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.

 

Was there really an advanced race living before the ice age?

page: 8
26
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Judgie
Hey guys, was there really an 'advanced' race on the planet before the end of the last ice age? If yes were they Alien or Atlantean? and where did they go?


There is no physical evidence.

No mines. No quarries. No pollution in ice cores. No plastic.

If they existed, they were not "advanced" in the manner we know it today.




posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blarneystoner
You mean the archaeological site that provided evidence which overturned widely held beliefs by mainstream archaeologists? Archaeologists were wrong? Go figure....
Yes, and it was done by another 'mainstream archaeologist'...thanks for proving my point. Look, suck up all the blarney you wish and have fun with it. I suggest, though, that if you want to be taken seriously, you examine the scientific reports from the sites you consider contentious. Go to the field notes if you really want to put on your big boy pants. But if your material is sourced from Hindu creationists and book-selling frauds, happy trails to you. Garbage in, garbage out.

As to the issue of 'advanced', I think I made myself adequately clear. Yes there have been florescences of knowledge in the past. Have they exceeded today's? I think I can safely say: Nope.

Human knowledge resulting in 'thermonuclear detonations?

Sure. Why not.
edit on 6-2-2015 by JohnnyCanuck because: meh



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Blarneystoner
You mean the archaeological site that provided evidence which overturned widely held beliefs by mainstream archaeologists? Archaeologists were wrong? Go figure....
Yes, and it was done by another 'mainstream archaeologist'...thanks for proving my point. Look, suck up all the blarney you wish and have fun with it. I suggest, though, that if you want to be taken seriously, you examine the scientific reports from the sites you consider contentious. Go to the field notes if you really want to put on your big boy pants. But if your material is sourced from Hindu creationists and book-selling frauds, happy trails to you. Garbage in, garbage out.


There you go... get it out of your system. feel better now? The only point I have proven is that mainstream archaeologists are FREQUENTLY WRONG. I know that it hurts man but maybe you need to suck it up and face the reality that archaeology is not hard science! Oh my....

Pretty sure I haven't sourced any woo woo sites unless Scientific American and Nature.com have been overtaken by bible thumping fundamentalists.

You really like using that expression don't you... "If you want to be taken seriously". Well.... let me say this... if I wanted to be taken seriously I wouldn't be spending all of my time on this forum debunking speculative opinions of others... as you do.
edit on 6-2-2015 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   
exploring the lost land of doggerland would be intersting but the north sea is kind of rough...

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blarneystoner

There you go... get it out of your system. feel better now? The only point I have proven is that mainstream archaeologists are FREQUENTLY WRONG. I know that it hurts man but maybe you need to suck it up and face the reality that archaeology is not hard science! Oh my....


On the contrary. It proves it IS hard science
It is what science does: find new things, make new discoveries, that show what we used to think is wrong. And thus we advance.

Unlike religion ...



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

"florescences of knowledge in the past"

You have a way with words.... invokes images of humming, flickering, sputtering tube lights whose ballasts are on the brink of failure.

I guess if you want to describe cultures whose knowledge of celestial movements were so precise that they calculated the "wobble" of the Earth... one of the slowest movements in our solar system... as being a "flicker"... that's your prerogative. You don't seem to take into account that in order to perceive that movement without mathematics... one would have to observe the night skies for about 26,000 years.

Why is it that archaeologist can't seem to understand that cultures don't just start building megalithic sites overnight? It's like they think that one day someone woke up and knew all the principles of engineering and mathematics involved in such undertakings. Any engineer will tell you that the principles and mathematics they employ are based upon centuries or even millenniums of knowledge. But mainstream archaeologists would have you believe just that, not long after man came out of his caves, they started building huge structures made of solid stone that modern equipment would struggle to move.....

Sure, Why not.
edit on 6-2-2015 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: AndyMayhew

No it's all opinion... nothing in archaeology can be definitively proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blarneystoner
Why is it that archaeologist can't seem to understand that cultures don't just start building megalithic sites overnight? It's like they think that one day someone woke up and knew all the principles of engineering and mathematics involved in such undertakings. Any engineer will tell you that the principles and mathematics they employ are based upon centuries or even millenniums of knowledge. But mainstream archaeologists would have you believe just that, not long after man came out of his caves, they started building huge structures made of solid stone that modern equipment would struggle to move..... Sure, Why not.

Why not take a shot at 'Anthro 101? That's where 'complex societies' are outlined. Do have fun in your endeavours.

Oh, and just for the record, 'florescences' might be better considered in terms of 'flowerings' than light bulbs.
edit on 6-2-2015 by JohnnyCanuck because: I don't feel like shovelling the driveway.



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Blarneystoner
Why is it that archaeologist can't seem to understand that cultures don't just start building megalithic sites overnight? It's like they think that one day someone woke up and knew all the principles of engineering and mathematics involved in such undertakings. Any engineer will tell you that the principles and mathematics they employ are based upon centuries or even millenniums of knowledge. But mainstream archaeologists would have you believe just that, not long after man came out of his caves, they started building huge structures made of solid stone that modern equipment would struggle to move..... Sure, Why not.

Why not take a shot at 'Anthro 101? That's where 'complex societies' are outlined. Do have fun in your endeavours.

Oh, and just for the record, 'florescences' might be better considered in terms of 'flowerings' than light bulbs.


Just for the record... "flourescences" isn't really a word.

Unless you mean this....


...and I always have fun. With or without your endorsements.
edit on 6-2-2015 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blarneystoner

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Blarneystoner

The Younger Dryas extinction event, about 12.6 thousand years ago narrowed the human population to less than 20,000 individuals, according to Genetic studies. The cause for YD extinction event is unknown, but I personally think it was a "nuclear winter"....


NOT.

Human population at 10,000 BCE is estimated to be over 2.4 million individuals.

You should consider not posting disinformation. Or, if that's not the case, perhaps you should consider that there are many members here that know better than the utter falsehoods you elect to post, for whatever reason.

Harte



Archaeologists have a bad habit of saying they "know", when the truth is that it's your best guess based upon the extremely limited archaeological evidence. While I'm sure that your reputation precedes you, claiming to "know better" only indicates that you have a high regard for yourself. I may be mistaken with regards to the number of individuals but I believe that new evidence suggests a significant decrease in human global population especially in the Northern Hemisphere at the ONSET of the Younger Dryas period. I've posted links to those studies in previous responses to this thread.


See, you cited a specific number, didn't you? Isn't that saying that you know?

Suddenly it's you "believe" that there is evidence to the contrary of the number I handed you.

There was a significant decrease in North America. That's not exactly all humans, right?

And you're damn right I have a high regard for myself. It's perfectly natural after years of reading what gets posted here.


originally posted by: BlarneystonerYour dismissive responses to me in this thread and in the past do nothing to convince me of your arguments. I, like many others believe that mainstream archaeologists spend their careers with their head in the sand, only agreeing with the accepted norms. While I'm sure that you have very impressive credentials, your interactions here aren't impressive at all.

I don't consider myself to be interacting with you at all, as a matter of fact.

I long ago gave up trying to convince the chronically astonished of the folly of their position.

I post here at ATS in order to provide actual, verified, information so that other people reading this will have another view to consider rather than the usual wild-eyed insanity often found here, such as what you posted.

Harte



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blarneystoner
Just for the record... "flourescences" isn't really a word.

(actually, it appears it is. either way...it's not the word I used)



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 09:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blarneystoner
I may be a little confused but there was a population decline in the northern hemisphere as a result of the YD event (impact is speculation).


No, you're just picking and choosing what parts of the data you want to use.

As for the Topper site. That there was PRE-Clovis occupation is not in doubt. That the use of the site goes back 50KYA is where doubt lies. It's rather interesting how you mock archaeology and then chose one site in particular where there is still a high degree of dissent and really, Goodyear is the only one who seems to think the limited data(the type you think makes archaeology so soft) resets the goal posts to 50KYA along the Savannah River.



All three datasets, projectile points, quarries, and SPA data,
indicate that a major human population decrease (bottleneck), or alternatively population reorganizations (i.e., dramatic changes in settlement patterning), occurred over broad areas of North America
at the onset of the YD cooling episode w12,900 cal BP. The SPA
results provide evidence that similar declines or changes occurred
across much of remainder of the Northern Hemisphere with the
exception it, seems, of the Middle East. In addition, the SPA results
suggest that a population decline also occurred during the Altithermal
in the Mid-Holocene, beginning ca. w9000 years ago and
lasting for 1000 years or more.



I really liked how you completely ignored that population reductions were only 1/2 the hypothesis and the other half of the OR is that populations simply stopped using the same quarry sites and moved further south. But hey... why let a pesky part of the science you disagree with get in the way of a good old fashioned tom foolery fest. Your initial claim was the genetics PROVED the YD event to have created a bottleneck in human genomics. I haven't seen you provide that proof. Either you provide a citation or just admit you made an error. It's OK to be wrong.


Oppenheimer himself believed that a nuclear war took place in ancient times.


And Hitler held occult rituals and believed the Jewish people were responsible for the dire straights of Germany's economy in the 1930's because he chose to ignore reality.

Neither He nor Oppenheimer were correct.



Anecdotal evidence is found that supports the notion of ancient nuclear war in Greek, Roman, viking and Indian texts.


there are lots of things that I'm willing to bet you wouldn't agree are part of the natural world that are part of the above mentioned texts. It seems like a case of picking and choosing what works for you insrtead of looking at the big picture.



Physical evidence of nuclear war exists in the form of desert glass from the middle east,


or as geologists like to call these objects, Impactites. Breccia is a frequent impactite found and is actually what you are referring to.



irradiated cities in India,


that don't actually exist in the real world, only fringe lore. please, show me a legit citation if you disagree.


radioactive "hotspots" in the Great Lakes region of N. America.... etc...


they just couldn't be results of the 4 nuclear power reactos situated near the great lakes, an ancient nuclear war is so much more logical...



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 09:22 PM
link   


I would guess the legends of vimanas would be examples of technology used by ancient advanced civilization.



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

Not so much. More like they are examples of stories told millennia ago in India. Now if someone found an inscription or anything in writing describing the plans for building one, parts, pieces etc. then yes, that would be an example. Don't get me wrong, I would love for some of the more out in left field concepts to be true. It was what today is considered "fringe " archaeology/anthropology that sparked enough interest in me to go to school for Anthropology in the first place. But without something substantive to support these fringe speculations, all we have are fanciful stories. If some of the technological events described in ancient Indian text turned out to be a reality then I would definitely be in agreement with you that we were looking at evidence of an advanced civilization existing in the past. One thing to keep in mind is that what you here, see, read etc. regarding scientific explanations is based on what the people writing the papers can say with a high degree of certainty as well as support with actual facts. It doesn't always mean they don't hope to find and prove something that is " way out there". Finding evidence of and proving the existence if these fringe things would be a career making event and would change the way we view the past. Sometimes it can take decades, but these things do happen. Clovis first was the Anthropological mantra when discussing the peopling of the Americas. It literally took decades but it's now fully accepted that people have been in the Americas for at least several millennia prior to the previously ascribed dates associated with the entry of Clovis people to N. America. Monte Verde is a long way from Berringea and there is a definitive date that puts people there well over 1000 years prior to the oldest Clovis dates with the possibility of even earlier dates yet to come. It's all about what can be proven at the time though. It doesn't mean that research is stake and stalled in an anachronistic mindset. Just my 2 cents.



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 10:38 PM
link   
No one has anything for me on the LAH video?



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 12:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: FormOfTheLord



Not so much. More like they are examples of stories told millennia ago in India. Now if someone found an inscription or anything in writing describing the plans for building one, parts, pieces etc. then yes, that would be an example. Don't get me wrong, I would love for some of the more out in left field concepts to be true. It was what today is considered "fringe " archaeology/anthropology that sparked enough interest in me to go to school for Anthropology in the first place. But without something substantive to support these fringe speculations, all we have are fanciful stories. If some of the technological events described in ancient Indian text turned out to be a reality then I would definitely be in agreement with you that we were looking at evidence of an advanced civilization existing in the past. One thing to keep in mind is that what you here, see, read etc. regarding scientific explanations is based on what the people writing the papers can say with a high degree of certainty as well as support with actual facts. It doesn't always mean they don't hope to find and prove something that is " way out there". Finding evidence of and proving the existence if these fringe things would be a career making event and would change the way we view the past. Sometimes it can take decades, but these things do happen. Clovis first was the Anthropological mantra when discussing the peopling of the Americas. It literally took decades but it's now fully accepted that people have been in the Americas for at least several millennia prior to the previously ascribed dates associated with the entry of Clovis people to N. America. Monte Verde is a long way from Berringea and there is a definitive date that puts people there well over 1000 years prior to the oldest Clovis dates with the possibility of even earlier dates yet to come. It's all about what can be proven at the time though. It doesn't mean that research is stake and stalled in an anachronistic mindset. Just my 2 cents.




Well here is some ancient alien evidence or advanced ancient humans. . . 300 million years ago yep thats way back when dinosaurs were still a big thing.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 12:52 AM
link   
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

You only did debunk one of more than a dozen ideas though.

Let's see you actually engage the main material instead of a corner of it huh?

I'm not qualified to judge these matters but to my untrained eyes there does seem to be a great deal of peculiar anomalies surrounding this subject. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Skeptics will say there's no merit to ufology, which to me is quite preposterous, so it wouldn't really surprise me if there was equal merit in this subject for those with eyes to see.

You like science-fiction? You'd be surprised at how fantastic reality will get, most people are sheltered to this, I am not, I know. All you gotta do is change one basic tenet of how we perceive and understand reality, one fundamental mistake still extant in the body of knowledge, just another mistake in a long history of mistakes. One law and reality will stand on it's head like the hairs on your neck. You don't know? You're sheltered.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 01:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord



Well here is some ancient alien evidence or advanced ancient humans. . . 300 million years ago yep thats way back when dinosaurs were still a big thing.


not to be nit picky but the age of 300-320 MA is actually a good 70-90 MA prior to the first dinosaurs. As for the alleged screw that video isn't evidence of anything except someone poor taste in elevator music.

It claims that "experts agree the screw was artificially made and of extra terrestrial origin".

What experts? Where was the testing done? where is the link to the paper published regarding this amazing artifact?

the reason none of this is given is because it's not a screw. It is however a crinoid stem. Here are some other examples of crinoid stems. Look familiar?



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 01:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord







Well here is some ancient alien evidence or advanced ancient humans. . . 300 million years ago yep thats way back when dinosaurs were still a big thing.




not to be nit picky but the age of 300-320 MA is actually a good 70-90 MA prior to the first dinosaurs. As for the alleged screw that video isn't evidence of anything except someone poor taste in elevator music.



It claims that "experts agree the screw was artificially made and of extra terrestrial origin".



What experts? Where was the testing done? where is the link to the paper published regarding this amazing artifact?



the reason none of this is given is because it's not a screw. It is however a crinoid stem. Here are some other examples of crinoid stems. Look familiar?



Classical willful ignorance, which equals a science fail look up the story google it, scientists say its aluminum, and mechanical. So lolz at your knee jerk reaction of crinoids made of aluminum rofl lmao.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 02:37 AM
link   
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

no, my knee jerk reaction as you say was based on your unconvincing video that showed NO EVIDENCE supporting its claim. Why is it MY job to do YOUR research for you? Show me the alleged scientists and experts who signed off on this, show me the labs where it was tested, show me the paper written about it. Can you do ANY of that? its on you to support your claims, its not my responsibility to play school teacher and source your claim for you.




top topics



 
26
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join