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.

 

What Archaeologists Really Think About Ancient Aliens, Lost Colonies, And Fingerprints Of The Gods

page: 4
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 11:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Marduk

Darwin established the theory of evolution.. Darwin did not locate the missing link for humans.



Because there isn't a missing link...
Astounding...


Really?

What did humans evolve from then?


Now if I say Apes, are you going to claim that's impossible because the apes are still here ?




posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

No I would say they have not located the link between ape and man that could explain the off shoot. We know there is a missing link because we don't share a complete DNA set with apes.


edit on 5-9-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Personally as an astronomer (in training) my eyes roll every time someone says "aligned with Orion's Belt."


I just smile and say "oh, so they were in a straight line? and that's fascinating why?"

edit on 5-9-2015 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 12:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Marduk

No I would say they have not located the link between ape and man that could explain the off shoot. We know there is a missing link because we don't share a complete DNA set with apes.



yup, I posted the link earlier which shows every stage of human evolution going back to what you would call an ape for entirely my own benefit, so here's one entirely for you on genetic drift
en.wikipedia.org...
Dogs don't have identical dna to wolves, are you also claiming that there's a missing link there as well ?

edit on 5-9-2015 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 12:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

Dogs and wolves evolved from a common ancestor though... Where is the common ancestor for man and ape?

Why is it not plausible to admit we don't know everything about our history or evolution so ignoring possible avenues of exploration into non traditional realms would further that ignorance.

The basis of science is the statement - "I don't know".

edit on 5-9-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 01:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Marduk

Dogs and wolves evolved from a common ancestor though... Where is the common ancestor for man and ape?


en.wikipedia.org...

I think you are thinking of the divergence between man and chimp, they haven't found that yet...



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 01:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Reallyfolks



Michel Alouf, the former curator of the ruins, once wrote of the Trilithon:

Curators are engineers now are they? How many large capital infrastructure projects has he been responsible for? Oh right... none.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 04:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

Good for him, 20 tons and 1000 tons are very different, as is moving and actually placing them in order to build structures, not to mention line them up etc. Video doesn't prove much. Doesn't address other issues I raised either. Not to mention see how high up those 1000 ton stones are on the great platform. Lifting, moving, placing. Much different than moving a lot less weight. But thanks for the video and nice try.

The largest trilithon stone is 800 tons.

Your persona lincredulity is meaningless. Your credibility isn't helped by overstating the weight by 25% either.

Harte



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 04:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

Or in other words the missing link.

I stand by my statement though. When science begins to ignore things simply because it does not fit into the current scenario they created then what's the point of science?

Why is it scientists ignore the rain erosion on the Sphinx? Why would it be so detrimental to science for them to state its actually 12 thousand years old and not 4500 years old. Why is it so detrimental for them to state it actually was built by an older civilization we know nothing about however we are going to start looking for it.

Why did science dismiss ancient stories like the city of Troy, stating the city never existed and only to find out it actually did?

What is the danger?



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 05:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Marduk

Or in other words the missing link.


You've never heard the term "transitional fossil have you, if you had, you might realise why missing links don't exist.





Why is it scientists ignore the rain erosion on the Sphinx? Why would it be so detrimental to science for them to state its actually 12 thousand years old and not 4500 years old. Why is it so detrimental for them to state it actually was built by an older civilization we know nothing about however we are going to start looking for it..

Why is it so detrimental to your belief system that the sphinx is older, are you desperate to prove the garbage written by Graham Hancock. He lied to you already.



Why did science dismiss ancient stories like the city of Troy, stating the city never existed and only to find out it actually did?

What is the danger?


Science has never dismissed the possibility that Troy existed, just that the Iliad happened as written and when you have to go back 150 years to find an example of science you don't like, then you are not proving a point...



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 07:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Marduk

You've never heard the term "transitional fossil have you, if you had, you might realise why missing links don't exist.


Then how did the human species evolve and from what did we evolve from?




originally posted by: Marduk
Why is it so detrimental to your belief system that the sphinx is older, are you desperate to prove the garbage written by Graham Hancock. He lied to you already.

Its not.. I was making the argument that their are scientists who have stated its water erosion only to back track when they discovered it was the Sphynx they were looking at. There is evidence talking about the construction of the Pyramids. Have we found anything talking about the construction of the Sphynx? - Nope.

Since its not documented anywhere on when it was constructed why is it so detrimental to consider other options? Or are the Egyptians that desperate to protect their cash cow?




Why did science dismiss ancient stories like the city of Troy, stating the city never existed and only to find out it actually did?

What is the danger?


originally posted by: Marduk
Science has never dismissed the possibility that Troy existed, just that the Iliad happened as written and when you have to go back 150 years to find an example of science you don't like, then you are not proving a point...

There are a lot of things science has claimed do not exist up to the point they are found. That process is usually done by people that scientists who get ostracized for going against grain.

I think the arrogance of scientists is a problem.. especially when they don't have the answers. You would think that when these cities were located that main stream science would take notice and not be so quick to dismiss other theories.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 07:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

Good for him, 20 tons and 1000 tons are very different, as is moving and actually placing them in order to build structures, not to mention line them up etc. Video doesn't prove much. Doesn't address other issues I raised either. Not to mention see how high up those 1000 ton stones are on the great platform. Lifting, moving, placing. Much different than moving a lot less weight. But thanks for the video and nice try.

The largest trilithon stone is 800 tons.

Your persona lincredulity is meaningless. Your credibility isn't helped by overstating the weight by 25% either.

Harte


By all means taking all into account despite any comments or whatever not a single person here can offer any common sense explanation that accounts for the prescision cuts needed, the movement, the lift, and the placement following ancient man with ancient tools. Considering the issues we would face with what we have. Now if you people want to continue to avoid that fine, because until you do, nothing else you say helps. Feel free to add any comment, whatever else. None of it will help.
edit on 5-9-2015 by Reallyfolks because: Spelling



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 08:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra


Then how did the human species evolve and from what did we evolve from?.


Please google transitional fossil. I am not going to bring you up to speed on basic evolutionary theory. You should have done that yourself. These days "missing link" is not a scientific term and you only tend to see it used by Christian creationists in an attempt to create a straw man argument, which they can then pretend to answer





Its not.. I was making the argument that their are scientists who have stated its water erosion only to back track when they discovered it was the Sphynx they were looking at. There is evidence talking about the construction of the Pyramids. Have we found anything talking about the construction of the Sphynx? - Nope..


Well, name me the scientists who back tracked...

Nope, I think the problem is that you are so convinced you know the answers that you just haven't bothered looking
www.aeraweb.org...







Why did science dismiss ancient stories like the city of Troy, stating the city never existed and only to find out it actually did?.

You seem to be unaware that Troy was discovered by an archaeologist. I expect you are still deluded that Schliemann did it.

en.wikipedia.org...


I think the arrogance of scientists is a problem.. especially when they don't have the answers. You would think that when these cities were located that main stream science would take notice and not be so quick to dismiss other theories.


I think its clear that you have formed this opinion from the works of pseudo historians. Hancock for instance popularised the ancient sphinx claims because he was attempting to claim that all of Giza was built around 10,500bce. Since carbon dating has proved his claims fallacious he no longer cares, neither should you. Blaming scientists for the lies of non scientists is laughable. Science created the modern world. When you're ill do you go to your scientist doctor, or a faith healer.
edit on 5-9-2015 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

Good for him, 20 tons and 1000 tons are very different, as is moving and actually placing them in order to build structures, not to mention line them up etc. Video doesn't prove much. Doesn't address other issues I raised either. Not to mention see how high up those 1000 ton stones are on the great platform. Lifting, moving, placing. Much different than moving a lot less weight. But thanks for the video and nice try.

The largest trilithon stone is 800 tons.

Your persona lincredulity is meaningless. Your credibility isn't helped by overstating the weight by 25% either.

Harte


By all means taking all into account despite any comments or whatever not a single person here can offer any common sense explanation that accounts for the prescision cuts needed, the movement, the lift, and the placement following ancient man with ancient tools.


What "precision" cuts? Do you know what stone these three monoliths are cut from?

Movement? The same technology was used in Jerusalem (at around the same time) by Herod, using 600 ton stones.

"Lift?" What "lift?" The stones are from a quarry uphill from the site. They were moved downhill and into place, albeit not as easily as that makes it sound.

originally posted by: ReallyfolksConsidering the issues we would face with what we have. Now if you people want to continue to avoid that fine, because until you do, nothing else you say helps. Feel free to add any comment, whatever else. None of it will help.

The only avoidance is yours. You avoid finding out for yourself what we know about Baalbek. You rely instead on what scam artists tell you.

It makes one wonder, do you do this to avoid admitting you've been had?

Harte



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Harte




posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

Good for him, 20 tons and 1000 tons are very different, as is moving and actually placing them in order to build structures, not to mention line them up etc. Video doesn't prove much. Doesn't address other issues I raised either. Not to mention see how high up those 1000 ton stones are on the great platform. Lifting, moving, placing. Much different than moving a lot less weight. But thanks for the video and nice try.

The largest trilithon stone is 800 tons.

Your persona lincredulity is meaningless. Your credibility isn't helped by overstating the weight by 25% either.

Harte


By all means taking all into account despite any comments or whatever not a single person here can offer any common sense explanation that accounts for the prescision cuts needed, the movement, the lift, and the placement following ancient man with ancient tools.


What "precision" cuts? Do you know what stone these three monoliths are cut from?

Movement? The same technology was used in Jerusalem (at around the same time) by Herod, using 600 ton stones.

"Lift?" What "lift?" The stones are from a quarry uphill from the site. They were moved downhill and into place, albeit not as easily as that makes it sound.

originally posted by: ReallyfolksConsidering the issues we would face with what we have. Now if you people want to continue to avoid that fine, because until you do, nothing else you say helps. Feel free to add any comment, whatever else. None of it will help.

The only avoidance is yours. You avoid finding out for yourself what we know about Baalbek. You rely instead on what scam artists tell you.

It makes one wonder, do you do this to avoid admitting you've been had?

Harte


If the stones are placed so tightly together together that the curator says it would be next to impossible to stick a needle between them it requires a precision cut to accomplish that
These stones came from a quarry about a quarter of a mile away. What method are you referring to to move this?
The lift I am referring to is the one required to get them up onto the great platform section of this city as it's not a straight level shot from the quarry to where the platform stands.

I'm not avoiding anything. Explain away



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
If the stones are placed so tightly together together that the curator says it would be next to impossible to stick a needle between them it requires a precision cut to accomplish that

I'm not avoiding anything. Explain away


The curator, said it was perfectly possible to put a needle in between the stones, the term he used was "Almost impossible", which means, possible, so I think its clear that your bias is showing.


The stones also weren't cut, stone fractures horizontally along its lateral plane, so a few pegs soaked in water is all you'd need, I'm starting to think that you know very little about geology or even Baalbek with claims like you are making.
edit on 5-9-2015 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

Good for him, 20 tons and 1000 tons are very different, as is moving and actually placing them in order to build structures, not to mention line them up etc. Video doesn't prove much. Doesn't address other issues I raised either. Not to mention see how high up those 1000 ton stones are on the great platform. Lifting, moving, placing. Much different than moving a lot less weight. But thanks for the video and nice try.

The largest trilithon stone is 800 tons.

Your persona lincredulity is meaningless. Your credibility isn't helped by overstating the weight by 25% either.

Harte


By all means taking all into account despite any comments or whatever not a single person here can offer any common sense explanation that accounts for the prescision cuts needed, the movement, the lift, and the placement following ancient man with ancient tools.


What "precision" cuts? Do you know what stone these three monoliths are cut from?

Movement? The same technology was used in Jerusalem (at around the same time) by Herod, using 600 ton stones.

"Lift?" What "lift?" The stones are from a quarry uphill from the site. They were moved downhill and into place, albeit not as easily as that makes it sound.

originally posted by: ReallyfolksConsidering the issues we would face with what we have. Now if you people want to continue to avoid that fine, because until you do, nothing else you say helps. Feel free to add any comment, whatever else. None of it will help.

The only avoidance is yours. You avoid finding out for yourself what we know about Baalbek. You rely instead on what scam artists tell you.

It makes one wonder, do you do this to avoid admitting you've been had?

Harte


If the stones are placed so tightly together together that the curator says it would be next to impossible to stick a needle between them it requires a precision cut to accomplish that
These stones came from a quarry about a quarter of a mile away. What method are you referring to to move this?
The lift I am referring to is the one required to get them up onto the great platform section of this city as it's not a straight level shot from the quarry to where the platform stands.

I'm not avoiding anything. Explain away

Already explained here at ATS

From the same thread as above

Unless you're going to say that the Romans couldn't move these three megaliths. Are you?

Harte



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

I'm a bit of an old dude, been around this planet for quite a few years now.

All I can say is, if anyone thinks that the Archaeological community has informed the general public of everything they have found, they are gullible.

There are too many unexplained things in our past, and yes I believe things have been hidden from us for a long time.

I have felt like we are a giant petri dish for as long as I can remember. I too believe we have been altered over the years by an as yet unidentified source. Call me crazy. I've been called worse.

I've held these beliefs long before this Ancient Aliens show ever existed. Long before I even knew about the Chariots of the Gods book, and movie. It's a gut feeling I've had from years of reading about people who swear that they have found things (like giant human remains, etc) and accusing the museums, and governments of the world of keeping it from us.

Puma Punku, the Nazca Lines, the Pyramids from all over the planet, the artifacts that cannot be explained (airplane model in King tut's tomb for instance that has a vertical tail, that no bird in nature has, but is needed for stable flight of an airplane or glider) all point to lost technology, and/or a lost civilization. Basically a lost history that is being kept from us.

Are there aliens? I do believe so.
Have they visited us? Maybe. (I think yes, but there is no solid proof yet)

I can understand those who don't believe, I have no good rational reason why I do, I just do.

I wanted to be an Archaeologist when I was a kid. Most kids wanted to be athletes, or firefighters, or rock/movie stars.

I really wish I had the means to have pursued that.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Misleading thread title but great thread and always worthy of discussion. Nazca Lines everyone...there is a grey alien drawn on the mountain side only to be seen from an airplane, stop arguing over it already. It's an ancient drawing known as the Astronaut Man, how did the ancients have a word for astronaut? It's not the Owl Man, I've been to Peru, no one calls it the Owl Man.

There is only one interesting planet in our solar system, and we may be the only planet that can sustain millions of lifeforms in many nearby solar systems. To deny that other intelligent life capable of traveling through deep space wouldn't be interested in us is just playing devil's advocate.

I am not proclaiming I disagree with archeology, and I am not a cult believer of the History Channel's Ancient Aliens, but the mere concept of ET's visiting our planet seems like complete common sense to me.







 
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join