bosso_fataka

Members
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    40

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by bosso_fataka

  4. Posted · Report post

    2 hours ago, Willbacker said:

    It is not allowed on this thread to give realistic answers. Its just not very scientific. :)

    I do disagree with your answer to #5 since the ones in Brazil I believe were not completely made out of stone and have fallen apart. I mean a pyramid is a pyramid and that is the way scientists believe they were shaped by looking at all the evidence on the foundations and the base of it. The ones in Japan were also pyramid like but its amazing how cultures in the past who had no connection built these structures in the same likement. The spaceing  of how all these structures were built is also unique and there is just no explanation as to why plus there is no concrete explanation or 100% proof on anything. Just basic realism

    Haha, I thought that´s exactly what it was? :)

     

    Yeah, I think they very in large made out of sea shells, nad often it seems they were being built on in decades. But that whole process does make it very different from the egyptian ones.

    It is fascinating yes. But I always looked at it this way; We´re all human beings from the same origin populating the same world. It´s not that strange that what is discovered to work in one place for that species is also discovered to work elsewhere by other members of that species. With differencies of course, but the basic conecpt of pyramid-like building makes a lot of sense if youre intent on building something very large (and don´t have modern alloys and such at your disposal).

    Simply put, a wheel is a wheel everywhere since that´s what works best if you want to move something heavy from point A to B. Therefore it follows that lot´s of civilazationswill have had wheels in different forms and shapes, independent from each other.

     

    But I agree, it is fascinating all this. And I wish we heard more about the newly discovered ancient civilazations than we do.

    0

  8. Posted · Report post

    On 2016-10-06 at 10:26 AM, Willbacker said:

    Who built the ones in the jungles of Brazil? Where did they get the stones for the ones in Egypt? How many years did it take? How did they build those underwater ones off the coast of Japan? How come all thru the world they were built pretty much the same? Why were they built and what were they used for? Just being curious.     

    1: Ancient indians, not sure if they have a name for that people really, they were also constructed under a very long time span.

    2: Mostly from nearby quarries, they´re primarily made out of limestone. there are several interresting documentaries about how they built them, how they transported the huge stones etc.

    3: I´m not sure if anyone knows and my guess is it varies alot depending on size obviously, and also lot of other factors like slaves and the pharaoh and so on.

    4: If they were indeed wholly or partly man made (still debating it as far as I know) it´s no real mystery, sea levels have risen and fallen over the years, istosasy in some form seems likely. There are other "sunken cities" around the world, and more will probably be found too.

    5: They weren´t really. The ones you mention in Brazil for example are very different from the egyptian ones.

    6: Almost exclusivley for various religious reasons, and sometimes scientific aswell. In the case of Egypt BmoreBird22 has written the explanation, graves.

     

    Otherwise I suggest google or youtube, there are plenty on these subjects for curious people. :)

    0

  13. Posted · Report post

    58 minutes ago, BmoreBird22 said:

    Here's the thing with this trade that I don't think people are taking into account.

    Bridgewater's injury was so bad that the Vikings called 911. Never had Dr. Choi (who worked for three NFL teams in 15 years) seen an NFL team call 911. It was so severe that players were in tears, vomiting, and Zimmer cancelled practice. 

    Bridgewater had a dislocated knee and a torn ACL, but there's a good chance (given the structural damage) that he tore one of the PCL, LCL, and MCL also, or all three. He didn't have nerve damage, which is what's setting Jaylon Smith back, but this is the same injury that put Marcus Lattimore out of football for life. 

    Keep in mind, also, that the Vikings have an equally talented group of receivers and tight ends, but a far better running game, including the best running back of this generation, a top 5 defense, and a much better offensive line than he had with the Eagles. So, already, he's got an upgrade with the defense, offensive line, and running game. Try to keep in mind that with the defense, the Eagles were one of the worst in the NFL, meaning Bradford was likely going to be put into unfavorable passing situations. Here in Minnesota, that defense should keep him from having that happen and Peterson will ease the pressure.

    Also, in the last five years, the Vikings have had 9 first round picks, including three in the same draft in 2013. The Vikings are extremely aggressive with when to trade up in the draft and when to stay put. Losing a first round pick for them probably isn't a huge deal because they're able to recoup picks in the draft. 

    However, let me ask you all this- if you were told that you would win a Super Bowl IF you just gave up a first round pick (32) and a second round pick the year after, would you do it? Hell yes you would. 

    I don't think Bradford is as bad as some are making him out to be. He's a fairly accurate passer who will work with short to intermediate passes that compliment the receivers in Minnesota well. This should be a good move for all parties involved.

    Fair points, I agree with most of it, and yes of course anyone would give up a 1st and a 2nd for a Super Bowl. If the Vikings do go on and win it with Bradford I stand corrected, but I still think that a 1st and a 4th is overpaying big time for Bradford at this point. And I don´t really see the Vikings as contenders, with either Bridgewater or Bradford. But I may be wrong, not many would have had us winning a few years ago or the Panthers in the SB last year either.

    0

  16. Posted · Report post

      25 minutes ago, bossofataka said:

    I understand that it´s hard to compare positions, but how we can keep Hurst over Brooks or Butler is beyond me. But I´m sure there´s some other plan in place. Some moves to be expected I guess.

    It might be because we don't have another backup LT. We have options if one of our WRs or safeties gets injured, but Hurst is really the only backup LT we have.

    I know, it´s just frustrating that we have to let some really good players go for below average cover at other positions...

    0

  17. Posted · Report post

    14 minutes ago, bioLarzen said:

    Ah, I've just understood the Forsett cut: he was the only vested vet RB on our roster, so he was the only one who will not go on the waiver wire, so he cannot be claimed. It seems the prevailing theory is that he'll be re-signed at some point next week.

    You sure about that? What does that mean exactly? That they talked to him and convinced him not to sign elsewhere, which he can control, whereas the younger guys just get picked on waiver, out of their control?

    0

  21. Posted · Report post

    The more I think about it, the more stupid it seems. I´m assuming the still see Bridgewater as their starter for years to come. Why on earth would you give up a 1st and a 4th for a one year rental that has proved nothing beyond average and being very injury prone? I just don´t get it.

    0

  22. Posted · Report post

    2 minutes ago, K-Dog said:

    So are they not practicing because  " they are safe and need no further evaluation " or are they not practicing because " don't bother.  They are done. "

    I wonder... If not for Campanaros name I´d say the latter but I certainly believe and hope he makes the team. Maybe it´s just some are resting because of minor injury etc aswell.

    0