Ok, first, I thought I was dealing with Black Thunder.<quoted text>Greetings, salutations, and shalowm, Senecus.
So you understand, the misunderstanding was on Hidingfromyou's part and not mine. I never said I believed that the ancient records mentioned any nuclear weapons, or a nuclear holocaust. I was only sharing how that the theorists that propose the possibilities make good arguments that I believe are worthy of consideration. They only propose that its possible and that if it were true, there'd be no evidence of it today, 10,000 later.
Second, no, the people who present their ideas about the past are not presenting theories. They're not even presenting hypotheses. I believe I already explained what would be necessary for that.
Third, why would anyone take an uninformed contemporary idea about the past and compare it to real archaeology? That demonstrates an absolute lack of understanding about scientific standards. The people who claim "look at this writing that has been translated into modern English, doesn't it just sound like a nuclear war? Let's ignore all the other stuff in it and just concentrate on the imagery we want to be there" is not remotely comparable to the scientific rigor that goes into dig sites.
Archaeologists carefully map out their digs - in 3D. They map out depth, longitude and latitude. They take measurements of the soil as they go and carefully preserve artifacts from contemporary contamination. Every last detail is planned, prepared. That's nothing at all like the rubbish presented to me in this thread.
It's like you're claiming "I believe the universe was created by a unicorn because that's how I interpret this ancient writing" is comparable to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.
Sorry. Not even close. There's a reason people like Black Thunder are ignored by anthropology departments - they have no meaningful claims or knowledge to add.