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.

 

Russian Engineer Reveals Evidence for Advanced Ancient Civilisation

page: 3
145
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: UniFinity



Thank god there are people who think outside what academies are teaching, they are amazing for going against the flow of thought of modern science.

What's God got to do with it?

But sure, if the actually produce anything other than speculation, that would be cool. But, they haven't. Have they?
edit on 4/17/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Interesting. I'll be sure to find more.



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 09:56 PM
link   
This is good stuff.



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

well god did it!!

...

hah..is just an expression, I did not mean anything other than that.
But I think you know that already and are just teasing me, but I don't know why?

did I insult you with my post? sorry if so, it was just an honest opinion.

Everything is a speculation when it comes to history, we have not witnessed anything, we can only guess or speculate, there is not much more. And guesses which modern archaeology has made don't go with what they find sometimes, as is shown on both of these sites. academia sticks a bit to hard to their speculation.

Just because the majority of people in academia are supporting it, does not mean it is the truth. There are a few stories from archeologies who have even lost their jobs only because they find out something which was not supported by mainstream speculation and they reported it anyway. That tells me volumes about how modern academia treats other opinion.



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: UniFinity



Everything is a speculation when it comes to history, we have not witnessed anything, we can only guess or speculate, there is not much more.

Except, of course, for the written record.



Just because the majority of people in academia are supporting it, does not mean it is the truth.
True.



There are a few stories from archeologies who have even lost their jobs only because they find out something which was not supported by mainstream speculation and they reported it anyway.
Or maybe they lost their job for other reasons and claimed it was based on their reports.


The guy in the OP is saying "I have no idea how they did it, so that means it was the fruit of a highly advanced civilization." That is not scholarship. That is not science.

edit on 4/17/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

hya..about written record.

Even that cannot be for sure. What makes you think that books we "discovered" are real and authentic.
There are many possible reasons why such evidence should be considered not to be taken for granted. That is not science also...and it happens to be the case in many scenarios when it suits the mainstream and if it does not than it is very likely to be take for legend or myth.

What is science or what is the main point for it?

I think that what we have today for science is far from this main point. Today influential people's bias is steering the wheel of science not evidence and honest research. Money is the captain. Not truth it seems and that is very unfortunate and sad.

To say that he does not know is OK. Better to say that we know and that they did it with cheezels and ropes and stick to that no matter what - this is what mainstream academia does and shuts down all other opinions even before they could be really researched or considered ... in my opinion.

Well about the jobs. Some are probably like you say, but far from all of them...

but okey, I get your point and in some ways I agree with you and in some ways I don't, let's leave it at that...


edit on 1460950137428April284283016 by UniFinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: UniFinity

Even that cannot be for sure. What makes you think that books we "discovered" are real and authentic.
So, you think that they are forged Bills of Lading? Forged accounting records? Why? Because they conflict with the notion of highly advanced civilizations? So some actual evidence then. Don't let confirmation bias make you ignore the evidence that is available in favor of speculation based on evidence which is not.



There are many possible reasons why such evidence should be considered not to be taken for granted. That is not science also...and it happens to be the case in many scenarios when it suits the mainstream.
No, not many reasons. And science has a way of exposing hoaxes.


edit on 4/17/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Um...Phage like the Bible?
Epic of Gigamesh what?
Maybe the Book of Enoch?
Truth is not what those who make it up think sometimes....
Irrefutable Facts however are irrefutable.....
I remember the lady archaeologists who proved humans were on the N American continent some 15000 yrs before mainstream claimed...
Her carreer was despoiled by mainstream archaeology and she was later proved right....
many years later though....
This is the kind of # that makes the supposed science just bunkum...



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: jeep3r

I don't have time for the video, so key points appreciated! Thanks for including those. Not being an engineer, I can't say how sound his theory might be, but I'd say it's possible. When it comes to times about which we know little, too many assume that there must be some "cap" on just how advanced they could have been. Back far bough, though, who really knows? Pre-Flood (whatever version of that you prefer), who's to say they weren't very advanced, indeed? We just don't know. I've skimmed some of Graham Hancock's work, and he's another who believes there were ore advanced civilizations in the past than most scholars want to accept. More and more, I think ego gets in the way. Some just can't accept that past peoples might have been as advanced as we are.



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 10:29 PM
link   
a reply to: bandersnatch




Um...Phage like the Bible?

No. Not the Bible, that's mostly allegory. I'm talking about more mundane stuff.



I remember the lady archaeologists who proved humans were on the N American continent some 15000 yrs before mainstream claimed...
Do you remember her name?
edit on 4/17/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage
there is plethora of evidence. Just look at my first post in here and check the links if you did not already...

There are not just a few locations, there are MANY all over the world which goes against modern explanations of our mainstream history.

Yes science has a perfect way with that!
But if this way is payed with money there is no way, but the money way.
as strongly as we want to get rid of bias, we really never will as long as money has such power as it has today.

About what books are real or not, well there are a lot of speculations.
A lot of history books from which we are interpreting mainstream history are NOT original.
That is a fact!
if they were rewritten with honesty or were they changed is a speculation.

But the evidence we find around the world shows that some of such (not all) speculations are maybe closer to the truths than not.


a reply to: bandersnatch
hah funny, I just had the same lady in mind when I was writing my post : )



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: UniFinity


there is plethora of evidence. Just look at my first post in here and check the links if you did not already...
No evidence. Just more "I don't know so I'll make stuff up."



There are not just a few locations, there are MANY all over the world which goes against modern explanations of our mainstream history.
Not really. No evidence of highly advanced civilizations.


A lot of history books from which we are interpreting mainstream history are NOT original.
I'm not talking about history books.


But the evidence we find around the world shows that some of such (not all) speculations are maybe closer to the truths than not.
Sure. If you have a strong confirmation bias. If you ignore the evidence which shows that a highly advanced civilization was not required to produce the artifacts.


edit on 4/17/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

but history books are very important to our current academia today. They build a story around few of those in some cases...

and again, admit to not knowing is better than accepting false truth in my opinion!

The future will tell sooner or later a lot about our history and other things, we just have to wait a bit more. A bit more until science gets evidence of prana and life after death or any other similar evidence of the world beyonds...
Than the nature of reality will be more clearly understood and what was or is possible or not. I get the impression that all those issues of history spurs from the wrong understanding of our real nature of reality. Modern science clings too much to materialism.

I will leave it at that and stop for now.
But thanks for your opinion, bias-less person, who thinks there is no evidence...: )

edit on 1460952291404April044043016 by UniFinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 11:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
No. Not the Bible, that's mostly allegory. I'm talking about more mundane stuff.

That's a hoot. The same people who left behind documentation about the construction of the pyramids ... happen to be the same people who left behind religious texts.

Were they right? Were they wrong? Or, were they half right ... and you're the one who gets to choose?



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 11:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl




The same people who left behind documentation about the construction of the pyramids ... happen to be the same people who left behind religious texts.

No. The pyramid documentation predates the religious texts by a large time span.



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 11:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Snarl




The same people who left behind documentation about the construction of the pyramids ... happen to be the same people who left behind religious texts.

No. The pyramid documentation predates the religious texts by a large time span.

Okay. I'll take that on as a homework assignment. LOL

ETA: Pharaohs ='d living gods. Muhwahah. This'll be fun
edit on 1742016 by Snarl because: ETA



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 11:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl
Go for it.
But keep this in mind:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 11:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: bandersnatch




I remember the lady archaeologists who proved humans were on the N American continent some 15000 yrs before mainstream claimed...
Do you remember her name?


It put money down that they're going for Virginia Steen McIntyre regarding the Hueyatlaco site who didn't prove any such thing nor was the time frame a reasonable 15 KA earlier. In fact it wasn't even her site. The site was directed by Cynthia Irwin-Williams. I'm making assumptions here, but typically when someone offers up that there is evidence of HSS or any other Hominid in NA at an extraordinarily early date they are almost always referring to Hueyatlaco and how Steen McIntyre had her career ruined for putting forth a date that was out of orthodoxy.

Irwin-Williams did in fact publish a paper on the site and it did include a 250KA date. It did not however ruin her career in any fashion. Her peers just took the approach that she miffed up the dating. Steen McIntyre's didn't have her career destroyed by it either but she certainly lost a lot of credibility in her field when she went behind Irwin-Williams back and tried to publish her own results prior to Irwin-Williams completing her work. Virginia Steen McIntyre turned the entire thing into a political debacle that led to a 35 year gap in between digs.

With some of the more recent work done at the site, diatomaceous deposits were dated but there is a huge window with the ascribed date from 80 KA to 220KA. Either way, the diatoms were from a strata that is ABOVE the lithics found at Hueyatlaco. If these tests can be corroborated as true then it would give better than even odds that the lithics were made by a hominid other than HSS. I haven't seen anything published on the dating though in about a dozen years.
This is the last paper I'm aware of on this particular site.



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: jeep3r

I have to say, even tho I believe there were advanced civilizations.
And even a world on earth before the one we know that had greater
technologies in some regards. And was destroyed in some cataclysm.
A mechanical engineer can't stand up to the science and all the home
work that has been done in the name of science. It's just to much
disrespect IMO..
edit on Rpm41716v48201600000036 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 12:04 AM
link   
a reply to: jeep3r

I watched the whole video and very much enjoyed so many examples of stone cut by machines. I have heard of these stones and had previously only seen a few examples and so therefore I was on the fence in the matter.

I am now convinced that a lot of stone was cut using advanced machinery well before our modern civilization existed.

I would really love to hear any counter arguement against that video.

Amazing video. S&F




top topics



 
145
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join