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: 16
88
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
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.


There are 2 possible reasons for that
Question is: why do you believe them to be right and others wrong?

But in any case, what possible evidence could they have for ancient nuclear weapons other than their personal interpretation of ancient texts? And unless one can show that no other interpretation is valid, then it cannot be considered evidence (except by certain pseudoarchaeologists
)




posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 05:25 AM
link   
I often alter my views as I read new material, but as for why I feel that the evidence contradicts the one theory, and fits nicely into an unaccepted alternate one is hard to say. I just see it that way. I've read many different theories, and made up my own conclusions, which are often unique to me. That is what I am compelled to do. I cannot just accept the traditional view if I don't see how the evidence can be fit into it. There are many cases where I agree with the popular theory. But many where I don't. I never get challenged on those ones though.
It is not of anyones concern what I believe. I am not asking anyone to believe as I do, and if they don't agree, I accept their right to do so. The onus is on the individual. Much of what I believe is unpopular, but that won't make me change my mind. The only thing that does is new information that I find more plausible.
I am no expert, and it is just my opinion, best guess, whatever.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 07:41 AM
link   
Here is a great article from the BBC on the recent discovery of a pre-Ice Age city 120 feet underwater. It is hard to build houses that deep, unless you think something else happened.
news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 07:45 AM
link   
Awesome. Thanks for that link. Why is it so little known I wonder? Its nearly 10 months old.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Aaaaa . . . maybe because whatever powers that be don't want it known since it doesn't fit whatever model they have for you to believe?


[edit on 15-11-2006 by charlesmelissa]



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   
That would not surprise me. Secrets are a great control tool. It is well established that that kind of behavior is quite common amongst ruling classes. Ignorant, poor people are much easier to control. Highly educated, financially secure ones are much more likely to question authority. It is like the divide and conquer strategy. Keep them fighting among each other and they won't fight authority.
If there are people who have good evidence of such things, and they are keeping it secret, I wish they wouldn't.
Openness is far better than secrecy when you are aiming for loving to prosper.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 04:21 PM
link   


Here is a great article from the BBC on the recent discovery of a pre-Ice Age city 120 feet underwater. It is hard to build houses that deep, unless you think something else happened

this is a classic example of pseudohistory in action
the news story from the BBC was dated Saturday, 19 January, 2002
blackguard immediately stated


Awesome. Thanks for that link. Why is it so little known I wonder? Its nearly 10 months old.

proving that he's either very bad at math or that he just didn't consider the evidence at all and just accepted what was said at face value because it fits in with his personal belief
now read this explanation from India's National Magazine
www.hinduonnet.com...
which incidentally is dated Mar. 30 - Apr. 12, 2002
which completely destroyed this idea that a city existed
and proved that anyone who believed it ever did did so for their own agendas namely tourist dollars or because they like so many others just didn't check the facts
funnily enough Graham Hancock recently posted on his site that a city had recently been discovered in cambray
but since the idea there was immediately destroyed by people who arent so gullible the whole thread has now vanished
Guess when Graham makes an error he likes to pretend it never happened
had the discussion wowed the forum members no doubt it would still be posted



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mardukthis is a classic example of pseudohistory in action
the news story from the BBC was dated Saturday, 19 January, 2002
blackguard immediately stated


Awesome. Thanks for that link. Why is it so little known I wonder? Its nearly 10 months old.

proving that he's either very bad at math or that he just didn't consider the evidence at all and just accepted what was said at face value because it fits in with his personal belief
now read this explanation from India's National Magazine
www.hinduonnet.com...
which incidentally is dated Mar. 30 - Apr. 12, 2002
which completely destroyed this idea that a city existed
and proved that anyone who believed it ever did did so for their own agendas namely tourist dollars or because they like so many others just didn't check the facts
but since the idea there was immediately destroyed by people who arent so gullible the whole thread has now vanished
Guess when Graham makes an error he likes to pretend it never happened
had the discussion wowed the forum members no doubt it would still be posted

Thanks for the correction, 2002, I misread that and thought it was this year. You have made my point about why there is such little coverage even stronger, imo.
I read the link. Thanks for that too.
But you appear to have missed a few key points.

"What is your overall assessment of the Khambat findings?

Overall, an interesting discovery has been made by scientists who have the right credentials and whose bona fide is hardly suspect. So I repeat, be sceptical, which is a good scientific attitude, but not negative and destructive. It could be a major discovery. We do not know."

First, they admit that they feel it is a legitimate find, but that it is not necessarily quite so old.
In their view it is possible that the claim that it is older than 5000 BC is correct.
Cautiously optimistic was another term used.
So to my way of thinking, they hardly 'completely destroyed this idea that a city existed', as you allege.
You did read the whole article?

[edit on 11/15/2006 by BlackGuardXIII]



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 05:32 PM
link   


So to my way of thinking, they hardly 'completely destroyed this idea that a city existed', as you allege.

the idea that their is a city there is based on an anomaly on side scan sonar and the radiocarbon dating of a piece of wood

you just dont get it do you
its bunkum
if its a city where are the underwater photographs taken by whjat should be scores of dive teams in the almost 5 years since it was announced
if its a city where are the artifacts taken from it that should number in the hundreds or thousands
if its a city why is it that it only appears as one on pseudohistorica sites

your problem BG is that you readily accept fantastic explanations and don't accept orthodox ones which are far more credible and based on solid facts
to overturn a paradigm you need to have convincing and irrefutable evidence

in this case they have a plot from a sonar which hasn't been verified and a piece of wood which basically has been found at the mouth of a river in a country that has a tradition of throwing broken things into watercourses
the carbon date testinmg also wan't done at an authorised lab
kapeesh

so we take this non-existent city along with non-existent radioactivity along with texts that post date 1500bce that have been deliberately interpreted incorrectly and you have a glorious nuclear past for india
meanwhile the real archaeologists are laughing at you
as am I


[edit on 15-11-2006 by Marduk]

[edit on 15-11-2006 by Marduk]



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mardukthe idea that their is a city there is based on an anomaly on side scan sonar and the radiocarbon dating of a piece of wood

you just dont get it do you
its bunkum

your problem BG is that you readily accept fantastic explanations and don't accept orthodox ones which are far more credible and based on solid facts
to overturn a paradigm you need to have convincing and irrefutable evidence

in this case they have a plot from a sonar which hasn't been verified and a piece of wood which basically has been found at the mouth of a river in a country that has a tradition of throwing broken things into watercourses
the carbon date testinmg also wan't done at an authorised lab
kapeesh

so we take this non-existent city along with non-existent radioactivity along with texts that post date 1500bce that have been deliberately interpreted incorrectly and you have a glorious nuclear past for india
meanwhile the real archaeologists are laughing at you
as am I


[edit on 15-11-2006 by Marduk]

[edit on 15-11-2006 by Marduk]

"What is your overall assessment of the Khambat findings?

Overall, an interesting discovery has been made by scientists who have the right credentials and whose bona fide is hardly suspect. So I repeat, be sceptical, which is a good scientific attitude, but not negative and destructive. It could be a major discovery. We do not know."



[edit on 11/15/2006 by BlackGuardXIII]
But your link says it is a credible find.... What did you want when you posted it? To use it as fodder to disprove your claims? I claim to not know. Always have, read my posts. You say you know for sure, you know the facts.
Even when the credible experts you cite as a good source disagree with you. They said it might be one, and likely is. You 'know' it is not. How?
I have never claimed to believe India had nukes, go check. I said that I believe there have been ancient highly advanced peoples, and that my opinion is based on solid evidence I accept as legitimate. You have put words in my mouth for the past ten posts. Read my views. I say what I mean.
If anyone is showing that they 'readily accept fantastic explanations', out of the two of us, it isn't me. Where do you get your facts? If it is a fact that it is not a find, fine, but you have done nothing more than exclaim that you know that it is bunkum. That won't sway me. If facts are what you like, why not actually post some?



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 06:46 PM
link   


Overall, an interesting discovery has been made by scientists who have the right credentials and whose bona fide is hardly suspect. So I repeat, be sceptical, which is a good scientific attitude, but not negative and destructive. It could be a major discovery. We do not know."

you need to read links properly
the announcement was made by Dr. Murli Manohar Joshi,Union Minister for Human Resource Development, and Science and Technology and Department of Ocean Development
this equates to the minister in charge of ocean tourism
this is the official complaint by actual experts


First, no marine archaeologist has seen the site and no mapping or underwater photography of the site has been undertaken. Secondly, the dating of the site was attempted on the basis of the age of a piece of wood found there. Thirdly, there was no conclusive proof that the perforations found in the artefacts were man-made. And, fourthly, there were deviations from the standard, accepted procedures of archaeology prior to going public with the findings.


so on one hand you have a man responsible for tourism saying "come see out underwater city and bring your wallets and on the other you have shocked professionals saying "what the hell is he talking about"

obviously you can draw your own conclusions from that as to how credible this non existent find is
you BG accepted it as real before you even realised that the information was 5 years old and had already been completely proven to be false
I suggest if you want to find more data on the reality of this you acquaint yourself with the actual facts of the matter before you jump to any more conclusions and especially before you start trying to debunk the evidence that I have supplied and known about for the last 5 years



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Frankly the less that academics have their hands on revelationary ideas and evidence the better I like the idea. They have closed minds and are not interested in making big leaps that may lead to real breakthroughs. They live in a world of incremental change which must be battled for in a politically charged landscape.

Humanity wants the truth and to move forward and it is time that the secrets of south east asia be made available for all humanity.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
this is the official complaint by actual experts


First, no marine archaeologist has seen the site and no mapping or underwater photography of the site has been undertaken. Secondly, the dating of the site was attempted on the basis of the age of a piece of wood found there. Thirdly, there was no conclusive proof that the perforations found in the artefacts were man-made. And, fourthly, there were deviations from the standard, accepted procedures of archaeology prior to going public with the findings.

And that is proof? It sounds like they don't know either way, but they have yet to see any evidence they find acceptable. They certainly aren't saying the find was proven to be completely false, like you said.
I read the whole thing. It was a good article, which I found in no way disproves the original claim. They aren't convinced, but even they don't say that is proof.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 08:23 PM
link   
BGXIII, this for you. And for you too Marduk.

Check this wiki.

It says that:

"A follow up investigation was conducted by the same institute in November 2001, which included dredging to recover artifacts."

"A round of further underwater explorations was made in the Gulf of Khambat (Cambay) site by the NIOT team from 2003 to 2004, and the samples obtained of what was presumed to be pottery were sent to laboratories in Oxford, UK and Hanover, Germany, as well as several institutions within India, to be dated by optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) and thermoluminescence dating techniques. These pieces returned dates ranging from 13000 ± 1950 BP (Before Present) up to the oldest at 31270 ± 2050 BP, leading to NIOT's chief geologist Badrinaryan Badrinaryan making the claim that they had uncovered the earliest-known pottery remains in the world, from about 31000 BP"

If further says, "however, these 'artifacts' may not be man-made". That is what the real problem with marine archeology. The alluvial deposits on any artifacts destroy all the human traces due to the prolonged submerged periods.

But, the Gulf of Khambat is well known for other ancient sites like Dwaraka (submerged), Lothal (close to that area but on land) and so on. This particular area of Gulf of Khambat is unique and notorious in the world for they are known for tectonic activities, earthquakes, strong tidal waves and other oceanic activities. Besides the depth is staggering. Sites like Alexandria, etc. are shallow sites, easily accessible. With such strong tidal forces, it will erase any traces of human efforts on artifacts and make them smooth, to look like everything naturally made.

With 30-40 m water depth (really huge), if it is proved as a city, it gives added value for its ancienity. If it is a shallow site it submerged recently. Otherwise possibly very ancient. Considering it is ancient and the tidal activities with such an enormous destructive force, what these scientists found are really amazing (After all they just stumbled on this site, they are not real marine archeologists and their goals as on 2001 was not to find site).

With international efforts overcoming all the hurdles, if it is proved as a city (or another civilization, like pre-Harappan), it will definitely change human history and will make the historians to rewrite not only Indian history, but humankind as whole.

[edit on 15-11-2006 by CosmicScorpion]

[edit on 15-11-2006 by CosmicScorpion]



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Thank you, CosmicScorpion. I couldn't have said it better myself. When I first read the article, I became interested in the pre-historic era between 5,000BC and 35,000BC (yes I still use BC instead of the more PC BCE or BP because I am not PC). I have done a lot of research and I had read the information you cited. Here is a great resource for info: www.niot.res.in...
This is not the only place in the world where traces from a prior time exist. It is even here in the USA. The civilization in India was an ocean going civilization, so they spread their civilization around the world, including here to the USA.

It will take a while for current archaeologists to accept the fact that Homo Sapiens have been around for a while and have been "civilized." Right now there is so much going on, the experts can't keen up. Here is a great article about Modern Man moving into Europe: www.sciencedaily.com...


[edit on 15-11-2006 by charlesmelissa]



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 09:19 PM
link   
You have voted CosmicScorpion for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

It is a good addition to the thread, and either way, the search for the truth about this site is an interesting one. If it is true that they have found the oldest piece of pottery, that is great. I have read of older ones, but they are likely not accepted as being genuine. But I must admit that I am skeptical about whether this find, even if proven to be as old and big as they say it could be.... will cause any textbook revisions.



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 12:25 AM
link   
I've seen tv footage of underwater structures off the coast of Japan. Apparently the idea that there may have been ancient somewhat advanced eastern civilizations before any that we know of in the west has some people upset as I've read on the following website.

www.morien-institute.org...

Just accepting the evidence that man had somewhat advanced civilizations over 10,000 years ago when ocean levels were lower would cause a rewrite of the history books. Of course I believe the evidence would have to be falling over in your face for some to change their opinions.

The structures off the coast of Japan look manmade to me. That area of the ground was last above water over 10,000 years ago from all reports I've heard.



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by charlesmelissa
This is not the only place in the world where traces from a prior time exist. It is even here in the USA. The civilization in India was an ocean going civilization, so they spread their civilization around the world, including here to the USA.
[edit on 15-11-2006 by charlesmelissa]


Umm, I didn't mean it was the only site in the world where early settlements were found. But what I meant was this site in question, the particular area submerged under water, was unique because of the treacherous water depth and both tidal and tectonic activities combined together. Thus the murkiness renders the site hardly possible to get photographed and to do extensive further research.

This site is interesting because, if it is proved as an earlier settlement (say ~7000 BC), that is something great. Now, if it is proved as an URBAN settlement then that is more than sensational because it is fair to say it is an Advanced Ancient Civilization (scientifically). Moreover, and importantly, it may provide a link to the recent settlements like Lothal, Dwaraka, Harappa, etc. - meaning all those settlement activities were not isolated events, but a long unbroken traditional activities.

It is a chain of events because these guys are trading folks. They traded by land, sea, right, left and center. Trading means economy. Economy means money. Money affects everyone culturally, economically, scientifically, technically, in every possible way, throughout the world (Remember our young USA, with its 50-100 years of economy might, how much impact it has on the world). But these guys are well known traders for ~4-5 millennia. Now, that, that is the thing I daresay unique.

Nowadays among archeologists, it is highly debated considering local legends (in any part of the world) which deal with deluges, tsunamis, inundations, etc. And in India you have plenty of that which coincides with ice-age deluges, tsunamis, etc.



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Regarding these underwater findings, I suggest everyone take a deep breath, and then go to the following site to look at some examples of natural formations that look exactly like man-made pottery:

The "Pottery" from the Gulf of Cambray

Harte



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
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...


Blackguard,

You can find a large number of these writings at Sacred-texts. However, unless you're retired or something, you'll never find the time to actually read them.

Here's a link to the Mahabarata there. This is the longest single story ever written, or so I've heard anyway.

If you dig around at that site, you'll find more.

Harte



new topics

top topics



 
88
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join