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.

 

Proof: Advanced Ancient Indian Civilization existed

page: 15
88
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 12:56 AM
link   


The sources I read seemed to suggest it might have been the Garden of Eden. Heaven in the Caucasus? That is new to me. It is a joke, right Marduk?

typically people who have never studied the original concept of heaven in the ancient world think its a joke
people who have understand it very well
especially those who have studied the migration pattern of the races concerned with originating heaven mythology
so i guess you were thinking it was quite funny then

or put more simply
the garden of eden is paradise
heaven is paradise
see the obvious connection there ?



The textual descriptions of advanced technology, such as metal flying vehicles, streetlights lit by 'smokeless fire', among many others, show that the writers were more likely to be describing what they saw as opposed to making it up

now youre back in the pseudoscience again
the texts that make these claims have been interpreted by people with an agenda
take for instance the trident of Shiva whihc is supposedly a nuclear missile


here he is holding it
doesn't look very nuclear does it
people are always making stupid claims based on half an understanding of an ancient text
some people even make stupid claims based on half an understanding of modern federal regulation texts
but at the end of the day
the facts tell a different story
there is no evidence of any nuclear explosion before 7:17 AM on June 30, 1908
and that is a fact




posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
people are always making stupid claims based on half an understanding of an ancient text
some people even make stupid claims based on half an understanding of modern federal regulation texts
but at the end of the day
the facts tell a different story
there is no evidence of any nuclear explosion before 7:17 AM on June 30, 1908
and that is a fact

I apologize again for trusting that the wording of the federal regulation was correct. Thanks again for your help on that, I am glad someone pointed that out. Of course, I now trust you to have given me the right information. If it is not correct, I hope someone does the same in the future. I like being wrong, because when I am shown I am wrong, it always teaches me something. I find your tone to be a little self important, no matter how correct the observation you make may be. Stupid claims are common, I agree, and a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. As for the Vedas, I have read very little of the actual texts, but then who has? I have read the Gita, for what thats worth. But, I have read many authors who have interpreted many of the ancient texts the same way, right or wrong as they may be. The trident you show proves your point but does not disprove the numerous references in the Vedas to phenomena that appears to depict high technology. When you state that before 1908 (Tunguska?), there is no evidence of nuclear explosions, you are stating opinion, not fact. Various claims of finding older vitrified stone have been made, whether you want to accept their validity or not. Either way, I don't care much about that particular point. What I do find interesting is the abundant amount of credible sources of evidence supporting ancient high technology, ie. OOParts.
There are fakes, of course. That is a given. There are also many qualified people on record claiming to have found such artifacts.
PS, just so you know, I can't stand Von Daniken's style of 'research', and find him to be a likely example of what you are calling pseudoscience.



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 04:41 AM
link   


I find your tone to be a little self important

really
youre getting tone on this
my viewscreen only does text so I can't determine yours



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk



I find your tone to be a little self important

really
youre getting tone on this
my viewscreen only does text so I can't determine yours

Lol....
Mine is somewhere in between vermillion and lapis lazuli....
I only meant that your post contained views that came across as being beyond question. The description of your points as being facts, and the pronouncement of others stupidity more than once just struck me as being a bit smug? I am so bad at adjectives, I think that was the word I want....



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 05:31 AM
link   


and the pronouncement of others stupidity more than once just struck me as being a bit smug?

i didn't mention Graham Hancock or Zechariah Sitchin once
i certainly havent mentioned andrew collins or michael cremo



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 08:27 AM
link   
Did you mention Velikovsky, Icke or Bauval? Just checking. I don't mind Hancock, though I do feel he sometimes tends to speculate quite lavishly. His conclusions don't always match mine, but I am glad to have read some of his books because they do contain some interesting information. I can't comment on the others, because I haven't read Sitchin or Collins, as far as I can recall. I think Cremo is connected to the Forbidden Archeology? If so, some of the stuff in that book intrigues me.
Sometimes I'll read a whole book and only find one tidbit of information which has any interest to me.
Icke is like that. There is a lot of wading through opinion, hearsay, and conjecture just to find a few morsels of meat, imho.
Who do you like?

[edit on 11/14/2006 by BlackGuardXIII]



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 09:09 AM
link   


Who do you like?

people who have actually studied what they claim to be experts on
i.e. none of the above

there are more qualified people posting at this forum than any of the authors mentioned in this thread so far.
thats a fact too



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.


I agree


As for the Vedas, I have read very little of the actual texts





I have read many authors who have interpreted many of the ancient texts the same way, right or wrong as they may be.


These would be Vedic scholars would they? Or people peddling "the gods were spacemen nonsense"? Only one of those 2 groups have read any more of the Vedas than you have....


When you state that before 1908 (Tunguska?), there is no evidence of nuclear explosions, you are stating opinion, not fact.


No, it is fact that there is no evidence of nuclear explosions (I don't think Tunguska was a nuclear explosion either, but that's beside the point)

It may be your opinion that the evidence has not yet been found, but nonetheless you cannot deny the lack of evidence.


Various claims of finding older vitrified stone have been made, whether you want to accept their validity or not.


Vitrified stone is a fact. I've even visited some vitrified stone forts. So what? Many things could create these, nuclear weapons are not one of them.


Either way, I don't care much about that particular point. What I do find interesting is the abundant amount of credible sources of evidence supporting ancient high technology, ie. OOParts. There are fakes, of course. That is a given.


Not necessarily, in some cases they may have been genuine mistakes, but in most we'll never know because the OOParts don't exist .... (one of the key things about evidence is that it has to actually exist
)


There are also many qualified people on record claiming to have found such artifacts.


Are there? Who? Someone says someone else says someone found something and you just believe them? You need to be a bit more open minded about these things



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk



Who do you like?

people who have actually studied what they claim to be experts on
i.e. none of the above

there are more qualified people posting at this forum than any of the authors mentioned in this thread so far.
thats a fact too

That's a pretty vague reply. I was hoping for a name or two, actually.
As for your second point, I bet you're right, Byrd, for one, comes across as an extremely well-read person.
But.... whether that is a fact, I won't go that far. Maybe it is true, but I don't see how you can be so certain as to say it is a fact.
Thanks.



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

I have read many authors who have interpreted many of the ancient texts the same way, right or wrong as they may be.


These would be Vedic scholars would they? Or people peddling "the gods were spacemen nonsense"? Only one of those 2 groups have read any more of the Vedas than you have....

There are also many qualified people on record claiming to have found such artifacts.


Are there? Who? Someone says someone else says someone found something and you just believe them? You need to be a bit more open minded about these things



Sorry, no gods were spacemen stuff. As I said, I have read a little bit myself, that was translated to English. And the authors I have read seemed to have a lot of knowledge on the topic but as to whether they are 'Vedic scholars', I can't say.
Someone says someone found something and I just believe them? Not typically, no, but I do try to be open minded. I feel that is something we all need to do.
There are, yes, though I haven't met them personally. If you want some names, I could dig a few of them up for you.
Also, my views regarding ancient technology are not based solely on those sources. I have concluded what I have based on data from a wide variety of fields. Besides, as I have said, I do not claim to 'know' anything, its just my opinion.



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   


There are, yes, though I haven't met them personally. If you want some names, I could dig a few of them up for you.

please go get your spade



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Go get your spade....? Marduk, I don't want to, though.
That is not a question, thats a command, a small distinction, but one that I have always noticed.
It is possible that if I refuse to obey, and instead just give you my word that I could give you three names of fully qualified, university accredited, experienced scientific researchers who have claimed to have good solid material evidence supporting the case that there have been advanced cultures or civilizations in existance long before what is universally accepted by the world's academic elite, you may doubt that I am able to.
You may feel that I am just making an empty claim and in fact have no such information, or at the very least that either the scientist is a nut, or his data is not what he claims it is.
That is okay with me.
I really do have three names, actually I had them before, I just didn't feel like posting them at that time, contrary to what I said about having to go dig them up.
If if mattered to me whether or not you saw things my way, looked at the data and agreed with me.... I would have named them, honest.
Call me a liar if you wish, but I just don't believe that you would accept them anyway, even with their degrees, or tenure, or anything else. Why? Because they found evidence that they accept which is contrary to the official version, and when they offered it up for review, the 'experts' dismissed it. That is all you need to know. The experts dismissed it, in one case actually used some pretty underhanded and unfair methods to ruin the guys whole reputation and career. So, technically, although he was at one time seen by his peers as a prominent, and highly regarded expert, he no longer is, which would not fit your criteria.
The other two still do though, to the best of my knowledge.



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 11:46 PM
link   
so you dont have any source you can name for this crap either
why am I not surprised
you masquerade as someone who knows something but really
you're just here because you think it makes you look clever
it isnt working so far is it BG
Now post the names that you have already claimed were entirely credible and that you knew or get the hell out of this forum
because I'm really getting tired of your excuses

and I'm not the only one



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 12:53 AM
link   
I would have more success looking clever if I just agreed with all the 'experts', would I not?
If you don't like my views, why is that a big deal?
It would be great if you disproved them. Then I would agree with you.
If I ever did consider posting the names here, I surely will not do so now.
I will say this, I have mentioned all three in other posts on this site. So if you wish to read through my posts you will find them.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
take for instance the trident of Shiva whihc is supposedly a nuclear missile

here he is holding it
doesn't look very nuclear does it
people are always making stupid claims based on half an understanding of an ancient text
some people even make stupid claims based on half an understanding of modern federal regulation texts
but at the end of the day
the facts tell a different story
there is no evidence of any nuclear explosion before 7:17 AM on June 30, 1908
and that is a fact


You think the trident doesn't look nuclear because it's sleek, to small to hold a nuclear tip?

Come on, wake up man, a century before the cameras are of a suitecase size. Now you have button cameras. Just half a centuries before the computers occupied an enormous room. Now they are on your lap, even on palm. And these stuffs are 1000 times more powerful, smarter and sleek. Need I to continue listing all those devices which come remarkably in tiny size.

Yeah, little knowledge is dangerous. Very true.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 02:14 AM
link   
Good point. Well supported. It is very plausible that someday a nuclear device, or some similarly destructive thing could be that small.
Good analogies, cosmicscorpion, thanks.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 02:54 AM
link   
I really believe the general public will not know for sure if there ever was advanced technology and any results from such technology such as a possible nuclear war. If there was and our governments knew it, they would likely classify that information and want to keep it secret in my opinion to obtain any knowledge they could for themselves. That's just my opinion if advanced technology was discovered.

I stated my opinion because I feel there is a reason or reasons to discredit anyone who tries to reveal evidence contrary to the accepted theories of the evolution of man. If someone goes against the accepted ways, I believe others will find a way to stop whomever it may concern by any means they feel appropiate.

That being said, while there may be no generally accepted evidence of prior advanced civilizations or evidence of nuclear detonations prior to the early 1900's, it doesn't mean it's not possible. I find it interesting to read about areas exposed to radiation and/or large areas that turned to glass after being exposed to extreme heat. I haven't seen for myself but I think it's only the arrogant or close minded that believe man could not have evolved an advanced civilization and destroyed itself leaving very little traces behind after many thousands of years.

If you believe we can currently destroy ourselves back to the stone age leaving only a few human survivors, this discussion could occur again 100,000 years from now. That would be a sad story though.

In spite of what I stated earlier, I would like it if someone did find more concrete evidence that made us wonder and be willing to risk their reputation to state what they believe. my two cents



[edit on 15-11-2006 by orionthehunter]



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 03:14 AM
link   
Supposedly, the first homo sapien sapien, indistinguishable from modern man, lived around 250 000 years ago. In the last 10 000 years we have gone from stone age to space age. There is plenty of time for many previous ones. In 10 000 years, how many existing manmade structures will still remain? And if there was a large extinction level size impact event, what would survive? I would say the best bet would be the great pyramid. Clearly, skyscrapers are fragile, and even something as massive as the three gorges dam could very possibly be destroyed by quakes, and or tidal waves.
Geneticists report that our dna shows evidence of at least one instance of being severely 'pinched' in the past. The lack of variance suggests that we were reduced to a very small number of people sometime in our past.
There may not be evidence that everyone would accept that proves any past high tech., but there is enough for me. In my world, that is all I am concerned with anyway. Others must make their own calls.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 03:34 AM
link   
And, what we have today is the final version of science?

How many previous century theories survive today? How many of today's theories will make their way to next century, even decade, including Einstein's relativity, M-theories?

We are really not sure, what lies beneath the ocean? Read all books on all sciences. Can you explain how exactly life resides in you/me? Or what exactly a life to body means?

These ancient texts of knowledge like Vedas are remarkable and unique in a sense that they deal with cosmology, Supreme Being showing his multi-dimensional nature, weapons with weird characteristics, etc.

If you take Greek mythology, their epics, or Gilgamesh sort of things, there too you have, God with lightning (possibly nuclear? if you want) as weapon, God living in heaven, etc. But that is it. Period. There is no other explanation of the nature of their weapon, their world, etc.

But Hindu texts go several steps further, giving every detail possible, the nature of weapons, their destructive power, the result of applying such weapons, God's world, how the time change in their world (1 God’s day = so and so man years. This is what relativity, isn’t, time changing worlds, bizarre!), etc.

They must be true. If they are just imagination, then, wow, how on earth one could have imagined such things some 4/5 millennia ago. You know their sacred book 'Bagavat Gita' is just one small scene (really small, and I mean it) in the great epic 'Mahabharata'. It is a just a ‘small’ advice on 'life on earth or under the power of the universe' just before the 'big war'. And hell 'Mahabharata' is just one of the two great epics. And there exists numerous other texts like Vedas, Upanishads, Manu Smrits, Puranas, it is a never ending list. You tell me how the hell they created all this.

Above all, the real weird thing is these are mere 1% (or say 10% for your pleasure) of texts which survived after various invasions (especially Buddhist/Jain conversion and Muslim invasion. And if the Aryan invasion is true, then you can count that too. They took the ancient knowledge of the native people and modified it for their advantage and some they destroyed by error).

So, little knowledge is really dangerous since we don't know what exactly this very world we are living in is. Especially, caution, caution, caution, commenting on Hindu stuffs.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 03:55 AM
link   
Good stuff, thanks for that. I would gladly read as much of the Vedas as I could if I had them. They are very compelling, from what I have read. The massive numbers they use to describe the ages and cycles that go into the billions, and the description I read that was about the end of the Kali Yuga, and which is a very good image of the present times. I asked a Hindu friend one time about the end of this age, and his description of the prediction made in the Vedas was 'wiping the slate clean'. Is that time near? There is much dispute about whether it is or not, but some say it is to happen around 2010. That has yet to be seen, but I would not be shocked if it was so.



new topics

top topics



 
88
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join