressed by their own perceived intelligence,"

Perhaps cut in place instead? The civilization at the time would be considered masters of cleaving stone and took advantage of natural cracks already formed on the back side.

Possible, but I can't help but wonder if we humans, that live on a speck of dust, and have really big weapons trained on each other, are really the smartest thing that the universe has ever come up with.

It's depressing.

If it was cut in place(at location it was found) how did they plan to transport or erect/lift it for some purpose & what was the purpose?. Why they needed 64ft huge stone?.In some other locations when they find a huge rock they believe a tsunami long ago might have pushed to another location,is there any evidence of sea near it long ago or sea level change?.

If it was cut in place, then they wouldn't need to lift/erect it......because it was already in place.....in situ

For what purpose they were cut?.

Because it would be easier to cut segments down to a desired size in situ, then slide a manageable piece out and fell it to soft earth before digging out and rolling on logs to a desired location. Probably for fortress walls. (Much easier to transport heavy items downhill than up)

The stone blocks used in egyptian pyramids and sound indian greatTamil hindu temples were cut elsewhere and transported to site by waterway in egypt and on wooden rollers and pushed/pulled by elephants in south india.

Don't believe a word of it! It's all Communist propaganda!! They are slowly creeping back!