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.

 

Legitimate claims of advanced civilization existing before 5,000BC?

page: 2
25
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: DrWily
@ancienthistorian That's super cool! I was completely unaware of the Danube Valley Culture..


That's because its actually known as the Vinca culture

en.wikipedia.org...

But it was a long way from being a civilisation, so it can't be claimed to be an advanced one


originally posted by: DrWily
Stuff like the Baigong pipes and (as you mentioned) the Yonaguni Monument are interesting to me. I'll check out Underworld, thanks for the tip!


The Baigong pipes are fossilised tree roots (they have growth rings) and there is no such place as Mu, it was an idea created by Churchward who claimed he found it in writings of the Maya, it later turned out he couldn't read so much as a single word.


originally posted by: DrWily
a reply to: Spider879

I'm open. I'm just looking for anything that upsets the established theories of the cradle of civilization..


Then you're not open, because you are ignoring the facts, I suggest you read Hancock, David Hatcher Childress and Zechariah Sitchin, none of it is valid but it seems to be what you want to believe




originally posted by: micpsi
But, if you do, you are cherry-picking the evidence, which is not acceptable scientific practice.


Cherry picking the evidence from facts is against scientific practice, I'm not so sure its valid when you're cherry picking from philosophical treatise, psychologists do that all the time.
Besides, if you are right, how do you explain things like chariots at 9600BCE when they weren't invented for another 7000 or so years, or domesticated horses or any other number of claims made by Plato which are strictly bronze age.



originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
We'll just have to wait and see what's under the ice in Antarctica...


Here you go, no waiting required



originally posted by: schuyler Plato's evidence would not stand up in court. That Santorini exploded would.


Atlantis wasn't destroyed in an explosion, but a 24 hour flood. So I think your case would get thrown out of court immediately

If you want to ignore ALL the details then you can claim Santorini as valid, but there are much better fits. Besides which, the Milos conference which is about as scientific as Atlantis gets published 24 points to be considered to match the factual (they chose which facts) parts of the story, Santorini matches about three of them, Bolivia matches about 20. Not saying its Bolivia, in fact I think that's nonsense, but if you are going to talk evidence, then at least use some of it

They discounted the "Beyond the Pillars" as erroneous, because from the Greek perspective of 600BCE, all the cultures inside the pillars were known and Atlantis wasn't one of them. So that's an addition by Plato based on a guess. If you really want to prove it, all you'd have to do is excavate the Egyptian city of Sais until you find the tablets that the story was recorded on which was allegedly shown to Solon, that would cut through all the BS straight away. You would have the source, so you could then discount the Philosophy and guesses




originally posted by: SuspiciousTom
All the proof you could ever need is seen in religious books, and ancient mono/megaliths


There is no proof of anything in religious books, that's the entire point of their existence.





edit on 25-3-2017 by Marduk because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: micpsi


Sorry, but Plato said categorically that Atlantis was west of the Pillars of Hercules (Straits of Gibraltar),

Besides the tale typically changes, hand me down history wise, the meaning of what he wrote concerning the pillars of Hercules is openly contested.

Besides Hercules is a greek myth character, like Luke Skywalker, lol.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler
I think there is enough evidence out there to hint at advanced civilizations prior to 5,000 B.C., but that begs the question of exactly HOW advanced. My working theory is that there were several civilizations which achieved a near-Renaissance level of advancement complete with advanced mathematics and astronomy, and even a world-wide trade network. I believe you can make a case for such a civilization prior to 12,000 BC which was more or less destroyed by the Great Flood. It wasn't Noah's Flood. It didn't cover the Earth, and it certainly did not kill off everyone, but it was big enough to inundate the sea coasts where this civilization was centered. Look under the sea in places like India and Japan and you can find remnants of those cultures. Many books have covered how this may have happened. I suggest Graham Hancock's Underworld as an interesting place to start. This kind of civilization could account for some of the anomalies we have found over the years.

But as for a modern civilization with skyscrapers, interstate highways, internal combustion engines, electricity and space travel? Nah. I see no evidence of that at all. We've never made it quite this far before.


The Indian Vedic Satapatha Brahmana also has a flood story, Manu was said to have three sons before the flood, Charma, Sharma, and Yapeti. Noah three sons called Ham, Shem, and Japheth. Vishnu instructed Manu to build a boat and fill it with animals to repopulate the earth.

The 10,000 BC melting of glaciers from last ice age caused sea levels to rise abruptly (some claim as much as fifty feet in a few weeks) causing massive inland flooding and destruction.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

Besides Hercules is a greek myth character, like Luke Skywalker, lol.


Luke Skywalker is a Greek Myth character

I did not know that, thanks, you know, its true, you learn something new everyday




posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: glend


The 10,000 BC melting of glaciers from last ice age caused sea levels to rise abruptly (some claim as much as fifty feet in a few weeks) causing massive inland flooding and destruction.


No it didn't, it took hundreds of years to rise a few feet, a snail could outrun it, besides which, the Biblical flood can be traced back directly to the Flood story from the Epic of Gilgamesh. The Hebrews were the librarians of the Babylonians, many of the ancient tablets are signed Rabbi. And the Akkadians who wrote the story of Gilgamesh traded with the Harappan culture


There is no evidence of a world wide flood. None at all. There is overwhelming evidence that the story grew with each retelling, and is a literal invention, which occurred at least four times before the Hebrews even existed. The one that lasted seven days is closest to the myth of Atrahasis which is the oldest of the known Akkadian stories, so it is most likely derived from that one. It also mentions the seven sages which is another Akkadian concept. and the claim that Manu had three sons before the flood, was actually made up in an article from the Ancient origins website, which does that sort of thing all the time

If you are interested in Indian flood myths, then there are a few of them listed here
www.talkorigins.org...




posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Marduk

That's because its actually known as the Vinca culture

en.wikipedia.org...

But it was a long way from being a civilisation, so it can't be claimed to be an advanced one


That's nice... It's still interesting though.


The Baigong pipes are fossilised tree roots (they have growth rings) and there is no such place as Mu, it was an idea created by Churchward who claimed he found it in writings of the Maya, it later turned out he couldn't read so much as a single word.


Fair enough about the Baigong pipes... But my mention of Mu was in reference to an old children's cartoon from the 1980's. In no way did I imply that it was a real place.


Then you're not open, because you are ignoring the facts, I suggest you read Hancock, David Hatcher Childress and Zechariah Sitchin, none of it is valid but it seems to be what you want to believe


Wow... And what facts would I be ignoring exactly? I never made any claims in this thread (other than Santorini being a possible location for Atlantis), so I'm not really sure where this argument is coming from. I'm not sure who Hancock / David Hatcher Childress is, but I'm well aware that Zechariah Sitchin is a fraud. Before you start jumping the gun here, consider that I might not be some ignorant troll and might actually be a rational human being.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: DrWily




However, when I dig into those subjects, it's hard to find legit proof that these things actually existed. Due to the accepted nature of plate tectonics, it's basically impossible for a continent to sink under the ocean in short geological time spans

Catastrophism versus Uniformitarianism will always be a battle, a debate with a long history.

I've read Hancock's new book recently (Magicians of The Gods) where he comes with interesting new evidence regarding catastrophic events that could have wiped out previous unknown civilizations. Well evidence that is still debatable imo but shouldn't be dismissed.

He now works closely with Randall Carlson who is more of an 'expert' in the field of ancient catastrophes on geological scale. If you haven't heard of him be sure to check him out he has some interesting views on the matter.

I hope there will be more work done on Gobekli Tepe as this ancient site could be proof of ancient advanced civilizations older than previous thought.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: glend


The 10,000 BC melting of glaciers from last ice age caused sea levels to rise abruptly (some claim as much as fifty feet in a few weeks) causing massive inland flooding and destruction.


No it didn't, it took hundreds of years to rise a few feet, a snail could outrun it, besides which, the Biblical flood can be traced back directly to the Flood story from the Epic of Gilgamesh. The Hebrews were the librarians of the Babylonians, many of the ancient tablets are signed Rabbi. And the Akkadians who wrote the story of Gilgamesh traded with the Harappan culture


How do you know it took hundreds of years? An alternative theory is that it was quite sudden due to an ice dam breaking and allowing the flood waters to rise. There is no real controversy over the idea that a great deal of water was locked up in ice during the last ice age. The question is how it released. Hancock postulates that the water was from Hudson Bay. If you have ever spent a winter near a northern Great Lake like Lake Michigan you know how this works. During the Winter the waves crash on shore and freeze. An ice wall builds up surrounding the lake. During the Winter I was there I would guess the ice wall was about ten feet tall. You could walk on top of the wall. Picture this type of action around Hudson Bay over many thousands of years. As the ice began to melt it did so over the Bay first. The Bay is a heat sink and was warmer than the surrounding ground, so the water built up behind the ice wall. At some point in the Global Warming cycle the wall was breached and out came the water to flood the oceans. the sea level rose in a matter of hours. There's your worldwide food in 12,000 BC, right on schedule. Seacoast communities were flooded. the story was told over the next 10000 years and became myth. Noah is just one variation. You can find flood stories all over the globe. The story neatly fits.

It's also not without scientific precedence. The same exact thing happened in Montana, perhaps several times, with Lake Missoula. the breaking ice dam unleashed a torrent of water that flowed West and followed the Columbia River basin to the Pacific Ocean. You can see the results today. Eastern Washington is denuded of top soil. Large boulders have been left, the cliff sides scoured. If there were anyone in the path, they never had a chance. This idea is pretty well accepted by the scientific community today. They have a way to go before they can stomach using the same explanation for the great flood.

We can argue for years over where Atlantis, if it existed, really was. Over 20,000 books have been printed on the subject and Atlantis has been "found" on every continent, including Antarctica, and in every ocean. I don't see any particular reason to accept or champion one explanation over another, but i am quite convinced there was a worldwide flood and it did wipe out some pretty substantial civilizations about 12,000 BC, more or less. These weren't space faring cultures, but fairy sophisticated in terms of art, science, and trade. Like I said before, circa Renaissance level cultures. If we could lower the sea level about 100 feet, you could see them today. In response t the original OP, that's my take on it. Arguing about it is like worrying how many angels are on the head of a pin.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: ausername
a reply to: schuyler

This planet has been here for an estimated 4.5 billion years, will be according to some estimates, habitable for about 2 billion more years.

The current modern humans have been here around 200,000 years.

If humans went extinct tomorrow, how long would it take for natural processes to erase virtually all traces of our modern civilization?



It took many, many mass extinctions and long strings of evolutionary genetic information being passed on to get to the point where we are today.
Also, geology, any creditable geologist can easily explain to you that other civilizations like what we have seen within' the last 1000 years or so did not exist. There is zero evidence.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: DrWily
Before you start jumping the gun here, consider that I might not be some ignorant troll and might actually be a rational human being.



If that was true, think of how invalid this statement is


originally posted by: DrWily
a reply to: Spider879

I'm open. I'm just looking for anything that upsets the established theories of the cradle of civilization.


The established theories of civilisation is based on hundreds of years of scientific investigation and tons and tons of empirical evidence
You just claimed that you are looking to prove that all invalid
So don't try telling me you are rational. when you have decided that aforementioned proof is rubbish and not really valid because you think as someone who has very little knowledge in these matters that you can just come along and turn over the applecart. Its not an applecart, its a castle.

When you said you were going to look at Underworld, which was written by Graham Hancock and is complete made up bull#, that's where I realised you weren't rational, That's Graham Hancock, who uses Zechariah Sitchin as a source.

There are posts like this made several times a month and ooh, don't they get upset when they find out they aren't going to get any new information that hasn't been turned up by qualified experts. Just go google "global archaeology cover up/Smithsonian" right now. Save yourself some time for where you will be in a few weeks from now trying to explain why there is no evidence of anything you want to believe in.

There is no Atlantis
There is no Lemuria
There is no Mu
There is no known civilisation that predates Sumer
There is no lost advanced technology
There are no ancient Aliens.

Do you understand ?



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

Hi Marduk, I have added the source of my comment below. The claim was made by Richard G. Fairbanks from Columbia University in his studies which can be found online.



10,000 BC. Sunda Shelf, China Sea . Cores through the coral layers taken by Hanebuth and associates showed sudden changes in sea levels in this period indicating that the ice masses had melted quite rapidly and not gradually as originally theorized. There were two major jumps in radiocarbon levels around 11,000 BC and 15,000 BC . Fairbanks insists that this was a sea-level rise of fifty feet in a few weeks. This is the same as cores taken from Barbados and Tahiti that also indicate 11,000 BC.

Source Here


Didn't realize Hebrews were the librarians of the Babylonians that would make an interesting thread



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 07:23 PM
link   
I think assuming that Atlantis existed as described by Plato is pure folly. While his story cannot be dis-proven, it has also yet to be proven. This wiki article says it all:

en.wikipedia.org...

I counted 27 possible locations for Atlantis in that article. That tells me that no one really knows where it is and every single one of those entries are guesses based on hearsay collected by a man who died over 2,300 years ago. However, of those options, I believe Santorini has the most evidence going for it. Consider the following scenario:

1. Santorini blows up in a violent eruption, leaving a massive caldera.
2. Water rushes in to fill the caldera, which leaves only the ash covered edges of the island visible.
3. Massive title waves wipe out the docks of cities surrounding Santorini.
4. Weeks and months pass.
5. As sailing ships make their way to Santorini, they find that they are unable to locate it. There is only water and a few ash covered islands where cities once stood. To them, it's almost like it just vanished into the ocean.
6. Atlantis legend is born.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

I have no doubt there are tons of ancient sites to be discovered, especially now submerged areas. Roughly 15.000 years ago sea levels were +100 m lower than today's and we know that civilizations thrive near coastal areas so it shouldn't be a surprise, right.
It's a big ocean and difficult terrain to work with, that's why it's all going very slow, but sooner or later we will stumble upon the evidence of 'advanced' civilizations during the time of the last Ice Age. And as you said by advanced I don't mean at the level we are at today.

I still have my doubts about whether or not there was a global flood, yet I don't believe it was a myth. Just maybe not globally but within one culture and passed on through others later on.

But floods did happen, abrupt climate change during the Younger Dryas with a rise in global temperatures where Global Warming Alarmist can only dream about.
With such changes in climate, floods are just one of many events that could have destroyed civilizations back then or even now (and we even haven't talked about mass animal extinctions that happened during the same time period).

There are still a lot of speculations on how the last Ice Age ended. How is it possible that in such a short time this enormous volume of ice melted? In the first place, how do we get into an Ice Age? Science hasn't got a definitive answer for that yet.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Marduk

Hi Marduk, I have added the source of my comment below. The claim was made by Richard G. Fairbanks from Columbia University in his studies which can be found


Then he's basing that in a jump in radioactivity, because that is the science that he knows about. I think that's a valid point from him, but seeing as shoreline data has been available for years which disproves his claim, maybe you shouldn't put so much faith in it, there are plenty of other sources both terrestrial and extra terrestrial that can account for a spike in radiation, he just seems to want to explain it in only one way.

But further in response to you and schuyler

Here is the shoreline data, which originated from Proudman labs, which is currently known as The National Oceanography Centre, UK, which is the best lab of its kind in the world most likely. Ok I may be exaggerating that a bit, but its pretty damned good.

So this shoreline data, collcted over decades first became available ten years ago. So I put it into animations and set to music, my motivation of course being factual entertainment, but also because I used every single data set and left people to see for themselves. This is the same data set that Graham Hancock used for "Underworld" except that he deliberately didn't include all the data so that he could force his unqualified opinion onto his gullible fanbase.













I mean come one, you were thinking I was just some dick, pretending that my view of the way the sea rose was unfounded.
I think I'm just a little bit better than that

edit on 25-3-2017 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 07:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Marduk
The established theories of civilisation is based on hundreds of years of scientific investigation and tons and tons of empirical evidence
You just claimed that you are looking to prove that all invalid
So don't try telling me you are rational. when you have decided that aforementioned proof is rubbish and not really valid because you think as someone who has very little knowledge in these matters that you can just come along and turn over the applecart. Its not an applecart, its a castle.

When you said you were going to look at Underworld, which was written by Graham Hancock and is complete made up bull#, that's where I realised you weren't rational, That's Graham Hancock, who uses Zechariah Sitchin as a source.

There are posts like this made several times a month and ooh, don't they get upset when they find out they aren't going to get any new information that hasn't been turned up by qualified experts. Just go google "global archaeology cover up/Smithsonian" right now. Save yourself some time for where you will be in a few weeks from now trying to explain why there is no evidence of anything you want to believe in.

There is no Atlantis
There is no Lemuria
There is no Mu
There is no known civilisation that predates Sumer
There is no lost advanced technology
There are no ancient Aliens.

Do you understand ?


So... Because I said I would look into a book that someone suggested, not knowing anything about the book or author... I'm automatically irrational? How about giving me a chance to investigate before assault me with assumptions.

I never said the existing proof was rubbish. Read what I said more carefully. Things happen all the time in all areas of science that, as you put it, upset the apple cart. It's not a castle, it's more like flowing river that can change course as new facts and information come in. And early archaeology was not scientific. They straight up destroyed sites without proper records, leaving the artifacts they found out of context. It was only in the 20th century that archaeology started to resemble real science. So don't give me that BS about "hundreds of years of scientific investigation".

And that little list at the end? You have got to kidding me. I made ZERO claims about any of that stuff.

Edit: "except maybe a little theoretical musing about Atlantis, which you seemed more than willing to involve yourself in."
edit on 25-3-2017 by DrWily because: Additional comments.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: DrWily


So... Because I said I would look into a book that someone suggested, not knowing anything about the book or author... I'm automatically irrational? How about giving me a chance to investigate before assault me with assumptions.

Hancock uses Sitchin as a source, but feel free to evaluate why he does that if you like, but if you are as rational as you claim, you will agree with me when you've read it, but yanno, he is neither peer reviewed or published in any scientific journals, which means that his claims are not science based and he frequently lies, two examples of that
1, he claimed that the contents of Popul Vuh (the book of the Maya) prove that a lost civilisation was responsible for both its content and the content of the bible because there are some similarities. Of course he neglects to tell his readers that the Popul Vuh, far from being an "uncontaminated source" , which is the phrase he used was actually written by a Roman Catholic priest.
2. He claimed that Tiahuanaco and the civilisation surrounding it were 12,000 years old. This he based on his ideas about archaeoastronomy and the alignment of the sites to the stars. Again neglecting to mention the hundreds of radiocarbon dates from the entire civilisation, of which, not a one was over 2000 years old

Hancock has no academic qualifications and was a journalist, exactly the same qualifications as Sitchin
As for Underworld, my last post contained 100 times more data than he included in that book and you get it free without all the lies and bushtit (a kind of foul smelling bird )




originally posted by: DrWily


I never said the existing proof was rubbish. Read what I said more carefully. Things happen all the time in all areas of science that, as you put it, upset the apple cart. It's not a castle, it's more like flowing river that can change course as new facts and information come in. And early archaeology was not scientific. They straight up destroyed sites without proper records, leaving the artifacts they found out of context. It was only in the 20th century that archaeology started to resemble real science. So don't give me that BS about "hundreds of years of scientific investigation".



Not on that scale they don't. The current theories are based on thousands and thousands of pieces of empirical data, which by definition isn't going to be overturned by a single fact and as the only people supplying those facts are pseudo historians who have the worst reputations for honesty on Earth, well, again, feel free to waste a few years and you will see what I am telling you is valid




originally posted by: DrWily


And that little list at the end? You have got to kidding me. I made ZERO claims about any of that stuff.

But you will,




originally posted by: DrWily


Edit: "except maybe a little theoretical musing about Atlantis, which you seemed more than willing to involve yourself in."


Yes, because I have read both of Plato's dialogues hundreds of times and hardly any of the facts match anything even close to Santorini. Where is the huge plain surrounded by mountains, where is the attack on European and Asian culture, how is Santorini bigger than Asia and Libya combined, if it was Santorini, where was their war with Greece, Greece had barely started to exist when they blew up
where are the native elephants etc etc etc,



I'm sorry if I got this wrong, I thought as a self professed rational person that you wanted to hear from other rational but more knowledgeable people who could back up what they were saying without using pseudo historic evidence or "Da Bible"...But it is starting to seem, that what you really meant was, that you will be ignoring evidence from anyone who doesn't agree with you and that my friend, is not even slightly rational, nor is it scientific.


Like I said, this is nothing new here

The closest thing to what you are looking for is the Vinca culture. Study that.


edit on 25-3-2017 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

Excellent response Marduk, thanks for the vids, liked the Men At Work music, given I'm Down Under myself.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 09:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Marduk

Excellent response Marduk, thanks for the vids, liked the Men At Work music, given I'm Down Under myself.



You better run, you better take cover,

Thankyou, when this data set became available, I got permission from the two professors responsible for collating the data and set to work. It took me about a week, using Microsoft Movie maker.

Those two professors are now world recognised experts on shoreline fluctuation.
Here are their two University bios
Professor Glenn Milne science.uottawa.ca...
Professor Phillip Woodworth noc.ac.uk...

I like the result more than anything because you can jump the video using the bar at the bottom. which really helps to make what happened stand out.
Its very revealing and of course, scientifically incontestable.

The other piece of data that's frequently put out on this subject is this graph

which shows a very gradual rise over thousands of years at an average of 120 metres 20,000 years, which if my math isn't too shoddy, is about 0.6 of a cm per year. So whichever way you want to cut it, is no global flood supporting the bible.


But if you are interested, the largest flood ever recorded on this planet, wasn't in America, it was in Russia and was from a blocked lake that contain 600 cubic kilometres of fresh water
en.wikipedia.org...
But hardly anyone's ever heard of it for because the data only became available after the collapse of communist Russia




originally posted by: glend
Didn't realize Hebrews were the librarians of the Babylonians that would make an interesting thread

Yeah, but it really really really upsets the Christians


edit on 25-3-2017 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 09:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
I hope there will be more work done on Gobekli Tepe as this ancient site could be proof of ancient advanced civilizations older than previous thought.

Work has never stopped at Gobekli Tepe. Sometimes there's a hiatus, but they're excavating there now.

Almost certainly not a civilization however. People didn't even live there, it would appear from the evidence.

Harte



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Marduk
Hancock uses Sitchin as a source, but feel free to evaluate why he does that if you like, but if you are as rational as you claim, you will agree with me when you've read it, but yanno, he is neither peer reviewed or published in any scientific journals, which means that his claims are not science based and he frequently lies, two examples of that
1, he claimed that the contents of Popul Vuh (the book of the Maya) prove that a lost civilisation was responsible for both its content and the content of the bible because there are some similarities. Of course he neglects to tell his readers that the Popul Vuh, far from being an "uncontaminated source" , which is the phrase he used was actually written by a Roman Catholic priest.
2. He claimed that Tiahuanaco and the civilisation surrounding it were 12,000 years old. This he based on his ideas about archaeoastronomy and the alignment of the sites to the stars. Again neglecting to mention the hundreds of radiocarbon dates from the entire civilisation, of which, not a one was over 2000 years old

Hancock has no academic qualifications and was a journalist, exactly the same qualifications as Sitchin
As for Underworld, my last post contained 100 times more data than he included in that book and you get it free without all the lies and bushtit (a kind of foul smelling bird )

Oh this should be fun, you are ruthless. So.. I don't disagree with any of that. I've actually been interested in archaeology since a young child and have read quite a bit of material on the subject. Archaeology is not exactly a profitable profession, however, and so I became a computer programmer instead. So, I'm by no means an expert in the field... But I like to dabble.


Not on that scale they don't. The current theories are based on thousands and thousands of pieces of empirical data, which by definition isn't going to be overturned by a single fact and as the only people supplying those facts are pseudo historians who have the worst reputations for honesty on Earth, well, again, feel free to waste a few years and you will see what I am telling you is valid

Sometimes it does! Antikythera Mechanism, Nemi Ships, Göbekli Tepe, Qin Shi Huang's tomb, etc. Sometimes these little things come along that rewrite the history books. Sometimes we don't even realize what we have found until much much later. It happens, archaeology isn't the infallible science that you make it out to be. 40+ years ago, we didn't really have a solid idea of what Mayan glyphs translated out to. Now we do. These sorts of discoveries capture the imagination and that's what I meant when I said I was "open".



But you will,

Assumptions assumptions.



Yes, because I have read both of Plato's dialogues hundreds of times and hardly any of the facts match anything even close to Santorini. Where is the huge plain surrounded by mountains, where is the attack on European and Asian culture, how is Santorini bigger than Asia and Libya combined, if it was Santorini, where was their war with Greece, Greece had barely started to exist when they blew up
where are the native elephants etc etc etc,





Actually, Greece didn't exist at all when Santorini blew. Unless you count Mycenaean culture, which BARELY overlaps. You know, you are taking a legend awfully literally for such a educated person. Did it ever occur to you that... I don't know, he lied? Stories are often more entertaining with added embellishment. And it's not exactly like we can check his sources, can we?



I'm sorry if I got this wrong, I thought as a self professed rational person that you wanted to hear from other rational but more knowledgeable people who could back up what they were saying without using pseudo historic evidence or "Da Bible"...But it is starting to seem, that what you really meant was, that you will be ignoring evidence from anyone who doesn't agree with you and that my friend, is not even slightly rational, nor is it scientific.


Like I said, this is nothing new here

The closest thing to what you are looking for is the Vinca culture. Study that.



WOW!!! You assume so much. It's almost like you are applying preconceived notions to someone you've never met before. That's totally rational. And no worries, I forgive you ahead of time.



new topics




 
25
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join