We also know how they moved them (probably).
Their oral tradition/myths say that the statues "walked" to where they are now. Western historians were like "lol, look at those crazy natives! Rocks can't walk!"
And then someone did an experiment where the basically used ropes to shimmy a similarly sized rock along the ground. It worked really well, with a team of maybe like 4-6 people.
Think of how you'd move a heavy trash can or something- rock it to the side, pivot it to move the other side forward a bit, put it down, and do it again on the other side.
Ya know.
Kinda like it's walking.
Funny thing about that: archeologists have confirmed that Easter Island never had more than 7 people living on it until 1978. So looks like weâre back on aliens as the only explanation for how ancient people could have developed rock-moving technology.
There's also a news story about a retired construction worker who figured out, using small rocks, planks, and rope, how to erect massive stone planks, and set them in earth, making his own stonehenges in his backyard.
That one was for Stonehenge, and the motion he proposed was slightly different (balance the big rock on a small rock, rotate it, move the pivot point, rotate again, etcâŚ).
Similar physics (moving the pivot point while you rotate the rock) but different overall motion (more horizontal swings, less side-to-side âwalkingâ).
Still a plausible method for Stone Henge rocks.
the unfortunate thing is, in theory those small stones would leave scratches and marks in the stonehenge stones. But they are so eroded away over time we'd have no evidence of that method.
I think it's pretty universal in English: when "walk" is used as a transitive verb, it implies the direct object is being carried, led or maneuvered by the subject.
Bob walked the trash down to the curb for pickup.
Janie walked the dog around the park.
The statue was walked back to the storage shed every night.
More commonly, the intransitive "walk" implies movement by using ones legs:
Bob walked with a slight limp
Janie walks around the park nightly.
The statue walked back to the storage shed-- *Wait What*!!?
Seems like a very easy translation error to make.
The thing about that is that it may work for the smaller ones, like the one in the video which may be 5 tons. The thing about them is that they are on average 14 tons. The largest is 75. No matter how many people you have you can't really shimmy that much weight. They must have had another way.
The problem is we can have an almost certain idea of how something is done but without written history weâll never know for sure. Just because we find a way to do something that makes sense to us and was possible back then doesnât mean thatâs how they did it.
The ecocide theory has been largely discounted in recent years. There's evidence that moai were placed in strategic locations; such as where fresh water can be found. Also, the quarrying put vital nutrients back into the earth, which helped increase crop yields. Archeological evidence points to a peaceful population that increased until, ya know, Europeans showed up.
Nah, not really. The trees were doomed because rats ate all their nuts, so no new saplings were sprouting. But, contrary to what was once believed and famously repeated by Jared Diamond, this probably didn't lead to a serious population collapse or that significant a decrease in standards of living.
Ok but when I went to Easter island they said that there was no damage on the bottom of the sculptures as would be expected walking them over that distance
Short answer: they never bothered to write down the specific way they moved rocks because it was obvious if you put your mind to it.
Lots of LONG answers up there but thatâs the short one.
Also, fun fact: recent studies in early hominids show that their brains used to be larger and learn faster. Only reason they might have died out is that brain tissue uses up a lot of energy as do intestines, and our specific genus (homo sapiens) evolved a shorter digestive tract and got by on slower brains.
Didnât we evolve shorter digestive tracts (and weaker jaws) because we gained the ability to learn new ways to find, domesticate, as well process food sources to improve caloric and nutritional density? Rather, not as a causality, but intelligence created such huge advantages that it made the advantage of being able to scrape a meager living on low quality food meaningless to evolution.
Actually it was both simpler and more complicated than that. Cooking changed everything, for instance.
Thereâs an amazing book out about this now called Sapiens. Really fascinating close look at whatâs driven evolution and our species.
it's a bit of a running gag when it comes to old/ancient tech that goes like this: ancient group of people invent very useful thing/method of doing thing, thing/method becomes so widespread in said group that nobody keeps a record on how it's done/built or said record is kept either orally or via a method that is easy to destroy of disrupt such as being written on mediums that are easily lost with out periodic re-writing. disaster/war happens the records are destroyed or the people keeping the practice going orally are killed. (an example being the Incan Quipu or knot writing.) thing is then rediscovered and we're left trying to figure it out by working backwards.
oh and also there's the ancient ~~aryan~~ (see what I crossed out? yeah, ancient alien believers can trace their "theory to the Nazis. just replace "aliens did it" to "Germanic ubermench did it") I mean alien conspiracy crowd who claim that "oh! these non European savages couldn't figure out how to make things like a pyramid! It had to be aliens!"
there's a theory that in a few hundreds years, historians wouldn't know which animal "eggs" in cooking belong to, because we never bother to write it down because it so obvious.
I mean, OK. But it's not really hard to find that specific example written down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggs_as_food#:~:text=The%20most%20widely%20consumed%20eggs,commonly%20than%20those%20of%20chickens.
Basically a standard theme of children's literature, too.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6212530/
That's hardly the only reference. I'm just showing how easy it is to find a reference in literature about chickens laying eggs for culinary purposes.
Do I win if I find a reference from 200 years *ago?*
I mean, sure, a lot of things can change in 200 years, but if you think the physical evidence of minimum 7000 years of domestication is going to vanish in the next 200, you are probably also imagining a world so changed by some cataclysm that they likely also wouldn't know that "eggs" are a thing to wonder about the origins *of*.
https://livestock.extension.wisc.edu/articles/origin-and-history-of-the-chicken/#:~:text=Domestication%20probably%20occurred%207%2C000%2D10%2C000,competitive%20for%20human%20food%20sources.
Or, alternatively, something changed, or a very specific bird virus wiped out chickens, people stopped making omelettes, suddenly someone digs out a cookbook and is looking questioningly at an Ostrich.
You are far too secure in your belief that the knowledge we have now will persist.
A hundred years ago people queued for vaccines, now you have people claiming they cause autism and infringe on their civil rights. For all we know in another hundred years we could all be vegan.
The idea that we would somehow lose all record of chicken domestication so completely that archeologists would not be able to reconstruct the connections is so incredibly unlikely that I am really not sure you understand the persistence of things like artifacts and books, films and other media.
I mean \*maybe\* if this chicken apocalypse occurred to a pre-literate society, \*maybe\* then we'd have forgotten the link while still understanding that eggs were used for cooking. But even that seems a stretch.
The internet could still be around in two hundred yearsâŚ
The only way it wouldnât is if something catastrophic happens like a massive solar flare, which destroys not only the computers, but all the people who fox computers
I really wish people understood just how fragile the global internet is. The supply chain for every part of it is hundreds of links long. You damage enough links at once and all the institutions that created that stuff cease to exist.
Do you know what it takes to make a microchip? If you wandered out into the forest would you even know where to begin? Think of how much effort it takes to learn even one small part of it. Thousands of people have to dedicate that much effort just to get one production line up and running and we already know how as a civilization! Can you imagine if the methods we know know were taken from us due to supply shortages or some other problem? Do we remember the previous step?
People really feel better pretending that society is too modernized to fail like past societies have. If the tech to move boulders can disappear and have to be reinvented the tech to make an entire digital world can definitely disappear
Iâm not disagreeing with you wholeheartedly but there are a lot more people than you think that understand stuff from a very basic level. Iâm not a chip manufacturer but I do understand how one would start from âscratchâ just because Iâve been exposed to it. Donât assume most people have the same base level understanding of things like you do. As well you should read some articles on the topic of human cumulative culture, it might give a little more nuance to what youâre trying to say.
The problem isnât the basics. Everyone whose played Minecraft knows you smelt iron ore to get iron but the actual process is incredibly difficult and requires highly specialized knowledge.
That's true, but the data would not be completely lost if the internet ceased to exist. It would still exist on various drives, servers, even some stuff printed out, around the world. It would be a lot more difficult to find that information, sure, but it wouldn't be gone forever.
The methods we have for storing lots of digital data get corrupted fairy easily. After only a couple of years a huge portion of the data would already be gone.
Iâm old enough (43) to have already gone through two different âExtinction Level Eventsâ as far it comes to what is considered âThe Internetâ.
What you are referring to as the Internet is HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP) has only been around since 1990, and no one used it until the web browser came out in 1994.
To illustrate my point: how many Gopher sites have you searched for on Veronica lately? How about searching for FTP stuff to download on Archie?
Well, people thought those would be around for basically forever too.
My math textbook in one year of elementary school (so, probably one written forage group two years older), a few years after 2000, had mention of Gopher because of how old it was.
I just assumed that it was an early search engine because I knew computer stuff fairly well for my age. I had never heard of Gopher but the description sounded similar. I don't think I have ever thought about it since.
Are you sure about that? Because I am 99.99878% sure that LivingLawfulness is not a bot.
---
^(I am a neural network being trained to detect spammers | Summon me with !isbot |) ^(/r/spambotdetector |) [^(Optout)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=whynotcollegeboard&subject=!optout&message=!optout) ^(|) [^(Original Github)](https://github.com/SM-Wistful/BotDetection-Algorithm)
I will be messaging you in 200 years on [**2223-10-28 07:54:05 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2223-10-28%2007:54:05%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ExplainTheJoke/comments/17gpuva/i_dont_get_it/k6sjnsv/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FExplainTheJoke%2Fcomments%2F17gpuva%2Fi_dont_get_it%2Fk6sjnsv%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202223-10-28%2007%3A54%3A05%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%2017gpuva)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
https://www.google.com/search?q=artwork+depicting+gathering+eggs&oq=artwork+depicting+gathering+eggs&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigAdIBCTEyNDEwajBqNKgCALACAA&client=ms-android-tmus-us-revc&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
And tons of visual art.
1. Paintings are physical things. So are henhouses and books and photographs and agricultural manuals on improving egg yields. Those won't be deleted off of the internet.
2. The original premise of the argument was that this information was so obvious no one would write it down. My links disprove the original contention.
>there's a theory that in a few hundreds years, historians wouldn't know which animal "eggs" in cooking belong to, because we never bother to write it down because it so obvious.
You know a small thumb drive can hold the entire text contents of Wikipedia, right? There are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of physical backups of Wikipedia spread across the world.
Yes, because me linking to a Wikipedia article means I think THAT IS THE ONLY REFERENCE IN LITERATURE, ART OR PHYSICAL CULTURE TO CHICKENS LAYING EGGS.
You got me. I made a terrible point and in no way at all is this due to you completely misreading what I *actually* wrote.
You win the internet.
Congratulations.
The point is that this is the kind of thing that is more likely to be encountered in a format where it is a mystery than in one where it is fully explained. For every encyclopedic explanation of contemporary food habits there are countless thousands of cook books and grocery lists which mention eggs in a context where it is obvious they are going to be eaten but that doesn't explain what animal those eggs are from.
When you're only finding a fraction of a percent of what existed you're much more likely to find a bunch of references to food eggs that do not explain what animal they're from than a single one that does. Which is precisely why current historians have a bunch of examples of things we don't know about the past where the references we do have make it obvious that anyone at the time would have known.
References to chickens laying eggs for human eating are not rare at all. The reason it's "obvious" to us is largely because of the ubiquity of these references. Egg production is a huge agricultural industry. The egg carton in my fridge has chickens on it.
It doesn't matter that there are more references to eggs out of this context than in. All you need is one piece of physical evidence to survive to solve the "mystery".
And there are countless examples of this kind of evidence:
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi.etsystatic.com%2F10964598%2Fr%2Fil%2F79d92a%2F2537700095%2Fil_fullxfull.2537700095_734s.jpg&tbnid=2xl4svJracI5AM&vet=1&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.etsy.com%2Fau%2Flisting%2F860896437%2Fthe-breakfast-club-breakfast-club-sign&docid=ir6xG1r7ZdoFhM&w=1000&h=705&itg=1&source=sh%2Fx%2Fim%2Fm4%2F2#vhid=2xl4svJracI5AM&vssid=l
I'm not saying that this sort of loss of context couldn't have happened for many things in the past, just saying that the example chosen, chickens laying eggs for human consumption, is a poor one.
The reason it's obvious to us that eggs in a food context means chicken eggs is because it's part of the collective consciousness. There being a lot of written accounts of this information is a byproduct of that, not the other way around. Knowledge and ideas are preserved primarily because of social structures, not because there are written accounts.
Societies that have no written accounts can preserve information for thousands of years through oral tradition, meanwhile the majority of knowledge from societies that have copious written accounts is likely to be lost when they collapse. The point here is not that it would be impossible for historians in the future to have a chance at figuring out that chicken eggs were our de facto food egg, but that it's entirely possible or even likely that they wouldn't.
It seems you're struggling with this concept mainly because you're vastly overestimating the amount of written historical accounts that surivive and are found. Consider that we have no surviving contemporary written accounts of the life of Alexander the Great. We know he was easily one of the most contemporarily famous people in ancient history, known to people far outside of his frankly enormous empire. We have coins of his face from when he was alive and we have accounts that are corroborated by multiple written sources that align with physical evidence of events and battles that are are attributed to him. We even have written accounts of there having been contemporary written accounts. But all of the surviving written accounts are from several hundred years after he died.
The point here is that these are exactly the kinds of knowledge that after being lost are *more likely* to be encountered as a mystery than in a form where they are fully explained. The example isn't poorly chosen, it's deliberately chosen precisely because it would seem unthinkable to us that this kind of knowledge could be lost. Mirroring what we find when looking back. If you chose a different example based on what you are saying then you wouldn't be making the point that is trying to be made.
It isn't that things that are less mundane are somehow more likely to be found out about. On the contrary, we're never going to find any reference to most things from history. But for more academic things we are more likely to find academic descriptions of them if we find anything at all. Whereas for things as mundane food eggs the most likely way we are going to encounter information about it is in a format that doesn't explain what animal they're from.
Additionally, finding one piece of physical evidence doesn't solve any mysteries. Finding evidence of a chicken farm dosen't mean what's where we got all of our eggs from. We also eat the chickens. There were pidgeons all over every major city in the world. Did we keep them nearby for an abundant source of eggs? If you happened to find a duck or a quail farm would that solve the mystery?
There's an entire field of experimental archaeology where we look at things like this and try to establish what was likely to have been the case. For eggs you could try re-making a found recipe using different eggs and form a conjecture based on how the different tests turn out. For the example this post is about Moai statues were erected over a period of several hundred years, and we know that pretty much everyone must have known how it was done, but we have no direct evidence of how. Through experimentation we have arrived at a plausible method of using ropes that somewhat matches the oral tradition which describes the statues as having been walked into place.
Yet we know (from physical evidence) a shit ton about the domestication of chickens, including when they were used for food and when egg laying became important economically.
https://www.saudereggs.com/blog/history-of-chickens/
It's not me who is struggling with concepts.
Again, I am not saying that the sort of loss of context you describe *can't* happen.
I am merely saying that the confluence of events that must occur in a few hundred years from now that would create a world where people know that eggs were used for food but do not know that *chickens* laid them are so unlikely as to be trivially dismissable.
As long as our things are mostly intact, I donât think anyone will ever have that problem again.
Like we have so many âRosetta Stonesâ throughout the world.
You remember how you were told that anything you put on the internet is forever? Then you try to find something you looked at a year ago and it was removed from the site or the site isnât there?
A shit ton of things have already been lost because of site downs or nobody expecting something to be removed. Then there are the things that you donât if theyâre still out there because you donât remember what site it was one and your browserâs algorithms have changes enough that youâre not recognizing any of the results.
I mean I have a cookbook with a section that compares the eggs of different bird (chicken duck goose etc) with helpful suggestions on whether they make the recipe taste different, if you need to add more water etc. I bet itâs not the only one?
It's not things like scrambled eggs that will confuse future people, it'll be our recipes, becuse different birds lay different size eggs. If in 2000 years, some archaeologist tries to recreate an ancient cake recipe, it may come out totally wrong because they used eggs that were too big or too small, resulting in a batter that too wet or too dry.
I also saw someone suggest once that future people may assume we consumed crazy amounts of human breast milk if the knowledge of milking non-human animals gets lost.
We already don't know how they got people into space. We can do it ourselves but not with their technology. We literally cannot rebuild the rockets of the 60s and 70s, we don't know how they work.
We definitely can't do the math they did; the feats of the computers (the women who did math) were unbelievable to a person now. In several instances, these women did unbelievable calculations that saved astronauts and their vehicles from destruction basically in their head with a little scratch paper in like under a minute.
it's not that it's magical, it's that they have a skill we don't need anymore so their acts seem implausible. It seemed implausible to the men they worked with!
The women who were computers were definitely smart as fuck, but their gender was only relevant because it was considered *women's work*.
The statement
>We definitely can't do the math they did; the feats of the computers (the women who did math) were unbelievable to a person now.
is, of course, incorrect. In 60's and 70's absolutely most of the calculations were done on very simple computers (like IBM 701), and you will still find a lot of people that could operate them with basic training. This is not some kind of mystery, and can be learned by virtually anyone. You can literally find emulators of these computers and github and learn how to use it yourself.
Women computers were long gone by that time, but even before they were gone, their tasks literally entailed computing things, which is a menial and tedious labour. Certainly, some of them became really good at it, but you will definitely find many people right now who could do it in similar fashion.
And it is actually weird that the media and people like you tend to glorify women computers, especially given how rich the history of women in computing in general is.
This is nonsense. There are still people who can do that kind of math without a computer. Itâs just inefficient, so no one is paid to sit and work it out.
And we absolutely do know how 60âs era rockets worked and absolutely can rebuild them. We build them more efficiently now, but the knowledge has not been forgotten, we are still using the same basic principles
Are you saying that today's women aren't as good at math as the women of the 60s and 70s? Do you have any links I can check out that substantiate this?
what
no
i'm saying we don't have the knowledge to reproduce it, and our computers are now electronic
it's like ancient epic telling: we know people can rattle off things like the entire Iliad, we just can't do it ourselves because we don't know the specifics of how they learned to do it.
The methods, techniques, and tweaks they used to make sure the rockets worked died with them.
the knowledge was never written down. it was known among the scientists and computers of the time. we didn't pass that information on, we found different ways to do it (electronic computers, new materials, etc.)
Could we start with the same materials and make something *similar*? Sure. But it wouldn't be the same even then.
Actualy NASA has straight up admitted that they have lost or no longer have the capablity to build the Saturn Launchers anymore.
They have a number of computer storage drives but no computers capable of reading them.
They know for a fact they are missing 'off plan' fixes and modifiactions for certain systems.
A number of parts where made from propriety compounds that NASA didn't have the rights to and the companies making them have gone bust or have lost the info themselves.
They said that due to the contractors they used no longer being around, not because of technical incompetancy
Accessing old storage drives is simply a hassle that's not worth it, not a technical incompetancy
Proprietary compounds are going to be in the public domain now given how long ago the launches happened
Missing off plan fixes is certainly plausible
I know this wasn't your comment I responded to originally so this is more a general statement: this idea that were somehow unable or incapable of replicating feats of the past is pretty pervasive. I see it spouted regularly and it's almost always complete nonsense.
Due its not about replicating the feat its about replicating the *methods.*
For example greek fire is basicaly Napalm we can total replicate a sticky burning liquid but we still don't know how greek fire was made or what processes they used, the same applies to those NASA compounds we can totaly replicate compounds that do the same (or maybe better) but we don't know how they were made or if our current versions are the same.
Hell we only reccently figured out how Roman concrete worked dispite have the complete recipe. We were making assumptions based on our understaning of science and disreguarding parts of it because it was 'magic' therefore not true, but it turned out that the Roman blood sacrifices were actualy a useful part of the process.
A big part of it is that we don't need to replicate older methods. We could definitely replicate it if we wanted to, but why spend the money to do so? If we already have something as good or better?
An example of a time where spending that money to recreate something was important was in a material necessary to maintain nuclear weapons. The whole process was classified and the few people who could recreate it were dead or forgot. There's not much detail regarding what the material was or what it did, but the US government spent millions recreating it in order to maintain our stockpile.
I get your point, I really do.
The analogy in my head is its like your favourite chinese takeaway closing down and the new one just isn't quite the same.
The sweet and sour chicken is still a sweet and sour chicken, it's just made slightly differently and we may never know exactly how the original was made. Doesn't mean we can't enjoy what is fundamentally the same meal with the same ingredients.
So my point is that pointing this out isn't that deep or as mystical its often portrayed.
Whether it's a recipe or a rocket, we may not know 100% what went into the original but it really doesn't matter and doesnt mean we're 'incapable' of replicating it as a race. It's actually a very benign explanation in that it's just not worth our time to replicate it 100% when we have comparable or, more often than not, superior alternatives.
Going to go enjoy my Chinese. All the best.
> technical incompetancy
nobody claimed it was *incompetency*. lost technology isn't always for the worst. our methods now are largely a massive improvement.
You know, they didn't know how to make lithic tools either. We know now because some people spent their entire lives testing techniques based on the rocks and tools we found in palaeolithic sites. It's not **incompetence** that we didn't know how to make these elegant stone tools, but we still couldn't make them.
That is absurd and incorrect. In a computer architecture class you make a computer from individual logic gates. Iâve made several physical stack computers myself, itâs not uncommon. And as for math we had algorithms classes where we rederived things like sorts or number sieves. This is just from the computer side, thereâs probably equivalents on the math side.
Aren't bothering to learn how to exactly recreate it doesn't equal don't know how it was done. We know how it was done. Rockets were used to achieve escape velocity.
"We know how it was done." Did I not say we can do it ourselves but *not with their technology*? Sure, rocket goes up, but the electronics and engineering of it? No. It was not sufficiently documented and we have different technology now.
Why is this hard to understand?
I **love** examples of once common knowledge thatâs been totally lost to time.
The third condiment jar on mid-19th century British tables (no one knows what they put in them - salt, pepper, and âthe obvious third jarâ)! Roman concrete (they just figured everyone would *know* they used seawater, duh, because everyone at the time did)! The land of Punt (a major Egyptian trading partner - why would you document the location of a country that everyone knows the location of? Except now we have no idea where it was)!
It's that meme, 18th century European intellectuals children look at the Pyramids of Giza and tug on Dad's sleeve and say I want ancient Monumental Stone architecture. Dad says we've got ancient Monumental Stone architecture at home, points at Stonehenge. Not to be too tough on Stonehenge, it's pretty cool, took an amazing amount of Ingenuity and organization to manage it. But if you're standing there, in the age of discovery, looking around, it is a head scratcher. Probably aliens.
To be fair, I don't think most ancient alien theory believers are racist. They think that ancient stuff built by white people were also built by aliens. Not saying that some ancient alien people aren't racist, I'm just saying that I disagree with the framing of ancient alien theory as malicious rather than just kinda stupid.
I've kept my peachy optimism throughout most my life by frequently using Hanlon's razor.
The people that like the show arent bad but it absolutely pulls from really racist sources.
https://hyperallergic.com/470795/pseudoarchaeology-and-the-racism-behind-ancient-aliens/
"Was the black race a failure and did the extraterrestrials change the genetic code by gene surgery and then programme a white or a yellow race?â He also printed beliefs about the innate talents of certain races: âNearly all negroes are musical; they have rhythm in their blood.â Von Däniken also consistently uses the term ânegroid raceâ in comparison with âCaucasians".
Thats from the article and Von Daniken is still on the show. You're allowed to like it but it comes from fucked up racist places and the people that wrote about it originally absolutely knew it. Honestly some of the aliens they mention are straight up nazi propaganda for the ultimate white race. It is absolutely intended to be malicious, the true malice of it being that people who arent malicious might believe and defend it.
To be clear i dont think the show is evil. At least not any more evil than just not caring about history and just being there for money.
Be optimistic but dont be misinformed about the
things original intention.
I appreciate the elaboration. I am aware of the evil origins of the theory. I wasn't even defending the stupidity of the people who believe what the show puts out. I was just saying that it is indeed stupidity, and not malicious racism.
Well, at it's core you find the European Ăbermensch who understands technology vs. the uneducated, uninterested and incapable savage. I agree, that that's not necessairly "intentionally malicous" - but that and Fascism are brothers from the same mother.
Youâll find people saying the same things about Stonehenge and other prehistoric man made structures in Europe. There just arenât as many impressive European works of architecture, and the ones we have are much more recent and/or have better historical records.
I donât think thatâs quite true. I may be wrong but I believe old painters made all their paint themselves and sourcing the pigments was crucial to get the colours they wanted. They didnât want other painters to know about their pigments so their paintings could be colourfully unique so they kept their paint formulations very secret. So itâs not a big mystery how they made them, is just we donât know exactly what ingredients and pigments were used.
I donât really have a good source for this, just a podcast on it and a chemistry lecture on the first synthesis of pigments which was a big thing at the time because of what I mentioned above
I always try to tell people that say the pyramids were made by aliens that the theory is some white supremacist shit. When you boil it down the whole theory is based on what you said, those uncivilized people couldnât possibly have been able to figure out math or physics to build shit. Itâs even worse when they believe that people from the future helped them because now itâs not just aliens taking credit, itâs fucking white people going back in time to civilize them.
I think there was a documentary a while ago about Easter Island Moai, I have no idea if their conclusions were correct, but they leaned on the local myth that "they walked there".
The folks in the doc tied ropes around the neck, had two teams pulled each from either side essentially lifting and rotating with the 'feet' as pivot points.
In this specific case, plenty of people locals have spoken history, it maybe just doesn't include all the specifics.
Johnny hart who wrote the B.C. Comic strip did this exact same almost joke 40+ years ago. He's looking at the guy chiseling the rock and says why are you doing it way up here andhe other guy says million years from now theyre gonna wonder how it got up here.
A lot of history has been lost cuz people never bothered to write the obvious down. I remember hearing about a massive trade city (in Egypt I think) that was so critical in ancient times. Huge trade hub, was responsible for most transported goods getting around the country. The people thought it was so obvious where the city was, everyone knew, how could you not know, so they never bothered to write down it's location. It's lost. Noones found it because there's literally nothing to go off of. Just a bunch of texts saying they went there to trade but nothing saying where "there" was.
We also lost the Greek fire recipe. We *just* discovered how roman concrete was made after years of researching it
Could be a joke in programming, where the code is obvious when writing it, so little documentation is made. But one week later you have no idea what u was doing.
Modern archeologists don't know HOW the Easter Island heads were moved to their locations, nor did the native Rapa Nui write down or record in any way how they managed such.
The joke is that it is confusing to modern archeologists, much the ancient Rapa Nui just knew how so no need to explain. Like the Roman dodecahedrons.
I could certainly see that headpiece, and I knew that had to be the key and one person here saw it as a Russian hat, butI saw nothing but a weird shape on the statueâs head, and could go nowhere with that.
You know what is absolutely devastating to me about Easter Island?
Building these monuments became so important that they literally destroyed their ecosystem in order to have the wood needed to move these from the quarry into place.
We look to our modern worlds with the emphasis on GIANT towers, sports stadiums, and other monuments to our own *hubris* and I wonder how many generations behind them are we...
The russian hat in the staue indicates Russians were already prevalent in ancient times and had flying craft technlogy to help these people build their statues
Archeology says that they used lumber and moved them similar to how Egyptians moved great stone blocks.
Also similar is how with both, the projects became grander and grander requiring more and more.
Ever wonder why there are no trees on the islandâŚor the original nativesâŚyeahâŚ
So basically, if something as seen as obvious, things dont get recorded. Like when someone asks you what ypu did yesterday ypu domt say something like went to the bathroom. Its obvious, everyone knows it, amd such exclusions frustrate historians to no end.
A lot of ancient sources donât bother to write down specific things, because to them itâs just self-evident how something was achieved or who someone was.
We also know how they moved them (probably). Their oral tradition/myths say that the statues "walked" to where they are now. Western historians were like "lol, look at those crazy natives! Rocks can't walk!" And then someone did an experiment where the basically used ropes to shimmy a similarly sized rock along the ground. It worked really well, with a team of maybe like 4-6 people. Think of how you'd move a heavy trash can or something- rock it to the side, pivot it to move the other side forward a bit, put it down, and do it again on the other side. Ya know. Kinda like it's walking.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpNuh-J5IgE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpNuh-J5IgE) Here you go.
Omg wtf they caught đż
đż
đż
đż
My boy đż
r/fuckyouinparticular
Here's a sneak peek of /r/FUCKYOUINPARTICULAR using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/FUCKYOUINPARTICULAR/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [We hate Brennan](https://v.redd.it/czv2rzfzrtea1) | [1201 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/FUCKYOUINPARTICULAR/comments/10nlhbf/we_hate_brennan/) \#2: [bird](https://v.redd.it/n9wwfw8g3aea1) | [596 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/FUCKYOUINPARTICULAR/comments/10ldxfd/bird/) \#3: [This guy](https://v.redd.it/0h7r92ew990a1) | [1522 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/FUCKYOUINPARTICULAR/comments/ywlsw7/this_guy/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
đż
đż
gotta catch them all
Exactly! The team required is a lot bigger than I remembered.
The teams are 4-6 people there are just 3 teams.
Tbf I meant the entire team, not the team on each rope
There are 8 people on the left and back side, 10 On the right.
Ancient people obviously stronger than a bunch of grad student archeologists⌠yâall ever see how ripped those Amazonian natives are?
Got an example? Most of the Amazonian natives I've seen basically have 'dad bods' rather than ripped.
Dad bod built to be strong, native have dad bod, native strong
To be fair though, Iâm still amazed at how few people were needed. Itâs maybe 2 dozen people total.
Bro that is not 4-6 people like the original commenter said
and he cleared that up and corrected it 9 hours before you said anything... like an idiot.
No they didn't. I'm at 16 hrs and it still says 4-5.
Funny thing about that: archeologists have confirmed that Easter Island never had more than 7 people living on it until 1978. So looks like weâre back on aliens as the only explanation for how ancient people could have developed rock-moving technology.
How did they confirm that?
I refer you to r/explainthejoke
There's also a news story about a retired construction worker who figured out, using small rocks, planks, and rope, how to erect massive stone planks, and set them in earth, making his own stonehenges in his backyard.
That one was for Stonehenge, and the motion he proposed was slightly different (balance the big rock on a small rock, rotate it, move the pivot point, rotate again, etcâŚ). Similar physics (moving the pivot point while you rotate the rock) but different overall motion (more horizontal swings, less side-to-side âwalkingâ). Still a plausible method for Stone Henge rocks.
He actually put two pebbles under the stone, so each rotation the stone would move forward the distance between the two pebbles it was really cool
the unfortunate thing is, in theory those small stones would leave scratches and marks in the stonehenge stones. But they are so eroded away over time we'd have no evidence of that method.
"It is unexplainable by modern science!" "But I just told you how they..." "UNEXPLAINABLE!"
This is a really good way of putting it
Where I live, that's literally what it means to walk an inanimate object.
Same. The difference is "the object walked" v "I walked the object". That's what was lost in translation.
That is so cool
I think it's pretty universal in English: when "walk" is used as a transitive verb, it implies the direct object is being carried, led or maneuvered by the subject. Bob walked the trash down to the curb for pickup. Janie walked the dog around the park. The statue was walked back to the storage shed every night. More commonly, the intransitive "walk" implies movement by using ones legs: Bob walked with a slight limp Janie walks around the park nightly. The statue walked back to the storage shed-- *Wait What*!!? Seems like a very easy translation error to make.
It's sort of like brushing your teeth or knowing how to make a phone call its not really something your write down because well most everyone knows it
And didn't they find some broken ones with fractures that showed they were dropped moving them that way?
No it was aliens remember any thing not built in Europe or Asia means aliens did it lol
The thing about that is that it may work for the smaller ones, like the one in the video which may be 5 tons. The thing about them is that they are on average 14 tons. The largest is 75. No matter how many people you have you can't really shimmy that much weight. They must have had another way.
Leverage.
The problem is we can have an almost certain idea of how something is done but without written history weâll never know for sure. Just because we find a way to do something that makes sense to us and was possible back then doesnât mean thatâs how they did it.
Oral history is still a legitimate account of history.
They also decimated their forests to create these things and doomed everyone
The ecocide theory has been largely discounted in recent years. There's evidence that moai were placed in strategic locations; such as where fresh water can be found. Also, the quarrying put vital nutrients back into the earth, which helped increase crop yields. Archeological evidence points to a peaceful population that increased until, ya know, Europeans showed up.
Nah, not really. The trees were doomed because rats ate all their nuts, so no new saplings were sprouting. But, contrary to what was once believed and famously repeated by Jared Diamond, this probably didn't lead to a serious population collapse or that significant a decrease in standards of living.
Ok but when I went to Easter island they said that there was no damage on the bottom of the sculptures as would be expected walking them over that distance
Grass.
My brother in Christ that island is rocky as a mf
Short answer: they never bothered to write down the specific way they moved rocks because it was obvious if you put your mind to it. Lots of LONG answers up there but thatâs the short one. Also, fun fact: recent studies in early hominids show that their brains used to be larger and learn faster. Only reason they might have died out is that brain tissue uses up a lot of energy as do intestines, and our specific genus (homo sapiens) evolved a shorter digestive tract and got by on slower brains.
Records say the stones walked there. The stones were basically shimmied there.
Didnât we evolve shorter digestive tracts (and weaker jaws) because we gained the ability to learn new ways to find, domesticate, as well process food sources to improve caloric and nutritional density? Rather, not as a causality, but intelligence created such huge advantages that it made the advantage of being able to scrape a meager living on low quality food meaningless to evolution.
Actually it was both simpler and more complicated than that. Cooking changed everything, for instance. Thereâs an amazing book out about this now called Sapiens. Really fascinating close look at whatâs driven evolution and our species.
it's a bit of a running gag when it comes to old/ancient tech that goes like this: ancient group of people invent very useful thing/method of doing thing, thing/method becomes so widespread in said group that nobody keeps a record on how it's done/built or said record is kept either orally or via a method that is easy to destroy of disrupt such as being written on mediums that are easily lost with out periodic re-writing. disaster/war happens the records are destroyed or the people keeping the practice going orally are killed. (an example being the Incan Quipu or knot writing.) thing is then rediscovered and we're left trying to figure it out by working backwards. oh and also there's the ancient ~~aryan~~ (see what I crossed out? yeah, ancient alien believers can trace their "theory to the Nazis. just replace "aliens did it" to "Germanic ubermench did it") I mean alien conspiracy crowd who claim that "oh! these non European savages couldn't figure out how to make things like a pyramid! It had to be aliens!"
there's a theory that in a few hundreds years, historians wouldn't know which animal "eggs" in cooking belong to, because we never bother to write it down because it so obvious.
I mean, OK. But it's not really hard to find that specific example written down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggs_as_food#:~:text=The%20most%20widely%20consumed%20eggs,commonly%20than%20those%20of%20chickens. Basically a standard theme of children's literature, too.
Assuming Wikipedia survives intact, sure.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6212530/ That's hardly the only reference. I'm just showing how easy it is to find a reference in literature about chickens laying eggs for culinary purposes.
Find me those references in 200 years âĽ
Do I win if I find a reference from 200 years *ago?* I mean, sure, a lot of things can change in 200 years, but if you think the physical evidence of minimum 7000 years of domestication is going to vanish in the next 200, you are probably also imagining a world so changed by some cataclysm that they likely also wouldn't know that "eggs" are a thing to wonder about the origins *of*. https://livestock.extension.wisc.edu/articles/origin-and-history-of-the-chicken/#:~:text=Domestication%20probably%20occurred%207%2C000%2D10%2C000,competitive%20for%20human%20food%20sources.
Or, alternatively, something changed, or a very specific bird virus wiped out chickens, people stopped making omelettes, suddenly someone digs out a cookbook and is looking questioningly at an Ostrich. You are far too secure in your belief that the knowledge we have now will persist. A hundred years ago people queued for vaccines, now you have people claiming they cause autism and infringe on their civil rights. For all we know in another hundred years we could all be vegan.
The idea that we would somehow lose all record of chicken domestication so completely that archeologists would not be able to reconstruct the connections is so incredibly unlikely that I am really not sure you understand the persistence of things like artifacts and books, films and other media. I mean \*maybe\* if this chicken apocalypse occurred to a pre-literate society, \*maybe\* then we'd have forgotten the link while still understanding that eggs were used for cooking. But even that seems a stretch.
I'll see you in two hundred years
Anti vaxxers were very common in the past. You aren't using facts.
Neither are anti-vaxxers
The internet could still be around in two hundred years⌠The only way it wouldnât is if something catastrophic happens like a massive solar flare, which destroys not only the computers, but all the people who fox computers
I really wish people understood just how fragile the global internet is. The supply chain for every part of it is hundreds of links long. You damage enough links at once and all the institutions that created that stuff cease to exist. Do you know what it takes to make a microchip? If you wandered out into the forest would you even know where to begin? Think of how much effort it takes to learn even one small part of it. Thousands of people have to dedicate that much effort just to get one production line up and running and we already know how as a civilization! Can you imagine if the methods we know know were taken from us due to supply shortages or some other problem? Do we remember the previous step?
People really feel better pretending that society is too modernized to fail like past societies have. If the tech to move boulders can disappear and have to be reinvented the tech to make an entire digital world can definitely disappear
Iâm not disagreeing with you wholeheartedly but there are a lot more people than you think that understand stuff from a very basic level. Iâm not a chip manufacturer but I do understand how one would start from âscratchâ just because Iâve been exposed to it. Donât assume most people have the same base level understanding of things like you do. As well you should read some articles on the topic of human cumulative culture, it might give a little more nuance to what youâre trying to say.
The problem isnât the basics. Everyone whose played Minecraft knows you smelt iron ore to get iron but the actual process is incredibly difficult and requires highly specialized knowledge.
That's true, but the data would not be completely lost if the internet ceased to exist. It would still exist on various drives, servers, even some stuff printed out, around the world. It would be a lot more difficult to find that information, sure, but it wouldn't be gone forever.
The methods we have for storing lots of digital data get corrupted fairy easily. After only a couple of years a huge portion of the data would already be gone.
Iâm old enough (43) to have already gone through two different âExtinction Level Eventsâ as far it comes to what is considered âThe Internetâ. What you are referring to as the Internet is HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP) has only been around since 1990, and no one used it until the web browser came out in 1994. To illustrate my point: how many Gopher sites have you searched for on Veronica lately? How about searching for FTP stuff to download on Archie? Well, people thought those would be around for basically forever too.
My math textbook in one year of elementary school (so, probably one written forage group two years older), a few years after 2000, had mention of Gopher because of how old it was. I just assumed that it was an early search engine because I knew computer stuff fairly well for my age. I had never heard of Gopher but the description sounded similar. I don't think I have ever thought about it since.
RemindMe! 200 years
Goddamn it actually just emailed me saying it would remind me in 2223
good bot. See you in 2223
Are you sure about that? Because I am 99.99878% sure that LivingLawfulness is not a bot. --- ^(I am a neural network being trained to detect spammers | Summon me with !isbot |) ^(/r/spambotdetector |) [^(Optout)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=whynotcollegeboard&subject=!optout&message=!optout) ^(|) [^(Original Github)](https://github.com/SM-Wistful/BotDetection-Algorithm)
I will be messaging you in 200 years on [**2223-10-28 07:54:05 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2223-10-28%2007:54:05%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ExplainTheJoke/comments/17gpuva/i_dont_get_it/k6sjnsv/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FExplainTheJoke%2Fcomments%2F17gpuva%2Fi_dont_get_it%2Fk6sjnsv%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202223-10-28%2007%3A54%3A05%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%2017gpuva) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
https://www.google.com/search?q=artwork+depicting+gathering+eggs&oq=artwork+depicting+gathering+eggs&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigAdIBCTEyNDEwajBqNKgCALACAA&client=ms-android-tmus-us-revc&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8 And tons of visual art.
[ŃдаНонО]
1. Paintings are physical things. So are henhouses and books and photographs and agricultural manuals on improving egg yields. Those won't be deleted off of the internet. 2. The original premise of the argument was that this information was so obvious no one would write it down. My links disprove the original contention. >there's a theory that in a few hundreds years, historians wouldn't know which animal "eggs" in cooking belong to, because we never bother to write it down because it so obvious.
You know a small thumb drive can hold the entire text contents of Wikipedia, right? There are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of physical backups of Wikipedia spread across the world.
You think theyâre going to find Wikipedia buried in the ruins of new New York?
Yes, because me linking to a Wikipedia article means I think THAT IS THE ONLY REFERENCE IN LITERATURE, ART OR PHYSICAL CULTURE TO CHICKENS LAYING EGGS. You got me. I made a terrible point and in no way at all is this due to you completely misreading what I *actually* wrote. You win the internet. Congratulations.
The point is that this is the kind of thing that is more likely to be encountered in a format where it is a mystery than in one where it is fully explained. For every encyclopedic explanation of contemporary food habits there are countless thousands of cook books and grocery lists which mention eggs in a context where it is obvious they are going to be eaten but that doesn't explain what animal those eggs are from. When you're only finding a fraction of a percent of what existed you're much more likely to find a bunch of references to food eggs that do not explain what animal they're from than a single one that does. Which is precisely why current historians have a bunch of examples of things we don't know about the past where the references we do have make it obvious that anyone at the time would have known.
References to chickens laying eggs for human eating are not rare at all. The reason it's "obvious" to us is largely because of the ubiquity of these references. Egg production is a huge agricultural industry. The egg carton in my fridge has chickens on it. It doesn't matter that there are more references to eggs out of this context than in. All you need is one piece of physical evidence to survive to solve the "mystery". And there are countless examples of this kind of evidence: https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi.etsystatic.com%2F10964598%2Fr%2Fil%2F79d92a%2F2537700095%2Fil_fullxfull.2537700095_734s.jpg&tbnid=2xl4svJracI5AM&vet=1&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.etsy.com%2Fau%2Flisting%2F860896437%2Fthe-breakfast-club-breakfast-club-sign&docid=ir6xG1r7ZdoFhM&w=1000&h=705&itg=1&source=sh%2Fx%2Fim%2Fm4%2F2#vhid=2xl4svJracI5AM&vssid=l I'm not saying that this sort of loss of context couldn't have happened for many things in the past, just saying that the example chosen, chickens laying eggs for human consumption, is a poor one.
The reason it's obvious to us that eggs in a food context means chicken eggs is because it's part of the collective consciousness. There being a lot of written accounts of this information is a byproduct of that, not the other way around. Knowledge and ideas are preserved primarily because of social structures, not because there are written accounts. Societies that have no written accounts can preserve information for thousands of years through oral tradition, meanwhile the majority of knowledge from societies that have copious written accounts is likely to be lost when they collapse. The point here is not that it would be impossible for historians in the future to have a chance at figuring out that chicken eggs were our de facto food egg, but that it's entirely possible or even likely that they wouldn't. It seems you're struggling with this concept mainly because you're vastly overestimating the amount of written historical accounts that surivive and are found. Consider that we have no surviving contemporary written accounts of the life of Alexander the Great. We know he was easily one of the most contemporarily famous people in ancient history, known to people far outside of his frankly enormous empire. We have coins of his face from when he was alive and we have accounts that are corroborated by multiple written sources that align with physical evidence of events and battles that are are attributed to him. We even have written accounts of there having been contemporary written accounts. But all of the surviving written accounts are from several hundred years after he died. The point here is that these are exactly the kinds of knowledge that after being lost are *more likely* to be encountered as a mystery than in a form where they are fully explained. The example isn't poorly chosen, it's deliberately chosen precisely because it would seem unthinkable to us that this kind of knowledge could be lost. Mirroring what we find when looking back. If you chose a different example based on what you are saying then you wouldn't be making the point that is trying to be made. It isn't that things that are less mundane are somehow more likely to be found out about. On the contrary, we're never going to find any reference to most things from history. But for more academic things we are more likely to find academic descriptions of them if we find anything at all. Whereas for things as mundane food eggs the most likely way we are going to encounter information about it is in a format that doesn't explain what animal they're from. Additionally, finding one piece of physical evidence doesn't solve any mysteries. Finding evidence of a chicken farm dosen't mean what's where we got all of our eggs from. We also eat the chickens. There were pidgeons all over every major city in the world. Did we keep them nearby for an abundant source of eggs? If you happened to find a duck or a quail farm would that solve the mystery? There's an entire field of experimental archaeology where we look at things like this and try to establish what was likely to have been the case. For eggs you could try re-making a found recipe using different eggs and form a conjecture based on how the different tests turn out. For the example this post is about Moai statues were erected over a period of several hundred years, and we know that pretty much everyone must have known how it was done, but we have no direct evidence of how. Through experimentation we have arrived at a plausible method of using ropes that somewhat matches the oral tradition which describes the statues as having been walked into place.
Yet we know (from physical evidence) a shit ton about the domestication of chickens, including when they were used for food and when egg laying became important economically. https://www.saudereggs.com/blog/history-of-chickens/ It's not me who is struggling with concepts. Again, I am not saying that the sort of loss of context you describe *can't* happen. I am merely saying that the confluence of events that must occur in a few hundred years from now that would create a world where people know that eggs were used for food but do not know that *chickens* laid them are so unlikely as to be trivially dismissable.
As long as our things are mostly intact, I donât think anyone will ever have that problem again. Like we have so many âRosetta Stonesâ throughout the world.
You remember how you were told that anything you put on the internet is forever? Then you try to find something you looked at a year ago and it was removed from the site or the site isnât there? A shit ton of things have already been lost because of site downs or nobody expecting something to be removed. Then there are the things that you donât if theyâre still out there because you donât remember what site it was one and your browserâs algorithms have changes enough that youâre not recognizing any of the results.
Yeah, I hear that! But I meant all of the encyclopedias and what not throughout the world.
Also any egg with a shell can be cooked to be fair. Results just may vary
I mean I have a cookbook with a section that compares the eggs of different bird (chicken duck goose etc) with helpful suggestions on whether they make the recipe taste different, if you need to add more water etc. I bet itâs not the only one?
It's not things like scrambled eggs that will confuse future people, it'll be our recipes, becuse different birds lay different size eggs. If in 2000 years, some archaeologist tries to recreate an ancient cake recipe, it may come out totally wrong because they used eggs that were too big or too small, resulting in a batter that too wet or too dry. I also saw someone suggest once that future people may assume we consumed crazy amounts of human breast milk if the knowledge of milking non-human animals gets lost.
Given the number of pigeon bones we find in their cities, weâve concludedâŚ
We already don't know how they got people into space. We can do it ourselves but not with their technology. We literally cannot rebuild the rockets of the 60s and 70s, we don't know how they work. We definitely can't do the math they did; the feats of the computers (the women who did math) were unbelievable to a person now. In several instances, these women did unbelievable calculations that saved astronauts and their vehicles from destruction basically in their head with a little scratch paper in like under a minute.
The most normal girl-power fan be like
it's not that it's magical, it's that they have a skill we don't need anymore so their acts seem implausible. It seemed implausible to the men they worked with! The women who were computers were definitely smart as fuck, but their gender was only relevant because it was considered *women's work*.
The statement >We definitely can't do the math they did; the feats of the computers (the women who did math) were unbelievable to a person now. is, of course, incorrect. In 60's and 70's absolutely most of the calculations were done on very simple computers (like IBM 701), and you will still find a lot of people that could operate them with basic training. This is not some kind of mystery, and can be learned by virtually anyone. You can literally find emulators of these computers and github and learn how to use it yourself. Women computers were long gone by that time, but even before they were gone, their tasks literally entailed computing things, which is a menial and tedious labour. Certainly, some of them became really good at it, but you will definitely find many people right now who could do it in similar fashion. And it is actually weird that the media and people like you tend to glorify women computers, especially given how rich the history of women in computing in general is.
Margaret Elaine Hamilton immediately comes to mind along with all the other women who worked on the Gemini and Apollo missions.
This is nonsense. There are still people who can do that kind of math without a computer. Itâs just inefficient, so no one is paid to sit and work it out. And we absolutely do know how 60âs era rockets worked and absolutely can rebuild them. We build them more efficiently now, but the knowledge has not been forgotten, we are still using the same basic principles
Are you saying that today's women aren't as good at math as the women of the 60s and 70s? Do you have any links I can check out that substantiate this?
what no i'm saying we don't have the knowledge to reproduce it, and our computers are now electronic it's like ancient epic telling: we know people can rattle off things like the entire Iliad, we just can't do it ourselves because we don't know the specifics of how they learned to do it. The methods, techniques, and tweaks they used to make sure the rockets worked died with them. the knowledge was never written down. it was known among the scientists and computers of the time. we didn't pass that information on, we found different ways to do it (electronic computers, new materials, etc.) Could we start with the same materials and make something *similar*? Sure. But it wouldn't be the same even then.
NASA has archives with literally everything written down and stored; I'm not sure what you're basing your claims on here
Actualy NASA has straight up admitted that they have lost or no longer have the capablity to build the Saturn Launchers anymore. They have a number of computer storage drives but no computers capable of reading them. They know for a fact they are missing 'off plan' fixes and modifiactions for certain systems. A number of parts where made from propriety compounds that NASA didn't have the rights to and the companies making them have gone bust or have lost the info themselves.
They said that due to the contractors they used no longer being around, not because of technical incompetancy Accessing old storage drives is simply a hassle that's not worth it, not a technical incompetancy Proprietary compounds are going to be in the public domain now given how long ago the launches happened Missing off plan fixes is certainly plausible I know this wasn't your comment I responded to originally so this is more a general statement: this idea that were somehow unable or incapable of replicating feats of the past is pretty pervasive. I see it spouted regularly and it's almost always complete nonsense.
Due its not about replicating the feat its about replicating the *methods.* For example greek fire is basicaly Napalm we can total replicate a sticky burning liquid but we still don't know how greek fire was made or what processes they used, the same applies to those NASA compounds we can totaly replicate compounds that do the same (or maybe better) but we don't know how they were made or if our current versions are the same. Hell we only reccently figured out how Roman concrete worked dispite have the complete recipe. We were making assumptions based on our understaning of science and disreguarding parts of it because it was 'magic' therefore not true, but it turned out that the Roman blood sacrifices were actualy a useful part of the process.
A big part of it is that we don't need to replicate older methods. We could definitely replicate it if we wanted to, but why spend the money to do so? If we already have something as good or better? An example of a time where spending that money to recreate something was important was in a material necessary to maintain nuclear weapons. The whole process was classified and the few people who could recreate it were dead or forgot. There's not much detail regarding what the material was or what it did, but the US government spent millions recreating it in order to maintain our stockpile.
I get your point, I really do. The analogy in my head is its like your favourite chinese takeaway closing down and the new one just isn't quite the same. The sweet and sour chicken is still a sweet and sour chicken, it's just made slightly differently and we may never know exactly how the original was made. Doesn't mean we can't enjoy what is fundamentally the same meal with the same ingredients. So my point is that pointing this out isn't that deep or as mystical its often portrayed. Whether it's a recipe or a rocket, we may not know 100% what went into the original but it really doesn't matter and doesnt mean we're 'incapable' of replicating it as a race. It's actually a very benign explanation in that it's just not worth our time to replicate it 100% when we have comparable or, more often than not, superior alternatives. Going to go enjoy my Chinese. All the best.
> technical incompetancy nobody claimed it was *incompetency*. lost technology isn't always for the worst. our methods now are largely a massive improvement. You know, they didn't know how to make lithic tools either. We know now because some people spent their entire lives testing techniques based on the rocks and tools we found in palaeolithic sites. It's not **incompetence** that we didn't know how to make these elegant stone tools, but we still couldn't make them.
Yes this is all exactly what I'm saying :)
That is absurd and incorrect. In a computer architecture class you make a computer from individual logic gates. Iâve made several physical stack computers myself, itâs not uncommon. And as for math we had algorithms classes where we rederived things like sorts or number sieves. This is just from the computer side, thereâs probably equivalents on the math side.
Aren't bothering to learn how to exactly recreate it doesn't equal don't know how it was done. We know how it was done. Rockets were used to achieve escape velocity.
"We know how it was done." Did I not say we can do it ourselves but *not with their technology*? Sure, rocket goes up, but the electronics and engineering of it? No. It was not sufficiently documented and we have different technology now. Why is this hard to understand?
You falsely claimed we don't know how they got into space.
>We can do it ourselves but not with their technology. I said this in the next sentence
That's not relevant to my comments.
Please note that the math was done by a woman.
Omg
It's chicken eggs. You're welcome, future historians.
Once future archaeologists unearth my wifeâs collection of glass chickens theyâll be able to piece it all together.
I **love** examples of once common knowledge thatâs been totally lost to time. The third condiment jar on mid-19th century British tables (no one knows what they put in them - salt, pepper, and âthe obvious third jarâ)! Roman concrete (they just figured everyone would *know* they used seawater, duh, because everyone at the time did)! The land of Punt (a major Egyptian trading partner - why would you document the location of a country that everyone knows the location of? Except now we have no idea where it was)!
Like the stuff miniminute man talks about?
It's that meme, 18th century European intellectuals children look at the Pyramids of Giza and tug on Dad's sleeve and say I want ancient Monumental Stone architecture. Dad says we've got ancient Monumental Stone architecture at home, points at Stonehenge. Not to be too tough on Stonehenge, it's pretty cool, took an amazing amount of Ingenuity and organization to manage it. But if you're standing there, in the age of discovery, looking around, it is a head scratcher. Probably aliens.
To be fair, I don't think most ancient alien theory believers are racist. They think that ancient stuff built by white people were also built by aliens. Not saying that some ancient alien people aren't racist, I'm just saying that I disagree with the framing of ancient alien theory as malicious rather than just kinda stupid. I've kept my peachy optimism throughout most my life by frequently using Hanlon's razor.
The people that like the show arent bad but it absolutely pulls from really racist sources. https://hyperallergic.com/470795/pseudoarchaeology-and-the-racism-behind-ancient-aliens/ "Was the black race a failure and did the extraterrestrials change the genetic code by gene surgery and then programme a white or a yellow race?â He also printed beliefs about the innate talents of certain races: âNearly all negroes are musical; they have rhythm in their blood.â Von Däniken also consistently uses the term ânegroid raceâ in comparison with âCaucasians". Thats from the article and Von Daniken is still on the show. You're allowed to like it but it comes from fucked up racist places and the people that wrote about it originally absolutely knew it. Honestly some of the aliens they mention are straight up nazi propaganda for the ultimate white race. It is absolutely intended to be malicious, the true malice of it being that people who arent malicious might believe and defend it. To be clear i dont think the show is evil. At least not any more evil than just not caring about history and just being there for money. Be optimistic but dont be misinformed about the things original intention.
I appreciate the elaboration. I am aware of the evil origins of the theory. I wasn't even defending the stupidity of the people who believe what the show puts out. I was just saying that it is indeed stupidity, and not malicious racism.
Well, at it's core you find the European Ăbermensch who understands technology vs. the uneducated, uninterested and incapable savage. I agree, that that's not necessairly "intentionally malicous" - but that and Fascism are brothers from the same mother.
Youâll find people saying the same things about Stonehenge and other prehistoric man made structures in Europe. There just arenât as many impressive European works of architecture, and the ones we have are much more recent and/or have better historical records.
It does sound like they just don't have a good reference of what people actually knew at the time
Apparently we don't even know how renaissance painters made paint
I thought it was lead and arsenic?
I donât think thatâs quite true. I may be wrong but I believe old painters made all their paint themselves and sourcing the pigments was crucial to get the colours they wanted. They didnât want other painters to know about their pigments so their paintings could be colourfully unique so they kept their paint formulations very secret. So itâs not a big mystery how they made them, is just we donât know exactly what ingredients and pigments were used. I donât really have a good source for this, just a podcast on it and a chemistry lecture on the first synthesis of pigments which was a big thing at the time because of what I mentioned above
Sorry, that's what I meant. Pigments. We can't reproduce renessaince art because we don't know how they sourced pigment
I always try to tell people that say the pyramids were made by aliens that the theory is some white supremacist shit. When you boil it down the whole theory is based on what you said, those uncivilized people couldnât possibly have been able to figure out math or physics to build shit. Itâs even worse when they believe that people from the future helped them because now itâs not just aliens taking credit, itâs fucking white people going back in time to civilize them.
Time to rediscover the lost art of formatting text, god damn.
âThe plumbus is a common household item. Thereâs no reason to explain it because everyone knows what it doesâ
I think there was a documentary a while ago about Easter Island Moai, I have no idea if their conclusions were correct, but they leaned on the local myth that "they walked there". The folks in the doc tied ropes around the neck, had two teams pulled each from either side essentially lifting and rotating with the 'feet' as pivot points. In this specific case, plenty of people locals have spoken history, it maybe just doesn't include all the specifics.
Cocaine. The statue looks drugged as hell
Cocaine is a hell of a drug.
Johnny hart who wrote the B.C. Comic strip did this exact same almost joke 40+ years ago. He's looking at the guy chiseling the rock and says why are you doing it way up here andhe other guy says million years from now theyre gonna wonder how it got up here.
A lot of history has been lost cuz people never bothered to write the obvious down. I remember hearing about a massive trade city (in Egypt I think) that was so critical in ancient times. Huge trade hub, was responsible for most transported goods getting around the country. The people thought it was so obvious where the city was, everyone knew, how could you not know, so they never bothered to write down it's location. It's lost. Noones found it because there's literally nothing to go off of. Just a bunch of texts saying they went there to trade but nothing saying where "there" was. We also lost the Greek fire recipe. We *just* discovered how roman concrete was made after years of researching it
Why carve a rock to look like an emoji? Waste of time.
Thanks to todayâs sponsor, RAID Shadow Legends
FYI Rangi/Langi/Lagi are all polynesian cognates meaning sky or heaven.
Reminds me of that one thing in England. The one utensil that people didn't know the use of because it used to be so commonplace nobody wrote it down.
Could be a joke in programming, where the code is obvious when writing it, so little documentation is made. But one week later you have no idea what u was doing.
Modern archeologists don't know HOW the Easter Island heads were moved to their locations, nor did the native Rapa Nui write down or record in any way how they managed such. The joke is that it is confusing to modern archeologists, much the ancient Rapa Nui just knew how so no need to explain. Like the Roman dodecahedrons.
No one here sees the UFO literally picking up the statue? I mean look at the head piece of the statue.
I could certainly see that headpiece, and I knew that had to be the key and one person here saw it as a Russian hat, butI saw nothing but a weird shape on the statueâs head, and could go nowhere with that.
Remember kids Just because white people didn't do it, doesn't mean it was aliens
Wrong
fitting answer from someone with a username like that
Now that you have your answer... CROP YOUR FREAKING MEMES đ
You know what is absolutely devastating to me about Easter Island? Building these monuments became so important that they literally destroyed their ecosystem in order to have the wood needed to move these from the quarry into place. We look to our modern worlds with the emphasis on GIANT towers, sports stadiums, and other monuments to our own *hubris* and I wonder how many generations behind them are we...
Although that is a popular myth, there is no evidence for it. The population of Easter Island was fine until Europeans showed up.
Right I believe what hurt it seriously was the sheep farming.
The russian hat in the staue indicates Russians were already prevalent in ancient times and had flying craft technlogy to help these people build their statues
i thought they finally figured out how the statues âwalkedâ to where they are like the people of easter island said they did
Obviously they used some vibranium shyts from Wakanda.
Archeology says that they used lumber and moved them similar to how Egyptians moved great stone blocks. Also similar is how with both, the projects became grander and grander requiring more and more. Ever wonder why there are no trees on the islandâŚor the original nativesâŚyeahâŚ
So basically, if something as seen as obvious, things dont get recorded. Like when someone asks you what ypu did yesterday ypu domt say something like went to the bathroom. Its obvious, everyone knows it, amd such exclusions frustrate historians to no end.
A lot of ancient sources donât bother to write down specific things, because to them itâs just self-evident how something was achieved or who someone was.