It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Yangshan – Surreal Chinese Megalith

page: 2
31
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: JamesTB

That's a wonderful site but I'm curious at to the reason that you suspect it is much older that the stated 1200's date and perhaps you could share your reasoning?

You also state that it "appeared out of nowhere" and you give no reasoning for this either - could you please clarify?

The pictures that you give are excellent too, maybe you are posting on a phone etc so the following request may be difficult in such a case.... But if you are able to post the pics directly in to the thread then that will aid you readers, I will be happy to assist if you so wish.

As to your statement about how we don't know who made various monuments (and Stonehenge in particular stood out for me), get a grip man. That's just pure and wilful ignorance and you clearly need to hit the books and examine the wealth of evidence otherwise - this knocks your credibility to the curb in quite horrible fashion.

I loved the Gang of Four comment too but I feel you made an error there too and feel that myself and Kandinsky should engage in some kind of playoff for position number four. Rock, paper, scissors, lizard, Spock perhaps?

Eta: from you pics it is pretty obvious that the monument is still joined to bedrock, just like the piece next to it.
edit on 10-8-2014 by skalla because: Eta at end




posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 01:23 PM
link   
It's very cool, but the historical basis of it is very well known.

Early 15th Century, Yongle Empire. Doesn't go back any further than that. Really not pre-historical at all, this is a firmly historical artefact.



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 01:26 PM
link   


If I want to discuss ancient civilizations under the dictate of mainstream science, I might as well read a history book instead. I was kind of hoping for some interesting alternative theories.
a reply to: helius

I guess it all comes down to whether you want fact or fantasy.
As pointed out, the history of this particular site is known.
Why would you want to make something up about it?
It's pretty interesting as it is.



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   
For me, it looks like something that the workers carved for themselves - a canteen. They carve a hole in the rock that is large enough for everyone to sit down and eat. It would be nice and shady even in the mid-day sun. Those stones in the middle are either buffet tables, racks for chopsticks, chairs or tables. I can just imagine them all sitting down to eat at lunchtime. The knobbly bits are ledges for linen verandas. Being made of stone everything would be easy to clean and wouldn't likely to be damaged.



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: JamesTB

I know, it's weird every thread I post the gang of 4 are all over it straight away like a rash. it's unnerving.

I was hoping they'd be more of the spirit of discovery on ATS.


We do have spirit of discovery but discovery requires knowing something about where you are going and in many cases someone has been there before you and made some comments, often based on evidence.

Let me suggest:

Instead of your present method of starting a thread which consists of posting a few words and photos of something then stating it is mysterious and somehow related to a lost world wide civilization try the following method.

Before putting up the photos and short comments followed by claims; investigate the site, determine what the mainstream, alternative and fringe say about it and then comment in the following manner:

Site X is thought by the mainstream to be a, b and c based on this and that research.

However, there are alternative and fringe views that say it might instead be; m, n and o

Now based on my personal research I would say that 'n' is correct and the mainstream idea of 'c' is incorrect because.....



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 08:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pauligirl



If I want to discuss ancient civilizations under the dictate of mainstream science, I might as well read a history book instead. I was kind of hoping for some interesting alternative theories.
a reply to: helius

I guess it all comes down to whether you want fact or fantasy.
As pointed out, the history of this particular site is known.
Why would you want to make something up about it?
It's pretty interesting as it is.


Exactly the world of the past is exciting enough as it is- well at least I think so!



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: helius
It’s a shame that people like that even come to ATS.


Actually, you should be really really thankful that you have 'people like that' who want to take part in threads such as this, because they have a load of knowledge, information, experience and in some circumstances may actually have been to these places, undertaken study on them, know someone who has undertaken study on them, and are grounded in reality rather than wishful thinking.

You should feel free to post whatever you wish, but bear in mind that others may wish to 'deny ignorance' and sometimes the truth is not what you want to hear.....



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 11:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: aorAki

originally posted by: helius
It’s a shame that people like that even come to ATS.


Actually, you should be really really thankful that you have 'people like that' who want to take part in threads such as this, because they have a load of knowledge, information, experience and in some circumstances may actually have been to these places, undertaken study on them, know someone who has undertaken study on them, and are grounded in reality rather than wishful thinking.

You should feel free to post whatever you wish, but bear in mind that others may wish to 'deny ignorance' and sometimes the truth is not what you want to hear.....

I've stayed out of it, though I assume I'm one of the four.

Nice pics anyway.

Harte



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: helius

I came to ATS because I taught I could discuss these kind of mysterious subjects and issues in an alien context with like minded without being policed by trained archeologists, instead I find that the forum is backing them.

If I want to discuss ancient civilizations under the dictate of mainstream science, I might as well read a history book instead. I was kind of hoping for some interesting alternative theories.


It seems that you'd be happier with a group of doe-eyed yes-peeps that don't trust anything they flunked in school. You might do better on a social media site, where you can control who you talk to, so your own not-researched ideas can be echoed back at you. They call that a 'Circle Jerk', and that is not ATS.

I, for one, enjoy actual facts over fantasies, and expect to get my melon thumped for bringing badly (if at all) researched ideas.

ON TOPIC: Very cool structure I was not aware of, Thanks OP for the cool pics. S&F



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   
But how was it carved ?



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Cyruay

By Chinese, in the quarry, with iron tools.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Cyruay

Pick axes and foul language, plus back breaking work and threats i reckon... I don't think that gunpowder was strong enough to be much use for quarrying for another couple of hundred years.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: JamesTB

Fascinating
whenever I see those protruding parts as seen on other ancient builds it brings to mind connection points like something metallic or other attached either on the entire face or in spaced areas. If the attachment was made of precious stones/metals 1 can see there being extractions of these metals for reconfigured uses jewelry /staffs other technological material etc.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cyruay
But how was it carved ?

To me it looks like poured cement, at least some of it.

As for the knobs, perhaps support for wooden beams for a floor?



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

.....or they were a similar and common part of the solution to the problem of moving large stones, however in this case the stone was carved thousands of years after the ones in Egypt and several hundred years after the one in SA.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 08:31 AM
link   
I could easily mistake it for a massive bunker with gun turrets wow!



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 01:01 AM
link   
I cant read Chinese so I was wondering if anything was written regarding when they realized it could not be moved. It appears as if no attempt was made to move.
a reply to: Hanslune



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 1   >>

log in

join